Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[pussyface]

in the middle of a serious discussion, you said it wouldnt matter to teach God in tax-funded schools because no one pays attention in high school philosphy anyway and everyone will just take a nap.

it just didnt have any place in the context of adults discussing this issue. your personal experience with philosophy doesn't apply to anyone else really.

[Extra Stout]

I believe it is. I think ID is most definately lazy thinking. Its an excuse.

"Well science cant explain everything, therefore God did it all."

Like I said, go light your lantern.

Some ID thinking I dismiss out of hand, like that baloney about the "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum or whatever. That's a perfect example of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, because then another researcher determined the mechanism for the development of that structure, and the "irreducible complexity" argument imploded, and the God that fellow was arguing for got a little smaller. It's bad science, and bad theology.

Certainly there are ID proponents with a furtively proselytic agenda.

But I don't see why we have to be absolutely positive that scientific naturalism will explain everything. It's a tool. It is not the key to all truth.

[Phenomanul]

And God created the earth. God said "let there be light".

How many planets exist? How many suns?

Let's just all forget about science.

Think about that as our sister galaxy (andromeda) steams toward us at approx. 350 thousand miles an hour.

Why worry about something that you won't be here to sulk about????

[pussyface]

that does not meet the definition of irony. for it to be ironic, it would have had to relate to death or dying or something.

the word is misused in this case.

...more english class........less fundamentalism

[Spurminator]

It was an aside. It wasn't meant to be taken as the primary point of the post. Perhaps you'd care to address the other 3 paragraphs.

[pussyface]

yeah, i second.

[Extra Stout]

in the middle of a serious discussion, you said it wouldnt matter to teach God in tax-funded schools because no one pays attention in high school philosphy anyway and everyone will just take a nap.

it just didnt have any place in the context of adults discussing this issue. your personal experience with philosophy doesn't apply to anyone else really.

When I was in school, in world history class they taught the major tenets of five major world religions. Go write your congressman and have their funding withheld!

[pussyface]

I think it's sufficient to say Science has not found the answer to certain things. There just really isn't a place in Science class to teach the theory of a Supreme Being who designed the universe.

Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch.

I believe in a God that created a universe with an infinite number of things we can learn about through scientific study. This study does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is what it is... and you either believe God created it or you don't.

The conflict between Science and Theology was created by Scientists and Theists. Fundamentally, there is no conflict there.

ya know i actually believe in god too, but to me its a personal thing and is not something i would ever want to bring into a (nonreligious) educational setting ever. i dont think its something i could ever prove or discuss with rationally, and thus isnt fit for the classroom.

it should never be presented in the same breath or put on the same podium with science and things that are tangibly, imperically true...when you get down to it, believing in god requires a lot of wild speculation.

[Extra Stout]

when you get down to it, believing in god requires a lot of wild speculation.

As does not believing in God.

[Phenomanul]

that does not meet the definition of irony. for it to be ironic, it would have had to relate to death or dying or something.

the word is misused in this case.

...more english class........less fundamentalism

You're talking about a more exclusive, literary version of the word... found under No. 4

from the American Heritage Dictionary....

i·ro·ny (r-n, r-) KEY

NOUN:
pl. i·ro·nies

1.
a) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

b) An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

c) A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit 1.

2.
a) Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

b) An occurrence, result, or cir stance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

3.
Dramatic irony.

4.
Socratic irony.

NEXT.

[pussyface]

EXTRA STOUt- EXACTLY!
THATS WHY NOT BELIEVING IN GOD SHOULDNT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS EITHER! Lets leave the big fella out of it, eh? happy medium? avoid wild speculation altogether?
total agreement

[pussyface]

which definition of irony are you claiming your "kill yourself was ironic" thing fits under?

[pussyface]

it is not ironic that i said that i wanted to have a serious discussion then suggested in the next breath that a contributor "kill themselves."

i will admit, non the less, that it was grossly hypocritical.
thats the word, yes yes?

[Extra Stout]

EXTRA STOUt- EXACTLY!
THATS WHY NOT BELIEVING IN GOD SHOULDNT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS EITHER! Lets leave the big fella out of it, eh? happy medium? avoid wild speculation altogether?
total agreement

If schools were totally neutral on the concept, that would be sufficient for me.

[scott]

You skipped the middle paragraph on purpose???

I skipped the middle paragraph because I had nothing to say on it. You want me to say something... fine... the fact that only 1 out of 3 people who claim to be Christians are "Christians" in your book is evidence of one of two things 1) an extremely high failure rate among the Christian church to get their followers to fully adapt to their message or 2) your definition of what it means to be Christian differs from the majority of people who claim to be Christian.

anyway... I don't plan on having 'religious' doctrines taught at school... You again confuse me for someone else, having both the premises behind ID taught at school, and the typical evolutionary theory in no way denies an education to your children...

I don't recall saying anything about ID in this thread. I recall saying that people should believe whatever they want in regards to religion, just so long as it stays out of public schools. Your response was that you wanted your tax money back and went on to imply that not teaching religion in school was the cause of our academic problems link and link . Maybe it is you who is confusing you with someone else. If you want to teach ID, then let's also teach Creation as told by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it doesn't deny your children the ability to consider ID or evolutionary theory.

You are just too much of a hard-liner to admit it. The choice of what they wish to believe is still left up to them.... my cousin got an 'F' on one of his research papers where he had two sentences that tangentially referenced ID... and you scoffed at my 'one-sided' comment earlier??? I was outraged, that his teacher could be that 'closed-minded'...

Too much of a hard-liner to admit what? I just gave you the premises for which ID can be taught at school... when you allow all psuedo scientific creation theories to be taught.

ID does not exclusively imply the Christian GOD is behind creation(though that may be my line of thinking).... it just poses the question that many complex mechanisms, structures and design elements have no known chemical, physical or biological pathways... and then infers that higher order thinking and 'engineering' was involved.

Inference based on no scientific evidence. Debate over.

Again, let's just agree to disagree... we are getting no where...

Who is the hard-liner?

[scott]

I think it's sufficient to say Science has not found the answer to certain things. There just really isn't a place in Science class to teach the theory of a Supreme Being who designed the universe.

Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch.

I believe in a God that created a universe with an infinite number of things we can learn about through scientific study. This study does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is what it is... and you either believe God created it or you don't.

The conflict between Science and Theology was created by Scientists and Theists. Fundamentally, there is no conflict there.

Bingo.

[clambake]

There are whole bunch of Gods running around up there according to people of faith. Why, there is this one God that says to his people that you and your beliefs are that of the infidel.

So how many kingdoms of God are there? Wouldn't the same differences exist up there as they do here? Whose God is greatest?

[Phenomanul]

Who is the hard-liner?

OK so you want this argument to continue on end... I have other things to do as well you know. The 'agree to disagree' is not an ultimatum scott... it's a realization that you are as entrenched in your beliefs as I am in mine... nothing wrong with that. Some people just want to argue I guess.

I skipped the middle paragraph because I had nothing to say on it. You want me to say something... fine... the fact that only 1 out of 3 people who claim to be Christians are "Christians" in your book is evidence of one of two things 1) an extremely high failure rate among the Christian church to get their followers to fully adapt to their message or 2) your definition of what it means to be Christian differs from the majority of people who claim to be Christian.

1) It's part of human nature to go against the nature of GOD. So I am inclined to agree with you, albeit you blame faith-based religion whereas I blame the natural tendencies of man's heart.

2) The definition, or should I say the characteristics, of a follower are clearly outlined throughout the Bible.... which you do not believe to be true... so as smeagol said, "we are going in circles..."

3) That it is very difficult to live a life where we can learn to completely place our trust, and burdens on GOD.

I don't recall saying anything about ID in this thread. I recall saying that people should believe whatever they want in regards to religion, just so long as it stays out of public schools.

Because you first implied I wanted religious doctrines taught in school... (i.e. topics concerning GOD's grace and forgiveness)... to which I said doctrines, and scientific implications concerning my faith were two different things.

Your response was that you wanted your tax money back and went on to imply that not teaching religion in school was the cause of our academic problems link and link .

Already addressed quote above.

Maybe it is you who is confusing you with someone else. If you want to teach ID, then let's also teach Creation as told by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it doesn't deny your children the ability to consider ID or evolutionary theory.

No... I know what I wrote, and I know where I stand... that you misinterpret what I write is something else altogether.

With regards to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster theory": clue me in... whenever it addresses the genesis of life, of proteins, of the design of biological systems, of the information contained within DNA itself... post it. I'll be waiting.

Too much of a hard-liner to admit what? I just gave you the premises for which ID can be taught at school... when you allow all psuedo scientific creation theories to be taught.

Psuedo science = that which the scientific community wants to conveniently ignore....

Inference based on no scientific evidence. Debate over.

The same scientific evidence that was provided to show how DNA came into being... scratch that, how amino acids came into being... no, scratch that too... how amino acids were stable enough to stay in solution for only a few seconds... and magically combine with amino acids of the same chirality with a very unstable sugar-phosphate molecule... to form an inmensely unstable molecule, due to its high entropic energy... Damn... what conclusive evidence has science provided on the genesis of DNA???

And that's just it.... the verdict isn't out yet... and still you want your children to accept this huge step in the genesis of life as a given... but do tell me what the flying spaghetti monster theory says on the subject...

[scott]

Maybe it's because I went to a Catholic HS (I'm serious), but I don't recall the genisis of DNA being taught in high school.

I'm against the teaching of all inference absent of any scientific evidence. Does that make you happy?

[scott]

Psuedo science = that which the scientific community wants to conveniently ignore....

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me or the rest of the scientific community. Are scientists to take up every pet cause someone dreams up. Fact: no have no scientific evidence that an intelligent designer created the earth and life on it. No one is stopping ID proponents from going out and gathering solid scientific evidence, and yet there is none. It is hard to ignore something that doesn't exist.

Because you first implied I wanted religious doctrines taught in school... (i.e. topics concerning GOD's grace and forgiveness)... to which I said doctrines, and scientific implications concerning my faith were two different things.

I said I wanted religion (and for clarification atheism as well) out of school. You then went on to write about the decaying nature of our school system. What inference was I supposed to take from that? In any case, sorry if I misinterpreted your statements.

The problem is neither side can provide it... unless one of us manages to build a time machine to gather evidence... all we will have is speculation.

Well, thank you for admitting so. Speculation that admittedly can never be backed by scientific evidence does not belong in science classes. I've said in many threads and agreed with Spurm in this one that ID is a topic for a philosophy classes which debates the origin of the universe. So long as other theories are represented accordingly and no preference is giving to any of them in a public school setting - I think it would be a great high school course (although one that only the studious are likely to take, and good for them).

[clambake]

Boa puttin' the time in on the retort.

What would other relegions say about your position?

[clambake]

If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in all Gods.

[Phenomanul]

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me.

The problem is neither side can provide it... unless one of us manages to build a time machine to gather evidence... all we will have is speculation.

[gtownspur]

There are whole bunch of Gods running around up there according to people of faith. Why, there is this one God that says to his people that you and your beliefs are that of the infidel.

So how many kingdoms of God are there? Wouldn't the same differences exist up there as they do here? Whose God is greatest?

^nice long bumpersticker qoute.

Horrible post.

[gtownspur]

If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in all Gods.

that equates to..."if you believe in someone, you must then believe in everyone."


Stupid logic.


Next.