One cannot help noticing that ros has failed to address the question of whether all subjects should be taught as "scientists understand" them.
He obviously prefers another of his predictable and repetitive rants which have no meaning in the real world.
His failure, and that of wande and the NYT, to deal with this rather obvious question is strong evidence at the least that wedging atheism into schools as a precursor to wedging into society is what is the real agenda.
That it is an obvious question means that failing to address it constitutes a lie of omission.
And it is something of a stretch, and an insulting one to millions of Americans, to compare the white magic of Christianity to the black magic of voodoo. The one is about loving your neighbours and the other is about harming them.
The utter stupidity of these atheists on here is sufficient to condemn the doctrine out of hand to any sensible person.
No harm has come to anyone in history from Christianity. No violent, nasty killing and battles in the Bible from Christians or Hebrews (Christians still read and absorb the Old Testament). Is the tale of Joshua a good or bad example of the no provocation murderous slaughter of entire cities? No molestation of underage children by Christian clerics -- no hypocrites (who have or have not been caught) like Jimmy Haggard. Oh, right, the Cristian religion is just filled with love thy neighbor people. What a childish illusion.
@Lightwizard,
I agree fully, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
@farmerman,
No, but the Christians can take it out on the Muslims who believe in all that violence. "Onward Christian soldier, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus---" Oh, Christ.
@Lightwizard,
The United States is founded on war. And on ethnic cleansing. And it is the most powerful military machine that ever existed.
After seeing off the aboriginals there was the Revolution, the 1812 war, The Mexican war, the Civil war, the Spanish war, WW1, WW2, inc Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, The Cold War, Desert Storm, the Iraqi Freedom war and the Afghan war. Plus a good few minor events.
Was the cross of Jesus in evidence in any of that lot?
@spendius,
spendi, FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of wwII.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Was the cross of Jesus in evidence in any of that lot?
here, my good friend is what the american right says;
"america was founded on christian values".
"america is a christian nation".
"the ten commandments are the foundation of our laws".
"god is on our side".
"...one nation, UNDER GOD,...".
these sayings are all patently false, and there are historical quotes from founding fathers to support that they are false. i am not going to post them, yet again, but if you choose to look them up yourself, be my guest.
but in any case, on more than one occassion, bad deeds have been done while hiding behind the cross of jesus.
@DontTreadOnMe,
observations valid. However, talking to spendi is time that you could be conversing art with a load of cord wood.
@farmerman,
yeah--and taking any notice of you effemm is like putting your head in a sound proof box inside which is an endless loop tape playing stupid sayings picked up from crap literature and thinking you're wisdom's fairy godmother.
DTOM- I have no remit to defend the American right. If people abuse the name of Jesus that's their affair. Wars are not fought over religion. It's a myth. And well known to be in intelligent circles.
I have no doubt you are right but I don't see how it addresses the general point.
And when it comes to casualties of war science certainly has plenty to answer for. That's why I made specific reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You are starting to sound like a bunch of Greenham Common pacifists which is a bit of a laugh considering your record and the fact that you're all tooled up domestically as well.
Isn't war the general case of the struggle for exisence and the survival of the fittest? What do you want to teach that doctrine to the kids for and then start bleeding heart hand wringing about war. Talk about confused.
@spendius,
spendi wrote:
Quote:"...which is an endless loop tape playing stupid sayings picked up from crap literature and thinking you're wisdom's fairy godmother."
That's the irony of ironies, spendi. Too bad you will miss the joke.
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
but in any case, on more than one occassion, bad deeds have been done while hiding behind the cross of jesus.
Plenty of bad deeds have been done hiding behind the benevolent kindness of the British monarchy also. Maybe the fuckwit could research that!
A quote from The Times in a TV preview of a BBC2 programme entitled Did Darwin Kill God? screened tonight at 7 pm.
Quote:Conner Cunningham(sic) tackles the apparent conflict between Christianty and evolution. And guess what? There is no conflict. None of the early Christian fathers treated the Book of Genesis as a literal truth, but as a metaphor for the gift of creation. The idea that God and evolution were at loggerheads was fostered by the Monkey Trial of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, and again in the early 1960s when religious fundamentalism became a neurotic response to perceived immorality. Scientists do not unanimously concur that evolution is the gateway to atheism . "Evolution is the answer to how" says Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. "God is the answer to why."
So you silly twats are on the other side to that of the director of the Human Genome Project and at the same time claiming to be speaking in the name of science. It's a good job you are harmless as well.
What's it like being wrong and ineffective as well?
And you've seen nothing yet. I would put me on Ignore if I was any of you diddicos.
To begin with using (sic) after someone's correctly spelled name is without meaning, a misuse by some idiot writer who possess nothing but poor style. So the rest of it is equally not worth ready, but here's the actual Times TV critic's article:
All the Small Things; Did Darwin Kill God?
Last night's TV
Andrew Billen
Did Darwin Kill God?
Still on the Church: even as an atheist I have always been slightly worried about the way that Darwin has been used to disprove God's existence. Darwin had no more idea how life was sparked on Earth than anyone else. All he and the Bible disagree on is the point of how the different species were formed and all On the Origin of Species refuted was Genesis. Conor Cunningham's timely programme, Did Darwin Kill God?, argued that the tiff between God and Darwin has been much exaggerated and based on a misunderstanding. Genesis was so full of contradictions that it could never have been taken literally, and wasn't, until a small number of eccentrics got hold of it.
James Ussher, the archbishop who added up the genealogies in the Bible and declared that the Earth was created on the evening of October 23, 4004BC was one of them, William Paley, who held that God was a master clockmaker another, and Henry Morris, whose 1961 book (I almost wrote novel) The Genesis Flood, which used Noah to explain the fossil record, a third. But fanatical Darwinists, “ultra-Darwinists”, were also to blame, Cunningham argued. They had put the unwilling Darwin in the same ring as religion and announced that he had delivered a knock-out.
Cunningham, a theologian who declared his hand at the start by saying that he was a Christian who believed that creationism and intelligent design were nonsense, had particular fun with the believers in memes, an idea I have always put in the same league as Genesis: a useful metaphor. It would have been nice, however, if he had acknowledged the 1860 Huxley v Wilberforce debate in Oxford even if it did get in the way of his argument that the Church was originally largely happy with Darwinism. One other thing: Cunningham can believe what he likes, but, whereas our world is one big museum of evidence for evolution by natural design, for the existence of God there is no evidence at all. Better an ultra-Darwinist than even a moderate theist.
@Lightwizard,
Did you not think that his name merited a "can you believe that" notice LW. Are you completely witless? If my name was Cunningham I wouldn't tell anybody in the pub.
@Lightwizard,
Quote:Genesis was so full of contradictions that it could never have been taken literally, and wasn't, until a small number of eccentrics got hold of it.
I have maintained all along that you lot were a "small number of eccentrics." You take it literally in order to have something to say.
Quote:the tiff between God and Darwin has been much exaggerated and based on a misunderstanding.
Which means your's is a straw man position if ever I saw one.
Quote:Better an ultra-Darwinist than even a moderate theist.
And all called Conner Cunningham would be appropriate.
@wandeljw,
A loophole in the Texass laws that will, no doubt, now bring higher courts into the fray. MAintaining neutrality on Creationism means that teachers are robbed of their rights under the First Amendment, just because of their professions.
