All non-believers will be destroyed [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : All non-believers will be destroyed


Animal Mother
05-06-2012, 22:54
The new date: June 30, 2012 (July 1, across the international date line)

I feel like we should start keeping track of these Biblically based predictions of Armageddon.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/the-time-is-finished-religious-sect-erects-billboards-in-toronto-ahead-of-the-transformation/ (http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/the-time-is-finished-religious-sect-erects-billboards-in-toronto-ahead-of-the-transformation/)

Airhasz
05-06-2012, 23:04
Yup, and the believers will end up dead right next to them among with the rich, the powerful, the weak and your mother in law...lol

ChuteTheMall
05-06-2012, 23:32
All such predictions of the date are not biblically sound.

As Jesus stated, according to Matthew 24:36, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Guss
05-07-2012, 00:31
Guess I'll max out my credit cards.

void *
05-07-2012, 00:48
I kind of hope that after June 30, the guy will say something along the lines of 'Hey, those who say they don't believe and didn't get destroyed really do believe, and are hiding it from themselves'.

GreenDrake
05-07-2012, 03:53
I just wish everyone who believes in any specific date would back up their faith and give me all their stuff the day before. I mean, they aren't going to need it, right? Easy way to call them on the carpet on their faith.

rgregoryb
05-07-2012, 06:25
I just wish everyone who believes in any specific date would back up their faith and give me all their stuff the day before. I mean, they aren't going to need it, right? Easy way to call them on the carpet on their faith.

it didn't hurt the SDA............

eracer
05-07-2012, 06:48
I just wish everyone who believes in any specific date would back up their faith and give me all their stuff the day before. I mean, they aren't going to need it, right? Easy way to call them on the carpet on their faith.That's been done already. Except that the guys who convinced the 'faithful' to give up everything were experts at lying about their true nature.

You just outed yourself as a non-believer, and I will not give you anything.:tongueout:

GreenDrake
05-07-2012, 07:34
I have never hidden that I am a non believer. Still doesn't refute that the EOD gang shows lack of faith when they can't even give away their worldly possessions if it all ends tomorrow.

Glock!9
05-07-2012, 08:09
Why do we even bring up these wackos? How many people really believe these guys when they come out with these silly dates...

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 08:15
All such predictions of the date are not biblically sound.

As Jesus stated, according to Matthew 24:36, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Seems like the atheists who "know" the Bible would be aware of that verse and not post non-factual references about the Bible.Why do you think they do that? DOC

void *
05-07-2012, 08:31
Seems like the atheists who "know" the Bible would be aware of that verse and not post non-factual references about the Bible.Why do you think they do that?


Is it your contention that atheists are claiming a particular date, and claiming the Bible supports the particular date? It looks to me a whole lot like "Growing in Grace International" is claiming a particular date, and it is certainly not atheists who make claims of the world ending on a particular date. (Edit: In this case, it was a believer in the article who made the claim that this prediction is "based on biblical passages").

Perhaps you should ask those believers why they claim particular dates, despite the ease of being aware of that particular verse.

Glock!9
05-07-2012, 08:32
Seems like the atheists who "know" the Bible would be aware of that verse and not post non-factual references about the Bible.Why do you think they do that? DOC

I think your missing a very important point here. Both religious and atheists alike use the same dishonest tactic. Use the extremes as an example to invalidate the majority. :yawn:

Roering
05-07-2012, 10:16
I never took much stock in these predictions. However with the Mayan calendar running out AND Dick Clark passing away...

Woofie
05-07-2012, 10:32
I never took much stock in these predictions. However with the Mayan calendar running out AND Dick Clark passing away...

Good point.

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 11:22
Is it your contention that atheists are claiming a particular date, and claiming the Bible supports the particular date? It looks to me a whole lot like "Growing in Grace International" is claiming a particular date, and it is certainly not atheists who make claims of the world ending on a particular date. (Edit: In this case, it was a believer in the article who made the claim that this prediction is "based on biblical passages").

Perhaps you should ask those believers why they claim particular dates, despite the ease of being aware of that particular verse.

I simply believe the Bible...............................

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 11:24
I think your missing a very important point here. Both religious and atheists alike use the same dishonest tactic. Use the extremes as an example to invalidate the majority. :yawn:

You are correct, lol, I just wanted to get a rise out of the atheists. Sorry guys.............

Paul7
05-07-2012, 13:13
For a minute I thought this thread was about Islam, until I saw who started it. That billboard really cramps your life, huh AM?

:upeyes:

Just another case of Christians disregarding Jesus' statement that no man knows that date. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 13:24
I just wish everyone who believes in any specific date would back up their faith and give me all their stuff the day before. I mean, they aren't going to need it, right? Easy way to call them on the carpet on their faith.

If you get an extra Colt Gold Cup,let me know, lol

ChuteTheMall
05-07-2012, 13:47
All non-believers will be destroyed.

Well, we all have nothing to worry about.

Non-believers won't worry because they won't believe.

Nobody else will be destroyed, so why worry?

Only believers who care about non-believers would worry, but non-believers hate them (and their proselytizing) anyway, so what, me worry?

Kingarthurhk
05-07-2012, 16:01
it didn't hurt the SDA............

Again, you re completely bassackwards on that issue, and have yet to present any evidence supporting that position. You and I come from the same world. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Otherwise we would have to put up with pesky things like testimony, watching the whole tedious voire dire process, etc.

juggy4711
05-07-2012, 16:52
I think a lot of atheists and other non-religious folks consider main stream religious followers as only slightly less ridiculous than these wack jobs. When one can't name the day or the time because God said so, they can perpetually claim the time is near due to signs and what not, but never end up proving themselves without a doubt to be full of it.

rgregoryb
05-07-2012, 19:02
oops double tap

rgregoryb
05-07-2012, 19:04
Again, you re completely bassackwards on that issue, and have yet to present any evidence supporting that position. You and I come from the same world. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Otherwise we would have to put up with pesky things like testimony, watching the whole tedious voire dire process, etc.


The SDA movement's historical roots go all the way back theologically to the apostolic church and to the Christ event, but within immediate history they go back to William Miller, who was born 15th February 1782 in Massachusetts.

from:

http://www.mankatosda.org/article/32/origins-and-beliefs/sda-origins-how-did-we-begin

steveksux
05-07-2012, 20:03
All non-believers will be destroyed????

I don't believe it.
























Wait! No! I didn't mean that!!!!

Randy

Dalton Wayne
05-07-2012, 20:36
Believe in me or be destroyed, that's not a god that's a dictator and I refuse to bow to a diictator

ChuteTheMall
05-07-2012, 21:30
Believe in me or be destroyed, that's not a god that's a dictator and I refuse to bow to a diictator

He could force you, but instead you've been given the choice.

He won't force you into spending eternity in heaven against your wishes, but the invitation is there.

If you prefer to live without God, you can.

Animal Mother
05-07-2012, 22:30
For a minute I thought this thread was about Islam, until I saw who started it. That billboard really cramps your life, huh AM? And I foolishly thought we could go a whole thread without your paranoia appearing. I guess we were both disappointed.
Just another case of Christians disregarding Jesus' statement that no man knows that date. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse. Yet another of your regular refrains. Why do you find it acceptable to do exactly that with regard to Islam?

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2012, 16:08
He could force you, but instead you've been given the choice.

He won't force you into spending eternity in heaven against your wishes, but the invitation is there.

If you prefer to live without God, you can.

That pretty much sums it up. Every action brings a consequence, either good or bad. You can choose to believe in the laws of the land or not to. Either way, the end result is the same. If I choose to believe there are no laws against public nudity, and then get arrested for public indecency, than I made a choice and had a resulted consequence.

You can either choose to have eternal life, not. You can choose to believe or not, but like the laws of the land their are consequences one way or the other based on the choices we make.

ksg0245
05-08-2012, 17:11
That pretty much sums it up. Every action brings a consequence, either good or bad. You can choose to believe in the laws of the land or not to. Either way, the end result is the same. If I choose to believe there are no laws against public nudity, and then get arrested for public indecency, than I made a choice and had a resulted consequence.

You can either choose to have eternal life, not. You can choose to believe or not, but like the laws of the land their are consequences one way or the other based on the choices we make.

I chose not to believe in gravity. Why aren't I floating away?

NMG26
05-08-2012, 17:49
He could force you, but instead you've been given the choice.

He won't force you into spending eternity in heaven against your wishes, but the invitation is there.

If you prefer to live without God, you can.

Christian Universalism teaches that all will be saved.
No ultimatums.

I like the philosophy of Christian universalism better then the any other Christian theology.

packsaddle
05-08-2012, 18:19
Christian Universalism teaches that all will be saved.
No ultimatums.

I like the philosophy of Christian universalism better then the any other Christian theology.

not surprising.

it's the easiest path for selfish people to think they will be saved.

creaky
05-08-2012, 18:25
Because gravity, like God, is there whether you believe or not.

Answering ksg.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Animal Mother
05-08-2012, 18:39
Because gravity, like God, is there whether you believe or not.
We can demonstrate the existence of gravity and objectively measure its influence. Can you do the same with God?

creaky
05-08-2012, 18:54
We can demonstrate the existence of gravity and objectively measure its influence. Can you do the same with God?

I can only demonstrate His existence in the examples of changed people. I can't make Him do what you and the Pharisee's ask.

I'll tell you what, you demonstrate that He doesn't exist and I'll stop believing. Deal?

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2012, 19:09
I chose not to believe in gravity. Why aren't I floating away?

You are underscoring my point. Whether you believe in gravity or not, jumping up and down isn't going to allow you to overcome it.

Animal Mother
05-08-2012, 19:10
I can only demonstrate His existence in the examples of changed people. I can't make Him do what you and the Pharisee's ask. That's a no then?
I'll tell you what, you demonstrate that He doesn't exist and I'll stop believing. Deal? We've covered proving a negative numerous times in the past, haven't we?

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2012, 19:11
Christian Universalism teaches that all will be saved.
No ultimatums.

I like the philosophy of Christian universalism better then the any other Christian theology.

Where have I heard that before?

Genesis 3:4-5, "“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. <sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-60E))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, <sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-61F))'></sup> knowing good and evil.”

And Eve is dead.

creaky
05-08-2012, 20:47
We've covered proving a negative numerous times in the past, haven't we?

That's an "I can't" then?

We've covered many questions over the years that you've failed to provide satisfactory answers for, as I recall.

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 21:25
That's an "I can't" then?

We've covered many questions over the years that you've failed to provide satisfactory answers for, as I recall.

Perhaps you should explain how negatives can be proved?

Animal Mother
05-09-2012, 00:48
That's an "I can't" then? Yes, it is, because it isn't possible to prove a negative that isn't impossible.
We've covered many questions over the years that you've failed to provide satisfactory answers for, as I recall. Satisfactory to who exactly? Perhaps you could share some specific examples.

NMG26
05-09-2012, 04:19
not surprising.

it's the easiest path for selfish people to think they will be saved.

Destruction is a selfish motive for salvation. In grade school the topic was Noah and the Arch. God destroyed all those people just like he will again at "the end of the world". Scared me right into salvation. I grew out of that. I learned to love.

Christians are selfishly saving their own assets.

Real salvation is in the moment, and has nothing to do with a future event.

Kingarthurhk
05-09-2012, 16:47
The SDA movement's historical roots go all the way back theologically to the apostolic church and to the Christ event, but within immediate history they go back to William Miller, who was born 15th February 1782 in Massachusetts.

from:

http://www.mankatosda.org/article/32/origins-and-beliefs/sda-origins-how-did-we-begin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher)

He was a Baptist and also a Freemason. He also kept Sunday.

Seventh-Day Adventists keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath holy and don't believe in joining the Freemasons.

If all reform movements are to be based on an origin in another faith, that must mean you were at one point devoutely Catholic.

rgregoryb
05-09-2012, 19:08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher)

He was a Baptist and also a Freemason. He also kept Sunday.

Seventh-Day Adventists keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath holy and don't believe in joining the Freemasons.

If all reform movements are to be based on an origin in another faith, that must mean you were at one point devoutely Catholic.

Weren't we all ?

Kingarthurhk
05-09-2012, 19:14
Weren't we all ?

You were?

I never was.

SWAMPTHANG
05-19-2012, 10:41
All such predictions of the date are not biblically sound.

As Jesus stated, according to Matthew 24:36, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I agree! No one knows the day of HIS coming or the end save the FATHER! All who claim they do are liars the truth is not in them!:steamed:

Cavalry Doc
05-19-2012, 10:52
Perhaps you should explain how negatives can be proved?

I can help with that.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

rgregoryb
05-19-2012, 15:57
Perhaps you should explain how negatives can be proved?

Positively!

user
05-26-2012, 15:29
Well, it's true, of course. But the destruction of biological life is a different issue. And most of the folks who call themselves, "Christians", will be told, "Begone, you brood of vipers, I never knew you." "The axe is at the foot of the tree, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (J. the B.) The only people who have a chance of surviving are those whose relationship with Daddy is secure and unmuddled with a whole lot of religious crap. As to the physical destruction, well, the one thing we know for sure is that Newton was right: "Change is." But "fear rather him who, after the body is dead, has the power to cast the soul into Hell." Like my old Judo Sensei used to say, "pain is only physical, you don't have to worry about that."

nmk
06-05-2012, 12:20
I can help with that.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Did you actually read that? What's your take on it?

High-Gear
06-05-2012, 18:55
"But Mr. de Jesus also predicts that the “transformation” will endow him, and his loyal followers, with superpowers, such as the ability to fly and walk through walls, said Axel Cooley, the bishop’s daughter."

Holy ****e, superpowers! I dig this wack job! If your gonna go, go big!

juggy4711
06-05-2012, 20:03
I can help with that.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

That's fine for a philosophical argument but it ain't science.

packsaddle
06-05-2012, 20:21
That's fine for a philosophical argument but it ain't science.

epistemologically speaking, they both have equal weight.

Animal Mother
06-05-2012, 21:04
epistemologically speaking, they both have equal weight.
If that's true, you'll have to accept the argument:

It God existed there would be evidence.
There is no evidence that God exists.
Therefore God does not exist.

juggy4711
06-05-2012, 22:19
epistemologically speaking, they both have equal weight.

Nice try using a big word to seem like you know what you're talking about. Philosophize your way to the invention of the medium you have posted such nonsense and then perhaps you might have some equality.

If one wants to believe in God and accept all that science has revealed about the nature of reality than I got no argument. However, if one wants to pick and choose what parts of science are correct, arguing so on a forum that requires them all to be correct, one is a either ignorant, a moron or delusional.

Either all of science as we understand it is correct or the internet does not exist or function. It's that simple. There is an interconnection between all the sciences from the quantum level up. If one is wrong all are wrong. Every experiment, prediction, observation and measurement, including this discussion on an internet forum require those experiments, predictions, observations and measurements to be correct.

Even things as seemingly simple as colors would not be as they are. The sky would not be blue, stop signs would not be red and white, yellow and blue would not make green if science was wrong.

I've nothing against a belief in God but if there is a God, it granted us the ability to understand correctly how reality works as far as we understand it.

If that's true, you'll have to accept the argument:

It God existed there would be evidence.
There is no evidence that God exists.
Therefore God does not exist.

Ah but you see there is a multitude of evidence for God. It's just that none of it is scientific.

Science is not logical; logic is not scientific. Those that want the two to jive so completely misunderstand the probabilistic nature of reality.

To quote J.B.S Haldane "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine".

Even that is a weak statement. Truthfully language is incapable of describing reality at the quantum level.

Animal Mother
06-05-2012, 22:24
Ah but you see there is a multitude of evidence for God. It's just that none of it is scientific. What evidence is there?

juggy4711
06-05-2012, 22:29
What evidence is there?

A bunch of Bible verses duh. :tongueout:

Animal Mother
06-05-2012, 22:34
A bunch of Bible verses duh. :tongueout:If those are admitted as evidence, then there's evidence for all gods, including the IPU and FSM, which is itself an argument against the existence of the Christian God.

juggy4711
06-05-2012, 22:59
If those are admitted as evidence, then there's evidence for all gods, including the IPU and FSM, which is itself an argument against the existence of the Christian God.

The FSM is the one true God. I have a pasta recipe that proves it!

Animal Mother
06-05-2012, 23:24
The FSM is the one true God. I have a pasta recipe that proves it!
I bow to your irrefutable evidence.

juggy4711
06-05-2012, 23:47
I bow to your irrefutable evidence.

Oh thank goodness. I was beginning to think you thought I was serious

Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 00:45
I can help with that.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

:rofl: And you're a doctor? Like a real doctor with an M.D. and everything?

I need to have a serious talk with my doctor and find out what he believes. :shocked:

Kingarthurhk
06-06-2012, 05:03
:rofl: And you're a doctor? Like a real doctor with an M.D. and everything?

I need to have a serious talk with my doctor and find out what he believes. :shocked:

It might suprise you. They come in all shades from the religious to the non-religious, to the new-agey.

Bren
06-06-2012, 06:11
The new date: June 30, 2012 (July 1, across the international date line)

I feel like we should start keeping track of these Biblically based predictions of Armageddon.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/the-time-is-finished-religious-sect-erects-billboards-in-toronto-ahead-of-the-transformation/ (http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/the-time-is-finished-religious-sect-erects-billboards-in-toronto-ahead-of-the-transformation/)

Forget the date - with all the different beliefs, just among Christians, how do you even know if you're the right kind of "believer"?

Kingarthurhk
06-06-2012, 16:20
Forget the date - with all the different beliefs, just among Christians, how do you even know if you're the right kind of "believer"?

With all the shades of Atheism, how do you know you are the right Darwinist?

muscogee
06-06-2012, 18:57
I can help with that.http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

I just scanned the article, so I may have misread it, but this is a logically flawed argument.

Nothing is both true and false.

Many things are neither true or false. For example, If I say that water is good is that true or false? It neither because it depends on the situation. It's a moot point.


1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed

Statement 3 does not logically follow statement 2. It should read "Therefore unicorns probably never existed". So what?

void *
06-06-2012, 21:05
Statement 3 does not logically follow statement 2. It should read "Therefore unicorns probably never existed".

I'd actually probably reword it so it reads

1) The fossil record contains remains of animals that have existed
2) We do not observe remains of unicorns in the fossil record
3) Therefore, the fossil record does not show unicorns have existed

or something like that. But that's just me. It might be somewhat interesting to do a Bayesian analysis, as well. Just as an intellectual exercise. Although I honestly don't know enough about that to know how to approach it (might be fun to find out).

Animal Mother
06-06-2012, 23:25
With all the shades of Atheism, how do you know you are the right Darwinist? What does that even mean?

Kingarthurhk
06-07-2012, 05:49
What does that even mean?

My point is, Atheists don't even completely agree with each other as a homogenous group.

muscogee
06-07-2012, 06:46
My point is, Atheists don't even completely agree with each other as a homogenous group.

The only thing we agree on is that there is no tangible evidence for the existence of a God.

Lone Wolf8634
06-07-2012, 06:55
Many things are neither true or false. For example, If I say that water is good is that true or false? It neither because it depends on the situation. It's a moot point.







Reminds me of something I read once. " Water is of great value to a man dying of thirst, but to a drowning man it is a great nuisance and of little worth."

Lone Wolf8634
06-07-2012, 06:56
My point is, Atheists don't even completely agree with each other as a homogenous group.

As it should be.

cowboywannabe
06-07-2012, 07:42
Oden exsists. Thor was his son, he weilded a big hammer and slew many a monsters. Beowulf was real, he slew many a monsters too. The Vikings were real. Valhallah is real. There are plenty of written documents that say so.

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 12:47
:rofl: And you're a doctor? Like a real doctor with an M.D. and everything?

I need to have a serious talk with my doctor and find out what he believes. :shocked:

Doc is a term of endearment to refer to the highest ranking medical person in a unit, from medics up through MD's. As has been clearly stated in my profile since day one, I'm a physician assistant, and was called Doc more often than anything else during the last 10 years of my military career. Hence the user name.

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 12:50
I just scanned the article, so I may have misread it, but this is a logically flawed argument.



Many things are neither true or false. For example, If I say that water is good is that true or false? It neither because it depends on the situation. It's a moot point.




Statement 3 does not logically follow statement 2. It should read "Therefore unicorns probably never existed". So what?

The article does not claim that every negative can be proven, but since some can be proven, a statement that it is impossible to prove a negative would be false. Hence my response linking to that article.

Kingarthurhk
06-07-2012, 15:58
The only thing we agree on is that there is no tangible evidence for the existence of a God.

And not a homogenous thought other than that. The same could be said of Christianity. There is a belief in the divine nature of Christ, but many variances in thought after that.

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 18:39
See, all this strikes me as odd. Who cares what others choose to believe? It's mostly their business. But many here (GTRI), of all faiths, atheists more than others, proselytize incessantly.

Am I the only one that sees this??

Gunhaver
06-07-2012, 18:50
See, all this strikes me as odd. Who cares what others choose to believe? It's mostly their business. But many here (GTRI), of all faiths, atheists more than others, proselytize incessantly.

Am I the only one that sees this??

I think it's been explained about a thousand times that it's not what people believe that matters, it's what they do with those beliefs. At least a thousand times, yet the question keeps coming up like it's one of life's greatest mysteries.

Am I the only one that see's this?

Cavalry Doc
06-07-2012, 19:28
I think it's been explained about a thousand times that it's not what people believe that matters, it's what they do with those beliefs. At least a thousand times, yet the question keeps coming up like it's one of life's greatest mysteries.

Am I the only one that see's this?

And in your case, the thing they do with those beliefs, is to ridicule people that believe differently than you do.

To what point? How does that make the world a better place?

Kingarthurhk
06-07-2012, 21:26
See, all this strikes me as odd. Who cares what others choose to believe? It's mostly their business. But many here (GTRI), of all faiths, atheists more than others, proselytize incessantly.

Am I the only one that sees this??

No, you are not. It is pretty obvious.

Gunhaver
06-07-2012, 21:34
And in your case, the thing they do with those beliefs, is to ridicule people that believe differently than you do.

To what point? How does that make the world a better place?

So now you persist with your assertion that the concept of no god, which is constantly observed, has equal merit to the concept of any one god, which is never observed.

Are you willfully ignoring all we've gone over here about evidence vs faith or do you just really not get it. Yes, I believe my position is stronger than the opposition and I've made that case numerous times as have others that do an even better job of it than me. Please explain exactly where we fall short.

Animal Mother
06-07-2012, 23:06
And in your case, the thing they do with those beliefs, is to ridicule people that believe differently than you do. People don't get ridiculed for their religious beliefs, they get ridiculed for trying to inject those beliefs into places they don't belong and the absurd results of that practice, like claiming that Koalas spread like bacteria.
To what point? How does that make the world a better place?It assures that human progress doesn't stop in deference to the will of a supposedly unknowable God. One needs only look at places under the sway of fundamentalist sects of Islam to see that this is a very real danger.

Kingarthurhk
06-07-2012, 23:17
People don't get ridiculed for their religious beliefs, they get ridiculed for trying to inject those beliefs into places they don't belong and the absurd results of that practice, like claiming that Koalas spread like bacteria.
It assures that human progress doesn't stop in deference to the will of a supposedly unknowable God. One needs only look at places under the sway of fundamentalist sects of Islam to see that this is a very real danger.

What exactly is human progress? Please explain your moral superiority.

Animal Mother
06-08-2012, 03:37
What exactly is human progress? From walking to riding to driving to flying. From "foul humours" to the virological and bacteriological understanding of disease and infection. From Aristotelian-Ptolemaic models of the universe to the Standard Model. It's all human progress.
Please explain your moral superiority.Where did I claim moral superiority? Why should I explain something I've never claimed to have? Is it morally superior somehow to reject the findings of science while hypocritically making use of the attendant benefits?

muscogee
06-08-2012, 05:28
What exactly is human progress?

Angioplasty and stents.

Please explain your moral superiority.

According to the Garden of Eden story, death is man's punishment for Adam eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, angioplasty and stents are unholy because they thwart the will of God. I consider doing things to avoid a slow miserable death morally superior to submitting to the will of God. I suspect you do too.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 05:31
So now you persist with your assertion that the concept of no god, which is constantly observed, has equal merit to the concept of any one god, which is never observed.

Are you willfully ignoring all we've gone over here about evidence vs faith or do you just really not get it. Yes, I believe my position is stronger than the opposition and I've made that case numerous times as have others that do an even better job of it than me. Please explain exactly where we fall short.

I think you missed the question. It's more than evident that you feel a need to ridicule other people's faiths.

Why? What purpose does it serve, and how does it make the world a better place.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 05:33
People don't get ridiculed for their religious beliefs, they get ridiculed for trying to inject those beliefs into places they don't belong and the absurd results of that practice, like claiming that Koalas spread like bacteria.
It assures that human progress doesn't stop in deference to the will of a supposedly unknowable God. One needs only look at places under the sway of fundamentalist sects of Islam to see that this is a very real danger.

Take a look around, as far as the world goes, this place ain't half bad when it comes to religious subjugation. I think you are being overly sensitive to something that isn't really there.

But how does ridiculing the faith of others on an internet forum assure human progress?

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 05:34
From walking to riding to driving to flying. From "foul humours" to the virological and bacteriological understanding of disease and infection. From Aristotelian-Ptolemaic models of the universe to the Standard Model. It's all human progress.

All of which can be and were asserted by-in-large by people who believed in God. So, I am not seeing Theism as any barrier to that progress.


Where did I claim moral superiority? Why should I explain something I've never claimed to have? Is it morally superior somehow to reject the findings of science while hypocritically making use of the attendant benefits?

You stated in essence that Theism is a road block to progress; which, if you believe in Newtonian physics, clearly it is not.

muscogee
06-08-2012, 05:37
I think you missed the question. It's more than evident that you feel a need to ridicule other people's faiths.

Why? What purpose does it serve, and how does it make the world a better place.

The truth will make you free.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 05:37
Angioplasty and stents.

Great. And it doesn't require being an Atheist to work on such thngs.


According to the Garden of Eden story, death is man's punishment for Adam eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, angioplasty and stents are unholy because they thwart the will of God. I consider doing things to avoid a slow miserable death morally superior to submitting to the will of God. I suspect you do too.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. Theists, Christians, in particular worship a God, who, when he walked the earth spent a great deal of time healing those with afflictions. I would argue that the art of heaing is very much a Theistic position.

Bren
06-08-2012, 05:47
See, all this strikes me as odd. Who cares what others choose to believe? It's mostly their business. But many here (GTRI), of all faiths, atheists more than others, proselytize incessantly.

Am I the only one that sees this??

You are the only one who DOESN'T see that this is an internet forum and its purpose is to debate these things. Just because somebody represents the other side of the debate, that doesn't mean they are "proselytizing incessantly" - although I realize that it has historically been so rare to hear/read an atheist's opinion that you may be shocked by it.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 05:49
Angioplasty and stents.



According to the Garden of Eden story, death is man's punishment for Adam eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, angioplasty and stents are unholy because they thwart the will of God. I consider doing things to avoid a slow miserable death morally superior to submitting to the will of God. I suspect you do too.

That's a pretty twisted view. I've met plenty of people with stents, a few a week actually, and you'd be surprised how some people become more religious, and some less after getting them. It's not the stents of course, it's the sudden realization of their own mortality. In other words, "Unholy" might be a tad bit too strong.

It's very rare to have a patient deny a treatment or test due to religious grounds. I had one kid refuse to take a blood test due to his pretend religious belief, he was afraid that we would test it for drugs. The funny thing is that he had already pee'd in the cup, and that's what we needed for the tox screen. I did have two jehovah's witnesses that have refused an organ transplant, not because of the transplant, but because it's impossible to do one without them getting some of the other patients blood.

That's three in the 16 years I've been a health care provider, and one was BS. I've never heard of anyone turning down stents for religious belief. It might happen, but I'd bet it is exceedingly rare.

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 05:55
The truth will make you free.

Well, if you know it, it might. If you only think you do......:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 05:56
You are the only one who DOESN'T see that this is an internet forum and its purpose is to debate these things. Just because somebody represents the other side of the debate, that doesn't mean they are "proselytizing incessantly" - although I realize that it has historically been so rare to hear/read an atheist's opinion that you may be shocked by it.

It's not shocking, but it does often seem to be in pursuit of schadenfreude.

High-Gear
06-08-2012, 06:34
What exactly is human progress? Please explain your moral superiority.

This is:

Anthony Atala on growing organs - YouTube

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 00:13
Take a look around, as far as the world goes, this place ain't half bad when it comes to religious subjugation. "Woohoo, We're mediocre" Isn't exactly a rallying cry.
I think you are being overly sensitive to something that isn't really there. I think you're just ignoring the issue.
The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601)
But how does ridiculing the faith of others on an internet forum assure human progress?Once again, no one's faith is being ridiculed, their requirement that everyone else take their faith seriously in areas where it does not belong is what's being ridiculed.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 00:42
All of which can be and were asserted by-in-large by people who believed in God. I don't know what you mean here. How is that relevant?
So, I am not seeing Theism as any barrier to that progress. Compare the reaction to the Black Death in the 13th century to how AIDS and Ebola were addressed in the 20th, perhaps things will become clearer for you.

Perhaps a question will help demonstrate: What causes illness, sin or disease?
You stated in essence that Theism is a road block to progress; which, if you believe in Newtonian physics, clearly it is not.Where in the Principia or Optiks do we find Newton assigning the source of his discoveries to a supernatural being? Where does he invoke literal biblical interpretation to justify his conclusions, as young Earth creationism requires?

More importantly, though we esteem Sir Isaac as a giant of the sciences, we also acknowledge he was wrong about many things. Unlike theists, we don't ignore the things he either got wrong or failed to discover so that his preeminence can be maintained.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 01:22
I don't know what you mean here. How is that relevant?

e.g. You are ignorning an unpleasant point again.


Compare the reaction to the Black Death in the 13th century to how AIDS and Ebola were addressed in the 20th, perhaps things will become clearer for you.

I doubt it. Neither of these issues as to do with Theism or Atheism.


Perhaps a question will help demonstrate: What causes illness, sin or disease?

Yes.


Where in the Principia or Optiks do we find Newton assigning the source of his discoveries to a supernatural being? Where does he invoke literal biblical interpretation to justify his conclusions, as young Earth creationism requires?

More importantly, though we esteem Sir Isaac as a giant of the sciences, we also acknowledge he was wrong about many things. Unlike theists, we don't ignore the things he either got wrong or failed to discover so that his preeminence can be maintained.

Sir Isaac Newton was also a dedicated Theist.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/newton.html

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 02:02
e.g. You are ignorning an unpleasant point again. I'm not ignoring anything. I literally have no idea what you were trying to say and consequently, no idea how it could be relevant to the discussion at hand.
I doubt it. Neither of these issues as to do with Theism or Atheism. Yes, they do. The reaction in the 13th century was to blame the disease on sin. Roughly a quarter of Europe's population died. In the 20th century, modern scientific means of diagnosis, quarantine and treatment were employed. The death toll was far less.
Yes. Can you quantify a disease caused by sin? How does it differ from a disease caused by bacteria or a virus?
Sir Isaac Newton was also a dedicated Theist. Unquestionably. Luckily, he didn't let that bleed into his scientific work. If only today's creationists had the same standards.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/newton.htmlI take this to mean we won't be getting any references from his scientific works to substantiate your position?

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 06:15
I'm not ignoring anything. I literally have no idea what you were trying to say and consequently, no idea how it could be relevant to the discussion at hand.

Driving, flying, etc. Last I checked these weren't invented by Atheists. So, I really don't see a Theism barrier there as asserted.


Yes, they do. The reaction in the 13th century was to blame the disease on sin. Roughly a quarter of Europe's population died. In the 20th century, modern scientific means of diagnosis, quarantine and treatment were employed. The death toll was far less.

Interesting, beause I bet Edward Jenner was a Theist who invented innoculation. Further, one of the first people to spread vaccine was Dr. John Clinch, a medical missionary (A Theist). So, your argument doesn't hold.

Disease entered the world because of sin. Therefore, I said, "Yes".


Can you quantify a disease caused by sin? How does it differ from a disease caused by bacteria or a virus?
Unquestionably. Luckily, he didn't let that bleed into his scientific work. If only today's creationists had the same standards.

Again, it is the same thing. One caused the other. The other is here. And, thankfully, some God fearing Theists helped create an ability to fight such diseases.


I take this to mean we won't be getting any references from his scientific works to substantiate your position?

Thankfully, there wasn't such an Anti-Theist attitude in the scientific community then, or there might not have been an Edward Jenner or a Sir Issar Newton. They would have been run off like the Theist at NASA was.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 06:30
Driving, flying, etc. Last I checked these weren't invented by Atheists. So, I really don't see a Theism barrier there as asserted. Which of those discoveries was the result of divine revelation rather than human ingenuity and engineering?
Interesting, beause I bet Edward Jenner was a Theist who invented innoculation. Further, one of the first people to spread vaccine was Dr. John Clinch, a medical missionary (A Theist). So, your argument doesn't hold. It does hold, because those men reached the point they did based not on sudden revelation from a deity but through the application of methodical scientific methodologies.
Disease entered the world because of sin. Therefore, I said, "Yes". Please defend this contention, if you could, with references to the relevant scientific literature.
Again, it is the same thing. No, it isn't the same thing.
One caused the other. The other is here. I can show you an individual example of y.pestis. Can you do the same with "sin"?
And, thankfully, some God fearing Theists helped create an ability to fight such diseases. Using science, not religion.
Thankfully, there wasn't such an Anti-Theist attitude in the scientific community then, or there might not have been an Edward Jenner or a Sir Issar Newton. You mean like Francis Collins or Ken Miller?
They would have been run off like the Theist at NASA was.Who would that be exactly? Are you claiming there's only one religious person in all of NASA?

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 06:53
Which of those discoveries was the result of divine revelation rather than human ingenuity and engineering?

God gave the God fearing men the mental acuity to be able to invent them. Isn't God good?

[quoute]
It does hold, because those men reached the point they did based not on sudden revelation from a deity but through the application of methodical scientific methodologies.[/quote]

Or were these invented by God fearing men as a means of looking for a compassionate way to serve their fellow men as followers of Jesus Christ?


Please defend this contention, if you could, with references to the relevant scientific literature.

We're having a philosophical discussion. A seperate field altogether.


No, it isn't the same thing.


Sure it is.


I can show you an individual example of y.pestis. Can you do the same with "sin"?

Yes, were it not for sin, we would not be having this arugment.


Using science, not religion.
You mean like Francis Collins or Ken Miller?
Who would that be exactly? Are you claiming there's only one religious person in all of NASA?

Apparently, the one they managed to root out.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 07:26
God gave the God fearing men the mental acuity to be able to invent them. Your evidence?
Isn't God good? Let's ask a Canaanite.
Or were these invented by God fearing men as a means of looking for a compassionate way to serve their fellow men as followers of Jesus Christ? To what is the "these" in this sentence referring?
We're having a philosophical discussion. A seperate field altogether. Wrong, again. You're making a contention of scientific fact, that disease is the result of sin. I'm asking you to defend that contention using the relevant literature.
Sure it is.Then demonstrate this is true. Show that sin causes disease. You've had ample opportunity, why are you delaying?
Yes, were it not for sin, we would not be having this arugment. Again, I'll ask you to produce evidence this is true.
Apparently, the one they managed to root out. Presumably this individual has a name, what is it? Or are they like the kangaroos of the Middle East, there's no evidence they exist, but they just must because.....

Cavalry Doc
06-09-2012, 09:26
"Woohoo, We're mediocre" Isn't exactly a rallying cry.
I think you're just ignoring the issue.
The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601)
Once again, no one's faith is being ridiculed, their requirement that everyone else take their faith seriously in areas where it does not belong is what's being ridiculed.

It's pretty simple to google up a list of stories on Atheist/Secular agendas in schools too. I think the atheists and theists need to let go, and let the agnostics teach school.

Basic rule of engagement for religion should be: We don't teach you about whether there was or was not a god here, we do not take a stand one way or the other, we just tell you what we can and cannot see with science, and we'll let your parents talk to you about whether or not there is or was a god.

Mediocre?? That's not always bad either. I'm guessing that if it were all your way, it would be better??? But when you have different views, sometimes you have to let people have them. Period. You end up in the middle, allowing all to believe what they want, respectfully. That's not where I see the more vocal atheists landing.

muscogee
06-14-2012, 14:58
Sorry fot the delay. Just got back from Chichen Itza.

That's a pretty twisted view. I've met plenty of people with stents, a few a week actually, and you'd be surprised how some people become more religious, and some less after getting them. It's not the stents of course, it's the sudden realization of their own mortality. In other words, "Unholy" might be a tad bit too strong.

I came to grips with my mortality after a friend got killed during Tet. I realized that people like me could die. I was a Southern Baptists at the time.

I got stents, 4 years ago. I didn't pray or ask any to pray for me. I didn't want some sanctimonious ass claiming his mumbling to himself had anything to do with my recovery.

It's very rare to have a patient deny a treatment or test due to religious grounds. I had one kid refuse to take a blood test due to his pretend religious belief, he was afraid that we would test it for drugs. The funny thing is that he had already pee'd in the cup, and that's what we needed for the tox screen. I did have two jehovah's witnesses that have refused an organ transplant, not because of the transplant, but because it's impossible to do one without them getting some of the other patients blood.

That's three in the 16 years I've been a health care provider, and one was BS. I've never heard of anyone turning down stents for religious belief. It might happen, but I'd bet it is exceedingly rare.

That's my point. They don't believe the Garden of Eden BS anymore than I do when their life is on the line. Of course, they believe every word of it when they have nothing to loose and an opportunity to draw attention their sanctimony.

Kingarthurhk
06-14-2012, 15:40
It's pretty simple to google up a list of stories on Atheist/Secular agendas in schools too. I think the atheists and theists need to let go, and let the agnostics teach school.

Basic rule of engagement for religion should be: We don't teach you about whether there was or was not a god here, we do not take a stand one way or the other, we just tell you what we can and cannot see with science, and we'll let your parents talk to you about whether or not there is or was a god.

Mediocre?? That's not always bad either. I'm guessing that if it were all your way, it would be better??? But when you have different views, sometimes you have to let people have them. Period. You end up in the middle, allowing all to believe what they want, respectfully. That's not where I see the more vocal atheists landing.

I think the bold is the best way to run a public school where all beliefs pay taxes to keep it open.

Kingarthurhk
06-14-2012, 15:44
Sorry fot the delay. Just got back from Chichen Itza.

You should try Costa Rica next. It can be a bit pricey due to the influx of the American Tourist dollar, but it is pretty.

jakebrake
06-14-2012, 19:41
I never took much stock in these predictions. However with the Mayan calendar running out AND Dick Clark passing away...

the mayan calender says dec 12 of this year...

snookie's baby is due dec 12 of this year...

well played, mayans....well played.

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 20:23
Sorry fot the delay. Just got back from Chichen Itza.



I came to grips with my mortality after a friend got killed during Tet. I realized that people like me could die. I was a Southern Baptists at the time.

I got stents, 4 years ago. I didn't pray or ask any to pray for me. I didn't want some sanctimonious ass claiming his mumbling to himself had anything to do with my recovery.



That's my point. They don't believe the Garden of Eden BS anymore than I do when their life is on the line. Of course, they believe every word of it when they have nothing to loose and an opportunity to draw attention their sanctimony.

Some believe that the knowledge of man and scientific advances are gifts, earned gifts, and that we would not have them if god did not intend for us to have them.

Sorry about your friend, I know exactly how that feels.

Some of them believe they are doing you a favor. I've had people offer pray for me, and I politely accept their prayers. No big. I have never had someone come later to take credit for the power of prayer. No kidding, I've had some tell me that it was proof god exists. That's all the proof they need, and it's not my place or my desire to take the solace they receive through their faith. I've shared foxholes with atheists, in spite of the cliche. I've even had one say bless you after I sneezed. Gave him hell (pun intended) about it for a week. I catch myself saying bless you after a sneeze too. I say merry christmas or happy holidays during the holidays. It's simply being pleasant. I didn't eat or drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan either. Didn't show the sole of my shoe, accepted tea and snacks upon entering their home, and do not pat their children on the head, and did my level best to protect the modesty of Muslim women that were injured.

When in Rome, I have no compulsion to be unpleasant.

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 20:25
the mayan calender says dec 12 of this year...

snookie's baby is due dec 12 of this year...

well played, mayans....well played.

Do they know who the mother is?

jakebrake
06-14-2012, 20:27
Do they know who the mother is?

i'll skip who, and settle for what the mother is.

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2012, 20:29
i'll skip who, and settle for what the mother is.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/0586dcb5-331d-4d20-9fca-00d42f98a668.jpg&sa=X&ei=EZ7aT439A8Gj2QXQ_ZzaCA&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNH_ijVLlMF5xi3bHj29RpZ74yyKAA

Animal Mother
06-14-2012, 21:47
It's pretty simple to google up a list of stories on Atheist/Secular agendas in schools too. Do those stories involve ignoring established science in favor of a religious belief system, when teaching science?
I think the atheists and theists need to let go, and let the agnostics teach school. How does atheist science teaching differ from agnostic teaching on the subject? I've never had a teacher, in any science at any level, attack religion except in response to an effort to inject religion into the scientific sphere.
Mediocre?? That's not always bad either. No, it's average. Is striving to be average really the goal?
I'm guessing that if it were all your way, it would be better??? If we're talking about science and excluding superstition, yes, it would be better.
But when you have different views, sometimes you have to let people have them. Period. You end up in the middle, allowing all to believe what they want, respectfully. That's not where I see the more vocal atheists landing. Have the views? Sure. Allow those views to infect the educational system? No.

janice6
06-14-2012, 21:50
All non-believers will be destroyed????

I don't believe it.























Wait! No! I didn't mean that!!!!

Randy


Monty Python proved you can't "take it back".

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 05:55
Do those stories involve ignoring established science in favor of a religious belief system, when teaching science?
How does atheist science teaching differ from agnostic teaching on the subject? I've never had a teacher, in any science at any level, attack religion except in response to an effort to inject religion into the scientific sphere.
No, it's average. Is striving to be average really the goal?
If we're talking about science and excluding superstition, yes, it would be better.
Have the views? Sure. Allow those views to infect the educational system? No.

The difference is that atheists tend to hint that science proves there is no god, or that it explains that a god was not necessary for the current state of being. It should promote neither side of the argument.

muscogee
06-15-2012, 06:17
You should try Costa Rica next. It can be a bit pricey due to the influx of the American Tourist dollar, but it is pretty.

Thanks. I've heard it's nice. I believe a member who posts here lives there.

I prefer to visit religious sites on vacation. The psychology of religion fascinates me. Are there any extraordinary religious sites there?

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 06:32
The difference is that atheists tend to hint that science proves there is no god, or that it explains that a god was not necessary for the current state of being. A god isn't necessary for the current state of being.
It should promote neither side of the argument. That isn't promoting one side of an argument, it's accurately reporting the conclusion to which scientific investigation leads.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 06:48
A god isn't necessary for the current state of being.
That isn't promoting one side of an argument, it's accurately reporting the conclusion to which scientific investigation leads.

And you don't see how stating that in a classroom is promoting one interpretation of the data? That's awfully convenient.

GreenDrake
06-15-2012, 07:14
Teaching fact and verifiable data versus superstition and fairy tales...seems like the right move to me. Call me crazy.

Lone Wolf8634
06-15-2012, 07:19
And you don't see how stating that in a classroom is promoting one interpretation of the data? That's awfully convenient.

So teaching them the data, showing them the the facts and how scientists reach their conclusions and teaching them the difference between a theory and conjecture is " awfully convenient"?

Mmmkay.

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 08:07
And you don't see how stating that in a classroom is promoting one interpretation of the data? No, I see how that is promoting one interpretation of the data. The point is that the data supports that interpretation, so promoting it in the classroom makes perfect sense.
That's awfully convenient.Of course it is. Just like it's convenient to teach that cognition is centered in the brain, not the heart. Because it's true.

steveksux
06-16-2012, 13:26
No, I see how that is promoting one interpretation of the data. The point is that the data supports that interpretation, so promoting it in the classroom makes perfect sense.
Of course it is. Just like it's convenient to teach that cognition is centered in the brain, not the heart. Because it's true.
CD needs to place the blame where the blame lies. With the facts, conspiring to prove science rather than superstition.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 13:34
No, I see how that is promoting one interpretation of the data. The point is that the data supports that interpretation, so promoting it in the classroom makes perfect sense.
Of course it is. Just like it's convenient to teach that cognition is centered in the brain, not the heart. Because it's true.

Cognition is centered in the brain.

The universe is here. When a kid asks if it was made or just happened, or even how did it get here, that is an unknown, and should be taught as such.

I understand that you think expressing your own unproven view about the nature of the origins of the universe seem OK to you, to the exclusion of all others.

Guess that's why I support teachers teaching creation as an alternate theory. Might as well give it equal time, at least until theism and atheism, both religious views, are removed from the classroom. If one is to be represented, might as well give them equal time. That sure is going to clog things up a bit, but fair is fair.

Gunhaver
06-16-2012, 14:21
Cognition is centered in the brain.

The universe is here. When a kid asks if it was made or just happened, or even how did it get here, that is an unknown, and should be taught as such.

I understand that you think expressing your own unproven view about the nature of the origins of the universe seem OK to you, to the exclusion of all others.

Guess that's why I support teachers teaching creation as an alternate theory. Might as well give it equal time, at least until theism and atheism, both religious views, are removed from the classroom. If one is to be represented, might as well give them equal time. That sure is going to clog things up a bit, but fair is fair.

It ain't about being fair. It's about teaching the theory that's most supported by the evidence and therefore supported by the scientific community. If it was about fair then every fruitloop that had a crazy idea about different kinds of history or English or math could get their ideas taught in public schools until education has no meaning anymore.

Where is the public school curriculum that teaches that there's no god? Nowhere. God simply isn't addressed aside from the occasional teacher expressing a personal view. God isn't taught in science class because the idea isn't science and that only hacks off the people that think god and science are the same thing.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 14:34
Thanks. I've heard it's nice. I believe a member who posts here lives there.

I prefer to visit religious sites on vacation. The psychology of religion fascinates me. Are there any extraordinary religious sites there?

No. It is more of beach/rain forest area that caters to American tourists.

I understand what you mean by visiting religious sites. I am by no means Catholic, but every time I went to a Latin American country with time on the ground, I would go visit the ancient cathedrals. History was my background in University a life time ago, especially focusing in those areas. The carved idols in Lima were very life like. There were very few people in the Cathedral praying, probably because they charged admission at the door to get in. Fortunately, they didn't mind me snapping pictures.

Now, if you go to the Cathedral of the Catacombs, they also charge admission, but do not allow photography there. But, that Cathedral is so massive, you get a guided tour. The folks that went into the actual Catacombs had to be small people. It is not a place you want to go if you by any means claustrophobic. I remember going with a guy I knew, he went in, but I declined for two reasons.

I only carried a backpack on foreign trips. That way there was no risk of anyone turning me into an unintentional mule, and all the souveniers for the family got bulky.

It reminded me of the comment Jesus made of a rich man trying to pass through the eye of a needle down in the entrance to the catacombs. You had to stoop to get in even without a pack.

That and the signs posted in Spanish on the walls of the catacomb area warned of it being a earthquake zone. The concept of the entire Cathedral falling on me was also not appealing.

Animal Mother
06-16-2012, 15:36
Cognition is centered in the brain. That's one hypothesis. Not the one supported by the Bible though.
The universe is here. Can you really be certain of that?
When a kid asks if it was made or just happened, or even how did it get here, that is an unknown, and should be taught as such. It is no more an unknown than either the universe being here or the brain being the center of cognition.
I understand that you think expressing your own unproven view about the nature of the origins of the universe seem OK to you, to the exclusion of all others. Clearly, you don't understand, which is odd considering how many times I've explained things to you. I'm all for expressing any view which can be supported by reference to the evidence. The issue that seems to inexplicably baffle you is that there is only one such view at this time.
Guess that's why I support teachers teaching creation as an alternate theory. You support teachers teaching outright falsehoods then? I have a problem with that, just as I'd have a problem teaching that emotion resides in the heart in an anatomy class.
Might as well give it equal time, at least until theism and atheism, both religious views, are removed from the classroom. If one is to be represented, might as well give them equal time. That sure is going to clog things up a bit, but fair is fair.No, fair would be recognizing that teaching science based on evidence and investigation is not equivalent to teaching atheism. Sadly, you seem uninterested in being fair on this topic.

muscogee
06-16-2012, 16:33
I understand what you mean by visiting religious sites. I am by no means Catholic, but every time I went to a Latin American country with time on the ground, I would go visit the ancient cathedrals.

This is off topic, but I do the same thing. Many years ago I was in the cathedral built where the Virgin of Guadeloupe supposedly met Juan Diego and told him to tell the bishop of Mexico to build a church. There was an increasingly poor woman who was barefoot and wearing ragged clothes. She was walking on her knees on the cobblestone floor towards the alter. She had tears in her eyes and and was praying the rosary. At first I was appalled but I realized from her eyes that she was not in pain, but rather a state of religious ecstasy. This was probably the only joy she had in her life. It was the only thing she could feel good about. I felt sorry for her, but there was nothing I could do. It wasn't up to me to judge her so I left her to reverie.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 17:06
This is off topic, but I do the same thing. Many years ago I was in the cathedral built where the Virgin of Guadeloupe supposedly met Juan Diego and told him to tell the bishop of Mexico to build a church. There was an increasingly poor woman who was barefoot and wearing ragged clothes. She was walking on her knees on the cobblestone floor towards the alter. She had tears in her eyes and and was praying the rosary. At first I was appalled but I realized from her eyes that she was not in pain, but rather a state of religious ecstasy. This was probably the only joy she had in her life. It was the only thing she could feel good about. I felt sorry for her, but there was nothing I could do. It wasn't up to me to judge her so I left her to reverie.

I remember a similar picture of a an older woman with white hair, I think she was in Ecuador of Bolivia. I have been around in Central and South America. She was
on a leather pillow on the sidewalk and had no legs. Ecuador was a tricky place. Some places in the city you wanted to go to and others you did not. The older taxi driver warned us not to go to the newer side of town where the "Narcos" or the drug dealers lived. This was in Quito. Interestingly enough their military academy was next door to their insane asylum. We were also warned to stay away from the police, because they would either demand a bribe or thow you in jail for simply being to close to them. He pointed out a rather stark cement structure that you would more than likely see monkeys in, as a temporary holding facility.

It was up here I got some good shots of the Cathedral that was down the mountain. I asked to go by for a closer look. I got out of the taxi (I usually rent the older guys for the day, they are typically more honest and reliable) and was met with a glare by a plain clothes guy sporting a pistol. He clearly didn't want me around. So, I got back in the cab and missed going to that Cathedral.

But, I can understand your desire to explore the ancient and historical and religious when traveling abroad.

I didn't encounter anything in Nicaragua but an overwhelming sense of sadness. It was nothing but casinos, whore houses, and little children sleeping on the side walk.

I think my most interesting misadventure was Ecuador. I didn't have my camera, so I went to the local drug store to get a disposable camera. Strangely, they had them locked up in the pharmacy section. There was one cashier working and she looked stressed. My attitude about foreign countries is that is hard to get into trouble when you are polite to everyone and speak the language.

I asked her in Spanish is she was very busy that day.

Apparently, she thought my intentions were otherwise, because she blushed and said she had to work.

I guess it was a euphamism of the local dialect I was not used to as I was using formal spanish. *Shrugs*

Cavalry Doc
06-16-2012, 17:16
That's one hypothesis. Not the one supported by the Bible though.
Can you really be certain of that?
It is no more an unknown than either the universe being here or the brain being the center of cognition.
Clearly, you don't understand, which is odd considering how many times I've explained things to you. I'm all for expressing any view which can be supported by reference to the evidence. The issue that seems to inexplicably baffle you is that there is only one such view at this time.
You support teachers teaching outright falsehoods then? I have a problem with that, just as I'd have a problem teaching that emotion resides in the heart in an anatomy class.


I sorta stopped paying attention to your first paragraph right there..... maybe you aren't real, maybe you are, until you are sure, who really cares what you think, you don't obviously...... you may be a figment of an imagined consciousness, or maybe you are, or maybe you are not...... it's not significant until you are sure that you are.



No, fair would be recognizing that teaching science based on evidence and investigation is not equivalent to teaching atheism. Sadly, you seem uninterested in being fair on this topic.


I am all for objective teaching. I am certain that there is no objective evidence proving or disproving the existence or former existence of a deity or deities.....

Objective...... That would require you to admit that. But you are not being objective. You are supporting your subjective conclusions being taught as if they are fact.

That's not a good thing. But it is duly noted, bookmarked, and documented.

Animal Mother
06-16-2012, 21:01
I sorta stopped paying attention to your first paragraph right there..... maybe you aren't real, maybe you are, until you are sure, who really cares what you think, you don't obviously...... you may be a figment of an imagined consciousness, or maybe you are, or maybe you are not...... it's not significant until you are sure that you are. This is where you make you error. I'm certain that I'm real, you're the one who advocates a form of hyperskepticism in certain situations. My goal is to point out how unsustainable such a position is. If you're certain the universe around you exists, and certain that the laws of physics as we know them also exist, how can you possibly object to applying those two certainties to understanding the universe around us?
I am all for objective teaching. Then why do you keep arguing against it?
I am certain that there is no objective evidence proving or disproving the existence or former existence of a deity or deities..... If this is true, why wouldn't you agree that the existence of deities, or their effects if they do exist, isn't fodder for a science classroom?
Objective...... That would require you to admit that. But you are not being objective. You are supporting your subjective conclusions being taught as if they are fact. And you're back to being wrong. I don't support a subjective position, that's the bastion of the YEC and their ilk. I support an objective position based on analysis of objective evidence. That you deny that evidence in no way inhibits it.

High-Gear
06-17-2012, 07:38
Cognition is centered in the brain.


Guess that's why I support teachers teaching creation as an alternate theory. Might as well give it equal time, at least until theism and atheism, both religious views, are removed from the classroom. If one is to be represented, might as well give them equal time. That sure is going to clog things up a bit, but fair is fair.

Will you give all of the Creation Myths "Equal Time"?
My church's stance, and I demand equal time!
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

This is very appropriate as Kansas is up to it again!

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 08:18
Will you give all of the Creation Myths "Equal Time"?
My church's stance, and I demand equal time!
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

This is very appropriate as Kansas is up to it again!

If we are gonna be fair.........


Or we could do what I first suggested. None, zip, zero, nada, not even the atheists unproven assertions.

High-Gear
06-17-2012, 08:29
If we are gonna be fair.........


Or we could do what I first suggested. None, zip, zero, nada, not even the atheists unproven assertions.

I guess I still dont understand. Science works without the need for a god. If a child asks, and a teacher tells them this, you call it an "Atheist Agenda". Again' I have never had a teacher say "there is no god.", but have had pkenty do otherwise.

Would you say the same thing if an art teacher or music teacher said divine inspiration was not needed to create a masterpeice? What if a student asked when god put a soul into the fetus during sex ed? If the teacher said there was no evidence for a soul, I guess that would be an atheist conspiracy as well?

muscogee
06-17-2012, 08:34
If we are gonna be fair.........


Or we could do what I first suggested. None, zip, zero, nada, not even the atheists unproven assertions.

Should we be fair, or should we be realistic? Should logical thinking and rational discourse be the norm in school, or should ancient myths that are obviously untrue be taught as reality? Should the idea that snakes crawl and can't talk because God had a tantrum several thousand years ago and took that ability from snakes be taught on an equal footing with the the idea that snakess could never talk and they crawl because they evolved to fill an ecological niche where crawling gave them an advantage?

Kingarthurhk
06-17-2012, 08:42
Should we be fair, or should we be realistic? Should logical thinking and rational discourse be the norm in school, or should ancient myths that are obviously untrue be taught as reality? Should the idea that snakes crawl and can't talk because God had a tantrum several thousand years ago and took that ability from snakes be taught on an equal footing with the the idea that snakess could never talk and they crawl because they evolved to fill an ecological niche where crawling gave them an advantage?


No, we should be honest. That includes presenting all the exculpatory evidence as well.

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 08:53
Should we be fair, or should we be realistic? Should logical thinking and rational discourse be the norm in school, or should ancient myths that are obviously untrue be taught as reality? Should the idea that snakes crawl and can't talk because God had a tantrum several thousand years ago and took that ability from snakes be taught on an equal footing with the the idea that snakess could never talk and they crawl because they evolved to fill an ecological niche where crawling gave them an advantage?

Realistic would be what I first suggested. Teachers should not give their opinions on whether there is or were gods or a god. Especially when teaching hard sciences. Religious beliefs, whether there is or was a god, or not, or which one or ones might have existed is a conversation for the home.

To imply that science contradicts the possible existence of a deity is a fallacy that keeps being pushes in schools, and occasionally around here.

Fables, imagery, and less than accurate stories in any religious book does not negate the existence of a deity either.

steveksux
06-17-2012, 10:12
Realistic would be what I first suggested. ...Sounds like a good standard.

Fables, imagery, and less than accurate stories in any religious book does not negate the existence of a deity either.Sounds like your definition of realistic is defective. Who would have guessed!!! :rofl:

Nobody ever said fables disprove the existence of a deity. Can't resist misrepresenting the argument to maintain the charade. The point is if you allow one fable into science class, there's no reason to exclude any of them, as they're all equally baseless claims without evidence to support or distinguish between them.

Science requires evidence of something. Until there's evidence of a deity, any deity, deities don't belong in science class. Certainly not any specific one to the exclusion of others equally lacking in evidence.

Pretty simple concept. Lets all look at the evidence and decide is it ignorance or trolling. Again.

Randy

Gunhaver
06-17-2012, 10:13
No, we should be honest. That includes presenting all the exculpatory evidence as well.

Would you have a problem with also presenting the inculpatory evidence as well? And what would be the point since they cancel each other out and we're right back where we started except we've wasted lots of class time?

It would actually work out better for your side if the subject were not touched on at all. The pool of people that didn't understand the typical ID arguments for the weak arguments they are would be severely diminished and you'd have that much harder time convincing them. It might be better to get to them before they'd go into denial and have to suffer the embarrassment of having to admit they were wrong after 30-40 years instead of only 10.

Actually, I may come around to your side and start to advocate for this. If creationist arguments were taught right alongside science's rebuttals in my schools, I might have gotten away from religion a lot sooner.

And there you go. Keep up the good work and don't think you never change any minds here. :tongueout:

Animal Mother
06-17-2012, 14:30
No, we should be honest. That includes presenting all the exculpatory evidence as well. Do you honestly believe that isn't done? What benefit is gained from suppressing actual evidence in a scientific investigation or education?

Kingarthurhk
06-17-2012, 15:20
Do you honestly believe that isn't done? What benefit is gained from suppressing actual evidence in a scientific investigation or education?

I know it is not done.

High-Gear
06-17-2012, 17:51
I know it is not done.

He said Actual evidence, not half-baked conspiracy theories.

Animal Mother
06-17-2012, 17:57
I know it is not done. Please share this knowledge, and if you don't mind explain why it would be done. What benefit would be gained?

steveksux
06-17-2012, 18:16
He said Actual evidence, not half-baked conspiracy theories.

Doesn't widely discredited evidence count for anything? Got some human and dinosaur footprints!!!!

Randy

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 18:22
Please share this knowledge, and if you don't mind explain why it would be done. What benefit would be gained?

Ah well, I'll throw my own anecdotal evidence out there. I was taught that the big bang and evolution showed that a god was not necessary, and therefore did not exist.

But that is incorrect. Neither theories negate the possibility.

This is one of the times when it makes a lot of sense to consider atheism as a religion. The zealous atheists push their agenda and system of beliefs, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.

Fact is, if we are going to truly let people decide for themselves, it should be simply taught that science and all that we know has not proven the existence or, nor disproved the existence of an intelligence involved in our current reality. The good teachers would be able to tell what we know, without interjecting their own position. Atheism has been pushed for years, it's time to realize that and move toward an honest approach to the separation of church and state, if that is what you want.

Animal Mother
06-17-2012, 21:34
Ah well, I'll throw my own anecdotal evidence out there. I was taught that the big bang and evolution showed that a god was not necessary, and therefore did not exist.

But that is incorrect. Neither theories negate the possibility.

This is one of the times when it makes a lot of sense to consider atheism as a religion. The zealous atheists push their agenda and system of beliefs, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.

Fact is, if we are going to truly let people decide for themselves, it should be simply taught that science and all that we know has not proven the existence or, nor disproved the existence of an intelligence involved in our current reality. The good teachers would be able to tell what we know, without interjecting their own position. Atheism has been pushed for years, it's time to realize that and move toward an honest approach to the separation of church and state, if that is what you want.You're apparently projecting from an anecdotal personal experience, one which has not been the experience of a number of other commentators. Science teachers shouldn't mention God, one way or the other, they should teach science. However, your experience of having a teacher tell you God did not exist both does not logically follow from god being unnecessary and doesn't constitute evidence of some atheist conspiracy.

More to the point, the overwhelming evidence does show a concerted effort by ID and YEC advocates to force their viewpoints into the science curriculum despite the complete lack of evidence for either claim.

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 04:47
You're apparently projecting from an anecdotal personal experience, one which has not been the experience of a number of other commentators. Science teachers shouldn't mention God, one way or the other, they should teach science. However, your experience of having a teacher tell you God did not exist both does not logically follow from god being unnecessary and doesn't constitute evidence of some atheist conspiracy.

More to the point, the overwhelming evidence does show a concerted effort by ID and YEC advocates to force their viewpoints into the science curriculum despite the complete lack of evidence for either claim.

Uhhhh. I didn't list all of the experiences my friends and children have had, nor the numerous articles and accounts of this happening in schools across the country, elementary through post grad. That data is out there. All you have to do is look.

Animal Mother
06-18-2012, 06:01
Uhhhh. I didn't list all of the experiences my friends and children have had, nor the numerous articles and accounts of this happening in schools across the country, elementary through post grad. That data is out there. All you have to do is look. That's the thing, that's all the data that is out there about this supposed atheist conspiracy. On the other hand, we have the Discovery Institute and ICR/AIG trying to pass laws to make creationism part of the curriculum.

God or gods don't need to be mentioned at all in a science classroom, unless and until it can be shown using objective evidence that they not only exist but also influence scientific processes.

GreenDrake
06-18-2012, 07:32
Then in all fairness should we teach Hinduism, Islam and all the other denominations in equality notating none is the lone "true" religion?

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 06:30
That's the thing, that's all the data that is out there about this supposed atheist conspiracy. On the other hand, we have the Discovery Institute and ICR/AIG trying to pass laws to make creationism part of the curriculum.

God or gods don't need to be mentioned at all in a science classroom, unless and until it can be shown using objective evidence that they not only exist but also influence scientific processes.

So, we are in agreement that whether or not a god or gods existed should not be a subject taught in science classes. That would require a change from the current practice, where it's ok to claim that no god has ever existed, but not ok to claim that one or more may have.

muscogee
06-19-2012, 08:58
So, we are in agreement that whether or not a god or gods existed should not be a subject taught in science classes. That would require a change from the current practice, where it's ok to claim that no god has ever existed, but not ok to claim that one or more may have.

In what schools does this take place? In my experience, it's the students wanting to force the issue. Does the instructor allow the student to turn the lesson into a sermon for fear of upsetting someone's parents.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 10:03
In what schools does this take place? In my experience, it's the students wanting to force the issue. Does the instructor allow the student to turn the lesson into a sermon for fear of upsetting someone's parents.

I'm not in favor of that either, unless it ends in both sides getting equal time.

Science class should be devoid of religious beliefs being taught, and yes, that means atheism too

Animal Mother
06-19-2012, 14:54
So, we are in agreement that whether or not a god or gods existed should not be a subject taught in science classes. Yes.
That would require a change from the current practice, where it's ok to claim that no god has ever existed, but not ok to claim that one or more may have.Assuming that teachers are regularly claiming that science proves God doesn't exist, yes it would require a change. However, I think the opposite problem is far more common.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 17:27
Yes.
Assuming that teachers are regularly claiming that science proves God doesn't exist, yes it would require a change. However, I think the opposite problem is far more common.

See, then we should work together toward that end. I'll type out a letter to the school board tonight, we can compare notes tomorrow.

ksg0245
06-19-2012, 18:58
So, we are in agreement that whether or not a god or gods existed should not be a subject taught in science classes. That would require a change from the current practice, where it's ok to claim that no god has ever existed, but not ok to claim that one or more may have.

I was never taught in any science class, or any class for that matter, in any public school, college, or University I attended that "no god has ever existed," nor, to my knowledge, has anyone I've ever known. Perhaps you misunderstood what was being taught.

Lone Wolf8634
06-19-2012, 19:23
I was never taught in any science class, or any class for that matter, in any public school, college, or University I attended that "no god has ever existed," nor, to my knowledge, has anyone I've ever known. Perhaps you misunderstood what was being taught.


Nor was I:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 19:40
I was never taught in any science class, or any class for that matter, in any public school, college, or University I attended that "no god has ever existed," nor, to my knowledge, has anyone I've ever known. Perhaps you misunderstood what was being taught.

Perhaps I didn't. My kids have heard it, in HS and college. The big bang and evolution are frequently used as proof that there was not a god involved in current reality.

It's not like it's just me, try a few google searches. It's obviously something you've missed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=public+schools+teaching+atheism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


They've even got online support groups.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistteachers

Animal Mother
06-19-2012, 20:54
Perhaps I didn't. My kids have heard it, in HS and college. The big bang and evolution are frequently used as proof that there was not a god involved in current reality.

It's not like it's just me, try a few google searches. It's obviously something you've missed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=public+schools+teaching+atheism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Not a single link on the first page supports your position. Even conservapedia (which I'm still not certain isn't a satire) writes, " They claim that this is "neutral", but by not teaching students about God , they are indirectly teaching students that God is completely irrelevant. By giving children a secular education on religion (which forces a false equivalency on them all), they are taught as if their beliefs are completely inconsequential to their ethics and morals. Finally, by banning school prayer, and bibles[2], schools teach students that religion is a bad thing." (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_public_schools)
They've even got online support groups.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistteachers Nothing on that page actually advocates teaching atheism in the public schools, and the last comment is from November of last year. Not exactly a hotbed of conspiracy.

ksg0245
06-20-2012, 17:56
Perhaps I didn't.

Maybe; I wasn't there.

My kids have heard it, in HS and college.

Could you please be more specific about what they heard, and where?

The big bang and evolution are frequently used as proof that there was not a god involved in current reality.

Where is it being taught that deity wasn't involved? Do you have specific examples, or should I start sifting through those 8,910,000 links you offered? I clicked on the first link and got this: "Sorry, but that question has been removed.:" I clicked on the second and it doesn't appear to discuss your point, although I didn't waste much time on it. AM apparently didn't see anything supporting your claim on the first page of links, so maybe you could identify the most relevant example from the remaining.

It's not like it's just me, try a few google searches. It's obviously something you've missed.

It's certainly possible I and the few people I've asked just happened to not have been taught that BBT/ToE prove deities are non-existant, but I suspect not. Can you supported your claim with something other than links you apparently didn't look at before offering them?

https://www.google.com/search?q=public+schools+teaching+atheism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

As AM's example chosen from the links you offered indicates, not mentioning some people's belief deity was involved isn't the same as teaching deity wasn't involved. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't claim they're the same, either, so again, where is it being taught that BBT or ToE proof of the nonexistence of deity?

They've even got online support groups.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/atheistteachers

Is the existence of atheist teachers, and support groups for those teachers, evidence atheist science teachers are teaching the BBT and/or the ToE as proof of the nonexistence of deity?

Sarge1400
06-20-2012, 20:57
As AM's example chosen from the links you offered indicates, not mentioning some people's belief deity was involved isn't the same as teaching deity wasn't involved. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't claim they're the same, either, so again, where is it being taught that BBT or ToE proof of the nonexistence of deity?


Given that CD seemingly is unable to comprehend that lack of belief in deities does not equal belief that deities don't exist, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he thinks not mentioning some people's belief deity was involved is the same as teaching deity wasn't involved.

Animal Mother
07-01-2012, 21:21
July 1 here, anyone else not destroyed?

Smacktard
07-01-2012, 21:54
July 1 here, anyone else not destroyed?


Me no destroyed.


...

muscogee
07-01-2012, 22:18
Haven't been destroyed in a long time.

9jeeps
07-01-2012, 22:27
Still waiting for certain friends to be gone......

Guess it isn't working out so well, eh?

Sarge1400
07-02-2012, 10:55
I was for a little while, but I got better.