Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But there are religions which reject creationism. Thus the use of public facilities to teach creationism favors one religion over another at taxpayer expense.

Furthermore, I am a taxpayer. Why should the taxes I pay be used to fund religion?

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Creationism isn't a religion, so you wouldn't be funding any religion.

There are also non-religious people who rejection evolution and naturalism. So what is your point about some religions rejecting creationism? The fact that a teacher teaches creationism doesn't mean anyone is required to believe it. They are free to accept or reject.

Freedom of Religion also means freedom to speak and to practice religion.

Lastly, I'm a taxpayer as well, so why should I fund any government endeavor that condones, practices and supports censorship? There should be no censorship of knowledge. You, as a scientist, should appreciate this fact!

[thaskalos]

God belongs in church, and science belongs in the classroom. If you guys want the kiddies to learn about creationism...take them to Sunday school.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

God belongs in church, and science belongs in the classroom. If you guys want the kiddies to learn about creationism...take them to Sunday school.

Creationism is far more scientific that secular naturalism. Plus the former isn't a self-defeating belief system either.

Furthermore, creationism doesn't require that any matters of a moral/spiritual nature be taught. There are numerous people who believe God created the universe and are still going to hell. The belief in creationism doesn't require theological instruction.

Finally, in the absence of a competing ideas in schools, secular nationalism is actually indoctrinated into children.

[thaskalos]

I have a friend who is a principal in a Chicago school. He tells me that they would teach creationism in school...if they could find teachers who would be able to teach such a class with a straight face.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Creationism isn't a religion, so you wouldn't be funding any religion.

Creationism is a tenet of religion, particularly of certain denominations of the Christian religion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fact that a teacher teaches creationism doesn't mean anyone is required to believe it. They are free to accept or reject.

The courts have noted that children are particularly susceptible to a variety of influences, particularly teachers. If creationism is taught in a public school then a parent faces an uphill battle in teaching his child otherwise. Shirley you are aware that children are not allowed to vote.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Freedom of Religion also means freedom to speak and to practice religion.

But not in publicly funded schools. See McCollum v. Board of Education(1948)

Originally Posted by boxcar

Lastly, I'm a taxpayer as well, so why should I fund any government endeavor that condones, practices and supports censorship?

Grow up. Censorship is a part of life. Laws against child pornography are a form of censorship. Classification of military documents are a form of censorship. Surely you are in favor of these.

Originally Posted by boxcar

There should be no censorship of knowledge. You, as a scientist, should appreciate this fact!

Religion is not knowledge. It is belief without evidence. It is ...

YouTube

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Creationism is far more scientific that secular naturalism.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Plus the former isn't a self-defeating belief system either.

Bullshit!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, creationism doesn't require that any matters of a moral/spiritual nature be taught. There are numerous people who believe God created the universe and are still going to hell. The belief in creationism doesn't require theological instruction.

Circular argument!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally, in the absence of a competing ideas in schools, secular nationalism is actually indoctrinated into children.

Unlike creationism, secular naturalism (your term) is supported by evidence.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Prove it.

Bullshit!

We've been down this road before. Secular Materialism is D.O.A. because it violates laws of logic.

Circular argument!

No, it isn't. Creationism can be taught without teaching any religious theology.

Unlike creationism, secular naturalism (your term) is supported by evidence.

Yeah...only when all the "evidence" is backfitted.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Secular Materialism is D.O.A. because it violates laws of logic.

How? You've never explained that.

[thaskalos]

What can Boxcar know about the "Laws of Logic"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What can Boxcar know about the "Laws of Logic"?

Some time ago He made the claim that the law of identity disproved evolution. Didn't make any sense.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

Some time ago He made the claim that the law of identity disproved evolution. Didn't make any sense.

Boxcar has made many claims...and NONE of them have made any sense. A while back he claimed to be an expert horseplayer...which led me to challenge him to a handicapping contest. He was working on an upgrade to his handicapping software, he told me, and it would take him a couple of weeks. He also told me to save up my money...because the handicapping contest would be for some serious loot. That was about a year ago...and I'm still waiting.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar has made many claims...and NONE of them have made any sense. A while back he claimed to be an expert horseplayer...which led me to challenge him to a handicapping contest. He was working on an upgrade to his handicapping software, he told me, and it would take him a couple of weeks. He also told me to save up my money...because the handicapping contest would be for some serious loot. That was about a year ago...and I'm still waiting.

If you beat Boxcar in a handicapping contest, or vice versa, what would that prove?
You both make excellent contributions (i.e. food for thought) to this thread independent of that sort of frivolous sidetrack idea in this topic area.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

If you beat Boxcar in a handicapping contest, or vice versa, what would that prove?
You both make excellent contributions (i.e. food for thought) to this thread independent of that sort of frivolous sidetrack idea in this topic area.

If the handicapping contest takes place...then the outcome proves NOTHING. But If we both call ourselves "professional-level horseplayers", and one of us chickens out of the contest after initially telling the other guy to "get your money together because it will soon be mine"...then it proves that the first guy is a coward as well as a fraud. It comes down to credibility, Greyfox...we shouldn't be allowed to keep talking "out-of-our-ass" here. Occasionally...we should be able to prove that we are who we say we are.

Sorry if my "frivolous sidetrack idea" offended your sensibilities.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

He also told me to save up my money...because the handicapping contest would be for some serious loot.

By now you should have enough saved to stop gambling altogether.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally, in the absence of a competing ideas in schools, secular nationalism is actually indoctrinated into children.

I just now noticed this! "secular nationalism" ???