The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I just believe God is at the foundation and all of these theories build from there. No one knows for sure.

I believe you may be right. But how do you rationalize christian dogma with that belief?

The same way others rationalize the process without God as the initiator. It's just another way of looking at it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I like lettuce. It makes sandwiches all crispy and stuff.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Therefore, I am "THE SAMICH GOD"!!!

Oh yeah? Well what's the best kind of Jelly then?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I like lettuce. It makes sandwiches all crispy and stuff.

Really...."how do it know???"

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Therefore, I am "THE SAMICH GOD"!!!

And "Under God" in the Pledge would work with you too.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Random occurences happen. I believe that statement been paraphrased into a bumper sticker.

Oh...well then...it must be true.

[billvon 2,998]

>It talks about God creating the “heavens and the Earth.”

Agreed. It does not talk about any sort of condensation of the earth out of a pre-solar nebula, or the Big Bang.

>It’s also not just my personal theory.

Well, if you want to teach creationism as described in the bible, then you're talking about teaching that the earth was created in seven days, that god created a watery planet first, then created light and energy, then created land. Then came vegetation. Only then, after the earth had been created and life had begun on it, did he create the rest of the heavens - all the stars, the moon etc. The Big Bang theory is in direct contradiction to this sequence of events.

Then god created man out of dust. Some time later he took a rib out of the first man and created a woman. So women were not present at first, and the first man was created out of dust.

Now, you might have your own theories on what really happened. You might decide that the bible wasn't entirely accurate, and when it claimed that woman was made out of a man's rib god really meant something completely different. But if you teach that you are teaching Pajarito's Personal Interpretation of the Bible(TM) not the Biblical story of creation. And you have every right to teach that to your kids, but your own personal beliefs on which parts of the bible you believe and which parts you ignore in favor of real science are not what you base biology curriculums on. Biology is a science, not a system of belief.

Now, if you were teaching a class on theology, that would be a dandy topic. Present it, and people can decide for themselves what they believe.

>I’m sorry I’m not as smart as you because you, like many others
>here, went to Catholic School and was turned against your faith.

?? What does going to catholic school have to do with being smart? There seemed to be almost as many brain-dead kids at my high school as at the local public one. The big difference is that it was easy to kick out the worst of the worst.

>We don’t have it all figured out and it should be taught as such. I do
> believe totally in creation . . .

Really? You believe that the earth was created first, then the rest of the stars? You believe that the first woman was created from a rib dissected out of the first man? You seem smarter than that.

>That’s great…but kids don’t get taught anything but evolution as
>their basis in the public system.

Which is too bad. History of religions is an important topic in terms of both deciding one's own beliefs and understanding world history. We'd be a lot better off today if people understood Islam, Buddhism and Judaism as well as they understood Christianity.

But the place to teach all that is in a religion class, not a science class. Religion and science are separate topics.

[billvon 2,998]

>You must not have a very good understanding of nuclear physics.
> Nothing appears out of nothing.

Really? Look up vacuum fluctuations and the Casimir effect. Oddly enough, things are created out of nothingness all the time.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Dude, nothing "just happens" whatever level you're on. By the way, are you a nuclear physicist as well as a skydiving instructor?

Being a nuclear physicist is not a pre-requsite of being a skydiving instructor. In fact it's probably a hinderance, as the one I've met recently is an asshole who knows everything already.

Doh!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>You must not have a very good understanding of nuclear physics.
> Nothing appears out of nothing.

Really? Look up vacuum fluctuations and the Casimir effect. Oddly enough, things are created out of nothingness all the time.

The photons are pre-existing in the vacuum. They are not "nothing".

[billvon 2,998]

>The photons are pre-existing in the vacuum. They are not "nothing".

They're not nothing, but they come and go, into and out of nothingness. You can "clear" a space (by using the Casimir effect to create a very small area of less-than-zero-energy potential) remove the plates and the space will "fill up" with photons again - appearing out of nowhere.

Pretty cool, in my book. Of course, misunderstanding this principle leads directly to claims of zero-point energy sources.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>The photons are pre-existing in the vacuum. They are not "nothing".

They're not nothing, but they come and go, into and out of nothingness. You can "clear" a space (by using the Casimir effect to create a very small area of less-than-zero-energy potential) remove the plates and the space will "fill up" with photons again - appearing out of nowhere.

Pretty cool, in my book. Of course, misunderstanding this principle leads directly to claims of zero-point energy sources.

I'll tell you what...the more I read about this kind of stuff, the more I buy into the whole yoga, sound of Ohm, vibrations belief thing. Eventually I think we'll find that there is no solid matter at all, that there is no tiniest particle and that what we perceive as physical substance is really just a concentration of vibrations within the infinite vacuum of space.

[billvon 2,998]

>Eventually I think we'll find that there is no solid matter at all, that there
>is no tiniest particle and that what we perceive as physical substance is
>really just a concentration of vibrations within the infinite vacuum of space.

You realized you've just described superstring theory, right? (with a few more dimensions added)

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually, I described a piece of hinduism. Veda Vyasa described string theory about 6000 years ago.

If I were going to be a religious person, the most logical religion to follow, to me, is either Hinduism or Budhism.

EDIT:

I never understood why General Relativity was given so much credit. I mean it's basing very basic assumptions of existence on one of the weakest forces in the universe. Ohhhh, big bad gravity. I can defy the force of the entire planets gravity with a refrigerator magnet.

[billvon 2,998]

>I never understood why General Relativity was given so much credit.

Because it explained the universe a little better than Newtonian physics did, and resolved some lingering questions about wave propagation in a privledged coordinate system, called the "ether" by scientists of the time. But even Einstein himself was dubious of its validity under all conditions.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ok, my bad everyone.

I really didn't mean to kick off the whole evolution/creationism debate. I was mearly using that debate to illustrate the apparent conflict between the two concepts of seperating religion from public schools and having a pledge involving a religious reference.

To me, having both is a contradiction in terms.

Whilst I may not agree with the assertion that evolution = a religion, (to me it's merely science) I can at least understand the argument that it may be construed as such. If it directly contradicts and goes to the disproof of a religion, it may well be seen to put's itself into the "religion" bracket. I can therefore at least understand the reasoning behind restricting it's teaching, even if I do not agree with it.

What I simply do not understand is how you can have that debate, but ignore the a debate about the religious content of the pledge? To me, the two concepts are ideologically linked - they are both about having religion in schools.

Why aren't the people who compain about Darinism being taught also complaing about "under god" being in the pledge? Conceptually, they are the same thing. How can one be OK, but the other not?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Conceptually, they are the same thing. How can one be OK, but the other not?

Because one supports their beliefs, the other doesn't. Pretty simple really. But don't accuse them of trying to force their beliefs on you. They just want you constantly exposed to their beliefs, so much so that they want the supreme court to support their position. But they're not trying to _force_ it on you.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>Let the students take from each and make up his/her own minds.

What's wrong with putting the information out and letting intelligent students make up their own minds? I know that goes against the liberal way of thinking.

but your not interested in information so much as propaganda. If it doesnt fit into the parameters described by the text you’ve adopted as ‘law’ it must be incorrect. No matter how often your source is shown to be false in relation to the physical world.

the difference is your philosophy has no 'standard of evidence' or 'proof' that can be agreed on. Science requires both, repeatable demonstrable processes to back its larger assertions.

you may believe the universe appeared according to your literature, however you have to make alot of supposition and creative twists to fill the holes in the source for your belief (its not a theory). Of course when your working with the unedited, undiluted word of God....your allowed to make your own rules...

Dont pretend you have evidence for anything you believe. You don’t, that is what makes it a belief. Believe the earth is flat, or the stars are holes in crystalline spheres, and the universe exists (was created) just to save your soul, but don’t teach it next to biology, chemistry and physics as if its credible fact.

However we can pick your beliefs apart in philosophy and theology all day if you wish. Scientists adapt their theories to fit changing observations and contradictory evidence. Believers adapt their observations to fit their dogma. One starts with questions, the other assumes all the answers..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[crwtom 0]

Sticking to "The Big Bang", one could think that it was caused by either God or

and who or what created this guy or thing or whatever you keep calling "god"?

T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Hi again, Jeffery -

Please use "Jeffrey" instead.

Quote

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I understand the rights of the minority, believe that they are very important to our system.

But when you damage a protected minority there are courses of action (In most case laws) but what protection from the minority does the majority have?

They have the same protection that the minority has; and theoretically it would be more difficult to strip them of the ability to enjoy that protection than it would be to strip the minority of it. The minority enjoys equal protection from the majority only as long as the majority consents to be bound by the constitution that provides for that protection. If the majority decided one day to just say, "Screw it, we have the benefit of superior numbers," they could enforce their will on the minority.

Quote

When we discuss the "slippery slop" idea, when do we say this is the reverse (minority forceing there will in the majority?)

Please leave me out of any discussion of "slippery slop." I just laundered this outfit!

If the system is set up to make decisions based on what is FAIR and RIGHT, which side favors them becomes a moot issue. Fair and right is supposed to be minority/majority-neutral.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'm not a big participant in religion, but I do have to laugh when everytime religion is mentioned, it's referred to as "shoving it down ones throat" by the athiests. Since when does the mere mention of something transgress to that image? Freudian perhaps?

When religious people get laws passed that govern ALL of us, in a CIVIL sense, under the rules of THEIR RELIGION, without regard for the fact that not all of us are adherents of that religion, that IS "forcing it down our throats."

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I am not quite sure what you are saying.... But this I do Know. The ACLU is a terrorist organization. They use terrorist tactics such as black mail and the threat to bankrupt smaller districts in court battles so that they can get their way.

The ACLU goes out if its way to find favorable judges in "weak/poor" communities to set presidence to be used at a later time in a larger arena.

The principals which the ACLU were founded on were good, however, this group has turned into a Left Wing gang with their sole purpose to turn the USA into a socialist society.

A few years ago, my gun-owning, anti-NRA friend and I did a swap: I bought him a 1 year NRA membership and he bought me an ACLU membership, since neither one would have done so on his own.

They sent me renewal materials, and I stuffed it with a short letter detailing my objection to their abandonment of the Second Amendment out of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Some membership director woman wrote me back with a packet of utter bullshit -- photocopied articles with false claims and propaganda about guns: stuff like the "10 children a day" lie, and an article about the book "Arming America" -- which had been long debunked by the time she sent me this stuff.

They continue to send me begging packets every now and then, which I think is laughable: if they want to waste money mailing me shit that I'll ignore, that's fine with me. The less money they have, the less they can spend on bullshit leftist activism.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

No one is forcing you to do anything.

Honest question:
What happens if you go into court and have to give sworn testimony on the witness stand, and they place a bible before you, tell you to put your hand on it, raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD?

What can I say to that? I'm an atheist!
Do I LIE, "swear the oath," and risk having someone come out later with evidence that I'm an atheist and then, there in court, he can challenge my testimony by saying, "Jeff 'swore' an oath that doesn't mean anything to him! He's an atheist!"

Do I stand there and tell them, "Sorry, I won't swear your oath: I'm an atheist." What happens then? I lose the case already: the judge won't like me, the jury won't like me; there will be a bias against me right from the start. They'll all be looking at me as a godless atheist whose word can't mean anything simply because I won't swear before a god I don't believe exists.

So this is a prime example of how shoving religion into government and law creates an unfair environment for those who are claimed to be free from having to adhere to that religion. The reality of it is, sure, you can choose to be non-religious, but since our system is set up on a foundation of religion, and it is not set up to cater to "you godless heathens," you're gonna face adversity in what should be a neutral, objective environment like a court. Just imagine what a jury that is made up of 90% religious people would think of a witness who disavowed a belief in god. What would they think of the truthfulness of his testimony? (As though anyone really believes that because someone swears an oath on a bible that that means he's not gonna LIE!)

So in court, I'm forced to either lie an oath on that bible, or prejudice the court against me. What if I were in Roy Moore's courtroom (that judge with the 10 commandments monument) and said, "I won't swear that oath, your honor. I'm an atheist." I'm gonna get a fair trial before that pious prick? If I lie that oath, someone could introduce stuff I've written on the internet that shows I don't believe in god, and then challenge the veracity of my testimony based on the fact that I was capable of misrepresenting myself when I took the oath.

I'm faced with a decision of being dishonest at the outset in order to not alienate the court, or being honest and alienating the court. Either way, I'm screwed.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

So ok the, you live in the land of the free. You’re free to practice whatever religion you want. You’re even free to have no religion. Can we all agree on that much?

Then you are required to swear an oath accepting deference to a deiity in which you do not believe.

Does anyone else see a slight contradiction in those two positions?

Exactly.
Further, there's a bit of a contradiction within the *new and improved (TM)* pledge itself.
It's supposed to be one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It reads "indivisible", yet a divisive phrase was added.
It says justice for *all*, not justice for the vast majority.


-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

?? Evolution is not a religion.

Oh contrair!
We know evolution exists. Anyone who breds dogs will tell you that, but to say that we are the product of natural selection that stated with a few chain of proteins requires the faith of Job. That makes Darwinism a religion. Science and God are not mutually exclusive of each other. Science is the study of the physical universe. It requires repeated tests and experiments to prove a theory. Religion is the study of God, and how HE relates to our existance in the universe. Science does not know even if basic life can be created out of dead matter let alone prove an uninterrupted chain of evolution (survival of the fittest) resulted in what we experiance today. It is possible;I believe damn likely; that evolution is a tool used by God. One thing is for sure no-one knows. That is where faith come in. People who say they know are idiots. Does a acorn evolve into a oak. Does a 12year old evolve into a teenager. Or could all this part of a grand scheme we all way to ignorant to even begin to understand. Athiests like to look at the parable of 'the seven days' and 'great flood as proof that the bible is full of shit. The big bang is beyond even our best scientists. Will the universe continue to expand or will gravity pull it all back into the big crunch. What happenes then and how in Sam Hell does that matter to us today. The bible; which is compilation of ancient writings, is crammed full of wisdom that is very pertinant today. There are mysteries we don't even know we don't know. When you expain 'Where did i come' from to your child, do you explain X&Y chromosones or do you use an analogy that he will understand? The glorious thing is that Bible contains analogies that are still relative today.

----------------