Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…3233353738…106

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Didn't realise you were in favour of banning religious expression, seeing as you are on record claiming to be a secularist.

    The problem for you now is that one of the two things mentioned above must be false. Have fun in the quicksand :P
    I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.


  • Options
    #1023
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    INAPPROPRIATE PROSE DELETED
    None of that, please. Or cards will be ladled out with a ferocity that would leave even the biggest deities of the Old Testament shivering in their brutal, blood-stained sandals.


  • Options
    #1024
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.

    but you just said a secularist state bans religious expression. If you're a secularist then you must support such a ban by your own definition.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1025
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Seriously, can a mod or an admin request JC stops bolding words in every sentence its getting to a stage where his posts are physically hurt my eyes. I have asked him nicely before and he did cut down but he seems to be slipping back into his old ways again.
    I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)


  • Options
    #1026
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    2 Peter 3: "the christian god will come back, could take thousands and thousands of years, but I promise he'll come back, just trust me on this."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    but you just said a secularist state bans religious expression. If you're a secularist then you must support such a ban by your own definition.
    ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
    Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.


  • Options
    #1028
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)

    No it's definitely your random bolding of words. If it helps I'll put it to you this way. You are causing me physical pain and you are doing it on purpose. Surely causing another human being physical pain for no reason other than your own pleasure is a sin? Why do you continue to sin and torture me?


  • Options
    #1029
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
    Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.

    Oh sweet baby whathisface :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1030
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I'll try to stop embolding ... but I somehow doubt that it's my emphasis that is causing you such grief.;)
    Well, randomly bolding random bits and pieces of your posts make them look like they have the pox -- your call on whether that's the effect you wish to achieve.

    Doubly so for inappropriate smilies.


  • Options
    #1031
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... only illiberal totalitarian secular states ban religious expression.
    Liberal secular states have the potential to be amongst the most tolerant of states.

    so much wrong:pac: Please, JC, put down the shovel :P
    A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion

    Ergo, a secular state cannot ban religious expression. Do take a minute to absorb this data (again. Like really try to let it sink in.) before posting more specious nonsense.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    No it's definitely your random bolding of words. If it helps I'll put it to you this way. You are causing me physical pain and you are doing it on purpose. Surely causing another human being physical pain for no reason other than your own pleasure is a sin? Why do you continue to sin and torture me?
    My embolding is deliberate emphasis (nothing else) ... but if it's causing you physical pain I'll try to remember to not do so.


  • Options
    #1033
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,167 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a Liberal Secularist ... and I believe that the expression of all religions and none should be respected by the state.

    You've just shown that you don't know the meaning of secular.

    To wit:
    J C wrote: »
    North Korea is a Secular State in which the expression of all religion is banned ... and now you appear to be calling on the Boards to 'follow suit' and ban me for expressing my faith.

    Seeing how much you proselytize, you aren't liberal, either.


  • Options
    #1034
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    quote:-
    A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion

    Ergo, a secular state cannot ban religious expression. Do take a minute to absorb this data (again. Like really try to let it sink in.) before posting more specious nonsense.
    ... so religion can be expressed in school ... and in public ... and in private (where children are concerned) in a Liberal Secular State ... just like I have always said.


  • Options
    #1035
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so religion can be expressed in school ... and in public ... and in private (where children are concerned) in a Liberal Secular State ... just like I have always said.

    Nope. You want religious creation stories made part of the science lesson. This is totally against the spirit of a secular state. So not at all like you said.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1036
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Seeing how much you proselytize, you aren't liberal, either.
    Liberals (of all kinds) proselytize their liberalism all over the place ... and if they are true liberals they tolerate the proselytizing of other liberals ... even ones with whom they disagree.


  • Options
    #1037
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Nope. You want religious creation stories made part of the science lesson. This is totally against the spirit of a secular state. So not at all like you said.
    Religion can either be allowed to be expressed or not.

    You say not ... so you are illiberal and intolerant towards those with whom you disagree.

    I am a liberal ... and I support the free expression of all religions and none.


  • Options
    #1038
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    There's a bit of a leap from allowing religion to be expressed, and teaching religious beliefs as science. A leap that might be a little too much for a secular state or education system. Even a liberal one.


  • Options
    #1039
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Religion can either be allowed to be expressed or not.
    Good to see you agree that creationism is religion.
    You say not ... so you are illiberal and intolerant towards those with whom you disagree.
    Incorrect. I said that religion shouldn't be taught in the science class. It's disappointing that a self-professed scientist disagrees with that. Worse yet, one that claims to be a secularist.
    I am a liberal ... and I support the free expression of all religions and none.
    What has that to do with teaching science?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1040
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    J C wrote: »
    {...}

    ... and I have no problem discussing Darwin 'keeping it in the family' by marrying his first cousin.:)

    This is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. You constantly bleat about being the subject of them, yet don't hesitate to use them yourself. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1041
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    This is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. You constantly bleat about being the subject of them, yet don't hesitate to use them yourself. :rolleyes:

    On the evidence of his interpretation of 'ad hominem' and 'liberal' I'm going to assume J C is using a different dictionary from the rest of us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Religion can either be allowed to be expressed or not.

    You say not ... so you are illiberal and intolerant towards those with whom you disagree.

    I am a liberal ... and I support the free expression of all religions and none.

    How would you feel if church services had to be interrupted that the genesis account of creation is inaccurate because science says so? Or if it couldn't be mentioned at all due to science disagreeing with it? I'm not religious and I'd consider that unacceptable. Same goes for religion in science classrooms.


  • Options
    #1043
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    A spot of name calling and an adhominem ... you guys really do need to 'lift your game'!!!:)

    JC every time Ham opens his mouth on creationism he tells a lie. That is not either name calling or ad hom (which I see you don't know how to spell).

    And regarding saying you didn't pass the 11+, given the lack of correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, complete lack of understanding of any branch of science, or ability to absorb information and learn from that information, I am simply making an educated guess supported by the evidence provided. So I am not making an ad hom nor am I calling names.


  • Options
    #1044
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    There's a bit of a leap from allowing religion to be expressed, and teaching religious beliefs as science. A leap that might be a little too much for a secular state or education system. Even a liberal one.
    Teach religious beliefs (including irreligious beliefs) in religion class ... and science (of whatever type) in science class.


  • Options
    #1045
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Teach religious beliefs (including irreligious beliefs) in religion class ... and science (of whatever type) in science class.

    And yet you advocate teaching religious belief (creationism) in the science class.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1046
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    How would you feel if church services had to be interrupted that the genesis account of creation is inaccurate because science says so? Or if it couldn't be mentioned at all due to science disagreeing with it? I'm not religious and I'd consider that unacceptable. Same goes for religion in science classrooms.
    ... but you guys are proposing that faith expression be banned totally from school (and not just in science class).
    The correct analogy to interrupting a church service on genesis would be interrupting a science lecture on spontaneous evolution.

    However, it is quite acceptable to discuss alternatives to the Genesis Account of Creation ... just like discussing alternatives to Abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution is also accepatable ... questioning is the way that both faith and science progresses.:)


  • Options
    #1047
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... but you guys are proposing that faith expression be banned totally from school (and not just in science class).
    I'm happy for religion to be taught in schools that are paid for by those religions. If a secular state is paying for the education, then religious indoctrination should form no part of it.
    However, it is quite acceptable to discuss alternatives to the Genesis Account of Creation ...
    ...such as the Hindu account of creation?


  • Options
    #1048
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... but you guys are proposing that faith expression be banned totally from school (and not just in science class).
    The correct analogy to interrupting a church service on genesis would be interrupting a science lecture evolution.
    I don't propose banning religion from schools. I'd be okay with a religion class that touches on all of the major groups in schools. Not okay with it permeating other subjects though.
    However, it is quite acceptable to discuss alternatives to the Genesis Account of Creation ... just like discussing alternatives to Abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution is also accepatable ... questioning is the way that both faith and science progresses.:)
    Of course. A religion class would touch on Genesis as Christianity would be one of the religions that's part of the study plan.

    Likewise students should be able to discuss evolution in the science class.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1049
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    And yet you advocate teaching religious belief (creationism) in the science class.
    Creationism is based on Theism ... just like Materialistic Evolutionism is based on Atheism.

    ... so, if you take your idea that anything based on religious/irreligious beliefs cannot be taught/studied by science we will have very little (within origins research) that science can study/teach.

    Origins research is where religion/irreligion meet ... and with very divergent beliefs underpinning both approaches.

    The emotion felt by both sides on the origins debate is indicative of deeper issues at stake than with operative science and its objective observations and methods.
    For example, neither of us will get very emotional about measuring the speed of cars using radar or the scientific methods underpinning it ... yet we have whole threads ... and hours of emotive debate over the 'origins' issue ... and some very emotional outbursts on the merits of the scientific underpinnings of each worldview.
    This is indicative of religious/irreligious issues being involved in the debate and mixed in with the science (on both sides).


  • Options
    #1050
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm happy for religion to be taught in schools that are paid for by those religions. If a secular state is paying for the education, then religious indoctrination should form no part of it.
    In a Secular State where 90% of the taxpayers are Christian ... (and with 90% of the States revenues coming from Christians) I see no problem (and every reason) that such taxes could be used to fund schools set up by Christians to educate their children.
    ... as well as being used to subsidise irreligious schools for anybody who wishes to send their children to such schools also.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Creationism is based on Theism ... just like Materialistic Evolutionism is based on Atheism.
    Creationism is based on the bible, evolution is a result of scientific inquiry. Two very different things.
    ... so, if you take your idea that anything based on religious/irreligious beliefs cannot be taught/studied by science we will have very little (within origins research) that science can study/teach.
    Only if someone has difficulty understanding that evolution isn't tied to a religious/irreligious ideology. People of all religions and none accept evolution so that puts a pin in that bubble you floated.
    Origins research is where religion/irreligion meet ... and with very divergent beliefs underpinning both approaches.
    You don't understand how science works if you honestly believe that bunk.
    The emotion felt by both sides on the origins debate is indicative of deeper issues at stake than with operative science and its objective observations and methods.
    Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly comfortable with scientists following the evidence wherever it leads. However creationists don't seem to be able to do likewise and would rather distort science to their worldview.
    For example, neither of us will get very emotional about measuring the speed of cars using radar or the scientific methods underpinning it ... yet we have whole threads ... and hours of debate over the 'origins' issue ... and some very emotional outbursts on the merits of the scientific underpinning of each worldview.
    Well considering we both agree that creationism is religious expression, it follows that it isn't part of the scientific realm.
    This is indicative of religious/irreligious issues being involved in the debate and mixed in with the science (on both sides).
    Not really since all religions agree with evolution and it's a tiny subset of Christians that cling to the bible while dismissing scientific understanding.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement