|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
How about I start campaigning for reincarnation to be taught in our schools? How about life according to Buddha? Or the tenets of Shintoism? I am sure most of the existing Amerindian nations have some thoughts on the mystery of creation. Out of fairness, their beliefs must be represented in the schools if any are.
How are the teachings you happen to believe in, any more worthy of representation in the school than the beliefs of any other people? Because you believe yours to be true? HMMMM, that must be why we have that separation of church and state thing/
Why should any religious teachings replace the discoveries of science in the schools? Alchemy in Chemistry class? Astrology in place of Astronomy? Flat earth? Geocentric solar system?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Some still argue for flat earth cosmology, though it's hard to believe they are serious.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence? You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence? You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea. The question is, evidence for what?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence? You just assumed that you have evidence and it is good, and you exist and are capable of evaluating it and forming a belief. Lotta assumin goin on thea. The fact that you are appealing to hard solipsism to defend your position tells the rest of us everything we need to know about your position.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
I'm defending a position? Coulda fooled me. All I'm saying is in any rational discussion there are assumptions and they should be acknowledged if not tacitly assented to.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone. Classic non-sequitur. The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil Infinite goodness does not presuppose infinite evil because evil can be created--therefore the argument fails. If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness. God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it' How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation. Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
There is no logic in this argument at all.
The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable. It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth. Of course He cannot be explained or tested or He would not be God. I cannot explain or test a thought while its going through your mind or test that you think before you speak or write--therefore should I assume that you never had a thought or that you never think before you speak or write?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof. The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence. The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem. If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great? I don't know the full details of US law, but I assume that it is banned from being taught in science classes because it is not science (tried in court and failed). It is religion, so I guess that it is not banned in religious study classrooms. It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems. So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning. So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them? You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
How about I start campaigning for reincarnation to be taught in our schools? How about life according to Buddha? Or the tenets of Shintoism? I am sure most of the existing Amerindian nations have some thoughts on the mystery of creation. Out of fairness, their beliefs must be represented in the schools if any are.
How are the teachings you happen to believe in, any more worthy of representation in the school than the beliefs of any other people? Because you believe yours to be true? HMMMM, that must be why we have that separation of church and state thing/
Why should any religious teachings replace the discoveries of science in the schools? These are good questions. But let's consider them within the context of America since that is where most of us reside. Our countries founders were all theists. Everyone signed the declaration which talks about all men being created and being endowed by their creator. As theists they wrote a constitution from the basis of a theistic framework of logic, experience, and truth. Any usage of that document to undermine theism is an unconstitutional argument or agenda because it seeks to destroy the very foundation on which the document rests. The constitution never attempted to remove theism from our institutions but rather it limited government from prohibiting the free exercise of it. The context of this thread is not about teaching religion in public schools but about whether evolution is a myth. The question is whether science can only be taught from an atheistic perspective which is also a belief system or whether it can be taught from a theistic perspective as well. Do you really think our theistic founders formulated their document to be used to ban a theistic understanding of science? Theistic science was in progress long before Darwin came along and introduced an atheistic and materialistic bias.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning. So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them? You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you. Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance. Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
1
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning. So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them? You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you. Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance. Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections. Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that. So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it? Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
1 So when have these odds been demonstrated before? Unless it can be demonstrated and repeated it is not science .. aye?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning. So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them? You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you. Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance. Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections. Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that. So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it? Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it? Science was taught long before Darwin postulated his theories, so to assume evolution as an apriori of science is a bit irrational.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is
1 So when have these odds been demonstrated before? Unless it can be demonstrated and repeated it is not science .. aye? Look into the "Law of Large Numbers" also sometimes knows and "Limiting Probabilities" Study up, report back.
|
|
|
|
478 members (007FJ, 160user, 17CalFan, 12344mag, 10gaugeman, 10ring1, 41 invisible),
2,220
guests, and
1,183
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,377
Posts18,488,483
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|