The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Radicalization of GOP

Helemoto, you are first person I gave up on. It isn't that we agree to disagree, it is that I have to concede that you have no capacity to understand what this argument is even about.

Actually, Moto, you are right. Stupidity means you always think you are right, like out pal S here. He KNOWS how everything happened. He has faith!

My policy has been to question everything. If Einstein and Newton were not atheists, maybe it bears examining.

To Derid's point- wholeheartedly agree. This actually IS a philosophical discussion and we really shouldn't be politicizing science. The problem is that we have a knee jerk culture, pretty much split and each side is trying to gain an advantage. Science gets dragged into the culture war where it really doesn't belong.

School districts are local; curriculum is provided by the state. It is ultimately up to the voters to decide what will be taught, and yes, THEY are paying for it too! Liberals despise one-man one-vote so they run to the nearest commie judge they can find to impose their will on the voters. Very sad they we have allowed this to happen

I hope you can stop humping your bible long enough to consider that science, and not divine intervention is responsible for your quality of life and all progress in the last 300+ years.

If not for science and scientific methods you'd still be dying by a dozen to diseases, starving while burning witches you think responsible for droughts and praying for divine cures for various maladies as you neared your average life expectancy age of early to mid 30s.

Sinij, are you saying that someone that reads the bible, and has faith in something greater then themselves cannot also believe in the actions and products of science? Or that someone that believes in science cannot also accept that something’s have yet to be answered by said science?

Or how about some one that views science as a way of explaining how or why god does things?

Sinij, your stance, from my perception, is that if you have any faith then you cannot accept science, nor if you can accept science for what it is not be able to have a thought to something else. Your expressed views are black and white, right and wrong, all done with an absolution that in facts bears to mind the destructive dogma of the Spanish Inquisition, where if you do not believe as I do then you must be burned. You have substituted stake and fire, for contempt and insulting others.


PS. I still love you.

I love science you moron, and if you read anything i ever read you would know that im not religious. as a matter of fact i would say that your hatred of christians is a religion to you. you certainly are zealous enough

all i am saying is that i dont know. oh, and that you dont either. the empty bucket makes the most noise, ill leave it at that you smug, self righteous, overbearing conformist!

There is no way to reconcile these two concepts, if you believe then it is faith, and if you know then it is science. Many scientists live with cognitive dissonance of having to reconcile these two concepts.

Still, this nothing to do with our latest disagreement. For the record - I fully support right to religion. Freedom to worship is a fundamental human right. Forcing your faith on others is not.

When you create a law that forces teaching of what is a religious belief as science, you not only corrupt science but you also cross the line from freedom to worship into forcing your faith on others.

A set of questions to demonstrate my point:

1. Would you support twice-a-day mandatory prayers to Allah in schools?
2. Would you support mandatory study of kosher laws as written in Torah as part of science education in public schools?
3. Would you support study of nirvana and reincarnation as an alternative to theory of evolution?

Then why do you support teaching of creationism?

1. I have no problem with it, what matters is what is a persons heart, not to what diety is praied to. Also it allows other concepts to be used that allows more tolerance.
2. Like I said before, I have no problem with that being added to the criculium.
3. Yes, add it also, knowledge is neither good nor evil, and the more ways of thought are tought we, as a species, can only grow.

PS. I would like to add that faith is based on the unkown. I do not follow the bible, to me it was based on the need of a few men to use it as a tool to control others. That creatism as describe int he bible was the only way for a simple speacis to understand something, ie I could explain in detail how a combustion engine works to a 2 year old, but in the end all he will understand is, turn the key, and it goes voom voom. However I do belive in God, I belive he does not give a damn about us. To me he is like Crom, a mean vindictive sob that gets pissy when he is not worpshiped enough.

Now that being said, I have faith he set in motion the very elements that brought us forth. He likes to mix and match things, to set things in motion and see where it goes. Science is a way of explaining in more advanace terms how things happen. So yes I can recouncile faith in god, and science at the same time.

Well I have to agree to disagree with you here, RedKGB. I agree that if you include creationism then you have to include all other religions, but how could you possibly leave with a working science when things like Jet's flying spaghetti monster end up also included?

Science is science, religion is religion and they should not mix. Adding religion to science has very real danger of breaking science, it is like adding sand to your engine oil - this is not how science works and if you keep doing these things it can stop working.

Scientology is very good example of how science can get corrupted to produce pseudo-scientific results, if something like that becomes the norm we will go back to dark ages.

Its ok for us to agree to disagree.

Religious teachings should fall under Social Studies/Philosophy style classes and have nothing to do with science.