BONG!!!!!

Another fundie deconstructs their own arguments in just one post. And the amazing thing is, they just keep on doing it…

Or that while people cannot be discriminated against because they are say, Catholic or Lutheran or Hindu or whatever they still have their role to play in society and shouldn’t be restricted from believing and discussing their beliefs either .. wherever so they wish?

There’s nothing that prohibits discussing religion in school. History class would be pretty full of holes if it was. And you can certainly believe whatever you want. You just can’t teach religion. If a student brings up creationism/ID in science class it’s not like everyone has to cover their ears and pretend it didn’t happen. Any real science teacher would be happy to explain why creationism/ID is not science.

You’re forgetting that organisms committing suicide after determining there is no god is one of the main selecting forces in evolution. How else can you explain all the trilobite fossils found with open bottles of sleeping pills next to them?

To respond to some of your points:

1) Not sure what schools you’ve been looking into, but I don’t recall any schools actively teaching atheism. Point me to a school that is actively saying “There is no god” instead of just not addressing whether or not god exists.

2) Scientists are not afraid of putting evolution up for a debate against an alternative. At present, there are no scientific alternatives to explain the diversity and change of life over time. When a scientific alternative surfaces, then let’s talk. Keep in mind, this requires that the alternative has actually come up with testable, falsifiable theories, evidence which supports those theories, makes predictions, finds evidence based on those predictions, and so forth.

3) Saying that the “other side” is making things up is only an ad hominem if it is not supported by evidence. It can be shown that they have made stuff up. It’s fact. Therefore, no ad hom.

4) More than just a few of the founding fathers were not Christians. If you do a little research, you’ll find that some of the more prominent men that devised the wording of the Constitution and the amendments were likely Deists and possibly atheists. Even some of the ones who were Christians were greatly in favor of a separation of church and state, due in large part to the antagonisms between the different sects of Christianity. No one wanted to see a rival sect gain too much power. Therefore, for the sake of both government and religion, they wanted to keep religion out of the government.

Please don’t reflexively accuse me of being a troll or flame me just for thinking differently to you or at least arguing oustide the atheist herd here.

Or that while people cannot be discriminated against because they are say, Catholic or Lutheran or Hindu or whatever they still have their role to play in society and shouldn’t be restricted from believing and discussing their beliefs either .. wherever so they wish?

It appears plausible to me that atheists have been – perhaps – misinterpreting and exploiting the amendment to exclude rather than include and to compel their own dogma of “No God” as opposed to allowing all people the freedom to decide for themselves what their religious beliefs are.

I don’t think the way in which atheists have been interpreting the Church / State separation is the same way the founding fathers of America intended that rule to run. In fact, I think it is likely the direct opposite of what the founders (who lets not forget were – with few exceptions – religious devout Christians escaping from European religious intolerance) would have wanted.

“So they changed tactics again, now claiming that teachers need “academic freedom” to discuss controversial theories. The thing is, evolution isn’t controversial. Not among real scientists, that is. It’s a manufactured controversy, with reality on one side, and antiscience creationists making stuff up on the other.

Hmm …

So you are saying that the only *real* science is the science you agree with? That anything you disgrree with isn’t “true science?”

Isn’t that the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?

Saying the other side is making things up also smacks to me of the ‘ad hominam’ or “attacking the person not their argument” fallacy.

If the case for evolution is overhwelming then why are scientists so scared of putting it up for debate alongside an alterative?

What is so wrong with bills for ‘academic freedom’ that allow even eccentric minority views (or mainstream commonly held ones for that matter) to be discussed and compared with conventional scientific views?

And on a slightly related note if teaching religion is banned why is teaching atheism – a form of religious belief or at very least a personal belief about the matter of religion – made compulsory? Just because we’ve got church state separation preventing the compulsion of any *single specific* religion over the numerous others does that necessarily require the mandatory teaching of the *single specific * & minority atheist belief by default as it were?

Don’t flame me, please, I’m just asking nicely.

E.g., prove that God exists and there is no longer a need to believe in the existence of God, anymore than there is a need to believe in the existence of Mount Rushmore or Saturn or the Ohio Turnpike

Wait, what? Are you saying the Ohio Turnpike is real?

question the doctor

But, but, but…doctors know stuff. Who are we to question them?

accept the doctor’s word

Pffft! Doctors don’t know anything. They just guess most of the time. Why should we take their word? Huh? Huh?