Thanks for the response.
First off, Lockebox is an atheist. One of the smart ones imo. Most people are not Christian because a lot of them think its just a label and thats all there is to it. Thats not exactly correct. Just because someone SAYS they are christian does not equate them with having the spirit IN them. I would know because I actually study the stuff to it.
I never said he was a Christian. What I meant by 'people like you' was idiots.
He's not in school. However a google search and various sources evidence towards school staff or a school in itself suspending Christians for praying in various locations.
That leaves me with a few questions. Were these schools private or public? What actually got the Christians suspended? and have there been any legal repercussions for the school? Also, send me some of these since I'm actually interested.
He's all for social equality. We both agree this bill probably takes it to an extreme
Nah it really sounds like he's undermining the separation of church-and-state. I don't think this is a rational person playing devil's advocate, I just think he's stupid.
There is nothing wrong with this and just you being an opposer to the view. whats new?
The 'criticisms of evolution' that the program wants to teach are not valid. They aren't rooted in reality, and are crafted by 'creation scientists' with a poor understanding of both biology and scientific rigor. The point of early science education is to teach children about scientific ideas based in reality(evolution, germ theory) not mythology(creationism,
miasma theory).
There are also people out there who think that Creationism is true and have every right to promote it as a fact.
Are you serious? Either we're having a misunderstanding about what a 'fact' means, or you don't understand that facts need to be substantiated through evidence and experimentation, which creationism is not.
So basically you're not really open minded at all and you are all for promoting things that would prevent people from having access to a view that opposes yours.
Science is by both method and philosophy 'open-minded'. Creationism is inherently unscientific because it's untestable. You cannot say "Let's test whether prayer works at treating illnesses by creating a placebo-controlled experiment" because if it produces negative responses, the creationist can respond that it was "god's will" that it didn't work at that one time. But if you test it thousands of times, and through statistical variance you eventually produce a
single-result that shows a correlation between praying and getting better when sick, it'll be promoted as 'indisputable evidence of God's existence'.
This is called confirmation bias, and I think we both will agree that it's both unscientific and closed-minded.
