Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 153771 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109286 Jul 30, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do, I actually studied in my life, you should give it a shot sometime.....
You do not know.

and Alienware anything is wayyy overrated.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109287 Jul 30, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not try to use that knowledge to say he doesn't exist... Science just tests, observes and verifies... If science ran across a single piece of evidence of a God it would produce it and plaster it all over the globe... Science does not try to prove Flying Unicorns that Poop Glitter do not exist.... Science could give a crap about something that has no evidence of it's existence....
Science only attempts to describe that which we observe... It does not try to explain Magic since there is never been an observed example of it's reality.....
Well now, let us get back to which came first,the chicken or the egg?
When that question was asked, you said the egg.
Scientists determined that the chicken had to come first,because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
If only a chicken can lay a chicken egg , then,where did the chicken come from?
Logic would point you to someone having created a chicken and a rooster, the rooster fertilizing the egg and thereby , a continuation of the species...
But no,,,That would entail a creator,,,,So,,,,How to explain that away...
The chicken that laid the egg, from which chickens come from,,,
That chicken was hatched from some other type of egg....
Tha is nonsense,unreal,an abominable excuse,,,and did any one observe that process....NO,,It was invented as an excuse so as not to have to deal with the reality that our God is the creator of all.
And, according to science, where did pur intelligence originate?
"If you ever wondered about the origin of intelligence in humans and other mammals, here's the answer from a team of researchers led by Professor Seth Grant of the University of Edinburgh.

A genetic accident experienced by an invertebrate sea animal, about 500 million years ago, led to extra copies of brain genes being made. These extra genes benefited the sea animal's descendants, leading to behaviorally sophisticated vertebrates, including humans, suggest the scientists.
Moreover,keep in mind....Huxley,Freud,Nietzsche ,Darwin,Madalyn O'hair and others to many to mention had 2 things in common..
Atheists and mental problems....
When it comes to God,I do not trust,nor do I rely ,on Science or Atheists...
I rely on what I have personally experienced
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109288 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I posted about how I stopped drinking(if you wish to call that a drinking problem) when someone claimed (I think YAA)only religion can help alcoholism.
I see you refuted none of my points and simply posted part of one of the studies you posted.
An atheist very well might not see suicide as immoral in certain situations. And if you posted the source of the study, I could show where the study was done on the elderly and thus likely had a situation that would fit the moral dilemma.
But you refuse to have an honest debate so you can stay in denial.
I note the study showed several reasons the atheist subjects might have chose suicide. Care to debate those reasons?
Strangely the study was so careless in not having subjects that had the same situations, such as being married or with children. That is a lack of controls. Of course someone with a spouse or children would have more motive to not commit suicide, so why on earth would the study not use subjects with the same circumstances is beyond me.
The study said the atheists had fewer family members visiting.
So just what are the reasons for this? One could be that the religious family did not approve of the atheist in the family. Who knows, but either way it is but one more lack of controls in the study. Of course and elderly person with health problems in some sort of old folks home that is not being visited by anyone is going to have a higher chance of suicide. Does it take a study to deduce this?
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[84] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[85][86] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[87] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[88] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[89][vague][90] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[91] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[92] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[93] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[94]

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109289 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You just don't conceptualize the theory of limited spatial probabilities in considerations, do you.
Seeing as how you cannot articulate a full argument or present evidence, I will just ignore your broad stroke accusation as it would take to many assumptions to debate.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109290 Jul 30, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[84] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[85][86] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[87] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[88] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[89][vague][90] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[91] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[92] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[93] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[94]
Again you fail to debate my points and just cut and paste your propaganda. How predictable.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109291 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the beginning there was light"....
The one sentence, that both Science And the Bible, seem to agree upon.
(See the BB theory and Genesis 1:3)
PHYSICS.
Now if you could only show a god had a darned thing to do with either one.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109292 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's according to who you would be speaking with about it as well.
(customarily and traditionally--like St Nick- IS a CATHOLIC religious thing...while trees are maybe more pagan, representing the more "spring like" weather of warmer months....and in some countries, many "believed that evergreens would keep away witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and illness.")
Christmas is both a sacred religious holiday and a worldwide cultural and commercial phenomenon. For two millennia, people around the world have been observing it with traditions and practices that are both religious and secular in nature.
Christians celebrate Christmas Day as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a spiritual leader whose teachings form the basis of their religion.
Popular customs include exchanging gifts, decorating Christmas trees, attending church, sharing meals with family and friends and, of course, waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. December 25–Christmas Day–has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1870.
So ummm...atheist are GUILTY of a little "cherry picking" themselves?
(yeah, kinda looks that way lol)
Umm, you failed to show what we picked.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109293 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Now see, I would disagree with you there, because I think there IS that type of a more "spiritual higher order feeling", and people that have felt it, can substantiate it.
They can claim feelings, yes, so? Does it mean the feeling is of a god? Nope. "Spiritual higher order" can be the order of nature.

One might feel monsters live under his bed. Does it mean monsters live under his bed? Feelings can be deceiving. Some call this a delusion. Is this the first you have heard of this?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109294 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
This post however, was not one of them lol.(rather mired up in that labelduhm label doctrine stuff, confusing it with some sort of kumbaya majik wand and poof-"everyone in the world will agree on everything" a little bit eh? I'm kind of thinking that's not gonna happen, people aren't preprogrammed robots, remember?)
Speak English dude. I do not know what in the hell this babble is.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109295 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
If they're not stalking-harrassing you at your home, or stalking-harrassing you in state places..
YOU don't have to appease ANYONE (with your dialogue) either, ya know.
They're just stating their beliefs, not demanding you do this, or do that, eat your peas or else, or anything.
(THOSE that DO try and manipulate and demand UNreasonably of others like that--are the types that anyone SHOULD be concerned with..and NO, I don't see any of the ones truly professing their beliefs in GOOD faith, getting ugly or hateful with anyone.
Except for a few atheist maybe-THEN I DO see a lot of hateful, disrespectful of others things being said.
I repeat over and over, but you again fail to comprehend my beef with religion. It is not that they stalk me, or demand me to believe. My big grief with the Christian posters here is how they insist evolution be removed from schools and how they insist homosexuals be discriminated upon.
I have many beefs with religion, and I voice them regularly here, but you cannot seem to read or comprehend these words. So sad you must deny my words in order to stay in your delusion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109296 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
If they're not stalking-harrassing you at your home, or stalking-harrassing you in state places..
YOU don't have to appease ANYONE (with your dialogue) either, ya know.
They're just stating their beliefs, not demanding you do this, or do that, eat your peas or else, or anything.
(THOSE that DO try and manipulate and demand UNreasonably of others like that--are the types that anyone SHOULD be concerned with..and NO, I don't see any of the ones truly professing their beliefs in GOOD faith, getting ugly or hateful with anyone.
Except for a few atheist maybe-THEN I DO see a lot of hateful, disrespectful of others things being said.
The bible demands I believe. It is highly unreasonable.

BTW, much of what I speak about is defending my atheism. Why? Because the Christians here keep insisting it is evil and I should believe in god or be damned to an eternal lake of fire.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109297 Jul 30, 2013
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
No logical statistical citations, no logical effort in response.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109298 Jul 30, 2013
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
No logical statistical citations, no logical effort in response.
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#109299 Jul 30, 2013
Those who believe in 'evolution' are as a Chinese commercial says "Is a whacky nu-nu"

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#109300 Jul 30, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now, let us get back to which came first,the chicken or the egg?
When that question was asked, you said the egg.
Scientists determined that the chicken had to come first,because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
horsey Puckey Doo Doo... Lizards lay eggs, Turtles lay eggs, Dinosaurs Laid eggs, Birds of all types lay eggs, Humans Have eggs.... Eggs predate Chickens by 100's of millions of years.... It's totally irrational to say chickens came before the egg when we have fossilized eggs that date back 270 million years....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#109301 Jul 30, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now, let us get back to which came first,the chicken or the egg?
When that question was asked, you said the egg.
Scientists determined that the chicken had to come first,because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
If only a chicken can lay a chicken egg , then,where did the chicken come from?
To Carry on the thought....

The Chicken evolved from one of the raptor lines of dinosaurs that were laying eggs 65 million years ago and when a big rock smacked this ball of dirt and water.... They continued to evolve into little humming birds and giant Terror Birds of the long past, they evolved into Cardinals and Finches and Road Island Red's... Before they were called Chickens what they were was laying eggs....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#109302 Jul 30, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now, let us get back to which came first,the chicken or the egg?
When that question was asked, you said the egg.
Scientists determined that the chicken had to come first,because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
If only a chicken can lay a chicken egg , then,where did the chicken come from?
And...... There were no such things as Chickens until Humans bred wild birds for domestic usage .... And what ever the birds used to breed what we call a Chicken today were laying eggs ... and they were not Chickens...
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109303 Jul 31, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-p ri.htm<quoted text>
Speaking of stuff like integrity, credibility etc-

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/31...

(What a t-total jerk-holding out "anonymous, unsecured" servers, for anyone to post anything. Not quite sure who's the bigger jerk-the presenter of snake oil on a platter Assagne, or the duhmmy that dumped the stuff.)
No ethics whatsoever.
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#109304 Jul 31, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Ha, ha, you forgot to change your name.
So? The Stupid ones know who they are...
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#109305 Jul 31, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you divert from addressing a single point of Q's post and diverted. Guess that is what it takes to stay in denial and keep the faith. Play that broken record over and over, and keep that mind shut tight.
Yep! When you know the truth... why let your lies muddy it up?
You'll curse yourself soon for not listening because yours is shut up tight...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Timmy Jordan aka pork and Shannon 11 min Amy 3
School board employees hide cash THEFTS ! 52 min teacher 2
Is Paul Baker a good Disability Lawyer? (Dec '12) 4 hr myrahnna 86
Daniel Boone 2016 5 hr partyondudes 11
Everyone's is for Freedom of Speech............... 6 hr Knox county mad man 4
News Farr back in custody - 6 hr Knox county mad man 1
No regrets 9 hr Parents 23
Who will be the next Knox Co. Judge Exec.? 14 hr Martin 101

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages