“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571199 Dec 8, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The rights of the Christian were protected, as I said, there is nothing in the bible or within Christianity that says a public display of religious iconography or materials are required in a public school in the United States.
You have your homes, churches and other suitable places to exercise your religion.
Hanging up a cross in a classroom isn't exercising religion....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571200 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's science, the same science that helped us understand how evolution happens. The same science that landed us on the moon. The same science that took us up to the sky so we could see that your god isn't there. The same science that lets us explore the Earth's core without having to die horrible flaming deaths doing it, still looking for that lake of fire, so far it's just a bunch of molten rocks. The same science that explains why you self-hating homosexuals are so anti-gay.
um....

Are you 8? Do you think heaven is actually "in the sky"? You think he'll is "underground"?

You're a moron if you do.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571201 Dec 8, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in my experience. Ignorance in America s usually self-imposed by failing to even pay attention in required classes, then by not pursuing information independently.
The amount of information available to anybody with a computer and an Internet connection is staggering.
Mmm hm; and the fact that there are people who cant even afford to go to college is due to the fact that they are failing to pay attentio in class, which they cant even afford to attend frequently, right?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand the difference between educated and intelligent. You need to expose yourself to knowledge to acquire it. You might even have to study. That educates you. It enhances your fund of knowledge.
Which leads me to a very fundamental question: ARE YOU INTELLIGENT?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligence has more to do with processing knowledge and problem solving - analysis. That includes induction - extracting useful generalizations from that knowledge in order to better apply it to solving future situation specific problems.
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with the actual existence of your or any one's intelligence. Processing knowledge and problem solving-analysis are subjective processes that happen insisde the mind; and as such there is no way to verify whether or not you are producing intelligent thoughts. Therefore the reference to the ability to process knowledge does not verify the existence of your intelligence.

So what/where is actual empirical, scientific and tangible proof of your intelligence?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#571202 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hanging up a cross in a classroom isn't exercising religion....
Explain why you think that statement is true.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#571203 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hanging up a cross in a classroom isn't exercising religion....
Yeah- in a way it is, in that it is representative of one's religious beliefs and it's an expression of that belief.

Again- to what end and for what purpose would a teacher display any religious items in a public and secular learning institution?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571204 Dec 8, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK)
Anything that effects the natural world can be tested.
So claims that the natural world is affected by the supernatural
are in the realm of science.
Unfortunately for you the evidence is not in favor of the existence of a supernatural that can affect or produce effects
in the natural world. Therefore leading the skeptic to think
there is no god affecting the natural world.
If you can show that a supernatural force can or does affect the natural, then you will win a Nobel prize, but good luck with that.
If you truly considered even the meaning of the word "Supernatural", you would realize that your argument has no value.

A supernatural as in 'an omnipotent' possesses limitless potential and is therefore not limited in methods or powers to create reality. Therefore the process of development of nature that you identify may very well be an instrument that omnipotence is using to create.

Sceptics are lead to believe that there is no God affecting the natural world by their own inner ambitions and dispositions. Science gives no one any authority to claim or assert that "there is no God affecting the natural world; because the fact is that that science cannot be built on a negative argument.

The expression "there is no God affecting the natural world" is nothing more than a reflection of your desire to live in a Godless world.

Existence itself is proof that a "supernatural'(event a supernaturally intelligent agent) is affecting the world as such; unless you can prove that efficiency is accidental characteristic.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571205 Dec 8, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
no one takes the meaning of life from your god delusions
have you looked up the definition of insane?
I have scientific proof that your existence is meaningless.

As a matter of fact; you are the ones proving scientific proof that your existence is meaningless; I'm just making an objective observation.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571206 Dec 8, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I have something here of equal value to offer in exchange. I trust you'll find it just as inspirational and meaningful in your life as I do your bible. It's from the bible of your chief competitor :
Qu'ran Al-Ghashiyah
88:11 Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech.
88:12 Within it is a flowing spring.
88:13 Within it are couches raised high
I want you to think about that. Here we have couches raised high. Yes, couches will be raised high. Did you hear that? Couches! High davenports. Raised settees. Elevated chesterfields. Hoisted ottomans. Skyward chaises. Heavenly divans. It's all so holy! O so holy!
I'm sure you meant something by that.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#571207 Dec 8, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah- in a way it is, in that it is representative of one's religious beliefs and it's an expression of that belief.
Again- to what end and for what purpose would a teacher display any religious items in a public and secular learning institution?
Not a fan of the Arts, are you?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571208 Dec 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Creatures adapt over time to better survive.
<quoted text>
You don't watch many documentaries, do you?
<quoted text>
Matter was formed in the Big Bang. Where the energy came from? We don't know. That is why we experiment
Saying that creatures adapt over time to better survive is not the same as saying evolution did it or natural selection did it.

Anyone can make a documentary, presenting supporting evidence; but evidence only supports. Evidence is not proof.

Do you know that there was a "Big Bang"; or are you just hiding behind the fact that a negative cannot be proven, so its impossible to prove that the Big Bang did not happen?

Even if there was a big bang, you still have to demonstrate that matter under the influence of mindless, undirected energy can repetitively produce forms, structures and entities with efficient capacities.

Furthermore, the fact that you dont know the origin of energy doesn't mean that "Goddidit"; but the fact that the origin of energy can be scientifically explained doesn't mean Godditnotdoit either.

I agree that the universe can be studied without reference to an "agent of creation"; but does that mean that the "agent of creation" does not exist or was not involved.

Does the fact that I dont have to know who made a care to study the car mean that the creator of the car doesnt exist? No. My will to study a thing without considering the creator of a thing is nothing more than the will to exclude the influence of the creator from my learning processes.

But therein is a fundamental error in thought:

HOW CAN YOU STUDY THE CREATION WITHOUT CONTEMPLATING THE INFLUENCE OF THE CREATOR; WHILE THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBJECT YOU ARE STUDYING IS MADE POSSIBLE THRUOGHT THE INFLUENCE OF THE CREATOR?

By studying the creation, you are as a matter of fact, contemplating the influence of the creator.

BUT SINCE SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT FAIRNESS; I DONT EXPECT THE SCIENTIFIC MIND TO THINK FAIRLY.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#571209 Dec 8, 2012
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a fan of the Arts, are you?
I'm a MAJOR fan of the Arts.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571210 Dec 8, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am always honest.
Edited is not butchered. I edit the full comment down to the part that I am responding to. Personally, when I see a long quote at the top of a post which addresses one sentence from it without indicating which, I generally don't bother to search the whole quote for it. I just move on. I try to do better than that myself when replying.
If you think that you have been misrepresented by the editing, then demonstrate so. I've told you before that merely crying that "You've taken me out of context!" is insufficient. Nearly every citation is removed from surrounding context.
It's only dishonest when this is done to misrepresent the quoted source. You need to show the citation both in and out of whatever context you think has been unfairly snipped out and show that your meaning was misrepresented for that claim to anything more than the cry of somebody with no argument.
If you are always honest, I dont have the capacity to lie and I can speak nothing but fact and reality and truth.

If you are always honest, I am never dishonest.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#571211 Dec 8, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary theory describes reality. That fact is confirmed. I don't have to be able to explain it in limitless detail to know that.
<quoted text>
Actually, "faith" is the less precise and more ambiguous term, since the word "faith" is used in radically different ways that are actually complete opposites. Beliefs justified by religious faith are guesses, whereas beliefs based on evidence are not.
This is true for many words. Consider "clip," which means both attach and detach:
"I clipped the papers together, then clipped the coupon form them."
Or "custom," which can mean commonplace or unique:
"It was my custom to buy custom fitted suits."
How about "left," which can be either remaining or departed:
"After Susie left, her sister was left to clean up the mess."
I can increase precision by using the words "departed" and "remained" in place of the ambiguous word "left":
"After Susie departed, her sister remained to clean up the mess"
You want to use "faith" in two opposite ways, which is ambiguous. I am increasing the precision of the comment by substituting "confidence" for faith.
Saying that evolution describes reality means nothing essentially. A description of reality does not have to be factual; "the sun is a red apple", is also a description of reality.

The fact that you cant prove that God doesnt exist is also confirmed.

Since you dont know the experience that are involved in the formation of religious faith; you have no authority to speak on the matter. The fact is that beliefs are caused, so all faith has some association with reality; so religious faith and scientific beliefs are both rooted in real experiences.

Your expression that "Beliefs justified by religious faith are guesses", amount to nothing but mere propaganda.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571212 Dec 8, 2012
NoStress4me wrote:
<quoted text>
My link was to comment # 571120 that stated:
<quoted text>
I 100% agree with your statement that a teacher questioned the way you describe above should say "Some people believe that, but that's for another class, ok." I personally read your comment different when you said,“There's absolutely nothing wrong with a school teacher discussing religion in class.“ Your example does not include a teacher discussing a religion, but acknowledging that there are different views. There is everything wrong with a school teacher discussing a religion in the classroom when it is in a public (not private) school. Most K-12 teachers do not have a minor let alone major in world religion, so why would I want my children to learn religion from them?
I'd agree that teachers shouldn't teach religion in a public school, but that's not what I said.

I said that it's ok for them to discuss religion in class.

Religion is a huge part of human society. It always has been & always will be. Most classes in school have something to do with religion & it will need to brought up from time to time. Especially considering that probably over half the students in the classrooms are religious themselves...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571213 Dec 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You said it requires a lot of imagination to "believe it." That is false.
In order to say that evolution is the reason for all life on earth & that everything alive evolved from one single cell organism is quite a belief - as there is no fact for that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571214 Dec 8, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"QUACK QUACK quack quack quack!"
Oh, it's a slightly different subspecies?
"Quack quack quack!"
Pretty much indistinguishable from any other, you say?
"Quack!"
Oh, okay. Thanks for telling me.
Still a damn' duck.
Right....

Which is why they're called "Catholic"....

And their churches say "Catholic Church"....

And in Ireland, you have the "Roman Catholic Church".....

Not the "Roman Christian Church"....

Get a grip, dude.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571215 Dec 8, 2012
Greens - Tuf wrote:
<quoted text> Teacher's cannot go to school and say Ford is better than Chev, that comes down to personal opinion, hence religion is the same, it is a personal belief. It is not fact, it is an opinion.
If it was scientific fact than of course you would not be having this debate.
A cross to me, regardless of it's intention wreaks of torture . It is a symbol of fear , it is a symbol of pain.
OK, so it's your opinion that a cross represents fear....

So then schools should cater to your needs & forget everyone else that sees it as a symbol of Jesus...

uh-huh

BTW - Ford is better.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571216 Dec 8, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Catholicism is the senior surviving sect. Redneck knows that - he's just trying (feebly) to be combative.
Christian was first.

The first known usage of the term khristianos can be found in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26: "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

A letter written by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna around 106 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church.

When all is said and done, this is a question asking if the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original church of Jesus. If the catholics were first, then the rest of Christianity is false and apostate. If the Catholics were not first, then they are but a mere branch in the vast family of Christianity.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571217 Dec 8, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Try this: Tit for tat or: one "good" turn deserves another.
That is really what "quid pro quo" means.
Get it now?
It's best not to go with the literal translation of some Latin phrases, but you did a great job googling!
I know what quid pro quo means, dippy. You saw the "something for something", yes?

What didn't make sense was "it does seem that they may be subject to their own morality."

'_'

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571218 Dec 8, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Has nothing to do with anyone turning into me, RR- you pull this crap all the time when you are backed into a corner.
Anyway, from another post of mine, I asked you what would be the purpose or motivation for teachers to have religious items in their classrooms or on their desks.
So....what would be the point? Why would any teacher feel such a pressing need to display religious items in their classrooms if they were not promoting a particular religion?
Why would a teacher feel the need or even the desire to advertise their religious beliefs to their students?
It's really none of the students' business, you know.
So why would a teacher feel the need to display items based on their personal religious beliefs in what is their place of business which they're not supposed to discuss with their students anyway?
No, I said that because that's an OCB trait - to answer a question not asked or to quickly change the subject or to respond in ignorance of what was said.

Example:

Me: "Potato chips are good."
OCB: "You're such a MORON giving potato chips to YOUR kids!"

ughfhfhfhfhfhhhhhhhh

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min guest 568,404
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min WasteWater 267,520
Corruption At The Gaston Inn Motel In Gastonia,... 22 min Marty Fong 1
The Knights of Columbus, Scottish And Yorkrite ... 24 min Marty Fong 13
I live with my cousin, we had sex and we loved it. 26 min Ed Teach 6
contagion what ails the system (Oct '08) 46 min uttam hathi 734
Homosexuals are servants and human children of ... 48 min Doctor REALITY 25
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 55 min Black Thunder 42 607,243
Scientific proof for God's existence 1 hr Make World peace ... 607
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 4 hr AN NFL FAN 120,750
More from around the web