[neill anblome]

Originally posted by kman42:
<STRONG>"You're not really an atheist. You believe in some higher power, right? Or you just dont know. That's called agnosticism."
</STRONG>

And this is funny why? *duh*...

Actually I don't like the term "atheism". Because it presupposes that there is something there that I have to be "a-" of. Its kind of a reverse definition. You don't call people who don't own cars "non-car owners" or people who don't own a mac "non-mac owners".

It's an arrogant position used by people using historically passed down predjudices to stereotype people.

So if you choose to believe in something, then define yourself, fine. As for me, no, I don't believe in the bible, god, jah, gd, allah, the tora, or the koran etc., nor do I believe in some other mighty beeing controling my fate...that's all stuff people made up 2000 years ago (or longer).

Sorry folks - try to limit me, and be destroyed!

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: neill anblome ]

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

There is a very simple difference: Atheist generally don't have missionaries.

They also don't put up posters in schools saying "There is no god".
</STRONG>

I can't argue with that I get a really funny mental image of the poster though.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>
I am in total agreement with Lerkfish on this one. Religion is a private matter and should be treated as such. If a sufficient number of people in a school choose to meet for prayer then a facility should be made available for them where they can do so unharassed and in privacy if this is practical and feasable. This goes for any religion, not just Christianity.</STRONG>

It is a private matter, but that doesn't mean those who practice it should be cut of from public life. I've heard of plenty of people being denied the very thing you've mentioned above. I'm not blaming you, or anyone else. It's just the way things are right now. I hope we can all find an acceptable middle ground for public forums (not specifically online forums ). Religion is more than an activity those who practice it do, in many cases... it's part of who they are, so it's not really practical to expect them to just turn it off when they step outside their home or church.

Peace, Love and Ti PowerBook to ya!

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>

and Ti PowerBook to ya!</STRONG>

Now, there's something that could change my mind

[Chuckmcd]

Out of genuine curiosity... how are the schools run there?

Here the whole church/state argument gets in everything... Many people simply have trouble with the idea of a moral issue such as that being taught by public schools. I would much prefer my kids to be taught that by, well, me. But this comes back to what the gov't is supposed to do.
I work with teens, and honestly I can't imagine much more harmful to them than to be jumping from bed to bed. They're not ready on so many levels... I forget who put it out, but there's a video named 'the lost children of Rockdale County'... About cephalous outbreak in a suburb of Atlanta... you could use the info for either argument.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

While this is undoubtely true if you take it as a statement in isolation it is also true that a frank and open sex education does decrease teen pregnancy.

The Netherlands have the most liberal sex education guidelines you could possibly come across, discussing everything from contraception choices to homsexuality in school and they have the lowest rate of unwanted teen pregnacies in Europe, In addition to this Dutch teenagers are likely to wait for 2 full years more than their badly educated UK counterparts before engaging in sexual activity.</STRONG>

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>Out of genuine curiosity... how are the schools run there?

Here the whole church/state argument gets in everything... Many people simply have trouble with the idea of a moral issue such as that being taught by public schools. I would much prefer my kids to be taught that by, well, me. But this comes back to what the gov't is supposed to do.
I work with teens, and honestly I can't imagine much more harmful to them than to be jumping from bed to bed. They're not ready on so many levels... I forget who put it out, but there's a video named 'the lost children of Rockdale County'... About cephalous outbreak in a suburb of Atlanta... you could use the info for either argument.
</STRONG>

I am not 100% sure about the Dutch system, but the German one is very similar so allow me to use this one for demonstration - it just avoids me making an ass of myself by talking about something I don't know anything about.

Religious studies are offered but always on a voluntary basis. The schools are run by the state, the state is elected by the electorate etc.
There are Church schools - bizarrely enough I myself went to a Jesuit school, but that's another story.

Sex education starts at around 6 years, very basic stuff, babies growing in mummy's tummy where daddy has put a seed etc. The details are then fleshed out (so to speak) as children get older. By the time they're 12 they know all the biological details by the time they're 14 they know about contraception as well as different sexual practices. There is also a lot of emphasis on love and partnership. Kids are generally encouraged to explore their sexuality in a safe and loving partnership, so this is not "Here is how yo do it, now go out and get laid" schooling. Most schools offer advice on contraception (as well as free contraception) to teenagers and the pill can be prescribed by a doctor from the age of 15 without the girl having to have her parents consent.

As far as the jumping through beds is concerned - I don't know how much harm sexual activity can really do. Certainly if a girl is pressured into doing something she doesn't want to there's untold potential for harm. But I've got a couple of female friends who were certainly quite active in that department as teenagers who are now in their thirties (like me) and are extremely well rounded people.

YMMV on this.

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Mastrap ]

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>
YMMV on this.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Mastrap ]</STRONG>

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what YMMV means.

Either way, though I see your point I think that's the job of parents. Now how to educate them, or get them off their butts and doing it... can't say. But I'm guessing YMMV is something along the lines of lets get off the subejct... so I'll shut up now

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what YMMV means.
</STRONG>

It's bulletin board speak - if anything it shows how old I am

YMMV stands for "Your mileage may vary". As far as I know this is taken from US car ads.
On the net it means that I realise that you might have a different opinion to mine and that I respect that.

[burger]

Here is where I spout more personal insight-

I don't think that 'evolutionary theory' disproves a higher power. I do think it contradicts the Bible and vise versa.

The thing that gets me is neither really answers wholly the question of the beginning of the universe. I cannot fathom how anything can come into physical being without 'something' to start with.

What this means to me is that none of the information I have heard either religeous or scientific has thoroughly figured it out in a way that makes sense to me; therefore, I choose to take comfort in not knowing.

The main reason people are so intent on supporting one view or another is that in our human nature we are curious and this curiosity cannot easily be quenched. Since there is no obvious answer, we must choose the the one that fits best into our socially acceptable surroundings. We defend it to comfort ourselves because deep down we can't comprehend any other answer.

Believe what you are comfortable with, but when something comes along that obviously disproves it, don't be too offended. Truth is truth, fact is fact.

Jason

[itomato]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

It's bulletin board speak - if anything it shows how old I am

YMMV stands for "Your mileage may vary". As far as I know this is taken from US car ads.
On the net it means that I realise that you might have a different opinion to mine and that I respect that.</STRONG>

It's also a sort of disclaimer stating; you may not get out of this what I did.

[neill anblome]

Originally posted by burger:
<STRONG>
The thing that gets me is neither really answers wholly the question of the beginning of the universe. I cannot fathom how anything can come into physical being without 'something' to start with.
</STRONG>

Just curiuos. What scientifically (or metaphysically) based theories about the beginning of the Universe have you read?

Have you ever read Hawking's "The Universe in a nutshell"? If not, you might wanna give it a try...

[burger]

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

Makes my head spin...

[Chuckmcd]

Don't feel bad, I'm older than you may think&lt; I just didn't start hanging out in forums until OS X was released and I was trying brush up on my Unix.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

It's bulletin board speak - if anything it shows how old I am

YMMV stands for "Your mileage may vary". As far as I know this is taken from US car ads.
On the net it means that I realise that you might have a different opinion to mine and that I respect that.</STRONG>

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>Don't feel bad, I'm older than you may think&lt; I just didn't start hanging out in forums until OS X was released and I was trying brush up on my Unix.

</STRONG>

Just realised you're from New Orleans. I lived there for a year, many, many moons ago on 22somethingorother Fern Street close to the university. Got some cracking memories. Ahh, the girls, the jazz, the &lt;ahem&gt;

Nearly forgot you're a man of god there for a second

[Chuckmcd]

Yeah, My family and I just moved here a few months ago, I'm actually attending the Southern Baptist Seminary here Before that I was doing Web Design in Florida.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

Just realised you're from New Orleans. I lived there for a year, many, many moons ago on 22somethingorother Fern Street close to the university. Got some cracking memories. Ahh, the girls, the jazz, the &lt;ahem&gt;

Nearly forgot you're a man of god there for a second </STRONG>

[Sosa]

kman42 hit on one of the reasons why I sometimes get involved try to show the faults of religion. I am generally one of those atheists who don't really care what people believe in although I do enjoy try to convince those who try to preach to me about "God" and "Jesus" how foolish their position is. However religious types attempt to force their beliefs down our throats indirectly, such as with the abortion issue.

I can respect people's decision to be pro-life but I get angry at those who are anti-choice. If you feel abortion is too cruel or goes against your beliefs fine, don't have one or encourage others. However it is the religious zealots who want to deny me (or females I become associated with) from having this choice. This makes me angry not only because I am pro-choice but because I find their religious arguments illogical.

As kman42 writes, it does matter. And it is not atheists who are assertive but the "religs" who are always attempting to impose their self-righteous ways.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sosa:
<STRONG>kman42 hit on one of the reasons why I sometimes get involved try to show the faults of religion. I am generally one of those atheists who don't really care what people believe in although I do enjoy try to convince those who try to preach to me about "God" and "Jesus" how foolish their position is......

.....And it is not atheists who are assertive but the "religs" who are always attempting to impose their self-righteous ways.</STRONG>

and you do not see the irony of these two statements? In your efforts to convince them their position is incorrect and yours is correct, you are doing the exact same thing as them....proseltyzing, simply with a point of view rather than a religion.

You are therefore no different than them, just delivering a different message. You are not less annoying or more noble than they, simply hawking a different product.

The best response is to simply say "thanks, but I"m already happy with my world view...good luck to you with yours" and move on.
When YOU become antagonistic and then later claim it all came from the other side, you're deluding yourself.

Or, if you really want to shut down religious people who are bothering you, this one statement should do it:

"Thanks, but I already have a home church".
Normally, they will not bother you after that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by burger:
<STRONG>Here is where I spout more personal insight-

I don't think that 'evolutionary theory' disproves a higher power. I do think it contradicts the Bible and vise versa.</STRONG>

actually, I disagree. There is nothing specifically in the bible which proscribes evolution.

There is the "created in our image" but since God did not have a physical body when he said that, it could easily be interpreted as a spiritual image, the ability to choose between right from wrong (the tree of knowledge) and excercise freewill, as well as compassion and love.

Likewise therefore, there is nothing specifically in evolution theory which proscribes the bible. Evolution can be true and still be guided by God's plan. The bible only briefly touches on origins and does so in an incomplete allegory that is basically to establish WHO created the world more than HOW it was created.

Yes, its true that some religious people have bogged down on overly specific interpretations of origins, and its true that some evolution theorists have overzealously assumed that evolution disproves the bible, BUT the two are not mutually exclusive at all, in my opinion.

[fearman111]

Total atheist. There's nothing else, just us smart monkeys, no God except what we imagine. IMHO, it's all just childish superstitions, myths and folk tales from humanity's infancy.

I do try to respect the beliefs of others, and don't usually put it quite so harshly. No offense meant.

fm111

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Sosa:
<STRONG>I can respect people's decision to be pro-life but I get angry at those who are anti-choice. If you feel abortion is too cruel or goes against your beliefs fine, don't have one or encourage others. However it is the religious zealots who want to deny me (or females I become associated with) from having this choice. This makes me angry not only because I am pro-choice but because I find their religious arguments illogical.</STRONG>

Again, with all due respect, it's your opinion after all... Outside of the religious realm the idea that abortion is the taking of a life still exists. It's rooted, for many, in religious belief, but there are evidences that the fetus (latin if I remember for unborn baby) recognizes the pain (inflicted in abortion) and reacts much the same way we would... We could argue about it, but the issue for many has nothing to do with your rights, but the right of the child. Science, for many reasons cannot say the unborn is alive or that it is not. I have my own personal feelings, but I think as a society we would be better off to err on the side of caution.

Not trying to force my beliefs, just trying to play devil's advocate and point out another point of view.

[Lerkfish]

IMHO, atheism is just childish id, attempting to surround oneself with the belief of one's superiority in natural world, an attempt to insulate oneself from the possibility one is not the end all to be all. An inability to achieve a measure of humility in the face of the overwhelming universe, an attempt to bury one's head in the sand of the empirical world and refusal to accept anything that one cannot perceive directly as real. If the id does not deem it real, then it does not exist.
By adopting atheism, one does not have to contemplate the infinite, the spiritual, or the intrinsic ethical frameworks of what we are. One does not have to do anything but exist, like the snail that travels the leaf, not concerned with where the leaf ends or what is beyond it, only being able to perceive what is directly around it.
In this way, it is a self-limiting blindness that forces the atheist to only accept a null answer to its biggest internal questions of why am I here, what is my purpose, what can I accomplish? and in doing so, absolve one from responsibility for one's place in the universe, and protects the id from encountering concepts it finds uncomfortable or strange.

I do try to respect the beliefs of others, and don't usually put it quite so harshly. No offense meant.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>IMHO, atheism is just childish id, ....</STRONG>

btw, in case you missed it, this was supposed to be a mirroring of a previous post, I'm making a point.
When you call a religious person childish, superstitious, etc. and THEN claim you have respect for their beliefs, that is a contradiction.

[philzilla]

considering all the wars that religion causes, would the world be a more peaceful place if we were all atheist?

[Robert Jung]

Originally posted by philzilla:
considering all the wars that religion causes, would the world be a more peaceful place if we were all atheist?

Nah, people would just find something else to bicker about.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>


There is the "created in our image" but since God did not have a physical body when he said that, it could easily be interpreted as a spiritual image, the ability to choose between right from wrong (the tree of knowledge) and excercise freewill, as well as compassion and love.
</STRONG>

That is a really interesting (read good) way of putting it. Never heard it like that, I like it.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>


Again, with all due respect, it's your opinion after all... Outside of the religious realm the idea that abortion is the taking of a life still exists. It's rooted, for many, in religious belief, but there are evidences that the fetus (latin if I remember for unborn baby) recognizes the pain (inflicted in abortion) and reacts much the same way we would... We could argue about it, but the issue for many has nothing to do with your rights, but the right of the child. Science, for many reasons cannot say the unborn is alive or that it is not. I have my own personal feelings, but I think as a society we would be better off to err on the side of caution.

Not trying to force my beliefs, just trying to play devil's advocate and point out another point of view. </STRONG>

Here we go, I was just about to go to bed with a movie (bought a great collection of Charles Chaplin's masterpieces on ebay recently and wanted to curl up with "Modern Times", as the girlfriend is out of town) and then I said to myself: "I'll just have another quick look in the lounge". And now I find myself typing again. What gives?

Abortion is an interesting one, isn't it? It will probably not surprise you that I am very much pro choice. Having said that, abortion is not the issue in Europe that it is in the US (apart from Ireland and the Vatican), pro choice is pretty much the status quo.

When you talk about the foetus reacting to pain, tissue reacts to pain, wherever it might originate from. When you talk about the foetus being a child and having a child's rights I disagree, it carries within it the potential to be a child, but it is no child yet. So does every ejaculation that does not lead to conception, so does every egg that is expelled in a woman's cycle and we generally don't get upset about that.

Having said this, I am very well aware that this is an extremely difficult and personal subject. My own view is that until we find a better solution abortion is preferable to an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. I am speaking from personal experience here as I would have been an extremely unprepared father at the age of 20 if abortion would not have been legal in the UK.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by philzilla:
<STRONG>considering all the wars that religion causes, would the world be a more peaceful place if we were all atheist?</STRONG>

Religion doesn't cause war. People do.

I think something that most people don't want to face is that war is just in our nature. We would kill each other no matter what, period. It is part of our animal instinct, we're possessive, territorial, greedy and selfish. How do you think wolves would behave if they gained our level of intelligence? Or most any preditorial animal for that matter.

Lerkfish,

I am not offended, but the problem with your opinion of atheists is that it assumes that YOU must be right. It is elitist snobbery. Childish ID because we don't believe in something that makes absolutely ZERO sense? Religion is based on the psychological need to fill a "void", if you will, of where we came from and why we're here. So people will fill that void with ANY nonsensical BS that was pounded into their head by their parents/culture.

I have never had such a need. I don't care where I came from, why I'm here or what happens after I die, since I can NEVER EVER EVER know.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG>

Religion doesn't cause war. People do.

</STRONG>

Don't tell us. Religion isn't man made. It comes from the sky and the angels gave it to us

I dare any of you religion apologists to actually try living in a theocracy and then speak about religion and how nice it is.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG>

Religion doesn't cause war. People do.

I think something that most people don't want to face is that war is just in our nature. We would kill each other no matter what, period. It is part of our animal instinct, we're possessive, territorial, greedy and selfish. How do you think wolves would behave if they gained our level of intelligence? Or most any preditorial animal for that matter.</STRONG>

speak for yourself, and i'm sure you are. i have a hard time if i stand on a snail in the street and kill it. there's no need for other lives to suffer, in order for me to live mine. that's why i gave up eating animals, over ten years ago.

as for wolves, i think they might have a hard time. i mean, how are they gonna open a tin of dog food, when they don't have opposable thumbs?

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>


Here we go, I was just about to go to bed with a movie (bought a great collection of Charles Chaplin's masterpieces on ebay recently and wanted to curl up with "Modern Times", as the girlfriend is out of town) and then I said to myself: "I'll just have another quick look in the lounge". And now I find myself typing again. What gives?

Abortion is an interesting one, isn't it? It will probably not surprise you that I am very much pro choice. Having said that, abortion is not the issue in Europe that it is in the US (apart from Ireland and the Vatican), pro choice is pretty much the status quo.

When you talk about the foetus reacting to pain, tissue reacts to pain, wherever it might originate from. When you talk about the foetus being a child and having a child's rights I disagree, it carries within it the potential to be a child, but it is no child yet. So does every ejaculation that does not lead to conception, so does every egg that is expelled in a woman's cycle and we generally don't get upset about that.

Having said this, I am very well aware that this is an extremely difficult and personal subject. My own view is that until we find a better solution abortion is preferable to an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. I am speaking from personal experience here as I would have been an extremely unprepared father at the age of 20 if abortion would not have been legal in the UK.</STRONG>

Likewise I was on my out of the office, but noooo had to check one last time...

I can't argue that tissue will react to pain but to say there is no difference between an ejaculation and a fertilized egg is a stretch. We don't remove tissue without dog-on good reason. This is always a touchy subject, and I have story we could swap sometime about how my convictions caused me much pain on this issue just as yours did you. This isn't the time or place to share, but if you'd like to know what I'm talking about just e-mail me and I'll share

I come back to erring on the side of caution, since there is no clear answer to the question.

We seem to butt heads alot Mastrap enjoy Charles Chaplin's masterpieces I envey your schedule for this evening...

[M0th3r]

tsk.
hippy



[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: M0th3r ]

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>IMHO, atheism is just childish id, attempting to surround oneself with the belief of one's superiority in natural world, an attempt to insulate oneself from the possibility one is not the end all to be all. An inability to achieve a measure of humility in the face of the overwhelming universe, an attempt to bury one's head in the sand of the empirical world and refusal to accept anything that one cannot perceive directly as real. If the id does not deem it real, then it does not exist.</STRONG>

But Lerk, you're making the assumption that all atheists are "humanists" and put mankind at the top of some pyramid. I certainly don't. I regard mankind as just one among many very interesting and unique life forms. Can't get much more humble than that.

Indeed, IMHO, the traditional notion of "God" is, to me, the real conceit, because it reflects a uniquely human notion that the world is governed by some vaguely anthropomorphic entity that made man in his image and has put mankind here for some "higher purpose" etc. etc.

You then make the leap from "childish id" (no offense taken - I know where you're coming from) to a reliance on empiricism, which I think is a potentially false connection. I'm quite humble about mankind's place in the natural world, but at the same time I'm an empiricist. I don't think that being an empiricist means that one is also guilty of hubris.

I often hear it suggested that empiricists - people who aren't interested in the "spiritual" - must lack appreciation for life's beauty and must be barren. I emphatically disagree. I think life is full of miracles, and I enjoy them fully. Many are external, but just as many are internal, i.e. products of the human imagination and capacity for emotional connection. The difference is that I don't feel any need to attribute these things to some vague supernatural force or entity or "spirit" (which to me is really just a fancy word for "emotion" or "feeling"). I'm perfectly happy to accept that these phenomena are a wonderful (and sometimes not so wonderful) product of the natural world. The fact that I try to distinguish between "imagination" and empirical fact doesn't mean that I lack appreciation for the imagination or the products thereof.

<STRONG>By adopting atheism, one does not have to contemplate the infinite, the spiritual, or the intrinsic ethical frameworks of what we are. One does not have to do anything but exist, like the snail that travels the leaf, not concerned with where the leaf ends or what is beyond it, only being able to perceive what is directly around it.
In this way, it is a self-limiting blindness that forces the atheist to only accept a null answer to its biggest internal questions of why am I here, what is my purpose, what can I accomplish? and in doing so, absolve one from responsibility for one's place in the universe, and protects the id from encountering concepts it finds uncomfortable or strange.</STRONG>

I honestly don't understand how you can make these value judgments. Who said that it is my obligation to discern why I am here? People have been trying to do it for centuries and it hasn't gotten them anywhere as far as I can tell. IMO, it's just an emotional need. That's fine, everyone can find their own way to satisfy it, but if I don't feel compelled to do so, then why does that make me "blind", "irresponsible", nihilist, etc.? Must I discern a higher purpose in order to lead an ethical life? If I lead an ethical life, it's because I love my family and friends and care about my community.

Nor does it prevent me from pondering the wonders of the universe. I can just as easily ponder the wonders of the universe without having a supernatural explanation for them.

<STRONG>I do try to respect the beliefs of others, and don't usually put it quite so harshly. No offense meant.</STRONG>

This is always a conundrum. Instead of saying "I respect your opinion/beliefs" when I don't necessarily mean it, I've learned to say "You're entitled to your opinion" instead. It's more honest and more meaningful.

I happen to respect your opinion because I know you to be a thoughtful, open-minded person, and not doctrinaire. It's not hard for me to understand why religion would fulfill a personal need, or even a community need, or might, in the absence of a need, simply enhance a person's life. It just hasn't proven relevant to my life. But I'm no less appreciative of the wonders and mysteries of life.

[cocknee]

It's simple really.

Do you beleive in some bloke with a beard creating the earth in 7 days?
If you think thats true you need therapy.

So if you dont beleive that why beleive all the rest of it?

Make a decision yourself and take responisiblity for it!!

grrrrrr

[kman42]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[QB]

yadda yadda yadda
QB]

Well said.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>My understanding of our constitution restricts the state from invading the church, not the church, or any church from having a voice in the state.</STRONG>

But there wouldn't be much point to it if it didn't also protect the state from infiltration by the church. If the church gains too much influence over the government, you potentially have a theocracy, an implicit "establishment" of religion, which is what the founders were trying to avoid. Also, if a particular church gains too much influence in the government, it is likely to impair other churches, which impairs freedom of religion. Thus the desire to keep them out of each other's business, in both directions.

Even if your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, it is good policy, IMO, to keep them separate, in both directions. This doesn't mean that people of faith can't be in the government, it just means that people of faith have to try to keep their public duties and their religious doctrine separate. Just as a judge is expected to keep his political biases from coloring his decisions.

<STRONG>If the majority of people in a school want the ten commandments why not? If the majority doesn't, than don't... the majority wants a page of the quaran posted on every wall... well, go ahead.</STRONG>

Imagine if you were a non-Muslim in a school that was majority Muslim and, in addition to posting the Quran on the walls, taught it in the classroom and interrupted class every half-hour to pray towards Mecca? And imagine if you were only 8 years old, or 15 years old, and the approval of your peers and teachers meant everything? Would you be able to deal with the social pressures? Be honest. Even if you could, should you have to? No. Thomas Jefferson expressed it much more eloquently than I ever could, but basically, in a public institution, no one should have to worry about the social or political consequences of having a different religion, or no religion at all. That's what this country is about, regardless of the fact that the Founders might have been predominately Christian.

One of the points of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority, from mob rule. No one with beliefs different from the majority should have to risk ostracization in a public institution.

<STRONG>It seems the mere presence of one's beliefs is enough to offend most people today. I always understood us to be free to express ourselves and offending others may be a result of it. It's silly to think that posting the 10 commandments in a school would change much of anything, but it's also silly to say that a student isn't allowed to pray in school because it's an assualt on your right to be free from religion.</STRONG>

As far as I know, no one has ever prevented a religious person from expressing their beliefs on their own time and on their own dime. It's when they try to use public institutions and public funds to promote religious doctrine and practices that we get upset.

You're right that, as a practical matter, the mere posting of the ten commandments doesn't mean much - we're used to it. But some of us worry a lot about where it can go from there. Better, IMO, to keep religion and public institutions separate. If a group of kids wants to reserve a room to pray, like any other extra-curricular group, fine. But the line should be drawn there. IMO opinion there should be no official sanctioning of any religious activity.

<STRONG>I respect the fact that you don't have any religious beliefs, and I don't have a problem with you feeling that way, and I would dream of forcing what I believe on you. But why is expressing my beliefs, or anyone doing the same, offensive to you?</STRONG>

It's not, I just don't want it in my face, or in my childrens' schools, or controlling my government.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by kman42:
<STRONG>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by zigzag:
[QB]

yadda yadda yadda
QB]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well
Well said.</STRONG>

heh. Yeah. Whenever I read zigzag's posts I usually get this funny feeling like I can't think of anything else to say. It's kind of annoying, actually. I wish he'd just stay away and let us fuzzier-headed folks muddle are way through these things.

[cocknee]

Oh and another thing - people that sit on the fence will get splinters up their bum.

There are two side's only - choose!!!

You're either sane, or wet the bed at night worrying about fairy-tales

[cocknee]

&lt;/god&gt;
&lt;/discussion&gt;

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>heh. Yeah. Whenever I read zigzag's posts I usually get this funny feeling like I can't think of anything else to say. It's kind of annoying, actually. I wish he'd just stay away and let us fuzzier-headed folks muddle are way through these things.

</STRONG>

You said it. ZigZag is the shiznit.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

As far as I know, no one has ever prevented a religious person from expressing their beliefs on their own time and on their own dime. It's when they try to use public institutions and public funds to promote religious doctrine and practices that we get upset.
</STRONG>

I'll do some digging in the morning, I have examples of Religious groups denied that very right simply because of their religious affiliation.

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>
You're right that, as a practical matter, the mere posting of the ten commandments doesn't mean much - we're used to it. But some of us worry a lot about where it can go from there. Better, IMO, to keep religion and public institutions separate. If a group of kids wants to reserve a room to pray, like any other extra-curricular group, fine. But the line should be drawn there. IMO opinion there should be no official sanctioning of any religious activity.
</STRONG>

Then you're in favor of spontaneous creation being taught along side evolution? There is reasonable scientific evidence to suggest that the earth is relatively young (5-10 thousand yrs), and that a massive flood happened some four thousand years ago. By not teaching that as a possible scenario the gov't is officially sanctioning one belief over another. Science cannot prove either beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Also, the subject of sex ed was brought up earlier. In the same way the ten commandments on the wall don't hurt anything but bother you, sex ed may not hurt anything but it bothers some. What gives the government the right to teach our kids what should rightfully be taught at home? Where is the line between teaching and presenting and endorsement?

I have no clear universal answer, so please don't think I'm trying to push anything. I know what I believe and that's about all I can say.

to check out some interesting links about the theory of spontaneous creation check out http://www.drdino.com. That site is a Christian site and as such is taught from a Christian perspective, but the facts still hold true.

Peace, love and a Ti Powerbook to ya!

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Chuckmcd ]

[Lerkfish]

Guys, guys, guys, you completely missed the point....didn't you read my next note (repeated below)? I was not espousing what I wrote per se, I was copying what the previous poster had said, and reversed it. The previous poster said....

"Total atheist. There's nothing else, just us smart monkeys, no God except what we imagine. IMHO, it's all just childish superstitions, myths and folk tales from humanity's infancy.

I do try to respect the beliefs of others, and don't usually put it quite so harshly. No offense meant.

fm111''

I picked up from "IMHO" and replicated the intent of the rest of the note. I thought you'd pick up on how I repeated his last line exactly. Just to be sure you understood, I posted the rejoinder (repeated below), but you guys missed it, sorry. I wasn't trying to be obtuse I was honestly trying to make a point by repeating back what one of you had said....sort of a "taste of your own medicine" thing.

My POINT was that what I posted was a mirroring of intent of the previous poster....when he said "childish superstitions, myths and folk tales from humanity's infancy" he was essentially making a value judgement of the christian. Instead of saying he did not believe, he felt the need to portray christians as childish and immature. I mirrored that by using "childish id" and then continued to portray atheists in a similar highly condescending tone.

Unfortunately, I guess, I made my point TOO well, because some of you had visceral reactions to what I mirrored, and missed that it was bouncing back the previous poster's tone. I apologize that I didn't explain it well enough, apparently, but I thought you'd get it.

However, it did do what I wanted to, put the shoe on the other foot for you. How did it feel when you read it and heard me treating you condescendingly and with contempt for you ability to reason? Didn't feel all that great, did it? Of course not! it was an insensitive portrayal of what you firmly believe to be the truth in the core of your being. Instead of discussing different issues of your belief (or non-belief) it instead attacked you as a person and your ability to adequately assess reality. If you were offended by it, then you now have the shoe on the other foot.

I did it to make a point, not to completely fool you, that was unintentional. My point is that if you do not believe as another person, please do not automatically assume THEY are naive or incapable of rational thought or haven't arrived at their belief from a lifelong serious search...just accept that they have come to the fork in the road in the face of the infinite, and they simply turned right when you turned left....or more accurately, they simply took trail Q while you took trail XX3.

I only mirrored what the person wrote because they had the audacity to claim after calling us childish superstitious believers in fairy tales, that they had respect for our beliefs. Obviously, they didn't.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

btw, in case you missed it, this was supposed to be a mirroring of a previous post, I'm making a point.
When you call a religious person childish, superstitious, etc. and THEN claim you have respect for their beliefs, that is a contradiction.</STRONG>

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>IMHO, atheism is just childish id, attempting to surround oneself with the belief of one's superiority in natural world, an attempt to insulate oneself from the possibility one is not the end all to be all.</STRONG>

Let me just echo ZigZag and say that the exact opposite is true in my experience. Realizing my atheism has made me more aware of how human beings are just one insignificant life form out of countless others; the world was here long before we arrived, and will remain long after we are gone. In fact, it was always Judeo-Christianity that struck me as entitled and insecure, with its rooted belief that God created the world and other living things for the ultimate benefit of mankind. What's more arrogant than to believe everything else in the universe is there solely for the benefit of your own species?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>I'll do some digging in the morning, I have examples of Religious groups denied that very right simply because of their religious affiliation.</STRONG>

You're right - I overstated the case. I'm sure there are cases out there, I'm just not aware of any recent ones, and I know of none in my personal experience. But I think most atheists would agree that if you do it on your own time and your own dime, you can practice any religion you want.

<STRONG>Then you're in favor of spontaneous creation being taught along side evolution? There is reasonable scientific evidence to suggest that the earth is relatively young (5-10 thousand yrs), and that a massive flood happened some four thousand years ago. By not teaching that as a possible scenario the gov't is officially sanctioning one belief over another. Science cannot prove either beyond a shadow of a doubt.</STRONG>

I think you raise a valid question even though we would probably come to different conclusions about it. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if a teacher said "There are alternative theories" and then discussed them. But I would expect the teacher to point out that the people who advance this particular theory might have underlying religious motives, and that the theory is not accepted by the larger scientific community. That doesn't necessarily make the theory invalid, but it does put it in perspective.

The government sanctions a lot of "beliefs" over others, based on what is accepted by the scientific community. The scientific community is not infallible - scientific understanding is always evolving - but you have to draw the line somewhere.

As for the validity of the theory, it's been covered at length in previous threads.

<STRONG>Also, the subject of sex ed was brought up earlier. In the same way the ten commandments on the wall don't hurt anything but bother you, sex ed may not hurt anything but it bothers some. What gives the government the right to teach our kids what should rightfully be taught at home? Where is the line between teaching and presenting and endorsement?</STRONG>

The difference here is that sex education is not mentioned in the Constitution, whereas religion is the very first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights. That's how important the issue was to the founders.

If your company transferred you to Utah, would you really want your children to attend schools in which there were reverent pictures of Joseph Smith, just because that's what the majority out there wants?

It's not as though religion isn't taught in public schools - it is often taught in an academic, comparative sense. It's when it becomes an explicit or implicit endorsement that people like me get nervous.

Cheers. You sound like a kind, thoughtful person.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>Guys, guys, guys, you completely missed the point....didn't you read my next note (repeated below)? I was not espousing what I wrote per se, I was copying what the previous poster had said, and reversed it.

I picked up from "IMHO" and replicated the intent of the rest of the note. I thought you'd pick up on how I repeated his last line exactly. Just to be sure you understood, I posted the rejoinder (repeated below), but you guys missed it, sorry. I wasn't trying to be obtuse I was honestly trying to make a point by repeating back what one of you had said....sort of a "taste of your own medicine" thing.

My POINT was that what I posted was a mirroring of intent of the previous poster....when he said "childish superstitions, myths and folk tales from humanity's infancy" he was essentially making a value judgement of the christian. Instead of saying he did not believe, he felt the need to portray christians as childish and immature. I mirrored that by using "childish id" and then continued to portray atheists in a similar highly condescending tone.

Unfortunately, I guess, I made my point TOO well, because some of you had visceral reactions to what I mirrored, and missed that it was bouncing back the previous poster's tone. I apologize that I didn't explain it well enough, apparently, but I thought you'd get it.

However, it did do what I wanted to, put the shoe on the other foot for you. How did it feel when you read it and heard me treating you condescendingly and with contempt for you ability to reason? Didn't feel all that great, did it? Of course not! it was an insensitive portrayal of what you firmly believe to be the truth in the core of your being. Instead of discussing different issues of your belief (or non-belief) it instead attacked you as a person and your ability to adequately assess reality. If you were offended by it, then you now have the shoe on the other foot.

I did it to make a point, not to completely fool you, that was unintentional. My point is that if you do not believe as another person, please do not automatically assume THEY are naive or incapable of rational thought or haven't arrived at their belief from a lifelong serious search...just accept that they have come to the fork in the road in the face of the infinite, and they simply turned right when you turned left....or more accurately, they simply took trail Q while you took trail XX3.

I only mirrored what the person wrote because they had the audacity to claim after calling us childish superstitious believers in fairy tales, that they had respect for our beliefs. Obviously, they didn't.</STRONG>

Whoops.

I did see that disclaimer, but I honestly wasn't sure what to make of it. Over my feeble head.

Oh well, it raised some interesting points anyway. It may not be necessary to persuade you, but I have had to persuade some others in my life that my non-believer status didn't necessarily mean I was "weird."

And you're right - the defensiveness is there on both sides. As I said earlier, I'm not sure there is any solution. Religion is a volatile subject. Kinda like Celebrity Boxing.

[neill anblome]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>IMHO, atheism is just childish id, attempting to surround oneself with the belief of one's superiority in natural world, an attempt to insulate oneself from the possibility one is not the end all to be all.
An inability to achieve a measure of humility in the face of the overwhelming universe, an attempt to bury one's head in the sand of the empirical world and refusal to accept anything that one cannot perceive directly as real. </STRONG>

Or philosophically as real, scientifically as real?...c'mon. If you expect others to believe in something, you will have to come up with more convincing arguments than simply saying that "believing" is something different from any other empistomological instrument that humans have, and so science or anything else doesn't have any bearing on what you believe (which of course is complete ********). If you want to believe in the "boogeyman", -fine. That's your choice. Don't call others who have put a lot of effort in dispelling the myth of the boogeyman and have come to a different conclusion than you childish!

<STRONG>If the id does not deem it real, then it does not exist.
By adopting atheism, one does not have to contemplate the infinite, the spiritual, or the intrinsic ethical frameworks of what we are.</STRONG>

Right. But I can CHOOSE to contemplate anything I want. I just might not arrive at the same conclusions you do...(oh, - and a newsflash:"THERE IS NO **INTRINSIC** ETHICAL FRAMEWORK OF WHAT WE ARE!" - Scratch the "a-priori"!)You choose it, and teach it - that's all there ever was, that's all there'll ever be! If you expect other people to believe, prove that it exists!

<STRONG>One does not have to do anything but exist, like the snail that travels the leaf, not concerned with where the leaf ends or what is beyond it, only being able to perceive what is directly around it.</STRONG>

I hate having to say this. But if if more people on this planet concentrated on "what is going on directly around them" instead of dreaming up big political and religious schemes this world would be a better place (or at least a very different one )

<STRONG>In this way, it is a self-limiting blindness that forces the atheist to only accept a null answer to its biggest internal questions of why am I here, what is my purpose, what can I accomplish? and in doing so, absolve one from responsibility for one's place in the universe, and protects the id from encountering concepts it finds uncomfortable or strange.</STRONG>

The same could be said of the religionist (theist), who is to afraid that there isn't some higher reality (royalty) controlling his or her fate, making sure that everything is going to be "g(o)od" in the end...to afraid to face the fact the we're alone in all of this. To me THAT is actually running away from one's responsibility "as" a universe (existence)!

The fact that you can pose a question like "why am I" or "who am I", doesn't neccessarily mean that there MUST be an answer to it.

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: neill anblome ]

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>
It's not as though religion isn't taught in public schools - it is often taught in an academic, comparative sense. It's when it becomes an explicit or implicit endorsement that people like me get nervous.

Cheers. You sound like a kind, thoughtful person.</STRONG>

I would agree with you about religion being taught in schools I just fall on the other side of that. I tend to look at evolution as a religion since so much of it must be taken by faith. I don't think science could ever give us a conclusive answer to our origins, we can make educated guesses, but there are so many holes in each "scientific" theory that faith has to come into play in your decision of what to belief. You come to it from a different perspective than I and so we both come to different conclusions with the same evidence.

As for schools.. we'll start home schooling in the fall

thanks for the kind words.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by neill anblome:
<STRONG>

....The same could be said of the religionist.....
</STRONG>

Neill, please read several posts up, or just zigzag's post before this one, and read the quote out. I would explain it again, but its a long explanation.

I honestly thought my original disclaimer made this clear, but apparently not. Sorry for everyone's confusion.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>

I would agree with you about religion being taught in schools I just fall on the other side of that. I tend to look at evolution as a religion since so much of it must be taken by faith. I don't think science could ever give us a conclusive answer to our origins, we can make educated guesses, but there are so many holes in each "scientific" theory that faith has to come into play in your decision of what to belief. You come to it from a different perspective than I and so we both come to different conclusions with the same evidence.

As for schools.. we'll start home schooling in the fall

thanks for the kind words.</STRONG>

Hi again.

I am interested to hear how you can look at evolution as a religion. You say that a lot is taken by faith - I say it is taken by evidence. We know beyond doubt how old the planet is we're inhabiting, we know beyond doubt how old the fragments of bone are we frequently come across. We look at the universe with things like this and by using the fact that light has a finite speed get a pretty good idea about what happened - in fact we're able to see the past. In fact, I should alter that statement, we're not able to see the present, if that present is far enough away. DIstance = time from the observers point of view.

How do you deal with all of this? Surely you agree that the way the bible describes the creation of earth is from the perspective of man thousands of years ago?

As far as home schooling is concerned, are you sure you're giving your children the chance to think for themselves, to become their own people and to make their own decisions? I would argue that especially when the parents seem to be very passionate about a particular point of view, in your case your religion, there is a danger that they educate their children to become what the parents want, not what the children might be if left to develop themselves.

Please don't think that I am picking on you, you're one of the few people I know who has a totally different view of the world to mine but still takes the time to reply thoughtfully and honstly. I enjoy discussing these things with you.

[kman42]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
<STRONG>
There is reasonable scientific evidence to suggest that the earth is relatively young (5-10 thousand yrs), and that a massive flood happened some four thousand years ago. </STRONG>

There is no reasonable SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth is 5-10 thousand years old.

Origianally posted by zigzag:

<STRONG>
I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if a teacher said "There are alternative theories" and then discussed them.</STRONG>

I would have a serious problem with this. While there is a loose use of the word 'theory' in everyday english, it is incorrect to use it so nonchalantly in a scientific arena. A theory is quite different than an hypothesis. To say that the idea of creation is a theory is totally incorrect. For an hypothesis to be elevated to the level of theory, it must survive rigorous experimentation.

No hypothesis of creation has ever undergone even the most remote experimental testing.

K-12 schools should not be spending substantial time teaching hypotheses. Children at this age should be learning a foundation of well-tested theories on which to base future scientific endeavors. There is very little value in learning hypotheses except in the context of understanding how they were elevated to the level of theory using the scientific method. Generating an hypothesis is the easy part of science. Knowing how to test it is the hard part.

It is unthinkable that an untested hypothesis be given the same class time as a theory in a science class. If you want the hypothesis of creation to be taught in schools it should merely be mentioned in passing as the untested hypothesis it is. But to give it class time equal to that of a well-tested theory is absurd. It would be doing a great disservice to our children and our future. No meaningful scientific advancement will ever come from learning the hypothesis of creation.

If you want your children to believe in the hypothesis of creation, teach them at home.

kman

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: kman42 ]

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>

Hi again.

I am interested to hear how you can look at evolution as a religion. You say that a lot is taken by faith - I say it is taken by evidence. We know beyond doubt how old the planet is we're inhabiting, we know beyond doubt how old the fragments of bone are we frequently come across
</STRONG>

Hey, how was the movie last night?

OKay, let's first look at the dating, I assume you're looking at carbon dating. The following isa quoted out of an article that I did not write, so I will do my best to answer any questions, but the work I'm referring to is not my own. I can provide links if you'd like.

"Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only � of the original C-14. It goes from � to � to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating."

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>
. We look at the universe with things like this and by using the fact that light has a finite speed get a pretty good idea about what happened - in fact we're able to see the past. In fact, I should alter that statement, we're not able to see the present, if that present is far enough away. DIstance = time from the observers point of view.
</STRONG>

Let me see if I follow you We're seeing things that have happened somemtime ago in far off places because the images take so long to get to us, right?

Again, I'm quoting another article:
""Eureka! Scientists break speed of light", Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, Sunday Times [UK] June 4, 2000.
UNITED STATES SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second.
The work was carried out by Dr Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas. See also: New York Times May, 30, 2000 www.nytimes.com

Scientists Bring Light To Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It On Its Way
By James Glanz www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/science/18LIGH
1-18-01

Researchers say they have slowed light to a dead stop, stored it and then released it as if it were an ordinary material particle.
The achievement is a landmark feat that, by reining in nature's swiftest and most ethereal form of energy for the first time, could help realize what are now theoretical concepts for vastly increasing the speed of computers and the security of communications.
Two independent teams of physicists have achieved the result, one led by Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University and the Rowland Institute for Science in Cambridge, Mass., and the other by Dr. Ronald L. Walsworth and Dr. Mikhail D. Lukin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also in Cambridge.

During the last 300 years, at least 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used.
"THE SPEED OF LIGHT HAS APPARENTLY DECREASED SO RAPIDLY THAT EXPERMENTAL ERROR CANNOT EXPLAIN IT!" Astronomer Barry Setterfield
The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time 1987"

The univers is a big place, and a marvelous creation in my estimation. Just like on the planet earth things like plants live and die, so do stars, and maybe other planets I don't know. The idea that univers is changing doesn't mean that it's creating new life. Not every birth of a star creates a sloar system and not every solar system, or any that I know of, has the delicate balance that ours has. There's a BIG gap between the birthing of a star and the creation of life.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>
How do you deal with all of this? Surely you agree that the way the bible describes the creation of earth is from the perspective of man thousands of years ago?
</STRONG>

I'm an old school kind of guy. I belive in a spontanious creation that took seven days. I may get flamed as believing in fairy tales by some (not you mastrap, but some others here), but it wouldn't be the first time The hebrew wording in Genesis literally mean to make something from nothing, God spoke an matter simply became.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<STRONG>
As far as home schooling is concerned, are you sure you're giving your children the chance to think for themselves, to become their own people and to make their own decisions? I would argue that especially when the parents seem to be very passionate about a particular point of view, in your case your religion, there is a danger that they educate their children to become what the parents want, not what the children might be if left to develop themselves.

Please don't think that I am picking on you, you're one of the few people I know who has a totally different view of the world to mine but still takes the time to reply thoughtfully and honstly. I enjoy discussing these things with you.</STRONG>

Again, thank you for the kind words, I've enjoyed this too. I am very passionate about what I believe, and I am teaching my kids my world view, just as I'm sure you teach your kids the same. We all make own way in life, and my son and daughter are welcome to disagree with me. It's been said before that i can't make anyone believe anything, and I can't argue anyone into my point of view, I carry more wieght with my son than I do with you though and I'm very sensative to that. Knowledge is knowledge and faith is faith, my faith is not based on the information I give here... my faith based on my experience and my relationship with the Living God. My children will have to come to the same conclusions on their own or they'll be trying to live off Daddy's experiences, and that doesn't do anyone any good. I think many Christians have lost sight of that and with each generation the church becomes more and more a hollow shell of what God intended for it to be. There are always the true faithful, but the church becomes watered down from one generation to the next until a movement of God occurs and calls His people back into a true relationship with Himself. I can't prove any of that, it's my observation through history and some of the things I see in the church today.

So in answer to your question I know there are some limiting factors in homeschool, but my personal convictions aren't the only motive behind our choice.

Finally, I think we as people, myself included tend to be a little arrogant. In a universe as vast as ours, and we're still learning how vast that is, it's not really likely that we know anything for sure. We can guess, and we can make some pretty good assumptions, but with all our technology and knowledge, there's a lot out there we don't know. Just a couple of years ago no real historian thought that King David was real figure, he was just a Jewish myth not unlike King Arthur... then they found tablets referring to him from countries outside Israel and so the debate changes to okay so he existed but he was reallyy like this... not like that.

All just my point of view, YMMV

Also, the guy who wrote those articles is a believer and tends to be a little more harsh in his tone than I. I apologize if he seems offensive, it's easy for a some to forget that even though Christians are commanded to "speak the Truth..." we're supposed to it "...in love"

your friendly neighborhood Christian

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by kman42:
<STRONG>

There is no reasonable SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth is 5-10 thousand years old.

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: kman42 ]</STRONG>

Again, I am quoting:

"There is scientific evidence to support the Biblical account. Robert Gentry of Knoxville, Tennessee, does amazing research on radio-polonium halos in granite rock. Polonium is a rare element that is radioactive; it breaks down or decays like uranium. But polonium only lasts a few minutes. As it breaks down, it sends off little particles that fly a certain distance. An analogy would be a hand-grenade exploding under water that produces a sphere of fragments in the water that only lasts a fraction of a second before it collapses. Different elements have fragments that fly different distances, each radioactive element has a particular "signature" (how big a circle it can make in the rock as it decays like a more powerful hand grenade would produce a bigger sphere in the water). Radio-active polonium, when it decays in a solid rock, makes a perfect sphere as it decays because all its fragments fly about the same distance from the center. If it decays in solid rock, the circle is preserved. But if it decays in a hot molten rock, the circle disappears. All over the world radio-polonium halos exist in granite, indicating the earth was never a hot, molten mass. See Robert Gentry's book Creations Tiny Mystery, available from ICR (619) 448-0900, for much more on this subject, or <A HREF="http://www.halos.com."" TARGET=_blank>www.halos.com."</A>

This is but one example of many that support the theory of spontanious creation. I could also post many holes in the theory of evolution, but I don't see the need. There are ideas presented as fact in modern text books that were disproven over 150 years ago!

I don't ask that you change your point of view to mine, simply that you don't dismiss what I think without consideration simply because you don't agree with me.

More quotes:
"This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today’s mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).
All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands."

This idea has been seen in action. Catastrophic occurances cause big changes in typography. When mount st. helen erupted the rusulting mud side caused the sort of geographic footprint that kids are taught today takes millions of years to form. It all occured in a matter of hours.

There's eveidence all around if we look.