Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 148330 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.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117147 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he's different than those. Christian fundamentalism sets the bar for Creation Crazies.
Lol

When it comes to acceptable evidence for their god, they set the bar very low indeed.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117149 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Your futile efforts to avoid presenting YOUR VIEW as to how creation occurred , because you have no plausible view to present , has led you to the only alternative available to you ,which is , tossing red herrings ,smokescreens and stinkbombs.
So much for those who self proclaimed themselves to be highly intelligent and skillful Atheist debaters.
And,so there is no mistaking as to whom I am reffering to, You,Chroe, MD , lodi and Witchetty.... LOL will not be included in this group...He is,if one can imagine it, on a much lower scale.
Reminds me of the one whose brain sought asylum in a mental ward,that being Skeptakal Spektakals.
What's plausible about invoking magical beings as the creator?

Any infant child can do that.

Saying "Godditit" parrot fashion is not debate.

Stick to your ju-ju...you'll be fine.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117150 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Again , you are using red herrings and stinkbombs as a subterfuge.
Those tactics will not get you out of the mess that your minds have gotten you into.
Self proclaiming yourselves to be wise has led you all into a headlong charge into the land of foolishness , from which you are unable to extract yourselves.
Take up the challenge , if you dare.
No more stinkbombs or Red Herrings....State your positions in clear terms.
Don't hide behind subterfuges as the Atheist Scientist , Peter Atkins did in his debate with John Lennox and as Christppher Hitchens attempted to do with Williamm Craig.
I've told you my position - it's science over magic.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117151 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Another stink bomb as a subterfuge. Epicureanating is not the topic being discussed.
The debilitated debating abilities of those who have self proclaimed themselves as being intelligent debaters is slowly coming apart and will soon join the fantasy world of Humpty Dumpty.
You can tell yourself any myth you want to make yourself feel better but it doesn't make it true.

You should try non-belief and if you're lucky, you'll develop critical thinking skills and base your worldview on evidence not fairy tales.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117152 Nov 15, 2013
sandman365 wrote:
<quoted text>there is nothing in the first amendment that remotely indicates separation of church and state.
of course there is - there is both a freedom of religion clause and a non-Establishment of religion clause. However, the term "wall of separation" is not used. The Supreme Court has not ruled consistently in favor of religious freedom or of non-Establishment, but a majority of its precedents lean that way. And one can read the words for onesself, and take a look at the backgrounds of certain members of the Court, and decide to have more respect for the plain meaning of the two clauses than even a 5-4 majority of the current court would have.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117153 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You can tell yourself any myth you want to make yourself feel better but it doesn't make it true.
You should try non-belief and if you're lucky, you'll develop critical thinking skills and base your worldview on evidence not fairy tales.
that was to curious. I have a slightly different attitude. Do we want disgusting people to be won over to rational thought? better to have them be examples of what sort of person has ridiculous opinions. It is more important to try to win over nice people. And if someone is a freethinker, and not nice, better to disavow that person - and if necessary, even that person's extreme way of expressing his views.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117154 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
When it comes to acceptable evidence for their god, they set the bar very low indeed.
you guys seem to be overlooking one very important argument for the existence of the sort of God these fundies believe in - nasty god and nasty universe go together. The universe is full of cruelty and their image of God is of a being full of cruelty.

It would be much more ridiculous to believe that an allgoodallpowerful God made this deeply flawed planet and universe - based on what we experience on earth in terms of the pain we ourselves experience, and what we see as clear evidence that other living creatures also suffer great pain.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117155 Nov 15, 2013
I would be far more inclined to believe in the possibility of a very cruel creator, one full of whims and ego and angers and need to throw its weight around - than in a well-intentioned, well-mannered creator. The case seems stronger that man (and I mean males) created a God in their own image, than vice versa. But a violent, vindictive God that made violent, vindictive men (all the wars and rapes and greed are far more characteristic of men than women) is not such complete nonsense. Of course any rational person begins with "I don't know - and I rather doubt that anyone can ever know." and then goes on to believe or not believe. Not believing is simpler - a surer way to approach rational living. But believing in some sort of God or other says a great deal about the believer, and the culture in which he or she was indoctrinated. There are nice people who insist on believing in a not-nice God and yet claiming that it is a good God. I feel sorry for them that their minds are so warped that their ethics are compromised - being an apologist for evil can result in tolerating evil, and thus being actually not very nice at all.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117156 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I've told you my position - it's science over magic.
That was to curious. Of course I agree with you more than I do with curious. However, there are many instances where I am much more comfortable with an agnostic attitude toward some of the seeming conclusions of science. I doubt that scientists know all they think they know, and I also doubt that they can find out all they want to find out. The best attribute of science is in its not being entirely sure, and wanting to double check - and then admitting that one has reached a view that is applicable so far, for practical purposes - not that one has found TRUTH.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117157 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> that was to curious. I have a slightly different attitude. Do we want disgusting people to be won over to rational thought? better to have them be examples of what sort of person has ridiculous opinions. It is more important to try to win over nice people. And if someone is a freethinker, and not nice, better to disavow that person - and if necessary, even that person's extreme way of expressing his views.
Good point

At least you can engage better with people who are more civil.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117158 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you guys seem to be overlooking one very important argument for the existence of the sort of God these fundies believe in - nasty god and nasty universe go together. The universe is full of cruelty and their image of God is of a being full of cruelty.
It would be much more ridiculous to believe that an allgoodallpowerful God made this deeply flawed planet and universe - based on what we experience on earth in terms of the pain we ourselves experience, and what we see as clear evidence that other living creatures also suffer great pain.
It would make perfect sense that if there is a god then he's a sadistic monster. How else can all the suffering be explained?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117159 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It tend to be a truism that the left opposes what the right does and the right opposes that the left is.
I hope you do not mean to imply that there is an equivalence. The phrase sounds catchy but what do you really mean? It all depends on how one defines right and left of course. There are left libertarians and rightwing libertarians in politics and economics - the leftwing ones emphasize civil liberties, the rightwing ones emphase economic laissez faire, with each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Occasionally left, center, and rightwing libertarians may agree on something - for example, if a government uses eminent domain to seize property of an individual, in order to re-sell the property to a big developer with the intent to bring in more tax money. As a left libertarian I find that a decent rightwing libertarian is likely to also oppose that - which I think was upheld by the USSC a few years ago.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117160 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you guys seem to be overlooking one very important argument for the existence of the sort of God these fundies believe in - nasty god and nasty universe go together. The universe is full of cruelty and their image of God is of a being full of cruelty.
It would be much more ridiculous to believe that an allgoodallpowerful God made this deeply flawed planet and universe - based on what we experience on earth in terms of the pain we ourselves experience, and what we see as clear evidence that other living creatures also suffer great pain.
The difference between a natural universe and a Created Universe is amoral vs. Immoral.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117161 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
If you love your god then you love an abortionist.
that was to YAA - also a rapist, if he believes in the story about Jesus being the only begotten son of God (via the Holy Ghost, or what)) She was not asked to give consent - and she was probably underage according to the story. And even older women brainwashed to give consent are not in their right minds - she obviously was not told that she was not told that she would have a child in order to have him offered up as a blood sacrifice (by God's alleged plan) to appease a bloodthirsty God.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117162 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It would make perfect sense that if there is a god then he's a sadistic monster. How else can all the suffering be explained?
if it is a very powerful one. and if it made the laws of nature, the nature of matter. and if there is no opposing force of equal power or greater power. Dualism allows one to assert that there is a good God, but not if the God is more powerful and allows the bad force (Satan or the Devil or whatever) to do its damage, which seems to be implied with the Biblical God.

Have you read the great play JB by Archibald Macleish. It handles the book of Job in an interesting way. The devil has the best lines.

I am sure you know the classic forumulation - maybe Epicurus? of this, but I love the JB version:

If God is God, He is not good;
If god is good, he is not God;
take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could
except for the wind in the grass and the little green leaves\
in the wood.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117163 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between a natural universe and a Created Universe is amoral vs. Immoral.
yes I agree. one of the few definitions of God I find interesting is that God is a word for the All, the Everything that Is (and maybe was or will be) anywhere, everywhere. A sort of superpantheism. Then it is a suffering God, not merely the inflicter of suffering, which is the characteristic of the usual version of a creator God, and of the Biblical God.

I like throwing this definition out as a bigger more impressive definition of a real God, because it does not allow any of the horrid justifications of bad ethics that are made based upon beliefs in a Biblical or creator God (notice that folks who do not believe in Darwin's science are often great promoters of socalled social Darwinism - they love the notion of survival of the fittest when they themselves are prospering). This definition makes us humans a parta of the greater "God" and since we are the ones that we think we know to have intentionality, and to be able to have influence, a good ethic of kindness should flow from it.

There is a line in a poem by Don Marquis - "The God that is not God if it is not we."

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117164 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> That was to curious. Of course I agree with you more than I do with curious. However, there are many instances where I am much more comfortable with an agnostic attitude toward some of the seeming conclusions of science. I doubt that scientists know all they think they know, and I also doubt that they can find out all they want to find out. The best attribute of science is in its not being entirely sure, and wanting to double check - and then admitting that one has reached a view that is applicable so far, for practical purposes - not that one has found TRUTH.
Some years ago I came across this - I thought it said things very well:

Let me give you an analogy.

Suppose you have a length of wood and you want to measure it.

First, you use a yard stick with markings only on the feet, and find that the wood is 7 feet long. Then you decide to use a better ruler and find the wood is 7 feet 2 inches long. Then you decide to use a better one and find it is 7 feet 2 1/4 inches long. You can never reach the truth (the exact size) because you don't have a prefect measuring device, but are all the measurements *false*? No, they are better and better approximations to the truth.

This is how science works: you figure things out at one level of accuracy and see how far you can understand things there. Then, after you get better instruments and better techniques, you look again and see if what you previously did works at the new level of accuracy. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, you have to modify your ideas, but the lower level of accuracy still works! So rather than being completely wrong, the older scientific ideas are actually just good approximations and have been refined by new abilities.

This has happened multiple times in science. Newtonian physics gives a very good description of how planets move, how buildings stand, and many phenomena at the ordinary level of human existence. But, as we probed deeper, we found that it doesn't work for very small things (like atoms and smaller) or very fast things (close to the speed of light) or very strong gravitational fields (like around black holes). So, it had to be refined to account for these new observations. This led to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Did this make Newton's theories *false*? In one sense, yes, but in a practical sense not. We still use Newtonian physics to send probes to the moon, to design cars, etc, because it is an extremely good *approximation*.

This is the strength of science: it can adjust to new and more refined observations while preserving the work previously done. We can realize that we *never* have the exact truth, but can find better and better approximations as we study more.

Religion, on the other hand, claims an absolute truth at the beginning. It either ignores new evidence, or modifies its beliefs (silently!) while claiming nothing has changed. By refusing to acknowledge ignorance and adapt to new information, it becomes dogmatic and dangerous. By insisting that all those who believe other things are evil, it, itself, becomes evil. By claiming certain knowledge, it gives up on the path of wisdom all together.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117165 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point
At least you can engage better with people who are more civil.
I am very political, and one of my basic principles is that one wants nice people on one's side, and nasty people on the other side, and a means of letting the nasty people hang themselves by being so obviously evil. That is why when someone has a nasty style, I want someone to be on the other side. The mayor Toronto for example, is a rightwinger, which is useful.

Spitzer on the other hand - though not nasty in his talk - caused himself personal disgrace, and he was a good guy in going after financial crooks, I think. That was something to be sorry about.
John Edwards was too smooth sometimes, which I disliked - but he had a brochure in 2004 full of excellent policy views, which I liked. even when I agreed with Weiner in some diatribe against the rightwing Republicans in the House, I disliked him and his manner. I want the folks I agree with to be splendid people, like Jim McGovern of Mass. and Elizabeth Warren.

And I want people who are disgusting to be obviously so, and on the wrong side on political, economic, religious issues. That explains why I do not want to convert any of the disgusting religious nuts on topix, and why I prefer either to insult them briefly, or -- much more pleasant - to have intelligent discussions with the intelligent persons - like you and several others - on this forum.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117166 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> if it is a very powerful one. and if it made the laws of nature, the nature of matter. and if there is no opposing force of equal power or greater power. Dualism allows one to assert that there is a good God, but not if the God is more powerful and allows the bad force (Satan or the Devil or whatever) to do its damage, which seems to be implied with the Biblical God.
Have you read the great play JB by Archibald Macleish. It handles the book of Job in an interesting way. The devil has the best lines.
I am sure you know the classic forumulation - maybe Epicurus? of this, but I love the JB version:
If God is God, He is not good;
If god is good, he is not God;
take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could
except for the wind in the grass and the little green leaves\
in the wood.
I've heard of this play but never checked it out. Looks like one for my kindle.

Yes, I know the Epicurus quote - it's a classic. I like the slant that Macleish puts on it.

havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#117167 Nov 15, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You seek atheists in an attempt persuade yourself that your mind has mislead you.
that was to curious, and I do not think you are in a position to try to psychoanalyze him based on his posts. Furthermore, why would you want to talk sense into such an awful person? I want nice people on my side, not nasty ones. I even mildly chide the brilliant ones with whom I agree when they make excessive mistakes of incivility toward the rightwing nutcases. Why would you want such a person to come around to your way of thinking? To have a disgusting person agree with you should be worrisome, not a success story!

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
Teaching jobs 26 min Money 7
How much prison time will Pam bargo get ? 35 min sad person 7
Need info. Adair co 50 min BeenThereDoneThat 2
Diagnostic Review 57 min Enlightened 7
Roads in Whitesburg Hollow involving Three Oaks (Jun '14) 1 hr Owner 25
"Look upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole." 1 hr DoughKnott 1
where is Nicole Langley? (May '15) 3 hr laid back on the ... 32
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages