[CanadianODST]

TheFonz TheFonz:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Spin however you want, you were ridiculing Christianity.

Bull**** I was, South Park, now THOSE guys ridicule Christianity.

$1:

As for you're demand I answer you're question, see above.

You were the one who engaged in the thread, so why play the NOYB card?

$1:

Oh, and you're still the dummy on this thread.

Awesome, let's get into a "I know you are but what am I" exchange.

But at least South Park makes fun of EVERYONE, including themselves.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

That is your right. However, if you wish to exercise that right on the threads, then you'll be flamed back, as is my right.

It's what u do, I understand.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'm trying to say replacing studied scientific fact in classrooms and scientific institutions with religious hyperbole, much like creationists in the US are trying to do, is just as wrong and detrimental as the witch hunts were back in the 18th and 19th century. How is that an invalid argument?

Well you're using a 300 year old event as your example for your concerns with religion making its way into the classroom.

So, how is the religious persecution and execution of suspected witches by 300 year old religious extremists comparable to creationism in the classroom?

It doesn't - anymore than citing the Holocaust as an example of the Quebec government crackdown on students.

Creationism in the classroom in 2012 will not result in young girls being accused of witchcraft and tortured then executed.

It is Religion encroaching upon a subject where they are 100% wrong. That's the similarity.

[ShepherdsDog]

Sandorski Sandorski:

I understand.

Now, there's a first.

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Any Religious Belief that contradicts demonstrable Reality deserves ridicule. Unless some kind of evidence can be presented to verify that Belief.

That is your right. However, if you wish to exercise that right on the threads, then you'll be flamed back, as is my right.

It's what u do, I understand.

It's what you do to people of faith. Then you cry when it comes back.

[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Sandorski Sandorski:

I understand.

Now, there's a first.

I don't think he really does.

[herbie]

Italian relative:
Miracle? Water into wine? Have you ever tasted Jewish wine?
Add some grape juice and a little yeast and it's so fucking hot in the desert it probably brews up to 3% in less than an hour. And explains the shitty taste!

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'm trying to say replacing studied scientific fact in classrooms and scientific institutions with religious hyperbole, much like creationists in the US are trying to do, is just as wrong and detrimental as the witch hunts were back in the 18th and 19th century. How is that an invalid argument?

Well you're using a 300 year old event as your example for your concerns with religion making its way into the classroom.

So, how is the religious persecution and execution of suspected witches by 300 year old religious extremists comparable to creationism in the classroom?

It doesn't - anymore than citing the Holocaust as an example of the Quebec government crackdown on students.

Creationism in the classroom in 2012 will not result in young girls being accused of witchcraft and tortured then executed.

It is Religion encroaching upon a subject where they are 100% wrong. That's the similarity.

No similarity whatsoever, but keep reaching if you must.

[Tricks]

Is it unreasonable to wonder why someone believes something that we know to be false? I'm not talking deity, I'm talking about the earth being around for 10000 years. It's a pretty basic fact that it has been around for quite a while. Why is it such a bad thing to question a creationists view on that specific point?

If a creationist holds the view that God was responsible for the Big Bang (or whatever your universe starting theory is), cool. I don't agree, but there isn't any way to prove it, at least right now. But it startles me to think that anyone, let alone 46% of a country, can believe the earth has been around for 10000 years.

That's not bashing Christianity or Faith. That's questioning why someone refuses to believe fact. Arguably not as damaging, and certainly not as offensive, but do we not harp on people who do not believe the Holocaust happened? (Excuse the godwin, couldn't think of another event that could be used here. Also, I'm not comparing the two beliefs outside of refusal to believe fact, that should be obvious.)

This goes doubly when even the Vatican has said that that is wrong, and that the universe and earth are very old.

(This took me so long to write cause I was trying so hard to not be offensive or confrontational over religion.)

[Gunnair]

Tricks Tricks:

Is it unreasonable to wonder why someone believes something that we know to be false? I'm not talking deity, I'm talking about the earth being around for 10000 years. It's a pretty basic fact that it has been around for quite a while. Why is it such a bad thing to question a creationists view on that specific point?

If a creationist holds the view that God was responsible for the Big Bang (or whatever your universe starting theory is), cool. I don't agree, but there isn't any way to prove it, at least right now. But it startles me to think that anyone, let alone 46% of a country, can believe the earth has been around for 10000 years.

That's not bashing Christianity or Faith. That's questioning why someone refuses to believe fact. Arguably not as damaging, and certainly not as offensive, but do we not harp on people who do not believe the Holocaust happened? (Excuse the godwin, couldn't think of another event that could be used here. Also, I'm not comparing the two beliefs outside of refusal to believe fact, that should be obvious.)

This goes doubly when even the Vatican has said that that is wrong, and that the universe and earth are very old.

(This took me so long to write cause I was trying so hard to not be offensive or confrontational over religion.)

It is absolutely reasonable, however, both GF and Sandorski have rolled into this stating they will go out of their way to ridicule and GF goes so far as to thinly veil that these beliefs should not even be allowed.

It should be noted, in the ongoing bunfights, that no atheists are ridiculed for their beliefs - not a courtesy returned mind, but they are generally sorted out because they believe they should be able to ridicule and attack those of faith whenever they feel like simply because they disagree with the views.

Fact is, no one offers anyone else a reason for their beliefs or disbeliefs, but set yourself up as judge and jury then it's open season.

Simple as that.

[Tricks]

Gunnair Gunnair:

It is absolutely reasonable, however, both GF and Sandorski have rolled into this stating they will go out of their way to ridicule and GF goes so far as to thinly veil that these beliefs should not even be allowed.

Fair. I won't lie to you, I'd probably ridicule someone who thought the earth was 10000 years old too.

$1:

It should be noted, in the ongoing bunfights, that no atheists are ridiculed for their beliefs - not a courtesy returned mind, but they are generally sorted out because they believe they should be able to ridicule and attack those of faith whenever they feel like simply because they disagree with the views.

Not much different from normal discussions on here. We (as a forum) ridicule each other for opinions all the time. Though I agree, they gotta take some to give some.

[EyeBrock]

I'm always a bit leery of overly religious types, Catholic, Proddy or Muslims.


In the same breath I can appreciate why people find solace in religion and Christianity has been an important cultural factor in the development of our civilisation. Atheism or secularism is a post war phenomenon.

I’ve read several papers (history) how modern, secular scholars are getting the wrong end of the stick in their assessment of figures such as Bomber Harris and his language usage. Mainstream society in the 1940’s was much more prone to use biblical references in speeches. Harris famously used the ‘reap the whirlwind’ quote on Bomber Command’s attacks on German cities. Some modern scholars see this as proof of the negative traits of his character and totally miss the biblical connotations of his statement.

I think that our societies move away from Christianity as a pillar of our culture has caused some misunderstanding and ridicule of those of our citizens who are still faithful. At the same time the same secularists are promoting ‘diversity’ and religious toleration of any other faith but Christianity.

It’s all very strange!

[ShepherdsDog]

Odd that they are most critical of the religious tradition that fostered the growth of secularism.

[Canadian_Mind]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'm trying to say replacing studied scientific fact in classrooms and scientific institutions with religious hyperbole, much like creationists in the US are trying to do, is just as wrong and detrimental as the witch hunts were back in the 18th and 19th century. How is that an invalid argument?

Well you're using a 300 year old event as your example for your concerns with religion making its way into the classroom.

So, how is the religious persecution and execution of suspected witches by 300 year old religious extremists comparable to creationism in the classroom?

It doesn't - anymore than citing the Holocaust as an example of the Quebec government crackdown on students.

Creationism in the classroom in 2012 will not result in young girls being accused of witchcraft and tortured then executed.

Saying "creationism in 21st century is as wrong and detrimental as the witch hunts in the 18th & 19th century" is a comparison between two different subject matters for the sake of making a point. I never made the witch hunt an example of possible consequences. That would have looked like, "young girls will be burned at the stake because of creationism."

Do I think teaching creationism will lead to the mass-slaughter of young women? I sure as fuck hope not. But to me teaching creationism in the classroom as "educational material" is just the same as what the more extreme Muslim countries are doing by teaching Islam in the classroom as "educational material". Look at how that turned out. You can't say we wont end up becoming equally barbaric and backwards in the long run because of it.

[Lemmy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Odd that they are most critical of the religious tradition that fostered the growth of secularism.

Fostered? I don't think that's the right word.