Religion III

[Actor]

Amusing video! Of course in the real world no one with these views would ever be elected president.

YouTube

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You made the claim by asking a rhetorical question. So the burden of proof is yours. I know what the bible claims, whereas you do not.

Only one claim counts, viz., the God Hypothesis. If you cannot prove the God Hypothesis then all other Biblical claims are meaningless. And since the God Hypothesis has been around for millennia before I was born the burden of proof belongs to those who continue to espouse it today.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Only one claim counts, viz., the God Hypothesis. If you cannot prove the God Hypothesis then all other Biblical claims are meaningless. And since the God Hypothesis has been around for millennia before I was born the burden of proof belongs to those who continue to espouse it today.

Changing the subject again. If the God Hypothesis is the only claim that counts, then you should refrain postulating other lesser hypotheses.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the God Hypothesis is the only claim that counts, ...

All other Biblical claims depend on the God Hypothesis being true.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... then you should refrain postulating other lesser hypotheses.

A postulate and a hypothesis are not the same thing. Look it up. In the English language one does not postulate a hypothesis.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Changing the subject again.

How?

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the God Hypothesis is the only claim that counts, then you should refrain postulating other lesser hypotheses.

What "lesser hypothesis" have I put forward?

[Actor]

A member of the Arkansas legislature has introduced a bill which would permit (require?) the teaching of creationism in public schools. This should go down in flames. SCOTUS has already found that the teaching of creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. This was reinforced by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005 which found that "intelligent design" was creationism in disguise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

A member of the Arkansas legislature has introduced a bill which would permit (require?) the teaching of creationism in public schools. This should go down in flames. SCOTUS has already found that the teaching of creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. This was reinforced by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005 which found that "intelligent design" was creationism in disguise.

God forbid! Teaching Creationism could be worse than this covid apocalypse.

Oh...and by the way, which religion does creationism establish since numerous religions believe in creation?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...and by the way, which religion does creationism establish since numerous religions believe in creation?

The relevant text is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

i.e., creationism does not establish any religion, rather creationism is a feature of some religions already established. SCOTUS says that teaching creationism in publicly funded schools is a no-no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

The legislature of the State of Arkansas would be well advised to not pass this bill. If they do pass it the governor of the State of Arkansas would be well advised to veto it. If passed any citizen can (and someone probably will) challenge it and it will be struck down by the first judge that hears it. A waste of taxpayer money.

cdesign proponentsists

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The relevant text is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

i.e., creationism does not establish any religion, rather creationism is a feature of some religions already established. SCOTUS says that teaching creationism in publicly funded schools is a no-no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

The legislature of the State of Arkansas would be well advised to not pass this bill. If they do pass it the governor of the State of Arkansas would be well advised to veto it. If passed any citizen can (and someone probably will) challenge it and it will be struck down by the first judge that hears it. A waste of taxpayer money.

cdesign proponentsists

Since creationism does not establish any religion, by you own admission, then the SC decision is just another unconstitutional one. That clause in the Constitution says NOTHING about existing religions, i.e. ones already established.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

A member of the Arkansas legislature has introduced a bill which would permit (require?) the teaching of creationism in public schools. This should go down in flames. SCOTUS has already found that the teaching of creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. This was reinforced by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005 which found that "intelligent design" was creationism in disguise.

Maybe the Arkansas public schools are venturing into fiction writing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Maybe the Arkansas public schools are venturing into fiction writing.

And if that is what THE PEOPLE want, why not give it to them. It's very obvious to me that SC decision was entirely grounded in make believe since teaching creationism in public schools does not logically equate with Congress establishing a religion, especially since creationism is not unique to Christianity.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if that is what THE PEOPLE want, why not give it to them. It's very obvious to me that SC decision was entirely grounded in make believe since teaching creationism in public schools does not logically equate with Congress establishing a religion, especially since creationism is not unique to Christianity.

If creationism is taught as just a hypothesis...then there is no harm in it, IMO. But if it's taught as a presumed "fact"...then I'm against it. Our youth is misguided enough as it is.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If creationism is taught as just a hypothesis...then there is no harm in it, IMO. But if it's taught as a presumed "fact"...then I'm against it. Our youth is misguided enough as it is.

I'm okay with that if they downgrade evolution from theory to hypothesis, since evolution theory is self-defeating.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since creationism does not establish any religion, by you own admission, then the SC decision is just another unconstitutional one. That clause in the Constitution says NOTHING about existing religions, i.e. ones already established.

Go back and re-read the relevant text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The word "establishment" in the text is a noun. You are incorrectly interpreting it as a verb. Ergo, the clause applies to both existing and potential religions. So says SCOTUS. Case closed.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Go back and re-read the relevant text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The word "establishment" in the text is a noun. You are incorrectly interpreting it as a verb. Ergo, the clause applies to both existing and potential religions. So says SCOTUS. Case closed.

Oy vey. If the text read: Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion, it would not change the sense of the passage one iota.

Further do schools = Congress when it's schools teaching creationism?