Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[Peter Grimm]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

You are dead wrong on everything you posted here. I am a Pastafarian, and I believe that the Universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster and that the flying spaghetti monster created ALL the planets out of meatballs, the seas from marinara sauce, and everything else from oregano. I have just as much "proof" for it as Christians have for a God who created Adam and Eve. I demand that Pastafarianism be taught in our schools. Before school each day, kids should say a prayer to his Holiness too. Great is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and may we all be touched by his noodly appendage. This is science, I tells 'ya. :mrgreen:

 

[Bodi]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

It is more than that... it is being polite and respecting people's choices as long as they don't hurt or harm anybody (or you are sitting there hounding a person verbally). It is being an adult, something that is lacking in society at large as time goes on. There are all sorts of reasons as to why people act rude as they do (in general) and that will never change.

 

[Mustachio]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

What in the world are you talking about? He made a completely valid point, which was the fact that somebody or some establishment endorses a point of view does not mean it should be taught in schools. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Pastafarianism, but people belive in the flying spaghetti monster, so according to your own belief, it should be taught in schools. That was the sole reason you endorsed Creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of life: people believe in it. Not once did you explain why, scientifically, Creationism was a valid, scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, Pastafarianism and Creationists are on equal ground: they both offer an alternative viewpoint, and, according to your own argument, they both deserve "equal time" in a biology classroom.

Also, I don't usually ask people to give me attention, but I did point out that Sweden no longer allows teachers to give Creationism any time in biology class, which completely destroys you entire argument of "how can Americans ignore Creationism when even Swedish schools teach it." Sorry to harp on the fact that I ruined your whole argument, but it does seem... relevant.

 

[danarhea]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

You mock Pastafarianism and the flying spaghetti monster? You claim that this is a joke? Pastafarianism is very real. If you disagree with me, then you must prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. :mrgreen:

 

[Paschendale]

I'm entirely comfortable with multiple theories about biology being presented in a biology class, so long as they are well researched, supported with facts, are not subject to contradictory facts, contain specific claims, and can be used to make accurate predictions. Those requirements are pretty much the definition of "theory" in a scientific context. Any theory is fine, but it must meet that rather rigid standard.

What predictions does creationism make, and have any of them shown to be correct?

 

[Bodi]

What in the world are you talking about? He made a completely valid point, which was the fact that somebody or some establishment endorses a point of view does not mean it should be taught in schools. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Pastafarianism, but people belive in the flying spaghetti monster, so according to your own belief, it should be taught in schools. That was the sole reason you endorsed Creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of life: people believe in it. Not once did you explain why, scientifically, Creationism was a valid, scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, Pastafarianism and Creationists are on equal ground: they both offer an alternative viewpoint, and, according to your own argument, they both deserve "equal time" in a biology classroom.

Also, I don't usually ask people to give me attention, but I did point out that Sweden no longer allows teachers to give Creationism any time in biology class, which completely destroys you entire argument of "how can Americans ignore Creationism when even Swedish schools teach it." Sorry to harp on the fact that I ruined your whole argument, but it does seem... relevant.

His argument was relevant, just not regarding Dan. I have no idea why he clipped Dan's goof post up there... but his point IS relevant.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

His argument was relevant, just not regarding Dan. I have no idea why he clipped Dan's goof post up there... but his point IS relevant.

Not a goof post. Dana is a Pastafarian!

 

[Zyphlin]

No, it's a statement of fact. Creationism is not something that can be empirically tested and accepted/rejected based on the evidence. It does not belong in a science classroom.

Honest question here, but do we have any empiriclly tested data that is fully accepted/rejected based on evidence of significant certainty that the big bang and the resulting actions that created the situation in which life could evolve on earth occured as an entirely random event?

yeah???

what are the scientific facts supporting the silly idea that the Universe & all life on Earth was created in six periods of 24 hours, by a Hebrew-speaking God?

Creationism != Young Earth Creationism.

There are many ways in which one could believe in the idea of creationism, many of which are fully and completley compatable without a belief in an abrahamic diefic figure. When you revert to insulting the extreme of a particular issue it calls into question the legitimacy and strength of your argument.

So we should teach ancient creation stories in science class too? Everything deserves equal time right?

I think there's a distinct difference between teaching that "God" created the world in 7 days and made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and stating that the notion that the occurences within nature may be divinely inspired or stem from a divine catalyst. Support for the notion of creationism as a general concept does not automatically equate for support of teaching any religions specific view point on the creatoin of the world.

That all said, my general view is that I am fine with the notion of Creationism or Intelligent Design being mentioned in a Science class as a view point that is held counter to the Big Bang / higher level forms of evolution. However, any indepth or specific teaching on its points would likely be better held in a class that deals with religion more so than dealings with science at this point. While I have no real issue in trusting in faith or trusting in things outside of science (As we have seen throughout history, Science is far from infallable itself), the fact that its methods are not purely science based are reason enough that it should not be explicitaly taught in a science class.

 

[Thunder]

...I think there's a distinct difference between teaching that "God" created the world in 7 days and made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and stating that the notion that the occurences within nature may be divinely inspired or stem from a divine catalyst. Support for the notion of creationism as a general concept does not automatically equate for support of teaching any religions specific view point on the creatoin of the world.

see, you're being very vague about Creationism.

Creationism itself, is the belief that the Biblical account for the Universe' creation, is accurate.

there are other ideas about the origin of the Universe & life, that discuss different levels of aspects of supernatural involvement, but TRUE Creationism is that the Biblical God created the Universe in six days.

and as this belief has NO connection to science, it has NO business in science class.

should Intelligent Design be taught in science class? only those parts that are based on science, observation, & fact.

basically...mythology has no business bein taught as science.

 

[Zyphlin]

see, you're being very vague about Creationism.

Creationism itself, is the belief that the Biblical account for the Universe' creation, is accurate.

Incorrect

Creationism, at its most basic, is that the universe and all in it was created by a supernatural entity.

While it is routinely used by Christians to push it in the direction of said creation occuring in the way the bible states and said supernatural entity being the "God" of the bible, in no way shape or form does that make "Creationism" as a concept restricted singularly to that.

This would be like saying back in the late 90's that "Punk Music" is only music that sounds like Blink 182 because they were the most popular version of "Punk" out there. Simply because Christians pushing a Christian focused version of Creationism is the most common form does not mean that Creationism must equal the Christian version.

there are other ideas about the origin of the Universe & life, that discuss different levels of aspects of supernatural involvement, but TRUE Creationism is that the Biblical God created the Universe in six days.

No, it's not. This is a case, yet again, of you deciding to deem something to mean something other than it does as you've done routinely be it with "facism" or "racism" or any other of the seeming laundry list of words and ideas that you've DEEMED to mean something different than what they do.

and as this belief has NO connection to science, it has NO business in science class.

I think it has no business being significantly taught, I have no issue with it being mentioned.

should Intelligent Design be taught in science class? only those parts that are based on science, observation, & fact.

And here we even disagree. I don't really think ID should be "taught" in a science class, even the scientific and quasi-scientific parts of it. I think it should be mentioned as an alternative method of thinking regarding the creation of the universe but one that is not wholey grounded in the literal definition of "science" and thus not something that the class will greatly delve into. At must give a brief bit of what the term means and move on to teaching the scientific theories of creation

 

[Thunder]

Incorrect

Creationism, at its most basic, is that the universe and all in it was created by a supernatural entity....

WRONG.

this is the original form of Creationism:

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "Creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth..

 

[Zyphlin]

WRONG.

this is the original form of Creationism:

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "Creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth..

Sigh

If you're going to quote Wikipedia, why not actually quote the article on the thing you've been talking about

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic god.

LINK

The phrase "most often" distinctly indicates that it is not a theory that MUST be associated with Christianity, just that it typically is.

If you want to talk about "YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM" then say that. If you want to talk about Creationism, then say that. Don't say Creationism, get called on your bull**** (like you routinely are), claim that the word means something it doesn't (like you routinely do), and then
try and say that your use of one word actually meant was meaning an entirely different word.

Yes, YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM is explicately based around an Abrahamic God and thus Christians/Jews/Muslims, however that is not "Creationism" in a general sense but a specific subset of it.

Considering we don't live in ****ing 1929, attempting to claim you're speaking based on 1929 dialect is a bit idiotic.

 

[Thunder]

sorry, but I consider the original form of Creationism to be Creationism, and all the other versions to be something slightly-different, such as Intelligent Design, etc etc..

either way: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic god..

and such a belief has NO PLACE in a science class.

 

[scourge99]

Honest question here, but do we have any empiriclly tested data that is fully accepted/rejected based on evidence of significant certainty that the big bang and the resulting actions that created the situation in which life could evolve on earth occured as an entirely random event?

We have empirical tested data that strongly suggests that the Big Bang created the universe as we know it. The consensus within the scientific community is that the Big Bang theory is accurate and true.

The Big Bang does not explain abiogenesis. The Big Bang does not explain evolution. Do not conflate abiogenesis with evolution. Do not conflate the Big Bang with abiogenesis.

With all due respect, that you conflate these concepts is an indication that you haven't studied this matter in much detail.

Creationism != Young Earth Creationism.

I agree.

There are many ways in which one could believe in the idea of creationism, many of which are fully and completley compatable without a belief in an abrahamic diefic figure. When you revert to insulting the extreme of a particular issue it calls into question the legitimacy and strength of your argument.

The problem has been that a Biblical view of creationism (which isn't necessarily 7 day creationism or YEC) has always been the way in which "creationism" is taught in schools.

Please READ the Kitzmiller vs Dover case: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

In 1968, a radical change occurred in the legal landscape when in Epperson
v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s
statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. Religious proponents of evolution
thereafter championed “balanced treatment” statutes requiring public-school
teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of
creation; however, courts realized this tactic to be another attempt to establish the
Biblical version of the creation of man. Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir.
1975).

Fundamentalist opponents of evolution responded with a new tactic
suggested by Daniel’s reasoning which was ultimately found to be unconstitutional
under the First Amendment, namely, to utilize scientific-sounding language to
describe religious beliefs and then to require that schools teach the resulting
“creation science” or “scientific creationism” as an alternative to evolution.

In Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), five years after McLean, the
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 8 of 139
Supreme Court held that a requirement that public schools teach “creation science”
along with evolution violated the Establishment Clause. The import of Edwards is
that the Supreme Court turned the proscription against teaching creation science in
the public school system into a national prohibition.

Although the Arkansas statute at issue did
not include direct references to the Book of Genesis or to the fundamentalist view
that religion should be protected from science, the Supreme Court concluded that
“the motivation of the [Arkansas] law was the same . . . : to suppress the teaching
of a theory which, it was thought, ‘denied’ the divine creation of man.” Edwards,
482 U.S. at 590 (quoting Epperson, 393 U.S. at 109) (Arkansas sought to prevent
its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution as it is contrary to the belief of
some regarding the Book of Genesis.).

religious opponents of evolution began cloaking
religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools
teach the resulting “creation science” or “scientific creationism” as an alternative to
evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First
Amendment.

The court concluded that creation
science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural
intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through
empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.
Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that
Arkansas’ balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect,
served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment.

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer
could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to
God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including
Defendants’ expert witnesses.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s
religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts
in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed
creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition.

And there is much much more.

All in all there are two problems:
1) Creationism/ID is not science. It does not belong in a science classroom
2) Creationism/ID has been exposed as a ruse to teach a Biblical view of creationism.

I think there's a distinct difference between teaching that "God" created the world in 7 days and made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and stating that the notion that the occurences within nature may be divinely inspired or stem from a divine catalyst. Support for the notion of creationism as a general concept does not automatically equate for support of teaching any religions specific view point on the creatoin of the world.

But teaching that "idea", even if its entirely decoupled from religion, is not science. Its just an idea.

And as explained above, it appears its impossible for school authorities to decouple themselves from teaching a slanted Biblical view of creationism rather than just a generic form of creationism.

That all said, my general view is that I am fine with the notion of Creationism or Intelligent Design being mentioned in a Science class as a view point that is held counter to the Big Bang / higher level forms of evolution.

And why stop there? When discussing gravity we should also mention flat-earth theories. When discussing germ-theory we should also mention chakras and auras as alternatives! These are all alternative ideas to scientific theories. Surely we can decouple them from their religious origins and teach them! I assume you would disagree and that demonstrated the point that you wish creationism to be taught because its compatible with your religious beliefs.

However, any indepth or specific teaching on its points would likely be better held in a class that deals with religion more so than dealings with science at this point. While I have no real issue in trusting in faith or trusting in things outside of science (As we have seen throughout history, Science is far from infallable itself), the fact that its methods are not purely science based are reason enough that it should not be explicitaly taught in a science class.

Do you support teaching all manner of faith based beliefs and things "outside of science"? Or are you just biased to the those things you personally believe like creationism?

 

[Thunder]

Its very simply folks: as far as our scientific understanding of the Universe & life is concerned, the Big Bang & Evolution is the best theory we have so far. That's why it should be taught in science class.

If scientists come up with a better theory someday, that should be taught. However, any idea that some mythical God that speaks Hebrew created the Universe in 6 days, or all creatures on Earth somehow started out millions of years ago with their present-day DNA, should NOT be taught in science class unless it is based on SCIENCE!!!

what part of the concept of "don't teach non-science in science class" do folks not comprehend? would you teach German in Chinese class?

 

[Zyphlin]

With all due respect, that you conflate these concepts is an indication that you haven't studied this matter in much detail.

With all due respect, I understand that Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis are all seperate things. I had no intention nor desire to get into a deep scientific discussion (something I find immensely boring) on this forum on the subjects, especially with regards to it being somewhat off topic. I used the big bang more due to the starting point it represents to highlight my point that creationism wasn't simply "got created the world in 7 days like in the bible" but rather is a view point simply pointing out a supernatural hand in the very creation of the universe onward.

The problem has been that a Biblical view of creationism (which isn't necessarily 7 day creationism or YEC) has always been the way in which "creationism" is taught in schools.

I'm well aware of Kitzmiller, and would not disagree with the notion that the form of creationism most often pushed to be taught in schools is Christian based. That still doesn't change the fact that attempting to represent "creationism" simply as something based on its most extreme ends is hyperbolic.

But teaching that "idea", even if its entirely decoupled from religion, is not science. Its just an idea.

And as explained above, it appears its impossible for school authorities to decouple themselves from teaching a slanted Biblical view of creationism rather than just a generic form of creationism.

Simply because teacher's have had an issue doing it doesn't mean that it is the only method it can be done. The post I was responding to was speaking as if that form of creationism is the only form that could be taught.

And why stop there? When discussing gravity we should also mention flat-earth theories. When discussing germ-theory we should also mention chakras and auras as alternatives! These are all alternative ideas to scientific theories. Surely we can decouple them from their religious origins and teach them! I assume you would disagree and that demonstrated the point that you wish creationism to be taught because its compatible with your religious beliefs.

Because a significant amount of the population doesn't perscribe to those things. I believe we do a disservice to kids to simply pretend that there's a potentially decent portion out there that have teachings at home that are somewhat counter to what's being said in school. I think if we're so afraid of the big bad evil horrible Religion that we can't even mention it for fear that it'll give it legitimacy then there's something far more troublesome at play on the part of those against it. Again, you hyperbolic attempting to compare it to the "flat earth" stuff does nothing but highlight your own biases and prejudices against Religion to the point where you would rather step out of touch with reality to sling stones at it...something rather ironic given the person whose making the argument.

 

[Thunder]

With all due respect, I understand that Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis are all seperate things. I had no intention nor desire to get into a deep scientific discussion (something I find immensely boring) on this forum on the subjects, especially with regards to it being somewhat off topic. I used the big bang more due to the starting point it represents to highlight my point that creationism wasn't simply "got created the world in 7 days like in the bible" but rather is a view point simply pointing out a supernatural hand in the very creation of the universe onward.....

you mean 6 days, right? on the 7th day he rested.

 

[scourge99]

With all due respect, I understand that Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis are all seperate things.

You said, and i quote verbatim "do we have any empiriclly tested data that is fully accepted/rejected based on evidence of significant certainty that the big bang and the resulting actions that created the situation in which life could evolve on earth occured as an entirely random event?"

You clearly tie the Big Bang in with an explanation for the origin of life on earth. Anyone who reads that would understand that you do NOT understand that the Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenesis are all separate things.

I used the big bang more due to the starting point it represents to highlight my point that creationism wasn't simply "got created the world in 7 days like in the bible" but rather is a view point simply pointing out a supernatural hand in the very creation of the universe onward.

Then lets drop this whole Big Bang thing then. Its irrelevant to abiogenesis and evolution for this discussion.

I had to discuss it because i had to be sure you understood the difference. I have had many previous debates where we spend most of the time explaining the difference.

I'm well aware of Kitzmiller, and would not disagree with the notion that the form of creationism most often pushed to be taught in schools is Christian based. That still doesn't change the fact that attempting to represent "creationism" simply as something based on its most extreme ends is hyperbolic.

Simply because teacher's have had an issue doing it doesn't mean that it is the only method it can be done. The post I was responding to was speaking as if that form of creationism is the only form that could be taught.

I agree. But that still doesn't resolve the problem of how a school decides which faith-based idea to teach without demonstrating a clear religious bias.

Because a significant amount of the population doesn't perscribe to those things. I believe we do a disservice to kids to simply pretend that there's a potentially decent portion out there that have teachings at home that are somewhat counter to what's being said in school.

Just because a majority believe in a particular faith-based belief doesn't mean it gets to be endorsed by the government in schools. That most definitely is against the constitution.

In other words, if you can't present a secular reason why one faith-based belief should be taught (E.G., creationism) rather than another then your argument fails. That is EXACTLY why the courts ruled as they did. Creationism fails the Lemon Test because it is entangled with religious belief.
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I think if we're so afraid of the big bad evil horrible Religion that we can't even mention it for fear that it'll give it legitimacy then there's something far more troublesome at play on the part of those against it.

We both know this is a silly argument. I'm not going to waste my time responding.

Again, you hyperbolic attempting to compare it to the "flat earth" stuff does nothing but highlight your own biases and prejudices against Religion to the point where you would rather step out of touch with reality to sling stones at it...something rather ironic given the person whose making the argument.

Looks like we are done.

I'm just a messenger that is explaining the court rulings. I had no say in the court rulings or what occurred. That you think my explaining of the court rulings has anything to do with my personal beliefs shows how pigheaded and unworthy you are of having an honest debate.

 

[samsmart]

I went to high school in Sweden, a very secular society that is maybe 3% Christian.

It is also very liberal, the tax rate for example is like 60% and almost all social services are provided like universal healthcare etc.


Even in Sweden, in Biology class, Creationism was given equal time and treatment to Evolution. We even learned about Panspermia (that life may have originated on other planets and was brought here). Many theories.

The point was not to endorse religion, but to educate us in a number of viewpoints. The viewpoints are out there, so why not learn them?

My question is... the USA is much more religious than Sweden.... so why is it so taboo to speak of religion or even mention it in US schools??

Creationism should be allowed equal time in science classes when Satanism is allowed equal time in Sunday schools.

 

[Sig]

You obviously don't believe that, and that's fine. But millions of people do believe in one god or another. Why shouldn't that viewpoint be heard, especially when discussing the origin of life?

Don't you find it ironic that a country like Sweden, which is overwhelmingly agnostic, they are much more open about allowing different viewpoints to be heard in the school?

It seems like that is the point of education. To teach many sides of things, not just the side that you believe in.

 

[misterman]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

It's not religion that's being mocked, it's religious people.

 

[nota bene]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb? Does it make you feel superior to others because you're so sure you're right?

Maybe you were raised religious, and now you hate religion.

In any case, please keep your issues to yourself and learn to conduct yourself like a grown adult.

No, there's never a reason to be condescending or rude. It surely isn't going to sway others to your POV either.

 

[misterman]

No, there's never a reason to be condescending or rude. It surely isn't going to sway others to your POV either.

I don't consider parody to be condescending or rude. If it is, though, so be it. Some religious people need to be banged on the head pretty hard before they get some perspective.

 

[Bodi]

Not a goof post. Dana is a Pastafarian!

Every post by Dan is a goof post...

 

[Sig]

I don't need to prove it wrong. The world is a better place when we can tolerate each other and not just think "I'm right" all the time.

Apparently, you have no tolerance for intolerance.

How very intolerant of you.

And what makes you think you're right about people thinking "I'm right" all the time is necessarily wrong all the time, or even some of the time, or even just this once?

Prove that wrong, Mr. Smartypants.