Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 179914 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

#117241 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
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.
You believe that the sun stopped moving in the sky and went backwards. You believe in talking animals, demons, giants, unicorns and dragons. You believe that someone's shadow or handkerchief can heal you. You believe that a flood could cover the earth and where a man could walk on water, turn water into wine, calm a stormy sea, be swallowed by a big fish and live to tell about it.

It's a world where a god lives in the sky and he gets intimidated when his creation build a tall building. You believe in a god who hates his creation and is pleased by human and animal sacrifices.

You don't have to mention "magic" for us to know what your beliefs are in very much the same way as you don't have to mention "gullible" when it comes to your state of mind.
curious wrote:
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.
Actually, you'd be using science but you've abandoned that in favour of magic.
curious wrote:
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.
You don't use science in your worldview. Remember? You like magic and demons.

Your world is full of visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners, etc. Man is not in control of his life. Evil spirits may possess him or Satan may inspire him with evil thoughts.

It is all, of course, complete and utter nonsense. It's absolutely amazing that people in this day and age really do believe such rubbish. Like I said, you're gullible.
curious wrote:
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
So your god is unable to say abracadbra and create humans? Why do you people say he can do anything when he clearly can't? More lies for Jesus, eh?
curious wrote:
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."
That puts paid to your god then.
curious wrote:
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.
Just think that if they do manage it in the next hundred years they will have done it billions of years faster than it took your god.

Why don't you show me the evidence for your god?

It's because you have no evidence. If you had real, tangible evidence you wouldn't have to keep using the f-word.

I know that you'd dearly love to have proper empirical evidence that can be measured and tested. I bet you ache to be able to prove all us doubters wrong. Such a shame that none of the world's religions are able to do this.

Also, the science you hate so much would provide the evidence if it could. However it can't provide evidence of no gods. Mind you, it can't provide evidence of no leprechauns, tooth fairy, elves, etc.

So your absent god is in good company with all the other absent deities and magical beings.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117242 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish one , I am as calm as the eye of a storm.
It is you and the legion of fools that inhabit this website that need be worried
Soon,all of you will be the main Ingredient for HERSHEYS NEWEST CANDY BAR.
As soon as consumers find out that the main ingredient is composed of Atheist Nuts ,they will refuse to buy and you will sit on the shelves for years on end and become stale , much like your Atheist Faith.
I see that you also posted as Parent ,agreeing with this post.
What a Klutz.......
Paranoid? Not much, eh?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117243 Nov 16, 2013
Known Fact of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same reasoning why not decide there are no thieves either and because of your opinion you leave all of your belongings open so anyone can take what they want. Would your opinion serve as a protection for you. I am sure Satan is delighted because you choose not to believe in him! 2 Corinthians 4:4
You're the one who believes in Satan.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117244 Nov 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Let's describe/define god. If we don't there can't be any real debate. God is all knowing/powerful, and has a set of rules he wants us to know. Now, here's a fact, we don't all know those rules. So, either god doesn't have the ability to tell us the rules, which would make him not all knowing/powerful, and thus not god. Or he wouldn't have rules he wants us to know, and then he wouldn't be god.
I very much doubt they can do that.

Of course that means they've lost.
Such joke much laugh

Whitley City, KY

#117245 Nov 16, 2013
concerned wrote:
The danger in teaching the Bible is that this book has the power to create faith even in an atheist. If it is allowed to be taught there is a strong possibility someone could be converted to Jesus Christ. Under the current world views is it possible to allow such a powerful tool for good to be taught in public schools and that before the young minds of the future?
Good? The bible is going to teach good? Haha, yes of course. Let's by all means subdue my fellow students and I to such a 'good' and 'powerful' tool. They can teach us all about how females need to cover up and shut up, or be stoned to death. Fantastic! Sorry but I refuse to be brainwashed by a religion that claims to be 'good' with nothing but evil intentions of controlling everything that a person does. Isn't weird how god killed 2.4 MILLION people in the bible, yet Satan the 'DEVIL WHO IS BAD AN EVIL', only killed 10? Life is so funny wow. Religion is a joke, and I would really rather learn about things that will help me excel in my future, not made up stories about the magical man in the sky. Stop trying to shove your beliefs down everyone's throat! Separation of church and state, school is included in state. So if you want to teach your child the wonders of jesus christ and his holy torture, pay for a private Christian Academy. Because after all Christianity isn't free, no, you have to pay for such 'good'. You're welcome!

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117246 Nov 16, 2013
I came across this while doing some reading, interestingly enough it's Author at the time this was prepared was a second-year internal medicine resident at Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, PA
-Burt Humburg
Science is fundamentally a system of discovery. When scientists see something they cannot explain, they formulate a hypothesis that explains what they saw and then they test that hypothesis. If it survives those tests, it could explain and predict other hypotheses, forming a theory from which to build other hypotheses. The danger of IDC is that it can substitute supernatural explanations that can never be tested and do not predict other findings in the place of natural hypotheses that can be tested and do predict other findings.(A direct intervention by God may possibly "explain" but it does not predict other interventions, nor is it testable. One cannot put God in a test tube, nor can one keep him out.)

As a fanciful example, take two scientists who travel to St. Louis, neither of whom knows much about construction and one of whom uses IDC thinking instead of science. As these two scientists gaze upon the arch, both are astonished and they both attempt to explain how the arch was constructed. As neither of our two scientists knows about the use of scaffolding to support an eventually self-supporting structure while it is being created, our scientists are left without natural explanations for how the arch came to be. The scientist who falls prey to IDC thinking might conclude that, since humans cannot create such structures as a whole and since the arch is clearly the product of design, God must have built the St. Louis arch.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117247 Nov 16, 2013
cont.
Of course, this conclusion would seem silly to most readers and possibly insulting to IDC advocates, since most readers would know about scaffolding and all would know humans created the arch. But to understand the example, one must enter into the mindset of a person investigating a problem for which there is no current scientific understanding. IDC advocates have appealed to the actions of an Intelligent Designer to explain the Cambrian Explosion, the ascent of whales evolving, and the origin of life. The reader is asked to substitute any "challenge to evolution" the proponents of "Teach the Controversy" wish to advance in place of the arch.(The only difference will be, in the examples of "controversy" creationists today will advance, a scientific explanation for the phenomenon in question probably will not yet be known.)

Clearly, the scientist who suffers from IDC thinking reached an inappropriate conclusion. Easily, one danger of IDC thinking is that it can support bad explanations for phenomena with untestable "evidence." However, incorrect hypotheses are advanced and corrected often in science, so this is not a prominent danger. The real threat is that the question of the arch's construction has now been answered (God did it) in a way that sabotages further inquiry. Why investigate further if the question has been answered? Why investigate further if to do so might be considered to detract from God?

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117248 Nov 16, 2013
cont.
Obviously, explaining the creation of the arch by a one-time act of an undefined and unknown omnipotent agent (God) does not predict other natural findings and has no application to other natural problems. We might imagine our IDC-thinking scientist will remain yet ignorant of the secret of the arch's construction since he has no reason to investigate or innovate it.

The scientist who does not fall prey to IDC thinking would attack his problem differently. He might consult literature on construction, learn about scaffolds and their use, and go on to apply scaffolding technology to other problems he might encounter in the future. If there were no previous work on scaffolding, he might attempt to construct a model of the arch and, in trying to build it, innovate scaffolding technology and advance the state of the art of construction for everyone. But if the technologies to even think of scaffolding were not yet invented -- say, the ladders to build the scaffolds were not invented -- and if the scientist had honestly reached the limits of his creativity in trying to explain the arch's construction, our heroic scientist would simply say, "I don't know how it was built."

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117249 Nov 16, 2013
cont.
The difference between our two scientists is at once subtle and vital. Neither scientist knows how the arch was constructed, but one fills the void of ignorance with a hypothesis that explains everything and sabotages the process of discovery. The other scientist does not substitute an unfalsifiable explanation for his ignorance, but accepts his inability to answer the question for the time being. The fact is, good scientists must often deal with their inability to answer a question. They are not satisfied by it and should continue to innovate and discover in order to someday answer the question -- but they do accept their ignorance for the time being. Poor scientists are those who must fill all voids of ignorance with whatever concepts are available, however inappropriate. IDC, as an explanation that cannot be tested by natural science, is an example of an inappropriate non-natural answer to a perfectly natural, scientific problem

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117250 Nov 16, 2013
I'm guessing Curious would consider Burt Humburg to be one of those nuts from Hershey, PA. too
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117251 Nov 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So the truth is dumb in your world? My statement that you called dumb is counterintuitive. Now is that why you call it dumb? Or are you just still to proud to admit fault? What is dumb about what I said?
You inferred drinking doesn't cause brain damage.

That inSinuation was not only dumb, but extremely false.

Why can't you just admit that? Too proud to admit you made a false inSinuation?
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117252 Nov 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>When someone claims something cannot happen, it is way more absolute than the claim I made.
Hell, my statement even left a hole to insert your god. "can account" does not even claim it happened.
You fundamentalists could use some lessons on how to use language.
Ahem...pot..kettle..hypocrite much?
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117253 Nov 17, 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.
Only one is honest based upon a platform of viewing things from the scientific perspectives.

I personally, like many others no doubt, don't read science books, for the more philosophical type aspects of life.

For example, I enjoyed this reading myself today, as I do enjoy some "good soul food" mixed in with some Science as well.

(And yes, you may consider it as PROOF, Science and philosophical readings CAN and often DO, abide harmoniously in many, with out issue).
----------
Create in me a clean heart, O God.—Psalm 51:10

Not long ago, someone asked me a very tough question:“What is the longest you have gone without sinning? A week, a day, an hour?” How can we answer a question like that? If we’re truthful, we might say,“I can’t live a day without sinning.” Or if we look back over the past week, we might see that we haven’t confessed to God even one sin. But we would be fooling ourselves if we said we hadn’t sinned in our thoughts or actions for a week.

God knows our hearts and whether we’re sensitive to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. If we really know ourselves, we take 1 John 1:8 to heart,“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” We certainly don’t want verse 10 to be true of us,“If we say that we have not sinned,... His word is not in us.”

A more encouraging question to ask might be:“What is God’s response to our admission of sin and need for forgiveness?” The answer:“If we confess ..., He is faithful and just to forgive us”(v.9). Jesus has taken our sin problem upon Himself by dying in our place and rising again. That’s why He can create in us “a clean heart”(Ps. 51:10). My young friend Jaydon is right when he says,“Jesus is the hero over our sins.”—Anne Cetas

No one can say they don’t need
Forgiveness for their sin,
For all must come to Christ by faith
To have new life within.—Branon

Christ’s forgiveness is the door to a new beginning.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117254 Nov 17, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Let's assume Intelligent Design created everything...
There's your mistake- it's NEVER a good thing to assume anything in that type of manner.

Which renders anything after that first line- as just being as hypothetical as anything else, as well.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117255 Nov 17, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
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.
Why would you assume that?
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117256 Nov 17, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
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.
especially since that's actually quite UNtrue.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.( id.org )
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117257 Nov 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Kind of acknowledges the basis of the Big Bang theory in it's own abstract way though now, doesn't it Duquette.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117258 Nov 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text> It is inserting a god of religion into a gap of knowledge.
It inserting a creator of some sort, into a gap of UNKNOWN.

Exactly, how much time evolved in the process of the Big Bang theory Duquette?

Just say .."you don't know" (everything) and be truly honest for a change.
Yes and Amen

Versailles, KY

#117259 Nov 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god gave me a way out from what?
From being tortured by him?
Yes!
Because of YOUR sins you do not believe in!

You ever...
Lie?
Steal?
Hate?
Murder?
...
I know you think none of this is wrong, or a sin, but to God...
It is!
He knows it's hard for you to stop under your current position!
He gave you a choice... choose WISELY!
Yes and Amen

Versailles, KY

#117260 Nov 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
If you love your god then you love an abortionist.
Yes...
Yes I do!
Even the human ones....
But please feel free to bring these things up when you
reach judgment!

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
🚻 17 min texas pete 318
|keep a word, drop a word game| (Jul '11) 23 min Visitor Bob 485
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 26 min Visitor Bob 28,188
Word Association (Aug '11) 27 min Visitor Bob 8,922
4 letter word game (May '09) 48 min Coalminer 269
Andy Beshear Next KY Governor!!! 1 hr vote 156
4 Letter Word Game (Mar '11) 1 hr Teacher 2,160
dirty state police 7 hr Sober 17
PMC PInk Slips 7 hr Donv 65

Pikeville Jobs

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages