| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J McCoy" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2004 02:16:09 AM |
| Object: |
Christianity and Lifestyles |
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Three days a week I work at this grocery store. It's one of my jobs.
And I work with a couple of Christians. They are hard workers and
have something in common. Both were into the drug scene at one time,
both have had obnoxious lifestyles, and both saw their lives going in
the wrong direction. One of the guys has a half brother who isn't a
Christian and he was a pain to work with. He gets fired quite often.
But I find that working with two Christians if quite inspiring. I
don't find them contentious, backstabbing and difficult to work with
as with the other two workers who aren't Christians yet backstab, make
claims that nobody but them are the hard workers , and yet actually
accomplish little compared to the two Christians.
One of the non-Christians is quite obnoxious. Even when you try to
compliment the guy he is rude and sneers it down.
The two Christians had an non-Christian past which was steadily
leading them down the tubes. I also knew a Pastor who had a claw
tattoo and was into the party scene and going in the wrong direction.
There are quite a few other examples I could put out that have
affected my life directly.
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
JM
.
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 08:22:56 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
In other words, you felt like trolling again.
<snip blathercrap>
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
Then why do you act like a dishonest cretin?
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
Phillip Brown
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dandelion" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 03:58:07 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
Let's cut through the chase and snip the "storytelling". After all, there is
a point to make...
<snip>
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
As far as your "presentation" on this forum is concerned, you do not exactly
strike me as one "doing the right thing". Truth, for instance, does not seem
to be a criterion for writing your
messages.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<snip>
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy you
need for strict rules.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 01:35:27 PM |
|
|
"dandelion" <dandelion@meadow.net> wrote in message news:<4191e8a8$0$43224$e4fe514c@dreader18.news.xs4all.nl>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
Let's cut through the chase and snip the "storytelling". After all, there is
a point to make...
<snip>
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
As far as your "presentation" on this forum is concerned, you do not exactly
strike me as one "doing the right thing". Truth, for instance, does not seem
to be a criterion for writing your
messages.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<snip>
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
And totally useless.
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy you
need for strict rules.
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 02:40:35 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101146.5c6b2fde@posting.google.com...
snipping
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive
ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not
a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
And totally useless.
Is that why drug compainies are making millions of dollars using
evolutionary theory?
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better
theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory
on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your
favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy
you
need for strict rules.
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
On what do you base this assertion?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Alsup" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
11 Nov 2004 04:14:42 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ybvkd.7045$_J2.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411101146.5c6b2fde@posting.google.com...
snipping
Is that why drug compainies are making millions of dollars using
evolutionary theory?
Make that Trillions over 10 years (100 Billion/year)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 06:29:01 PM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.0411101146.5c6b2fde@posting.google.com>...
"dandelion" <dandelion@meadow.net> wrote in message news:<4191e8a8$0$43224$e4fe514c@dreader18.news.xs4all.nl>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
Let's cut through the chase and snip the "storytelling". After all, there is
a point to make...
<snip>
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
As far as your "presentation" on this forum is concerned, you do not exactly
strike me as one "doing the right thing". Truth, for instance, does not seem
to be a criterion for writing your
messages.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<snip>
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
And totally useless.
It certainly is... to people too mind-numbingly ignorant to understand
it. Researchers in the biological sciences, on the other hand, find it
absolutely indispensable.
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy you
need for strict rules.
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
That's because in the theory of evolution there is no such distinction
made. "Micro" and "macro" evolution are essentially creationist
constructs which allow them to accept readily-observable short term
evolution while allowing them to deny the evidence for long term
evolution found in palaeontology and genetics.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is the cornerstone in modern biology . . Any student who is
deprived of instruction as to the prevailing scientific thought on
these topics will be denied a significant part of science education.
Such a deprivation through the high school level would undoubtedly
have an impact upon the quality of education in the state's colleges
and universities, especially including the pre- professional and
professional programs in the health sciences." -- Judge William
Overton - McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 06:41:45 PM |
|
|
Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
That's because in the theory of evolution there is no such distinction
made. "Micro" and "macro" evolution are essentially creationist
constructs which allow them to accept readily-observable short term
evolution while allowing them to deny the evidence for long term
evolution found in palaeontology and genetics.
Nitpick - the *terms* macroevolution and microevolution are scientific
terms. They are used with more or less accuracy by scientists. The most
exact sense of the two is that microevolution is evolution that occurs
*within* a species - that is, without a speciation event occurring -
while macroevolution is evolution that occurs *between* species - that
is, beginning at speciation, and above.
The creationist sense of "macroevolution" is something like the way
Douglas Adams described space - "really, really big. So big we can't
imagine it happening". But the *scientific* sense is "large-scale
evolution" although not all scientists make it clear that they are
talking about beyond-species evolution (because they are often more
interested in levels very much higher than speciation).
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 07:47:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:35:27 +0000 (UTC),
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"dandelion" <dandelion@meadow.net> wrote in message news:<4191e8a8$0$43224$e4fe514c@dreader18.news.xs4all.nl>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
Let's cut through the chase and snip the "storytelling". After all, there is
a point to make...
<snip>
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
As far as your "presentation" on this forum is concerned, you do not exactly
strike me as one "doing the right thing". Truth, for instance, does not seem
to be a criterion for writing your
messages.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<snip>
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
And totally useless.
Nonsense. Just ask the researchers tracking influenza and HIV viruses.
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy you
need for strict rules.
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
It's observed. We have a theory to explain that.
Any minute now I can expect you to dishonestly try to redefine the meaning
of the word "macro-evolution". That's your style, because liars debate like
that.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 04:01:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:35:27 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
"dandelion" <dandelion@meadow.net> wrote in message news:<4191e8a8$0$43224$e4fe514c@dreader18.news.xs4all.nl>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
Let's cut through the chase and snip the "storytelling". After all, there is
a point to make...
<snip>
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
As far as your "presentation" on this forum is concerned, you do not exactly
strike me as one "doing the right thing". Truth, for instance, does not seem
to be a criterion for writing your
messages.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<snip>
You mean: "it can not be allowed to be true if I cannot derive ethical/moral
guidelines from it". Which is obviously a moot point, since ToE is not
intended to provide any moral guidance. It is not a religious creed, not a
philosophical standpoint, it is a scientific theory.
And totally useless.
That would come as somewhat of a surprise to the pharmaceutical
companies trying to keep up with the constantly evolving germs they're
trying to kill, among many others.
You can like it, you can hate it, but as long as there is no better theory
(or *one* simple fact contradicting it) it will remain the current theory on
the origin of species (not life). For moral guidance, choose your favorite
religion/philosophy, but do not demand that scientific theories satisfy you
need for strict rules.
Macro evolution is not a scientific theory.
Excuse me, John?
You prattle on about Noah's Ark being literally true, which, if it
were the case, would have required "micro"-evolution to occur at an
impossible rate to arrive at the diversity we see today, yet you
seemingly can't grasp the simple concept that small changes accumulate
over large amounts of time to equal large-scale changes? The mind
boggles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 03:56:46 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
[...]
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to. I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing. In return I often get
treated harshly.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
It isn't widely known but I'v been a Trekkie for many years. Now, I know
Star Trek has benefited mankind but sadly it isn't true.
Ian
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 03:24:07 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
<Snip Snip>
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<Snip Snip>
This one paragraph is sufficient.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 10:37:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:24:07 +0000 (UTC), "sparkup" <junk@mail.com>
wrote:
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
<Snip Snip>
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<Snip Snip>
This one paragraph is sufficient.
Classic example of fallacy of appeal to utility.
What's that you were saying earlier about critical thinking McCoy?
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 10:42:44 AM |
|
|
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rch4p0ltlp4gnrjusunhf2vke2q9ebcfkp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:24:07 +0000 (UTC), "sparkup" <junk@mail.com>
wrote:
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
<Snip Snip>
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind? If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
<Snip Snip>
This one paragraph is sufficient.
Classic example of fallacy of appeal to utility.
What's that you were saying earlier about critical thinking McCoy?
Zactly my point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
10 Nov 2004 10:01:08 AM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing.
You may actually believe that, but in this newsgroup, you have done neither.
In return I often get
treated harshly
No one ever claimed that if you treat others well, they will do so to you.
However if your behavior in this newsgroup is any indication of your
behavior in the wider world (and I'm not saying it must be) then perhaps
your harsh treatment is, if not deserved, at least understandable.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind?
You are assuming, quite incorrectly that the teaching of evolution does not
benefit mankind. An understanding of how nature works is a benefit in of
itself, and the insights that the theory of evolution has opened has helped
humankind. From the developement of new and better medicines, to the
revolution in genetic treatments for disease, the theory of evolution has
made life better for millions of people.
If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
That's an example of illogical thinking. The truth of the theory of
evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with it's benefit to mankind. Even
if the discovery of evolution brought nothing by bad consequences, it's
still better to know an unpleasant truth, than to beleive a comforting
falsehood.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
All High School children act like animals, because they are animals. Nobel
prize laureates act like animals, because they are animals. Doctors saving
lives act like animals. People who volunteer in soup kitchens are acting
like animals. The most noble and altruistic person in the world is acting
like an animal. That is simply what we are. The undestanding that all
humans are part of God's natural world does not make our accomplishments any
less. An understanding of evolutionary theory does not preclude acting on
one's better nature.
You claim to have become a Christian, but you have not grasped the
meaning of Christ's words, nor do you follow his commandments. Rather you
despise and envy those who you don't understand. You bear false witness,
and listen to liars and charlatains who would lead you astray. You show no
faith in the word of God, but instead insist that it must match scientific
knowlege. When science doesn't line up with your personal beliefs, you
oppose science, rather than having faith in the ultimate truth of God. Your
antics here bring disgrace on you, and on the name of Christians everywhere.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 12:26:14 AM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools? Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
JM
I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing.
You may actually believe that, but in this newsgroup, you have done neither.
In return I often get
treated harshly
No one ever claimed that if you treat others well, they will do so to you.
However if your behavior in this newsgroup is any indication of your
behavior in the wider world (and I'm not saying it must be) then perhaps
your harsh treatment is, if not deserved, at least understandable.
Actually, your behavior of questioning my behavior tells me that you
live consistently with your skeptical viewpoint, namely the one that
teaches you that dishonesty and false accusations of liar is OK. And
another thing, what gives you the right to call Wyatt a liar when you
haven't seen his evidence? Is that indicative of poor research
skills? Are you an advocate of prejudice?
It seems like it.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind?
You are assuming, quite incorrectly that the teaching of evolution does not
benefit mankind. An understanding of how nature works is a benefit in of
itself, and the insights that the theory of evolution has opened has helped
humankind. From the developement of new and better medicines, to the
revolution in genetic treatments for disease, the theory of evolution has
made life better for millions of people.
If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
That's an example of illogical thinking. The truth of the theory of
evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with it's benefit to mankind. Even
if the discovery of evolution brought nothing by bad consequences, it's
still better to know an unpleasant truth, than to beleive a comforting
falsehood.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
All High School children act like animals, because they are animals. Nobel
prize laureates act like animals, because they are animals. Doctors saving
lives act like animals. People who volunteer in soup kitchens are acting
like animals. The most noble and altruistic person in the world is acting
like an animal. That is simply what we are. The undestanding that all
humans are part of God's natural world does not make our accomplishments any
less. An understanding of evolutionary theory does not preclude acting on
one's better nature.
You claim to have become a Christian, but you have not grasped the
meaning of Christ's words, nor do you follow his commandments. Rather you
despise and envy those who you don't understand. You bear false witness,
and listen to liars and charlatains who would lead you astray. You show no
faith in the word of God, but instead insist that it must match scientific
knowlege. When science doesn't line up with your personal beliefs, you
oppose science, rather than having faith in the ultimate truth of God. Your
antics here bring disgrace on you, and on the name of Christians everywhere.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 06:50:36 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411112237.3393101f@posting.google.com...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
Because Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a religious belief.
It would be appropriate to teach in in a class in comparitive religion, but
not in a science class.
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking.
Creationism is not a theory, it's a religious belief. Evolution is
presently the only biological theory accepted by science. Creation is only
one of thousands of religious creation myths. If you want to teach both
religious and scientific viewpoints, why limit yourself to only one creation
myth?
I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
Indeed. That's why creationism does not belong in science classrooms.
Teaching a well supported scientific theory is not "indoctrination", it's
education. Pretending a religious belief is scientific, just to spare the
beliefs of a few fundamentalists is unfair and unconstitutional.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 01:05:22 PM |
|
|
In article <3f355ee.0411112237.3393101f@posting.google.com>,
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools? Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
"Both" theories? Surely you aren't suggesting that there are only two
theories worthy of being taught?
I say that we teach every possible theory about absolutely everything.
Economics 101 should consist of the Keynesian, Monetarism, Austrian
School, and Jews run everything theories of economics. Medicine should
discuss viruses, bacteria, evil humours, and homeopathy. Current
events should cover the Middle East, Europe, and the fact that all
our world leaders are shape shifting lizards. Geology should mention
that the Earth is round, flat, and inside out. 20th century history
should cover WWI, WWII, the fake moon landing, the real Mars landing,
and that Reagan was a communist.
You want to encourage critical thinking, don't you?
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
13 Nov 2004 09:20:38 AM |
|
|
"Alan Morgan" <amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:cn3270$3e2$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU...
In article <3f355ee.0411112237.3393101f@posting.google.com>,
J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better
undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad.
As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and
swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can
be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools? Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
"Both" theories? Surely you aren't suggesting that there are only two
theories worthy of being taught?
I say that we teach every possible theory about absolutely everything.
Economics 101 should consist of the Keynesian, Monetarism, Austrian
School, and Jews run everything theories of economics. Medicine should
discuss viruses, bacteria, evil humours, and homeopathy. Current
events should cover the Middle East, Europe, and the fact that all
our world leaders are shape shifting lizards. Geology should mention
that the Earth is round, flat, and inside out. 20th century history
should cover WWI, WWII, the fake moon landing, the real Mars landing,
and that Reagan was a communist.
You want to encourage critical thinking, don't you?
Weren't there a group of nuts called "Forteans" who believed that the Earth
was hollow??
AFAICR they had a significant following in the early 20th Century.
That should be included in all geography courses!!
Actually, at Holy Family High School in Denver, the assistant Football Coach
was teaching a whole unit on Nostradamus.
About ten years before that at Central Catholic High School, the "Four
Humours" theory of human behavior was presented as fact.
I got a angry confrontation by suggesting that it shouldn't be taught as
fact .
The teacher said
"I teach nothing that is against the Council of Trent!! You are interfering
with my academic freedom to say such things to students!:
Unfortunately you can bet that this kind of stuff is hardly restricted to
Private Schools.
Bob Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 09:11:41 PM |
|
|
In article <cn3270$3e2$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU>,
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
<snip>
and the fact that all
our world leaders are shape shifting lizards.
<snip>
Now that one has some evidence for it.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 03:14:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:26:14 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" < > wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
Because those trying to get creationism into the public schools have
no intention of doing it in order to teach critical thinking. In fact
much of what they put out reflects a serious lack of critical thinking
on their part, just like most of your posts. Are you really that
ignorant of the actual intent of those pushing the issue of
creationism?
Teaching both theories would foster debate and critical thinking.
No, teaching critical thinking would foster critical thinking,
teaching garbage in science class in the name of critical thinking is
a sham.
I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
Teaching what is valid for a given subject should always be the
standard. Creationism fails scientific standards on a number of
levels.
If you want to teach debate then teach it in debate class.
I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing.
You may actually believe that, but in this newsgroup, you have done neither.
In return I often get
treated harshly
No one ever claimed that if you treat others well, they will do so to you.
However if your behavior in this newsgroup is any indication of your
behavior in the wider world (and I'm not saying it must be) then perhaps
your harsh treatment is, if not deserved, at least understandable.
Actually, your behavior of questioning my behavior tells me that you
live consistently with your skeptical viewpoint, namely the one that
teaches you that dishonesty and false accusations of liar is OK.
You mean like your constant droning on and on that a majority of
scientists believe in Evolution because they were duped by Haeckel's
charts despite a vast amount of evidence to the contrary, including
their own words?
Since you seem to be such a big proponent of critical thinking now,
this is what is called a straw man argument.
You mean like your constant droning on and on that a majority of
scientist believe in Evolution because they all bought into the fraud
of Piltdown man despite the fact that it has been repeatedly
demonstrated here that it was seriously questioned throughout the
scientific community even before it was revealed as a hoax?
This too is what is called a straw man argument. It is also a blatant
lie demonstrated to you on several occasions, not that that does any
good.
Are all these scientists lying about the grounds that they base their
acceptance of evolution on, which is clearly stated as being different
than what you are claiming?
And having a skeptical viewpoint turns out to be a necessity as long
as people like you keep trying to shovel their religious dogma as
though it was valid information.
And
another thing, what gives you the right to call Wyatt a liar when you
haven't seen his evidence?
That's the point! He had no credible evidence to see for a number of
bizarre grandiose claims that he yet insisted were absolutely true,
several of which he claimed (again without proof) that he discovered
through divine intervention.
This is also called shifting the burden of proof. Wyatt (and you
apparently) expected to be believed automatically and then complained
bitterly that others judged his credibility when he claimed he didn't
put any evidence out, which in and of itself was a bald faced lie.
Surely even you recall the claims he made about what led him to what
he claimed was Noah's ark and the ark of the covenant! Did he or did
he not make the claim that God was meticulously guiding him, even
putting words into his mouth?
Is that indicative of poor research
skills? Are you an advocate of prejudice?
It seems like it.
Yes, Wyatt did indeed constantly display his extremely poor research
skills concerning a number of his sites.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind?
And here you are demonstrating a particularly transparent non sequitur
known (among other things) as fallacy of appeal to utility.
You are assuming, quite incorrectly that the teaching of evolution does not
benefit mankind. An understanding of how nature works is a benefit in of
itself, and the insights that the theory of evolution has opened has helped
humankind. From the developement of new and better medicines, to the
revolution in genetic treatments for disease, the theory of evolution has
made life better for millions of people.
If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
And yet again you reiterate the same fallacy. You really need to take
a class in critical thinking before you start casting stones here.
That's an example of illogical thinking. The truth of the theory of
evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with it's benefit to mankind. Even
if the discovery of evolution brought nothing by bad consequences, it's
still better to know an unpleasant truth, than to beleive a comforting
falsehood.
You should pay attention to what others are saying about your posts.
You might learn something. Doubtful, but there is always hope.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 01:35:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:26:14 +0000 (UTC), (J McCoy)
wrote:
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools? Teaching both theories
Excuse me? What's the scientific theory of creationism, John? What
evidence supports it, what predictions does it make, and what would
falsify it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 01:24:23 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2004-11-12, J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
Well, in those red states, maybe they do.
JM
I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing.
You may actually believe that, but in this newsgroup, you have done neither.
In return I often get
treated harshly
No one ever claimed that if you treat others well, they will do so to you.
However if your behavior in this newsgroup is any indication of your
behavior in the wider world (and I'm not saying it must be) then perhaps
your harsh treatment is, if not deserved, at least understandable.
Actually, your behavior of questioning my behavior tells me that you
live consistently with your skeptical viewpoint, namely the one that
teaches you that dishonesty and false accusations of liar is OK.
But you are a liar, McCoy. Certainly calling a liar a liar is okay.
And another thing, what gives you the right to call Wyatt a liar when
you haven't seen his evidence?
Because he was a liar?
Is that indicative of poor research
skills? Are you an advocate of prejudice?
It is not prejudice to reject absurd unsupported claims.
It seems like it.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind?
You are assuming, quite incorrectly that the teaching of evolution does not
benefit mankind. An understanding of how nature works is a benefit in of
itself, and the insights that the theory of evolution has opened has helped
humankind. From the developement of new and better medicines, to the
revolution in genetic treatments for disease, the theory of evolution has
made life better for millions of people.
If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
That's an example of illogical thinking. The truth of the theory of
evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with it's benefit to mankind. Even
if the discovery of evolution brought nothing by bad consequences, it's
still better to know an unpleasant truth, than to beleive a comforting
falsehood.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
All High School children act like animals, because they are animals. Nobel
prize laureates act like animals, because they are animals. Doctors saving
lives act like animals. People who volunteer in soup kitchens are acting
like animals. The most noble and altruistic person in the world is acting
like an animal. That is simply what we are. The undestanding that all
humans are part of God's natural world does not make our accomplishments any
less. An understanding of evolutionary theory does not preclude acting on
one's better nature.
You claim to have become a Christian, but you have not grasped the
meaning of Christ's words, nor do you follow his commandments. Rather you
despise and envy those who you don't understand. You bear false witness,
and listen to liars and charlatains who would lead you astray. You show no
faith in the word of God, but instead insist that it must match scientific
knowlege. When science doesn't line up with your personal beliefs, you
oppose science, rather than having faith in the ultimate truth of God. Your
antics here bring disgrace on you, and on the name of Christians everywhere.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 05:36:38 PM |
|
|
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2004-11-12, J McCoy <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<r5rkd.6814$_J2.5930@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411100026.5883b50b@posting.google.com...
It just occured to me to bring this topic up since it does have some
validity in the discussion of origins. Namely, what is the purpose
and result of a world view?
Perhaps one should remember that evolution is not a 'world view', but a
scientific theory.
snipping
I fail to see the point in teaching evolution and skepticism when it
hasn't done any good that I could point to.
Teaching evolution as a scientific theory leads to a better undestanding of
the world around you. If you can't see that's something "good", then
perhaps you have not the ability to distinguish between good and bad. As
far as skepticisim goes, can't you see the value in teaching critical
thinking, so that the population is not easy prey for conmen and swindlers?
Are you equivocating evolution and skepticism with atheism? One can be
skeptical of outrageous claims, and accept the scientific theory of
evolution, and still be Christian, and hold Christian values.
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing. And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke. And they do exist. I
recall being in my university course on Eastern Religions when a man
sitting to my right was talking to a friend of mine sitting behind
him. This man was mild manner and told my friend that he read occult
books. He also said that he heard voices. During our lectures he
would interrupt professor John Bash continuously, asking irrelevant
questions. Nonetheless, this mild mannered, low key voiced man all of
a sudden was talking a strange language. His voice changed and with a
bold and arrogant voice he said:
"YOU CANNOT DEFEAT ME."
My friend answered, "No, but He will."
The whole conversation sounded like it came out of a Hollywood movie.
Of course I already know your answer, you will say that this man is
suffering from some kind of psychiatric problems. Which doesn't
explain the occult books (by coincidence that you won't accept) and
the strange voices. I could go on about this, but nonetheless is
meaningless because you will merely reassert your contention that it
is merely a psychiatric problem.
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
JM
Well, in those red states, maybe they do.
JM
I know in my life I try
to be helpful to others and do the right thing.
You may actually believe that, but in this newsgroup, you have done neither.
In return I often get
treated harshly
No one ever claimed that if you treat others well, they will do so to you.
However if your behavior in this newsgroup is any indication of your
behavior in the wider world (and I'm not saying it must be) then perhaps
your harsh treatment is, if not deserved, at least understandable.
Actually, your behavior of questioning my behavior tells me that you
live consistently with your skeptical viewpoint, namely the one that
teaches you that dishonesty and false accusations of liar is OK.
But you are a liar, McCoy. Certainly calling a liar a liar is okay.
And another thing, what gives you the right to call Wyatt a liar when
you haven't seen his evidence?
Because he was a liar?
Is that indicative of poor research
skills? Are you an advocate of prejudice?
It is not prejudice to reject absurd unsupported claims.
It seems like it.
What is the point of teaching evolution when it ultimately doesn't
benefit mankind?
You are assuming, quite incorrectly that the teaching of evolution does not
benefit mankind. An understanding of how nature works is a benefit in of
itself, and the insights that the theory of evolution has opened has helped
humankind. From the developement of new and better medicines, to the
revolution in genetic treatments for disease, the theory of evolution has
made life better for millions of people.
If teaching evolution doesn't benefit mankind in a
positive way then it must not be true.
That's an example of illogical thinking. The truth of the theory of
evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with it's benefit to mankind. Even
if the discovery of evolution brought nothing by bad consequences, it's
still better to know an unpleasant truth, than to beleive a comforting
falsehood.
But you ask any Christian what positive things they can point to in
the lives of those who used to be skeptics and they will tell you
about all the good that they have seen.
One of the reasons I converted to Christianity has to do with the fact
that it intellectually gave me reasons to believe, but the second
thing was that High School kids acted like animals and Christianity
gave me reasons to believe in a way of life that was better. I became
a Christian in high school. And no wonder.
All High School children act like animals, because they are animals. Nobel
prize laureates act like animals, because they are animals. Doctors saving
lives act like animals. People who volunteer in soup kitchens are acting
like animals. The most noble and altruistic person in the world is acting
like an animal. That is simply what we are. The undestanding that all
humans are part of God's natural world does not make our accomplishments any
less. An understanding of evolutionary theory does not preclude acting on
one's better nature.
You claim to have become a Christian, but you have not grasped the
meaning of Christ's words, nor do you follow his commandments. Rather you
despise and envy those who you don't understand. You bear false witness,
and listen to liars and charlatains who would lead you astray. You show no
faith in the word of God, but instead insist that it must match scientific
knowlege. When science doesn't line up with your personal beliefs, you
oppose science, rather than having faith in the ultimate truth of God. Your
antics here bring disgrace on you, and on the name of Christians everywhere.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
12 Nov 2004 06:55:29 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
13 Nov 2004 05:08:56 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
JM
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
13 Nov 2004 05:54:10 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411131520.3d748523@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous
claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective
validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it
as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you
want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
You make this ***** up as you go along, don't you? From dictionary.com:
[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi,
religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.]
As usual, McClueless, you are wrong. "Religion" refers to "Belief in and
reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and
governor of the universe.", and that's the context. The origin of the word
itself is not relevent.
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
Phillip Brown
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
13 Nov 2004 07:59:05 PM |
|
|
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411131520.3d748523@posting.google.com...
snipping
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you
want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong.
You claim I am wrong, based on your own easily demostrated ignorance.
The word religion merely means re and
legion.
That's not the derivation of the word.
To affirm group unit.
That's simply gibberish. The word "religion" derives from re-legere, or to
"bind together".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Religion
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/religion?view=uk
"legion" comes from the latin meaning to choose, or to levy.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/legion?view=uk
Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
Be that as it may, that's irrelevant. Appealing to a supernatural being
for an explanation of a phenomena is religious in nature, and is why
Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
20 Nov 2004 12:01:15 AM |
|
|
J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
JM
OK, McCoy I had taken you off killfile for a while, but your level of
insanity has exceeded my tolorence. Buh-Bye.
Klaus
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Lifestyles |
13 Nov 2004 05:43:05 PM |
|
|
J McCoy wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<P6dld.9355$_J2.7148@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"J McCoy" <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.0411121548.453fc06b@posting.google.com...
Mark VandeWettering <markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org> wrote in message
news:<slrncp8q4q.1ius.markv@fishtank.brainwagon.org>...
snipping
How can you claim to be in favor or critical thinking when you are
against creationism in the public schools?
I'm also against teaching children that disease are caused by evil
spirits, that ufos regularly abduct people and subject them to anal
probes, or that the holocaust was a hoax. All are ridiculous claims,
just as is creationism.
Actually, you are wrong. It can't hurt to discuss presuppositions in
regard to evil spirits and that sort of thing.
I can hurt if you teach them as if they had some kind of objective validity.
And, pray tell, if
they do exist then you're the butt of the joke.
Show some evidence of evil spirits, and then you can joke all you want.
snipping a description of a psychotic episode
As for UFO encounters, I've always had doubts about those, but who is
to say that somebody isn't being drugged on purpose and this alien
encounter is just a myth to cover up something that is really going
on. People need to be exposed to this possibility.
Speaking of psychotic episodes.....
Teaching both theories
would foster debate and critical thinking. I recall debating in
school, so why should indoctrination be the standard?
We don't teach children nonsense in the hopes they will recognize it as
such.
We should teach children to decide for themselves if Creationism is
nonsense or not.
Thats why science classes should teach science, not religious beliefs.
How do you expect children to be able to recongize nonsense, when you want
to teach it with the same authority as science?
Which is where you are wrong. The word religion merely means re and
legion. To affirm group unit. Belief in God is not religion. You
can be a loner and not be religious.
Merriam-Webster Online disagrees with you, not only about the meaning
of the word, but about its etymology. It comes from the Latin /religio/.
As to its meaning...
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I see your knowledge of the English language matches your mastery of
biology, chemistry, and astronomy.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"Mmm! P | | | | | | | |
