Last night, October 22, 2008, in Northern Kentucky, a rather remarkable thing happened.At Northern Kentucky University, within the shadow of the Creation Museum, in a mock trial, a jury of the entire audience overwhelmingly voted on the side of Evolution and against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the public schools.Some had opined that it was foolish to hold such an event?that the vote would be overwhelmed by the fundangelicals, that Evolution would lose, and that this would be harmful for the future of education in Kentucky.Well, that did not happen. The opposite happened.The issue for the pretend trial was the case of a ninth grade teacher in the Kentucky public schools who had been fired for teaching Intelligent Design in a Kentucky classroom. She sued, alleging she had a right to teach such mythology and to get her job back. Leading trial lawyers in the Northern Kentucky area represented the parties, a real retired judge presided, and the former dean of the law school moderated a discussion.A creation scientist testified for the teacher. Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, and identified as such, testified as to his opinion that Intelligent Design is a religious, not a scientific, view and that the teaching of this religious view is prohibited by the Constitutions of the United States and of Kentucky.The result from the clickers of the audience:— 38% said the teacher should not be restored to her job.— 28% said the teacher should get her job back, and be permitted to discuss Intelligent Design, but only if she agrees to made it clear that most scientists reject Intelligent Design.— 31% said the teacher should get her job back without conditions.The clear result was that a large majority accepted the teaching of Evolution over Intelligent Design and did not see Intelligent Design as a scientific view. The audience accepted the position of the Atheist witness over that of the expert who held the religious view that life was created by magic.This victory should be noted by those who are afraid to challenge the forces of darkness in public dialogue.Edwin KaginNational Legal DirectorAmerican Atheists, Inc.
If that’s not you, fine, that’s going off on a little tangent anyway. I just thought I picked up a little contradiction.
Dang! This whole adventure began with moderate christendom. Is it possible that the animus of NotSoFast toward my opinions could have been avoided. Was it your diabolical plan to divide and conquer atheists two by two? Are you NOW saying you are a bible literalist?
Let’s eject the OT and focus our attention on the the upgrade.To the best of your knowledge,is everything in said testament the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I’m not a Bible literalist. There areas where it’s more figurative, areas where it’s more literal. Also, yes, I don’t have any problem with anything written in the NT. It’s the truth.
The whole issue is that if you read the NT enough, you see it’s too intertwined with the OT to separate the two. Before they stoned Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles in the NT, he ran down the whole history of the Jews in the OT.
The whole thing is people are being ridiculously simple minded with the Bible. Why can’t God and Christ both love and hate? Opposites aren’t necessarily contradictions!
Since when does being good mean you can’t get angry and hate and fight. What kind of stupidity is that? This is why people are so stinking nuerotic, they don’t know how to balance opposing feelings in their own damn selves.
Get your last insults in now. There will be no more comments from me after approx. 4:00.
I know why you can’t understand me. Because you think I’m running some sort of con or hustle. I’m not. I’m just interested in finding out the truth.
It’s not you. There have been many like you who have visited this site. The results are usually the same.
Forgive me, but I am confused again. I thought you had truth in the Word. Why would you need to come here?
What is it that you hoped to learn?
I already told you that there are no angels, gods, or messiahs. The Devil doesn’t exist. Meaning is what you make it.
The truth is in the word. But it’s just one book, it’s supposed to be connected with the real world around it. For example, almost 2000yrs of history have passed since the last word written in the Bible. You have to know about that, and the Bible not going to tell you, so you have to read other things. You can’t ghettoize the Bible and hope to understand it. Another example; the Bible talks about every major ancient world empire, so if you want to find out more about them you have to go to extrabiblical sources. I have stacks of books, videos, articles, cd’s on every subject and I check them all out and I also read the Bible.
Anyone who reads the Bible without any supporting material is a fool who’s just using Christianity as an excuse to drop out and be apathetic.
I guess I came here to argue my points even though you’re calling me a fool. I’m learning to become a more effective debater.
The Bible’s no excuse to go dumb, deaf, and blind to the world around you.
Oh sorry, I think I misinterpreted you. I wasn’t coming here looking for the truth. I was saying my general philosophy on life and my opinions are based on a search for the truth not some con, not politics or money.
Forget about 4:00. I’m out of here now. Nice debate…I guess.
Bye. Nice knowing you.
666,
You’ve seen Obeah being SMART?? Where? Not in this thread!
You seem to be frying a different fish from this 3-cornered squabble between Tubal, Obeah, and me. I won’t get into that; I prefer one fight at a time.
Obeah,
I have made no assumptions. I’ve been reading your posts — which you apparently haven’t, tho I thot you said you had.
Just hazarding a guess as to why you’re being so unreasonable. Full disclosure — I don’t want to be accused of practising medicine without a license — I’m not a psychoanalyst, but I play one when talking to irrational people.
Well, duh!
No I don’t. I only know what you’ve said about them, and the crazy ideas you’ve picked up from them.
“eeek. I’m backing off” was funnier.
You have dissed Tubal’s intuitive approach, even when he was right.
May as well. You should have, since you started it. But you seem to be too far gone to pull back with reason, and that’s all I have to offer you. So I will.
NotSoFast
You do realize that the numbered list Obeah provided was a list of assumptions being made about him, and not assertions about himself, right?
Not So Fast,
I am still surprised by your animosity. From this end it seems it is you who haven’t read the comments very clearly.
NFS:”Like you apparently, I was raised in a Bibliolatrous church.”
Obeah offers a polite correction to that assumption: “I am fortunate to be descended from a long line of atheists.”
Suddenly NFS: “So where do you get off telling them how to define themselves?”
Ob: “I have just re-read the series of posts and I am at a lost [sic] as to the acrimony you both have for my comments.”
And from the same post:
“I have always thought it better to ask for clarification before using language like this.”
And
“In short, I?ve never met these illusive, non divine Christians.”
NFS:”After you’ve had a good nite’s rest maybe you’ll be able to comprehend that there may be others, as well.”
And
“this rigid doctrinalism you’ve been expressing strikes me as a (stereo?)typically Catholic thing.”
And
“I believe you may be carrying as much baggage from your religious roots as TubalCain is from his.”
And then this bit of pettiness:
“I don’t know if I’m “at a lost as to” anything or not, as I’ve never encountered that expression before. (Is it an Italian idiom?)”
This is where I begin to reply in kind. Refer to 10/29/08 @ 08:59
And your last posts, NotSoFast, seem to indicate that it is you who have difficulty with reading comprehension as well as betraying considerable insecurity.