NoGodBlog.com

Would rather be on the Christian Conservative side in this conflict than on the Communist/Islamic side. I'm not saying "Welcome to World War III" because nobody on either side really would push the button except maybe on the Islamic side of things. As a conservative atheist, plan (actively plan) for the best and prepare (actively prepare) for the worst. The Christians are the puppets for us atheists in this conflict. Atheism is a result of secular logic being applied to the natural world, but with political activism I believe that these Christian Zionists can be controlled by us.

Fact: No Christian is going to be raptured up into heaven.

Fact: The Christians want to bring democracy to the Middle East (little do they realise that free trade is good for atheism and bad for religion, so they really are pushing our secular American agenda). Anyhow, a democratic republic would give reasonable oil prices if there were competing oil companies instead of unionized companies.

Fact: Sarah Palin wants to drill for oil in Alaska which is good for American economy, so let her do it!

Fact: You can't destroy belief in Creationism in a classroom setting unless you first can mention it in the classroom and explain why it is wrong or controversial.

QF:

On fact 1: Okay.

Of2: They want to bring Jesus to the Middle East even more so, or (like in the Crusades) make them wish they had Jesus. The question is: Do they want a democracy? If not, are we right in forcing them to accept our political ideals?

Of3: It's not that simple.

Of4: Sure you can.

By the way, the Holy Spirit is merely a repressed sexual urge and is a sensation of egoless zombiness due to Church Doctrines such as "Live to serve others" and "Die to the desires of your old self".... porn may very well be a solution for these nuts ;)

Hey, things are as simple as they need to be, any simpler and they'd be incorrect and any more complex and they'd be wrong. I believe Einstein said something along those lines.

Dave

Please delete quantum-flux's posts. He is obviously just trying to be disruptive or he is having a mental health crisis. Seriously.

What, I raise perfectly valid points that perfectly rational atheists can consider and then reject or accept. No need for censorship on these points.

Suddenly introducing democracy to a region does not prevent extremist or religious nuts.

Since what did Iraqi's do when they got the chance to elect their leaders? They elected religious extremists.

They are already forcing native christian Iraq's from the country and any other group they don't like.

I'm sure they'd rather be introduced to capitalism instead of communism.

quantum_flux...you've most likely been around long enough to realize that "What...do I know"...is a hysterical member of this blog who can not stand up to intelligent debate...

He along with about 3 or 4 others will sooner then later turn to "censorship" as their answer to your very thoughtful statements and questions...

Fact: You can't destroy belief in Creationism in a classroom setting unless you first can mention it in the classroom and explain why it is wrong or controversial.

Absolutely great statement...

Even though I would debate from the opposite side, this is exactly why the vast majority of atheists want to keep the debate out of the classroom...

The thought that any "Intelligent Designer" might be discovered, whether an alien or deity, scares them to death...even their prophet, Christopher Hitchens believes in the possibility of ID...

Think of the results of this position. Dave and AA are able to not only use this debate as a fund raiser, this debate is also the foundational argument against school vouchers...

The results? Dave and Barry (AA and the ACLU) are two of the main organizations who condemn inner city kids to stay in failing public schools...

And as any world history student knows, an uneducated society is easier to control...

This thread is nothing more then another "Anti-Palin" post, poorly veiled behind the idea of "Joel's Army"...

Funny...I don't remember similar threads discussing NObama's 20 year association (AS AN ADULT) sitting in the pews of a church that teaches "Black Theology"...

What,

Q_F has every right to post his opinions in this forum. He just proves the old axiom, "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Phreedm,

Even though I would debate from the opposite side, this is exactly why the vast majority of atheists want to keep the debate out of the classroom...

I'll make a deal with you. I will agree that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, when you agree that science should be taught (by qualified individuals) from the pulpit, in churches.

The thought that any "Intelligent Designer" might be discovered, whether an alien or deity, scares them to death...

I don't know who you are talking about, but it certainly isn't me. I want to know the truth, and only the truth, no matter where it leads me. So far, I have seen absolutly no evidence of anything supernatural. I have, on the other hand, seen tons of evidence refuting said entities. That is why I am an Atheist. No need to inject fear into the equation.

And as any world history student knows, an uneducated society is easier to control...

You are absolutly correct. Now tell me again why Adam and Eve were thrown out of the G.O.E.? Oh right! FOR EATING FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE!

Funny...I don't remember similar threads discussing NObama's 20 year association (AS AN ADULT) sitting in the pews of a church that teaches "Black Theology"...

Gee, Phreddy; I wonder what kind of theology YOUR church would preach if it was YOUR race that had been enslaved by our country for over 200 yrs, and then institutionally discriminated against for another 150 yrs.

Are you even capable of placing yourself into someone else's shoes? Might I suggest you talk to your church elders about doing some missionary work in Haiti? I believe it would open your eyes quite a bit. I know my tour in Haiti was a life altering event for me.

Dave...OT,
But the article is by an atheist and the rebuttal at the bottom is by Alexander( a jew) so I wondered your opinion on this.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/09/07/0907sartwell_edit.html

Just out of curiosity, why is reverend wright's black theology worse than Jerry Falwell's anti-gay theology? At least wright has a historical base. I can't name a single occurence where homosexuals have repressed others rights.

Didn't wasallia develop a 20 million dollar debt during palin's leadership?

My opinion about Creationism being taught in schools:

http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/09/go-ahead-teach-controversy.html

quantum_flux,

That is the most lucid thing I have heard you say in days. I would, however, like to bring up a point that you made.

it would make for very powerful lesson plans if teachers were told to teach the controversy, but they must first be non-superstitious themselves.

That is the crux of the problem, isn't it? With eighty some odd percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christians, it is safe to assume that a similar percentage applies to teachers, as well. How many teachers would teach creationism as just another competing theory, and how many would teach it as fact?

"How many teachers would teach creationism as just another competing theory, and how many would teach it as fact?"

That is besides the point. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach what they think they should teach. They are forced by state law to teach what the state wants them to teach.

Which is why teachers who teach creationism are giving up their jobs by doing so. It isn't that creationism is junk, its that they are violating state law.

So if a state were to allow creationism into the classrooms while at the same time have actual science taught in churches, it has nothing to do with the opinions/faith of the science teachers.

Students have to pass their classes. If we get rid of the teachers union and tenure (something McCain/Palin are for), then teachers will be awarded based on performance instead of seniority. Unions for teachers doesn't make sense, dammit, it pretty much is communism! Teaching is supposed to be a vocation. I believe that creationist teachers will be upstaged by evolutionist teachers (as shown by performance) and the thing will iron itself out.

By the way, is there a better word to use for that besides "vocation"?

I believe that doing away with teacher's unions, would just open the door for McSame/Pale-in-comparison, to fire those teachers that refused to teach creationism as fact.

And that's a fact, Jack.

Firing of teachers is done by performance.

By the way, is there a better word to use for that besides "vocation"?

How about "profession".

4 a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling

Firing of teachers is done by performance.

Exactly! If they don't perform to the new standard, they will be fired.

Ren

Dave does delete posts. A "right" to post here does not exist. In particular Dave will delete posts that are preachy or spam-like. Quantum has definitely become a preacher. Whats more it is very difficult to tell what he is preaching about.

Quantum

Your solutions to "problems" always consist of string of improbable and loosely connected events. This sort of thinking, which is referred to in the medical community as loose association and tangential thinking, is typical of schizophrenics and those with schizoid personality traits. Have you been diagnosed with either? I am not taking a jab at you. I merely want to know who I am talking to so that I may gauge my reaction to your posts.

I want to know who decides when a teacher is successful. The teacher whose students pass all the standardized tests, or the teacher who inspires students to do some unconventional thinking? Some of the best teachers I have ever known were unconventional, and their best lessons were realized in late life, not in the testing sessions.

If you consider teaching to be a vocation, you might want to consider turning over all education to nuns and other religious people, who believe they are called by god, and don't care what their salaries are. But, then you will not have real education.

Teaching is a JOB. A hard job. And it should be rewarded properly. Teachers' unions are protection against arbitrary discriminatiion.

My standard the Richard Feynmans and Roger Penroses of the world.

A lot of teachers are just holding back!

What,

Well, I guess I had better clean up my vocabulary and start using words like coitus, penis and vagina, instead of fuck, dick and pu$$y, huh?

Wouldn't want to upset the children with my 'adult' language.

Look, I understand what you are saying, but I am such a staunch proponent of free speech, that I don't believe in calling for others to be censored. If Dave decides to delete a post, so be it, but that should be his call. It is his blog, afterall.

So how are the wife and kids?

Dorky Mommy,

Excellent post. You might want to think about changing your handle. You're not dorky at all.

What,

I have been diagnosed with tangential thoughts. Perhaps you have noticed? Sometimes it takes me a half hour to get around to my original point, by which time I have forgotten what it was I wanted to say. But I am definitely not schizophrenic, and neither is Ren.

Oh wait... nevermind!

Ren

I agree that it should be or will be Dave's call.

Wife and kids are fine. Thanks for asking. Yours?

Ren

I'm about to head out on a bike ride with the kids so I will make this quick. Tangential thinking is not a diagnoses but rather I symptom. I see no evidence of it whatsoever in your posts. To the contrary your posts are well organized and fact-based as opposed to delusion-based.

What,

Family is doing fine. Thanks. I wasn't even sure you had a wife and kids, I was just trying to keep my post light hearted.

I believe you when you say it is a symptom and not a disorder in and of itself. You can credit better living through chemistry for not being able to notice it in my posts, but boy, you should hear me talk when I get excited/agitated:-(

I cant believe atheist are considering giving religion more credulity.....

so how does 6th grade science class go....

well jimmy...god created eve from adam's rib...

how about we focus more on what we know.....like the earth is a hunk of cooling metal on an axis in an orbit around a glowing ball of hydrogen....

The Gall that people have telling me about the likes and dislikes of thier supernatural friends....

Ren

Even my tangential thoughts have tangential thoughts have tangential thoughts have tangential thoughts have tangential thoughts...

Karen,

And so it goes. How 'bout them NY Giants? Did I tell you I have a dog? My favorite color is blue...

DorkyMommy

I agree with Ren-great post!

And it's hardly fair if teachers are being assessed by student progress alone, when one teacher may be given a class of AG students and another teacher may have a class of repeaters, with BED, ESL, and BMH mixed in. AYP (Accepted Yearly Progress) is a joke, because all schools are not held to the same guidelines. If a school does not have a certain number of ESL kids in the school, then that subset of growth is not measured for that school, for example.

Student and parental responsibility has to be taken into account. It is very difficult for a teacher to impress upon a student the value of learning if the parents don't reinforce that in the home. And a teacher who has to constantly discipline students who don't know how to or refuse to behave in a classroom setting, there is little time for teaching.

Ren

Blasphemer! How many times must I tell you? STEELERS!!!!!!! Yellow and Gold. Terrible Towel. I need to do laundry...

6th grade science class consists of explaining why creationism is incorrect and why evolution is correct, why faith in God is superstitious and how secular science can explain reality much better. Kids ought to be able to explain the basic principles of newtonian gravity and electromagnetism by that level, know something about waves and the different types of waves. Kids should be able experiment with telescopes and microscopes by the 6th grade and have a basic understanding of celestial mechanics and germ theory. An atheist professor should expect no less!

With computer aided learning and Wikipedia these days, kids should be able to explain things people learn in college these days

quantum_flux

what god fearing "science" teacher is going to explain why faith in God is superstitious....

I've googled 6th grade science curriculum and it barely touches on evolution, and varies by state. Georgia's mentions the Big Bang, but I didn't see evolution. In states where evolution was present, it was in the 7th, and last competency goal. If teachers go in order, they may not even get to it, but they don't necessarily have to go through the book in order. Still, it wasn't a highly developed unit, mostly vaguely introductory. How much gets taught will be very dependent upon whether the state will be doing standardized testing in science or not.

Here's the NC Standard as an example:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/scos/2004/19grade6

Any science teacher that is paid on a performance basis would not necessarily make it if they turn their lectures into a theology lesson.

Karen - Stillers!

Any science teacher that is paid on a performance basis would not necessarily make it if they turn their lectures into a theology lesson.

Unless of course, we end up with a Theologian in Chief.

Even if we have a "Theologian in Chief" as you like to call John McCain and Sarah Palin, that does not amount to Monarchy. Nobody has to suck the pope's dick here. Teaching science will not ever revert back to the dark ages.

Teaching science will not ever revert back to the dark ages.

Famous last words. I sure hope you are right.

Eh, it probably will go back to the dark ages. Fuck it, open a beer & enjoy the show. You've got a front row seat here in the US!

I know I am right :)

Looks like a bunch of kooky holy-rollers to me-- I'm afraid the religious majority of the United States will elect such a holy-roller.

mx,

I will not go gently into that bad night.

When that happens, Christians will live to meet their maker. Our job will to be to grant as many of them their wish, as possible, before we get burned at the stake.

Comment from: quantum_flux

Teaching science will not ever revert back to the dark ages.

Obviously you haven't spent much time with high school students...

Entering a dark age of innovation

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

Is A New Dark Age At Hand?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/is_a_new_dark_age_at_hand_1.html


Since the left has been in control of education in America for the past 40 years, I'd say it's time to rethink the way we approach science...

By the way...

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

Of course you have to read down to the 7th paragraph to get the actual truth about the poll...

The Phreekies still haven't learned how to think and vote for themselves. These single issue (abortion) voters are just fine with killing Iraqis and Iranians for the fun and profit of the international oil industry. And what does the Phreeky type gain? The destruction of the US economy. Nice trade Phreeks.

The Phreekies still don't understand how our economy got so f'd up. They have no clue how the rethuglican attack on the regulation of the financial industry sat us up for this disaster. One need look no further than McSame's financial adviser Phil Graham for the answers.

Gramm was responsible for the efforts to pass "banking reform laws". Most notable was the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. This act reduced government regulations (which existed since the Great Depression) separating the banking, insurance and brokerage industries.

The bad lending practices that were enabled by the rethuglicans resulted in bad loans being sold as AAA to unsuspecting investors such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Now these institutions have failed and everyone of you is going to pay for this failure. The shock wave is propagating through our economy as we speak and it will only be getting worse.

And who do the rethuglicans put up as their candidate? John McCain! This scum bag was involved in protecting those that engineered our last banking disaster - The S and L Crisis of the late 80's and early 90's. The Keating Five would have been the Keating Four without John But-I'm-Still-A-POW McCain.

Wise up America. Vote YOUR interests.


Vote Obama/Biden
The rest Palin Comparison

flux,
We should hold a pageant. You, Phreedumb, and Nuclear Nads can compete for the least relevent. Work harder, you can do it, you're running a close second.

What is this crap about democracy stabilizing oil prices. Were you awake in history class? OPEC was formed with the help of Henry Kissinger, because Congress refused to supply Iran with arms to fight Hussein, unless they paid cash. Saudi Arabia contacted Washington and asked them if they were insane. Oh, well, Iran got their weapons, and now they have us by the short hairs.

Asemodeus repeated what I already said, you force democracy upon a culture ruled by it's religious leaders, and they will elect their religious leaders, particularly in a culture that is religiously divided. And Einstein had no such simplistic answers, to answer your question.

Dorky Mom,

I agree with two others above about the relevence of your post. I have ADHD and did very poorly in school. But, school was different then, I listened in class, sort of, I didn't do homework, but, I passed all the tests, and back then, that was enough to pass the class.

Now, I have two children, one with ADHD, one with ADD, but this after IDEA was passed in congress guaranteeing equal education for students with learning disabilities. When my kids were doing poorly I tried to force them to comply with those standards, but the courts have deluted it so much, pulled it's teeth, that it cannot be enforced any more. All it does is generate paperwork.
But, I always told them, the fact that they don't fit into the boring student assembly line has nothing to do with their potential. I sited Neil Armstrong as an example. The first man on the moon had attention deficit. It just takes the right teacher to recognize and emphasize the potential of each student. I think a teaching position should be sought, not only on credentials and desire, but talent for bringing out the best in all students. And they should be paid accordingly, being the stewards of our future generation.

I thought there was a post to this effect, but, I can't find it, so let me present it as my own, with a clear conscience since I have stated it before. I hear members of our movement expressing great fear about creationism being taught side by side with evolution in science classes. I think it may be a perfect oportunity. Let them say that god created the universe in six days, then let them consider how many catastophic impacts there have been visible on the moon in human history. Then let them study a map of the surface of the moon and decide for themselves how old it is. We have nothing to fear, the truth is on our side.

Do you think for a moment that a science teacher has more influence over the opinions of brainwashed children than their parents do? You can show them the facts all day, but when they go home and their parents tell them it's the lies of the devil, you lose!!! There is only one way to win, and that is to take the enemy straight on head to head for the hearts and minds of our children. What you propose can be spun into Satan's censorship. You have to confront it.

NeoWolfe

Neowolf,

I hear members of our movement expressing great fear about creationism being taught side by side with evolution in science classes. I think it may be a perfect opportunity.

First, you seem to be making a huge assumption that creationists masquerading as science teachers will actually present the two concepts equally and allow the students to "make up" their own mind.

Second (and more importantly), you first have to establish that creationism is a science. Since it cannot meet the basic requirements to be termed a science (i.e., it should be able to pass through the scientific method) then it shouldn't be presented in the science class room.

Now, if you wanted to explore the idea of it being taught in some form of a “world religions” course, that would sense to me. But non-science subjects being taught as science in the science class room? WTF?

And finally, as per your own post, creationism is already being taught by churches and parents, we don’t need to also teach religious beliefs in the science class room just for the sake of comparing ideas. And by the way, how would you train science teachers to teach creationism? What would be the necessary qualifications to do so? Would there be a test for them? Would they have to take Judeo-Christian courses at a religious academic institution? Would just saying “God made it in 6 days” suffice?

P.S. What exactly is our movement? I just want churches to stay out of my wallet and out of my government – is that the movement you’re talking about?

DVW

I agree with both you and NewWolfe. NeoWolfe was simply stating that science has an advantage over creationism - facts! In a fair fight science wins. But the fight is not fair as you have stated.

What,

My point was less about science having an obvious advantage when presented in an equal light with creationism than it was about pointing out the absurdity of teaching non-science subjects in science class as was suggested by Neowolf. But thanks for the nod : )

What,

Let me elaborate (I'm between paintings and yes, I'm bored).

This issue of bringing creationism into the public science classroom is simple. To me, it isn't as complicated as a separation of church and state issue. It isn't as complicated as the issue of our public science classrooms becoming a forum for equal-opportunity idea sharing. The issue is much simpler in my eyes.

It seems to me the issue is this; why would we teach non-science subjects in a science classroom? We don't teach English literature in the science classroom. We don't teach drawing and painting in a science classroom — why the exception for Judeo-Christian religious philosophy?

Is it simply because certain Christian fundamentalists believe it should be taught in the science classroom? If that is the only reason, then the answer is simple; when they can prove creationism a science, then it can be taught next to evolution and abiogenesis in the public science classroom. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to compare non-scientific concepts against establish scientific theories simply for the sake of showing how they can’t hold up — certainly not in the public school system. It confuses what it is science actually is.

That's all I was saying.

DVan,

You may mistakenly believe that we are at war of ideals. I disagree.

My point was, if you have a purist science class, teaching the big bang and evolution as fact in the classroom, which is perfectly viable if creationism was some dying idea fading in the horizon, but, its not. You teach what you want, but, their parents are going to carry them off to church where they will be drilled yet again that science is the deception of Satan. You lose.

This scenario has been playing for decades, and your plan is still losing. Americans are still electing politicians for their religious right values. I'm saying, stop losing, face your enemy on his own ground. They have to be in school, let them use the time to put their blind faith to the test of reason. Using separation of church and state as a reason to censor the confrontation has been a miserable failure. Just look at the polls for McBush. Censorship does not work for either side of the question. Head on confrontation with the facts always does.

NeoWolfe

Neowolf,

I'm not sure sure how adding to the time children are exposed to religious concepts will somehow force them into critically examining them. They are already being forced to do so (i.e. parent and time in church vs., public school education). Most are torn between the two and most choose some level of cognitive dissidence. When one looks at America as a whole, we are not made up of mostly Christian fundamentalists. They just happen to be some of the most vocal.

And as a whole, the religious have not been winning. Not even close. Science has been putting the proverbial "smack down" on religion for the last 400 years and we've come a long way — though we still have a long way to go obviously. And as for the U.S., judging America based on our current state of politics, although justified, shows somewhat a narrow view. Upswings in the religiousness of Americans is cyclical. And after each cycle, it gives more and more footing away to secularism.

I don't believe allowing religious concepts into a public school forum will have any other effect than giving religion more credibility in the eyes of the religious. Most of us on this site are a shining example that we don't need to debate religious concepts against scientific ones in the public school system to change minds. Many of us went to public school, had religious upbringing, and still didn't buy the B.S.

And this isn't censorship. Public school isn't a democracy. All ideas are not created equal and shouldn't be given the distinction of being so unless they can prove their merit before being introduced into a child's education by publicly paid officials.

I agree with the notion of confronting the religious head-on. I disagree the public school system is the appropriate forum in which to do it.

Neowolfe,

In an ideal world you could be right but your stance would only be realistic if creationism were taught be neutral teachers. since 80% of the population is xtian that is not going to happen and the teaching will be slanted to creationism. the xtians know this and that is why they are pushing for it. evolution would never get a fair shake. besides who would police the fairness of the teachings?

DVW is right on this. if it ain't science it doesn't belong in the science class. if we cave on this we lose.

Hey, nothing like a little competition with the religious fundies!

DVW

I am just saying that both you and Neo made good points. From a strategic sense, with the goal being putting to rest creationism once and for all, Neo's point has merit. But, like you, I wouldn't want to take the chance on its success. Also, as you stated, it is simply ridiculous to teach non-science in a science class - better to teach creation myths in a mythology class.

You all may be exactly right. But, when you go to church, you hear one side of the story, and you may or may not admit that something has been withheld, been censored. It seems to me, and again, that to present one side of the story in school, it seems something is being censored. But, we have nothing to fear from the other side of the story. And in a controlled forum, where the merits of both are fairly presented, reason must win out.
But, that's in a perfect world, and maybe it would be giving ground to the religious right. But, the point that we were raised in the brainwash and broke free just makes us one of the unchosen few. Others may be broken free with help by presenting proofs that the bible, and all other religions are myth. I may be wrong.

NeoWolfe

Neo

What's being "censored" is the countless creation myths. What's being "censored" is mythology in a science class.

The majority of Americans don't think that creationism is mythology though. That is science teachers need to address that matter and explain why it is bad science.

NeoWolfe,

I do understand your point, and on a certain level, I can sympathize. I love seeing creation mythology obliterated when scientific process is applied.

Some of my favorites are posts by DNAUnion and Escher absolutely destroying half-baked arguments by creationists on this very blog. Go here for one of the better threads: http://tinyurl.com/5w435g

Q_F, science teachers don't need to address it at all. Not only is it not "bad science", it isn't science in any way, shape, or form.

DVW

Q_F, science teachers don't need to address it at all. Not only is it not "bad science", it isn't science in any way, shape, or form.

Exactly! A hypothesis that can not be tested is of less value than one that is tested and found to be wrong. Only testable hypotheses fall within the realm of science.

Do untestable hypotheses have value? Power hungry controllers of the ignorant masses find them very useful.

Do untestable hypotheses have value? Power hungry controllers of the ignorant masses find them very useful.

Believers can make up any B.S. they like and never be faced with the possibility of their delusions...oops, I mean hypotheses, being falsified. Now that's value!

I have a question for all of those evangelical xians who are supporting Palin: how can you reconcile her unwed teen daughters pregnancy with the teachings of Jesus that adultery is a sin and the fact that adultery is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments? could you support Palin if her daughter were a 1esbian who was married to another woman? Jesus never spoke about homosexuality and it is not forbidden in the Ten Commandents. How can you explain this becasue I sure dont get it.

DVW

Believers can make up any B.S. they like and never be faced with the possibility of their delusions...oops, I mean hypotheses, being falsified. Now that's value!

Ch-ching!

Godless

Those are good questions.

You have challenged their delusion. What will follow is your incorporation into their delusion as Satan's little helper.

Try confronting a schizophrenic about one of their delusions. There are plenty schizophrenics on the streets thanks to the way our barbaric society treats people with mental illness. They will simply avoid the confrontation or incorporate you into it. Sound familiar?

I may have conceded the debate, but not on the basis of admission that what I was saying didn't follow reason, that is, the head on debate for hearts and minds in front of our children between rediculous mythology and real science. It happens nowhere else. Religions publish their books about how evolution is a wild theory and that selected facts and opinions prove that creation is real. When the children are in school, in science class, we teach that the present state of life on our planet is a result of evolution. Any person who has even a basic knowledge of early life on this planet knows that the mechanism of evolution is built into lifeforms, and has no doubt of it. But, I conceded the debate, because Dvan was right. It's not about opportunities to debate the issues in front of the hearts and minds we wish to win, its about setting an incredibly dangerous precedent of letting religion in the front door, because then we have to figure out how to make them leave. I was wrong.

NeoWolfe

Oh my god.... I am afraid for this country. Can you believe that people are taking her seriously... that women voters have gone from supporting Hillary to supporting this hockey mom jesus freak? I am afraid.

DiArtemis

Hillary will go after the beauty queen like nobody else can. Poor Sarah. Oh well, one shouldn't bring a curling iron to a gunfight.

I was wrong.

Now that's what I like about NeoWolfe.

DiArtemis,
When McBush announced his pick for running mate I thought he had for sure tripped on his dick, but, when I heard her speak, I instantly knew this is one dangerous bitch.

Another member speculated that Hillary supporters would never support her. I urged caution, that not all Hillary supporters were hardcore Democrats. Some voted for her because she was the first woman with a realistic shot at the whitehouse, and some voted for her because she wasn't black.

It's a new ballgame folks. Hold on to your seats.

NeoWolfe