I can ask the same thing.. Where is my freedom from your Atheism???

Jump to Last Post 1-14 of 14 discussions (307 posts)

72
MrMaranathaposted 12 years ago

I'm sick to death of listening to people bash religion with this line of thinking... "Where is my freedom from your religion?" Well... Where is MY freedom from YOURS? Yours is being taught in the schools as Science... call it Evolution if you will but the fact is that Atheism is also a Theological opinion... Like it or not... its true.
reply report
1. 62
  janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Easy. If you want freedom from science, get rid of your computer, phone, medications etc. go live in a hut in the wilderness somewhere.
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So one branch of science {technology} defines all science?
  Hmm. Perhaps. Because it does seem science cannot survive without mechanics.
  
  Science is no better than any other religion. Of course science is religion too, but viewed from the intellectual perspective, rather than sensational perspective, typically associated/attributed with generalized theology.
  
  Observation is based on the beholder of the vision -their perspective. So the reality of either is biased, regardless of the mechanism applied.
  
  But, I do agree, atheism itself is not specifically under the umbrella of science. If fact, is actually and most profoundly under the umbrella of sensationalism, despite how the word rational/real is applied by atheists to their cult.
  
  As for living in a hut in the wilderness, science has proven that country/rural living and the reduced used of many technologies increases longevity, reduces stress, communal disease, social paranoia, crime, etc.
  
  James.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Science is no better than any other religion."
  Well, that all depends on what you mean by "better."
  
  If by "better" you mean comforts and gives strength to its proponents, and lets them feel better about their particular prejudices, then no, science is pretty lousy.
  
  If by "better" you mean that its solutions work the same way under the same conditions every time, and its adherents correct its dogma when presented with new data, then science kicks religion's butt every time.
  
  So one branch of science {technology} defines all science?
  If we didn't have science, we wouldn't have any technology.
  
  Of course science is religion too,
  No it really isn't. That's about the most ignorant thing anyone has said on these forums. Science isn't about believing stuff just 'cos someone told you it was so. It's about testing what the other fellow said to make sure what he said was so, and finding out why.
  
  Observation is based on the beholder of the vision -their perspective.
  But a thermometer, a balance scale, a spectroscope, etc, will read the data the same way every time. It doesn't matter if the thermometer is held by a Christian, a Muslim, or an Atheist: if the temperature is 30 degrees centigrade, the thermometer will read 30 degrees centigrade.
  
  science has proven that country/rural living and the reduced used of many technologies increases longevity, reduces stress, communal disease, social paranoia, crime, etc.
  I think you made that up. Cite a source, please?
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No offense Mr Berndt, but science is noted in history as the oldest form of Theos. If fact, is responsible for the formation of many sensationalistic concepts and practices. By far the greatest expressive religion known to mankind. And a merciless one at that.
  
  Perhaps it is high-time for people to really look at science for what it is, in the raw, versus what they want science to be or how it is made to appear, via mechanics like those thermometers, scopes, little blue pills.
  
  I have said this once before: the only difference between the altars of science and the altars of sensationalism is the sanitation rules involved.
  
  steel-scalpel or stone-dagger are the same. One is shinier, maybe, but no different.
  
  James
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  science is noted in history as the oldest form of Theos.
  Source, please?* You speak as if this idea were uncontroversial and widely accepted in the history community. It is neither.
  
  s responsible for the formation of many sensationalistic concepts and practices.
  You're confusing 'science' with 'what journalists say about science.'
  
  Do scientists make mistakes? Of course they do. But where science has the advantage is in peer review. Remember the cold fusion thing from the mid-90s? One guy said, "Woohoo, cold fusion!" The news outlets ran with the story. Then the peer-review happened, nobody could replicate the experiment, and the hype was exposed.
  
  Religion doesn't do this, because religion isn't about finding out what's really true. Science is.
  
  I have said this once before: the only difference between the altars of science and the altars of sensationalism is the sanitation rules involved.
  And just like before, it is evidence only of your lack of understanding about how science works.
  
  *This is the second time I've asked you to cite a source when you've made an assertion that we're meant to accept as fact. And yet you keep not citing sources. Please stop inventing 'facts' to support your argument. It's intellectually dishonest.
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, no offense Mr Berndt, but precisely what "sources" are you emphasizing?
  
  Science, at its core, is to simply observe a thing, unbiased, by all parameters, to understand the thing better. Observe only. Tell me which science today strictly observes without invading or invasive measures?
  
  As for the mention of the altars of both, I am correct. No one has yet proven that otherwise. There is no difference between a church and a museum. Both are stacked to the gills with theory, possibilities/fantasy, rhetoric, "facts" and artifices -not to mention the fee charged for the "common people" to view as entertainment.
  
  to give example, that science is religion and the founder of religion, I spy: the stars. From the observance of stars came astronomy. From that branched astrology and other belief systems regarding stars -like gods {Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc), Ra. The observation and study of herbs led to alchemy and apothecary, which led to medicine, voo-doo and the 60s. The study of energy led to quantum mechanics, zen, jin and more. In every single instance of history -from engineering to holographs- science has led the way -paved the way for increased sensationalism. In every instance science has taken credit for the finding and enforced that finding upon humanity, be it in the form of enslavement to build architectural structures -like pyramids and skyscrapers- or healing methods from herbs to chemotherapy. Today, science is leading society even farther than before. From the Bronze Age of forged metal to the Nuclear Age of microwave ovens and WMDs. More and more sensationalism is being spawned every day -in the last 120 years alone, the extremism has taken on ridiculous numbers. Even now, quantum mechanics and such, is leading society into the Light Age, of wireless to fiber optic 3D telecom.
  
  Religion will end when the original one ends. And the original mystic is science.
  Man observing the world and him deciding what is and is not. Him determining what that thing is, he observes; Him forming out of "thin air" this thing called time, carbon-dating, measurement, fact.
  
  James.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, no offense Mr Berndt, but precisely what "sources" are you emphasizing?
  
  Well, you said, above, "science has proven that country/rural living and the reduced used of many technologies increases longevity, reduces stress, communal disease, social paranoia, crime, etc."
  
  I asked you for a source. You have yet to provide one.
  
  You also said, "science is noted in history as the oldest form of Theos"
  
  I'd love it if you could provide a source for that, too.
  
  See, if you say "Science has proven" something controversial, you really need to be able to demonstrate that this is in fact an accepted idea among the scientific community. Until you can show me a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that abandoning technology increases longevity, I call shenanigans.
  
  Same thing applies when you say any thing is "noted in history as" something. "Noted in history" means that the idea is generally accepted among historians.
  
  You seem to be just saying stuff that sounds 'authoritative' and hoping nobody calls you on it. Consider yourself called.
  
  Also, your example is more mixed up than a strawberry-banana smoothie.
  
  Astrology came first. Astronomy is the actual science. Look it up. From there on, you're just saying a bunch of random stuff, with no data (much less any reasoning) to support any of the wild assertions. I mean, seriously, what am I meant to do with this:
  The observation and study of herbs led to alchemy and apothecary, which led to medicine, voo-doo and the 60s. It makes no sense. The study of herbs led to "apothecary?" And "apothecary" somehow led to the 60s? Do you even know what the words you're using mean? Your last post is just a couple steps away from word-salad.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to the frustration of conversing with JC, Jeff! He's big into myth as being real history and will give plenty of myth based theories, but don't expect real data to accompany his arguments.
  
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fair Enough,
  Regarding my argument of urban v rural living reducing stress & communal disease:
  
  exhibit a
  exhibit b -mid page
  exhibit c
  
  As for the other items, there are literally too many non-theistic, historical references to put here on HP, most especially books. I can take the time, if necessary to compile a bibliography, if you really want to read them all. There are hundreds I have read to thousands more I have not, that prove a direct connection or reference to science causing the creation of branch-religions {of itself} worldwide and through nearly every society since humans came into existence.
  
  And yes, I do throw some flavor into he mix, but not mystic-based flavor. Again, to me, science is the oldest and most dedicated mystic expression. So, using mystic references would be counter productive.
  
  As for the last part, it was a condensed statement. Would you want me to fully elaborate? I can and have. FYI, astrology could not have come before astronomy, as astronomy defined the stars and laid the foundation for the connect-the-dots called constellations and the naming of the visible planets, which later became concepts of gods, "heavenly" pictorials of gods or how the movement of those objects results in the effect of human behavior, the precise nature of events to happen on the planet and how a persons character will be based on their position.
  
  How can I say this? Simple: Astronomy is generally accepted as the observation of the stars. Astrology is one way of attaching some sort of meaning to that observation. In short, Astronomy led to the formation of the astrological approach to theism. And that is merely one singular example of science spawning religion.
  
  James
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting statement. You're saying that observation is a mystic expression? I'm not sure I understand.
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pure science no, but practical science, yes. Pure observation -without mechanic or invasive measures {experimentation} is actual science. Nature viewed as is. Any and every invasion of nature -like dissection, etc is no longer observation, by mystic application. Example: dissecting a frog {to me} on a stainless steel table with a scalpel is the same as slaughtering a goat on a stone alter. The emote behind both is self-satisfaction and the belief of better things because that poor creature was "sacrificed" -regardless of the "reason" behind its destruction.
  
  Again, observe the stars -awesome. Connect-the-dots to form constellations or offer a theory {theos} by hypothesis without immediate proof, one has instantly created a branch-religion or acute sensationalism.
  
  James.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I swear I learned in school that the planets were named after the Greek and Roman Gods, not vice versa...
  
  Astrology is a pseudo-science...
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The stars were "named" and constellations formed long before the Romulus-Remus Empires and were used for nautical purposes, crop growth even fertility cycles to determine the desired gender of a child.
  
  And yes, most religions are pseudo-sciences. Again, highlight science.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No they were not named before the Roman gods were named... People knew there were planets before but they did not have the names we use now...
  
  You really enjoy making things up don't you? Either that or the school you went to failed you miserably.
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Odd, because the Chinese and Africans were using astronomy and astrology long before the Greco-Roman's came on the scene...
  
  "A form of writing known as cuneiform emerged among the Sumerians around 3500–3000 BC. Our knowledge of Sumerian astronomy is indirect, via the earliest Babylonian star catalogues dating from about 1200 BC. The fact that many star names appear in Sumerian suggests a continuity reaching into the Early Bronze Age (30th century BC)" -wikipedia on the History of Astronomy.
  
  Astronomy far exceeds modern versions, which include the Greco-Roman ideologies and compilations from the Renaissance period.
  
  BTW, might want to read-up on Mike Hoskin and check out the Smithsonian, too. Terrible reading, just awful stuff. Very boring and completely religious. lol.
  And there are more references. But I won't bore you with them.
  
  So in counter, what school did you not attend?
  SMH, Marcus is right, "no wonder your religions cause so many conflicts."
  
  James
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, they were named, but the names were different from what we call them now. The Sumerians, among others, did a lot of astrology before the rise of Hellenistic culture, and all those pre-greek/non-greek stargazers gave the stars names in their own languages, based on their own traditions/mythologies.
  
  Whatever the planets were called in Sumeria, though, we call them by their Roman names now. Most stars, on the other hand, actually have Arabic names, like Aldebaran and Betelgeuse and Mizar (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Polaris, Sirius).
  
  Modern astronomers use the old Greco-Roman constellations out of convenience (they group stars in ways everyone's already familiar with) rather than any adherence to astrology. In fact, often they make deliberate distinctions between astronomical constellations and astrological ones. For example, astronomers talk and write about the constellation "Scorpius," not the astrological star-sign "Scorpio."
  report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are right in that the stars did not have the names they have now, although I think that the Roman names are romanised from the Greek names and they are Greek-ised from the previous owners etc back to whenever - a bit like 'discovering' an America that had already been inhabited for thousands of years.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Regarding my argument of urban v rural living reducing stress & communal disease:
  
  Ah, I see. Thanks for the references. Now I need to ask, did you fully understand the articles? Cos you told us that
  science has proven that country/rural living and the reduced used of many technologies increases longevity, reduces stress, communal disease, social paranoia, crime, etc.
  But in the article you called "exhibit a," there is no mention of "reduced use of many technologies" as being beneficial. In fact, what it does say is this:
  "The researchers are unsure why city life affects the regions of the brain that handle stress.
  Pollution, toxins, crowding or noise could all contribute, they say."
  Nothing there about using technology. You're adding stuff to what the study actually indicated.
  
  In the article you call "exhibit B," it says that "'urban environment' risk factor needs to interpreted with the understanding that the research is still early and you have to be careful about drawing overly general conclusions."
  Journalists (and you, apparently) are very susceptible to 'drawing overly general conclusions,' even when scientists warn them not to.
  
  in Exhibit C, we're told that "Interestingly - being in a very isolated rural area is also a factor that has been identified as increasing the risk of schizophrenia," and that the recommended action is this: "If you do live in an urban area, try to maintain an active social network, a healthy diet, and a low-stress lifestyle (all of which have been shown to reduce schizophrenia risk) for you and/or or your children. Avoid excessive exposure to viruses while pregnant, and toxins such as lead. Maintain a healthy, low stress family life."
  I note that "do not use technology" is not among the recommendations.
  
  In fact, none of the articles you cited mention "excessive use of technology" as contributing to stress.
  
  So, science works. So do airplanes. But a person who is not science-literate will make mistakes when trying to use scientific studies, just like someone who has never had a flying lesson will make mistakes when trying to fly an airplane.
  
  There are hundreds I have read to thousands more I have not, that prove a direct connection or reference to science causing the creation of branch-religions
  No, there aren't. Based on your woeful misinterpretation of the data in the studies you cited, I can only surmise that you've used the same level of understanding in drawing your conclusion about science being a religion.
  
  And finally, this:
  FYI, astrology could not have come before astronomy, as astronomy defined the stars and laid the foundation for the connect-the-dots called constellations and the naming of the visible planets, which later became concepts of gods,...
  cost you any remaining credibility you may have had as someone who understands what science actually is.
  
  Well, this sure has been....entertaining.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, if I could only live in a hut....with an internet connection....phone!
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or... you know... he could just teach his kids himself. Like the bible says to. Rather then expecting the government to raise his children the way HE sees fit.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We do teach our Children.. But that is another matter.. Why should I pay for two school systems to avoid having them Brainwashed by this sort of abuse of authority?
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A right-wing Christian crying about abuse of authority? That is classic.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  because it is the knowledge that will equip your childen to function in the world we live in. Because educating all children is part of our society's obligation (and I, as a person w/o children, am still paying my share, as I live in the world that needs those kids to grow up and be educated parts of this society)
  Because, if your beliefs are sound and you have your children's respect, they will always give more creedance to what you teach them than what others do
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why should I pay for two school systems to avoid having them Brainwashed by this sort of abuse of authority?
  Because an educated population (like a standing army, a police force, good roads, etc) is a public good. We all (even the childless) benefit from having an educated population. You elect to pay for a private school because the public school does not meet your approval. Many do. But many people do not have their homes catch fire and still pay their taxes in support of their fire departments.
  
  And you're begging the question. There is no brainwashing or abuse of authority. There does, however, seem to be some paranoia....
  reply report
  61
  nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  if you get really sick, lets see you heal yourself without science, seriously go ahead and pray and see how that works out.
  reply report
2. 79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Science and Ateism are two different things. For me, most science only reinforces my faith by how wonderfully this world is created
  
  I am tired of listening to people bash spiritual paths that are different from theirs though. Faith has never been a "one size fits all" affair, and that does indeed include atheism, which is another path of how one interacts with the world around you
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct... they are exactly two different things.. and should be kept that way.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Think you miss my point.
  
  Science does not automatically support atheism- and that includes evolution. I believe that evolution is one of God's creations..
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I used to think that way too... but decided later that it did not fit.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL ROTFLMAO!!!!! You're funny! Your comments and ideas are funnier than anything on TV. Keep it up!!! Science and evolution! A product of brainwashing?!!!! LOL. Religon is not?!! OMG!!!! Almost wet my pants! Do you lay awake at night coming up with crazy stuff or does it come to you in visions? This is good stuff? Do you do stand up?
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why doesn't it fit?
  
  Can you explain?
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well that's kinda funny. I don't see how God would be incapable of creating a system where His creations adapt to the environment, but....
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science makes no conclusions re: theism or atheism. It merely attempts to describe the world as we are able to observe it.
  
  Religion, in contrast, describes the world as its adherents think it ought to be, and often falls down because it's unwilling to correct itself.
  
  Eppur si muove.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "...and yet it moves" Galileo
  
  Nice... But today the shoe is on the other foot.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ""And yet it moves" (Italian: Eppur si muove; [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase said to have been uttered before the Inquisition by the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei in 1633 after being forced to recant his belief that the earth moves around the sun. "
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope shoe still on the same foot this forum post an excellent example of it, evolutionary theory compelled by tons of evidence and the brightest scientific minds of our time dismissed by people deciding on the basis of six thousand year old book, the similarity is glaring.
  
  Give it another 60 years and people will find the rejection of evolution just as stupid and we will be having the same debate about how the universe was created.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize that many of us believe in the Bible and evolution, and the two are not incompatable, right?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, they're not incompatible. They're only incompatible if you believe that the Bible is a literal document, that the world was created in six literal, 24-hour days.
  
  I don't buy a literal interpretation of the Bible, so the science of evolution is no problem for me.
  
  I can see how science that directly contradicts one's dogma could be frightening, though. We can't have our kids being exposed to ideas that are different from the ones we hold, especially if pretty much everyone else in the world disagrees with us.
  
  So the logical solution is not merely to prevent our kids from being exposed to those ideas--we must also try to prevent those ideas from being taught to other kids. That way we have a better chance of taking advantage of their ignorance in the future.
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  reply report
3. 92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's not. And most religious people do not see a conflict between observable reality and their religion like you do.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but I'm not following how you see me as having a conflict between observable reality and religion. For me, it's all part and parcel, so I'm guessing there's something you're thinking that's just not getting across to me in your comment.
  
  More words of clarification, please?
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was responding to Mr Maranatha.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Most "Folks" are sheep. Sheep follow... and most of them do not think too much about who they are following or why.. they believe and trust the Government and the school systems because that is the way they were trained from CHildhood...
  
  But the system is not always trustworthy sir. and you might want to look at the bigger picture of what is happening around out country right now..
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I find this deeply ironic considering you are an evangelical preacher.
  
  And when you say "our country" which country would that be?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  More to the point, who is included in "our?"
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd think that you'd think, as an evangelical, that people being sheep was a good thing.
  
  That aside, people are not automatically sheep simply because they do not believe the same things that you do. Indeed, since your ideas on evolution are based on following a philosophy without any proof, there's more sheepish behavior there....
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, live. Once again positioning misleads me
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sick to death of christianity telling me I'm going to hell for what I believe in. What's your point? Christians killed pagans during the crusades and burned witches at the stake, and you have the balls to sit there on your soap box with a holier-than-thou attitude saying you hate those who bash religion? What do you think you're doing? You're definitely not promoting tolerance that's for sure. You're only promoting the battle among belief systems just because someone doesn't believe as you do. You've become the very think your "sick to death" of.
  
  Atheist means "one who believes there is no diety." If you want to play semantics we can, technically it is NOT a theological opinion because there is no god involved.
  
  Livelonger is quite right as well. It sounds like you need to move into the 21st century and out of the past.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is one thing... Lots of Scientists come from many religions...
  
  But Evolution on the other hand is a Religious Theory of Origins" that does nothing for the other sciences... it only serves to push an Evolutionary/Atheistic mindset down the students throats and also Bully them into submission on the issue before they get to higher levels of education...
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here I go again.
  
  Don't believe evolution has anything to do with Atheism. If God can create a platypus and a giraffe and man, based on what will work in different parts of the world, He can also create a system that lets His creations adapt to meet the changing nature of the world around them
  
  God's cool that way.
  
  And that would be evolution, as cool a creation of God as gravity, the solar system or our circulatory system....
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You do know Darwin was a devout Christian right?
  
  And Catherine, my response was not directed at you.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Daughter. It looked that way the way it shaped up on the page
  
  Einstein was a Christian too but not a bigot. Think this is less a characteristic of a particular faith, and more that some people are angry and aggressive and some are not.
  
  I know Christians who are tolerant and nice, and ones who are not. I know the same kind of people as pagans
  
  Think tolerance/intolerance is a human range,...
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No worries, I might have replied to the wrong thread... these things can get a bit confusing.
  
  Unfortunately, I have only met the intolerant christians, but I know there are tolerant ones. Unfortunately, I think MrMaranatha is promoting the former which inturn only adds to the anger and aggression.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tolerant Christians exist... they are just too busy hiding from the persecution within their own faith that they are the silent majority.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are lots of us, and most of us aren't hiding. We're just too busy going about our own business, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, housing the homeless and playing the kazoo to have time to waste on attention getting behaviors
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now, Melissa. You can hardly call us silent.
  
  You and me, I mean, not all the tolerant Christians that actually exist.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It's a theory about how life evolved.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well said sooner, Darwin even states in the beginning pages of "Origin of the Species" that there are holes in his theory and that other people may come to different conclusions based on the evidence he presents. He is specific to keep reminding the reader this piece strictly discussed the evolution of species, not life itself.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. Abiogenesis is the study of the beginning of life itself, and there isn't widespread agreement on how it actually happened.
  reply report
  70
  Gaizyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Plant and animal breeders are able to produce new varieties by using the principals laid out by evolution. Yes, there may be the odd hole in the theory, but by and large it works. See how many new varieties you can produce by praying at them. This is why evolution is taught in schools - It's not perfect, but it's the closest we've got to how things are.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lmao Very well said Gaizy! You sound a lot like my hubby, "pray for it and see what happens." Very true though, evolution is still a theory and sure it has a few holes, but it has also been well documented with evidence. There's no conrete evidence for god's "miracles"
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Breeding programs have never produced a New Species... If they have kindly show me a link for it.. cause this I have got to see.
  
  Maybe a Dog that is not a dog?
  Or a Bird that is half fish?
  
  Come on.. lets see it.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
  
  There ya go... a new species... need more, there's a Zorse as well, half zebra half horse... I could go on...
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You need to go back and read this article again sis... :-P)
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorse
  
  couldn't help myself, here's some more new species
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ha the last one even includes this sentence
  
  "Charles Darwin noted several zebra hybrids in his works."
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hybrids are Hybrids... that is nothing new... and they are basicly still the same kind... sort of like a "great dane and a chihuaha"... of the horse breeds..
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also known as a Zebroid Mule... Next
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  it's still a new species, but of course you're going to say it isn't because it doesn't prove YOUR point
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No Im going to say it is a New variety of the same kind.
  and that usually they are sterile or still born.
  and probably for a good reason.. even though we may not understand what that reason is.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  wow... really? There's a whole population of ligers, and they have been found in the wild, but that's ok, keep denying the truth
  report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really??? I gotta go read that again... and I wonder which private party might have released them into "The Wild" ??? its a mystery.. I love a good mystery...
  report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll ignore your patronizing response and tell you they also found a polar bear/black bear in the wild as well. Hybrid or not, it's still a new species. But of course you've never read Origin of the Species or you'd understand that.
  report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've not once read Origin of the Species, but understand it.
  report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Forgive me for seeming dubious But by your reckoning.. I'm a Hybrid. And you probably are as well...
  report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Origin of the Species...
  Yes... and to prove some of his hypothesis he was right there with the rest of the so called Scientific community of that day in their racist blood bath of Aborigines to prove their precious theory... Killing, Skinning out and and parting out human beings to be shipped off to museums the world over... Like Smithsonian institute and other... Grave robbers and thugs... never mind the truth about how long this "Specimen" has been dead... just fudge the numbers and catalog it!!!
  report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Equus
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh look, I even found a hub on it...
  http://terrektwo.hubpages.com/hub/Amazi … al-Hybrids
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The loganberry is a new species produced through hybridization of rubus ursinus and rubus idaeus to produce rubus x loganobaccus.
  
  if you're looking for an animal species produced by hybridization, there's the Western honey bee (apis mellifera) produced by cross-breeding the African honey bee apis mellifera scutelata with European honey bees apis mellifera iberiensis and ligustica.
  
  I can't paste the links from my mobile but you can look them up on wikipedia.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Or religion.
  
  It's a scientific theory. You want public schools to teach creation 'theory' instead of the scientific theory of evolution? That's about the stupidest thing I ever heard.
  
  Are you also prepared to have them teach numerology instead of mathematics?
  
  Humours instead of biology?
  
  Astrology instead of astronomy?
  
  Alchemy instead of chemistry?
  
  While we're at it, let's replace those periodic tables with ones that only have four elements: Ea, Ai, Fi, and Wa.
  
  Science class is for science, mate. You can indoctrinate your kids on your own time.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is the most fundamental idea in all of biology, and nothing in biology can be understood without it. Evolution also plays an important role in medicine, epidemiology, geology, archaeology, and paleontology.
  
  It is no more being "bullied" into students' minds than long division or the War of 1812. It is a collection of facts explained by a theory, and is something students must learn in order to make any sense of the biosphere around them. They don't have to give up their religion, but they do need to acknowledge scientific fact.
  reply report
  79
  jandeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So right,surely their religion will just wither away the more aware they become ?
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree.
  
  We have a fossilized record going back millions of years, we have physical proof!
  
  Being an atheist is not directly linked to that of evolution, it is just one of the 'proofs' that atheists point to in stating their argument.
  
  And yet, like Jung, I KNOW there is a god/goddess because of my dreams.
  
  But I'm not Christian or any particular religion.
  
  The problem with Christianity is that it can not adjust to the facts and physics that we live by, and the need to evolve beyond our current condition.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I haven't said anything about anyone going to hell (probably because I don't believe that only people with the same faith as i do are good people)
  
  And I see atheism as another spiritual path because I have quite a number of atheist friends and this is their way of dealing with faith and spirituality as fully as any Christian, Muslim or pagan's way. Indeed, quite a number of atheists become as fervent and empassioned based on their beliefs independant of what's actually happening as any other mainstream religious person.
  
  ( For me, a person yelling at me "My God is the only right God" and a person yelling at me "There is no God" sound remarkably similar...)
  
  As for moving out of the past, that's a bit confusing too. Since you're the one who's responding to actions of people in the past (such as the Middle Ages), and I'm just responding to current statements, I'm not sure where that's coming from
  
  I said previously that I was also tired of listening people bash spiritual paths that are different than theirs, though. To clarify, that means Christians bashing pagans, pagans bashing Christians, Christians bashing Muslims, Muslims bashing Christians, and atheists bashing anyone who believes in anything else (and so forth. Fill in your favorite groups in conflict here)
  
  Part of my path as a Christian is loving my neighbor as myself. And that includes people on different spiritual paths than me. The Creator reaches out to us in a wonderful variety of ways
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt you have had anyone tell you that in a long time... But since you are still mad about it all these years later... and since you cant find the person who said it to you the first time... your still lashing out at everyone else.
  Sorry.. but you missed the whole point of Christianity...
  
  The Sin is the Disease in the human Body... Jesus was the Shot to purify the infection.
  You do not want the shot, so you deny the infection exists... Sorry you feel that way.. hate to see you go that way.. But it is your choice... I for one would NEVER deny you that choice... Have a great evening.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That was a nice patronizing reply...
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think he might have missed the whole point of Christianity.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? by explaining it to her? and trying to be nice about it? Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
  Does not matter how I respond.. one or more of you will accuse me...
  You will find grounds to accuse me of... or if not.. will respond like that one guy who will go nameless... who went to one of my other Blogs and tried to accuse me of a bunch of junk... or maybe he was trying to get me to give him some info he could use against me in here... sad really..
  Whatever... I am not here to accuse anyone of Sin.
  If your in it... you know it already and do not need me to remind you of it... so... anyway.. yall have a good nite.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ROFLMAO...
  
  You told her she had a disease! But you claim you aren't accusing anyone of sin.
  
  You seem to have a log there in your eye brother. You have no idea whether she has a diseased soul and are judging the servant of another master. You have your view of Christianity as us all being diseased retches that must grovel before Christ so we can go to heaven.
  
  As someone who's version of Christianity has nothing to do with groveling but more of proving ones worth with good deeds and kindness I am offended. As a human who believes that humans are essentially good I am offended that you seem to have such low opinion of humanity in general.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mr M, I seem to have missed the point were you were nice to her....
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As a Christian and a minister's daughter myself, that did seem to be missing the point of Christianity.
  
  Christ came to help all mankind, not to give us a chance to be patronizing, aggressive or condescending....
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah ha ha ha ha.... dude really? I had a preacher tell me that not two months ago. I'm not lashing out at anyone but you, and mainly because of your urge to promote argument and intolerance.
  
  And did you just tell me I was diseased? I think that counts towards the collection of people who've told me I'll burn in hell, or die because of my beliefs. So, thank you for proving my point.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Putting words in my mouth? Straw man attack? No sir.. I do not have a problem with observed reality and science... I have a problem with religious Beliefs being called Scientific Theory and being passed off in the class rooms and in society as being Neutral which is a lie.
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science describes observable reality. I hope you can one day see that, and that science has nothing to do with religion.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nor does it support Macro evolution.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um...yeah, it really does.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The fossil record, with all of its gaps, supports macroevolution.
  
  Consider: For every gap in the fossil record, paleontologists have to take guesses (that is, make testable predictions, which is one of the things you do when you're doing science) at what sort of critter would be filling the gap. Then, when they find something from the gap-period, lo and behold: it fits the prediction. Happens all the time.
  
  This is a fact about the real world.
  
  Say what you will, but the rocks are still there.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow.
  
  Just wow....
  
  And I'm a Christian....
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think MrMaranatha has a different concept of christianity and religion than you or I have....
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I surely hope so....
  reply report
4. 60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well... if we chose to teach religious creationism the kids would never leave the classroom and would have no time for silly little things like math and reading.
  
  Which kind of religious creationism would you like to teach?
  
  Intelligent Design?
  Progressive creationism?
  Day-Age creationism?
  Old Earth creationism?
  Young Earth creationism?
  Neo-Creationism?
  Creation science?
  Theistic evolution?
  
  And that's just Christianity... To be truly fair to all religions we should also teach
  
  Nahmanides theories (marginally Jewish)
  Islamic Creationism
  Devolving Creationism. (Hindu)
  Hesiod's Theogony (Gaia made the earth)
  Ancient Chinese Island Earth creationism
  Aztec Creationism. (This one is really great... A goddess dressed in snakes gets impregnated by a stone knife and gives birth to 400 sons... oh and a planet)
  
  etc.
  
  Really if we are going to teach religious creationism then we should teach them all. The kids will be 40 before they can write their names.
  reply report
  78
  TheMagicianposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Hesiod's Theogony -- gotta check that one out, and the Aztec Creationism! Thanks!
  
  On a related note, evolution is just fine in the classroom because at least it has hard evidence and scientific facts to back it up. Yes, it just a theory, but it definitely seems to hold more weight than religious creationism, which the only hard evidence rooting for it is a book that could have been made by anybody... besides, evolution seems to be the only one of the two that address dinosaurs and those other archaic "middle" animals, so hats off to that.
  
  (now don't tell me you don't believe in dinosaurs when you fill your gas tank up with them every other day!)
  
  And like Melissa said -- we've got to be fair, so it'd only be right to include every possible theory if we go down that route
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure.. go knock your self out.. study it all.... and when you start to see that there are similarities in the stories.. do some more digging...:-)
  
  Evolution- "Hard Evidence" --- Macro or Micro???
  Macro would be what??? A chart full of hand drawn pictures by artists that are supported by bone fragments and play-dough that have also been arranged and "Built up" by artists to make them look as though they are something that they are not?
  Or are you talking about Micro Evolution like finch beak variations which is really nothing more than the normal changes inside of species due to breeding programs etc???
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dog with red hair... dog with black hair... short dog, big dog, long tail or docked... they are still just DOGS. That is not evolution... its breeding and diversity.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dear, breeding is evolution in action
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but I can't let this slide. It's only true if you're referring to evolution in the grandest sense - living things changing over time. However, if you're referring to the Theory of Evolution, then your statement is not correct. Artificial selection, such as domestication or hybridization, is a very different mechanism than natural selection, which is the basis for the Theory of Evolution.
  
  Artificial selection produces traits that natural selection would not or could not produce. Nature alone would not produce a docile wolf - we selected for this trait to produce the dog. Nature could not produce an edible, seedless banana by combining musa varieties - we did that ourselves. Bananas are, in fact, an example of descent without modification - they are cultivated by rhizomes since they are unable to reproduce sexually. The cavendish banana variety we buy at the supermarket has not changed by a single gene for at least six decades.
  
  There are many great examples in nature of evolution in action. Selective breeding is not one of them.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you... Now.. show the difference... but they will still be of the same family... for example the horse and zebra = Equidae
  
  Not producing a new kind (as the bible calls them) but Di-versing the type.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like apes and humans both being of the primate family? Ok.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are plenty of examples of observed speciation. The London Underground Mosquito is one of my favorites - a new species of mosquito that is genetically related to above-ground species but has adapted to the underground environment. This is a new "kind" of mosquito.
  
  Of course, if you're looking for examples of a new Biblical "kind" evolving, that only happens in the fossil record. This hasn't been observed, as 150 years is not long enough for new genuses, let alone new families and orders to evolve.
  
  The main issue with "kinds" is that it is a completely arbitrary human-made taxonomy. Even Linnaean taxonomy is a bit arbitrary. Nature doesn't have dividing lines between species and genuses and families - we made those lines based on observations of differences and similarities between living things.
  
  So I will concede that no new "kinds" have emerged in the last 150 years. Even if one had, Creationists would weasel their way around it. if, for example, a new species of warbler emerged that ornithologists decided no longer met all the characteristics of a warbler and had to be called something else, you'd just argue that it's still a bird.
  
  If it could no longer be classified a bird, you'd argue that it's still a vertebrate and thus is still the same kind. If it evolved an exoskeleton, you'd argue that it's still a bilaterian and thus not a different kind. And so on.
  
  There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record and comparative genomes for common ancestry. You just choose to ignore it.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  er, dogs existed long before there was selective breeding. We've gone on to selectively breed different breeds, original stock ( canid but not necessarily wolf) existed before that.
  
  and breeding does use a variation of evolution. Some traits are dominant and some not, often due to evolutionary advantages. Controlled breeding utilizes those factors to predispose for a dog with longer ears or a hairless cat. Then the next breeding s done by the puppy or kitten who is closest to the desired ideal, and the others don't breed. It's controlled evolution, done for the most advantageous characteristics as determined by the owner. And givem that offspring that don't measure up are often purged from the breeding pool or even put down is too far away, even the fierceness of evolution
  
  The difference is only whether who makes the next round is determined by man or nature
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Studies of the dog/wolf genome and archaological finds have pretty conclusively demonstrated that canis lupus familiaris diverged from the grey wolf around 15,000 years ago due to domestication. There is some evidence of dog domestication 33,000 years ago, but it is unclear if these domesticated animals are related to the wolf subspecies we know as our many breeds of dog.
  
  And you do have a point - sexual selection is part of natural selection, and does drive characteristics such as bird songs and colorful displays that seem counterintuitive if we're just looking at basic survival needs such as camouflaging against predators. In that sense, artificial selection is similar. But nature cannot produce a seedless watermelon or seedless banana - these have to be produced by us.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One brief point, scott
  
  realistically, we can't actually say that nature cannot produce a seedless watermelon or banana. Indeed nature may well have done so many times- but since that's an evolutionary dead-end, the chances of us seeing evidence of it is pretty low
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's what I was trying to say.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You would not have to worry about that and you know it... a Gloss of beginnings could be done in one hour a day and finished in a week.. then get on with the rest of the education and forget about religion altogether.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and that covers about every major form of... from Hidus to Aboriginees and every other sort of idea about how it all began... most of them are pretty similar anyway. The Bible class would take maybe 2 hours tops. especially if the teacher did not believe in what they were teaching and taught it only because it was required... (as many Christian teachers are also forced to do with ideologies they do not believe in)
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Teach the controversy:
  Alchemy as well as chemistry
  Numerology as well as mathematics
  Astrology as well as astronomy
  
  Except creation "science" isn't science, and as such has no business in a science class.
  
  If you want to have it taught in a class on comparative religion, or in a philosophy class, that's cool and the gang, but don't do our students the grave disservice of telling them that creationism is even a little bit scientific. Isn't there a commandment about not lying?
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that would be a fine place for the Evolution Theory as well... Put it in a special class of "Theories on Origins" and cover them over there...
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh.. and if Creation Science is not Science then you need to tell Dr Kenyon, CHein and quite a few others...
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's daft that's all, it does not follow any of the scientific principles etc. creationism is not a science it's a fable.
  
  Science uses the empirical/experimental method, which means we analyze the evidence and from that evidence suggest the most likely theory to explain it attempting to minimize variables etc. there is not a single experiment or observation that will lead you to the scientific conclusion that god did it in 7 days.
  reply report
  80
  Trish_Mposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm guessing that there isn't one, which shows that a clay man can come to life, either.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gladly! What are their email addresses?
  reply report
  85
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just send it c/o The Discovery Institute, of which Kenyon is a fellow and whose mission statement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
  
  Very scientific.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Show me where the scientists have observed God creating stuff?
  
  See, 'cos real science is based on observation and experimentation. And when the observations or experimentation contradict a theory, the theory gets altered so that it fits the facts, not the other way 'round.
  
  Science isn't just "what prominent people say."
  
  Go and become science-literate, and then maybe we can have a productive discussion.
  reply report
  80
  Trish_Mposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There seems to be some confusion regarding 'Scientific Theory'.
  
  Scientific Theory ~ and this covers evolution ~ is not just a suggestion, or a hypothesis. 'Scientific Theory' is, in effect, a fact.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that would be a fine place for the Evolution Theory
  Except evolution is actual science, not mythological mumbo-jumbo.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  so why not do this at church or in your home,if it'll take so little time?
  
  I agree w/ you that I don't like folks bashing Christianity, any more than I like them bashing any other faith, but this does seem a "render unto Caesar.." type of issue here
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have any idea how many religions there are and how long even a "gloss" would take? Christianity isn't the only religion.
  
  *Edit... and if Christianity was the only religion there are still a potload of different denominations with differing views on creationism. But that would only take four years or so to teach (or about the time it takes to get a BA in comparative theology)
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey can individual people add their own original theories on creationism and have them taught in the schools too?
  
  I have a couple of dozen theories I'd like to try out, like a creation theory based on billiards, (I credit that one to my Dad).
  
  Really, could we teach mine too?
  reply report
5. 0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You could home school your kids. If it irritates you that much.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is a mute point to this conversation... They would certainly like that I am sure... but why should the majority be forced to pull out and let the minority have the farm? That is foolish logic in its own right.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually my irritation is not about the schooling so much as it is about their Complaining so much.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't really see them complaining. Why would they? Science is being taught.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No.. they do not care as long as they are getting thier way.. and making headway on thier agendas.. But God help us when they get offended but a little... they cry like spanked brats!
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah but they win... which I think is awesome. I think religion should be kept as far away from public schools as possible. Like was said before religion should be taught by parents. Unless you are for satanic verses at school assemblies?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "But God help us when they get offended but a little... they cry like spanked brats!"
  That's an excellent description of what happens whenever a group of fundamentalist christians are told that they can't lead a prayer at a school event, or have to let a lesbian bring a (female) date to prom.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Have you looked at this thread?
  
  The very first comment could be considered an insult. Just the first page alone shows how much non believers hate believers no matter what they say or do. The replies were made simply because God was mentioned in the OP. Where is the freedom in that?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How can the first comment be considered an insult? It was a mere statement of fact.
  [In case we're not talking about the same 'first comment,' it looks to me like the first comment is this: "A theocracy is the least American system possible and one which the founding fathers intentionally guarded against."]
  
  Look, the right to free speech doesn't imply the right never to be disagreed with. Heck, your question, "Where is the freedom in that?" implies that those who do not believe the same things that you do shouldn't have the right to make comments that disagree. So where's the freedom in that?
  
  To have freedom of religion, you have to extend the freedom to every religion, otherwise you haven't really got freedom of religion, have you?
  
  Also, I note that Brenda's comment has been neither censored nor suppressed. So she has the same freedom to say what she thinks as you or I do.
  
  Your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to have everything you say accepted without comment, and your right to have any opinion does not imply that all opinions are equally valid.
  
  So, thank you for proving my point.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The point is, someone started crying right off the bat, and it wasn't a believer in God.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the original post was pretty elitist, and ought to have been called out as such:
  "I have a huge respect for our American soldiers. Especially for those who haven't forgotten what God and Country is all about. "[emphasis mine.]
  
  So, our American soldiers are great, but the ones who believe in God are placed above those who don't--at least in Brenda's mind.
  
  You're obviously mistaking "Christian Privilege" for "freedom of religion."
  
  Don't feel bad. Many of us have that same difficulty, and yelp when someone else asserts their freedom of (non-Christian) religion. It's an understandable mistake. It's only bad if you keep making it.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you've got a really big pocketful of mice, you aren't the majority. I have no problem with freedom of religion, but your freedom doesn't have the right to infringe on my child's rights to an education. If you want your child taught in an environment void of fact, you'll have to pay for that yourself. I wouldn't be keen on tax payer dollars being wasted to satisfy your religious beliefs.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I must have a very Large.. Huge Pocket full of mice.. because Atheists are not the majority by any means in this country... not even with all of the recruitment you have done the last 100 years or so...
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists are not the only ones that want creationism out of school... not by a long shot.
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think the point is that the OP thinks the only real Christians are the ones who follow his particular little branch of that faith. All the rest are not "real" Christians so they might as well be atheists.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Straw man approach.
  And you have posted this under the wrong thread... It belongs under the other thread where I replied to you about reading the bible and what makes a Christian.
  
  It does not matter who or what criteria the Op thinks is Christian...
  According to the Book that Christianity goes by: The Bible (which is the Words of God) There are some things that constitute Who Is and Who is NOT a Christian. It does not matter what name is on the door out front of the Building... I referred to the decisions and commitments of the individual... Things Biblical. I get along with people from many denominations.. What I said was NOT denominational... It was simply pointing at Biblical Criteria,
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, they really really aren't. I want science taught in science class. Like it says on the tin.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then Teach it.... as science and stick to the science...
  And leave the little Innuendos about Religion and God OUT of it.
  And that included teaching it as having been a process that happened
  "Without any intelligent designer"...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's what was happening, until the creation 'science' nonsense got started.
  
  Unfortunately, when you tell someone that they have to include an alternative (non-scientific) idea in science class, you set up a false dichotomy where people assume that since the non-scientific idea talks about a Creator, then the scientific theory must necessarily preclude a Creator (which it doesn't: there is no assertion about the existence or nonexistence of a creator expressed or implied).
  
  Even scientists, human as they are, can get caught up in this.
  
  Bottom line, keep science in science class, and keep this creationist nonscience (heh, see what I did there?) out of science class and in church where it belongs.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sticking to the science means ignoring the idea of an intelligent designer. The teacher need not even mention it. The science is naturalistic and requires no designer.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good choice of words: "Ignoring" the idea of an intelligent designer is exactly what science does. Science neither accepts nor disparages the idea of a supernatural Creator: it's outside the realm of science.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sir, the majority are not offended by what seems to bother you, nor do the majority treat evolution as anything other than the scientific fact that it is.
  
  And most Christian teachers are not bothered by evolution.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did he mean to say moot point?
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think so- but anyone can have a typo
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Ahhhhhh, if only it was....I wish all such attacks on logic and reason were mute.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, why the heck should a vocal group of fools be allowed to make students sit and play John Madden's Football on a Nintendo during phys ed class?
  It's a sport, right?
  
  Just like Creation 'science' is science. It's exactly the same.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That has more to do with where a lazy society of video game addicts are headed in their propensity for "Change"...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad you used the word 'lazy.'
  
  'Cos I've always thought that "God did it, so now we're done." is about the laziest kind of thinking there is.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
6. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is not a faith it's a fact, it has the conveniences of modern life we take for granted possible, evolution is not a faith it's a scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity and the theory of the round earth, science teaches theories because those theories have applications etc..
  
  There was a time when the church was adamant the earth was flat and now the church is adamant evolution is false but it is not being taught as a faith but as a scientific theory. If schools had to have atheism classes then I would completely agree with you.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, I think my point was completely missed.
  
  The original post does nothing but incite argument, when we should be promoting tolerance. I brough up the past simply because the ideas MrMaranatha expressed are OLD.
  
  We are entitled to our beliefs and the persecution of different religions needs to stop. Instead of asking where's my freedom from your religion we should be trying to understand how our beliefs are similar. This is an age old, and pointless debate because it never leads to anything more than anger and animosity which only serves to further damage delicate relationships among people of various beliefs.
  
  So much for turning the other cheek...
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  about that earth is flat thing... Its not biblical.
  Bible has said all along the earth was a sphere. Bible also declared many other scientific laws thousands of years before scientist discovered the truth to them...
  Even astronomy is just now noticing some things that the Bible recorded in the Old Testament...
  
  I Just needed to point that out... it was not the Bible that was wrong on Geography but the People of that day... The bible said it right all along.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well take the Galileo example earlier then. As for scripture, it has no place in science, if the evidence contradicts scripture that's too bad, not a reason to not teach it though.
  reply report
  70
  Gaizyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't get it - Chemistry and physics aren't taught in churches, so why do some people think that it's ok to teach that supernatural entities exist in schools? We should not be indoctrinating our kids with this nonsense in schools - If they chose to believe in such stuff when they become adults and can make an informed decision, that's their choice. Lets remember that religions and gods are only beliefs. The existence of faries is a belief - that doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't qualify it to take up valuable lesson time in schools
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is science... evolution is a concept and theory... one that even the scientists do not know how to properly talk about... It mixes observed facts of change (evolution) with things they are still trying to find and have not found.. and probably never will find (Theories) and blends it all together... feeding that slop as though it were already some sort of "Scientific Law" which it is Not.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Changes like you folks have mentioned in here are observed and normal: Breeding Programs of horses and dogs... Cross Breed Mules etc... But Evolution as it is normally used encompasses much more theory than fact...
  
  ...and Presumes a pile of things that are more than unproven...Things that prove in themselves to be untrue.
  reply report
7. 0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is a method, not a particular set of beliefs. When you start out your tirade by fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the process, it's hard to have a constructive discussion.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And if your definition of Theory means that it is a Concrete Fact that has not been verified yet.... but will be tomorrow... You could very well miss allot of real Facts along the way... Because they do not Prove your THEORY.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you don't understand the basics of science at all. This is impossible. You should try actually reading a introductory science textbook on ANY subject. It explains the scientific method and the definition of theory.
  
  Your willful ignorance of terminology tremendously weakens your case.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Paul Wingertposted 1 second ago in reply to this
  
  MrMaranatha- LOL. This is funny stuff! Convicts are sent to their deaths with a fraction of the evidence presented compared to the number of facts and evidence to support the Big Bang and evolution. Unfortunately millions have been put to death with zero evidence in the name of a man made god! Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and come up with evidence that supports a god and the miracles of Jesus. The more you, and others, try desperately to disprove evolution, the more ridiculous you sound. The Big Band and evolution is here to stay and growing everyday, so evolve with the times. As the saying goes, when you point your finger at someone (or make accusations at something - like evolution), keep in mind that there's three fingers pointing back at you.
  reply report
8. 77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Many, many, many, many scientists are believers...
  
  When I was younger, most Christians I knew believed in evolution as well. They are not mutually exclusive.
  
  What do you mean freedom from atheism? No one is forcing you not to believe.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Many, many, many, many scientists are believers..." Kind of vague. What kind of scientist(s)?
  reply report
9. 60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Personally, I was never taught Evolution in school. Through out all of high school evolution wasn't taught, and I didn't learn it before. I had to learn it on my own. Therefore I can safely conclude, that it isn't shoved down any kids throats. It's actually considered part of advanced science, which takes place mostly in college courses.
  
  As for the intolerance crap, if you really had a problem with it, you wouldn't have gone to an atheist forum to purposefully try and pick a fight, as that's all this post was intended for. To spark arguments so you can argue whether or not a scientific theory is a religious belief.
  
  To set it straight, a scientific theory is just that, a theory. Secondly, evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins, it's an observable theory of what happens over time to every living thing. You don't want to teach your kids about it, then don't. You don't want it to be taught in school, then set them straight on what evolution actually is. Please don't jump into the atheist forums looking to pick a fight over something you seem not to understand though. It truly makes no sense, especially when your just showing that you don't understand it.
  
  If anyone else has already stated the above then I apologize, and I also apologize if it seems hateful, it's not meant to be. I'm going to try and catch up on this thread now.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You guys love to argue... Did it entertain you for a few minutes? You should be thanking me. LOL
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Arguing only serves to incite anger and animosity. You obviously enjoyed causing the argument, what does that say about you? It certainly doesn't represent your religion in a good way.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No... Im suppose to turn the other cheek right??? Ok... Im still turning it:-)
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  actually it sounds like you're still arguing and complaining...
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WaaaaaannnHHHHHHHH WAAAAAANNNNNNNNHHHHH
  
  Ok did I say that right??? :cry:
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It didnt work... they dont have a crying smiley ;-)
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's really not entertaining. I find it sad that there are still people who are still uneducated yet wish to act educated. The whole point of a public education system was to correct that issue, but apparently it's not doing a good job of it. The more I read the forums, the more I tend to see it. There's nothing to like in that.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is a difference between being Uneducated and Refusing to drink the Kool Aid.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and you're advocating that our schools not educate our kids (about science).
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No Im advocating that CHristians and other people of Religion be left to our beliefs and that the Evolutionists / Atheists stop thier attacks on our 1st amendment rights... Including the rights of students in schools to pray if they want to or when they want to... read the Bible or Koran or whatever they prefer... Or say the name of thier God when they pray.. etc etc etc...
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one is stopping kids from praying. What the law does do is not allow you to force everyone to pray. Are your kids so weak in their faith that everything has to be a group effort? Maybe you need to teach them to be comfortable in their beliefs.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really??? No one is stopping anyone from Praying in the schools? I think you need to check the last few years Graduation Speech threats from the ACLU and other situation that keep popping up...
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but there is never a problem when they pray in private. The ban on prayer in schools is forcing everyone to pray...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1.
  
  There's a difference between stopping someone from praying voluntarily and from requiring or coercing others to pray (or tricking others into a prayer).
  
  Really, you should think these things through before you say them....
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is not stopping people from praying in school it's stoppig people from inflicting their prayer on others in school.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school
  
  What's being changed is that kids are no longer required to pray ion school
  
  That doesn't attack any religious person, who can practice their faith as long as they don't require everyone else to
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one is stopping you from praying. Kids are allowed to go somewhere quiet and pray if they wish.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kids are allowed to pray in school it's just not part of the curricular anymore nor should it be because there are many non religious kids. Teaching evolution and science is not an attack on religion.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Im advocating that CHristians and other people of Religion be left to our beliefs
  Um....what?
  
  and that the Evolutionists / Atheists stop thier attacks on our 1st amendment rights.
  Your right to the free exercise of your religion doesn't include some imagined right to prevent others from being educated.
  
  Including the rights of students in schools to pray if they want to or when they want to.
  There is no effort to stop students from praying when they want to. Any student--any person--can pray at any time in any place.
  As long as it doesn't disrupt everyone else's education, anyone can pray whenever they feel like. Heck, I prayed during school all the time (often during Math tests). If, however, the prayer includes loud chanting (for example) that interrupts what the teacher is trying to accomplish, the praying student may be required to pray somewhere else, so he doesn't interfere with the education of his classmates. Plus, it's just rude to talk over the teacher, even if you have something really important to say. To God. Who, if you believe He's omniscient, can hear what you're thinking anyhow, so you don't even really need to make a noise when you pray.
  
  And besides, Christ told us:
  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
  
  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
  ---Matthew 6:5-6
  
  Perhaps you should stop pretending that Christians are some kind of persecuted minority. It's making you look as though you don't have a very firm grasp on the real world.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All of this comment +1000
  reply report
  61
  nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  in Canada we have religious schools so people who believe in god can be educated there. don't you folks have them in the U.S?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We sure do, and we have secular private schools, too.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that there is a difference between them. However, when you spout off about something which you either don't comprehend, or have not studied, then you are showing a lack of education. Educated people aren't people who buy into the latest thing, they are people who strive to understand things. Unfortunately that's not the case 9 times out of 10.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon
  
  While you may not agree with what he teaches... Go back and look at his academic qualifications... and what happened to him when he started changing his views on the data he was looking at... He got Ostracized because he started going against the flow...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ostracized or discredited?
  
  All opinions are not equally valid.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Many scientists have been Ostracized. Pointing out one doesn't go neither here nor there. Albert Einstein for instance is known for 2 things, the A-Bomb and the gravity formula. Based on the way stars are created, his gravity formula seems to be wrong as it comes out of no where. Note, I say it seems to be, but we can't be sure. His theory of relativity was severely Ostracized up until (last year I think it was?) it was proven correct. Theories are a great thing to have, but you have to remember that they fall under the category of what you know, and it's never about what you know, but about what you can prove.
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I went to high school in New Jersey, and am sure we covered evolutionary theory pretty extensively in our (regular) biology class.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I grew up in NC and it was something we were never taught. Not even sure they teach it today either.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They don't teach it as far as I know. I moved out of NC because it was bible belt state, and they are quite strict on what they teach even in the public school system. So most likely evolution won't be taught in school. The north tends to be much more lenient when it comes to this sort of thing.
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My last 2 years of high school were in North Carolina, but I took an AP Biology course there (after my general bio course in NJ before). I'm pretty sure we covered evolution, but then again, I think the AP curriculum is a national standard, so the theocrats couldn't override it.
  Yep, page 5: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/p … iption.pdf (sorry, it's a PDF)
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you are correct livelonger, and I should've specified non AP biology courses. Of course it also depends on the county in NC. Mecklenberg county allows it, but most schools don't teach it, unless it's AP like you said.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They covered it in my school from about 5th or 6th grade all the way up.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As I suppose was the theory of magnetism, the theory of gravity etc. etc. any of these could also turn out to not be true, science is not a religion it's an academic study, it simply teaches what the best evidence available suggests, at the moment that is evolution in future it may not be, no one is teaching atheism to your kids they are teaching them science.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did not stop studying when I got out of school... I'm still studying. I'm still watching listening... analyzing... I like to watch people sometimes.. categorize them by type... see which ones fall into which categories... which birds of a feather flock together...
  
  I wonder at what "other" factors (besides education) might have influenced some of your beliefs regarding Religion and Evolution...
  
  I wonder how many of the people in this room are Republicans verses Democrats or for that matter Libertarians or how many by percentage would vote Tea Party...
  
  I will be truthful with you guys... sometimes I watch people...
  You can learn allot more about a subject like this sometimes by the people that follow it... than you can by some other means... You can also see where the road is headed... quite frankly I do not like what I have seen.
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me, as part of your studies, have you read your Bible from cover to cover? I only ask because I know two atheists. Both were committed Christians until they embarked on a project to read the entire Bible from start to finish. At the end, they both changed their minds.
  
  They were in different countries several years apart, by the way - I met them both separately at different times. And of course, they became the worst kind of atheists (in your book) - people who know the Bible back to front.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have read the Bible from cover to cover more than once. how many times??? I know that it is a sad reality that many "Christians" today are pathetically weak in faith... and that many of them have never even read the Bible from cover to cover... its sad but true.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You need to understand that there are a ton of people born into a religion whos hearts are not really of that religion... In Christianity there are those who are born of the woman... and those that are Born of the Holy Spirit... a second Birth.. a New Birth... and if a person has not had the second birth.. or been "Born from above" as Christ said.. then they were never really Christians to begin with.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah... there are those who say if you don't handle snakes then you aren't a real Christian either. Amazingly it's always the ones who handle snakes.
  
  I always thought that was the funniest coincidence...
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well ma'am let me re-assure you of something... I kill snakes.. I do not "Handle" them. :-)
  reply report
  58
  autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So true Melissa. It's like my co-worker who says a Christian who does yoga isn't a true Christian. Of course she's not into yoga or any health/fitness routine so she's ok. Lol.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just ask her to show you that in the Bible.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But beyond the exercises... Yoga does have a religious side to it as well... so it really depends on what part she is referring to.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's funny.
  
  Christ said that Christians are people who follow him. Last I heard that wasn't about shutting people out or judging them
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Have you been Judged? Shut out?
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It certainly sounds like that's what you're doing.
  
  To describe a woman as being diseased just because she doesn't march in mental lockstep with you doesn't sound like Christ's example
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I compared "Sin" to a Disease in the Body of which Christ is the "Shot" that takes the disease away...
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who are you to imply that she is a sinner?
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To be fair, I don't think the implication was that anyone in particular was "diseased" or a sinner; rather that everyone is equally sinful, and therefore has an equal need of forgiveness [which can (only) be found through Jesus Christ].
  
  Bottom line, I don't think it was a personal attack.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Marisa... knowing the written words of a book.. even memorizing the whole book... even when that book is the Bible.. or maybe I should say Especially the Bible... as apposed to having the relationship that that book speaks of... with the Creator... begets a situation of Pride in self achievements and knowledge of learning.. But lacks the very substance of what that person was directed towards by the content they read.
  
  Its Sort of like: Carying around a book of First Aid that says "Never Move a Victim"... even having memorized it... and then witnessing a car accident... and picking up a victim and carrying them to the hospital... Despite what the Book in your back pocket and in your mind told you properly was Not to be done...
  Some people think they are something.. in spite of the fact they are far from what that "Handbook" stated.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did not have the good fortune to be taught the theory of evolution, it was not taught in schools when I did my schooling and certainly not where I grew up so you can pretty much rule out my education as a reason for my being an atheist.
  reply report
10. 71
  Titen-Sxullposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is not inherently atheistic, science is not inherently atheistic. Science is inherently NATURALISTIC however, which means it cannot attest to the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
  
  So no, atheism is not being taught. You make it sound as if ANY idea that does not appeal to superstition and the supernatural is somehow atheistic. So a school lesson about democracy, capitalism, gravity, the structure of an atom or the Louisiana Purchase are ATHEISTIC merely because they don't mention your God?
  
  Freedom from religion refers primarily to getting religion OUT of government in order to uphold the first amendment. I can see why someone would oppose that idea, since the first amendment is in direct opposition with the first commandment and indeed many Gods are anti-freedom of religion.
  reply report
11. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you think by opening this thread is going to make a damn bit of difference?
  Your problem here is that most "religion(s)" of the world preach intolerance, division and promote ignorance of facts of reality. Atheism isn't actually a "religion" per se. It's an ideology/theology based on observation of reality. It goes by the knowledge available to humankind, which no religion of the world does.
  This statement implies that anyone aside from your religion is impinging your right to practice your religion and that would be wrong. Not everyone has a religion, like myself. The only time you could accurately depict that I have a "religion", would be to label me under the false guise of "religion" and for you to do that, you would be acting in a dishonest way. So, you must be really proud of yourself. I certainly hope you repent your ugly sin.
  My "religion"? I cannot be considered an Atheists or part of Agnosticism. So your categorization is inaccurate with regards to me, as an individual.
  
  Lastly, you can practice your religion and I'm not attempting to stop you from doing so. I see it as your right to do so, but what isn't YOUR right is to apply the so-called "relationship with Jesus", to my life.
  
  You want to believe in a G/god, do it. But, under no circumstances are you to insinuate or dictate, your religion is the only true religion of the world. Why not? Because, you do not have the right to lie.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  VERY well said Casgill.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well like I said.. you have the choice to believe what you want to believe... If you want to Label me a liar and that suits your fancy and makes you feel better about things then Ok.. Have a good one.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So basicaly Casgill, you're wrong and he's right. lmfao They never change...
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am wrong and he is right, or He is wrong and I am right?
  
  Your statement is absurd. Nowhere did I say anything about being right or wrong. Do try to read more carefully. It will help stop the confusion.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually I was agreeing with you Casgill, read the statement again, it's sarcasm.... but thanks for jumping down my throat.
  reply report
12. 86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution does not say anything about whether there is a God or not. There are plenty of Christians, Muslims and other faiths who have no problem with evolution or science.
  reply report
13. 60
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I get what you're saying but are you really opposed to the teaching of science? I don't think science touts atheism, it's just that gods aren't necessary in science. Physicist Steven Weinberg (yeah, a scientist, so sue me) said "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but it makes it possible to not believe in God."
  reply report
  85
  Jane Bovaryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right..science doesn't tout any ideology. It's neutral. Yet some people seem to believe to the theory of evolution is a branch of atheism.
  
  Talk about confused.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then what catagory would you place this textbook in? The Evolution Revolution: Design Without Intelligence
  ???
  reply report
  60
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um, biology? There is no evidence of an intelligent agency involved in evolution, so why would a biology book say anything different?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah that would be biology. Science assumes to b true only that which has evidence, there is no scientific evidence of a creator.
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're picking on one book, written by one author. That title doesn't represent the views of the whole scientific community.
  
  I haven't read it, but I found several reviews where the reviewer took the author to task for deliberately choosing a title to annoy the "intelligent design" proponents. "A good book improperly marketed" was one quote. So you see, even people who agree with evolution, disagree with his addition of "without intelligence".
  reply report
  60
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's unfortunate that the author felt compelled to add that subtitle, but since evolution is under attack by the ID drones, he probably felt he had no choice.
  reply report
14. 62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The truth is I'm sick of it too, but there is fossilized remains that proves evolution is real. That can not be said about the world's religions.
  
  But with that being said, I believe no one should be passively or forcefully converted to another's spiritual point of view.
  
  One's spirituality should come from within, not forced fed a religion that disagrees with their soul or spirit.
  
  Besides, just because evolution is real does not mean that God in and of itself is not real - it just means that some religions are false or inaccurate.
  reply report
15. 0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please get an education before you confuse myth with fact and call them the same thing.
  reply report
16. 83
  Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Science is based on evidence and reason. The fact that evolution happens has been proven a ridiculous amount of times. We know it happens. That is why it is taught in schools.
  
  You may as well have reworded your forum to "Where is my freedom from facts and truth?"
  reply report
17. 60
  artblack01posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Problem with this statement is you are connecting Atheism to science. Atheism does get it's basis on what science says about God. However, a Christian can study science and evolution and believe in Evolution and still be a Christian. What the Atheism is asking for in your keeping your religion away from us is that You can believe what you want and we can believe what we want and neither of us has to tell the other what to believe. Religion belongs in your home and church, not in the public buildings where people of not just Atheism, but Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all around First Amendment rights exist. Atheism is not a religion it's the lack there of. If you stopped preaching in a public forum you probably wouldn't know we existed.
  As for schools, they are for teaching practical world knowledge, including science and including evolution. It's not a religion, it's a science describing the process by which life adapts to changes, it's how science finds cures to diseases and fights viruses that kill millions of people. What is so difficult about our request? What is it you are afraid of? You're never going to lose your religion to Atheism, The Jews are still around and the Nazis tried to exterminate them, Atheists just don't want to be preached Christianity to in a place that teaches science. Neither do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc. We can't help it if you are so Narcissistic that you think your way is the only way to live. It's why the harder you push your religion on us the harder we will fight back! We don't want to hurt you but if you hurt us don't expect us to roll over and play dead.
  Can't we just agree to disagree? If you don't want your kids taught science in public school take them to a Christian School where they don't teach real science, they exist.
  reply report
60
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel...atheists are lost sheep also. Know them for what comes from their mouths, reason with them...although it is a supreme test of patience. If they persist, you persist also. If they are still hanging with you, then you still have the upper hand. I sometimes goad them, because you and I can see what they are blind to. If something you say takes root, then you have given them sight, and unlocked their ears, restoring their true hearing. There is no telling from what direction their 'awakening' will come, whether in this life or the next...it could very well be you that supplied them with the words that will unlock them, opening them further to the Spirit.
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Straight up to Melissa....are you aware that many religions share some common elements, elements which are sometimes too singular to be coincidence? That flood story everyone likes to talk about, for instance. Diverse cultures seem to have a common thread.
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's why I said we should be discussing our similiarities, it would give everyone more common ground and actually create a beneficial discussion we could all learn from.
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You have a sound idea.
  
  I can not say how this forum on this subject came to be, but I have observed the Christian bashing forums, but would not part take in it because frankly it only makes makes matters worse.
  
  But I did create my own forum about God, that even atheist could enjoy because it is based on humor and - competitive games.
  
  You personally could create a forum that combine our similarities.
  
  What do you think?
  reply report
  62
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As far as the flood(s) stories, I personally think that it happened. But because histories get erased after cataclysms, because verbal heritage gets changed with the telling of those stories, we lose accuracy.
  
  Perhaps it was humanity's first global warming event....
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure there have been many floods which affected mankind over the thousands of years of our existence. The biblical flood story was stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh as has been well documented. May disasters have been attributed so many different gods in the past. No proof any any of these things have yet to emerge.
  
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago
Whenever these people are frightened by the world we live in they scream, "Don't shove that down my throat!!"

We should get to the root cause of this phenomenon..
reply report
1. 92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They're terrified of modernity. Most fundamentalist forms of religion are modern reactions to (and explicit rejections of) the Enlightenment. These cults are relatively new, and will eventually die off. If it weren't for their exceptionally high birth rates, they would have died off already.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No.......
  
  I don't think that's it.
  
  It would explain their fear in general but not the kind of specific fear that generates that reaction.
  reply report
  92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I think they're upset that the world is no longer the "golden era" that they imagine existed in the past. They tend to imagine anything new that they don't want to accept as being shoved down their throat. (At least that's been my experience)
  reply report
  89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh good, I'm not the only one that's had that experience. I totally agree with you livelonger. I think their main fear is the loss of control that the modern era is causing. Humans tend to fear what they don't understand, especially if it is contrary to their current belief system.
  reply report
60
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
And in response to cagsil: Just because someone is an atheist, doesn't necessarily follow that they aren't crackpots. Atheists can have other illogical beliefs. And, when the science book hasn't been finished yet (they add new stuff and take out old stuff evryday) it's premature to predict how the story will end. It's still in it's infancy.
reply report
1. 72
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And below is your response to what I said? Hmmm..let's take a look at that.
  Crackpots? Some might be, but that doesn't change the basis for Atheism.
  Of course they can. However, many of them hold no belief on more subjects than most.
  No sh!t really. Knowledge accumulated is added, so as to remain consistent and educate the masses about living in a world that is based on reality.
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Am I the only one who was exposed to both and not freaked out about it?
Public school biology class (NY) taught me evolution.
CCD classes taught me God created the world in 6 days and on the 7th day He rested.
I must have separation of Church and Self, as I see no problem with this arrangement.
reply report
1. 92
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but the Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Those 7 days are understood to be metaphorical in Catholic doctrine. Not so for the evangelicals, who take the words of King James very literally.
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  .... ll, which is sad, given that the King James edition of the Bible, while including some lovely poetry, also includes a lot of inaccurate translations of the original, to stay in keeping with the peculiar ideas of King James
  (hey, if your boss can have your head cut off, you may modify your work, no?....)
  reply report
2. 89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I grew up Catholic and even in catholic school we were exposed to evolution. I never had a problem with it and although I'm no longer catholic, I think learning both evolution and religion was beneficial in fostering critical thinking skills and helping me to make up my own mind.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't claim special knowledge. I am working with the same data, the same info that is at everyone's disposal, I have a really good grasp of Einsteinian physics, I only read science publications, I was raised as a christian, per se (that is, basically in name only) My Grandfather was Seventh day Adventist, My only aunt was a catholic, and my mom became a Pentecostal...and I believe that they all were as close to going to hell as any atheist is in danger of it. Do any of you non-believers think you are going to hell? I don't either. I believe way outside of what any christian could possibly accept. I am branded as being Satan's pawn just as much as any of you are... and , not in spite of this, but because of it and things which I can't prove happened (but I know they did, and so do a few others close to me) I KNOW there's something WAAAAAY beyond our position on the universal scale of sentient life. Without a doubt! And I got to where I am from the same logic that would have convinced you, had you been in my shoes at the time. If I were a person of faith... I could lose my faith. How do I lose my knowledge? How could I be so sure? Thirty years of searching for something...anything that would prove I was all screwed up in the head....gone freaky, if you get my gist. I have been judged sane by psyches, and nothing I am saying anywhere has changed one little bit, not in almost 33yrs. Nothing I say is new. You may not have heard it said before, but I assure you, it's all old. I am a recognized Medicine Dreamer among the Iroquois. Couldn't be further from where I started out. I am an unknown quantity to most of you...and way ahead...but I'm tryin' to catch you all up. Peace
  reply report
  79
  Catherine Kaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well, gosh, I'd hope there was Someone bigger than us in charge.
  
  I know how many bad hair days I have...
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know you right... and be sure.... there is!!!
  reply report
72
MrMaranathaposted 12 years ago
What if:

What if someone had the bright idea to turn the evolutionary chart sideways so all of the animal kinds were facing forward... and we looked at them as an example of Variety instead of being "Links in a Chain"... Ponder that a little bit.
reply report
72
MrMaranathaposted 12 years ago
That is not accurate to what is actually happening at schools here and there... especially at graduation ceremonies and any other place where students are bullied that they cannot Pray the way they would normally choose to do so... In Jesus Name for example. ACLU is sticking its nose wherever it can find a principal or administrator who will listen... threats? Conspiracy? Just pay attention to the News.
reply report
1. 77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You might want to read this article:
  
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
  
  And if you don't...
  
  "It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.
  For example, in 2001, the group interceded with a school district in Michigan that had deleted a high school senior's yearbook entry because she included a Bible verse. In 2002, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a pastor associated with Operation Rescue who was prevented from participating in a parade because his pro-life poster showed a photograph of an aborted baby. And last September, the organization joined a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey second-grader who was not allowed to sing "Awesome God" in a school talent show. (All of these examples are easily accessible on several Web pages now devoted to defending the ACLU 's record on Christianity.)"
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  
  Interestingly, I've brought this up in online discussions before, in the comments section of at least one hub and in a couple facebook threads.
  
  Each time, my comment was deleted in a cowardly suppression of the truth.
  
  Cowards don't like open honest debate, I've found.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes every now and then I have seen the ACLU actually defend something that probably chaffs them greatly... But it does serve to maintain a sort of Neutral appearance they can fall back on...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, according to you, the ACLU defends freedom of religion for Christians not because they believe in freedom of religion for everyone, but because they actually secretly hate Christians and want to have plausible deniability?
  
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What part of "probably chaffs them greatly" do you not understand?
  
  Of course they have ulterior motives for defending freedom of religion; it is not possible to want all people to worship as they please. There has to be a hidden, ugly reason; Christians demand that everyone follow their religion and everyone else thus has to have the same built in defect or that defect becomes all too apparent.
  
  reply report
57
Kennedi Brownposted 12 years ago
Past the second star to the right and straight on 'till morning.
reply report
1. 72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Peter Pan??? Or Star Trek 6???
  But you are probably to young to remember Peter Pan.... :-)
  reply report
63
prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago
Live and let live Sir!
reply report
72
MrMaranathaposted 12 years ago
Not in the public system which our tax dollars pay for... no. If you want a private education then you have to pay for it... separately.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you want a private education then you have to pay for it... separately.
  Right. Just like you have to pay separately for a Brink home security system, or to outfit your home with a sprinkler system, or whatever, but you still pay your taxes to support the police and fire departments.
  
  The public school system is there for you (and everyone else) to use. You choosing not to use the system doesn't exempt you from the obligation to support that public good, just like you installing a sprinkler system doesn't exempt you from the part of your taxes that supports the fire department.
  reply report
79
colpolbearposted 12 years ago
Atheism isn't really taught in U.S. public schools. For a matter of fact, religion or lack thereof can't even be touched on, else a teacher could lose his job. Furthermore, during certain events, my old (public) school would have prayers and "moments of silence." These such prayers are obviously illegal, yet no one dares to say anything or report anyone. Argue all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the church has a long history of intolerance and forced worship. Even when it's supposedly taken out of the system, it is very much so still intact.
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not true. If you are not teaching Christianity then you are teaching atheism; just ask any Christian.
  
  Such things as evolution, the big bang, age of the universe or earth; these are all atheism and taught in schools. You must learn to disregard such things as facts. That we can actually see evolution happening in our lifetime is not evidence that it is true as it is actually atheism and therefore false. Ditto for the big bang; that we can see and hear the results of that BIG explosion is immaterial; it is atheism and therefore false.
  
  You must recognize that "atheism" is not merely the belief that God does not exist (as defined in dictionaries everywhere) it is the idea that any concept not firmly rooted in the Christian bible is also atheism no matter what hard evidence it comes from. Please get your definitions straight, sir - it necessary to truly understand the matter.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  79
  colpolbearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's funny, because I was thinking that Christianity isn't the only religion. So I suppose since you believe dictionaries are incorrect in the definition of "atheism," Christians must be all knowing, and what they say is always true. Furthermore, we should disregard all forms of knowledge and literature besides the Bible, regardless of how proven they are. I guess that mathematics and English are also heresy. My piano teacher must be atheist.
  
  Or maybe you're just full of garbage and won't acknowledge that you want schools to strictly teach your doctrine. Your will to impede on others (by forcing them to listen to you) makes you the arbitrator. You are impeding, not the other side. I'm sorry to break this to you, but by contradicting the dictionary and forcing your own definitions to fit your arguments, your strictly a bigot. I can't even sugarcoat this one.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  See? Now you're getting it right! Christians, and only Christians, are the bearers of all true knowledge. At least in America - other countries have other religions that carry that honor and true knowledge will come only from their religious leaders.
  
  Just in case you didn't catch it (sometimes my language is a little dry, I guess) there was a wee bit of sarcasm in both of these posts...
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure wilderness was being sarcastic...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Me? Sarcastic? Well, maybe just a little...
  reply report
  79
  colpolbearposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you were being sarcastic....I apologize. I could tell if it were in person, but on forums....I've had serious conversations to the same effect I mean legitimately serious conversations too. You probably understand where I'm coming from.
  reply report
2. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see a "moment of silence" as the same as a prayer. You can do whatever you like during a moment of silence, as long as you do it silently. You could, for example, recite the prologue to Canterbury Tales or conjugate French verbs in your head. Nobody will ever know.
  reply report
61
Lawrence Da-vidposted 12 years ago
one of the reasons our forefathers left England, where religion was forced down everyone's throat...same as that bunch in the middle east.....you don't believe in Islam, you should die. My only problem with all the religions today is "Just When Did GOD Go In For Murder?" Don't try to justify Murder by quoting the old testament of the Bible. One of the 10 cardinal sins is "thou shall not kill.....period....regardless of your ding-bat interpretation.
reply report
66
LucidDreamsposted 12 years ago
Some people on this site are just consumed with writing about god and religion. What gives? This is not a religous forum. This is a website for writers. Write 100 hubs about god and leave the "god stuff" to the 700 club or something......just my opinion. I only came on here to basically say that. It's not a cut at anyone, just my personal thought. I was brought up christian. Still, if the earth is 4.5 billion years old and god creasted the heavens and the earth, what took so long to populate it with people (humans like us)If you live your life as a christian and depend on faith, it seems you will spend a lot of times justifying events and personal beliefs. Most people who who just follow the facts and discovery through science, just live and understand that we as humans do not have enough info yet to make any positive determination. One thing that is painfully obvious though, we were far from the first breathing creatures on this planet and most of the major players we have evidence lived, died off far before we were around. Obviously these creatures were not created for our benefit then, so why were they here, just a trial run for god? Oooppppps!
reply report
60
LadyMacabreposted 12 years ago
This is possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read in my entire life. Even if you don't believe in Science, it is still going to be there; it's not like religion where there is actual no physical proof that it exists. Even if you don't believe in gravity, you aren't flying off of this planet. Even if you don't believe in medical science for cancer patients, just praying to survive is not going to make you live infinitely longer than someone who actually seeks medical attention. If you don't want to learn about science, even in a small amount, then I suggest you dig yourself a nice little hole where logic can't get to you.
reply report
1. 89
  Daughter Of Maatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When a high school senior says this, it renews my hope for humanity. THANKFULLY, logic has seeped into her mind, and hopefully many, many others.
  
  Right on LadyMacabre! You gained a new follower!! You have truly given me hope for our future!
  reply report
2. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1 I know there's a flat earth society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/inde … ;Itemid=65), but is there such a thing as a no gravity society?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is a line a great comedian has, the name escapes me at the moment. "60% of Americans do not believe in the THEORY of evolution and if you challenge them about it they will tell you "it's just a theory" which it is, like the theory of gravity which gives me hope because with any luck they will just float the f*** away"
  
  So maybe the anti gravity society is looking down at us right now.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also seeing the discussions on the flat earth society site makes me feel so much better about hub pages discussions, I though ours were stupid
  reply report
  78
  TheMagicianposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just had a look at it, didn't believe it actually existed... oh man!
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure that the Flat Earth Society is a parody of Creationist anti-science. At least, I hope it is.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know...they have been around for a long time Longer than I have heard of creationism. I have a feeling many people on the forum are not serious though
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I though so too but... I don't know man their discussion forums are really serious.
  reply report
  72
  MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Alright.. so I guess we all agree on one thing... that page was retarded. Have they never flown in an airplane before? And what about an around the world flight? You do not need "Outer Space flight" to prove the world is round...
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now you know how those of us who study biology and know what we are talking about feel when non experts refute scientific evidence on the basis of a 5000 year old book.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well actually you do. In an airplane you 'observe' what you perceive to be yourself going around the world - but if you were taken on a long circular flight over water that included a period of darkness you would not be able to tell whether you had gone all the way around or just turned around.
  
  and for Jacharless - This does not mean that the earth is not round it means that pure observation is flawed. The last time the idea of pure obsevation was in vogue was around the sixteenth century I believe, when there was a serious idea that water pushed itself downward, because it 'wanted' to go down - to explain why water ran downhill.
  reply report
  60
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget the "spontaneous life" theory that came from pure observation...
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely, the idea that life spontaneously occurs in water - because they could not 'see' the minute life forms, is the best argument against natural or pure observation that there is - and also explains why creationists cannot see past their own noses.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Well actually you do [need space flight to prove the world is round]."
  
  No you don't. Aristotle noticed that there were stars you could see in the North that you couldn't see in the South, and reasoned that this was because of curvature. Eratosthenes figured out the Earth's circumference by observing the difference in the shadows cast at noon at a place in Greece and at Alexandria, in Egypt.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

I can ask the same thing.. Where is my freedom from your Atheism???

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

I can ask the same thing.. Where is my freedom from your Atheism???

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies