Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 149573 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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117214 Nov 16, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Seems it is you who is psychoanalyzing.
Lets continue this psychoanalysis. I think Curious is not really disgusting, I think he has just been brainwashed to believe some disgusting things about god are good things. So if he were to actually realize the god was not real, I would think he would not be in that delusion anymore.
But realistically, I do not see Curious coming around to my side. I debate him for other reasons. According to Curious, those reasons are for my inner wishes to be near god. More realistically it is to reach others reading the conversation. Some is just for fun, some for practice writing. At the least, it gives me something to do while I hang out at the coffee shop. Otherwise, I would probably mindlessly stare at people and look like a freak.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117215 Nov 16, 2013
I know, as well as everyone on this thread, that when you refer to Intelligent Design, you are saying "god did it" meaning Judeo-Christian God.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117216 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words
God spoke, and it was so.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117217 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems that your faith has led you into the mental state of idiotism and noncomprehension.
You try to imply that the criteria for my beliefs are the same criteria you have for your beliefs.
At no time have I mentioned magic as the basis for my beliefs.
If I were to believe , as Atheist Scientists do , that natural laws are able to create life,intelligence and consciousness where none existed previously,then I would be using magic as the basis for my faith.
WE KNOW THAT LAWS ARE INCAPABLE of creating or designing anything.
The laws of nature are merely a series of words which we use in explaining how things may or do occur.
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
That is the formula that you base your faith on and Atheist Scientists subscribe to;
"That which has no previous existence and has no way of knowing that it has never existed is somehow capable of self creating properties that are so complex and pass them on to nonliving,nonconscious and nonintelligent matter."
And Atheist Scientists , determined to prove that life does not need a creator and determined to prove their point , are doing so by attempting to create life in their laboratories.
That is the type of logic that one expects to find among imbecilic ,idiotic and raving lunatics.
Of course , you choose to defend that faith by claiming you don't believe in Magic.....
And you may be right ,you don't believe in Magic.
Your faith is based on less than magic , it is based on lunacy.
BTW Hersheys is looking for some Atheist nuts to put into their new candy bar. The wrapper will carry an emblem of the moon and will be named LUNATIC in honor of it's primary ingredient
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

"let there be light" is the equivalent of abracadabra.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117218 Nov 16, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I have no alternative to what is not known. You settle for inserting a myth into that gap, I am honest enough to admit I do not know. Only one of these answers is honest.
Well , you claim that you don't know what or who created life because it is not known.
And I have never said that I know ,I've said that I Believe.
And one of the reasons why I believe as I do , is that in my view only a Supernatural being , who has ALWAYS existed and needs no creator , who posseses a Supernatural life ,supernatural consciousness and Supernatural intelligence is equipped to provide
life,consciousness and intelligence to inferior beings whom he creates.
You want to call that a MYTH, do so.But,you do so based on the fact that you don't know
Therefore it can be said that your faith is based on "you don't know"
My faith is based on my beliefs , which you may call myths.
That does not matter to me , I know and fully understand the basis for my beliefs and they are not based on myths. That is your opinion , based on ignorance ,due to the fact that you are ignorant of the basis for my beliefs.
You pass judgement on something you know nothing about and are totally unfamiliar with.
You have the makings of an Atheist Scientist

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117219 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems that your faith has led you into the mental state of idiotism and noncomprehension.
You try to imply that the criteria for my beliefs are the same criteria you have for your beliefs.
At no time have I mentioned magic as the basis for my beliefs.
If I were to believe , as Atheist Scientists do , that natural laws are able to create life,intelligence and consciousness where none existed previously,then I would be using magic as the basis for my faith.
WE KNOW THAT LAWS ARE INCAPABLE of creating or designing anything.
The laws of nature are merely a series of words which we use in explaining how things may or do occur.
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
That is the formula that you base your faith on and Atheist Scientists subscribe to;
"That which has no previous existence and has no way of knowing that it has never existed is somehow capable of self creating properties that are so complex and pass them on to nonliving,nonconscious and nonintelligent matter."
And Atheist Scientists , determined to prove that life does not need a creator and determined to prove their point , are doing so by attempting to create life in their laboratories.
That is the type of logic that one expects to find among imbecilic ,idiotic and raving lunatics.
Of course , you choose to defend that faith by claiming you don't believe in Magic.....
And you may be right ,you don't believe in Magic.
Your faith is based on less than magic , it is based on lunacy.
BTW Hersheys is looking for some Atheist nuts to put into their new candy bar. The wrapper will carry an emblem of the moon and will be named LUNATIC in honor of it's primary ingredient
6 And God said,“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

"let there be a vault between the waters to separate the water" is the equivalent of "abracadabra".

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117220 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish one , You finally went and did for yourself what you wanted me to do for you...
Moreover , your temper tantrum which led you to say you were going to put me on "IGNORE" was exactly that , a temper tantrum.
Seems you went to the vet and got a distemper shot.
I am not a Scientist.
My belief of ID is based on my belief that " that which does not posses nor is aware of certain properties " natural laws" is somehow able to create those properties , not for itself , but in order to pass them on to what we know as matter.
If you can explain to me , how all that can be made possible , then I will have to rethink my position.
In case you forgot,the properties in question are Lifr, intelligence and consciousness.
BTW If you are going to contact Khatru , MD , CHroe or any of the others in order to bombard me with smokescreens and stinkbombs
Fugedaboutit... I have become immune to them
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Magic.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117221 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well , you claim that you don't know what or who created life because it is not known.
And I have never said that I know ,I've said that I Believe.
And one of the reasons why I believe as I do , is that in my view only a Supernatural being , who has ALWAYS existed and needs no creator , who posseses a Supernatural life ,supernatural consciousness and Supernatural intelligence is equipped to provide
life,consciousness and intelligence to inferior beings whom he creates.
You want to call that a MYTH, do so.But,you do so based on the fact that you don't know
Therefore it can be said that your faith is based on "you don't know"
My faith is based on my beliefs , which you may call myths.
That does not matter to me , I know and fully understand the basis for my beliefs and they are not based on myths. That is your opinion , based on ignorance ,due to the fact that you are ignorant of the basis for my beliefs.
You pass judgement on something you know nothing about and are totally unfamiliar with.
You have the makings of an Atist Scientist
The god of the bible is clearly a myth, and you claim this is the intelligent designer that needs no rules to exist that you have for all other life and intelligence.

If you wish to believe in this god/ creation story, fine, but you have insisted we are irrational for not believing the story. It has absolutely zero evidence of fact.
Do not expect it to be put in science books, as it is not science. It is religion. It is inserting a god of religion into a gap of knowledge. It is your religious belief. Keep it where religion belongs.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117222 Nov 16, 2013
Your argument is that we can see Intelligent Design everywhere and therefore automatically attributes the existence and nature of things -- stars, animals, proteins, etc.-- to design.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that only one designer is responsible for all that is designed. By recognizing the existence of design, we invite -- even beg -- the possibility that there are as many intelligent designers as there are things designed, since after all, the existence of multiple designs need not imply a single designer. IDest like to point to paintings as evidence of painters and buildings as evidence of builders, but we of course know these things to be designed because we designed them. If we apply this same exact logic to the natural world, we would have to conclude that the sun is evidence of a sun designer, a tree evidence of a tree designer, a human evidence of a human designer, and so on, because they are separate things just like paintings and buildings are separate things and have separate designers. To assume a single designer is to conceptually unify an abundance of phenomena (meaning all the objects that are designed) without any real or sufficient justification for doing so. Positing that a designer or designers are responsible for those phenomena which we do not believe can be explained by "natural" causes, is to provide an explanation which raises a series of unanswerable questions about this hypothetical designer(s)(e.g. who designed the designer(s) and where did it/they come from?) and discourages further scientific inquiry into those matters which have been explained away by the invocation of intelligent agency. Such an explanation, of course, is no explanation at all.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117223 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Let's assume Intelligent Design created everything...
To presuppose automatically the existence of a (perhaps supernatural) designer is to preclude real, thoughtful, scientific research in accordance with the scientific method, since science deals only with observable, measurable, phenomena.
Let's talk about the second part of the definition {The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.}
How does one come to the conclusion that 'natural selection' is an undirected process??
Selection is not guided by a Designer....it is guided by a fundamental logic inherent in the way the populations of species develop through time. Specifically, organisms with the highest likelihood of passing on their genes are those best-adapted to their environments due to their having particular characteristics which are conducive to survival and procreation.
You are describing the mechanics involved ,nowhere is there an explanation as to how creation may have been caused by any of these mechanisms.
If it were so, then Atheist Scientists would be able to employ these natural methods and create life ,or consciousness or intelligence.
Instead , since the mechanisms are not creators , Atheist Scientists are working feverishly in their labs ,under controlled conditions trying to design a formula that will permit them to create the simplest form of life...Which they have failed to accomplish.
Then again , they are trying to create that which they claim DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR,,,the irony of it all.
BTW, quote your sources , to not do so will earn you a trip to the HERSHEY FACTORY...a LITTLE HUMOR, DON'T GET UPSET

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117224 Nov 16, 2013
You cannot prove your god created or even existed. Your entire statements are based on faith.
How could you possibly determine whether the universe is intelligently designed when you have no other universe with which to compare it? Indeed, what would a non-designed universe look like? Or, what would an unintelligently designed universe look like?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117225 Nov 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So Lennox is curious' hero of quote mining and bias confirmation, while Craig is his champion of circular logic. Anything that is not inside his circle of self-deceit must be a free range herring swimming in the smoke. <shrug>
Hitchens always nails Craig with the simple question, who created god? Of course Craig does just as all fundies do, he says god needed no creator, and expects that to somehow answer the question. The audience gets a good laugh in, unless it is at Liberty University.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117226 Nov 16, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Seems it is you who is psychoanalyzing.
Lets continue this psychoanalysis. I think Curious is not really disgusting, I think he has just been brainwashed to believe some disgusting things about god are good things. So if he were to actually realize the god was not real, I would think he would not be in that delusion anymore.
But realistically, I do not see Curious coming around to my side. I debate him for other reasons. According to Curious, those reasons are for my inner wishes to be near god. More realistically it is to reach others reading the conversation. Some is just for fun, some for practice writing. At the least, it gives me something to do while I hang out at the coffee shop. Otherwise, I would probably mindlessly stare at people and look like a freak.
You disappoint me Mikey, as you and Lodi have always claimed you are posting from your jobsites,all the while you are stuffing your face with coffee and donuts at the local Starbucks in Mt. Dora.
That must be the place where Witchetty works full time.
I was there once and the old crone tried to stick me with a bill for an empty cup of coffe and the whole from a donut.
When I was there ,next to my booth was a bedraggled guy drinking his lunch out of a brown paper bag , Had a pet 3 eyed alligator with him. Any idea who that guy might be? He stole my wallett

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117227 Nov 16, 2013
I'm not insisting that my opinions are 100%. And again just my opinion. I'm not trying to force anyone to see things my way. For the record, I'm not beyond thinking of a "greater reality" or "higher consciousness"

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117228 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well , you claim that you don't know what or who created life because it is not known.
And I have never said that I know ,I've said that I Believe.
And one of the reasons why I believe as I do , is that in my view only a Supernatural being , who has ALWAYS existed and needs no creator , who posseses a Supernatural life ,supernatural consciousness and Supernatural intelligence is equipped to provide
life,consciousness and intelligence to inferior beings whom he creates.
You want to call that a MYTH, do so.But,you do so based on the fact that you don't know
Therefore it can be said that your faith is based on "you don't know"
My faith is based on my beliefs , which you may call myths.
That does not matter to me , I know and fully understand the basis for my beliefs and they are not based on myths. That is your opinion , based on ignorance ,due to the fact that you are ignorant of the basis for my beliefs.
You pass judgement on something you know nothing about and are totally unfamiliar with.
You have the makings of an Atheist Scientist
Same as You Don't Know either.....Your Belief is based on Faith, not facts....
To assert that the universe (or even just certain objects or animals) are intelligently designed, is not only to assert an understanding of what intelligent design looks like and entails, but is to claim an understanding of what non-design and/or unintelligent design looks like, and also to be able to tell the difference between them using what will undoubtedly be arbitrary criteria. Therefore, ID is not a legitimate scientific theory, but the exact opposite: a purely speculative hypothesis whose breathtaking ambiguity serves not to advance understanding, but to stifle it by suggesting the unknowable and the untestable as an explanation for natural phenomena.
In other words "god did it'

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117229 Nov 16, 2013
It's 10:50 p.m. I'm not working tonight, although I have pulled night shifts in the past. I was lucky to get this Saturday off.

Nice diversion btw
forgot witch # that tactic that was when you were getting pummeled in a debate, perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117230 Nov 16, 2013
I'm just saying if your god is the Intelligent Designer here.... he wasn't too intelligent. IDest like to claim that the beginning of Cambrian period lends credence to the idea of intelligent agency, the subsequent extinction of Cambrian organisms poses yet another problem for ID. If the universe is intelligently created, how does one account for the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed are no more? That's some design. Rather than deal a blow to evolutionary theory, the implicit lesson of the Cambrian "explosion" seems to confirm one of its fundamental maxims -- that only the fittest shall survive. Thankfully, this principle also applies to scientific theories, and hopefully in due time the American public will realize that Intelligent Design is so insufferably weak that it should no longer be allowed to live.
Known Fact of Florida

Orlando, FL

#117231 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Same as You Don't Know either.....Your Belief is based on Faith, not facts....
To assert that the universe (or even just certain objects or animals) are intelligently designed, is not only to assert an understanding of what intelligent design looks like and entails, but is to claim an understanding of what non-design and/or unintelligent design looks like, and also to be able to tell the difference between them using what will undoubtedly be arbitrary criteria. Therefore, ID is not a legitimate scientific theory, but the exact opposite: a purely speculative hypothesis whose breathtaking ambiguity serves not to advance understanding, but to stifle it by suggesting the unknowable and the untestable as an explanation for natural phenomena.In other words "god did it'
I'm curious---If you Atheists could succeed in convincing ever human being alive that there is no god---How would that benefit you? Maybe further Satan's ambition but I fail to see how that could possibly benefit you. Please enlighten me.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117232 Nov 16, 2013
One more thing....why would an Intelligent Designer create anything and every thing including life forms, when the end results are going to be destroyed anyway??

What was the purpose? Did he do this just to see if he could?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117233 Nov 16, 2013
Of course the above being your belief that destruction is inevitable.....

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.

Pikeville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Need Apartment Here 1 min All Rented up 9
What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... (Jul '14) 4 min Paris 32,658
new bridge south of pikeville another SHAM? 7 min Bridge To Denver 32
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 11 min Darktainium 25,602
Subdivision Disaster 12 min You Wanna Bet 9
~*~ Last Post Wins ~*~ (Aug '11) 14 min Darktainium 7,543
Word Association (Aug '11) 16 min Darktainium 6,898
nugent not selling 1 hr Paris 55

Pikeville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages