Originally Posted by cbwm

Once again I find myself generally agreeing with you Tim. I do, however, think there is a case to be made that the removal of all things spiritual from the schools, going so far as to remove Christmas, leaves us with a growing populous that believes any person of faith is a loon. And whether you believe in the bible or not, I think that many of it's moral principles should be mandatory (respect for self, others, life, do on to others before they do on to you, etc) lest we soon have an amoral society. That qualifies as foisting a belief system on our children, but it is the belief system that is the basis for our laws. Change the beliefs, change the laws. I know there are many in favor of removing Christmas and easter as national holidays, or at least renaming them. Disturbing IMO.

Respect for others is not an exclusively christian principle but one that was around since man evolved from primates. Homo Sapiens has been around for 100,000 years, Christianity for only 2000.

You do know that there are many school districts that are predominantly Muslim? If school sponsored prayer were legal, it wouldn't just be chrisitan prayers that would be spoken over the loud speakers.

This is a nation built upon the secular principles of democracy and freedom. Two basic principles nowhere found in the bible. In fact, they are against every principle in the bible.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Joder, I'm sorry man, but we are talking about history now, and that statement without any supporting documentation is just ridiculous. None of us will know exactly what happened from 0ad -33ad, but I feel pretty confident that for piece of evidence you produce to argue that Jesus didn't exist, I can produce 100 that say he did. These types of overreaching attempts to eliminate not only the stories about the man, but the man himself, exemplify the very agenda I mentioned in my first post.

There are millions of facts supporting Darwinian evolution. Zero for creation by god.

And you might want to know, I don't have to disprove something for which there is no evidence. The person purporting to claim that something exists has to produce the evidence. The only evidence for Jesus is that he was a MAN who held the principles of Pharisaic Judaism. Evidence found in the historical references to the Ebionites. There is no other reliable information about Jesus. Unless you want to try and say the gospels which are contradicting in what they say both in historical events and in theology. The historical information about his earliest followers is that Jesus was a man and they followed all of the Jewish law including animal sacrifices long after this Jesus died.

Atheism is NOT a religion. Just because you don't believe something for which cbwm or anyone else can't produce evidence, doesn't make it a religion.. It's up to the people putting forth a claim to a god to show he exists. By your standards, you would have to show evidence that EVERY other god didn't exist. The same for fairies and unicorns.

But you can call it a religion if you want. I don't care. You are the one trying to say something exists and have no evidence for it. You are an atheist too you know. You don't believe in Allah, Zeus, Krishna, etc. The only difference between you and me is I believe in one less god than you do.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Quite right Forrest. Evolution by selective breeding, for example, is that scientific theory put into practice for much of the food we eat. We both came up with Buddhist on our religious assessment which may (or may not) have answered the creation question the same. I'm referring to the answer allowing for the possibility of evolution by divine guidance.

I stopped taking the religious assessment at around the 10th question in. As I remember, I quit the thing for the same reason you didn't like it - the choice of answers was too limited. But I never got a grade from that particular quiz, although of the options, you're probably right ... Buddhist may be the closest one to describe me.

It's not just basset hounds and miniature poodles through selective breeding that show evolution. As radically different as a chihuahua and a great Dane seem, they're both dogs. We've seen much more profound examples, that involve speciation. And for the record, before it's brought up by any denier, archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

Now, you're plenty welcome to tell your children that evolution happens because god wanted it. You can tell them god was trying to make flying monkeys, like in The Wizard of Oz. You can tell them the sun is a fusion reaction because god needed to practice up on his physics and quantum mechanics for a job interview. This is by definition superstition and not science; to think that your personal, untestable, explanation for why something happens should be taught in biology class is a great example of this thing 'ego' you're talking about.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Whether we agree on that point or not, the ego required for the blanket dismissal of everything we don't know as "superstition" demonstrates arrogance and ignorance. (We know how DNA works, therefore there is no god can hardly be considered logic) In that spirit, we remove all other religious teachings from our schools to prop up our new religion. Ego. Self.

Tim is right, this is a logical fallacy of the sort our president might make. To rid the world of ego ... why aren't we teaching intelligent falling theory? The why of gravity is that tiny angels are pulling heavy things together. We don't fully understand how gravity works, therefor by your logic we must teach the next generation to carry the torch ancient guesses.

Honestly, this ego thing is a wild goose chase. I've never met an atheist, agnostic, or anyone of the sort, who could say with a straight face that we know all there is to know about the nature of the universe. We're just pretty sure there's a better understanding than what a person with a < 30 year life expectancy wrote many thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Oh, and if there was any argument about whether Secular Humanism is a religion before, I think the vehemence of the responses makes my case for me.

That's one possible explanation, anyway.

Forrest, you've clearly forgotten more about science than I will ever know. I notice you failed to address the issue of our schools failing to teach morality. Given that science is amoral, where then should our morals come from if not taught in school... those tiny little angles holding heavy objects together? Or do you disagree that a common set of basic morals should be something the people of our nation share? Do you feel U.S. citizens who believe in the bible(The majority by all polls) are idiots who need education, regardless of the fact that many very intelligent and successful?

Mind you, I'm not a very spiritual person, and certainly not a heavy bible reader any more, but the way you phrased your post made it sound like you think very little of anyone giving any credence to the bible. I also happen to believe a life without some form of spirituality is incomplete.

If you want the answer, then read the one I gave you already

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/genera...tml#post511314



fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

Forrest, you've clearly forgotten more about science than I will ever know. I notice you failed to address the issue of our schools failing to teach morality. Given that science is amoral, where then should our morals come from if not taught in school... those tiny little angles holding heavy objects together? Or do you disagree that a common set of basic morals should be something the people of our nation share? Do you feel U.S. citizens who believe in the bible(The majority by all polls) are idiots who need education, regardless of the fact that many very intelligent and successful?

So your saying it's what people believe that matters and not facts?

You still need to address the question of morality and the bible.

Where is democracy and western style freedom in the Bible?
(hint: nowhere. It came from the ancient Greeks and secular thinking)
Why does the Bible support slavery? It finds it moral and says absolutely nothing against the practice. Jesus and Paul never speak out against it even when confronted with it. They only say to serve your slave master with patience. Look at the ten commandments. Don't covet your neighbors slave.
Why does Yahweh order genocide and rape?

Your Bible is immoral on many counts. There are a lot better places to look for moral guidance. It's natural in any society to try to treat people fairly if that is how you want to be treated. You don't need a god for that. People can use reason which evolved over millions of years.

Originally Posted by joder

So your saying it's what people believe that matters and not facts?

You still need to address the question of morality and the bible.

Where is democracy and western style freedom in the Bible?
(hint: nowhere. It came from the ancient Greeks and secular thinking)

Hey James, you are wasting your breath.

This BibleHead forgetting or ignoring the fact that America is cradle of Modern Democracy and want to take America back to middle ages where the priests will replace Supreme Court Judges.


fastreplies

Originally Posted by joder

Where is democracy and western style freedom in the Bible? (hint: nowhere. It came from the ancient Greeks and secular thinking )

Ancient Greeks were secular? Democracy is moral system rather than a system of government?

Let me quote you something from a famous document you might have heard of:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Originally Posted by joder

You still need to address the question of morality and the bible...
Why does the Bible support slavery?

Slavery is mentioned throughout the bible. Thats a far cry from Jesus endorsing it. Lets also not forget the historical aspects of the book. Indentured servants were common in many countries in the not too distant past.

Originally Posted by joder

Look at the ten commandments. Don't covet your neighbors slave.

Um dude, get your verse correct. It is don't covet your neighbors wife.

Originally Posted by joder

Why does Yahweh order genocide and rape?

Why does a nation go to war and say killing is ok? Why would you kill a man who came in your house to rape your wife and kill your children? All old testament misquotes btw.

Originally Posted by joder

Your Bible is immoral on many counts. There are a lot better places to look for moral guidance. It's natural in any society to try to treat people fairly if that is how you want to be treated. You don't need a god for that. People can use reason which evolved over millions of years.

First off, it's not my bible. Secondly, if you have better places for moral guidance, provide them. This isn't the questions only, no answers thread. Thirdly, I would argue that it is absolutely NOT natural in any society to try to treat people fairly. History has taught us that over and over again. Communism, the original topic of this thread, was a beautiful concept which failed miserably, and not that different from what you propose. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It is amazing to see the anti-bible/anti-god people come out of the woodwork when someone posts anything defending a Christian, regardless of their own beliefs. It would seem hatred of Christians is nearly as strong as hatred of Dubya. In principle, I'm against hatred of all sorts.

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest"

Originally Posted by cbwm

Removed by poster

Why?




fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

Forrest, you've clearly forgotten more about science than I will ever know.

???

Originally Posted by cbwm

I notice you failed to address the issue of our schools failing to teach morality.

Biology class certainly isn't an appropriate place for morality to be taught. This may come as a shock: more than biology is taught in school. More than science even. Those of us who paid attention learned about Huck Finn in school ... but not in the King James version of biology class.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Given that science is amoral, where then should our morals come from if not taught in school... those tiny little angles holding heavy objects together? Or do you disagree that a common set of basic morals should be something the people of our nation share?

If a parent hasn't taught their child the very basics of morality before they're old enough to be in school ... I wouldn't want any child I know to be in a class with that person. They've done a few studies, telling kinder-gardeners not to eat snacks in front of other children; when this rule is taken back, the children eat twinkies. When they "take back" the rule about not shoving other students out of their chairs, the students don't believe the teachers. That's not to say schools should never teach ethics - I learned a great deal in philosophy class, from literature including the likes of Crime and Punishment, and so on.

How is it a far-right-of-center conservative is arguing that parents should abdicate their responsibility as parents and let the communist institution of public schools take over?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Do you feel U.S. citizens who believe in the bible(The majority by all polls) are idiots who need education

No. To be clear: those are your words, not mine. Do you feel that way?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Mind you, I'm not a very spiritual person, and certainly not a heavy bible reader any more, but the way you phrased your post made it sound like you think very little of anyone giving any credence to the bible. I also happen to believe a life without some form of spirituality is incomplete.

There are certain parts of the bible that deserve credence, and there are others that we can probably all agree don't. That woman in Texas who killed her children because she earnestly believed god told her to ... remember the part about Abraham being ordered to slay Isaac to prove his faith and obedience? Isaac got a stay of execution at the last moment; others haven't been so lucky. I'm sure you can understand how people can believe this isn't the very best moral guide in all of human knowledge? There's a lot that's very positive in the bible ... but not all of it.

More important: if you choose to believe a supreme intelligence created the universe as described in Genesis, that's your business. I really don't have the right to tell you to think otherwise. But - and this is important - esoteric interpretations of the bible do not justify prohibition against stem cell research, sending missionaries to teach the sinfulness of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa where ~10 million people a year die from AIDS, or any of the myriad other ways real suffering is perpetuated in the name of religion. You can believe anything you choose to, but when it comes to equipping our children for the future, the things we teach are held to a higher standard. A person can believe 2 and 2 make 5, but they can't have that taught in math classes to satisfy their ego. A person can believe a square is fundamentally more stable than a triangle, but that person will never be allowed to design bridges that carry anything of value.

Forrest, while I can agree that morality needs to start with the family, the fact remains, our legal system will enforce the moral code should the family fail to teach it. Maybe if the education system wasn't quite so communist, and admittedly it is, we would have fewer criminals.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Last night while feverishly putting finish touches to website I am working, I listen to CNN “God’s Worriers” show. I am sure many of you know what was this show is all about. By reading what you are saying I have no doubts in my mind that you are one of those who will without hesitation shot abortion doctor the same way Muslim lunatic will blowup himself just to kill in the name of his religion.

Let me make this clear to you and you alike. I am not against your beliefs and your God but against your religious fanatics desire to replace the Constitution with the Bible and Laws with verses. You are no longer a group of people united by common religious beliefs because after you stepped over the line, which by your Constitution separate State and Church, you became a Political Party and as such you became a fare game.

Your "other" Republicans (if they ever want to have political power) very soon will adopt bumper sticker that will say:
Don’t blame Republicans, blame Christians


fastreplies

You rendered your own post irrelevant when you incorrectly assumed I am pro-life, but I'll address your points anyway.

1) We've already beat the "CNN preaches nothing but useless drivel" drum to death, so there is no need to dive back into that one. I'm surprised you bring it up.

2) The architects of the Constitution were all god fearing men and Christian. That means the people trying to change the constitution are people like you (if you had citizenship).

3) Republicans have had power, and will continue to do so. You've again made the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you, when in fact, the majority of the U.S. is still Christian.

Lets get another thing clear. The last gun toting maniac to start randomly shooting people was an estranged student shooting at "Christians" because they were Christians. One of your friends?

Oh, and just for you, lets not forget George W. Bush was elected to a second term of office by an overwhelming majority even the spineless started to pull away their support for Iraq. If it is true, as you say, that Chirstian Republians are the minority, then I guess the moderates and democrats re-elected Dubya. I'm really going to love listening to you whine when Guiliani gets sworn into office.

Seriously, your post was so full of factual errors, it makes me think you've never picked up a U.S. history book.

Originally Posted by cbwm

You rendered your own post irrelevant when you incorrectly assumed I am pro-life, but I'll address your points anyway.

1) We've already beat the "CNN preaches nothing but useless drivel" drum to death, so there is no need to dive back into that one. I'm surprised you bring it up.

2) The architects of the Constitution were all god fearing men and Christian. That means the people trying to change the constitution are people like you (if you had citizenship).

3) Republicans have had power, and will continue to do so. You've again made the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you, when in fact, the majority of the U.S. is still Christian.

Lets get another thing clear. The last gun toting maniac to start randomly shooting people was an estranged student shooting at "Christians" because they were Christians. One of your friends?

Oh, and just for you, lets not forget George W. Bush was elected to a second term of office by an overwhelming majority even the spineless started to pull away their support for Iraq. If it is true, as you say, that Chirstian Republians are the minority, then I guess the moderates and democrats re-elected Dubya. I'm really going to love listening to you whine when Guiliani gets sworn into office.

Seriously, your post was so full of factual errors, it makes me think you've never picked up a U.S. history book.

Read your own constitution specifically where it says about separation

As I said, I don’t have problems with Christians, only with fanatics. Are you one of them?

He starts shooting because his Christian leader laid to him and turned to be a gay

Overwhelming majority? Yea sure compare to Florida's fiasco, with less that half of million in Ohio, you can say “overwhelming majority”

Guiliani who?

Hey, remeber, I am Canadian? But it seems to me I know about your country history more than you do and wish to Americans more than you will ever offer.


fastreplies

Originally Posted by cbwm

Forrest, while I can agree that morality needs to start with the family, the fact remains, our legal system will enforce the moral code should the family fail to teach it.

I can't disagree with that. Even if we had no legal system - which would be a disaster - a personal sense of morality is what prevents us from killing each other. Society wouldn't be able to function without some level of shared morality. We might disagree on details, but all of us ( except Charles Manson ) basically agree with the Golden Rule.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Maybe if the education system wasn't quite so communist, and admittedly it is, we would have fewer criminals.

The whole notion of public schools - or libraries, museums, parks, what have you - is communist or at least socialist by nature. Pure, unbridled capitalism would say schools should be private, for profit institutions. Common sense says our whole society does better when our citizens are educated, and much of the world has been able to come to something like a happy compromise on the subject.

That's not to say public - or private - schools are anywhere near perfect. I spent a year of my life volunteering at one, teaching second and third graders the basics of how to read, tutoring fifth graders long division. One of the kids drew drug paraphernalia on his arm with a pen, like tattoos. I'd bring my guitar to school and play bad Led Zepplin covers for the kids, try to give an example of not being a "loser" and not being a criminal. When it comes up at the polls, I vote against teaching how to be good test takers instead of teaching, say, how computers work at a higher level. Religion is far from the only thing that needs to be improved in our school.

And here's a shocker ... I think it's appropriate to teach Greek and Egyptian mythology in history or literature classes. I also think it's appropriate to teach - not promote, but teach - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and some of more common flavors of Buddhism. World religions are very relevant to the hundreds of millions of people who follow them, and they're getting more important to everyone else in a world that's turning more and more global.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Read your own constitution specifically where it says about separation

As I said, I don’t have problems with Christians, only with fanatics. Are you one of them?

He starts shooting because his Christian leader laid to him and turned to be a gay

Overwhelming majority? Yea sure compare to Florida's fiasco, with less that half of million in Ohio, you can say “overwhelming majority”

Guiliani who?

Hey, remeber, I am Canadian? But it seems to me I know about your country history more than you do and wish to Americans more than you will ever offer.


fastreplies

Squirmy little communist, aren't ya. Let me bring you back to your talking points.

1) You stated I was pro-life. Im not.
2) You stated you felt confident I would kill an abortion doctor (you must be drinking) based on what I have no idea.
3) You stated the religious right was trying to re-write the constitution, when in fact, the constitution was authored by the religious right.
4) You fall feebly back on a groundless accusation that the Republicans are asking for the elimination of the separation of church and state, yet you provide no evidence, just accusations.
5) You can't address the FACT that the majority of Americans re-elected Dubya, so you start crying about Florida.
6) You then declare victory claiming to know more about U.S. history than I, despite all evidence to the contrary (And I don't know that much so that is really saying something).

Given the broken English grammar in your writting , I suspect that english is not your first language, which means either you are French Canadian, or perhaps a recent immigrant to Canada. Perhaps you should read up a bit more before forwarding your opinion as fact. God knows I wouldn't get into a science argument with Forrest. Do you have anything to add that can be substantiated by fact?

Oh, and regarding Guiliani, hes the guy you will be complaining about in a little over a year.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Squirmy little communist, aren't ya. Let me bring you back to your talking points.

1) You stated I was pro-life. Im not.
2) You stated you felt confident I would kill an abortion doctor (you must be drinking) based on what I have no idea.
3) You stated the religious right was trying to re-write the constitution, when in fact, the constitution was authored by the religious right.
4) You fall feebly back on a groundless accusation that the Republicans are asking for the elimination of the separation of church and state, yet you provide no evidence, just accusations.
5) You can't address the FACT that the majority of Americans re-elected Dubya, so you start crying about Florida.
6) You then declare victory claiming to know more about U.S. history than I, despite all evidence to the contrary (And I don't know that much so that is really saying something).

Given the broken English grammar in your writting , I suspect that english is not your first language, which means either you are French Canadian, or perhaps a recent immigrant to Canada. Perhaps you should read up a bit more before forwarding your opinion as fact. God knows I wouldn't get into a science argument with Forrest. Do you have anything to add that can be substantiated by fact?

Let me put it to you this way. If I had my facts wrong then Forrest, James and lets not forget Tim would be all over me. Do I need to say more; you ****? Squirmy little communist, eh?

Do I believe that you are fanatical BibleHead? Yes, I do. You want facts then read what you said before in your posts and compare to what I said about you. Or forget about I think and read what everybody else is telling you.

You told us all about who you really are at the moment you touched the subject that only racists like you will bring up to life when the only argument they had left is: who I am on societal stage compare to you. Oh well, we can now add to your dossier that speaking French or being “legal” emigrant want be tolerated by your religious beliefs. You should be ashamed of yourself.

People, who forgot to lock his cage? I can understand you’re enjoying yourselves by feeding this troll but this is went way beyond any civility prescribed by this Forum Rules.


fastreplies

Pure comedy. Biblehead? Again, no facts. I suppose there is no need to distinguish between French Canadian, Canadian, or other non-U.S. citizen. In all cases, you have no horse in the race, but I suppose I would consider our "Friendly but backward neighbors to the north" to have a better understanding of U.S. politics than someone fresh off the boat from the Ukraine. I suppose I've always made the distinction between French Canada and Canada, as the French Canadians themselves make the same distinction with constant rumblings of secession and a general refusal to speak or learn English like the rest of Canada. I only bring it up as, invariably, these types of language and culture barriers make it more difficult to understand and appreciate the intricacies of another country's politics.

I wouldn't go so far as to opine publicly on the merits of one Canadians political viewpoint vs another as, 1) I'm willing to acknowledge I don't know that much about it, and 2) its not my country so I don't really care, so long as they don't provide safe haven to those who would harm my family and countrymen.

Perhaps therein is my compliance with the civility required by this forum.
Those who would stoop to name calling, groundless accusations, and eventual pleas to the webmaster for lack of a meaningful argument would be better suited not to bring up the subject of civility. Just my $.02 (US).

you guys have too much time on your hands. lol

Is it my imagination or has every thread of late that remotely touches upon religion or politics denigrated to the forum equivalent of Thunderdome? I'll out and say it: fastreplies, cbwm, for the love of all that is holy take a step back, take a deep breath and chill. Here's another thread that desperately deserves to be closed because folks are forgetting their manners. This tangent isn't even on topic to the thread. Nice map, though (ie, the one that started the thread).

Bah, Thunderdome, shmunderdome. I was mistaken in asking the previous thread closed. I just had to get to know Fastreplies a little better to know he is a well meaning, if not misguided, and VERY excitable individual. I certainly don't take it personally, and I would hope he doesn't either (though he does look rather agitated). You've got to admit its pretty **** funny to watch him unwind.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Hey James, you are wasting your breath.
fastreplies

Yes I am. He admits he doesn't know science or history and from the looks of it not the history of the last two elections or the bible. With the misquotes of me and the bible in addition to the straw men, I'm not wasting any more breath or electrons.