RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate.

RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 2:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion". Actually, no, it does not. Think about it. The belief that there is no God is a religion -- Atheism. The belief that there may be a God is a religion -- Agnosticism. The belief that there is a God is several religions -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, et cetera. The belief that there is more than one God is several religions -- Wicca and Paganism (which I have also seen termed neo-Paganism). Whether the belief is no God, one God, or Many Gods, it is still belief. It is still religion. We cannot be "free from religion," because religion--belief--is part and parcel of being human.

SilverMark -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 2:58:04 AM)
Strictly an opinion... Of all of the political discussions I will participate in, and have participated in the ones I dislike the most are within the realm of family and religion. I have read these posts today and find most a bit disturbing and full of vitriol. I am the Grandfather of a little guy born out of wedlock and wasn't happy about the circumstances but, now wouldn't change being Grandpa for anything in the world. I am a liberally minded Man who goes to church. I was raised and identify Myself as a Democrat. I detest the attack dog mentality of the Sean Hannity's of the world but, find Myself a bit jealous that My views aren't defended and espoused as often or with the conviction on a daily basis to millions. I am not fond of labels and truly believe that extremism on either side is really far off the mark. Men discussing abortion, to Me is like fighting for peace, fucking for chastity etc. etc. I will never have one, I will never be 15 and pregnant, I will never have to make that choice. I do not want ANYONE telling Me how to live within My own home or that My values are wrong and will do My best not to interfere in anyone else's values as long as they do not infringe on Mine. Roe v. Wade is an old issue, long decided and yes there may come a time that it is to dealt with again but, I doubt it seriously. Issues are one thing...and personal issues are another. The dichotomies both sides display sometimes is confusing, pro-lifers for the death penality...pro abortion against the death penality...Rebulicans are fiscal conservatives yet the sitting administration has presided over the largest deficit ever....the Democrats are liberal yet some are as damning of others behavior to such a degree it is distasteful......prefer issues and facts...much easier to deal with. Now, back to your regularly schedule display of dis agreement and mis-information!

SilverMark -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 3:03:54 AM)
p.s. not really a reply to you Firm, I think that was just were I couldn't keep My mouth shut...and boy, did I mispell and use tense incorrectly...as a long standing member of the "spelling Nazi's" as Fat would refer to Me I apologize.

meatcleaver -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 3:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion". Actually, no, it does not. Think about it. The belief that there is no God is a religion -- Atheism. No it isn't, its merely a lack of belief in god because no one has presented objective evidence of god's existence. To call a lack of belief in god, a religion, is like saying that people who don't believe that there is a herd of pink elephants grazing on the white house roof, believe in a religion called apinkelephantism. One doesn't believe in a herd of pink elephants grazing on the Whitehouse roof because no one has presented objective evidence of their existence. Agnosticism is for people who believe there could be pink elephants grazing on the Whitehouse roof, even though no one had presented them with objective evidence. It is people who believe in pink elephants that tend to label people who don't believe in them as atheists as a way of perverted self confirmation. As Nietczhe pointed out, people who believe in a faith are people who don't want to know the truth.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 3:24:52 AM)
quote: No it isn't, its merely a lack of belief in god because no one has presented objective evidence of god's existence. No, that would be Agnosticism--which is itself a belief/religion. It is the belief that there may be (or may not be) a God.

meatcleaver -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 3:39:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: No it isn't, its merely a lack of belief in god because no one has presented objective evidence of god's existence. No, that would be Agnosticism--which is itself a belief/religion. It is the belief that there may be (or may not be) a God. Not at all. You can pluck anything out of the air and say something exists and then accuse people who don't believe you, of having a religion called atheism. If I was presented with some objective proof that god exists and then I said god didn't exist, then I would say I was an atheist because I had faith despite the evidence. People of faith believe in something without any objective evidence, that is irrational. Atheists as you like to call them, don't believe in something because there is no objective evidence for believing that something exists, that is rational. The fundemental difference between people who believe in god and those that don't, is that people that don't believe in god are being rational. Since when has being rational been a matter of faith?

sensiia -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 4:28:08 AM)
Myth: 1. Abstinence Only Sex-Ed.These extreme mother-fuckers don`t even want basic contraception to be legal for anyone, young or old.Morning after pills?Forget about it. Fact 1 Under existing law and the new legislation, parents can excuse their children from human-sexuality classes. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20070201&slug=sexed01m0 Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) plans to apply for federal funding to support abstinence-only sex education programs for organizations and schools in the state, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. According to the Inquirer, the state Health Department is applying for approximately $1.7 million in federal money that will be dispensed by the Rendell administration for abstinence-only programs, which restrict teachers from discussing birth-control methods except in terms of failure rates ) Yes he is a democrat! and he isn't the only democrat interested in abstinence teachings. I teach sex ed here, you get pregnant before you graduate college I break your legs, working so far. lol Myth 2 The teaching of nonsense theo-scientific fairy tales, in our schools.Creationism. And bunch of other fake science. Fact 2 The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. (I don't see where it states they want to teach intelligent design only) 3. Fighting abortion rights.Fundies don`t give a shit about the woman who`ll be affected by this.With her in the # 2 spot,the pro-lifers their best chance yet,to overturn Roe v. Wade. Fact 3. It wont happen it has been fought for over 30 years and still survives. Who are we to say how parents want their children taught, I thought this was America where people were free from religious persecution. If the Christian right wants their children removed from sex ed classes so be it it is their right. What is wrong with children being taught intelligent design alongside evolution, nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. Having knowledge isn't a bad thing, just because one learns it doesn't mean they will follow it. Name calling is very unbecoming and shows ignorance

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 4:34:35 AM)
quote: Since when has being rational been a matter of faith? Since the dawn of man, actually.

caitlyn -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 4:56:48 AM)
What I find interesting Owner, is that you are also a fundie ... you are just a fundie for other issues. There are a lot of left wing fundies here ... you can spot them by how they express themselves ... short and sweet, fundies are embarrasing to both parties. [;)]

RealityLicks -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:19:08 AM)
It's my fundamental belief that school science classes should be taught science, not religion.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks It's my fundamental belief that school science classes should be taught science, not religion. So would the exploration of a question such as "is evolution part of an intelligent design" be a valid scientific inquiry appropriate to a science class?

RealityLicks -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:25:55 AM)
Since there's no empirical evidence for ID, no.

kittinSol -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:27:51 AM)
What has indoctrination got to do with science?

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:29:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Since there's no empirical evidence for ID, no. So evolution itself could not be considered proof of an intelligent design?

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:30:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol What has indoctrination got to do with science? Apparently quite a bit....on both sides.

RealityLicks -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:35:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 So evolution itself could not be considered proof of an intelligent design? Not really, since nature throws up so many variations that fail, leaving behind only those that work. If there were an "intelligent designer", why all the evolutionary dead-ends? I've got to go and snooze through a meeting now but I'll happily come back and crush your arguments to powder later on. [:D] Meanwhile, may the force be with you.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:42:20 AM)
quote: Not really, since nature throws up so many variations that fail, leaving behind only those that work. If there were an "intelligent designer", why all the evolutionary dead-ends? An excellent question. Yet how does the question eliminate the designer?

kittinSol -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 5:43:13 AM)
Dude, it's fine if people want to believe that there's a mysterious entity behind evolution: it's cool if they want to teach their kids that kind of thing. But this has nothing to do with a science curriculum: everybody with half an evolved brain knows that "intelligent design" was developed as a way to go around the rulings that prevented creationism from being taught as a science. Why fight to go back to medieval beliefs in the supernatural, if it's not to promote a religious and political agenda that will subdue people's minds with superstitious pap? I think the intelligent design movement are far more cynical than they make out to be, and that their intentions aren't at all pure.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 6:08:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Dude, it's fine if people want to believe that there's a mysterious entity behind evolution: it's cool if they want to teach their kids that kind of thing. But this has nothing to do with a science curriculum: everybody with half an evolved brain knows that "intelligent design" was developed as a way to go around the rulings that prevented creationism from being taught as a science. Why fight to go back to medieval beliefs in the supernatural, if it's not to promote a religious and political agenda that will subdue people's minds with superstitious pap? I think the intelligent design movement are far more cynical than they make out to be, and that their intentions aren't at all pure. Actually, an accurate and complete teaching of evolution, in particular a complete teaching of Darwin's work elucidated in Origin of Species, requires a discussion of some manner of intelligent design--this per Charles Darwin himself: quote: Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. Or, as the ever-quotable Einstein was wont to say: "God does not play dice with the universe." Or were Darwin and Einstein merely being superstitious? If Darwin and Einstein could not rule out the possibility of the divine, how are you so certain of its nonexistence? And who then is the greater cynic?

kittinSol -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 6:26:29 AM)
How about this: talk about "intelligent design" as part of religious education, in the context of religious beliefs, and in comparison to other religions. Then, later, the kids can study the American religious right in politics class. But it has no place in science class: it's not science, it's belief.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625