Author Topic: Federal Judges are stupid idiots (Read 2954 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #60 on:** January 14, 2005, 01:56:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
That's a toughy, since the amoeba is a single celled organism.

formed from protiens IIRC....I've done a lot of drinking since high school science.

rpm · « **Reply #61 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:21:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
All this is easy. There is no guarantee of 'seperation' of church and state. There is only a guarantee of that the state will not endorse any one religion. Atheism IS a religion. By excluding the statement that evolution is only a theory and that there might be other explanations of the creation of the world as we know it, the government is favoring atheism and is violating the constitution.

The ruling is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

Atheism is not a religion.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
1 the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: de·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-tE, 'dA-
Function: noun
1 a god or goddess

rpm · « **Reply #62 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:27:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
formed from protiens IIRC....I've done a lot of drinking since high school science.

Like I said...that's a toughy!

Lazerus · « **Reply #63 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:29:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Atheism is not a religion.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

By your own definition it is.

rpm · « **Reply #64 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:39:29 AM »

You either don't or refuse to understand that it is the antithesis of religion.

Lazerus · « **Reply #65 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:45:53 AM »

The blatant exclusion of religion by the government is in itself a violation of the constitution if recognizing a religoin is.

rpm · « **Reply #66 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:48:02 AM »

Try comprehending the definition.

Lazerus · « **Reply #67 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:52:55 AM »

I did, I was wrong.

But I restated my original post.

Why is that wrong?

Lazerus · « **Reply #68 on:** January 14, 2005, 03:02:19 AM »

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think the italizised portion is just as important as the rest.

Again, I haven't been to church in years.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #69 on:** January 14, 2005, 07:36:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB73
wulfie, you missed a few threads started by me, don't let me down now but not calling everythign i post retarded

As much as you'd hope I would, I don't post to your threads. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've even replied to you more than twice.
-SW

JB88 · « **Reply #70 on:** January 14, 2005, 07:49:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy

but lets hit the high-points -I'll focus mainly on creation. mostly because I know it better and I won't have to read up on any of Darwin's work (this is helpful because, besides him being a very weird dude, I find his writing boring and very tedious, so I'll avoid it because I can)

if you are looking for a modern version of evolution, read richard dawkins. he has written some very good things regarding evolution and natural selection.

people pin it on darwin, but many people were writing about it during his time.

dawkins is an example of modern theory on the matter.

i think that it is safe to say that darwin was to evolution what freud was to psychoanalysis....both of which are as much akin to
thier fields as henry ford might be to space travel.

ok. i exaggerate. but you get the point.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #71 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:02:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
I think the italizised portion is just as important as the rest.

Again, I haven't been to church in years.

Yes but omiting a sticker froma book disclaiming the "theory of evolution" as being only a theory is not in any way prohibiting the exercise of religion.
Now if you go on to say that prohibiting teaching the theory of creation I will agree with you.

the stickers are pretty silly actually.

Evolution is not an absolute fact. Just as Creation is not an absolute fact

That is why it is called a "theory" to begin with

fd ski · « **Reply #72 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:34:26 AM »

capt. apathy,

with all respect to your train of thought, which is more then most people in this treat, do you suppose that this sort of open interpretation applies to all portions of the bible and religious dogma or to whichever ones we find to "need fixin" at a given time ?

I personally have a big logical problem with people "interpreting" the bible, because depending on will and skill of the person doing the interpretation, you can draw any conclusion, just to suit your desired result.
Which makes the book meaningless.

Recently i read and article about virginity in relation to catholic tradition. There was this girl who would only have oral and anal sex but not vaginal, before the marriage, because THAT would be a sin.

See the sillyness ?

JB73 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:55:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
1 the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

rpm you are confusing Christianity with Religion.

if there is to be TRUE seperation then it has to be equal on all grounds.

there are religions like the defination says that believe we came from UFO's and the planet evolved...

one could say teaching evolution in a school is an endorsment of that religion,

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:56:39 AM »

If I understand this correctly... the judges are saying that anything that sheds doubt on any aspect of the theory of evolution should be banned from the halls of learning?

lazs