(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: You can't be serious about this can you? It doesn't take much awareness at all to be aware that the public school system is a bastion of secular indoctrination. Your response on this matter cannot be taken seriously at all...therefore I won't

Darwinian is English, as am I. Our public school system is highly religious, and not secular. I challenge your use of the term "secular indoctrination" which sounds absurd. You do realise secularism is the only defined method for any system to be truly equal? Secularism =/= atheism.

Your final sentence (as well as you colouring your responses) reminds me of another theist we have here. I hope this isn't some kind of multiple account, but to address your final sentence, it is illogical, not to mention rude, to deem something "unserious" and refuse to make a response to it. Unless you explain why it isn't serious, how to expect to have an honest discussion?

Quote:So you're seriously trying to tell us that the fathers of scientific thought and research are less significant and have less impact on shaping world history than those who came after them benefited off of their work? Wow! Anything to perpetuate a myth I suppose

We're talking about science here. The father of modern science is Galileo Galilei, a guy who was tried for heresy after telling the church the truth. To deny that the church, and Christianity in general has a long history of being anti-science is more of a delusion than anything you've accused us of.

(March 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Re, education. We have more than our fair share of faith schools here in the U.K. ramming their ideology down our childrens throats, I should know as I had to send my children to them.

Also, why on earth did you think I was dismissing the achievements of the scientists you mentioned? I was merely pointing out why they all seem to be christian. If they had been born into todays society I doubt if they would be. You only have to look at the current crop of the worlds leading scientists to realise that.

Please get serious!!
The UK is slowly fading into utter darkness and gloom ...you need more Christianity not less! The less influence Christianity has in Britain the more it's going to the dogs....can't you hear the sound of the toilet flushing?
Maybe not because the sound of that other cesspool being flushed on the other side of the channel is probably a distraction!

The further they move away from Christ the more England and France are becoming modern wastelands with only a faint lingering reminder of their former greatness!
Sorry sad but true

You sound like the kind of religious nutjob who would have us all living in a theocracy given half the chance, having archaic iron age laws imposed upon us.

Quote:We're talking about science here. The father of modern science is Galileo Galilei, a guy who was tried for heresy after telling the church the truth. To deny that the church, and Christianity in general has a long history of being anti-science is more of a delusion than anything you've accused us of.

I understand why you would think that but....
You should probably read the correct history of what happened to Galileo and why...obviously you've been spoon fed with a big dose of atheist disinformation and lies on this topic.

Don't feel bad, it's typical because most of you have

And what really happened to Galileo then oh wise purveyor of knowledge and wisdom? Do please enlighten us poor ignorant fools!

(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: You can't be serious about this can you? It doesn't take much awareness at all to be aware that the public school system is a bastion of secular indoctrination. Your response on this matter cannot be taken seriously at all...therefore I won't

Secular indoctrination. Think about what you just said. You want religious indoctrination? Take the kids to a fucking church. A school is not for proselytizing, it's about learning about the world around us shown through evidence. Christians, in my country at least (USA), generally aren't against education that they can spin into being about God. The flipside of that is when someone challenges the wildly inaccurate claims of the Bible and answers questions without including an unknown and unknowable creator, that's when arms get raised. It's a serious double standard.

(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: So you're seriously trying to tell us that the fathers of scientific thought and research are less significant and have less impact on shaping world history than those who came after them benefited off of their work? Wow! Anything to perpetuate a myth I suppose

It's not perpetuating a myth, it's the fact that the religion had enormous social and political control. It's the same kind of thinking that prohibits cartoonists from portraying the prophet Muhammad. They don't want a million religious yahoos inciting a holy war and going after them for heresy. It's always easier to stay under the radar and not rattle the cages. There's also a reason why there were more secular thinkers after the enlightenment, and a good reason why most scientists currently do not associate with religion or belief in god or gods.

(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: Christian theologians, almost without exception accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it. The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington Irving.The 19th-century American writer Washington Irving was actually the first major promulgator of the flat-earth myth. In his very unreliable biography of Columbus, titled History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that it was the flat-earth believing churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.
[/color]
Cahill, T., Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe, Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, New York, p. 224, 2006.

Yes, creation.com has a lot of text that you can cut and paste.

http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism

(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: In fact, those who opposed Columbus not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a good idea of how large it was—and this was the major reason why they opposed Columbus. Columbus and his men were not afraid of falling off the earth as Irving claimed, but of traveling so far from land in an unknown part of the world. They did not know the American continent existed, and, for this reason, Columbus’ critics correctly believed that a voyage to the Far East would take far too long and cost way too much.

They had a good idea of how large it was, but did not know that two entire continents existed. I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Did Christians come up with the heliocentric concept or something?

(March 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: You've made plans for next week, next month and next year based on a future you can't see and thing called time that only exists as a concept and you actually believe you're pragmatic?

You guys claim to "believe" in science and then patently ignore the basic law of cause and effect and you still have the gall to call yourselves scientific or even educated?

That's not even intelligent!!!

Wow! I've never heard such a great case! You should run for office, man. You need to get your word out there. Those are some G-REAT points.

...Just forgetting a minor detail that we plan our lives based on our own experiences and the experiences of others, predicted beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt by scientific means and deductive reasoning, and NOT by simply wishful thinking.

I'm also guessing the "cause and effect" argument would be the first cause, or cosmological argument. I'd urge you to stop looking for answers in genesis, join the real world, and understand why that argument is so full of holes you could call it swiss cheese. You make the claim that scientists have a universe without a cause, then you answer that non-question with a creator, more complex that the universe wit no evidence to support it, and guess what, it doesn't have a cause either.

Have you ever considered that causality and time did not exist "prior" to the Big Bang? Why would you assume that the laws of nature existed?

Explain some more, because apparently I'm not that intelligent.

(March 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm)Darwinian Wrote: You sound like the kind of religious nutjob who would have us all living in a theocracy given half the chance, having archaic iron age laws imposed upon us.

If Christians wanted a theocracy we would have accomplished that a long time ago!
You should really be thanking the God you don't believe in and being thankful we believe in a God who compels us to allow you to say anything you want.

By the way your iron age was under that well known atheist Joseph Stalin, that's a historical fact and reality not an atheist fantasy

You should probably keep in mind that an atheists idea of Utopia were the USSR and Red China, not too good an example for what you guys BELIEVE, not too good at all!!

(March 9, 2010 at 4:17 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote:

(March 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm)Darwinian Wrote: You sound like the kind of religious nutjob who would have us all living in a theocracy given half the chance, having archaic iron age laws imposed upon us.

If Christians wanted a theocracy we would have accomplished that a long time ago!
You should really be thanking the God you don't believe in and being thankful we believe in a God who compels us to allow you to say anything you want.

By the way your iron age was under that well known atheist Joseph Stalin, that's a historical fact and reality not an atheist fantasy

You should probably keep in mind that an atheists idea of Utopia were the USSR and Red China, not too good an example for what you guys BELIEVE, not too good at all!!

Oh, you're a troll.

Sorry about all that then.

Kent Hovind FTW!

(March 9, 2010 at 4:17 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: You should probably keep in mind that an atheists idea of Utopia were the USSR and Red China, not too good an example for what you guys BELIEVE, not too good at all!!

Erm...no. The USSR and China are probably the countries I'd least want to live in. My idea of Utopia is a secular place where the government does not have any official stance on religion, and where people from different religions can work together to create a community.

By the way, you still haven't told us the "truth" behind Galileo.

Yes of course he's a troll. Should have spotted that sooner really but was too incredulous that someone could be that deluded :S

Well done Tav

No more trolling please bibleabc123 or you'll be invited to leave.