Topic: Do you agree with Rowan Atkinson when he says this?
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #31,004
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #441,957
Yes, he's completely right.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,958
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
then say, if there was a nation with people who mostly shared the same ideas, then its okay for them to decide to teach those ideas in schools?
then say, if there was a nation with people who mostly shared the same ideas, then its okay for them to decide to teach those ideas in schools?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 48 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,959
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,960
@previous (C)
I am just saying that it doesn't seem democratic if the government would forbid ideas to be thought in public schools especially if most of the voters shared those ideas.
I am just saying that it doesn't seem democratic if the government would forbid ideas to be thought in public schools especially if most of the voters shared those ideas.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,962
@441,958 (A)
I knew this topic was a trap!
What does this have to do with what he said? His statement was about one's freedom to criticise religion and why it should be allowed, not about whether it should be included in the national curriculum.
I knew this topic was a trap!
What does this have to do with what he said? His statement was about one's freedom to criticise religion and why it should be allowed, not about whether it should be included in the national curriculum.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,963
@441,960 (A)
Why are you being so vague? Please be clearer, I'm not quite sure what issue or incident you're referring to.
Why are you being so vague? Please be clearer, I'm not quite sure what issue or incident you're referring to.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,964
@441,962 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes well done. He did in fact not talk about if it should be learned in schools. That is me who is talking about it. Simply trying to see if it is a valid thing for governments to forbid ideas to be learned in schools even if the majority wants it to be available for learning in schools.
Yes well done. He did in fact not talk about if it should be learned in schools. That is me who is talking about it. Simply trying to see if it is a valid thing for governments to forbid ideas to be learned in schools even if the majority wants it to be available for learning in schools.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,965
@441,963 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
He is probably referring to the teaching of creationism in US schools.
He is probably referring to the teaching of creationism in US schools.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,966
@441,963 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Okay, for example, Some people in my country feel that Cristianity should not be thought in the public schools anymore. But far more people believe it should.
Given that religion is an idea, how can it be seen as fair for people to stop ideas from being learned in public schools? especially if most want it to be thought in public schools? is it not a oppressive thing?
Okay, for example, Some people in my country feel that Cristianity should not be thought in the public schools anymore. But far more people believe it should.
Given that religion is an idea, how can it be seen as fair for people to stop ideas from being learned in public schools? especially if most want it to be thought in public schools? is it not a oppressive thing?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 46 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,967
@441,964 (A)
What are you talking about specifically? It seems like you're trying to trick people into agreeing by phrasing it the way you are.
@441,965 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Ah. That explains the phrasing, then. If he outright said creationism, then he'd be rightly criticised on how unscientific it is. But if he phrases it like this, it sounds more reasonable.
What are you talking about specifically? It seems like you're trying to trick people into agreeing by phrasing it the way you are.
@441,965 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Ah. That explains the phrasing, then. If he outright said creationism, then he'd be rightly criticised on how unscientific it is. But if he phrases it like this, it sounds more reasonable.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,968
severe autism detected
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,969
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,970
@441,966 (A)
So because something is liked by the majority, it is automatically okay?
Schools are a public thing, children of all backgrounds and types are going to be passing through. It doesn't make sense to try and hoist one religion on them all, they should be able to freely make a decision about religion themselves. If a parent wants to make their child a Christian, then they have church and their own parenting to do that.
So because something is liked by the majority, it is automatically okay?
Schools are a public thing, children of all backgrounds and types are going to be passing through. It doesn't make sense to try and hoist one religion on them all, they should be able to freely make a decision about religion themselves. If a parent wants to make their child a Christian, then they have church and their own parenting to do that.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,972
@441,969 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't think it's feasible to teach every religion's creation myth, considering how many thousands probably exist. Aren't the main ones already touched upon in schools, anyway?
I don't think it's feasible to teach every religion's creation myth, considering how many thousands probably exist. Aren't the main ones already touched upon in schools, anyway?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,973
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Most religious creation theories arent mentioned in public schools at all. As it should be.
Most religious creation theories arent mentioned in public schools at all. As it should be.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,978
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Oh I thought you were being serious, and suggesting all creation stories get mentioned in Religious Education class for the purpose of fairness or something.
Oh I thought you were being serious, and suggesting all creation stories get mentioned in Religious Education class for the purpose of fairness or something.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 41 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,979
@441,970 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> So because something is liked by the majority, it is automatically okay?
to a certain extent yes, that is how democracy works. But of course there are morals. But i learned Christianity in a public school and most of us had no problems with it except that few atheists did not attend and of course
were not required to attend. If we respected everyone wishes then the next thing you know, science is not being thought to your kids because some child with a hardcore christian parent does not wish it to happen.
> they should be able to freely make a decision about religion themselves
to a certain extent yes. However if a kid had some bad ideas like that being mean was okay then of course that should not be allowed and that is a hughe part of parenting. Many parents feel that their religion is a important part
for their child and where i live religion has not harmed anyone in a way that religion all together should be banned as an idea, banned in a fair way.
> If a parent wants to make their child a Christian, then they have church and their own parenting to do that.
You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
> So because something is liked by the majority, it is automatically okay?
to a certain extent yes, that is how democracy works. But of course there are morals. But i learned Christianity in a public school and most of us had no problems with it except that few atheists did not attend and of course
were not required to attend. If we respected everyone wishes then the next thing you know, science is not being thought to your kids because some child with a hardcore christian parent does not wish it to happen.
> they should be able to freely make a decision about religion themselves
to a certain extent yes. However if a kid had some bad ideas like that being mean was okay then of course that should not be allowed and that is a hughe part of parenting. Many parents feel that their religion is a important part
for their child and where i live religion has not harmed anyone in a way that religion all together should be banned as an idea, banned in a fair way.
> If a parent wants to make their child a Christian, then they have church and their own parenting to do that.
You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,984
@previous (A)
> to a certain extent yes, that is how democracy works.
Democracy doesn't say what is moral, or appropriate, it just says what is popular.
What country do you live in, out of interest? I'm guessing the US, but you say you were taught Christianity in a state school so maybe not?
> to a certain extent yes, that is how democracy works.
Democracy doesn't say what is moral, or appropriate, it just says what is popular.
What country do you live in, out of interest? I'm guessing the US, but you say you were taught Christianity in a state school so maybe not?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,986
What was meant by this comment?
You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
Cat !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,987
> Hide Christian Threads
> Ignore Christian Posts
> Do Not Reply to Christian Posters
I really wish there was a meme image for this.
> Ignore Christian Posts
> Do Not Reply to Christian Posters
I really wish there was a meme image for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,988
@441,984 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
> Democracy doesn't say what is moral, or appropriate, it just says what is popular.
yes and what i am saying, to a certain extent allowing what is popular to rule is okay. And its kind of hard for me to say where i live, it feels uncomfortable to share it but anyway i live in Iceland.
> Democracy doesn't say what is moral, or appropriate, it just says what is popular.
yes and what i am saying, to a certain extent allowing what is popular to rule is okay. And its kind of hard for me to say where i live, it feels uncomfortable to share it but anyway i live in Iceland.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,990
@previous (A)
So if the majority of people believe in something for which there is no evidence, it should be taught as fact?
So if the majority of people believe in something for which there is no evidence, it should be taught as fact?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,991
@441,986 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I am saying that its not as simple and fair to just dismiss ideas from being learned in public schools this way. There exist for example places to learn art but does it mean that children should not learn it in schools? Does a parent have the time to teach her children about whatever she want them to learn? The poorest parent often does not have the time.
I am saying that its not as simple and fair to just dismiss ideas from being learned in public schools this way. There exist for example places to learn art but does it mean that children should not learn it in schools? Does a parent have the time to teach her children about whatever she want them to learn? The poorest parent often does not have the time.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,994
@previous (A)
Isnt church free for everyone? Arent bibles given away freely? Would you be okay with every religion being taught in public schools?
Isnt church free for everyone? Arent bibles given away freely? Would you be okay with every religion being taught in public schools?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 54 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,995
@441,990 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
personally i do not think that would be honest, to lie about it being a proven idea. But do i believe it should be thought as the truth? Well yes most often, except of course if it was an immoral idea.
personally i do not think that would be honest, to lie about it being a proven idea. But do i believe it should be thought as the truth? Well yes most often, except of course if it was an immoral idea.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,996
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 53 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,997
Is Christianity more true than any other religion?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,998
@441,994 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Isnt church free for everyone?
I have no idea but its probably not free in time and effort. However do you think that simply because there is some organization giving away free art teachings that art should not be learned anymore in school? Do you think
all are perfect parents that would ensure that the child goes to that organization?
> Would you be okay with every religion being taught in public schools?
If the teacher and books were funded by the religious organization themselves, then yes i would. Of course it also depends if the religion it self is immoral.
Isnt church free for everyone?
I have no idea but its probably not free in time and effort. However do you think that simply because there is some organization giving away free art teachings that art should not be learned anymore in school? Do you think
all are perfect parents that would ensure that the child goes to that organization?
> Would you be okay with every religion being taught in public schools?
If the teacher and books were funded by the religious organization themselves, then yes i would. Of course it also depends if the religion it self is immoral.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #441,999
@441,979 (A)
> However if a kid had some bad ideas like that being mean was okay then of course that should not be allowed and that is a hughe part of parenting. Many parents feel that their religion is a important part
Those parents are wrong, though. I was not raised religiously at all, bar the usual peripherary stuff in school which I didn't care about anyway, and I'm quite a moral person. Religion isn't needed to be a good person, just a good upbrining and good parents. And honestly, it's kinda sad if one feels that they must be good only because of threats and bribes from cosmic entities, isn't it?
> You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
Wait, so you're saying that relgion isn't able to safely teach children on its own, so schools should do it? And the majority of priests are not pedophiles (I would hope), so the church is a perfectly acceptable way of shaping one's child into a Christian, people can very easily take their kids to services and Sunday school. Even then, there's tools like the internet, prayer and the Bible that can be utilised to do that too.
@441,988 (A)
How did you come across this site? Never seen anybody from Iceland around before.
And don't worry, nobody can track you down just with your country of residence.
@441,997 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I find it interesting that this point isn't made more often in relgious debates. To me, the wide variety of relgions, which vary with time and location, seems like such blatant evidence of relgion being man-made.
> However if a kid had some bad ideas like that being mean was okay then of course that should not be allowed and that is a hughe part of parenting. Many parents feel that their religion is a important part
Those parents are wrong, though. I was not raised religiously at all, bar the usual peripherary stuff in school which I didn't care about anyway, and I'm quite a moral person. Religion isn't needed to be a good person, just a good upbrining and good parents. And honestly, it's kinda sad if one feels that they must be good only because of threats and bribes from cosmic entities, isn't it?
> You mean those pedophile priests? You think that the invention of schools is not a part of the problem that a parent often cannot teach their children all they feel that they need to know?
Wait, so you're saying that relgion isn't able to safely teach children on its own, so schools should do it? And the majority of priests are not pedophiles (I would hope), so the church is a perfectly acceptable way of shaping one's child into a Christian, people can very easily take their kids to services and Sunday school. Even then, there's tools like the internet, prayer and the Bible that can be utilised to do that too.
@441,988 (A)
How did you come across this site? Never seen anybody from Iceland around before.
And don't worry, nobody can track you down just with your country of residence.
@441,997 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I find it interesting that this point isn't made more often in relgious debates. To me, the wide variety of relgions, which vary with time and location, seems like such blatant evidence of relgion being man-made.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #442,000
@441,996 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
is there any evidence that people should not hurt each other? No otherwise it would be a fact but not an opinion yet it is still seen as truth is it not?
@441,997 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Christianity is to generalized here i think. I would say though that yes it is
is there any evidence that people should not hurt each other? No otherwise it would be a fact but not an opinion yet it is still seen as truth is it not?
@441,997 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Christianity is to generalized here i think. I would say though that yes it is
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,002
@441,998 (A)
I n your opinion which religions are immoral? Would the organization also pay the teachers for the time spent teaching?
Mentioning time and effort, why should resources be taken away from skills that people will need in real life,(like math and sciences)in order to be to be used to propagate fictional tales that encourage bad behavior and uncritical thinking?
Many people in the bible are immoral but its okay because they are considered to be chosen, or to be gods favorites. Thats what we should teach? We should teach that its okay to stone an unruly child? That its okay to force a woman to marry her rapist?
I n your opinion which religions are immoral? Would the organization also pay the teachers for the time spent teaching?
Mentioning time and effort, why should resources be taken away from skills that people will need in real life,(like math and sciences)in order to be to be used to propagate fictional tales that encourage bad behavior and uncritical thinking?
Many people in the bible are immoral but its okay because they are considered to be chosen, or to be gods favorites. Thats what we should teach? We should teach that its okay to stone an unruly child? That its okay to force a woman to marry her rapist?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,003
@442,000 (A)
> I would say though that yes it is
Interesting. Why? Other relgions have histories, other relgions have supposedly amamzing messiahs, other relgions have supposed mircales.
> I would say though that yes it is
Interesting. Why? Other relgions have histories, other relgions have supposedly amamzing messiahs, other relgions have supposed mircales.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,004
@442,000 (A)
There is evidence of that because it hurts society as a whole.
Why is Christianity any more true than other religions? Please be specific.
There is evidence of that because it hurts society as a whole.
Why is Christianity any more true than other religions? Please be specific.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,005
@441,998 (A)
> I have no idea but its probably not free in time and effort.
These Christians sound very lazy. They'd much rather force their religious beliefs on every child in the school system, instead of investing whatever time and effort is needed to attend Church?
> I have no idea but its probably not free in time and effort.
These Christians sound very lazy. They'd much rather force their religious beliefs on every child in the school system, instead of investing whatever time and effort is needed to attend Church?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,006
@441,999 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> so you're saying that relgion isn't able to safely teach children on its own
Religion is a set of beliefs, a church can be something of a organization. Learn the difference.
> Religion isn't needed to be a good person
neither is having no religion needed to be a good person.
> they can learn it elsewhere
So if people could learn science for free on a different place then the public school, they should not longer have the option of learning it in public schools and we should just hope that all parents actually have the time
and energy to take their kids there? come on.
> How did you come across this site? Never seen anybody from Iceland around before.
sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
> so you're saying that relgion isn't able to safely teach children on its own
Religion is a set of beliefs, a church can be something of a organization. Learn the difference.
> Religion isn't needed to be a good person
neither is having no religion needed to be a good person.
> they can learn it elsewhere
So if people could learn science for free on a different place then the public school, they should not longer have the option of learning it in public schools and we should just hope that all parents actually have the time
and energy to take their kids there? come on.
> How did you come across this site? Never seen anybody from Iceland around before.
sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,007
okay you guys, i am going to allow you guys to respond to my last comment if you want and then i will read all the comments that have been unaswered and that way we should get a smooth way of communicating
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,008
@441,999 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> And don't worry, nobody can track you down just with your country of residence.
That's what we want him to think...
> And don't worry, nobody can track you down just with your country of residence.
That's what we want him to think...
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,009
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,010
@442,006 (A)
If religion is a not necessary for normal living then we shouldnt waste time on it. It gives nothing of value.
If religion is a not necessary for normal living then we shouldnt waste time on it. It gives nothing of value.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,011
Tell me why Christianity is true and how its moral.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,014
kook will "allow" you to answer, you smarmy prick.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,015
@442,007 (A)
This is your last comment
sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
This is your last comment
sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,016
Is it moral to stone a misbehaving child?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ triple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,017
Is it moral to flood an entire planet and kill off everyone but a family run by the village drunk?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ quadruple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,018
Is it moral to offer your daughters to be raped instead in order to protect angels? Because you know, angels cant defend themselves.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ quintuple-posted this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,019
Did god fuck up when he created angels?
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,020
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,021
Why didnt god kill satan?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,022
@442,006 (A)
> Religion is a set of beliefs, a church can be something of a organization. Learn the difference.
Churches are the specific places that propegate and promote those beliefs, and the beliefs say that the believers should attend those churches. They're quite stongly linked.
> neither is having no religion needed to be a good person.
That was not the point I made. I said that a good upbrining was what was needed.
So if we agree that relgion isn't needed, then surely it is uncessary for a person to be moral, yes? Far better to be moral because you believe it is right, rather than believing that not being good will damn you to hell?
> So if people could learn science for free on a different place then the public school, they should not longer have the option of learning it in public schools and we should just hope that all parents actually have the time and energy to take their kids there? come on.
Churches can do that just fine. Parents can just take their kids along to services.
And really, isn't a church more qualified to teach relgion to children than a school? A school teacher forced to teach it might not be enthusiastic or particularly informed about it, but a priest usually will be. It makes sense to teach relgion in the place specifically made to preach about it.
> sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
Ahaha, I'm not sure that finding an Internet BBS is usually an issue of morality, but okay.
> Religion is a set of beliefs, a church can be something of a organization. Learn the difference.
Churches are the specific places that propegate and promote those beliefs, and the beliefs say that the believers should attend those churches. They're quite stongly linked.
> neither is having no religion needed to be a good person.
That was not the point I made. I said that a good upbrining was what was needed.
So if we agree that relgion isn't needed, then surely it is uncessary for a person to be moral, yes? Far better to be moral because you believe it is right, rather than believing that not being good will damn you to hell?
> So if people could learn science for free on a different place then the public school, they should not longer have the option of learning it in public schools and we should just hope that all parents actually have the time and energy to take their kids there? come on.
Churches can do that just fine. Parents can just take their kids along to services.
And really, isn't a church more qualified to teach relgion to children than a school? A school teacher forced to teach it might not be enthusiastic or particularly informed about it, but a priest usually will be. It makes sense to teach relgion in the place specifically made to preach about it.
> sorry man, to much information that i cannot release for moral reasons
Ahaha, I'm not sure that finding an Internet BBS is usually an issue of morality, but okay.
hamfist !2E1ogQqRO. joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,023
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,024
@442,021 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
And why does he give satan the souls of the people he doesn't like to be etenrally tortured? That sounds like co-operation to me.
Also, I'm surprised that our friend mountainman hasn't made an appearence yet. Ah well, we can hope, I suppose.
And why does he give satan the souls of the people he doesn't like to be etenrally tortured? That sounds like co-operation to me.
Also, I'm surprised that our friend mountainman hasn't made an appearence yet. Ah well, we can hope, I suppose.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,026
Why are the most fucked up states in America, also the least educated, and most religious?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,027
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,028
@442,004 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
That is a big mistake to think that. We have evidence that something harms people, but we never have evidence that we should then not do that thing. If we had evidence that people should not harm people then why on earth
do they do exactly that, harm people? So you see i have reached the conclusion that my beliefs, moral and religious, are all percieved true because i feel they are true. Does that make them true? absolutley not but does it make
me believe they are true? YES.
@442,005 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Just because they teach something to children that you do not like does not mean they are being forceful. You guys simply don't seem to realize that public schools and the rights of children to attend them is a sort of a fail safe for learning. It means everyone is a lot more likeley to learn and so if a society wanted something to be learned, teaching it in the public schools is a great way to help that. Its not lazy, its smart.
@442,010 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> It gives nothing of value
False. What is valuable to a person is subjective and to make a claim that people should only do what is necessary for normal living is kind not so smart and appealing and i know you realize that.
That is a big mistake to think that. We have evidence that something harms people, but we never have evidence that we should then not do that thing. If we had evidence that people should not harm people then why on earth
do they do exactly that, harm people? So you see i have reached the conclusion that my beliefs, moral and religious, are all percieved true because i feel they are true. Does that make them true? absolutley not but does it make
me believe they are true? YES.
@442,005 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Just because they teach something to children that you do not like does not mean they are being forceful. You guys simply don't seem to realize that public schools and the rights of children to attend them is a sort of a fail safe for learning. It means everyone is a lot more likeley to learn and so if a society wanted something to be learned, teaching it in the public schools is a great way to help that. Its not lazy, its smart.
@442,010 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> It gives nothing of value
False. What is valuable to a person is subjective and to make a claim that people should only do what is necessary for normal living is kind not so smart and appealing and i know you realize that.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,029
If God is benevolant and omniscient, then why did he give people free will? Surely he knew that, in giving humans free will, some would deviate from his preferences and he would end up damning them to hell?
And what's up with then forcing these free-willed people to worship him, and damning those who refuse to worship? If he wanted unconditional, constant worship, then why add in free will? Rather egotistical and sadistic of him, really.
And what's up with then forcing these free-willed people to worship him, and damning those who refuse to worship? If he wanted unconditional, constant worship, then why add in free will? Rather egotistical and sadistic of him, really.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,030
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,031
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,032
Why is Christianity more true or moral than every other religion. Be specfic
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,033
@442,030 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
that is a generalization there are many reasons why people hurt each other. But the bottom line is that we can only have evidence of something doing harm. We can not have evidence that we should not do harm.
that is a generalization there are many reasons why people hurt each other. But the bottom line is that we can only have evidence of something doing harm. We can not have evidence that we should not do harm.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,034
@442,024 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> And why does he give satan the souls of the people he doesn't like to be etenrally tortured? That sounds like co-operation to me.
The Bible says Satan will be in the 'eternal fire' alongside everybody else sent there. The idea of him controlling Hell and poking people in the arse with a red pitchfork is a cultural idea, not a biblical one.
> And why does he give satan the souls of the people he doesn't like to be etenrally tortured? That sounds like co-operation to me.
The Bible says Satan will be in the 'eternal fire' alongside everybody else sent there. The idea of him controlling Hell and poking people in the arse with a red pitchfork is a cultural idea, not a biblical one.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,035
@442,033 (A)
They still do it because they dont care. They know that hurting people is wrong and harmful to the society and individual and they still do it.
The bible actively encourages brutality. Why should we teach that to children?
They still do it because they dont care. They know that hurting people is wrong and harmful to the society and individual and they still do it.
The bible actively encourages brutality. Why should we teach that to children?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,036
@442,032 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I believe that Christianity is more true then other religions because that is how i feel it is. I know it does not make them proven, sure, but to me it makes them true, just like guild and empathy makes it true for me that one should not harm
I believe that Christianity is more true then other religions because that is how i feel it is. I know it does not make them proven, sure, but to me it makes them true, just like guild and empathy makes it true for me that one should not harm
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,037
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,038
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,039
@442,035 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Sure i feel that the bible itself is kind of immoral at times. But you see like i said Christianity is a big term in the sense that people can have many definitions of it. Most people in my country do not believe that teaching
brutality is a christian thing to do even though its in the bible sometimes.
Sure i feel that the bible itself is kind of immoral at times. But you see like i said Christianity is a big term in the sense that people can have many definitions of it. Most people in my country do not believe that teaching
brutality is a christian thing to do even though its in the bible sometimes.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,040
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,041
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,042
@442,038 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
That is an impossible question. Why do we feel anything at all? why do somethings feel funny and hysterical? No idea, its just how the brain makes me feel.
That is an impossible question. Why do we feel anything at all? why do somethings feel funny and hysterical? No idea, its just how the brain makes me feel.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,043
@442,037 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I think Hell was created by God to send Satan and the Angels that chose to follow him. I'm not sure if the Bible actually mentions the creation of Hell, but that is its purpose.
I think Hell was created by God to send Satan and the Angels that chose to follow him. I'm not sure if the Bible actually mentions the creation of Hell, but that is its purpose.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,044
@442,041 (G)
Well i would continue to support the existing system which is the non brutal version focused on morality
Well i would continue to support the existing system which is the non brutal version focused on morality
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,045
@442,043 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
i heard somewhere that satan actually managed to escape hell and get into heaven to have some kind of conversation with god
i heard somewhere that satan actually managed to escape hell and get into heaven to have some kind of conversation with god
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,046
@442,044 (A)
What if I don't believe in your version? You're going to force me anyway?
You see the problem here, I'm sure.
What if I don't believe in your version? You're going to force me anyway?
You see the problem here, I'm sure.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,047
@previous (G)
Of course not. In the existing system in my country, parents are not forced to make their children learn it.
Of course not. In the existing system in my country, parents are not forced to make their children learn it.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,048
@442,034 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
More evidence that relgion is a man-made thing, then. The beliefs of the believers easily shift with the whims of culture and the passing of time.
And still, it ties in perfectly with what I said about this completely undermining God's supposedly benevolant nature. "Obey me or it's eternal fire for you"? How is that benevolant? Threats of damnation are an awful reason to believe in something.
More evidence that relgion is a man-made thing, then. The beliefs of the believers easily shift with the whims of culture and the passing of time.
And still, it ties in perfectly with what I said about this completely undermining God's supposedly benevolant nature. "Obey me or it's eternal fire for you"? How is that benevolant? Threats of damnation are an awful reason to believe in something.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,049
@442,047 (A)
So problem solved. Leave it to the churches and religious institutions. No need to teach it in school.
So problem solved. Leave it to the churches and religious institutions. No need to teach it in school.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,050
@442,048 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
beliefs are something that men do and so of course it is men who are creating this belief. Just because our morality or religion can change over time does not mean that they are false.
beliefs are something that men do and so of course it is men who are creating this belief. Just because our morality or religion can change over time does not mean that they are false.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,051
Oh wow 75 replies already. Relgion certainly gets people talking if nothing else.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,052
@442,049 (G)
There is no problem. It is inside the schools already. And there is no good reason to remove there yet.
There is no problem. It is inside the schools already. And there is no good reason to remove there yet.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,053
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,054
@442,050 (A)Why not? If they were some objective truth, then surely they would not change? To be truly true, shouldn't something remain true no matter the whims of human culture? Relgion purports to be an objective truth, saying that its morals and beliefs are absolute and the completely true. Yet it changes over time, sometimes quite a lot.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,055
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,056
@442,053 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
the book is oddly enough like a human being itself in the sense it has bad things and good things.
the book is oddly enough like a human being itself in the sense it has bad things and good things.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,057
@442,054 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
But it isn't the beliefs themselves that change, just people's interpretation of them. Whether something is true or not, given 2000 years and a worldwide audience, interpretations are always going to change - a lot.
But it isn't the beliefs themselves that change, just people's interpretation of them. Whether something is true or not, given 2000 years and a worldwide audience, interpretations are always going to change - a lot.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,058
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,059
Is it moral to drown every human on earth?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,060
@442,056 (A)Then why follow it at all? If it presents bad things as acceptable and moral, then surely it is flawed?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,061
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Because it makes him feel good! He likes to think of the drowning people and imagine the shrieks of burning wretches.
Because it makes him feel good! He likes to think of the drowning people and imagine the shrieks of burning wretches.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,063
@442,048 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> And still, it ties in perfectly with what I said about this completely undermining God's supposedly benevolant nature. "Obey me or it's eternal fire for you"? How is that benevolant? Threats of damnation are an awful reason to believe in something.
Yeah, this is something even Christians grapple with. Often they write off the horrific descriptions of the torture awaiting people in Hell as metaphorical or not to be taken literally.
If there was a truly loving God I don't think he would condemn people to Hell just for questioning his existence.
> And still, it ties in perfectly with what I said about this completely undermining God's supposedly benevolant nature. "Obey me or it's eternal fire for you"? How is that benevolant? Threats of damnation are an awful reason to believe in something.
Yeah, this is something even Christians grapple with. Often they write off the horrific descriptions of the torture awaiting people in Hell as metaphorical or not to be taken literally.
If there was a truly loving God I don't think he would condemn people to Hell just for questioning his existence.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,064
@442,054 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You certainly would think so. But one can say that it remains true indeed and that the beliefs are simply shifting into a popular beliefs that come close or far from the truth.
You certainly would think so. But one can say that it remains true indeed and that the beliefs are simply shifting into a popular beliefs that come close or far from the truth.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #442,065
@442,057 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)It is the beliefs that change. Just look at the Old Testament next to the New Testament. Quite a change, once again the passage of time and new cultural influence changed a supposedly objective truth laid down by a supposedly infalliable being. And what about the beliefs that came before? Or came after? Why is this one set of beliefs any more true than the rest of them?
@442,059 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
And how can he claim to be infalliable after that? He regretted it afterwards, clear evidence that he even views himself as falliable.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,066
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 0 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,067
I dont follow the bible you guys. What i follow are specific teachings from that bible.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,068
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,069
@previous (A)
So lets recap - beliefs change, the written word changes, ideas change, interpretations change. But it's all true. Because I say it's true.
Religion!
So lets recap - beliefs change, the written word changes, ideas change, interpretations change. But it's all true. Because I say it's true.
Religion!
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,070
@442,063 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
> Often they write off the horrific descriptions of the torture awaiting people in Hell as metaphorical or not to be taken literally.
Another issue with religion, how easily things can be written off as metaphor when convinient. The stuff in Leviticus about homosexuality is supposedly an important, very clear part of Christian dogma, yet quite a few Christians these days are willing to campaign for homosexuality, and some "practicing" homosexuals are still Christians. And then there's the thing in the Old Testament about sacrificing a pigeon whenever a woman has her period, but you don't hear of anybody doing that. It shows that supposedly concrete mandates are just selectively ignored or twisted by the followers as their culture changes.
@442,064 (A)
So the beliefs aren't objectively true, then? If they're changing, then surely they are just a product of human culture, and not some objective truth?
@442,067 (A)
So you just cherrypick, essentially? Then why is the bible necessary at all? We can teach people to be nice to their fellow humans without it. We can teach any good things that it happens to promote without it.
> Often they write off the horrific descriptions of the torture awaiting people in Hell as metaphorical or not to be taken literally.
Another issue with religion, how easily things can be written off as metaphor when convinient. The stuff in Leviticus about homosexuality is supposedly an important, very clear part of Christian dogma, yet quite a few Christians these days are willing to campaign for homosexuality, and some "practicing" homosexuals are still Christians. And then there's the thing in the Old Testament about sacrificing a pigeon whenever a woman has her period, but you don't hear of anybody doing that. It shows that supposedly concrete mandates are just selectively ignored or twisted by the followers as their culture changes.
@442,064 (A)
So the beliefs aren't objectively true, then? If they're changing, then surely they are just a product of human culture, and not some objective truth?
@442,067 (A)
So you just cherrypick, essentially? Then why is the bible necessary at all? We can teach people to be nice to their fellow humans without it. We can teach any good things that it happens to promote without it.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,071
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,073
"A Gallup poll conducted in 2011 found that 60% of Icelanders considered religion to be unimportant in their daily lives, one of the highest rates of irreligion in the world"
"The second largest religion after Christianity is Germanic Heathenism"
Now that sounds like a blast.
"The second largest religion after Christianity is Germanic Heathenism"
Now that sounds like a blast.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,074
@442,070 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Its not like i am picking anything by choice, its just that somethings i cannot pick up. What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about. And i am guessing
that changing the story in a way that they feel they are making it up (i know its ironic) is taboo for them.
I have a belief i consider objectively true, people should not harm each other. I have no evidence for is, but either way, if that makes it subjectively true, is it any less true?
Its not like i am picking anything by choice, its just that somethings i cannot pick up. What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about. And i am guessing
that changing the story in a way that they feel they are making it up (i know its ironic) is taboo for them.
I have a belief i consider objectively true, people should not harm each other. I have no evidence for is, but either way, if that makes it subjectively true, is it any less true?
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,075
@previous (A)
You're the same guy who tried this argument before, I remember you. You couldn't grasp how objective and subjective made a world of difference in science. You've learned nothing.
You're the same guy who tried this argument before, I remember you. You couldn't grasp how objective and subjective made a world of difference in science. You've learned nothing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,076
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,077
@442,074 (A)
> What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about.
Apparently 40% or less.
> What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about.
Apparently 40% or less.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,078
@442,076 (A)
No, that's a lie. I was in on that conversation.
You were floundering around trying to disguise the same argument over and over. It ended with the general consensus that you have no idea how to tell the difference between objective and subjective and you refused all evidence given you. I think you get these grand ideals in your head and can't handle any proof to the contrary. You come off as something of a narcissist, both then and now.
No, that's a lie. I was in on that conversation.
You were floundering around trying to disguise the same argument over and over. It ended with the general consensus that you have no idea how to tell the difference between objective and subjective and you refused all evidence given you. I think you get these grand ideals in your head and can't handle any proof to the contrary. You come off as something of a narcissist, both then and now.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,079
@442,077 (G)
thats weird. Because in the polls the majority wanted the teachings to stay. It was a reason the leftists cancelled their plans on an election about it.
thats weird. Because in the polls the majority wanted the teachings to stay. It was a reason the leftists cancelled their plans on an election about it.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,080
@442,074 (A)
> What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about.
That does not make it okay. Relgion is a peronal thing, so it should be taught on a personal basis, not a public one.
> have a belief i consider objectively true, people should not harm each other. I have no evidence for is, but either way, if that makes it subjectively true, is it any less true?
But we can see that this has real, tangible benefits. To take a bit of an evolutionary view, in not harming people, I am involed in fewer conflicts and thus have less chance of becoming injured in some way. I also do not create any rivalries with any individuals or groups, again benefiting myself. In our society, it does not usually benefit one to hurt others.
Also, there is a strong neurological basis for not harming others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis
But moving away from empathy, the bible says a lot of things, not all of them as testable or as morally good as empathy. Can water be transmuted into wine? Should we force rape victims to live with their rapist and raise the child together? It's not right to just cherrypick the good parts, since it's all being purported as true. If you're just cherrypicking the good parts out of the bible then, relly, what is the point of the bible? There is no reason for relgion to have some monopoly on good morals.
> What you dont understand is that to many parents for example in my country, God is a important thing to learn about.
That does not make it okay. Relgion is a peronal thing, so it should be taught on a personal basis, not a public one.
> have a belief i consider objectively true, people should not harm each other. I have no evidence for is, but either way, if that makes it subjectively true, is it any less true?
But we can see that this has real, tangible benefits. To take a bit of an evolutionary view, in not harming people, I am involed in fewer conflicts and thus have less chance of becoming injured in some way. I also do not create any rivalries with any individuals or groups, again benefiting myself. In our society, it does not usually benefit one to hurt others.
Also, there is a strong neurological basis for not harming others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Neurological_basis
But moving away from empathy, the bible says a lot of things, not all of them as testable or as morally good as empathy. Can water be transmuted into wine? Should we force rape victims to live with their rapist and raise the child together? It's not right to just cherrypick the good parts, since it's all being purported as true. If you're just cherrypicking the good parts out of the bible then, relly, what is the point of the bible? There is no reason for relgion to have some monopoly on good morals.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,081
@442,078 (G)
okay if you say so. Anyway the vast majority of atheists believe its the truth that people should not be cruel to one another. Yet this is a opinion, not a fact. If you believe an opinion to be truthful, you believe in a truth without evidence.
okay if you say so. Anyway the vast majority of atheists believe its the truth that people should not be cruel to one another. Yet this is a opinion, not a fact. If you believe an opinion to be truthful, you believe in a truth without evidence.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,082
@442,079 (A)
Because all you want to see is what you believe, you don't want truth. Don't kid yourself.
Because all you want to see is what you believe, you don't want truth. Don't kid yourself.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,083
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,084
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,085
@442,080 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> That does not make it okay
It is harming nobody, the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
> But we can see that this has real, tangible benefits. To take a bit of an evolutionary view, in not harming people, I am involed in fewer conflicts and thus have less chance of becoming injured in some way. I also do not create any rivalries with any individuals or groups, again benefiting myself. In our society, it does not usually benefit one to hurt others.
it doesn't matter that we have evolved to have those beliefs, they are still beliefs without evidence. To someone who wants all of humans to die, and he knows of a way that benefits his will, does it make it proven he should do it? No.
> That does not make it okay
It is harming nobody, the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
> But we can see that this has real, tangible benefits. To take a bit of an evolutionary view, in not harming people, I am involed in fewer conflicts and thus have less chance of becoming injured in some way. I also do not create any rivalries with any individuals or groups, again benefiting myself. In our society, it does not usually benefit one to hurt others.
it doesn't matter that we have evolved to have those beliefs, they are still beliefs without evidence. To someone who wants all of humans to die, and he knows of a way that benefits his will, does it make it proven he should do it? No.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,086
@442,083 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
A person ended up saying that morality could not be proven true or that its not a objective truth. And he seemed to not disagree when i said that the vast majority of atheists believe in morality
A person ended up saying that morality could not be proven true or that its not a objective truth. And he seemed to not disagree when i said that the vast majority of atheists believe in morality
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,087
@442,085 (A)
> >That does not make it okay
>
> It is harming nobody, the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
>
Less than 40% where you live, not a majority.
> >That does not make it okay
>
> It is harming nobody, the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
>
Less than 40% where you live, not a majority.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,088
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,089
@442,085 (A)
> the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
As I already said, popular opinion does not make something right. Teaching relgion really should be the domain of the church, not the public school system. Just why can't a Christian parent take their kids to church if they want their children to be Christians, hmmm?
> it doesn't matter that we have evolved to have those beliefs, they are still beliefs without evidence.
No. Remember, I said tangible benefits. In not hurting people indiscriminately and generally not hurting people, I benefit. This is evidence.
> the people are happy about it and want it to stay. It is the definition of OKAY.
As I already said, popular opinion does not make something right. Teaching relgion really should be the domain of the church, not the public school system. Just why can't a Christian parent take their kids to church if they want their children to be Christians, hmmm?
> it doesn't matter that we have evolved to have those beliefs, they are still beliefs without evidence.
No. Remember, I said tangible benefits. In not hurting people indiscriminately and generally not hurting people, I benefit. This is evidence.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,090
@442,087 (G)
You have a link? Because i was under the impression that in the polls, the majority wanted it to stay.
@442,088 (G)
oh come on. Personally attacking me now? Somehow because i did not go to collage what i say has no value? That is not a very scientific way of thinking at all but a pathetic one.
You have a link? Because i was under the impression that in the polls, the majority wanted it to stay.
@442,088 (G)
oh come on. Personally attacking me now? Somehow because i did not go to collage what i say has no value? That is not a very scientific way of thinking at all but a pathetic one.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,091
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,092
@442,089 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Because you see people don't really want to go to church. But they still want the teachings to live on. Having it in school is a way of doing that and has been a way of doing that for a long time. Religion is an idea, you said so yourself, it should not get any special treatments.
Because you see people don't really want to go to church. But they still want the teachings to live on. Having it in school is a way of doing that and has been a way of doing that for a long time. Religion is an idea, you said so yourself, it should not get any special treatments.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,093
@442,091 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No i don't feel like going all the way back there and look for it so we can argue about that.
No i don't feel like going all the way back there and look for it so we can argue about that.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,094
@442,090 (A)
Gallup poll, you can look it up.
I'm not attacking you for your lack of education. I'm not attacking you at all. It does make debate difficult because you refuse any viable counter to your argument. It's like debating with a 2-year old.
Lol, it IS scientific actually. A theory has been made based off a fact. We're one step closer to the truth!
Gallup poll, you can look it up.
I'm not attacking you for your lack of education. I'm not attacking you at all. It does make debate difficult because you refuse any viable counter to your argument. It's like debating with a 2-year old.
Lol, it IS scientific actually. A theory has been made based off a fact. We're one step closer to the truth!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,095
@442,089 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
When you say you benefit you mean it helps your survival yes? Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
When you say you benefit you mean it helps your survival yes? Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,096
@442,092 (A)
But aren't Christians supposed to go to church? Why should school have to shoulder the teaching of religion is the religious people are too lazy to attend their own palces of worship? And again, a chruch is much more qualified than a school to teach people about relgion.
But aren't Christians supposed to go to church? Why should school have to shoulder the teaching of religion is the religious people are too lazy to attend their own palces of worship? And again, a chruch is much more qualified than a school to teach people about relgion.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,097
@442,094 (G)
Then why did you even bring it up at all? And to be honest i feel the exact same way about you.
Then why did you even bring it up at all? And to be honest i feel the exact same way about you.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,098
@previous (A)
Because it refutes your delusion.
How about you offer some kind of proof beside "I just know it's true because I feel it?"
Lol
Because it refutes your delusion.
How about you offer some kind of proof beside "I just know it's true because I feel it?"
Lol
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,099
@442,096 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Well they probably are supposed to but you see you can't seriously say that oh we won't allow you to teach your ideas in school because your religion forbids it I mean i thought that went against everything you stand for
Well they probably are supposed to but you see you can't seriously say that oh we won't allow you to teach your ideas in school because your religion forbids it I mean i thought that went against everything you stand for
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,100
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,101
@442,095 (A)
> Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
Yes there is. We have the built-in urge to reproduce and look after our young, hence the urge to survive. We are sensetive to the sensations and concepts of pain and pleasure, so we act in ways that reduce pain and, where possible, inducing pleasure.
> Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
Yes there is. We have the built-in urge to reproduce and look after our young, hence the urge to survive. We are sensetive to the sensations and concepts of pain and pleasure, so we act in ways that reduce pain and, where possible, inducing pleasure.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,102
So what about those other things that people do, killing raping and everything of that sort, is that nothing biological?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 11 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,103
@442,099 (A)Relgion does not forbid itself being taught in schools, churches are simply the proper place for it. I would not demand that churches teach science and maths either.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,104
@442,102 (A)
Depends. Could be due to a bad upbringing or biological factors. Nature and nurture can both factor in.
Depends. Could be due to a bad upbringing or biological factors. Nature and nurture can both factor in.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,105
@442,103 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It should not be allowed for people to learn things in places that are not proper to learn those things even though it does not harm anyone and all the parents of the children learning allowed them to learn there?
also this was suppose to be directed at you @442,102 (A)
It should not be allowed for people to learn things in places that are not proper to learn those things even though it does not harm anyone and all the parents of the children learning allowed them to learn there?
also this was suppose to be directed at you @442,102 (A)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,106
@442,104 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
So if a person did not have the urges to allow others to live, then there is no evidence that he should allow other people to live?
So if a person did not have the urges to allow others to live, then there is no evidence that he should allow other people to live?
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,107
It's called primal instinct.
This is why it's hard to debate with you, you simply don't know and have to be told the most basic of things, which you then try to turn around and argue. It's a lost cause.
> > Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
This is why it's hard to debate with you, you simply don't know and have to be told the most basic of things, which you then try to turn around and argue. It's a lost cause.
> > Well guess what there is no evidence that people should survive or do things that help them survive
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,108
@442,105 (A)
You're missing my point. Christianity, a specific relgion, does not belong in a public setting. Yes people can opt out, but they shouldn't really have it hoisted upon them on the first place. It should be a purely optional thing, handled by the people whose job it is to preach it (the church, obviously).
And you've yet to give a good reason why Christians who are too lazy to attend chruch should expect the school to teach their kids about their religion instead. If you can't be bothered to participate in your relgion, then why should an institution outside of your religion do the work for you?
You're missing my point. Christianity, a specific relgion, does not belong in a public setting. Yes people can opt out, but they shouldn't really have it hoisted upon them on the first place. It should be a purely optional thing, handled by the people whose job it is to preach it (the church, obviously).
And you've yet to give a good reason why Christians who are too lazy to attend chruch should expect the school to teach their kids about their religion instead. If you can't be bothered to participate in your relgion, then why should an institution outside of your religion do the work for you?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,109
@442,107 (G)
It sounds a bit pseudoscience you know? Because Its a fact that people kill everyday, yet its also a fact that the people who did it should not have done it?
that is amazing that suddenly we have truths that contradict each other.
It sounds a bit pseudoscience you know? Because Its a fact that people kill everyday, yet its also a fact that the people who did it should not have done it?
that is amazing that suddenly we have truths that contradict each other.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,110
@442,108 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You are missing the point. The people who have there children learn there disagree with you and its just your words against theirs.
Its called freedom of religion, people can have their own way of practicing religion and if they want to be lazy, then that's fine. The church in my country is not against this at all. So you see this is a part of their religion and how they learn it.
You are missing the point. The people who have there children learn there disagree with you and its just your words against theirs.
Its called freedom of religion, people can have their own way of practicing religion and if they want to be lazy, then that's fine. The church in my country is not against this at all. So you see this is a part of their religion and how they learn it.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,111
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,112
So now you are in a world where whatever happens in that world, it possibly should not have happened scientifically. So its like you are living in a supernatural world. Kind of funny.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,113
@previous (A)
"Many Icelanders, for example, still believe in elves, trolls, and other figures in the mythical landscape of the Norse past"
"Many Icelanders, for example, still believe in elves, trolls, and other figures in the mythical landscape of the Norse past"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,115
@previous (G)
oh i see, so now this was supposed to be a insult to my country? Well done G. You have proven your amazing ability to convince people and argue.
oh i see, so now this was supposed to be a insult to my country? Well done G. You have proven your amazing ability to convince people and argue.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,116
@442,110 (A)
No, it's not a case of my word against theirs. I am putting forward a better argument, saying that religious institutions should be handling the teaching of religion and not the non-religious ones. That just makes sense.
And how is it freedom of religion to force a public service to teach religion because you are too lazy to do so yourself?
No, it's not a case of my word against theirs. I am putting forward a better argument, saying that religious institutions should be handling the teaching of religion and not the non-religious ones. That just makes sense.
And how is it freedom of religion to force a public service to teach religion because you are too lazy to do so yourself?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,118
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,119
@442,112 (A)
"School is required between the ages of seven and fifteen, and all levels of education, including college, are free."
Go to school.
Btw, you lied about not being able to afford it (see previous argument in thread from several weeks ago)
"School is required between the ages of seven and fifteen, and all levels of education, including college, are free."
Go to school.
Btw, you lied about not being able to afford it (see previous argument in thread from several weeks ago)
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,120
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,121
@442,116 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Still your word against theirs, they say its not a non religious one. I might as well say that art should be handled by free available art learning centers but not the school.
Again, you mention laziness again. Have you ever been poor? how poor? Have you been so poor that your single parent came home exhausted from all of her jobs and barley has the energy to make dinner? Well many people have
been so poor and this is why they are considering abolishing homework.
Still your word against theirs, they say its not a non religious one. I might as well say that art should be handled by free available art learning centers but not the school.
Again, you mention laziness again. Have you ever been poor? how poor? Have you been so poor that your single parent came home exhausted from all of her jobs and barley has the energy to make dinner? Well many people have
been so poor and this is why they are considering abolishing homework.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,122
"The General Penal Code protects religious practice by establishing fines and imprisonment for up to three months for those who publicly deride or belittle the religious doctrines or the worship of a lawful religious association active in the country. The General Penal Code also establishes penalties of fines and up to two years in prison for verbal or physical assault on an individual or group based on religion."
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,123
@442,121 (A)
Lol, yeah that's smart. hell, get rid of learning altogether. The trolls and Jesus will guide you.
Lol, yeah that's smart. hell, get rid of learning altogether. The trolls and Jesus will guide you.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,124
"The law states that parents control the religious affiliation of their children until the children reach the age of 16. Changes in religious affiliation of children under age 16 require the consent of both parents if they both have custody; if only one parent has custody, then the consent of the noncustodial parent is not required. However, the Law on Registered Religious Organizations requires that parents consult their children about any changes children want in their affiliation after the age of 12, and such changes require the requesting children's signature"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,125
@442,119 (G)
I never said i could not afford it. I made an example that if you judged people based on their level of education you would end up judging people based on poverty. Anyway i don't think school is a option that is available to me. I mean i worked all month full time and yet my money has vanished. Its all gone.
I never said i could not afford it. I made an example that if you judged people based on their level of education you would end up judging people based on poverty. Anyway i don't think school is a option that is available to me. I mean i worked all month full time and yet my money has vanished. Its all gone.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,126
"The law also mandates that general teaching practices be shaped by "the Christian heritage of Icelandic culture, equality, responsibility, concern, tolerance, and respect for human value." The compulsory curriculum for Christianity, ethics, and theology does, however, suggest a multicultural approach to religious education and places an emphasis on teaching a variety of beliefs."
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,127
@442,125 (A)
No, you lied and said you were too poor. You are not a very nice person.
Education is free in your country.
No, you lied and said you were too poor. You are not a very nice person.
Education is free in your country.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,128
@442,122 (G)
Yeah old laws still exist. Nobody really follows them.
This one time in a important religious holiday it was forbidden to play games. The atheists protested by going next to the church and play bingo
Yeah old laws still exist. Nobody really follows them.
This one time in a important religious holiday it was forbidden to play games. The atheists protested by going next to the church and play bingo
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,129
"The Ministry of the Interior rejected the registration of three religious organizations. The applications of The Reborn Christian Church of God (Endurfaedd kristin kirkja af Gudi) and The Buddhist Association of the Diamond Way of the Karma Lineage were rejected on the grounds that their core memberships were too small. The third organization was rejected because it was not a religious organization as defined in the law."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,130
@442,127 (G)
no i didn't plus. Its nor free http://www.ru.is/skolagjold
trnalsate it with google translate
no i didn't plus. Its nor free http://www.ru.is/skolagjold
trnalsate it with google translate
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 59 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,131
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,132
"At the end of the year, approximately 1,550 persons remained members of a Facebook group to protest the construction of a mosque in the country. The group organizers claimed terrorist activities often appear to originate in mosques, and preventing the construction of a mosque is therefore a security issue.
On September 22, the chairperson of Reykjavik's welfare committee, Bjork Vilhelmsdottir, posted the phrase "Jewnited States" on her personal Facebook account in response to a statement by the United States that it would veto any majority ruling in the UN granting Palestine statehood. During an interview, Vilhelmsdottir, who is married to the head of the Iceland-Palestine Society, stated "The Jews control Congress and the White House," and "the U.S. has used this veto power in the UN 47 times regarding Israel." Vilhelmsdottir removed the Facebook post after learning hate groups use the term usually in reference to the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy."
On September 22, the chairperson of Reykjavik's welfare committee, Bjork Vilhelmsdottir, posted the phrase "Jewnited States" on her personal Facebook account in response to a statement by the United States that it would veto any majority ruling in the UN granting Palestine statehood. During an interview, Vilhelmsdottir, who is married to the head of the Iceland-Palestine Society, stated "The Jews control Congress and the White House," and "the U.S. has used this veto power in the UN 47 times regarding Israel." Vilhelmsdottir removed the Facebook post after learning hate groups use the term usually in reference to the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,133
@previous (G)
okay okay G, Iceland might not seem like such a innocent country. But i bet its more innocent then yours!
okay okay G, Iceland might not seem like such a innocent country. But i bet its more innocent then yours!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #442,134
Seems they forgot "religion"
"Higher Education Institution Act No. 63/2006
(Draft translation)
Chapter I
Scope of the Act
Role of Higher Education Institutions. Article 1
This Act applies to educational institutions providing higher education leading to a degree and which have been accredited by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, cf. Article 3of this Act.
Article 2
A Higher Education Institution is an independent educational institution which conducts teaching, research, preservation and search for knowledge, and creativity in the fields of science, education, technology or arts."
"Higher Education Institution Act No. 63/2006
(Draft translation)
Chapter I
Scope of the Act
Role of Higher Education Institutions. Article 1
This Act applies to educational institutions providing higher education leading to a degree and which have been accredited by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, cf. Article 3of this Act.
Article 2
A Higher Education Institution is an independent educational institution which conducts teaching, research, preservation and search for knowledge, and creativity in the fields of science, education, technology or arts."