Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 137918 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.

curious

Ocoee, FL

#117015 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on where you've cherry picked your definitions from.
For example, when I type "faith definition" in the Google search box the first thing I get is:
faith
f&#257;TH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination,(religious) persuasion,(religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More
That was a direct cut and paste with no editing by me. Hopefully it displays in Topix without confusing the text editor. Otherwise, https://www.google.com/#q=faith+definition
Thanks for playing.
Pick your choice,no matter which ,
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of FAITH
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyaltyb (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religionb (1):( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Free online dictionary
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Dictionary.com
aith [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117016 Nov 12, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a Teacher, as I am studying on my own, and if you continue all your childish behavior I will have no choice but to ignore any further comments from you, which is probably a good idea anyway. You've demonstrated what lengths you will go to prove your point, lies, manipulating studies you post to show your argument in a positive light, name calling, and your outright hatred of anyone who does not agree with your opinion.
As I stated earlier, it's a futile attempt to have an intelligent conversation or discussion with you!
Sorry to see that you like to dish it out,but can't take it.
One does not have to respond to anything I post.
You have done so on numerous occasions , of your OWN volition.
If you were forced to respond ,it was not ny doings.
Press the ignore button at your leisure.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117017 Nov 12, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to see that you like to dish it out,but can't take it.
One does not have to respond to anything I post.
You have done so on numerous occasions , of your OWN volition.
If you were forced to respond ,it was not ny doings.
Press the ignore button at your leisure.
The point I was making is - There is no point in continuing any further conversations with you...Your first sentence is completely absurd, I am not going to lower myself to your childish behavior, which has no business in a forum where intelligent people are trying to discuss matters that affect us all.

yes I have responded to you on numerous occasions. 1.}I have proven how you misrepresent studies you post by posting the links of what was actually said. 2.} I have proven that others have knowledge of other languages other than yourself. 3.} I have shown evidence of your prejudice and hatred throughout this thread. 4.} I have shown evidence of your continuance lies, not only concerning general knowledge but also people.

Simply put, you are not a worthy person for much of anything, even your god would be displeased with your actions. Ha

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117019 Nov 13, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You have your double standard opinion and I have a single standard opinion as to why Hitchens said this.
You have given no logical reason why he would offer such information, I did.
Now do not dare think.
Maybe show us when he said it, and what the conversation around it consisted of, and we might find some clues. For all I know, you made up the whole thing.
I've given Curious ample time to do what you asked of him, it's obvious he's not going to.

That statement was made in Chapter 6 of Hitchens Book-Arguments from Design. He uses a common creationist quotemine that creationists use against evolution's proponents and turns it around on them exposing it as a fraud: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." He continues the quote thusly: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." Hitchens makes further arguments against the design hypothesis by noting how if we are designed it was by a very poor designer, using the eye again as an example citing it is in fact upside down and backwards, which seems quite inefficient.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117020 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> obviously there could not be an allgood allpowerful God. I do not think the God of the Bible is either all good or all powerful, and though He is a rather nasty God, he seems to be NOT a complete misfit with the world - the universe as we know it and our planet especially - as we experience it. Lots of cruelty, indifference, favortism. Just unworthy of being thanked in the case of such a God, and unworthy of being entirely thankful for in the case of the nature of nature as we experience it on planet earth.
I'm inclined to agree with you. If there is a god and it just so happens to be the Bible god then it's not particularly worthy of our love, praise and thanks.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117021 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> actually I think the burden of proof is on curious and the other rightwing nuts when they make any statements. They do not have credibility. Their bias is extreme, and they do not use proper footnotes. People who refer to the Bible should be more precise about which passages, also - on both sides. Though if we who are enlightened converse among ourselves, we do not have so much burden of footnoting, if we assume the others have read the Bible and are well-informed about current events, history, science, etc. And when we reply to rightwingers, it would do no good to reference the best of sources and the soundest of evidence, because they have their minds blocked against actual information, and love their bigoted prejudices.
As an agnostic atheist, it is only when I argue with knowit- all atheist types who are sure they know there is no God (though they do not bother to define it) and have proof (though they say it is not their job to provide it), that I feel really annoyed. They are often useful in attacking or even in rebuttal against the rightwing nuts, but on the other hand they are also counterproductive in being too arrogant, unwilling to accept nuances, and nasty and dismissive of anyone who slightly challenges them and their claim to superior knowledge.(Have you met Skeptic? for example).
Yes, the burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion or indeed, the person who is wanting to change your mind about something.

Most of the religies I come across will jut their chin out by making an assertion and then expect you to change their mind by insisting you disprove them.

Of course, it doesn't work like that and while I didn't have to disprove what curious was saying about Freud, I knew it wouldn't be difficult.

Why? Because he was being specific about what he was asserting.

Contrast that with the distinct lack of specifics often encountered when a believer is asserting their particular deity. Believers regularly have great difficulty with even defining their respective gods.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117022 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I actually took it for granted that you werejust being hasty and that you did not mean to attack all Christians equally.
Some are so stupid, and some so nasty, and some both - and those are almost entirely far rightwing extremists. And some centrists are too lazy to recognize that their religion is being taken over by nut-casses. Lots of the nice sane center-left type Christians are busy working on good causes - often in coalition with freethinkers and those who are moderates and progressives in other religions (including Jewish types who are J St and Shimon Perez types and not aIPAC and Netanyahu types) that they do not often take on the fundies directly. Some of the best ones to take on the fundies are guys like Schaeffer (not sure of spelling) whose father was a rightwing religious nut and who was trained to be one too, and then started thinking. I did not mean to sound as if I thought you actually intended to generalize because you thought that way. When one types fast and is annoyed at the fundies, it is easy to skip a few steps!
No problem, hf!:-)

I'm always skipping posts as I often find that I haven't got the time to read/respond to all of them.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117023 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> actually I think the burden of proof is on curious and the other rightwing nuts when they make any statements. They do not have credibility. Their bias is extreme, and they do not use proper footnotes. People who refer to the Bible should be more precise about which passages, also - on both sides. Though if we who are enlightened converse among ourselves, we do not have so much burden of footnoting, if we assume the others have read the Bible and are well-informed about current events, history, science, etc. And when we reply to rightwingers, it would do no good to reference the best of sources and the soundest of evidence, because they have their minds blocked against actual information, and love their bigoted prejudices.
As an agnostic atheist, it is only when I argue with knowit- all atheist types who are sure they know there is no God (though they do not bother to define it) and have proof (though they say it is not their job to provide it), that I feel really annoyed. They are often useful in attacking or even in rebuttal against the rightwing nuts, but on the other hand they are also counterproductive in being too arrogant, unwilling to accept nuances, and nasty and dismissive of anyone who slightly challenges them and their claim to superior knowledge.(Have you met Skeptic? for example).
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have come across Skeptic and he is indeed, no better than those believers who insist they are 100% correct in their beliefs.

Like you, I class myself as agnostic. I do have a strong tendency towards atheism but I fully accept that I could be wrong and maybe there is/are some cosmic mega-being(s) that created everything.

I just think that it's very unlikely, that's all.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#117024 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> hi nice to see you again. I have been so intent on following politics - still watching the Va AG race that is too close to call, where Cucci is trying to change the rules to get the Republican ahead (see Rachel Maddow show re Virginia) so he can put a rightwing nut gOP type into the AG position to replace himself.
I know I feel secure that the rightwing nut types are being effectively challenged on these threads, so I come looking for my friends here when I have the time. Real life keeps me busy also, and the computer I use is not my own, so it is not handy to get to.
Glad to see you. You are against the stupid and bad guys, though I am not sure whether you are an agnostic atheist as I am, or what.
Your name at least carries the mark of the unafraid free thinker. I like that even if we might disagree on minor points here and there.
Nice to see you again, too.
As for a label for me.....hmmmm.
Words are such slippery things and in these discussions, people seldom take the time or effort to be explict.

For instance, regarding belief in Yahweh, based on observable evidence, I see no reason for "believing in" such a creature.
If it were real, it would not be worthy of "worship," any more than a schoolyard bully.

Since I see no proof of ANY gods, it is my firmly held opinion that there are no cosmic superbeings.

There is an infintesimally tiny, tiny, tiny (you get the idea) chance that I could be wrong and if I am ever shown evidence of godly activities, I will re-think my position.

I still think that would make me an atheist more than an agnostic.
For me, agnostics are more to the middle of the belief/non-belief road.

I would, however, love it if someone would show me that Thor was real.
Yummmm...
check up

Tampa, FL

#117025 Nov 13, 2013
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117026 Nov 13, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text> I've given Curious ample time to do what you asked of him, it's obvious he's not going to.
That statement was made in Chapter 6 of Hitchens Book-Arguments from Design. He uses a common creationist quotemine that creationists use against evolution's proponents and turns it around on them exposing it as a fraud: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." He continues the quote thusly: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." Hitchens makes further arguments against the design hypothesis by noting how if we are designed it was by a very poor designer, using the eye again as an example citing it is in fact upside down and backwards, which seems quite inefficient.
What you have posted ,in no way explains what Hitchens Stated as his View;
"My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilization, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. It happens to be my view, but it doesn't challenge any of the findings of Darwin or Huxley or Einstein or Hawking. "
His statement is based on nothing other than what he refers to as his view or belief. Has nothing to do with eyes .

Moreover , his explanation of how the eye can be formed by natural means or laws of nature, deals with the mechanics he believes were involved ,and fails to adress the creating agent of those laws.

Laws do not posses life,intelligence or consciousness and are immaterial, therefore it is logical to conclude that Laws can not design or create anything , they have no real existence.
To believe that some immaterial ,nonintelligent,nonliving and nonconscious nonentity has somehow,over a period of billions of years ,has accidentally stumbled on the formula needed to create an eye or anything else, takes a lot of faith.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that view and it is absurd in the highest possible degree.
Providing the mechanics as to how this event may have taken place
totally fails to explain the creating agent for those mechanics.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117027 Nov 13, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I was making is - There is no point in continuing any further conversations with you...Your first sentence is completely absurd, I am not going to lower myself to your childish behavior, which has no business in a forum where intelligent people are trying to discuss matters that affect us all.
yes I have responded to you on numerous occasions. 1.}I have proven how you misrepresent studies you post by posting the links of what was actually said. 2.} I have proven that others have knowledge of other languages other than yourself. 3.} I have shown evidence of your prejudice and hatred throughout this thread. 4.} I have shown evidence of your continuance lies, not only concerning general knowledge but also people.
Simply put, you are not a worthy person for much of anything, even your god would be displeased with your actions. Ha
The studies I have posted are all to be found by googling them.
There is no attempt to hide what they contain.
I post the in formation as written by the author.

Since I never said that I am the only one that knows more than one language , your allegation is absurd.
That you were unable to discern that I was kidding you,and you chose to interpret that as hatred is not my fault.
The point is that these intelligent people,to whom you allude,
are the same ones who began with the insults and disparaging remarks. When I respond in kind , then I am conveniently accused of not adherring to the teachings of Christ.
In other words , you guys want to play under your own rules, by stacking them in your favor
You can insult , beliitle and disparage others at your leisure but throw a tantrum when someone responds in kind.
You will fight an opponent,but only if your opponent agrees to have his hands tied so he can't defend himself.
I don't play that game , I don't start fights , I finish them or at least try to.
Me alegro que te as dedicado a aprender el Espanol,
buena suerte compay.
BTW Let me apologize for criticizing your Spanish , if it be true that you are self teaching yourself.
I thought it was something you CUT n Pasted.
Known Fact

Somerset, KY

#117028 Nov 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree with you. If there is a god and it just so happens to be the Bible god then it's not particularly worthy of our love, praise and thanks.
If it does turn out there is a Christian God and there is a hell, then at least we'll be able to explain to all the Christians why they are down there.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117029 Nov 13, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
If it does turn out there is a Christian God and there is a hell, then at least we'll be able to explain to all the Christians why they are down there.
So that I will know that it is YOU that will be doing the explaining and not someone else,which of your many monikers will you be using?

EEEEEks,here comes the topix Mod. Run like hell before he grabs ya.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117030 Nov 13, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> actually I think the burden of proof is on curious and the other rightwing nuts when they make any statements. They do not have credibility. Their bias is extreme, and they do not use proper footnotes. People who refer to the Bible should be more precise about which passages, also - on both sides. Though if we who are enlightened converse among ourselves, we do not have so much burden of footnoting, if we assume the others have read the Bible and are well-informed about current events, history, science, etc. And when we reply to rightwingers, it would do no good to reference the best of sources and the soundest of evidence, because they have their minds blocked against actual information, and love their bigoted prejudices.
As an agnostic atheist, it is only when I argue with knowit- all atheist types who are sure they know there is no God (though they do not bother to define it) and have proof (though they say it is not their job to provide it), that I feel really annoyed. They are often useful in attacking or even in rebuttal against the rightwing nuts, but on the other hand they are also counterproductive in being too arrogant, unwilling to accept nuances, and nasty and dismissive of anyone who slightly challenges them and their claim to superior knowledge.(Have you met Skeptic? for example).
I have addressed the basis for my beliefs on many occassions.
What I get back,in response to what I posted , is excuses ,delaying tactics and nonsense.
To believe that life ,consciousness and intelligence does not need a creator and can be attained through natural means or natural laws is absurd ,in my view.
Natural laws are immaterial , they posses neither a Spiritual or a physical body. Having a nonexistence as such ,devoid of life ,consciousness or intelligence one is left flabbergasted in explaining as to how this nonentity is able to account for and pass those properties on to matter , properties it neither posseses or has any means of being aware of or how to create such
It has never been witnessed ,can not be explained and therefore not acceptable.
Science and evolution give us the mechanics as to how these events may have occured,but utterly fail to address the creating agent for these mechanics.
Science is totally incapable in explaining the origins of life,intelligence or consciousness.
What they imply is that somehow,some way , by accidental means , this process began .
Of the 2 alternatives , ID or accidental means , it is a no brainer which is more logical to me.

Atheists are forced to believe in accidental means in order to explain life , they are materialists and for them there can be no other explanation
I am not forced to believe , I am persuaded by what is obvious.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117031 Nov 13, 2013
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
If it does turn out there is a Christian God and there is a hell, then at least we'll be able to explain to all the Christians why they are down there.
Lol

It's a funny sort of love that so many Christians believe in.

A love that creates a torture chamber and stocks it with demons and a fire that never burns out all for the sake of torturing people forever.
check up

Tampa, FL

#117032 Nov 13, 2013
"Never in the history of the world has there been ten rules that have caused such a disturbance in the conscience of a people as to affect a society, church, and government as do the Ten Commandments."

http://www.godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/#...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117033 Nov 13, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I have addressed the basis for my beliefs on many occassions.
What I get back,in response to what I posted , is excuses ,delaying tactics and nonsense.
To believe that life ,consciousness and intelligence does not need a creator and can be attained through natural means or natural laws is absurd ,in my view.
Natural laws are immaterial , they posses neither a Spiritual or a physical body. Having a nonexistence as such ,devoid of life ,consciousness or intelligence one is left flabbergasted in explaining as to how this nonentity is able to account for and pass those properties on to matter , properties it neither posseses or has any means of being aware of or how to create such
It has never been witnessed ,can not be explained and therefore not acceptable.
Science and evolution give us the mechanics as to how these events may have occured,but utterly fail to address the creating agent for these mechanics.
Science is totally incapable in explaining the origins of life,intelligence or consciousness.
What they imply is that somehow,some way , by accidental means , this process began .
Of the 2 alternatives , ID or accidental means , it is a no brainer which is more logical to me.
Atheists are forced to believe in accidental means in order to explain life , they are materialists and for them there can be no other explanation
I am not forced to believe , I am persuaded by what is obvious.
I thought that if you don't believe you get burned and tortured for all eternity.

Is that not being forced to believe?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117034 Nov 13, 2013
When the bones of prehistoric animals began to be discovered and scrutinized in the19th century, there were those who said that the fossils were placed in the rock by god in order to test our faith, this cannot be disproved, nor can my own pet theory that from the patterns of behavior that are observable we may infer design that makes planet earth all unknown to us a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilization, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. however, I was educated that a theory that is un-falsifiable is to that extent weak one.
Christopher Hitchens

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117035 Nov 13, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I have addressed the basis for my beliefs on many occassions.
What I get back,in response to what I posted , is excuses ,delaying tactics and nonsense.
To believe that life ,consciousness and intelligence does not need a creator and can be attained through natural means or natural laws is absurd ,in my view.
Natural laws are immaterial , they posses neither a Spiritual or a physical body. Having a nonexistence as such ,devoid of life ,consciousness or intelligence one is left flabbergasted in explaining as to how this nonentity is able to account for and pass those properties on to matter , properties it neither posseses or has any means of being aware of or how to create such
It has never been witnessed ,can not be explained and therefore not acceptable.
Science and evolution give us the mechanics as to how these events may have occured,but utterly fail to address the creating agent for these mechanics.
Science is totally incapable in explaining the origins of life,intelligence or consciousness.
What they imply is that somehow,some way , by accidental means , this process began .
Of the 2 alternatives , ID or accidental means , it is a no brainer which is more logical to me.
Atheists are forced to believe in accidental means in order to explain life , they are materialists and for them there can be no other explanation
I am not forced to believe , I am persuaded by what is obvious.
Oh, here we go again... Atheists think this and atheists are that. Paranoid, much?

If you blink every second for your every waking hour and you live to 100, you will not have blinked as many times as there are stars in our one galaxy. Do you want to believe that the Semitic God created all of space and time and/or at best, that 6-10k years ago "He" took a personal, personified and prejudicial interest in certain kings and leaders of the tribes of Israel? By all means, go right ahead, but this should be obvious: Don't expect me to consider you sane.

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
Scotty Powell selling pot wide open !!!!! 7 min hates noesy rat-f... 4
divorce lawyer 18 min Stanley 2
tess fisher (Nov '10) 3 hr gim 5
Thompson park splash pad OPEN !!! 3 hr T gray 11
AMAZING Knox Co. Video. 4 hr guillible 1
Anna Gail Collins 9 hr for sure 5
Anybody know David Allen smith? (Jul '13) 10 hr Love is in the air 25
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]