Creationism isn't Right - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2007, 12:39 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Well you're WRONG. Evolution CAN be taught right next to intelligent design because both are theory; both have their strong and weak points, and neither is going to do anything other than given your little heathen children something else to think about; and that's good for them AND you.
Will we also be learning about the Hindu cycles of creation and destruction, the Taoist myth of Pangu, the all-powerful Mangala of the Mandinka, the sky serpent of Voodoo or the Greek demiurge?
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:40 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Slavery prospered within a Christian tradition.
The Christians also had very progressive and liberty-embracing views towards their colonial subjects....
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:41 PM   #108
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Slavery prospered within Buddism, Hinduism and was quite popular with the muslims.
Sure, but no one here is dfending those religions as the single one with a lock on right and wrong. No one here is saying that they should be brought back into schools. No one here is decrying that loss of their values as the dwonfall of western civilization.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:41 PM   #109
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
By providing these expamples of religion in our federal history I am saying that these were religious men. They would not want to see their intent misenterpreted to the extent people like you have. Given the fact that religion was pervasive throughout the creation of our government, it's illogical to assume that what they were really after was banning religion FROM government. It's the opposite of freedom of religion and against their intent entirely.



firstly, since you seem to know the deepest motivations of these "religious" men, did you also know that they were diests.

and what is a deist?

[q]Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.[/q]

and you're missing the point. "religion" is quite distinct from God. i agree that the DOI uses the idea of a common creator -- and such an idea knows no specific religion -- as a justification for independence from England. but this is about as far as it goes. where is Jesus in the DOI? or anywhere in the creation of the republic? where is the Judeo-Christian god? nowhere.

and no one is banning the religious from government. they are banning religion from the functions of government.






Quote:
Except, if you're banning religion across the board in then you're saying the government DOESN'T have a place for religion. No one wants a theocracy and that's that the article in the BoR was set up to prevent. There weren't even public schools in large part at that time, so taking that article and going to the extreme with it and banning religion from ALL public institutions entirely is in fact bringing about exactly what the forefathers were trying to prevent.

who is banning religion? no one is banning religion. religion is merely kept from how government actually governs. and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.

when a courtroom as a massive stone monument with the 10 Commandments set outside -- the message is clear: this is a Christian courtroom. when the 10 Commandments are placed up in a classroom, the message is clear: this is a Christian classrom.

and no child in a public school should ever be subjected to that. and THAT is what our forefathers were trying to prevent.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:44 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Will we also be learning about the Hindu cycles of creation and destruction, the Taoist myth of Pangu, the all-powerful Mangala of the Mandinka, the sky serpent of Voodoo or the Greek demiurge?


are those myths in the Bible?

because if they're not, then they can't be as true as that one magical week 6,000 years ago.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:44 PM   #111
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.
This is what these folks seem to forget. They want their version of it enshrined, but then what happens when a different version of the state religion takes over? Then it's a cacophony of "Persecution!"


Conservatives always forget that they don't always have a majority; that their owns laws can come back and bite them in the ass.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:49 PM   #112
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha

Conservatives always forget that they don't always have a majority; that their owns laws can come back and bite them in the ass.


if we all want to start saying the "Hail Mary" and praying the rosery before every school day, or in the courtroom, or have a picture of the Pope up in the post office, then go ahead and start to whittle away the secularism you think oppresses you so.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:51 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

if we all want to start saying the "Hail Mary" and praying the rosery before every school day, or in the courtroom, or have a picture of the Pope up in the post office, then go ahead and start to whittle away the secularism you think oppresses you so.
We should also probably ban meat from school lunches on Fridays, if we're gonna do this properly.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:56 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
hardyharhar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Out Californy-way
Posts: 8,403
Local Time: 07:28 AM
Those delicious bbq baby back ribs are a definite no-no.
__________________
hardyharhar is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:01 PM   #115
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Irvine511

[q] but it is garbage. i don't have tolerance for indefensible arguments. i don't have tolerance for bad thinking. i don't have tolerance for willful self-delusion. this has nothing to do with what one means by "tolerance" and what we should and should not tolerate. you're conflating of two different things. [/q]

Many a book burning party has been kicked off by your exactly line of thinking regarding tolerance.

The argument is only indefensible to those who choose to see it as such. If strict evolution can be proven then I'd be forced to agree with you. Since the actual origin in the species can't be confirmed by an scientific measurement, then that leaves open other theories including intelligent design and they should be recognized as well.

[q] words have different meanings in different contexts. [/q]

Such as these words? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[q] your math teacher is not going to tolerate the answer of "5" to the question of "2+2." that is totally different than "tolerating" the lesbian mothers at the end of the block. [/q]

The theory of evolution Is. Not. Math. Seriously, look up theory in the dictionary.

[q] there is such a thing as bad thinking. it has nothing to do with agreement. it has to do with the facts being presented and whether or not they can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

creationism, in the context of science, has NOTHING.
[/q]

That is just not true because if you follow evolution along it's natural progression, or regression I guess, then you always always always are left with the question "and then what". No one has ever come to a conclusion other than God that solves the "and then what" adequately.

[q] no! i'm sorry! any scientist would toss you out of the classroom or give you a big fat F on a test! end of story! [/q]

As they would have in the 15th century for saying the world was round.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:04 PM   #116
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Snowlock, I'm glad you aren't in a scientific field...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:12 PM   #117
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Originally posted by Irvine511

[q] but it is garbage. i don't have tolerance for indefensible arguments. i don't have tolerance for bad thinking. i don't have tolerance for willful self-delusion. this has nothing to do with what one means by "tolerance" and what we should and should not tolerate. you're conflating of two different things. [/q]

Many a book burning party has been kicked off by your exactly line of thinking regarding tolerance.

The argument is only indefensible to those who choose to see it as such. If strict evolution can be proven then I'd be forced to agree with you. Since the actual origin in the species can't be confirmed by an scientific measurement, then that leaves open other theories including intelligent design and they should be recognized as well.

[q] words have different meanings in different contexts. [/q]

Such as these words? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[q] your math teacher is not going to tolerate the answer of "5" to the question of "2+2." that is totally different than "tolerating" the lesbian mothers at the end of the block. [/q]

The theory of evolution Is. Not. Math. Seriously, look up theory in the dictionary.

[q] there is such a thing as bad thinking. it has nothing to do with agreement. it has to do with the facts being presented and whether or not they can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

creationism, in the context of science, has NOTHING.
[/q]

That is just not true because if you follow evolution along it's natural progression, or regression I guess, then you always always always are left with the question "and then what". No one has ever come to a conclusion other than God that solves the "and then what" adequately.

[q] no! i'm sorry! any scientist would toss you out of the classroom or give you a big fat F on a test! end of story! [/q]

As they would have in the 15th century for saying the world was round.



you know, i can't say it any more plainly. and i can't say any more.

it does seem as if we're comking from different viewpoints -- your (mis)understanding of what is and what is not a Scientific Theory -- and i really can't add anything to what you've posted above that i haven't already said, and you've pretty much solidified my beliefs that those who are so desperate to get a superstition to be considered a science are operating from a place comprised of equal parts willfull ignorance and fear.

take all of your Creatoinistic concerns, and bring them to a theology class. or a philosophy class. and then you can discuss them where they belong -- right along side the various other creation myths espoused by othe world religions.

and i have to note the irony of your invoking that once people thought that the earth was flat. for that's exactly what the Creationists are to science today.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:15 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




"most free" is way, way, way subjective -- your average Canadian and Dutch person is more free than your average American.

i'm not advocating, necessarily, a secular population. i haven't said that at all. what i am advocating is *secularism*, especially as it pertains to the functions of the state, not least of which is public education.

secularism protects the religious and non-religious alike. and that seems to drive the religious crazy.

some questions though: do Judeo-Christian values enable you to be tolerant of wild income inequality? how about a poverty rate of 12%? did Judeo-Christian values support slavery? support Jim Crow?

i remain a big fan of the US (with the exception of the past 7 years), but if you are going to credit the nation's successes to Judeo-Christian values, then you must credit the shortcomings and tragedies as well.
The Dutch and Canadians would be part of Western culture would they not? But both countries have one hell of a ride on the horizon. As does all of Western culture. Or is that even worth preserving?

do Judeo-Christian values enable you to be tolerant of wild income inequality. -- Inequality must be addressed on a personal level -- be your brothers keeper. A state trying to force equality on it's citizens can only lead to tyranny. That being said, there are other riches just as important as money. One can be poor yet truly blessed and vice versa.

how about a poverty rate of 12%? --Too subjective and it's not the same 12% year to year.

did Judeo-Christian values support slavery? support Jim Crow?

--Were the Jews enslaved? Didn't slavery exist before and during Christ's time on Earth. Which values system eventually provided the intellectual arguments for it's demise? God and the Bible isn't a guarantee of the moral behavior or clarity.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:17 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Inequality must be addressed on a personal level -- be your brothers keeper. A state trying to force equality on it's citizens can only lead to tyranny. That being said, there are other riches just as important as money. One can be poor yet truly blessed and vice versa.


Jesus wouldn't agree with you here.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-08-2007, 01:23 PM   #120
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]


firstly, since you seem to know the deepest motivations of these "religious" men
[/q]

Pot kettle black. At least I'll use historical fact rather than personal beliefs to back it up.

[q]and you're missing the point. "religion" is quite distinct from God. i agree that the DOI uses the idea of a common creator -- and such an idea knows no specific religion -- as a justification for independence from England. but this is about as far as it goes. where is Jesus in the DOI? or anywhere in the creation of the republic? where is the Judeo-Christian god? nowhere.[/q]

When did I mention Jesus? I believe in freedom of religion; intelligent design, and intelligent design says God, not Jesus created the earth, or guided it's creation.

Where is the Judeo-Chrsitian (and Muslim) god? Who else do you think they were talking about?? Come on you're rationalizing pretty heavily now.

[q]and no one is banning the religious from government. they are banning religion from the functions of government.[/q]

Wow, that's splitting a one-sided hair there. And you're wrong still as there are numerous attempts to ban religion from government itself; look no further than "winter break".

[q] who is banning religion? no one is banning religion. religion is merely kept from how government actually governs. and by doing this it enables religion to flourish on it's own terms.[/q]

Keeping religion from governing is quite a bit different than teaching evolution and intelligent design and you know it.

[q]when a courtroom as a massive stone monument with the 10 Commandments set outside -- the message is clear: this is a Christian courtroom. when the 10 Commandments are placed up in a classroom, the message is clear: this is a Christian classrom.[/q]

Not that this has one thing to do with intelligent design, but I'm unaware of anyone advocating the 10 Commandments in the classroom. And in court when you are swearing under oath, it is on a bible.

Also I mean, you've taken European History, right? From the fall of the Roman Empire until the 19th century about 85% of that is also the history of the Catholic Church, right? Should they exclude that as well?

[q]and no child in a public school should ever be subjected to that. and THAT is what our forefathers were trying to prevent. [/Q]

That is not what our forefathers were trying to prevent. That is such a... Our forefathers were trying to prevent being arrested because you belonged to a different church than the state sactioned one. They were trying to prevent being ordered by the Pope to invade the holy lands. They were trying to prevent a nation going to war against another nation simply because they were of a different denomination. Those were the type of things that had been going on in the recent history of our forefathers and that's what they were trying to prevent. Saying anything different is just flat out lying.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com