The dumbing down of America continues...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I have talked to a lot of atheists that feel the Bible should be banned from any public place/school and government building. Including everything that has ANYTHING to do with the Bible. Ten Commandments? Ban them? In fact, didn't they force the government to remove a plaque somewhere in the US? Why? Something wrong with the Ten Commandments?

There are some Christians who would support that as well... The whole seperation of church and state idea.

If you allow stuff from only one religion in government buildings then the government is giving implicit support to that one above others, when it specifically is told not to.

So then either you have to allow all religions to be represented, or make it easy and just leave it with none.

[MarchHare]

Ten Commandments? Ban them? In fact, didn't they force the government to remove a plaque somewhere in the US? Why?

The case you're referring to is a US judge was ordered to remove a display of the ten commandments from his court, as this was deemed a violation of the separation of church and state. Do you not agree with that decision?

Although I wasn't talking about teaching Christianity in a theology classroom.

I wasn't either. I specifically pointed out that teaching about world religions in a social studies or history class is perfectly appropriate.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

There are some Christians who would support that as well... The whole seperation of church and state idea.

If you allow stuff from only one religion in government buildings then the government is giving implicit support to that one above others, when it specifically is told not to.

So then either you have to allow all religions to be represented, or make it easy and just leave it with none.

I support a seperation of church and state...but I do not support banning the Bible from being taught in a public school.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The case you're referring to is a US judge was ordered to remove a display of the ten commandments from his court, as this was deemed a violation of the separation of church and state. Do you not agree with that decision?

Separation of church and state has been around a long time...why was it suddenly, after all that time, a violation?

I believe the founding fathers of the US constitution were very much in support of that separation.

I wasn't either. I specifically pointed out that teaching about world religions in a social studies or history class is perfectly appropriate.

And to this day, I do not regret taking world religions. Best course in high school, by a long shot.

[MarchHare]

I support a seperation of church and state...but I do not support banning the Bible from being taught in a public school.

If by "teaching the Bible" you mean "teaching the historical and cultural significance of Christianity", that's a perfectly valid topic for a history or social studies course. If instead you mean "teaching the message of Jesus Christ", that's certainly not appropriate in a public school.

[MarchHare]

Separation of church and state has been around a long time...why was it suddenly, after all that time, a violation?

It was always a violation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Like a unit on the bible sort of how we all took the Azteks/Mayans in school?

Perhaps.

I am not currently knowledgeable as to how much factual history we have on the Azteks or Mayans, so I would not know if such a course can be compared to something that I would call strictly theology.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If by "teaching the Bible" you mean "teaching the historical and cultural significane of Christianity", that's a perfectly valid topic for a history or social studies course. If instead you mean "teaching the message of Jesus Christ", that's certainly not appropriate in a public school.

The former would be what I mean. The latter would be referring to teaching Christianity.

And it is known that Christianity is not the only religion to emerge from the Bible.

So teaching the message of Jesus Christ, which is a Christian message, it is not the only thing that can be drawn from the Bible, if you look at it in religious terms.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It was always a violation.

Well when it comes down to it, I would certainly agree.

What I can't figure out is why that judge had such a sudden impulse to remove them, considering they havd been there a very long time.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well when it comes down to it, I would certainly agree.

What I can't figure out is why that judge had such a sudden impulse to remove them, considering they havd been there a very long time.

No, you're misunderstanding the case. The display wasn't physically part of the courthouse.

The judge himself personally put a small statue displaying the ten commandments in his courtroom. Someone complained about it, claiming that an agent of the state should not be displaying a religious bias, and the judge was ordered to remove the monument.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/mo...ncommandments/

[Stormchaser]

Simply put. If you are to belive any of the Bibles miracles, you will have to accept that it took a miracle to make it happen. If you believe in Noahs ark then you will have to accept that flooding the earth with water wasn't the only miracle in this story. Other miracles may include the food issue or not killing each other while being on the same boat for that period of time, or how anyone would have lasted in the stench of all those animals around them. We don't even know the finer details of how food was kept or where on the boat it was or if they just ate nuts and berries the whole time.....who cares. If you believe it did happen then you have to accept it all.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I'll say it again...anyone who thinks you can prove/disprove God's existence is woefully ignorant to what they are suggesting. Like I said, the belief in God has been based around faith for centuries. If certain people feel that after all this time, with all the technology we now have, and all the knowledge we have acquired, that we can finally disprove that God exists, they are wrong.

Which is why what I said is not nonsense Troutman. If you choose to believe that faith is not your route, that is your decision. But you cannot hold me and my faith to your 'requires factual evidence before I believe it' standards.

You still have not answered why the god hypothesis can't be a scientific inquiry. Consider how much knowledge the human race has gathered about the universe in only the last 100 years. Now, imagine how much we will understand in 500 years. Or 10,000 years. Or if we are able to communicate with an older more advanced civilization. How can this inquiry be "woefully ignorant"? Many great thinkers from human history have tried to prove or disprove god's existence through philosophy, theology, geology, archaeology, etc. It is the greatest question of all. Can something super-natural, something transcendant, effect the natural universe without leaving fingerprints? [What if God is dead? Would the universe be any different?]

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle - and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it - an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today. - Dawkins

[photon]

Originally Posted by stormchaser

Simply put. If you are to belive any of the Bibles miracles, you will have to accept that it took a miracle to make it happen. If you believe in Noahs ark then you will have to accept that flooding the earth with water wasn't the only miracle in this story.

Including changing all the evidence a global flood would leave behind and making it all point to no global flood

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by fotze

Like a unit on the bible sort of how we all took the Azteks/Mayans in school?

I think a better approach would be to teach the Bible as LITERATURE. It is, after all, the single most influential literary work in the Western World. The Bible should be taught in school much in the same way Shakespeare is taught; much in the same way I teach the Bible in University.

[Azure]

And? How will that help us prove/disprove that God exists?

How can you 'prove' that the supernatural exists? How can anyone 'disprove' that God exists?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think a better approach would be to teach the Bible as LITERATURE. It is, after all, the single most influential literary work in the Western World. The Bible should be taught in school much in the same way Shakespeare is taught; much in the same way I teach the Bible in University.

I agree 100%.

I actually never thought of that. Very good point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree 100%.

I actually never thought of that. Very good point.

As a large collection of a variety of mythologies, "historical" narratives and allegories, poetic liturgies, prophetic tomes and dirges, apocalyptic utterances, and sapiential instruction, the Bible is really a fascinating read. There is no end to the complexities in literary constructions, poetic and narrative devices employed, typologies, and adaptations which really make the whole Book quite remarkable on a literary critical level. The evolution of the stories and legends through the history of their development, and the way the Jews read an rewrote and adapted their history to their present context was a magnificent accomplishment; well worth the effort to research.

[Daradon]

The argument and article is not about faith.

repeat: The argument and article is not about faith.

I'm a man of extreme faith, though it probably differs from yours. I believe in all sorts of wonderful energy, supreme goodness, and collectve consciousness.

That is NOT however what this article is about.

This article is about how people in todays society still want to be ignorant to very basic science and accepted theories.

The world is round!

The earth is NOT the center of the universe.

The world is and solar system is undeniably older than 6500 years.

And guess what? There is equal and credible proof to prove the following...


The story of the Ark is just that... A STORY. Like any other religious or philsophical text before or after. A story to illustrate a point. There is no scientific evidence and actually much more to the contrary.

The story of creation is just that... A STORY. Like any other story of creation from countless other relgious texts. A way to promote values and understanding. There is no scientific proof and actually much more to the contrary.

I'm a man of faith, but even I take my religions stories as STORIES. A way to try and be better.

There is a difference between faith, and blind faith. God never asked for blind faith. Just faith in the truth.

The internet has provided us with all sorts of enlightened nuts (ala Kirk Camerons group) that have ridiculous claims and bad science to back it up.

And its fueling fundamentalism. It's fueling religious hatred and ultimately religious wars.

We can cry about Islamic fundamenatlism, but theres a few people on here that will not bat an eye about Christian fundamentalism.

They don't see how they are exactly the same.

I'm sorry but flag me for this one if you want. But if you can take al the information out there and still decide the world is 6,000 years old. You are choosing to be ignorant. You are choosing to, as Lanny put it, dumb it down.

It's not a faith call. It's really not. You are taking all the knowledge that has been provided to you, and relying instead on a story and denying all evidence and reasonable argument.

That is not the definition of faith and it's a shame that the religious powers that be clouded it that way.

Faith is faith in the unknown. NOT FAITH AGAINST THE KNOWN CAUSE IT SCARES YOU.

That is pure and plain ignorance through choice.

You might as well debate the world is flat.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ Give that man a red square or two. Beautiful!!!

[Azure]

I wonder who those 'few' people are, that wouldn't bat an eye at Christian fundamentalism.

People from both sides have a habit of shoving the other side out of the window because they believe THEIR way is the ONLY way.

Just because someone believes in creationism, does not necessarily mean someone believes that the world is 6,000 years old. Creationism is simply a belief that God created the earth, the solar system, and the universe. Who is to say he didn't do that with a Big Bang? Or with evolution?

I'm still trying to figure out who on here has said the earth is flat, and why it keeps coming up. We have all seen pictures of the universe, so we all KNOW the earth is round. Why keep on bringing it up? Seems to me it is the one thing that people can promote...to point out the stupidity of others, so they bring it up again and again.

To me, it is a moot point. And a dumb one to illiterate again and again.

Oh right...I find it very amusing that you equate the ignorance towards science with a belief that you have to blow yourself up in order to claim your status in heaven.

Islamic fundamentalism is VERY different from Christian fundamentalism.