Parents sue school board over teaching Intelligent Design

[Tr0n]

Well considering stern was catholic...don't know if he has been to catholic school. I just recently found out about this "ID" stuff. I kinda believe god did start the big bang. That's my belief tho.

 

[CptStern]

If you went to Catholic school you'd understand. Its not ID.

I did, and it was creationism

Read the above posts to see the link for proof that the Times are left leaning.

partisan rhetoric is not the same as "left leaning"

I dont understand you right wingers ..as if the editorial dept at the NY times is staffed with hippies writing whatever suits their fancy ..they have stockholders to appease, they're not going to write anything that'll bring down their market share down

 

[southernman17]

Its Einstein's too. Einstein was an atheist until he realized that before time, matter and exsistance only one thing could of exisisted, God.

 

[CptStern]

Of course the administration thinks the media is left. I agree. But to say that there is no left-leaning media is bogus. Corporations aren't always right-wingers stern. A lot of corporations are actulally left and a lot are right too.

it doesnt matter if the head of an organization is left leaning or not, the shareholders determine the editorial slant.

 

[southernman17]

Well where I was taught, it wasn't creationism and it wasn't ID. I told you were were taught straight up evolution. Divergent Convergent parallel evolution and all others facets of the evolutionary theory postulated by Darwin. Don't try to argue with what I know I've been taught and what hasn't been taught.

 

[gick]

If you went to Catholic school you'd understand. Its not ID.

Read the above posts to see the link for proof that the Times are left leaning.

I wouldnt know about the NY Times, as I've never read it. I was refering to the BBC, which was why I highlighted it in my previous post.

Guess what? I did go to Catholic school! When we were taught evolution I asked my Biology teacher to explain about ID and Creationism, and her reply was 'Thats a question for the Theology Department' and thats the way it should be.

 

[southernman17]

Ok then don't say the media is right wing then because even though they are headed by right-wingers, they have share holders to appease. So the media in the US is therefore fair, accurate, balanced. WRONG. There are some left and some right news corporations, thats all I'm trying to say.

 

[Absinthe]

Its Einstein's too. Einstein was an atheist until he realized that before time, matter and exsistance only one thing could of exisisted, God.

You're a liar.

 

[southernman17]

WE WERE TAUGHT EVOLUTION. Aside from a very breif snipit of the other theories out there, which were disregarded as fact, we never went over, reviewed, studied or lfurther learned any other theories about it.

 

[CptStern]

Ok then don't say the media is right wing then because even though they are headed by right-wingers, they have share holders to appease. So the media in the US is therefore fair, accurate, balanced. WRONG. There are some left and some right news corporations, thats all I'm trying to say.

no the media in the US isnt fair, balanced or accurate ...they all ran with the "Saddam had wmd" when the rest of the world's media questioned it from the very beginning

and yes the media is overwhelmingly right-wing ..in comparison to the rest of the world ..watch the bbc, read the Guardian, watch the CBC and you'll find a staggering difference between covering the war from the likes of CNN ...if you watch CNN it's like they're reporting on a completely different war

 

[CptStern]

WE WERE TAUGHT EVOLUTION. Aside from a very breif snipit of the other theories out there, which were disregarded as fact, we never went over, reviewed, studied or lfurther learned any other theories about it.

evolution in science class and creationism in religious studies ..right? if you read the article on the first page it clearly says they want to teach ID in SCIENCE class

 

[southernman17]

When did I say that creationism or ID should be taught in the class room? Fisrt I asserted that religion and science can be somewhat (not fully) intertwined. Then when lemonknig said to ban ID and creationism from public schools, I retorted that banning books with unfavorable ideas was wrong. I never said nor do I believe that it should be taught a science fact. I believe it merely should be either metioned as a alternative (but not taught) or be taught in a different, non-science class.

 

[Beerdude26]

Its Einstein's too. Einstein was an atheist until he realized that before time, matter and exsistance only one thing could of exisisted, God.

Roffles

I'd like some evidence of that please

 

[southernman17]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000407.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ527.HTM

I should of stated that he still didn't believe in a personal God, rather a creator God.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Roffles

I'd like some evidence of that please

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views

Science and Religion can be considered opposite, but just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you have to disbelieve. Conversely, because you're religious doesn't mean you have to try and deny proven theories.

I agree with Einstein there. Science, Evolution, and everything are the code that God laid down for the Universe at the beginning of time. The Bible isn't always right - Evolution is how we came about - but that doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[CptStern]

When did I say that creationism or ID should be taught in the class room? Fisrt I asserted that religion and science can be somewhat (not fully) intertwined. Then when lemonknig said to ban ID and creationism from public schools, I retorted that banning books with unfavorable ideas was wrong. I never said nor do I believe that it should be taught a science fact. I believe it merely should be either metioned as a alternative (but not taught) or be taught in a different, non-science class.

but it's science, there is no alternative because there are no facts in the story of creation

 

[Angry Lawyer]

but it's science, there is no alternative because there are no facts in the story of creation

God loves you, Stern, for making people not blindly follow Him, and instead question what they are told, and make their own minds up. :angel:

-Angry Lawyer

 

[southernman17]

Yes, but just mention it as an alternative to the popular (correct) belief. What would you rather have stern, teachers merely mentioning it or having to teach kids it? Could you imagine what those tests would be like?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Yes, but just mention it as an alternative to the popular (correct) belief. What would you rather have stern, teachers merely mentioning it or having to teach kids it? Could you imagine what those tests would be like?

I agree with Stern on this one, that Creationism should stay in Religious Studies, not in Science.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tr0n]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views

Science and Religion can be considered opposite, but just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you have to disbelieve. Conversely, because you're religious doesn't mean you have to try and deny proven theories.

I agree with Einstein there. Science, Evolution, and everything are the code that God laid down for the Universe at the beginning of time. The Bible isn't always right - Evolution is how we came about - but that doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

-Angry Lawyer

- Tr0n

 

[KoreBolteR]

religious education should be banned from schools.

- Kore

 

[southernman17]

I agree too with him too (I'm grating my teeth saying that). But I just think it would be easier for everyone if they took thirty seconds out of their day to mention it. I mean if the school offers religious classes then it should say in the religon class, but our public schools don't have that (religion classes). I don't know how they do it over there in the UK but here if God is even mentioned look what we get.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

My post got Tr0n lovin', and therefore is right.
I was also right about the Combine not being on Xen thing, even though everyone disagreed except one or two people. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus came down and said "Lawyer's right, biznatches! Dad set up the rules for existance, and the rest just took its course! ZOMG BOTH CREATIONISM AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS FOLKS GOT PWNED!" and then gave me some huge high-five. Jesus is metal. I'm always right.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Absinthe]

Einstein believed in no conventional deity. Not a creator god or a personal one. He compared in sheer metaphorical terms God and nature, and his use of of the term "religious" was, at best, descriptive of his relationship with nature and the wonder he gleamed from it. Lawyer, your very own wiki link claims that Einstein subscribed to Spinoza's definition of God: God is nature.

Even if Einstein did believe in a creator God, that doesn't add any validity to the argument for its existence. Nobody's 100% rational, everybody makes mistakes, and even Einstein's claims have been subject to revision over the years.

None of this matters though. Einstein's quotes can be interpreted in ways that both support and contradict a belief in deities.

 

[Tr0n]

You can't deny the tr0n lovin'.

Awwww yea baby.

 

[southernman17]

Everyone already knew the Combine weren't on Xen. Who said that they were?

 

[Absinthe]

Everyone already knew the Combine weren't on Xen. Who said that they were?

Too many.

 

[southernman17]

No I think that Einstein believed that God was there and that he didn't concern Himself with the doings of mortals. Whatever lawyer said.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, but just mention it as an alternative to the popular (correct) belief. What would you rather have stern, teachers merely mentioning it or having to teach kids it? Could you imagine what those tests would be like?

I would rather religion isnt taught in school at all ...I'm from the Supernintendo Chalmers school of thought:


"A prayer in a public school? God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion."

 

[KoreBolteR]

none of us knows if there is a god, god could be a giant lizard for all we know.

absinthe definately doesnt know.

 

[Tr0n]

So are you saying there is no God Absinthe?

I believe Absinthe doesn't really care if there is one. He's just stating correction.

 

[Absinthe]

So are you saying there is no God Absinthe?

I say there's no reason to believe in one.

absinthe definately doesnt know.

I'm curious as to where you're going with this pointless jab.

 

[CptStern]

So are you saying there is no God Absinthe?

I'll go out on a limb here:

yes there is no god

we cant see, smell, touch, prove there is a god ..so logic tells us there isnt one

it is illogical to believe in god when logic proves god doesnt exist

 

[KoreBolteR]

even IF there was a god, how do we know hes a human? how do we know his name is 'God'...

why not jimmy.....?

 

[Tr0n]

Faith and logic was never good together. Look folks...it doesn't matter what you believe.

AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE IN IT...then it doesn't matter what other people say. It may be wrong...it may be right, but who cares? It's what you believe. I believe there is a god and I ain't gonna let any other sonnva'bitch tell me differently. I know many people here don't do that.

So it doesn't matter. You don't have to prove yourselves. I sure as hell don't.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Einstein believed in no conventional deity. Not a creator god or a personal one. He compared in sheer metaphorical terms God and nature, and his use of of the term "religious" was, at best, descriptive of his relationship with nature and the wonder he gleamed from it. Lawyer, your very own wiki link claims that Einstein subscribed to Spinoza's definition of God: God is nature.

Even if Einstein did believe in a creator God, that doesn't add any validity to the argument for its existence. Nobody's 100% rational, everybody makes mistakes, and even Einstein's claims have been subject to revision over the years.

See Tr0n's post.

Still, if he did believe, how is it hurting anyone else? The only time that Religion is harmful is when it is used to justify violence, or when people try and force it over proven facts.

Everyone demonises religion as an oppressor. In many cases it is, especially in the ID part of things. But, people trying to stop other people from believing in God is just as big an oppression.

Religion should be about finding your own meaning of God. If he's there, or if he's not, he doesn't give a damn if you believe. Einstein found his own meaning of Him. I've found mine. Tr0n's found his. The Pope has found his. Stern has made up his own mind, as have you. Why should anyone have the rights to force their beliefs on others?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[KoreBolteR]

See Tr0n's post.

Still, if he did believe, how is it hurting anyone else? The only time that Religion is harmful is when it is used to justify violence, or when people try and force it over proven facts.

Everyone demonises religion as an oppressor. In many cases it is, especially in the ID part of things. But, people trying to stop other people from believing in God is just as big an oppression.

Religion should be about finding your own meaning of God. If he's there, or if he's not, he doesn't give a damn if you believe. Einstein found his own meaning of Him. I've found mine. Tr0n's found his. The Pope has found his. Stern has made up his own mind, as have you. Why should anyone have the rights to force their beliefs on others?

-Angry Lawyer

agreed.

unless it was extremist.

- kore

 

[Absinthe]

IRT Stern

I wouldn't go that far. The inability to prove something's existence doesn't mean it's non-existent. If it exists, it exists independently of the evidence for it.

So yes, there could be a god. But by following that reasoning, there could also be unicorns, dinosaurs at the center of the Earth, and we could all actually be litte germs on a cosmic dinner plate that is the universe. None of these have any evidence to support them, and so none of them merit any belief. The possibility of existence isn't good enough grounds. And admitting the possibility of a deity doesn't clarify which one.

IRT Angry Lawyer

Oh, I have no problem with your personal beliefs by themselves. I was just debating the interpretation of Einstein's words.

 

[CptStern]

I agree, people are entitled to believe what they want ...just dont shove your beliefs down my throat, whether they be christian, muslim, agnostic or whatever

 

[OCybrManO]

I don't know about you guys... but there were classes that taught about various world religions (including Christianity) available from about 6th grade on all the way through college when I went through. Anything more than an objective/outside view of religion(s) being taught in school is unconstitutional. The state should not be forced to foot the bill of reinforcing people's faith in Jesus. If you want to push your faith... get your church to try to bring in new members. It's the job of the church to teach about the beliefs of the church. It's the job of the state to teach about what has been learned through scientific method.