Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That life goes on forever. It's a nice promise. It helps to mitigate the fear of death fear of the unknown. There's just no reason to believe it's true.So, you treat friends and family with care in hopes they will mistreat you? Ignore you? I do not know which denomination you (or your family) followed. You do seem blissfully unaware that many denominations/people of faith follow God's laws because it smooths the way in this life. As far as I know, all Christian sects teach the afterlife is a gift and not a thing can be done to earn it for oneself.The difference, of course, is that friends and family are in the here and now. My actions directly affects those relationships. I don't love my friends and family and treat them with love and respect hoping that will earn me rewards. That was the point of faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system has cultural / geographic biases and it addresses concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority.
Therefore, the teaching that life continues on after death is simply a heads up to be prepared for it to continue. Those who believe in reincarnation caution people to have a care about what they do in the present.
How about those who passed on to the next life. Could they have also been thanking God?No. He thanked the Gods because he survived.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you are one who fears death. Neither Buddhists, atheists, or the people of faith in my family fear death. I guess that is why I forget that there may be some who do. None of my roommates feared death, either.That life goes on forever. It's a nice promise. It helps to mitigate the fear of death fear of the unknown. There's just no reason to believe it's true.
What forever party? Are you imagining that if someone dies when they are three, they spend eternity joyfully riding a tricycle? There is a lot this world has to offer and much of it I will not have time to try. Think of how much more eternity has to offer and how much time there will be to experience it. However, I am sure eternity as enough isolated corners for a person to sit in and do nothing if that is what makes them happy.Honestly, though, do you think that forever party in heaven will be any less fun if your eternal ego or "spirit" if you don't attend?
Who passed to the next life?How about those who passed on to the next life. Could they have also been thanking God?No. He thanked the Gods because he survived.
Is there bowling in heaven?What forever party? Are you imagining that if someone dies when they are three, they spend eternity joyfully riding a tricycle? There is a lot this world has to offer and much of it I will not have time to try. Think of how much more eternity has to offer and how much time there will be to experience it. However, I am sure eternity as enough isolated corners for a person to sit in and do nothing if that is what makes them happy.Honestly, though, do you think that forever party in heaven will be any less fun if your eternal ego or "spirit" if you don't attend?
Not playing.Who passed to the next life?
Not playing.Who passed to the next life?
And you blame this solely on her religion. You picture her life as an atheist homosexual as delightfully fulfilled. Ask yourself: Did you see her personality slowly change over the years, or based on what you always saw in her, did you came up with a professional diagnosis?
We are the United states...states...self governed states...that makes our situation different than any other nation on earth....and you can check for yourself to see if you can find anywhere in Trumps covid recommendations where protesting and rioting are recommended.....I looked and couldn't find that....
The dems took their biggest election weapon away by allowing the protests at a time of a global pandemic....no one will blame Trump with that being the case.....the protests are the reason for the second wave.....and even with all that Trump has kept the death count to 150,000 when over 2 million was predicted....not a bad job....
Not playing.Who passed to the next life?
You wrote: “How about those who passed on to the next life. Could they have also been thanking God?”
Sooooo, who?
There were protests in AZ....Texas....Florida...and CA...just before the second wave struck....maybe you have selective memory syndrome...remember those days we were all convinced the hot weather would kill covid so those protests were held with very few people wearing a mask.....Riots have nothing to do with the spread. The big jumps are in Red States where they ignored the guidelines
There were protests in AZ....Texas....Florida...and CA...just before the second wave struck....maybe you have selective memory syndrome...remember those days we were all convinced the hot weather would kill covid so those protests were held with very few people wearing a mask.....
Of course opening bars was a mistake but that was all on the governors...in Trumps covid policy the opening of bars tattoo parlors and massage parlors and gyms...were to wait until stage 4.....I know as a fact that Newsome blew that call and didn't take Trumps covid policy to heart....and CA got hit hard because of it....
Because your governor had already killed all of the most vulnerable in the state in old folks homes.....I bet your state will still count their votes though....We went to Stage 4 in IL, and we were fine, even with the protests.
Because your governor had already killed all of the most vulnerable in the state in old folks homes.....I bet your state will still count their votes though....
Go and actually read the so called "real scientific" stuff, and frankly/honestly it reads very much the same way. They do tend to be more matter of fact; however, it soon takes on an air of guesswork when they start to pinpoint dating and how they actually know for a fact. They depend on each other (among evolutionists) for support and not on absolutes. It's termed an educated guess...The guy offers no proof for what they call theories. It's only backed up by his vivid imagination. Can't be taken seriously.Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivrayIf GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?A few comments.I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.
As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.
You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.
Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On
The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.www.newsmax.com
The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.
What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.
What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?
I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.
Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.
I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.
I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).
The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.
I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.
And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.
I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.
It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.
I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.
The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.
It's just awful,
You get that from a Creation site? The Grand Canyon was made by erosion over millions of years.Go and actually read the so called "real scientific" stuff, and frankly/honestly it reads very much the same way. They do tend to be more matter of fact; however, it soon takes on an air of guesswork when they start to pinpoint dating and how they actually know for a fact. They depend on each other (among evolutionists) for support and not on absolutes. It's termed an educated guess...The guy offers no proof for what they call theories. It's only backed up by his vivid imagination. Can't be taken seriously.Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivrayIf GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?A few comments.I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.
As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.
You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.
Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On
The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.
The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.
What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.
What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?
I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.
Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.
I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.
I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).
The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.
I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.
And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.
I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.
It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.
I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.
The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.
It's just awful,
The Grand Canyon exhibits very step sides ---- an indication of quick catastrophic formation. Obviously, no one would suggest that an asteroid impact crater took millions of years to form. It took but an INSTANT. The Canyon was the result, in part, of water draining very quickly from a very large lake left behind as the FLOOD's water receded. People who believe in an old earth don't wish to admit to any FLOOD evidence. Such would open a very large can or worms indeed for secularists.You get that from a Creation site? The Grand Canyon was made by erosion over millions of years.Go and actually read the so called "real scientific" stuff, and frankly/honestly it reads very much the same way. They do tend to be more matter of fact; however, it soon takes on an air of guesswork when they start to pinpoint dating and how they actually know for a fact. They depend on each other (among evolutionists) for support and not on absolutes. It's termed an educated guess...The guy offers no proof for what they call theories. It's only backed up by his vivid imagination. Can't be taken seriously.Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivrayIf GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?A few comments.I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.
As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.
You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.
Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On
The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.
The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.
What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.
What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?
I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.
Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.
I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.
I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).
The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.
I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.
And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.
I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.
It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.
I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.
The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.
It's just awful,
Does it bother you that no real scientists agree with the flood theory?The Grand Canyon exhibits very step sides ---- an indication of quick catastrophic formation. Obviously, no one would suggest that an asteroid impact crater took millions of years to form. It took but an INSTANT. The Canyon was the result, in part, of water draining very quickly from a very large lake left behind as the FLOOD's water receded. People who believe in an old earth don't wish to admit to any FLOOD evidence. Such would open a very large can or worms indeed for secularists.You get that from a Creation site? The Grand Canyon was made by erosion over millions of years.Go and actually read the so called "real scientific" stuff, and frankly/honestly it reads very much the same way. They do tend to be more matter of fact; however, it soon takes on an air of guesswork when they start to pinpoint dating and how they actually know for a fact. They depend on each other (among evolutionists) for support and not on absolutes. It's termed an educated guess...The guy offers no proof for what they call theories. It's only backed up by his vivid imagination. Can't be taken seriously.Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivrayIf GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?A few comments.I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.
As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.
You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.
Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On
The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.
The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.
What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.
What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?
I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.
Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.
I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.
I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).
The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.
I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.
And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.
I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.
It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.
I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.
The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.
It's just awful,
caldronpool.com
