| 19 Jan 2008 10:45 pm |
NO EXCEPTIONS Rep: 56  Joined: 30 Apr 2007 Posts: 15,170 ONLINE | Gplex... I have no words to describe you...
except ignorant, rude, athiest, *****, ***, *******, ******, not-so-nice, religion destroyer, etc.
So, you think that since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove.
---
You’re My Best Friend
 | |
 | | 19 Jan 2008 10:47 pm |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 35 Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,504 ONLINE | Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
it’s a religion based class. That is not favoring anything. It is simply a religious-based class. You however like to take that to mean that it must be teaching Christianity or anything else.
Teaching any religion on its on, would be favouring it, if your teaching about religion, that would come under history.
Atresac wrote:
I take a religious class in my school. Guess what? We cover everything. Ancient religions and mythology to modern-day Christianity. It doesn’t hinder anything nor does it favor anything. It just teaches.
...
Atresac wrote:
If you want to say simply teaching religion shouldn’t be allowed in schools you’re fucking stupid. All that does is breed ignorance, because no one really knows what a religion is about and only learn anything about it from the streets and media. And anyone who only learns about Islam from there thinks that the only thing about it is blowing yourself and hijacking planes. Instead of actually learning the basis of the religion and what it really means.
Again should be taught in history.
Atresac wrote:
So if you want that religious class banned, have fun in your sheltered world where information is censored because of fear that someone, like you, will get offended because someone says “God Bless You” when you sneeze.
Hmm wonder what people would do if I started saying satan waiting for you, every time they sneeze...
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
---
  | | | 19 Jan 2008 10:49 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48  Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Red_Calibur9 wrote:
Gplex... I have no words to describe you...
except ignorant, rude, athiest, *****, ***, *******, ******, not-so-nice, religion destroyer, etc.
So, you think that since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove.
Strawman lol, I dont think that “since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove”... I can disprove the religion, and not all of u guys make strammans to try and fight against, instead of me.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 19 Jan 2008 10:52 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 19 Jan 2008 10:58 pm |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 35Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,504 ONLINE | Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
---
| | | 19 Jan 2008 10:59 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Are you claiming that religion is more complex then maths?!?!
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.Last edited 19 Jan 2008 11:07 pm by Gplex | | | 19 Jan 2008 11:12 pm |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 35Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,504 ONLINE | Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Are you claiming that religion is more complex then maths?!?!
No. I am saying that a class that just touches on a certain subject outside of its general area isn’t really enough for everyone. I mean, my class has world history, american history, american government, etc. My school has a lot of classes though, but I think that something as big as religion deserves a bit more recognition than just a passing reference in a history class.
---
| | | 19 Jan 2008 11:25 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Are you claiming that religion is more complex then maths?!?!
No. I am saying that a class that just touches on a certain subject outside of its general area isn’t really enough for everyone. I mean, my class has world history, american history, american government, etc. My school has a lot of classes though, but I think that something as big as religion deserves a bit more recognition than just a passing reference in a history class.
1 hour is all you need to learn about a religion, any more is over kill, you wouldnt do all of them so in about 2 weeks the class would be over.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 19 Jan 2008 11:29 pm |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 35Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,504 ONLINE | in one hour all you would learn is the basics. For Christianity all you would learn is the sins, the commandments, etc. However there’s more to it to that worth learning.
---
| | | 19 Jan 2008 11:35 pm |
Dr. Matt Rep: 46 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,433 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Actually it would. When I was in 9th grade history they taught us religion, and it didn’t even take up half the unit, much less an entire class needed for it.
---
the21gamer wrote:
fuck that load of bullshit. i dont care if the enemy dies. not fighting back is stupid
 Last edited 19 Jan 2008 11:35 pm by ramunematt | | | 19 Jan 2008 11:39 pm |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 35Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,504 ONLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Actually it would. When I was in 9th grade history they taught us religion, and it didn’t even take up half the unit, much less an entire class needed for it.
Mentioning it and quickly going over it is not the same as actually teaching it. The history of major religions, how the interlink together, how they got to where they are today, what appealed to people, going over teachings and major figures of it, etc. Would take a long time to go over with any real clarity.
---
| | | 19 Jan 2008 11:43 pm |
Dr. Matt Rep: 46Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,433 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Actually it would. When I was in 9th grade history they taught us religion, and it didn’t even take up half the unit, much less an entire class needed for it.
Mentioning it and quickly going over it is not the same as actually teaching it. The history of major religions, how the interlink together, how they got to where they are today, what appealed to people, going over teachings and major figures of it, etc. Would take a long time to go over with any real clarity.
Um, we went through all of that. We went through the history of major religions along with ancient religions, what each religion’s dogma is, myths of that religion, who they appeal to, major figures, etc. It didn’t take a long time to teach.
---
the21gamer wrote:
fuck that load of bullshit. i dont care if the enemy dies. not fighting back is stupid
| | | 20 Jan 2008 12:30 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Atresac wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
A “religious class” does not mean teaching any religion on its own. It simply means its main topic is religion. That is not favoring anything, however you seem to think that any class having to do with religion must be teaching some propaganda about what to believe.
As for it being taught in history, that’s the dumbest idea in the world. History would only just barely scratch the surface, tells barely anything about anything. And something that dictates the world and has dictated just about everything ever deserves a little more recognition. There are specific math classes. People can take calculus, geometry, etc. Anything. Why? Because a standard class doesn’t cover it enough, and it needs to be taught more.
As for your satan waiting for you comment, they’d call you a prick, because anyone would agree that’s just a pricky thing to do. I mean it just is. Only people who want religion completely eliminated from everything ever would try that to make a point. Someone who also gets pissed off when people exclaim “oh my lord!" Oh wait...
Why wouldnt it be in history, the only other place I can think of is some sort of physiological class..
Because history wouldn’t cover it enough. Just like a basic math class doesn’t cover enough of geometry or algebra. Specific classes are made to help understanding.
Actually it would. When I was in 9th grade history they taught us religion, and it didn’t even take up half the unit, much less an entire class needed for it.
Mentioning it and quickly going over it is not the same as actually teaching it. The history of major religions, how the interlink together, how they got to where they are today, what appealed to people, going over teachings and major figures of it, etc. Would take a long time to go over with any real clarity.
Um, we went through all of that. We went through the history of major religions along with ancient religions, what each religion’s dogma is, myths of that religion, who they appeal to, major figures, etc. It didn’t take a long time to teach.
Well thats clear up.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 24 Jan 2008 03:36 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Um, we went through all of that. We went through the history of major religions along with ancient religions, what each religion’s dogma is, myths of that religion, who they appeal to, major figures, etc. It didn’t take a long time to teach.
Was talking to another athiest I know and they had this in his privite christian school, i think learn about other religions and how they come about turn him into a athiest...
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 24 Jan 2008 03:38 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | I dont believe anythings wrong with believing in a god, but as soon as your beliefs start effect other people, especially without evidence, thats when I have a problem.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 24 Jan 2008 06:49 pm |
Regular Rep: 6Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 329 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
I dont believe anythings wrong with believing in a god, but as soon as your beliefs start effect other people, especially without evidence, thats when I have a problem.
That definitely sounds like you. I mean me. 
---
Message me!!!!
 | | | 24 Jan 2008 10:23 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Red_Calibur9 wrote:
Gplex... I have no words to describe you...
except ignorant, rude, athiest, *****, ***, *******, ******, not-so-nice, religion destroyer, etc.
So, you think that since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove.
You throw in athiest and religion destroyer.. I like that part. I dont care if you are exactly like me. You make strawman arguments because you do!! I pretty confident that I could desprove any religion.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 24 Jan 2008 11:11 pm |
Regular Rep: 6Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 329 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Red_Calibur9 wrote:
Gplex... I have no words to describe you...
except ignorant, rude, athiest, *****, ***, *******, ******, not-so-nice, religion destroyer, etc.
So, you think that since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove.
You throw in athiest and religion destroyer.. I like that part. I dont care if you are exactly like me. You make strawman arguments because you do!! I pretty confident that I could desprove any religion.
Damn, that’s mean I can disprove the religion called atheism too!
---
Message me!!!!
| | | 20 Feb 2008 04:35 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 48Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,773 OFFLINE | Religious Believers Demanding Respect:
An increasing source of conflict in the world today is centered around religious believers’ demands for respect. Muslims demand “respect” that would forbid criticism, satire, or mocking of their religion. Christians demand “respect” that would amount to something very similar. Nonbelievers are caught in a bind when it’s not clear what “respect” is supposed to entail and how it is supposed to be achieved. If respect is so important to believers, they need to be clear about what they want.
Respect vs. Tolerance:
Sometimes, a person who wants respect is simply asking for tolerance. The minimal definition of tolerance is a state where one has the power to punish, restrict, or make something difficult but consciously chooses not to. Thus I may tolerate the barking of a dog even if I have the ability to stop it. When it comes to non-violent, consensual behavior, religious believers’ demand for tolerance is usually reasonable and should be granted. It’s rare, though, that this is all that is desired.
Going Beyond Tolerance:
Respect and tolerance are not synonyms; tolerance is a very minimalist attitude whereas respect involves something more active and positive. You can think very negatively about something you tolerate, but there is something contradictory about thinking very negatively about the exact same thing you are also respecting. Thus, at the very least, respect requires that one have have positive thoughts, impressions, or emotions when it comes to the religion in question. This isn’t always reasonable.
Should Beliefs Be Respected?:
There seems to be a popular impression that beliefs deserve automatic respect, and therefore that religious beliefs should be respected. Why? Should we respect racism or Nazism? Of course not. Beliefs don’t merit automatic respect because some beliefs are immoral, evil, or just plain stupid. Beliefs may be able to earn a person’s respect, but it’s an abdication of moral and intellectual responsibility to automatically accord the same respect to all beliefs.
Should the Right to Believe be Respected?:
Just because a belief is immoral or stupid doesn’t mean that there is no right to believe it. Belief may be unwise or irrational, but a right to belief must cover such beliefs if it’s to have any meaning at all. Therefore, a person’s right to believe things and to hold their religious beliefs must be respected. Having a right to a belief, however, is not the same as having a right to not hear criticism of that belief. The right to criticize has the same basis as the right to believe.
Should Believers Be Respected?:
Although beliefs must earn respect and should not receive automatic respect, the same is not true of people. Every human being deserves some basic minimum of respect right from the beginning, regardless of what they believe. Their actions and beliefs may lead to greater respect over time, or they may strain your ability to maintain that minimum. A person is not the same as what that person believes; respect or lack thereof for one should not lead to the exact same for the other.
Respect vs. Deference:
The most significant problem with believers’ demands for respect for their religions and/or religious beliefs is that “respect” too often amounts to “deference.” Deferring to religion or religious beliefs means according them a privileged status — something understandable for believers, but not something which can be demanded from nonbelievers. Religious beliefs merit no more deference than any other claims and religions do not merit deference from nonbelievers.
How Religion Can and Should Be Respected:
The increasingly raucous demands from religious believers that their religions be accorded more “respect” in the public square and from non-adherents is a sign that something very serious is going on — but what, exactly? Believers apparently feel that they are being slighted and insulted in a significant manner, but is this true, or is it instead a case of mutual misunderstanding? It may be that both are occurring at various times, but we won’t get to the root of the problem without being clear about our terminology — and this means that religious believers must make it clear what sort of “respect” they are asking for.
In many instances, we’ll find that religious believers are not asking for something appropriate — they are asking for deference, positive thoughts, and privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their religions. Rarely, if ever, are such things justified. In other instances, we may find that they aren’t being accorded the basic tolerance and respect which they deserve as human beings, and they are justified in speaking out.
Respecting religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers does not and cannot include treating them with kid gloves. If believers want respect, then they must be treated as adults who are responsible and culpable for what they assert — for better and for worse. This means that their claims should be treated seriously with substantive responses and critiques, if criticism is warranted. If believers are willing to present their position in a rational, coherent manner, then they deserve a rational and coherent response — including critical responses. If they are unwilling or unable to present their views in a rational and coherent manner, then they should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 20 Feb 2008 05:22 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 12 Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posts: 3,663 OFFLINE | GORILLAplex wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Red_Calibur9 wrote:
Gplex... I have no words to describe you...
except ignorant, rude, athiest, *****, ***, *******, ******, not-so-nice, religion destroyer, etc.
So, you think that since we’re not exactly like you, then we’re always making strawman arguments from our own religion that you can’t disprove.
You throw in athiest and religion destroyer.. I like that part. I dont care if you are exactly like me. You make strawman arguments because you do!! I pretty confident that I could desprove any religion.
Damn, that’s mean I can disprove the religion called atheism too!
bingo!
---
 __  | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
|
»
Religion
» what's wrong with being christian or religious? believing in god?
