Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 149980 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

#108700 Jul 23, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't go in to a lot of detail on here quite frequently, I admit. I don't take the time.
Let me clarify here. Yes I respect those people's right to believe what they wish. What I cannot respect is actions that some of these take, that take innocent lives.
The right to believe as others wish, I respect. Actions that kill innocent people, I do not respect.
I have never asked you to accept blind faith.
I also respect those peoples right to believe as they wish. But respecting freedom of religion is far different than respecting what one believes.
Elaboration was not needed by you if you could only write what you mean instead of writing what you do not actually mean. All you needed to write was, you respect the right of different beliefs. Now is that to long of a sentence to write, or are you just that careless in words?

The ten commandments show no respect for the right to believe as one wishes. So do you differ from god on morality? I certainly do, and this is one large reason I think this god must be a myth. This god does not ask, he demands, and commands, with zero respect for a freedom of choice.

I am glad you do not demand like your unreasonable god. But having a double standard for a god just shows the glaring contradictions of logic.This is why I continue to conclude you are in denial to keep the faith.

I respect your right to believe, but I do not respect the actions of Christians due to their beliefs all to often.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Mount Vernon, KY

#108701 Jul 23, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
"Victim in Waiting"...that would be a great band name.
And you live in a strange world if you think someone is going to rape my cat and you are somehow going to skin your smoke wagon, do a double flip over the "bad guys", and save the day. That's called Hollywood.
I used to live in a rough part of a city. Had several friends and loved ones that were mugged. I was also attacked. None of us needed a gun and I'm thankful none of us had guns or the situations would have been worse.
I have had 3 friends murdered and 2 that used their side arms to prevent anyone from being murdered, or mugged... And you are correct as long as you get mugged and walked away I guess life is all butterflys and roses in your world... But now in your delightful world outside the rough part of town when the next mugging happens to you, your friend's and family I hope you do again walk away delighted in your survival skills.... But when you find yourself in the presence of a mugger that decides you, your family members or friends look like folks he would love to bludgeon to death call 911 and wait....

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108702 Jul 23, 2013
curious wrote:
Why atheist scientists bring their children to church
December 13, 2012 By Nicholas Didonato
Nicholas C. DiDonato
The formula seems simple: parents pass down what they believe to their children. Atheist parents don’t believe in God or go to church, therefore…. Yet, a surprisingly large number of atheist scientists from elite universities raise their children in a religious community such as a church. Sociologists Elaine Ecklund (Rice University) and Kristen Lee (University of Buffalo, S

EDITED FOR SPACE TO WRITE A RESPONSE!...

The researchers found that agnostics attend religious services (e.g., church) at about the same rate regardless of whether they have any children. By contrast, the attendance rate of atheists with children jumps 70% compared to those without. Children constitute a statistically significant factor in atheists attending religious services and joining religious communities. It should be noted that the atheists and agnostics in this study are all top-tier scientists, so these findings may not hold for atheists in general.
Looked at another way, contrary to popular expectation, atheist scientists show a proclivity to join a religious community when raising children. Unlike many atheists who feel isolated in a region of heavy religiosity, scientists have ready access to a community of fellow, morally minded atheists, and yet choose to raise their children in a religious community. Several reasons account for this.
First, scientists feel that having a scientific mindset means being able to make choices for oneself. Even if the scientist parent does not believe in God, this does not mean that the parent should impose that decision on his or her children—the children should think for themselves. Many scientists interviewed explicitly stated that they did not want to indoctrinate their children into atheism and so exposed their children to a diversity of religious communities.
Second – the most dominant reason – many of the scientists had a religious spouse who had a strong influence on how to raise their children. While this naturally required some negotiation, most of the scientists came from religious upbringings themselves and did not oppose a religious upbringing for their children.
In many circumstances they favored a religious upbringing because, third, they believed it would provide children with moral orientation. One scientist, who does not have children, said he would raise his children in the Catholic Church because he was raised Catholic and believes Catholicism teaches children important values.
Finally, atheist scientists raise their children in a religious setting because of the community it provides. Religious communities have a strong moral outlook and allow for intimate relationships.
First, if you cut and paste, please leave us some characters to fit in a response.

Now, just what do you conclude from this study? Seems to me that the largest reason for the atheist attending church was due to a believer spouse. So just what does this prove about religion? Nothing. It shows me some guys know how to compromise in order to keep the peace.

Another reason cited was due to the parent being diligent in not attempting to brainwash the child. You certainly cannot say this happens among most religious parents. Most have no respect for the child to see all sides of the debate objectively.
And you wonder why we think you guys are brainwashed.

Then the study says many of the atheists were raised religiously themselves, thus some(small number) feel the sect or denomination they attended as a child was relatively good.
As many of us here have said, some denominations are not as bad as others. I have been to many different sects and they vary greatly. Some do not even speak much of the bible or Jesus, but do tell stories of how we should live to be good people. I see this as a good thing. Unfortunately the majority of churches go far beyond this, and not in a good way.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108703 Jul 23, 2013
curious wrote:
Why atheist scientists bring their children to church

The formula seems simple: parents pass down what they believe to their children. Atheist parents don’t believe in God or go to church, therefore…. Yet, a surprisingly large number of atheist scientists from elite universities raise their children in a religious community such as a church. S found that these atheist scientists do so because they want to give their children religious choice, have a religious spouse, or think that religious communities will give their children moral bearings and community.
Unfortunately, very little research has been done concerning how atheists (and agnostics) treat religion when raising their children. Consequently, the researchers used data ready at hand—Ecklund’s Religion among Academic Scientists study (RAAS). This study surveyed over 2,000 randomly-selected scientists from the top universities in the United States. It then followed up the survey with over 500 personal interviews (also randomly selected). While the main intent of the survey had nothing to do raising children, it still collected that data and enables, arguably for the first time, an in-depth look at how atheists negotiate religion for the sake of their children. For example, interview questions included:“In what ways was religion a part of your life as a child? How was religion talked about in your family setting? If you have a family now, are there ways in which religion/spirituality come up, if they do at all? What religious or spiritual beliefs do you hold? For example, to what extent is believing in God or a god important to you?”
The researchers found that agnostics attend religious services (e.g., church) at about the same rate regardless of whether they have any children. By contrast, the attendance rate of atheists with children jumps 70% compared to those without. Children constitute a statistically significant factor in atheists attending religious services and joining religious communities. It should be noted that the atheists and agnostics in this study are all top-tier scientists, so these findings may not hold for atheists in general.
Looked at another way, contrary to popular expectation, atheist scientists show a proclivity to join a religious community when raising children. Unlike many atheists who feel isolated in a region of heavy religiosity, scientists have ready access to a community of fellow, morally minded atheists, and yet choose to raise their children in a religious community. Several reasons account for this.
First, scientists feel that having a scientific mindset means being able to make choices for oneself. Even if the scientist parent does not believe in God, this does not mean that the parent should impose that decision on his or her children—the children should think for themselves. Many scientists interviewed explicitly stated that they did not want to indoctrinate their children into atheism and so exposed their children to a diversity of religious communities.
Second – the most dominant reason – many of the scientists had a religious spouse who had a strong influence on how to raise their children. While this naturally required some negotiation, most of the scientists came from religious upbringings themselves and did not oppose a religious upbringing for their children.
In many circumstances they favored a religious upbringing because, third, they believed it would provide children with moral orientation. One scientist, who does not have children, said he would raise his children in the Catholic Church because he was raised Catholic and believes Catholicism teaches children important values.
Finally, atheist scientists raise their children in a religious setting because of the community it provides. Religious communities have a strong moral outlook and allow for intimate relationships.
And yet you guys keep insisting science is on a mission to prove god a myth.

“Tend to Offend”

Since: Jul 13

SHADY ACRES

#108704 Jul 23, 2013
i use to study the Bible a lot myself..

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108705 Jul 23, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Which do you think is more noble and worthy of praise?
The love of God and Christ.Using a lost pet to put an unbeliever on the road to repentance
Or,
The actions of those unbeliecers who live according to their human nature.
Knowing full well the destructive ramifications of unbelief,they continue to weave their deceptive web.
The fact that unbelievers have the highest suicidial rates,mental problems and are more likely to become drug and alcohol abusers.
These unbelievers continue preaching their religion of Unbelief,feeling no guilt about the destruction they are wreaking on weak and unsuspecting minds and to their own families
And,when these problems surface,it is not the Atheists who provide support...
Generally speaking,the support comes from a Christian organization...
Again you simply misstate the study you posted. The study was on the elderly on the brink of certain death and often in pain. The motives of suicide for these persons was actually somewhat noble as they cited the burden they felt they put upon their children supporting them financially to artificially extend their lives with modern medicine.
But you twist the actual study to include all atheists, young and old. This is just lying for the motive of demonizing atheism.

I brought this up to you when you first published the study and you ignored my response. You clearly ignore it to keep in denial and keep the faith.

Of course you do not realize the beliefs you have are considered detrimental by others. You sit in ignorant bliss as you discriminate upon homosexuals and constantly demean science. Ironically posting science studies to prove your own points astounds me. The contradictions never stop from you.

BTW, my life philosophy is not bound by following instinctive human nature. So again you lie for propaganda purposes.
To make any one claim for all atheists philosophy cannot be true other than a disbelief of a god.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108706 Jul 23, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The value of what you know is not sufficient to buy one an empty glass of cider and the whole from a donut during Halloween.
In other words,you know a lot about nothing....As is evidenced by the nonsense and gibberish you post under all your different monikers....
You were shown that you spelled "hole" incorrectly and yet you did it yet again. Donuts have holes. A whole donut typically has one hole.

Funny how you guys keep refusing to even attempt a rebuttal and so often resort to this sort of immature response.
ProvenScience

Manchester, KY

#108707 Jul 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But why do the majority of believer posters hate on others >SO MUCH<? They don't just hate on atheists, they hate on Catholics,'evolutionists', Democrats, astrophysics, agnostics,- on things like the Higgs boson, and wikipedia. They even hate on honesty and compassion. Is that rational, sane, logical or thinking?
Huh..I can only say why I am not fond of wikistoopedia. Mostly because it's a rewrite--mere copy and paste of OTHERS work, that often injects OPINION as well as twisted distortion AND alterations of Fact, rather than just sticking with FACT. It also tends to digress from original subject content, thus leading to decreased focus on original material of same mentioned original subject matter, and is comprised in a rather unsecured environment, which then subjects it to a whole host of OTHER ailments (at times not EVEN anything close to substantiated fact) and is instead rather based upon anonymous entries, subjected to the whims of those who just hold the out entry platforms as a proverbial "dumping ground" for whatever, by whomever, to be scanned (or not) by whomever, for whatever.
In short-NOT exactly the stuff of ETHICAL OR integeral "journalism" type procedures.

As for the rest of your questions-heck if I know.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108708 Jul 23, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been established that Unbelievers have a higher suicide rate than any other group.
They also are more likely to abuse drugs,alcihol and be afflicted by other mental problems.
Those are facts based on scientific studies. Those are not faulty assumptions.
Are there any Atheist Social Agencies they can turn to for help?
If they have a problem,they can call AA,Catholic Charities or any Christian Church or social agency.
They will either provide the necessary help and if not qualified to do so, will point you in the right direction.
It is not a question of aggrandizement,it is a fact,as you well know.
Needless to say,Atheists will attempt to dismiss these studies as irrelevant or based on faulty assumptions....
The evidence points otherwise.
"studies"? Are you now claiming their is more than one single study with this conclusion? You only cited one study. Do you know what "plural" means?
One should not base strong conclusions upon a single study. One should not misrepresent the single study in order to make a biased point as you keep doing.
I have not even dismissed the study, but I challenge your representation of the study.
A study conducted upon the elderly does not show a representation of all atheists, as an elderly person might act differently than a young person.
More elderly believers attend church, so citing a study on the elderly to support the idea believers attend church regularly would be a flawed way to make your point.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108709 Jul 23, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh..I can only say why I am not fond of wikistoopedia. Mostly because it's a rewrite--mere copy and paste of OTHERS work, that often injects OPINION as well as twisted distortion AND alterations of Fact, rather than just sticking with FACT. It also tends to digress from original subject content, thus leading to decreased focus on original material of same mentioned original subject matter, and is comprised in a rather unsecured environment, which then subjects it to a whole host of OTHER ailments (at times not EVEN anything close to substantiated fact) and is instead rather based upon anonymous entries, subjected to the whims of those who just hold the out entry platforms as a proverbial "dumping ground" for whatever, by whomever, to be scanned (or not) by whomever, for whatever.
In short-NOT exactly the stuff of ETHICAL OR integeral "journalism" type procedures.
As for the rest of your questions-heck if I know.
So out of that whole list, you could only find one thing to comment on? You commented on something that really does not address the question or point.
You made an earlier comment on atheists hating on believers, but you have yet to comment on how believers hate upon others.
Now keep in that denial cave.

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But why do the majority of believer posters hate on others >SO MUCH<? They don't just hate on atheists, they hate on Catholics,'evolutionists', Democrats, astrophysics, agnostics,- on things like the Higgs boson, and wikipedia. They even hate on honesty and compassion. Is that rational, sane, logical or thinking?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108710 Jul 23, 2013
SistaNoneyabiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do that too, no need to sit and whine about it.
(and I actually follow MOST rules, MOST of the time (not just preach about it) WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY better than most I know-so there!)
So because you feel you follow most rules, this is some sort of excuse to not follow the one in question?

Just admit you are wrong like an honorable human would do and stop demonizing the accuser for deflection.

I do not think you are an evil person just because you cannot follow this one rule of society. But the accusation was never meant to accuse you of an evil. I am simply pointing out how your behavior makes it hard for us to follow a line of the argument. This is why the rule is what it is.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108711 Jul 23, 2013
SistaNoneyabiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup--kind of like a dog chasing it's tail around in circle, because it thumped.
Are you agreeing with me? I have no idea what your riddles mean and I really do not care to try and figure it out.
Your mind if far different than mine, so your analogies do not seem to fit in my opinion.

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You mean differing religions are only natural? I agree. It is as if no real god is actually a part of any of this.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108712 Jul 23, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Mays's Axiom's
1) There are no infinities... are but illusion that occurs when mathematical constructs fail due to scale...
2) There are no paradox's ... Are but a mental construct in the absence of all known rules....
3) All observed constants in nature are variable... but on such scales as to be undetectable as varing from the limited scale of observation of the observer...
4) Man knows far less than he knows he knows....
5) Physical Laws apply whether or not man has symbolically defined it.....
a) Mathematical symbolism is not the event its describes...
b) All physical aspects will occur in the universe whether we recognize it or model it... or even if we cease to exist...
6) Vines will not grow out your butt if you swallow water melon seeds...
Paul R. Mays
Who is Paul R. Mays?

I always thought the speed of light in a vacuum was an unquestionable constant. Is it not?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108713 Jul 23, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Science books are good (in my opinion)..actually there seems to be NOT enough of them these days.
I see harmless beliefs as harmless, I see extreme intolerance and/or terrorist type psychoticness as dangerous.
9/11 was an example of extreme intolerance of others beliefs, in combination with the psychoticness of psychoTIC evil beings, wishing to force their own beliefs upon others in very evil, dark age, nutcase ways.
Never to forget that.
Not all believers are haters, and not all haters are believers.
Not that difficult to understand, for rational, sane, logical thinking people anyway.
So is pushing for an agenda of less science books in the science classroom harmless in your opinion? I do not see it as harmless.
Now are you going to address this point or are you going to keep diverting to only addressing the extremes? The extremes I pointed out were only given to show definitively how religion can lead to bad.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Mount Vernon, KY

#108714 Jul 23, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
"Victim in Waiting"...that would be a great band name.
And you live in a strange world if you think someone is going to rape my cat and you are somehow going to skin your smoke wagon, do a double flip over the "bad guys", and save the day. That's called Hollywood.
I used to live in a rough part of a city. Had several friends and loved ones that were mugged. I was also attacked. None of us needed a gun and I'm thankful none of us had guns or the situations would have been worse.
http://youtu.be/zTP7CLRE2ho

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#108715 Jul 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But why do the majority of believer posters hate on others >SO MUCH<? They don't just hate on atheists, they hate on Catholics,'evolutionists', Democrats, astrophysics, agnostics,- on things like the Higgs boson, and wikipedia. They even hate on honesty and compassion. Is that rational, sane, logical or thinking?
Evidently provenscience thinks harm can only mean murder.
He shows consistent double standards as shown here by condemning atheists for debating believers but refuses to address how the believers debate atheists.

Double standards are evidence of the denial needed to keep some faith.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Mount Vernon, KY

#108716 Jul 23, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is Paul R. Mays?
I always thought the speed of light in a vacuum was an unquestionable constant. Is it not?
1) A independent thinker of all thinks thinkable...

2) Depends on Who you ask... To Humans on our scale of observation of the universe the value of c is constant within our limited existence... But there are competing theories that see c as a variable that is set by the separation distance of physical matter... So the Base value of c is set by the total separation distance of all matter in the universe and varies as the universe expands such a rate of change would be so small as to be below calculable error rates on human scales.. Same could be said of the Local Group and our own Galaxy as local deviation due to local density of matter with inertial mass can be in collapse while the Universe can be in expansion but on human scales any variation would be over millions of years and would measure in any method of measure as constant...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Mount Vernon, KY

#108718 Jul 23, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is Paul R. Mays?
I always thought the speed of light in a vacuum was an unquestionable constant. Is it not?
By the way, just to clarify, in Real Science there is no such thing as "unquestionable" as much as the Gia Religion wishes it so, There Ain't.... The Instant a so called "Scientist" claims absolutes and consensus fall back and be "Skeptical" and give more weight to opposing than supporting views....

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#108719 Jul 23, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone with half a brain would notice the distinct personalities represented.
Would a delusional person?

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#108720 Jul 23, 2013
Spaceship earth wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have not seen "Saints and Soldiers" and would like to watch it sometime.
Free on hulu. A christian dies and an atheist keeps his bible. Waste of time, christian propaganda, no historical value. It does have a moment that "curious" would like. The atheist "makes a comment" about the christians religion. The christian says, for one with no faith you ask a lot of questions about religion.

Atheists ask questions.
So god exists.

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.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 15 min Jennifer Renee 38,297
Tonetta Hoevenaar (Mar '15) 1 hr peanut 131
Madison County Rescue Squad 1 hr Rescue randy hater 5
My Plans For Today 3 hr Edward Hieronymus 588
Guys at Kroger wear shorts to work...UNPROFESSI... (Aug '11) 3 hr Could Be Worse 116
You know how close 3 hr David 2
Taylor FBI 5 hr 1987 class ring 2
Is Kyle Goble high?? (Dec '10) Thu MCHS 124

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages