Say what you wish, but it means nothing to me. We clearly have no common ground left and further discussion will just lead to circular arguments which I don't want to get into. I'd rather finish my conversations with Siv and Sinperium without further quarrel with you.

Hi Goa.  I'll have to get over this stupid virus my plague-riddled in-laws gave me before I can perform any more "stupid intellectual tricks".

@Boobz...I just wanted to ssay what you said back there about "general" atheists, theists, etc. and not liking the term--I completely agree.

I imagine you get pretty disgusted when some absurd televangelist comes on selling "blessed" knick-knacks and vitamins on a "religious" channel that looks more like a home shopping network.  For me, I want to jump through the screen and beat the snot out of them. 

Often its loud public voices that identify themselves as "Christian" or "atheist" or whatever end up intentionally--or as a result of attention and exposure--co-opting entire philosophies and beliefs as their own when in fac t it most often is an individual thing where such values truly get expressed in any meaningful way.

You aren't the radical atheist out to legislate public expressions of religious belief from every corner of the earth and I'm not the televangelist selling blessed handkerchiefs that will heal you and make your skin softer for a "generous donation".

I just wanted to say that I thought you said it very well and succinctly and I really agree. A large group within a belief system is not the absolute definition of all its beliefs.

 

 

 

Having said that, what do you think of these 3 news stories?

A high school that enlisted the help of policemen to carry out a mock "hostage situation" at their school. The student body was told that the alleged gunmen were “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders' who don't believe in separation of church and state.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07040301.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And then there is this one:

Valedictorian Barred from Giving Speech Because of References to “God” Files Suit

BILLINGS, MT, May 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a free speech lawsuit in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court on behalf of a high school valedictorian who was forbidden from making any remarks at all in her school's graduation ceremony after she refused to strip references to God and Christ from her valedictory speech.

"This is a case of pure censorship and a denial of the freedom of speech," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "If we don't begin protecting the right to free speech in the schools, we are going to lose the right to speak entirely."

Renee Griffith was a co-valedictorian of her 2008 senior class at Butte High School, which is operated by Butte School District No. 1. By virtue of her scholastic achievements, Renee was selected to speak at the graduation ceremony on May 30, 2008, along with several other students. The students were instructed to speak about what they had learned during their time in high school. Although the valedictorians were asked to prepare their own remarks, Renee and another student, Ethan, planned to deliver their speeches together, alternately mentioning things they had learned in school.

The list of lessons learned ranged from the mundane (Renee: "I learned that Homecoming Week is a time when people can wear underwear on the outside of their pants and no one cares") to the heartfelt (Ethan: "I learned that [i]t takes just one person to get a rock rolling down a hill, and likewise, it takes just one person to traverse this planet to gather change. The power for change is inherent in humanity and each individual. We all have the framework for greatness and impact. Thus, it is important that we all realize the foundation within all of us and step out to better and further the world").

Although school officials allegedly did not object to Ethan's testimonial about humanity's inherent power for change, they did object to Renee's heartfelt statement about how she learned to persevere and not fear by standing up for her religious convictions: "I learned to persevere these past four years, even through failure or discouragement, when I had to stand for my convictions. I can say that my regrets are few and far between. I didn't let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me. I learned to impart hope, to encourage people to treat each day as a gift. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him."

Just prior to the graduation ceremony, Renee was ordered to remove the words "Christ" and "God" from her speech and replace them with the following phrases: "sharing my faith" and "lived with a purpose, a purpose derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind." When Renee insisted on her right to use the words of her choice, she was forbidden from speaking altogether at the graduation ceremony.
....................................................................

 

My sentiments exactly.

Good luck with that!

Please don't unless there is something you haven't repeated numerously. I am not overly interested where the 'universe' came from, I am here and that is most important. You are wrong on so many points and it doesn't have anything to do with the science you love. Maybe you just like certain branches of science is all?

Actually, this stuff all came from my friend Bob who is no longer with us ... so disprove it if you like. I have better things to do with my time than repeatedly restating myself … for you to ignore, again. You are lost in some make believe world where reality seems to mean very little and I cannot help you while you shelter there.I will call you when I need theological support...

Exactly so. We (I) get uncomfortable trying to converse with several people at once all with differing levels of commitment on both sides of a discussion ... urggg. If you are going to pleed a specific personal case, this is not the place for it because the strong (inflexibly) minded will chew any perceived 'weekness' to pulp ... you won't get the chance. At some point, we all are guilty of pressing our points more than actually called for, that is just human. But we can learn from it and we can do much better ... all we have to do is want to.

 

 

I'd like to add my 2 cents worth to the discussion about free speech/hate speech

sinperium posts:

Great summation of what is going on.

To understand  the writing on the wall, we must look at what’s happened and what is happening  all around us. 

 

 

If "we are smart" then "we" should read the constitution and look at case history to see why our future will be quite different. If we are smart then "we" should read actual copies of bills instead of listening to the propagandist media sites to see what the "intent" of actual legislation is reallly all about.

I agree...But it seems to me many people need to look a lot closer than "what first meets the eye". Michigan is the perfect example.

When Terry Jones goes to Dearborn to have a peaceful protest in front of a Mosque during a cultural festival than it appears to me what has transpired in light of that situation has very little to do with the "atheist community".

If "we" are smart we will compare our constitution to laws in other countries to see why what you suggest does not quite predict our future.

Exactly..Look ALL around not just half way around.

 

When you casually throw out the term ‘science’  … what you have to mean is “the sciences” … like biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, astrophysics (if you really want to look silly) and others who all just happen to agree with each other, independently. There is plenty of room in our past for “something” to have influenced mankind’s superior intellect … in the very distant past … but whatever that may or may not have been, it can have nothing to do with today’s religions or any of their parables. I am hoping for little green men to be honest … but I will accept whatever actually proves to be true. Right now, all I have is evolution and every bit of physical (all) evidence from all the differing sciences points to only one thing.

One 1987 estimate found that 700 scientists out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists ... give credence to creation-science … and that is just one tenth of a percent … so be careful what you call pseudo-science.

PS: The rest is for Lula … I didn’t try to rewrite it because it interests me not. ( I forgot where I got it - Wiki...)

On the 12 August 1950, the Catholic Church accepted that the theory of evolution was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution

In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.  Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

There are many more … so are we discussing your theology … or that of your Church?

Yes, "Science" means "the sciences" such as those that you have listed and all the others too that are not named.

I'll give you there is plenty of room for all sides of the debate to help answer many questions about mankind and the very distant past. Who knows what discovery is right around the corner!

If you will let it, right religion can help explain those questions about mankind and the very distant past, albeit not in a scientific way.

Adam never said "papa" to an ape. Pseudo-science part of Evolution masquering as fact claims he did.

The true scientific evidence for bodily evolution is non-existent. "Research News" in Science , 1980, reported that the majority of 160 scientists said Darwin was wrong in supposing there had been intermediate forms between species. e.g. between fish and birds. The fossil evidence does not give one clear evidence of that. Yet, years later, public school biology textbook books still shows photos and writes of such a thing happening. That's where I get riled. Unwary uncritically thinking kids are being indoctrinated in the pseudo science of Darwinism as fact.   

 

 

We are NOT directly related to the ape ... study your evolution. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we only have 23 pairs ... NO DIRECT descent.

Lula, I just give up. This clip will have to do because I am not going to argue creationism with you. Watch this series if you want to even pretend to try to understand anything besides RCCC.

1. Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

 

So I guess what we need to figure out is how and why God fused two "ape" chromosomes together in the Garden of Eden.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229

The 44 Chromosome Man

I know we aren't directly or indirectly related to the ape..but that myth  is the pseudo science part of Darwinian Evolution. 

Pseudo science evolution is the problem for public school children. Their textbooks have this drawing which certainly implies direct descent.

Lula, we are a little beyond picture talk I think. Think what you like ... but I can prove my case (not to you of course). We actually listed some grown up sites you could have reviewed though right so did you??? The tree of life should answer any question about ansisistry since you like pics. The little block at the top happened ~200,000 thousand years ago ... the rest is up to you. Lula, why don’t you just ‘disprove’ evolution and be done with it ... and save us all our pseudo-opinions?

 Ghandi – I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians who are so unlike your Christ.