Seperation of Church and state

[SUNSTONE]

Yesterday at 04:11 PM crazyfingers said this in Post #77



That is a strawman argument. Some schools are trying to teach that people should be tolerant of people who are different than them because gays face abuse every day for no reason other than the bigotry of others.



What would you have the school mention about a god?  Which one would you pick and why?




Do you know what the theory of evolution is?



This is of course absolutely wrong but no matter how many times science is explained to some people they refuse to learn.



That you think that the theory of evolution contradicts your religion is not reason enough to not teach a core theory in biology and one that has at least as much support as the theory of relativity. Like it or not, species do evolve. Your refusal to learn that fact is your problem.

If you thought that the sun went around the earth should the schools not teach that the earth actually goes around the sun?



There you go again with that strawman. 




Are you saying that a mature nonchristian would not make as good a parent as a mature christian?



Please demonstrate that the god that you believe in is not a myth.


If you mean getting more "justices" like Thomas and Scalia then that would be a sad day for this country.

I don't hate gays, I hate the gay lifestyle. I live right next to a gay nightclub. Every night I have fun bashing there windows out......j/k. I have had gay bosses, and co-workers, card players. I understand sin. So a way I would aproach a problem(my opinion) like this is through the law, try to get laws against it. Reasoning, try to show how it is a way for the devil to ruin lives. That sort of thing, not "hey you f@&!, get out". Hate sin, love the sinner.

But that is a different arguement, just wanted to clear up some missunderstandings about my faith.

What God? All of them, plus personal testimonies of the different faiths.

Do I know what the "theory of evolution" is? Yeah, do you know the definition of the word "theory"?  To say that it takes faith to believe in evolution, isn't something I made up. I heard it from an evolutionists mouth. He said "The belief in a God as a creater is a far stretch of faith for me, but evolution is a small leap of faith."

People believe in science without asking for any proof, but demand proof of God. I believe in science, but just not everything they pump out, especially "theorys". I heard that the earth is made up of layers, like nickle and such, and this is taught in school. I also heard that this is just a theory, and that they can't prove it, because they have only been so far into the earth, basicly barely scratching the surface.  Agian this is just what I have heard, don't always believe everything you hear.

I think that the "theory" of evolution should be emphasised, but I also think that creationism should be taught as well.

Did you know that the big bang theory works with the bible?

Believing parents and nonbelieving parents.  Yes I believe that a mature follower of Christ would make the best parents. Your idea that they wouldn't be any better, is based on the belief that there isn't a Christian God or God at all. My belief is based upon Jesus is God.

I can reason with you, why I believe there is a God, and that His name is Jesus.Doesn't mean you will believe.

But

What you and Poe can not do is convince yourself that Odin the Myth is a real God.

Now I can understand that you don't just take what I say at face value, speaking about my testimonies, which you have not read. All I can do is reason with you, and share with you why I believe the way I believe. Which by the way has only been 7 years, only a 1/4 of my life.

 

[SUNSTONE]

Yesterday at 08:44 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #78



I don't see anything about promoting a gay lifestyle, although I do see some work being done to explain that homosexuals are not boogymen who deserve to be locked up as mentally insane or just plain evil.



Evolution requires faith in hundreds of years of the Sceintific Method and careful study. Creationism requires faith in two naked people, a magic garden, and a talking snake.

The Supreme Court made its decision on this one back in 1987.



And they don't "teach" Homosexuality now, at least not as a "how-to" course. Parents can still take their children ***-bashing on weekends.



Would they make the best leaders as well? How about the best citizens?



Enjoy. 



Do I have any amusing anecdotes? Nope, none. Do you have any proof that what happened to you wouldn't have happened had you not prayed? Do you know for a fact that God changed His divine plan to accomidate your wishes?



I agree. It's near impossible to shake a lifetime of dogmatic indoctrination. No wonder you want it brought into the public schools. Get a mass audience while there too young to think, right?



Yes, yes, and followers of Odin have no need for a Holy Spirit. They do pretty well with what they have.



Unfortunately, most of the sacred writings tended to get burned by Christians in power... as well as the people who wrote them.

And you might want to look into church history... those writings haven't been passed down quite as "faithfully" as you would like to believe. Lots of translations out there...



On the one hand, I appreciate that Supreme Court justices sit for life, and don't need to worry about re-election. I continue to hope that they continue to preserve the Constitution, and not use their power to advance their religious beliefs... or the beliefs of whatever prez nominated them.

I hope for it, but I doubt it.

And you are doing more by talking to me. You're reminding me that the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

I believe your intentions, and those of people like you, are good, but in your crusade, you would run the American people through a meat-grinder until we all came out the same. You would establish a theocracy with yourselves in charge, claiming new direct revelations from the Almighty on a daily basis. You would burn the Constitution, as you have burned many a dissenting volume before you, shouting Hosannas the whole time.

You have given me a purpose in life: to oppose your crusade with every original free thought I have, and for that, I thank you.

If you see a teaching in school that promotes a gay lifestyle as not a punishable act in jail. You are seeing it promoted as being an  exceptable lifestyle.

The supreme court did make a decision, but it can be undone.

They do teach about homosexuality in schools, and no parents by law can not go gay bashing.

The best leaders and citizens? Yes.

You assume that God is in total control, that whatever happens is the will of God. Alot of people believe this, but its not true. God has done his part, but we have  free will. Because if God controlled everyones actions, then our sins are His fault. The bible says, "a man ruins his life, and his heart rages against the Lord" (not word for word, but the meaning is exactly the same).

You have a missconception of God, in fact you have no idea if there is a God or not. You don't know one way or another, you have no testimonies, but yet your dogmatic thinking, tellls you that there isn't a God. Atleast I have testimonies, awesome life changeing testimonies, which gives me faith that there is a God. You think that faith is a force of belief based on nothing, but this is not biblical definition. Fait is the "evidence" of things not seen. Another way of putting it, I have answered prayers"evidence", even though I didn't see God physicaly answer them.

You assume that we would ruin America, that is pretty dogmatic thinking right there. That would be like me saying, since your a heathen(nonbeliever) your a murderer and a rapists, and a lieing, thief, trying to ruin the world.

I looked into church history, do you know what the "dead sea scrolls" are? They are sacred writings more than 2000 years old. In them is the whole complete work of the book Isaiah, word for word. The many translations, are just different languages.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 08:27 PM SUNSTONE said this in Post #81
So a way I would aproach a problem(my opinion) like this is through the law, try to get laws against it. Reasoning, try to show how it is a way for the devil to ruin lives.

It would be immoral to outlaw homosexuality or homosexual acts.  Follow the Golden Rule and don't butt into someone else's personal affairs unless that person is infringing the rights of others.

What other things would you outlaw? Atheism? Paganism?

What God? All of them, plus personal testimonies of the different faiths.

What about atheism? Humanism? Paganism? What points of view regarding religion would not be allowed and on what basis would they be so? Who would decide?

Do I know what the "theory of evolution" is? Yeah, do you know the definition of the word "theory"? 

Yes and the scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as the common use definition.  Evolution is a theory using the scientific definition.  It's not a guess or a hunch. A theory is a well supported explanation for how something works. Theories never graduate to some higher order of certainty. They remain theories always.

Evolution is also fact. It is a fact that species evolve. Common descent is fact. How species have changed over time is the theory. Random mutation and natural selection are the theory that explain the fact that species evolve.

 To say that it takes faith to believe in evolution, isn't something I made up. I heard it from an evolutionists mouth. He said "The belief in a God as a creater is a far stretch of faith for me, but evolution is a small leap of faith."

I expect that you can provide a reverence for that quote? I ask because most quotes like that are fabrications or butchered sentences taken apart and put back together again to utterly change the meaning.  So, please provide the references to that quote.

People believe in science without asking for any proof, but demand proof of God. I believe in science, but just not everything they pump out, especially "theorys".

Then you do not accept almost everyting having to do with science. Clearly you do not unserstand the scientific meaning of the term theory otherwise you would not have made that statement.

I heard that the earth is made up of layers, like nickle and such, and this is taught in school. I also heard that this is just a theory, and that they can't prove it, because they have only been so far into the earth, basicly barely scratching the surface.  Agian this is just what I have heard, don't always believe everything you hear.

Again you have demonstrated that you don't understand the term theory in the scientific sense. Theories are NEVER proven.  They are only supported by the evidence or they are not supported.  Some theories, such as evolution, are extraordinarily well supported - and the theory of evolution is extraordinarily well supported.  Other theores are not well supported by evidence and are discarded.

I think that the "theory" of evolution should be emphasised, but I also think that creationism should be taught as well.

There is no theory of creationism in the scientific sense. Creationists have yet to postulate a theory, in the scientific sense, to describe creationism.

Did you know that the big bang theory works with the bible?

Of couse. Those christians who have accepted that the big bang theory is a well supported theory have been able to interpret the bible such that it does not contradict the big bang theory.  Evolution also does not contradict the bible - only some especially literal interpretations of the bible.

 

 

[SUNSTONE]

Yesterday at 09:13 PM crazyfingers said this in Post #83



It would be immoral to outlaw homosexuality or homosexual acts.  Follow the Golden Rule and don't butt into someone else's personal affairs unless that person is infringing the rights of others.

What other things would you outlaw? Atheism? Paganism?



What about atheism? Humanism? Paganism? What points of view regarding religion would not be allowed and on what basis would they be so? Who would decide?




Yes and the scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as the common use definition.  Evolution is a theory using the scientific definition.  It's not a guess or a hunch. A theory is a well supported explanation for how something works. Theories never graduate to some higher order of certainty. They remain theories always.

Evolution is also fact. It is a fact that species evolve. Common descent is fact. How species have changed over time is the theory. Random mutation and natural selection are the theory that explain the fact that species evolve.



I expect that you can provide a reverence for that quote? I ask because most quotes like that are fabrications or butchered sentences taken apart and put back together again to utterly change the meaning.  So, please provide the references to that quote.



Then you do not accept almost everyting having to do with science. Clearly you do not unserstand the scientific meaning of the term theory otherwise you would not have made that statement.



Again you have demonstrated that you don't understand the term theory in the scientific sense. Theories are NEVER proven.  They are only supported by the evidence or they are not supported.  Some theories, such as evolution, are extraordinarily well supported - and the theory of evolution is extraordinarily well supported.  Other theores are not well supported by evidence and are discarded.



There is no theory of creationism in the scientific sense. Creationists have yet to postulate a theory, in the scientific sense, to describe creationism.



Of couse. Those christians who have accepted that the big bang theory is a well supported theory have been able to interpret the bible such that it does not contradict the big bang theory.  Evolution also does not contradict the bible - only some especially literal interpretations of the bible.

 

The definition of theory is, idea. Thats it, a theory is just an idea. They take that theory and apply science, which is the study and collection of evidence to support that idea, or to disprove that idea.

I don't have the quote for that scientist, but if it were fact, then there wouldn't be any "missing link". You say that species change, and they do, but not the way you think they change. So I have heard.

I am not an expert, and I can tell neither are you. I have done studys on it, but not alot. There is a book here in the library that I quoted before, I will do it again sometime, not now. 

The laws of physics supports creationism, but not evolution. The only evolution, that I am aware of, is de-evolution, or the descent of a race. From what I understand, matter can niether be created nor destroyed, and also everything is drawing to a close, or an end. You are born then you die, the stars also die. Giving room for a reason that there is an end, and a beginning. If there is a beginning, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, where did everything come from?  BANG This is the belief that it was all created at once.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gensis 1:1

Evolution does contradict the bible. The theory that man came from ape, goes against Adam and Eve. The theory that we created ourselves goes against the first chapter in the bible.

If you think that you can do anything just as long as you don't hurt anyone, (a belief) then you can do drugs right? You can make heroine legal. Someone sent me an email that says San Fransico has 6 times the nations rate on sexual deseases(maybe more, I haven't read it in a while).

If "theorys are never proven" wouldn't that take faith to believe in them?

 

[Tau]

Today at 07:34 PM SUNSTONE said this in Post #84
If "theorys are never proven" wouldn't that take faith to believe in them?

Actually, no, it wouldn't. The development of a theory goes like this: You start out with an idea on how something works. This idea is called a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, the idea must make some predictions. These predictions can take one of two different forms:

If we examine a certain (as of yet unexamined) part of the world, we will find a specific structure/order/whatever.
If we do a certain experiment, we will get a certain result.

So now we have a hypothesis. Then some other scientist takes one of the predictions and test it, for example by carrying out an experiment. He gets a result that fits the hypothesis. Then some other scientist carries out the experiment. He gets the same result. After a while, a lot of scientists have carried out the experiment, and all have gotten the same result. (There may have been more than one experiment for which a certain result was predicted, but you get the idea.)

Then scientists say: Okay, let's suppose that the hypothesis is correct. What additional consequences would this have? So someone sets up a new experiment, based on the assumption that the hypothesis is correct. A lot of scientists carry out this experiment. If they all get results that fit with the hypothesis, we begin to have a lot of trust that the hypothesis is indeed correct. After all, the hypothesis has been tested a lot and every time it has been found that the predictions of the hypothesis were correct. At this point - and not before - the hypothesis becomes a theory. Notice that the theory is never proven - the best we can do is "We've tested this theory many times, in many different ways, and so far, it's worked."

It is possible, of course, to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. If we can set up an experiment where the results consistently do not fit with the predictions of the hypothesis/theory, then we conclude that the theory must be wrong, and trash it, because it simply doesn't work.

Science can never prove any idea correct, it can only prove it wrong.

 

[Arikay]

To expand on that, Why a scientific theory cant be proven right is because science knows that they dont know everything. There may, in the future, become evidence to show that the theory is wrong. There are many scientific theories that have been shown to be 99.9% right. However, since we dont know everything, its impossible to say that a scientific theory is 100% correct. If that makes any sense.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 01:34 PM SUNSTONE said this in Post #84



The definition of theory is, idea. Thats it, a theory is just an idea. They take that theory and apply science, which is the study and collection of evidence to support that idea, or to disprove that idea.

See the other posts on what a theory is. Also see Is evolution only a theory?

I don't have the quote for that scientist, but if it were fact, then there wouldn't be any "missing link". You say that species change, and they do, but not the way you think they change. So I have heard.

Unless you can provide the source for the quote than I can assume that it is meaningless.

Why don't you describe what "link" you think is missing.  Where is it missing? Between what and what is there a gap?

The laws of physics supports creationism, but not evolution.

I'd like to see this...

 The only evolution, that I am aware of, is de-evolution, or the descent of a race.

De-evolution

From what I understand, matter can niether be created nor destroyed, and also everything is drawing to a close, or an end. You are born then you die, the stars also die. Giving room for a reason that there is an end, and a beginning. If there is a beginning, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, where did everything come from?  BANG This is the belief that it was all created at once.

And what does this have to do with evolution?  Also you know that matter and energy are interchangeable, yes?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gensis 1:1

Evolution does contradict the bible. The theory that man came from ape, goes against Adam and Eve.

Actually, man and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Most christians correctly understand that the story of Adam and Eve is a metephor and not to be taken literally. It is supposed to tell a moral story and is not a history lesson.

The theory that we created ourselves goes against the first chapter in the bible.

Most christians believe that god created the process that is evolution.

If "theorys are never proven" wouldn't that take faith to believe in them?

Theories are believed conditionally. That condition is that the evidence continues to support the theory. If there is a lot of evidence that supports a theory, as in the case for evolution, then one would generally accept the theory until there is new evidence that shows that there is a flaw in the theory. Faith is not required.



 

 

[panterapat]

"However, since we dont know everything, its impossible to say that a scientific theory is 100% correct."

The basic problem with the scientific method (or rather in its application) is that it becomes self-defeating when a possible outcome is eliminated as a possibility.

Thus many scientist have thwarted themselves by not allowing for the possibility of God as the creator of the universe. Science should be open to any and all possibilities.

When science finds the final mystery of the universe, there, will be God.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[Arikay]

Because, quite frankly, many scientists dont think science is so arrogant as to Known something is 100% true without evidence.

Today at 06:02 PM panterapat said this in Post #88

"However, since we dont know everything, its impossible to say that a scientific theory is 100% correct."

The basic problem with the scientific method (or rather in its application) is that it becomes self-defeating when a possible outcome is eliminated as a possibility.

Thus many scientist have thwarted themselves by not allowing for the possibility of God as the creator of the universe. Science should be open to any and all possibilities.

When science finds the final mystery of the universe, there, will be God.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bump.

What do you say we get the thread back on topic: Church and State, and save the "what is a theory" questions for the C/E boards.

 

[Arikay]

Ok.

I propose that if the public school taught one religion over the other, it would be the same as teaching one race over the other.
Along the same lines.
I propose that the religious majority telling the religious minority what to do, is the same as the racial majority telling the racial minority what to do.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 03:55 PM Arikay said this in Post #91

Ok.

I propose that if the public school taught one religion over the other, it would be the same as teaching one race over the other.

Not just that but also religion over nonreligion.

 

[panterapat]

"I propose that if the public school taught one religion over the other, it would be the same as teaching one race over the other.
Along the same lines.
I propose that the religious majority telling the religious minority what to do, is the same as the racial majority telling the racial minority what to do."

I don't get the arguement here. We already have a seperation of church and state. There is not a big problem of teachers crossing the line. Of course it happens at times as any law is violated at times.

The problem comes in when Christianity is treated with disdain while other isms are taught and encouraged. It seems that Christianity is the only religion permitted to be criticized today. The PC police make sure that everyone accepts all the ideas about town, but the "far-right fundamentalist extreme anti-gay intolerant Christians" (in their words)are the haters who need to be silenced.

Patrick

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 08:18 PM panterapat said this in Post #93
I don't get the arguement here. We already have a seperation of church and state. There is not a big problem of teachers crossing the line. Of course it happens at times as any law is violated at times.

I think that it happens more often than is reported.

The problem comes in when Christianity is treated with disdain while other isms are taught and encouraged.

What isms are those?

It seems that Christianity is the only religion permitted to be criticized today. The PC police make sure that everyone accepts all the ideas about town, but the "far-right fundamentalist extreme anti-gay intolerant Christians" (in their words)are the haters who need to be silenced.

hugh?

 

[Arikay]

Well, my argument wasnt about our current system, but against those that want to change it.

Unfortunatly I would dissagree. It may seem like other isms are getting more rights. However, me and my friends who arent christian ran into quite a few bad prejudices from the administration of my high school. Many others have had the same problems. The prejudice problems christians have had at schools, although, unfortunatly, existant, are very small compared to the prejudice problems that non christians have to face.

Today at 05:18 PM panterapat said this in Post #93

"I propose that if the public school taught one religion over the other, it would be the same as teaching one race over the other.
Along the same lines.
I propose that the religious majority telling the religious minority what to do, is the same as the racial majority telling the racial minority what to do."

I don't get the arguement here. We already have a seperation of church and state. There is not a big problem of teachers crossing the line. Of course it happens at times as any law is violated at times.

The problem comes in when Christianity is treated with disdain while other isms are taught and encouraged. It seems that Christianity is the only religion permitted to be criticized today. The PC police make sure that everyone accepts all the ideas about town, but the "far-right fundamentalist extreme anti-gay intolerant Christians" (in their words)are the haters who need to be silenced.

Patrick

 

[panterapat]

Arikay

"The more you think the less you know,
the more you know the less you think."

I don't get it. Am I missing something?
My version would be:

The more you think the more you know,
the more you know the more you think.
and additionallly
The more you know,
the more you know you don't know.

Enlighten me.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 09:35 AM panterapat said this in Post #96

Arikay

"The more you think the less you know,
the more you know the less you think."

I don't get it. Am I missing something?
My version would be:

The more you think the more you know,
the more you know the more you think.
and additionallly
The more you know,
the more you know you don't know.

Enlighten me.

In Christ, Patrick

Not to put words in Arikay's mouth, but I read that like Socrates famous "True wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing."

Similar to Thomas Edison's "We don't know a millionth of a percent about anything," and he was one of the best thinkers of the 20th century.

People who think they already know everything don't feel a whole lot of pressure to think much. People who think a lot realize that there's a lot going on that they don't know.

Or in other words, "The more you think, the less you think you know.
and the more you think you know, the less you think."

At least that's how I take it. Am I in the ballpark, Arikay?

 

[Arikay]

Yep.

"The more you think the less you know"

means that the more you think/research about things the more you realize that you really dont know much about them or about anything.

"The more you know the less you think"

Means that the more you know (and the more you Think you know) the less you actually think/research about things.

An example would be some scientists turned creationists.
A scientist has a degree in physics. So he knows a lot about science. Since he knows a lot about science he also assumes he knows a lot about evolution, So he doesnt bother to think about it and he goes out and says something completly wrong about evolution because "the more you know the less you think"

If that helps any.

Edit: Yes I chose to go with an example that fits here better, instead of my normal sword example.

Today at 06:43 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #97



Not to put words in Arikay's mouth, but I read that like Socrates famous "True wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing."

Similar to Thomas Edison's "We don't know a millionth of a percent about anything," and he was one of the best thinkers of the 20th century.

People who think they already know everything don't feel a whole lot of pressure to think much. People who think a lot realize that there's a lot going on that they don't know.

Or in other words, "The more you think, the less you think you know.
and the more you think you know, the less you think."

At least that's how I take it. Am I in the ballpark, Arikay?

 

[panterapat]

I got ya- I feel better now.

Pat

 

[SUNSTONE]

14th March 2003 at 03:56 PM crazyfingers said this in Post #87



See the other posts on what a theory is. Also see Is evolution only a theory?



Unless you can provide the source for the quote than I can assume that it is meaningless.

Why don't you describe what "link" you think is missing.  Where is it missing? Between what and what is there a gap?



I'd like to see this...



De-evolution



And what does this have to do with evolution?  Also you know that matter and energy are interchangeable, yes?




Actually, man and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Most christians correctly understand that the story of Adam and Eve is a metephor and not to be taken literally. It is supposed to tell a moral story and is not a history lesson.



Most christians believe that god created the process that is evolution.




Theories are believed conditionally. That condition is that the evidence continues to support the theory. If there is a lot of evidence that supports a theory, as in the case for evolution, then one would generally accept the theory until there is new evidence that shows that there is a flaw in the theory. Faith is not required.



 

The missing link is the lack of evidence that would make the theory of evolution, a law of evolution.

There are theorys and then there are laws. Like the law of gravity.

What those laws I put up is the debate for creationism. If there is an end then there is a beginning. If matter can not be created nor destroyed, only changed, then where did everything come from. Thats where scientists come up with the "big bang theory".

If you think that most christians, believe in evolution and that Adam and Eve is just a metephor, then show me your evidence on that statement. I don't know a single Christian that believes that.

"Theorys are believed"

Look up the definition of "believed" it says "to have religous faith" and to "have an opinion".