Prove that God doesn't exist.

[samsara15]

The builders are eternal. They have always been.

Then why not just say the universe is eternal? Deity, if there is one, or builders, are also part of the universe. So the argument says nothing.

 

[top gun]

Except on public property where only the anti-God people have that right, and especally in the schools.

And you of course understand why, right? To not choose a favorite violating separation of church & state if you allow one then you would have to allow all. I doubt you'd be for a big Satanist upside down cross displayed prominently in front of City Hall or in your public park.

In many cases, such as Britain, and France, not to mention Italy, the Church did control the government. In the case of France, Italy, Spain, etc., it was the RCC. In the case of Britain it was the Church of England.

Which was a huge problem. Religion when intertwined with politics & government ALWAYS seeks to overtake the authority of said government. No matter what the people may democratically want a religion based (or heavily influenced) government will always revert to... but we know what "God" wants. That pretty much takes the democratic out of democratic government.

Only two, Jefferson, and Franklin, with the possibility of Hugh Williamson. Jefferson was not a signatory to the Constitution though.

Many of the leaders of that period (Constitution signers or not) were in fact Deists... at least at one time or another.

Ethan Allen
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Thomas Paine
George Washington


Another interesting point is that many of the founding fathers were Mason's. Mason's like Deists preach the acceptance of all men under one god; however their practices are bizarre and satanic.

Deists of course require reason and reject revelation. The claim that America was founded by Christian’s is weak; in fact, as I know the conservative Christian leadership; they would not tolerate any other religion (if they didn’t have to) and demand everything be modeled around the holy bible.

Founding Fathers that were Masons:

Signers of the Declaration of Independence:
Benjamin Franklin
Robert Treat Paine
John Hancock
Richard Stockton
Joseph Hewes
George Walton
William Hooper
William Whipple

Signers of the U.S. Constitution:
Gunning Bradford, Jr.
John Blair
Benjamin Franklin
David Brearley
Nicholas Gilman
Jacob Broom
Rufus King
Daniel Carroll
James McHenery
Jonathan Dayton
William Paterson
John Dickinson
George Washington (a Mason at some point, all though he may have pulled away later)

This point is further highlighted by official United States of America documents. This one for instance ratified by one of the if not the only unanimous vote ever by Congress.

Treaty of Tripoly
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Surely you are not mocking the Wiccans, Gnostics, or the practioners of VooDoo, all of whom believe in witchcraft? And, BTW, have more rights on school grounds then Christians.

Not mocking simply stating the fact that modern educated people by some 99+% have established all of those to be primitive misconceptions and without any factual basis. And none of them have any more rights to be preached or taught in schools than any other religious belief or practice. They like Christianity can be referred to in a historical perspective of people of a certain time period. If you want dogma then that moves to either a private school setting or a public school class on religions of the world.

A problem really only presents itself when religious groups want to take over science classes with faith over actual science.

The evolution of species regarding humans has not been proven. Archeology, geology, and the different dating methods, have all been used to prove that the Bible is true.

First off there is a fossilized chain of human evolution. To make the case that there may be a missing link here or there does not wipe away the whole rest of the chain. Furthermore with many animals we have COMPLETE lineage. Some that even prove water animals were once land animals and visa versa.

On your second point you are just completely mistaken. Carbon dating clearly CLEARLY shows that the planet earth is billions of years old and not the about 6 thousand that the Bible states. Even if the scientific were off by 10 fold or 100 fold or 1000 fold you're still not even close to the reality.

I see, So one who claims there is no God has no need to prove it, only the one that says there is a God.

Then why are those who do not believe consistently challenging those who do over their practice of their religion in the Courts, the legislative bodies, etc.?

To make a factual arguement yes one has to prove the positive... the burden lies there. The "practice" to which you refer is not that one can't hold any religious belief that they choose (faith in God being one of them). It's that one's personal religious belief cannot be forced onto others when the only basis is invisable & untestable i.e. faith.

 

[OldTrapper]

And you of course understand why, right? To not choose a favorite violating separation of church & state if you allow one then you would have to allow all. I doubt you'd be for a big Satanist upside down cross displayed prominently in front of City Hall or in your public park.

Problem is, the upside down cross would be legal. Now, at virtually any school you will see statues of Buddha; symbols of the Ying and Yang; Nirvana; etc., anything but Christ. Then there was the law passed in California mandating the teaching of Islam. Add to that the celebration of Earth Day in most schools, with expressions of Wicca, and Native American
religious ceremonies, and you see how the discrimination works.

Then too, there is again the big lie that the Constitution demands a separation of Church and State. Evidently every legislator, including that of 1776 to 1812, violated the Constitution for 200 years. The use of the bible, McGuffy's Readers, Websters texbooks and dictionary, etc., in schools was obviously a violation of the Constitution.

Which was a huge problem. Religion when intertwined with politics & government ALWAYS seeks to overtake the authority of said government. No matter what the people may democratically want a religion based (or heavily influenced) government will always revert to... but we know what "God" wants. That pretty much takes the democratic out of democratic government.

Oh my, how did the US ever survive its reliance on religious beliefs ever since the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock.

Many of the leaders of that period (Constitution signers or not) were in fact Deists... at least at one time or another.

True, however, a minority, not a majority, even the likes of Franklin, and Jefferson, supported the use of the Bible, and Christian beliefs.

Deists of course require reason and reject revelation. The claim that America was founded by Christian’s is weak; in fact, as I know the conservative Christian leadership; they would not tolerate any other religion (if they didn’t have to) and demand everything be modeled around the holy bible.

I'm still looking for that Christian leader that is demanding everything be modeled around the Bible. There is a place for Christian morality even in law, however, that does not negate the need for some secular reasoning.

Signers of the U.S. Constitution:
Gunning Bradford, Jr. (Presbyterian)
John Blair (Episcopalian)
Benjamin Franklin
David Brearley (Episcopalian)
Nicholas Gilman (Congregationalist)
Jacob Broom (Presbyterian)
Rufus King (Episcopalian)
Daniel Carroll (Roman Catholic)
James McHenery (Presbyterian)
Jonathan Dayton (Episcopalian)
William Paterson (Presbyterian)
John Dickinson (Quaker/Episcopalian)
George Washington (Episcopalian)(a Mason at some point, all though he may have pulled away later) [/COLOR]

Just thought I would correct you.

This point is further highlighted by official United States of America documents. This one for instance ratified by one of the if not the only unanimous vote ever by Congress.

Treaty of Tripoly
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Ah yes, the usual red herring by those who want to ignore all of the other
treaties, written papers, USSC rulings, legislative acts, etc., in support of Christianity. The too, they ignore the fact that there was three different versions of the Treaty of Tripoli written.

A problem really only presents itself when religious groups want to take over science classes with faith over actual science. [/COLOR]

First off there is a fossilized chain of human evolution. To make the case that there may be a missing link here or there does not wipe away the whole rest of the chain. Furthermore with many animals we have COMPLETE lineage. Some that even prove water animals were once land animals and visa versa.

I agree with you. However, since one cannot, nor ever will, prove that man came from the animal kingdom it should not be taught as such.

On your second point you are just completely mistaken. Carbon dating clearly CLEARLY shows that the planet earth is billions of years old and not the about 6 thousand that the Bible states. Even if the scientific were off by 10 fold or 100 fold or 1000 fold you're still not even close to the reality.

No one that I know of places the creation of the earth at 6000 years. As far as I know they all believe that the "7 days of creation" could be any length of time. However, that does not negate the fact that all of the dating procedures have been wrong at one time, or another.

To make a factual arguement yes one has to prove the positive... the burden lies there. The "practice" to which you refer is not that one can't hold any religious belief that they choose (faith in God being one of them). It's that one's personal religious belief cannot be forced onto others when the only basis is invisable & untestable i.e. faith.

Problem is that it is a belief in secularism, Athiesm, or whatever you want to call it, that is being forced on the children.

 

[PLC1]

Note: I couldn't reply with quote, probably because the post is getting too long. I copied and pasted, and will try to abridge a little. Quotes are from Old Trapper

How can there be anything so complex without a designer? mathematics, which is a science, has shown that the odds of such happening are like 1 in 10 to the 23 power for just one action such as the creation of one focal point of the eye.

Good question. That's the best argument for a creator god I can think of.

Not at all. The "Pope" was the political creation of Constantine. In fact, the first "pope" was not even called "pope". They were called Bishops. That did not come about till either Leo 1 in 440 AD, or Gregory 1 in 590 AD depending on which historian you want to believe. Then too, the RCC only affected the Roman church. The Eastern Orthodox (which included the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople) never accepted the power of the RCC. And weven so, at one time the RCC had two "popes" each claiming the same authority. Add to that the period of time called the "Rule of Harlots", Then we have the conquering of the Lombards by Pepin under the direction of Stephan II around 750 AD, and you have the Vatican.

That's a good summary of why the church was established for political power, and why our founders believed in separation of church and state. Still, if you're talking about the modern day Catholic church, this statement is hard to support:

Catholicism is not Christian while some of its adherents may be.

So, no student has been suspended for attempting to use the name of God at a graduation ceremony; or for drawing a picture of Christ in art class; of for praying over a lunch; or for writing an essay on Christ; and silent prayer before school is allowed;

Not to my knowledge. If students have been punished for such things, then the school was wrong. At our public elementary school, one of the teachers used to lead prayer circles around the flagpole before school started. This happened for several years, may still be happening now. There was no problem, as students participated voluntarily.

and of course, their are all kinds of Christian displays on school campuses; bible clubs are readily allowed; Christian music is allowed at graduation ceremonies; etc. Right?

Bible clubs (voluntary), no problem. Graduation ceremonies are for everyone, so it is possible some would object. If not, then I'm sure that it still happens. Christian displays? I haven't seen that. I'm not sure what the purpose would be.

Give me an example of how the Christian community has attempted to compel others to do anything, then explain to me why it was Constitutional, and legal, to do this things till the O'Hair case?

When the fundamentalists talk about prayer in schools, they aren't talking about personal silent prayer, nor about voluntary prayer circles, but about the teacher leading a compulsory prayer for everyone. The first two are perfectly legal, the second is only something that can happen until someone calls them on it.

Tell me why the US Government is still paying for Chaplains as it has done since the founding? Tell me how the US government could have authorized the printing, and distribution, of Bibles under Washington, and the Founders? Tell me how the Statue of Liberty could have been accepted by the government since it has references to Moses, and other scriptural teachings?

Because no one challenged it.

Evolution denies the existence of a creator as taught in the schools.

Evolution does not deny the existence of god. That is simply inaccurate. "creator as taught in the schools?" I'm not sure the schools teach about the creator. That is the job of the churches.

That is like saying God created cancer. God created all things perfect. There was no disease till several thousand years after the Book of Genesis.

That is patent nonsense. The Earth has never been perfect. Ancient man was plagued by all sorts of diseases, and left a clear archeological record of those diseases.

The problem is that man did not follow the commands of God just as Adam, and Eve, did not in the Garden of Eden. Thus disease, and death, entered into the world.

No, the problem is that the story of Adam and Eve as told in Genesis is simply a story made up to explain to scientifically illiterate people how the earth and man were created.

What little is said about homosexuality in the Bible is to condemn it, not to support it. Gods first command to man was to "multiple, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28) Homosexuals cannot do this.

Neither can celibates.

It has happened. The first case I was made aware of was back in the 80's involving a Christian boy's camp. Then there was the case involving the BSA, and later the Salvation Army in San Francisco, just to name a few.

Really? Witches? Do you have a link to this?

No more then I believe in manmade global warming, and that this was the cause of the recent earthquakes incluing the one in Haiti.

I agree that the idea of global warming causing earthquakes is absurd. You do realize that the same process that led to the knowledge of tectonic plates also led to the theory of global climate change, don't you?

Didn't happen for 200 years.

Not for lack of trying.

According to the left racism, bigotry, etc., are rising.

I'm not sure who this "left" might be that is claiming this, but they are wrong. Anyone who remembers what happened before the civil rights era can tell you that they are wrong.

Then too, it can be proven that the lack of morality is definitely on the increase.

That depends on your definition of morality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ah yes, the typical response of one who has no where to go. The KKK was a product of those who you support. Now, I am quite assured that you would not even feel my Doctorate in Theology would be adequate for any discussion with one as learned as you most assuredly are.

Well, Doctorate of Theology or not, you are the one who quoted the KKK, not me. And your statement that the KKK was a product of the people I support is nonsense since it has always been a Christian group and even today if you go to their website you can read that they only want born-again Christians to join--people who have felt Christ's love.

Oh yeah, I have a doctorate in Phrenology too, so what? A doctorate in bad science is worth a doctorate in mythology any day.

Ah contraire bloated filly. The only church, aside from some small sects such as the Amish, that denied marriage based on church affiliation was the RCC.

One might think that big-time Christian with a DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY would not resort to personal attacks while passing out fallacious information. I don't know where you have lived, but I know where I did that many churches condemned inter-faith marriages because it says to do so in Genesis 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30 and many churches interpreted that to mean "if you are not a member of our sect," just as YOU have done by ruling out Mormons and Catholics as being Christians.

Ah yes, the usual "progressive' tactic of telling another what they think. Be careful there, your bigotry is showing through again.

Having been raised in the North, and having several good friends in the 60's who were inter-racial couples, and married, I can rest assured it was by State law, and not by religion.

Fair enough, you have double standard that applies to people you don't like but does not apply to others--well, that's Christian enough isn't it? It was a fallacious argument and specious reasoning when the KKK used it, it's even more so now in the 21st century. The laws against gay people are nothing more than Christian attempts to punish people they don't like, but vegeance is mine saith the Lord. Overstepping your bounds there OT.

You must be getting your talking points from some ignorant Athiest site because surely you have never read the Bible.

We shall see, won't we? I should be back in town and able to write more this evening or tomorrow. As a person with a DOCTORATE in THEOLOGY (I will assume Christian theology) you seem to have a fairly tenuous grasp of the fine points of scripture. One of the problems with the Bible is that it has so many contradictions in it and so many interpretations from all of the translations, not to mention the things deliberately added to change the meaning. A good example is the 6th Commandment: THOU SHALT NOT KILL, has become THOU SHALT NOT MURDER in just the last couple of decades.

Gotta go to work.

 

[OldTrapper]

Well, Doctorate of Theology or not, you are the one who quoted the KKK, not me. And your statement that the KKK was a product of the people I support is nonsense since it has always been a Christian group and even today if you go to their website you can read that they only want born-again Christians to join--people who have felt Christ's love.

The KKK has never been a Christian group. Only people like yourself that want to denigrate the Christian religion even try to think such. The KKK was created by the Democrats to prevent Blacks from voting in the South.

And your ASSumption that I was quoting the KKK is just another example of how low you will stoop to try and "prove" your point.

One might think that big-time Christian with a DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY would not resort to personal attacks while passing out fallacious information. I don't know where you have lived, but I know where I did that many churches condemned inter-faith marriages because it says to do so in Genesis 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30 and many churches interpreted that to mean "if you are not a member of our sect," just as YOU have done by ruling out Mormons and Catholics as being Christians.

First, it is you that try to denigrate me by ASSuming I have quoted the KKK. That is a common defense of the fool when caught in their own lies. Transfer the action to another.

Secondly, the Bible often refers to false teachings, and false teachers. In fact, it says to judge them by their actions, and words. You might try reading Titus, and especially Titus chapter one.

Next, Genesis, etc., has to do with the Hebrew people marrying pagans. How do you compare this to Christians marrying Christians? Makes one wonder where you are getting your anti-Christian talking points from. The Bible does say "Be ye not unequally yoked" in 2Cor. 6:14-18, yet this has to do with Christians marrying non-Christians, not interdenominational marriages.

Lastly, I say what I say of the Catholic, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness DENOMINATIONS, NOT the people themselves, what I do because their beliefs are NOT biblical. Of course, yoiu have to pervert that to make it appear as if I am saying the adherents themselves are not Christians which is a lie.

Fair enough, you have double standard that applies to people you don't like but does not apply to others--well, that's Christian enough isn't it? It was a fallacious argument and specious reasoning when the KKK used it, it's even more so now in the 21st century. The laws against gay people are nothing more than Christian attempts to punish people they don't like, but vegeance is mine saith the Lord. Overstepping your bounds there OT.

LOL, and you accused me of using fallacious arguments, etc.? Now, according to your feeble argument, passing laws concerning societal mores is "punishing" someone. Tell me, can society judge a murderer, or should we just let the murderer go free? Now, that is punishment, and judgement, which God approves of. Immoral acts are to be judged by the people, and is not reserved to God alone. When God speaks of judgement He is speaking of the final judgement at the end of times. God Himself established judges, and courts, under Moses. Paul said "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest of matters? Do you not know we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this world?"

And, are you not judging me with your false judgements?

Marriage, with few exceptions, has always been between a man, and a woman. Homosexuals can enter into contracts to protect their legal rights, and I would even agree with civil unions.

We shall see, won't we? I should be back in town and able to write more this evening or tomorrow. As a person with a DOCTORATE in THEOLOGY (I will assume Christian theology) you seem to have a fairly tenuous grasp of the fine points of scripture. One of the problems with the Bible is that it has so many contradictions in it and so many interpretations from all of the translations, not to mention the things deliberately added to change the meaning. A good example is the 6th Commandment: THOU SHALT NOT KILL, has become THOU SHALT NOT MURDER in just the last couple of decades.

Gotta go to work.

Yet you condone the killing of the unborn. The original Hebrew wording has always been "Thou shalt not murder". If it was otherwise one could not kill in self defense, or even kill for food.

The Bible says that to learn the mind of God one should study the scripture "line upon line, precept upon precept." The totality of the scripture is based on this principle, and it is not contradictory. If one takes a verse out of context, or by not studying all verses related to a particular topic, then one might think it is contradictory. One must look at scripture in it's totality.

As an example, I was arguing religion with one unbeliever, and he made the comment that even the Bible says "there is no God". This is true if taken out of context. The particular verse he was referring to actually said "The fool says in his heart there is not God."

 

[rationalist]

But you are a big fan of war which means that huge numbers of actual innocent people will get killed and maimed.

And you are a fan of capital punishment which always results in innocent people being executed.

How can you be such a hypocrite?

Well apart from having to be one to hold the views you do.

 

[rationalist]

Hey oldcrapper, how do you know what the bible really means?

 

[rationalist]

Here's a question for you 'believers'.

If god exists, why has he/she/it made it soooo hard to believe in him?

He wrote a book of fiction that some of his followers claim as fact and others claim to be symbolic although they never explain how they know that their interpretation is the right one.

He has a description (omnipotent and and omniscient) which is absurd.

He made the devil knowing how he would turn out but apparently he is not responsible for that action.

He made free will and gave it to man in the full knowledge of how that would be used but apparently he is not responsible for that.

Sometimes he moves in ways that christians love to explain but when this is questioned he starts moving in a mysterious way.

Nobody forced god to make the world and if he hadn't there would have been no suffering and so his decision to do it seems monstrous. Especia;;y as most people have lived or are living lives of extreme hardship.

He killed nearly everyone in the world shortly after making them because he didn't approve of their behaviour even though he designed them. Drowning the whole lot except one family.

And drowning all but 2 of every species. What had the animals done wrong?

Why did he design the world so that he would have to commit infanticide to fix it?

You see, when you look at what god has done it is actually a lot easier to believe that if he did exist he is a viscious monster.

And judging by the views of many who believe in him I can see what they are drawn to.

 

[OldTrapper]

That's a good summary of why the church was established for political power, and why our founders believed in separation of church and state. Still, if you're talking about the modern day Catholic church, this statement is hard to support:

The Founders, especially Jefferson, feared the power of the RCC, and the Church of England. However, he never separated the Church from the State in the manner spoken of today, or practiced today.

Not to my knowledge. If students have been punished for such things, then the school was wrong. At our public elementary school, one of the teachers used to lead prayer circles around the flagpole before school started. This happened for several years, may still be happening now. There was no problem, as students participated voluntarily.

It happens virtually everyday. Flagpole prayers led by teachers were ended when the football coach was sued for leading a prayer before games.

Bible clubs (voluntary), no problem. Graduation ceremonies are for everyone, so it is possible some would object. If not, then I'm sure that it still happens. Christian displays? I haven't seen that. I'm not sure what the purpose would be.

Still, schools refuse to grant permission for bible clubs.

What is wrong with a prayer, or a Christian song, at graduation as long as it is student led?

What, you have never heard of the ruling based on a Kentucky case where the Ten Commandments were not allowed to be posted?

The purpose declared in that case was that students might read them, and believe them.

When the fundamentalists talk about prayer in schools, they aren't talking about personal silent prayer, nor about voluntary prayer circles, but about the teacher leading a compulsory prayer for everyone. The first two are perfectly legal, the second is only something that can happen until someone calls them on it.

Actually, there never has been compulsory prayer. No one has ever been required to recite the prayer. They can just remain silent. Then too, every attempt to even allow for a "moment of silent prayer" before class has been fought over, and numerous court cases filed.

Because no one challenged it.

Why not? If it is good enough for the children it should be good enough for Congress, etc.

Evolution does not deny the existence of god. That is simply inaccurate. "creator as taught in the schools?" I'm not sure the schools teach about the creator. That is the job of the churches.

Where does evolution allow for God?

That is patent nonsense. The Earth has never been perfect. Ancient man was plagued by all sorts of diseases, and left a clear archeological record of those diseases.

Guess one has to believe in scripture to accept a perfect beginning. The earth was destroyed by fire, ice, etc., at one time or another. Kind of hard for diseases of any kind to survive.

Neither can celibates.

Maybe you are referring to eunuch's? People who are celibate are such by choice.

Really? Witches? Do you have a link to this?

Couldn't find the link. Happened back in the late 80's, or early 90's. A football star established a Christian youth camp I think in Minnesota. He would not hire a witch, and was sued.

I agree that the idea of global warming causing earthquakes is absurd. You do realize that the same process that led to the knowledge of tectonic plates also led to the theory of global climate change, don't you?

Tectonic plates have been moving since the beginning of time, as has climate change.

I'm not sure who this "left" might be that is claiming this, but they are wrong. Anyone who remembers what happened before the civil rights era can tell you that they are wrong.

NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, Urban League, etc.

That depends on your definition of morality.

Nope. Depends on ones lack of morality. Moral values are absolute.

 

[PLC1]

The Founders, especially Jefferson, feared the power of the RCC, and the Church of England. However, he never separated the Church from the State in the manner spoken of today, or practiced today.

Check out some of their quotes and see if you still believe that.

It happens virtually everyday. Flagpole prayers led by teachers were ended when the football coach was sued for leading a prayer before games.

Really? You should have no trouble citing plenty of examples. No one stopped the prayer circles at our school.

What is wrong with a prayer, or a Christian song, at graduation as long as it is student led?

The same thing that is wrong with a student led Islamic prayer at graduation.

What, you have never heard of the ruling based on a Kentucky case where the Ten Commandments were not allowed to be posted?

I thought you said "Christian display". I suppose a Jewish display like the Ten Commandments might be objectionable to some, people too. Why would that be?

The purpose declared in that case was that students might read them, and believe them.

Oh. That's why.

Actually, there never has been compulsory prayer. No one has ever been required to recite the prayer. They can just remain silent. Then too, every attempt to even allow for a "moment of silent prayer" before class has been fought over, and numerous court cases filed.

A prayer that is given publicly while everyone has to be there is a compulsory prayer.

How would you feel about another religion having such a prayer in a public school classroom?

Why not? If it is good enough for the children it should be good enough for Congress, etc.

Agreed.

Where does evolution allow for God?

How does it deny god?

It seems to me that evolution most likely describes how god created life on Earth. Of course, I can't prove that any more than you can prove any of your religious convictions.

Guess one has to believe in scripture to accept a perfect beginning. The earth was destroyed by fire, ice, etc., at one time or another. Kind of hard for diseases of any kind to survive.

When ancient writings conflict with verifiable facts, then one must question those writings. Much of what is written in the Bible is allegory, and was never intended to describe real events. Take Noah's flood, for example. Are we to believe that a man from that era actually went around gathering animals from all the seven continents and put them on a boat to save them, then released them in Turkey to go back and repopulate those continents, or are we to take it as an allegory, encouraging people to be providential and to heed the voices of the prophets?

Maybe you are referring to eunuch's? People who are celibate are such by choice.

Yes, unlike homosexuals, they are so by choice.

Couldn't find the link. Happened back in the late 80's, or early 90's. A football star established a Christian youth camp I think in Minnesota. He would not hire a witch, and was sued.

Interesting anecdote. Was the lawsuit successful? Anyone can sue, of course.

Tectonic plates have been moving since the beginning of time, as has climate change.

Yes, and our knowledge of both comes from the scientific method.

NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, Urban League, etc.

I can't say as I'm surprised that any of the above is wrong, particularly Sharpton and Jackson.

Is that who you think of when you say "the left"?

Nope. Depends on ones lack of morality. Moral values are absolute.

Moral values are cultural, particularly if you're talking about sexual morality. The only absolute is not violating the rights of others.

 

[OldTrapper]

Check out some of their quotes and see if you still believe that.

Nothing in there indicates that the intention was as is now being practiced. In fact, all of the activities I have used as examples were supported by the very people you want to say would now have found those actions unConstitutional.

Really? You should have no trouble citing plenty of examples. No one stopped the prayer circles at our school.

Just as easy for you to find them. Just google " coach sued for leading prayer " and you will get hundreds of examples. Then you could google " christian students suspended by schools "

The same thing that is wrong with a student led Islamic prayer at graduation.

Google " schools required to teach muslim religion "

I thought you said "Christian display". I suppose a Jewish display like the Ten Commandments might be objectionable to some, people too. Why would that be?

The Jewish religion outs more emphasis on the Talmud, and Menorah. I don't know of any case where that has been ajudicated. However, there was an incident in the Seattle Airport in the past couple of years, and the Menorah was allowed to be displayed. There was another one last year, and thatwas settled by allowing a Christmas tree, a Menorah, and a sign by the Athiest group, to be displayed.

A prayer that is given publicly while everyone has to be there is a compulsory prayer.

Why? the person has no obligation to pray. They can just listen, and think about something else. Point is, for 200 years it was not a problem.

How would you feel about another religion having such a prayer in a public school classroom?

Been there, done that, doesn't matter to me.

How does it deny god?

In its teachings in the schools it is made obvious that there was a "big bang", or that man evolved from some kind of sea creature, or wahtever, then the progressive line of evolution through the apes to the primitive humanoids, etc. God is never mentioned, and is denied everytime one tries to introduce creationism in whatever form it may take whether it be in a separate class, or by a student.

It seems to me that evolution most likely describes how god created life on Earth. Of course, I can't prove that any more than you can prove any of your religious convictions.

That is not the way it is taught. And you are right. Evolution as being taught cannot be proven.

When ancient writings conflict with verifiable facts, then one must question those writings. Much of what is written in the Bible is allegory, and was never intended to describe real events. Take Noah's flood, for example. Are we to believe that a man from that era actually went around gathering animals from all the seven continents and put them on a boat to save them, then released them in Turkey to go back and repopulate those continents, or are we to take it as an allegory, encouraging people to be providential and to heed the voices of the prophets?

The Bible can be divided into several distinct sections, or purposes. The "snake" in the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, are just a few examples of allegorical teachings based on tradition. Then there are the true historical accounts such as Exodus, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. The next would be Law, and then there is Prophecy. Each contains a purpose, and teachings as to the mind, and power, of God.

Yes, unlike homosexuals, they are so by choice.

Most, if not all, are homosexual by choice unless you have some scientific evidence I am not aware of.

Interesting anecdote. Was the lawsuit successful? Anyone can sue, of course.

Neither of the lawsuits were successful just as the one against the BSA was not.

Yes, and our knowledge of both comes from the scientific method.

Well, one does anyway. The other is based on the ignoring of much of the science.

I can't say as I'm surprised that any of the above is wrong, particularly Sharpton and Jackson.

Is that who you think of when you say "the left"?

In this case yes. They are the ones most vocal. Then too, I have heard many politicians on C-Span, other activist groups, and entertainers such as Danny Glover, say the same thing. Most are just seeking more money, or other gratuities, from the government.

Moral values are cultural, particularly if you're talking about sexual morality. The only absolute is not violating the rights of others.

That is too vague when the "rights of others" is in a constant flux.

e.g Muslims, and other cultures, believe that a man can have sex with a child, or arrange a "marriage" with a child.

In Saudi Arabia a woman can be killed for simply talking to a man other then a family member, or husband.

Here in the States virtual kiddy porn has been deemed legal.

In Iowa the courts just ruled that teenagers can strip dance as long as it is in a "theatre" even if that theatre has been converted to a strip club.

 

[rationalist]

''The Bible can be divided into several distinct sections, or purposes. The "snake" in the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, are just a few examples of allegorical teachings based on tradition. Then there are the true historical accounts such as Exodus, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. The next would be Law, and then there is Prophecy. Each contains a purpose, and teachings as to the mind, and power, of God.''

How do you know which bits are true and which aren't?

It seems that the model for christians is..

''Assert the bible is true until science proves it isn't and then say it is allegorical''

I notice you miss out creation and how beardy made everything in 6 days and then had a rest.

Why did he need a rest and what did he do on the Monday?

Was he tired after all that creating and did he call in sick on Monday?

Or did he go back to work looking forward to undoing all that creating of people and animals with a good old fashioned bit of genocide?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Old Trapper,
I've had to be out of town for work, I'm home momentarily to reload the truck and will be leaving early tomorrow. I don't know when I'll be back, but I will try to continue our discussion then.

As a side note:
The American Family Association, a religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning. Citing Tilly's history of violent altercations, the group is slamming SeaWorld for not listening to Scripture in how to deal with the animal:

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/american-family-associati_n_484022.html

This is a great example of the intellect we're dealing with in many Christians. That whale is probably smarter than 75% of the Christians in this country and it's kept in a tiny pool by itself and forced to perform idiotic tricks for packs of yammering hominids. The poor creature is probably quite insane now and is totally justified in striking out at its captors.

How about it, DOT (Doctor of Theology or Doctor Old Trapper), are you in favor of stoning the whale too?

Oh yeah, I see another gay-hating Republican is gay and has been arrested for drunk driving besides. No hypocrisy there, eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html

 

[Pandora]

I'm home momentarily to reload the truck and will be leaving early tomorrow. I don't know when I'll be back, but I will try to continue our discussion then.

Have a safe trip Mare