JustinW

You would think that something that isn't real would not have a measurable pressure.

Astrocat5,

Okay you keep pointing to Bornoulli to prove that expansion creates pressure change, but point me to a study that shows that this change IS occuring. Give me some measurements or numbers or SOMETHING to prove that the universe is acting the way that you imply. It seems that all of your theoretical musings have little to go on besides the observable expansion.

 

You keep reffering to Newton for gravity speeding things up and Boyles for the expansion, but it seems that in your scenario of the blackhole, that Newtons law should overpower Boyles law. If something was drawing us in at a faster and faster rate, this would definately override an expansion of things in all directions. We might expand, but it would be a directional expansion and speeds would be different in different regions.

Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

 

Only as much as it is nowhere.

We don't.

My reference to happiness is an observation that if people are happy then religion becomes obsolete.

Could depend on what makes you happy. Some might derive pleasure from other people's suffering. That sort of happiness wouldn't gain someone admittance to heaven I wouldn't think.

The greatest majority were deist, and most were vocally against organised religion.

Yeah this so well illustrated by the link I provided. (sarcasm)

 

 

Whatever they want to teach in private schools is fine, providing they meet standards.

Isn't it wierd how most private schools not only meet but surpass the standards.

 

 

 

Um... Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to my mind that ran with a strong religious message as part of his platform which helped lead to the modern GOP of right wing religious nutters.

Currently the US rates lowest (except for Turkey) in science education, while ranking the most religious of the first world nations.

He of course isn't all to blame, but he certainly helped usher in the many problems we're having today.

This doesn't quite answer my question. Can you be a little more specific on HOW Reagans institution of the year of the bible had a negative affect on the teaching in schools.

 

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html Here is another link that directly connects christianity with the founding of America as spoken by the founders. Why is it so difficult to believe that the founding of this country was influenced by religious beliefs?

Your analogy is now clear and is good but I still question the ultimate aim of the church, surely Jesus would have preferred a good moral to an acceptance of fate?

 

As well He did. I don't think heaven and hell is decided by any church, and neither did Jesus. I think for most theist believers the dicision resides in the heart, not in the opinion of others and especially not in the church. This could be argued by catholics though, who believe that to go against the church is to go against God. Judeism only requires that a person be spiritual to gain heaven. Some other religions believe that it is a person deeds in life that earn him a place in heaven.

imatfaal,

Justin - Glenn Beck does not provide information - he provides propaganda. I thought I would listen until I heard something demonstrably and obviously false - by two and a half minutes in it seemed to be agreed that you cannot preach christianity in israel - here is a list of places you can go to mass (I think that counts as preaching) in Jerusalem (which is in Israel). Citing Glenn Beck is akin to saying "I don't really care about the facts, I have already made up my mind and I will ignore all those that I disagree with!"

 

Additionally David Barton - the phone-in "historical expert" has more of a reputation as a revisionist than an historian - there are plenty of US constitutional historians, if one merely wanted a historical viewpoint and explanation of religiousity or not of the founding fathers then perhaps getting someone who didn't run a website dedicated to removal of the division between church and state (and that there never really was one)

I know, I know, I knew I would catch hell for putting that on there. The fact is though that the founding fathers were religious and were influenced by judeo-christian beliefs. The glenn beck link was just to prove that there are two sides to this argument, and the second link was to illistrate that the same founders provided by the link from iNow were in fact religious. And that religion played a part in who they were and the decisions that were made conserning the founding of this country. I don't see why religion can't be used in a classroom to better understand people in history and how they were influenced by their religion.

As to creationism, I pretty well stand with you on the subject Keenidiot, but I don't see why religion can't be included for a better understanding of how things came about. Even if it is only mentioned with spontaneous generation, past concepts, and vitalism.

 

Okay let me ask the forum this... In '83 when Reagan anounced a year of the bible, what bad things came of it. Did muslim and jewish kids convert to christianity in mass? Was there another inquasition?

I'm not understanding why this is thought to be applied in a way that will indoctrinate kids or even negatively effect them.

"All over the Pennsylvania Capitol, one can easily see the tremendous influence that Christianity and the Bible have had over our founders and predecessors. These images and quotes illustrating the beliefs and morals that have shaped our great Commonwealth must never be forgotten."

This was in the link you provided for the saccone resolution. So in this context I could see it being a benifit in a history class and that was what I was talking about. I took this article as presenting the religious aspect of history, not science, although I'm sure there are some aspects of science that religion has had a positive influence on.

 

For some yes, for most, no. See my post above. I was completing an edit when you posted this.

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/02/are-we-a-christian-nation/

http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

 

Since the links you gave were the work of some who are considered leftwing, the top is someone who is definitely considered right wing, but an interesting bit of info to say the least. The link I provided on the bottom are some words from the same people that your links refer to. I only thought it fair to include some of the same founders and their words.

 

 

Because some of us have integrity and value accuracy and truth.

Yes, lets hope that the truth is never bent to include ideology.

Will they also be equally supportive of a Year of the Qu'ran?

Did the quran help to shape the decisions of our founding fathers? I don't recall too many Muslims signing the declaration or being major players in providing the foundation to build this country. If I'm wrong then I would probably support such a thing under that context.

 

On top of that, what about all of the non-religious people in our country? Is their freedom FROM religion not as worthy of protection as your freedom OF religion?

 

Are you saying that religion can't even be brought up? I would say that would leave out a vital understanding of history. About who the people were. How those people lived and thought. Why some people chose to fight or die. There is a lot of aspects where religion can be brought up in a lesson to be used as a tool for understanding and not as a way to indoctrinate a belief system. You're the one who talks about academic integrity. Is it not reasonable to consider that the judeo-christian religion was a big part of our founders lives, and that these beliefs played a big part in the decisions that formed our history. I'm not supporting the preaching of religion but also am not against the understanding of the role religion has playedin history.

 

 

 

There are not two sides of the story. There is one science based version, then like a thousand creation stories. It's not controversial if you're a serious person who values academic integrity, and the judeo-christian creation myth is hardly the only one, yet that's the only one they want presented. Finally, just to close out this rebuttal of your comment... Popularity does not dictate truth, so the number of people who argue the validity is really rather moot if their arguments are specious and weak... which they are.

You can't take the human factor out of everything. As long as popularity exists you'll get an argument, true or not. And this really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The creationist thing. .yeah, I get that their argument goes against any observable evidence, but it is still something that is being taught to their children that they don't believe in. What's wrong with saying " this is what the evidence has shown us. . .this is some other things that people believe about the subject, and here is the evidence for that". It would still drive the creationists crazy, but then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on because their side is still being presented. I understand what you're saying,also this idea probably wouldn't be plausible in an arena with so many different beliefs, but it is just an idea.

Now global warming on the other hand. It would be a shame to not have an ongoing debate on this subject. I would miss reading you and JohnB throwing arguments back and forth. You have to admit the subject is controversial and it's validity for cause, effect, and method are somewhat debatable. Why teach this in schools as pure fact when so many things about the subject are argued logically. Why not present it like" this is what the studies have shown and this is what the opposition believes and why"?

This is what I previously said,

It's not that I said it was just opposed by atheists. Like I said, it was just the most opposition that I've heard has been from athiests. I don't really care who believes what or doesn't believe what. I would argue against teaching creationism for the simple fact that it is not rellevant to the basic studies that a child learns in school. Also and probably most of all because public schools do not need to pick and chose the winners and losers of arguments based on opinion rather than factual consensus. Things like the teaching and applying of religion need to be taught at home, not in the class room.

 

But with that being said.

What's wrong with this

PA House Unanimously Votes for Saccone Resolution Declaring 2012 as Year of the Bible

 

A resolution sponsored by Rep. Rick Saccone (R-Allegheny/Washington) to declare 2012 as the "Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania was unanimously adopted by the state House this week.

 

"As not only Pennsylvania, but the United States, continues to face great tests and challenges, House Resolution 535 serves as a reminder that we must look to our faith in God and the Holy Scripture to provide us with the strength, wisdom and courage to conquer these great trials," said Saccone. "All over the Pennsylvania Capitol, one can easily see the tremendous influence that Christianity and the Bible have had over our founders and predecessors. These images and quotes illustrating the beliefs and morals that have shaped our great Commonwealth must never be forgotten."

 

Supported by many members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, legislation similar to House Resolution 535 was passed by the U.S. House and Senate to allow President Ronald Reagan to declare 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" at the national level.

 

It doesn't sound like they are teaching and applying religion. It sounds more like they are trying to teach a better understanding on what drove our founding fathers to make the decisions that they made. While I don't want schools preaching religion, I also feel that it is illogical to think that religion can never be mentioned. If only to better understand the drive behind some people's thoughts and movements.

 

 

Moontanman,

These things are subject to opinion? Wiping slavery out of text books because it slanders the founding fathers? Civil rights heroes? Treatment of Native Americans? Global warming? Striking mention of certain founding fathers because they are too liberal? Editing history to conform to Conservative facts? Give me a break....

Maybe opinion was a bad choice in words. I meant that it is known that some things are taught in a way that support a certain belief or ideology, but I don't see what the big deal is with teaching both sides of the story when the subject matter is controversial or in which the validity of facts is argued by a good number of people.

Here is an article that was provided in another thread that I thought was interesting and I think relevant to the subject to some degree.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/vacuummatters9

The formation of Israel was conquer and claim, not a battle for independence...

Actually it was more like claim and defend.

but taking away land or a country just because you are a bigger bastard than the other guy is not the way I personally would like to see the world go.

I know but until the last couple of centuries this is how it's been. I think probably we have seen the last of that sort of conquer and claim warfare, at least for a while.

 

 

the idea that they have the right to Palestine due to the word of god is an insult to humanity...

Like I've said before, they declared their independance and fought a war to keep it. If that isn't the way you gain legal rights to be your own country then we should be speaking in Brittish accents right now.

Einstein said WW4 will be fought with sticks...

Very true, once III kicks off it is doubtful that cooler heads will prevail.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying that Israel isn't at fault on some matters. But I choose to support Israel for a number of reasons. First is their legal claim through their own war of independance. Another is the fact that yes, they are our allies in a region that the others we have are shaky at best. Another would be for the fact that Israel only atttacks in defense of itself or with a reasonable amount of threat to justify attack. And another would be that most of their enemies are our own as well. I could probably hash out a few more if I wasn't in a hurry.

Did you not read the link i gave? Do i have to google more, the supreme court had to rule on this at least once, local courts have dealt with this many times

As well as from the otherside too.

 

 

 

It's not that I said it was just opposed by atheists. Like I said, it was just the most opposition that I've heard has been from athiests. I don't really care who believes what or doesn't believe what. I would argue against teaching creationism for the simple fact that it is not rellevant to the basic studies that a child learns in school. Also and probably most of all because public schools do not need to pick and chose the winners and losers of arguments based on opinion rather than factual consensus. Things like the teaching and applying of religion need to be taught at home, not in the class room.

 

 

You hope our public schools remain unbiased about those kind of issues, what exactly do you mean by that?

I just went into a long spill (which I just erased) with examples and stories about what is being taught could be construde by different ideologies to be against theirs, but I think I can make this simpler. Mostly I was talking about religion as I explained above. But I was also talking about arguments such as global warming, civil rights heroes, American Indians, etc...There can be alot of differences of opinion and I would prefer that public sector schools stick with the facts as best they can.

I think we are getting two different time frames mixed up. When talking about the Israeli placement there it is not so simple. Jews have been in that area for well over 2000 years. The legal placement of them by Brittain then by their declaring of Independance and subsequential war that followed did push a lot of people out of their homes. It may have not been right but those are the consequences of war.

 

When talking about the recent removal of palestinians I just suggested that their legal claim needed to be looked at within relation to where they build. This makes sense to me in as far as Israel holding their borders against those who believe them to be an enemy that needs to be wipe off the face of the earth. Palestinians feel that they have a right to own the holy land as does Israelis, but Israel holds a legal claim at present and Palestine does not. I'm not saying that religion isn't the main cause of this conflict, just that when looked at from an objective view point, the legal right takes precident over religious rights.

 

What happened in the past up to Israel gaining a legal claim is irrelevant when discussing the realities of todays conflict from a legal and defensive standpoint. If we give Israel back to Palestine on the basis that it used to be owned by Palestinians, why wouldn't we do this for every other part of the world. By that logic the US would in fact not just go back to the Native Americans, but would partly go back to the Spanish, French, Brittish, and anyone else who stepped foot on and claimed a piece throughout history. It's illogical.

 

 

 

By the way those so called jack asses who say that Israel is there because God wants them to be there are irrelevant also. As I've stated before they did declare their independance and fight a war to win it. That is where their legal claim comes into play.

And now all you have to do is market a Bain loan for college freshmen to attend a Bain school to learn how to work in a Bain job to pay off their Bain loans so they can shop in Bain stores. Why is this NOT a good ploy? You just figured a way to bring back indentured servitude, profit more, control your market, control your personnel, and get half the voters to actually approve of your methodology. All because you use the unfair advantage your media ownership gives you to influence voters to get the laws regulating your corporation relaxed to the point where they overlook an ever-increasing amount of conflicts of interest and unfair advantage you're gradually accumulating.

You've got a good point Phi, but that is a reach. I could see it a little more clearly if Mitt Romney were the one to say these things (which he probably is). So the basic idea you have with this is, Santorum and others like him are speaking out against ideology being taught in public schools so they can take over public schools and be one step closer to owning and controling the world. Hmmm. . . You don't think that they (and others like them) might have a lagitamate arguement to at least some small degree?

 

 

Without education, people tend to have a limited perspective. In fact, I believe that one of the most important aspects of colleges is not necessarily to convey technical skills, but to show students that there is a whole world out there that we do not really know much about. To show that our preconceptions and anything we learned are but a limited facet of what is really going on. That what we think and believe is quite possibly wrong or at the very least very narrow-minded. That we should be open to new concepts.

 

I think this is probably a more rational explanation than what Santorum was trying to make it seem like. And yes, a more rational explanation than what Phi made it seem like also.

 

 

 

How does someone else holding these extreme beliefs make it ok for others to do so?

Sorry but every time I've read this stuff from you it has always been about the ploy of America to start this war between good and evil. I don't by it and also don't think it is as rampant in the US as you would have everyone believe.

 

Do you live in the USA? Local governments have been fighting tooth and toenail to teach creationism as real science in schools for as long as I've been aware of what going to school means

I may not be as old as you, but I don't remember any big debates on the issue of TEACHING creationism in schools. In fact the most I've heard about have been from athiests protesting the saying of "In God we trust" in the National Anthum, or giving children a moment of silence to pray and such. But all in all this sort of thing is natural from both sides of the arguement at a local level. You want your kids to learn things that are fundamentally important to you, don't you. All we can do is hope that reasoning prevails in the matter and that our public schools stay unbiased about those kinds of issues.

Sorry, I't seems I did misread that last post. I think it was this that I still had in mind to adress.

The few Palestinians I've talked to thusfar talk of homes that are legally owned by Palestinians being invaded by Israeli settlers and the IDF defends the squatting settlers rather than arresting them. These cases can be challenged in court, but the courts are (as said by Palestinians) set up against the Palestinians as the required proof of ownership for the court is almost impossible to give. Then there are cases of Israel demolishing legally owned Palestinian houses to build settler villages.

As for the history of the region, I might not know it with great detail but I have a common grasp of the historical events that surround the region. I even have these fancy little time lines I can reffer back to if necessary.

 

Another thing you are inaccurate on is Israelis being there by religious rights. Religious rights or not, the Brittish are the ones who opened the door on that one. Israel won it's independance which gave them legal rights. Now the only arguements that Palestinians can use to force their way in are religious rights.

I didn't think about it that way, but now that you mention it, it does make sense. It would also explain why divorse is much easier now days than it was when we were historically more fundamentally religious.

Is dark energy the result of a total vacuum beyond our visual horizon? A total vacuum would accelerate expansion and maybe explain dark flow. There is no total vacuum anywhere we can see. What do you think?

I don't think so, we can observe things being affected by dark energy, such as the expansion of super clusters. I don't think that dark energy and vacuum energy are the same. (if such thing as dark energy exists) Dark Energy is just a name we use for something that we can't see. We just observed the result and labeled the cause as Dark Energy until we can learn more. It would only make sense that the universe has an overall pressure (assuming the universe is a closed system) and being able to measure that pressure would theoretically tell us exactly what the universe is doing as a whole. At least that is what I think until someone can redirect my thinking with a logical reason of why it doesn't work that way. (which happens more often than not.)

I was thinking the same thing, actually. It's one thing to have a change in government, but it's another to force people out of their homes so others can move in.

You also have to ask yourselves if they were there by legal right before they were removed, or if they were only there by religious right. If they weren't on land that is legally occupied by Palestine, then it would have been well within Israels rights to move them off. With as many enemies that surround Israel it is illogical to think that they shouldn't control their borders with the utmost care.

You are correct, it is indeed a part of many fundamentalist movements in Islam, Hinduism, Seiks, the list is long and depressing.... But in the US it is a movement with some real power, all you have to do is look at the winners the republicans have trotted out for president...

We could also look at the current president of Iran. It seems I remember him talking about such a battle between good and evil only within the last couple of years.

 

I see it as more of an effort to inject religious fundamentalism into our schools curriculum...

I haven't heard anyone talk about such. The big issue with them has been the teaching of things that they consider to be ideological and arguable without teaching the oppostion's side as well. But on a college level I can see your point about what Santorum said. He tried connecting left wing ideology as teaching against a certain faith in colleges which I believe was a fallicy.

Ignorance is something I can accept, but willful ignorance is not. Ignorance can be remedied. Willful ignorance is just sad.

Might depend on where you're standing at the time.Might be the truth is worse in knowing than not.

The religious fundementalists are on the run, they know they are loosing ground and they..... love it! They have a persecution complex, they want to be persecuted, they think it's what they should expect in the evil end times The feeling of the evil atheist humanists and false religions persecuting them is what the bible teaches them to expect (at least in their interpretation of it) and they believe their fight to oppose it is a holy thing demanded by god and that they alone will escape the horrible end when the rapture gathers them up directly into heaven just as the final conflict between god and the devil takes place.

 

The rest of us get to be killed in horrible ways as the atomic Holocaust is orchestrated by the Devil, in fact the reason they are so supportive of the existence of Israel is intimately connected with the belief that the anti Christ will only come into power after Israel destroys the Muslim mosque that sits on the old Jewish Temple which will bring about the reign of the anti Christ and Armageddon... These people are far more dangerous than most other Christians can conceive of and tolerated because they are after all... you guessed it... Christians

WTF are you talking about Moontanman? You're really trying to spread the message today aren't you. It's funny that this little end of days BS that you keep preaching can be translated into most any religion practiced around the world.

 

 

 

It's all a ploy to privatize education. Corporate lobbyists are pushing to abolish state-run schools. Imagine how powerful you could be if your company could control financial markets, the media AND you could also shape the education of your future employees and customers?

 

You may be right on a certain level Phi. But I don't think the overall intent of conservatives are to abolish state run education. It wouldn't make sense to do so. I have heard some decent examples by people who feel that a certain amount of indoctrination is going on. But on the other hand hand I don't believe that it is a left wing conspiracy to get people's children to fall in line with their ideology either. All I can say is that if it is a ploy to privatization, it is not a very good one.

The thing about documentaries is that you get not only what happened (most of it, anyway), but you also get their viewpoint. If you watch documentaries supporting one side and you watch documentaries supporting the other side of a conflict, you not only get the facts that each side wants to be known, but you get the ones the other side wants to suppress. So, you get what happened and is happening as well as how each side views the situation and how they feel about it. No report other than dates and adjusted figures is going to be unbiased. That approach also misses the human element. So while reading history is important, documentaries, imo, go a long way in understanding as well.

If you'll notice most documentaries are produced with the intent to sway people emotionally towards a given goal. The fact that there are Palestinian documentaries more than Israeli documentaries tells you that history is not a good enough source to establish a justification for the Palestinian plight.

 

I don't recall Canada ever calling for the destruction or liquidation of Americans or Christians either.

 

I'm not saying the actions of the Palestinians are justified, but the anger is more or less reasonable.

Looked at from a Palestinian point of view I kind of agree with this.