[afx114]

[quote=jstoesz]If parents have choice, this debate about religion in schools in unnecessary. If you don’t like religion being taught in schools, don’t send your kid to a parochial school…If you want religion in schools, send your kid to a parochial school. This is the beauty and simplicity of freedom. And this freedom does not infringe on anyone else’s freedom![/quote]

Isn’t this what we have now?

[afx114]

[quote=jstoesz]If parents have choice, this debate about religion in schools in unnecessary. If you don’t like religion being taught in schools, don’t send your kid to a parochial school…If you want religion in schools, send your kid to a parochial school. This is the beauty and simplicity of freedom. And this freedom does not infringe on anyone else’s freedom![/quote]

Isn’t this what we have now?

[afx114]

[quote=jstoesz]If parents have choice, this debate about religion in schools in unnecessary. If you don’t like religion being taught in schools, don’t send your kid to a parochial school…If you want religion in schools, send your kid to a parochial school. This is the beauty and simplicity of freedom. And this freedom does not infringe on anyone else’s freedom![/quote]

Isn’t this what we have now?

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: Actually, hold on a second there. There is a valid point to be made that Communism and National Socialism were a form of religion. Its been argued, and persuasively so, from authors ranging from historian Alan Bullock (“Hitler and Stalin” and “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny”) to Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”).

There is no arguing in the destructive force of both movements, and the words, symbols, icons of both movements are intended to evoke a sense of righteous purpose, historicity and “faith” in the “teachings”.

Stalin had a better mustache than Hitler, though.[/quote]

I respect Hitchens, and haven’t read Bullock, but I agree that any political/economic/social theory can be considered a “religion.” If Communism can be a religion, so can Capitalism. Hell, your description above perfectly fits American Patriotism, something that has been a religion for a long time with our flags and our eagles and our war porn and our manifest destiny. I am religious about beer and ice hockey.

For the purpose of this discussion I understand “religion” to be a belief in a supernatural being.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: Actually, hold on a second there. There is a valid point to be made that Communism and National Socialism were a form of religion. Its been argued, and persuasively so, from authors ranging from historian Alan Bullock (“Hitler and Stalin” and “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny”) to Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”).

There is no arguing in the destructive force of both movements, and the words, symbols, icons of both movements are intended to evoke a sense of righteous purpose, historicity and “faith” in the “teachings”.

Stalin had a better mustache than Hitler, though.[/quote]

I respect Hitchens, and haven’t read Bullock, but I agree that any political/economic/social theory can be considered a “religion.” If Communism can be a religion, so can Capitalism. Hell, your description above perfectly fits American Patriotism, something that has been a religion for a long time with our flags and our eagles and our war porn and our manifest destiny. I am religious about beer and ice hockey.

For the purpose of this discussion I understand “religion” to be a belief in a supernatural being.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: Actually, hold on a second there. There is a valid point to be made that Communism and National Socialism were a form of religion. Its been argued, and persuasively so, from authors ranging from historian Alan Bullock (“Hitler and Stalin” and “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny”) to Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”).

There is no arguing in the destructive force of both movements, and the words, symbols, icons of both movements are intended to evoke a sense of righteous purpose, historicity and “faith” in the “teachings”.

Stalin had a better mustache than Hitler, though.[/quote]

I respect Hitchens, and haven’t read Bullock, but I agree that any political/economic/social theory can be considered a “religion.” If Communism can be a religion, so can Capitalism. Hell, your description above perfectly fits American Patriotism, something that has been a religion for a long time with our flags and our eagles and our war porn and our manifest destiny. I am religious about beer and ice hockey.

For the purpose of this discussion I understand “religion” to be a belief in a supernatural being.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: Actually, hold on a second there. There is a valid point to be made that Communism and National Socialism were a form of religion. Its been argued, and persuasively so, from authors ranging from historian Alan Bullock (“Hitler and Stalin” and “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny”) to Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”).

There is no arguing in the destructive force of both movements, and the words, symbols, icons of both movements are intended to evoke a sense of righteous purpose, historicity and “faith” in the “teachings”.

Stalin had a better mustache than Hitler, though.[/quote]

I respect Hitchens, and haven’t read Bullock, but I agree that any political/economic/social theory can be considered a “religion.” If Communism can be a religion, so can Capitalism. Hell, your description above perfectly fits American Patriotism, something that has been a religion for a long time with our flags and our eagles and our war porn and our manifest destiny. I am religious about beer and ice hockey.

For the purpose of this discussion I understand “religion” to be a belief in a supernatural being.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: Actually, hold on a second there. There is a valid point to be made that Communism and National Socialism were a form of religion. Its been argued, and persuasively so, from authors ranging from historian Alan Bullock (“Hitler and Stalin” and “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny”) to Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”).

There is no arguing in the destructive force of both movements, and the words, symbols, icons of both movements are intended to evoke a sense of righteous purpose, historicity and “faith” in the “teachings”.

Stalin had a better mustache than Hitler, though.[/quote]

I respect Hitchens, and haven’t read Bullock, but I agree that any political/economic/social theory can be considered a “religion.” If Communism can be a religion, so can Capitalism. Hell, your description above perfectly fits American Patriotism, something that has been a religion for a long time with our flags and our eagles and our war porn and our manifest destiny. I am religious about beer and ice hockey.

For the purpose of this discussion I understand “religion” to be a belief in a supernatural being.

[afx114]

With respect to irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins says it best:

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller’s marked bullet ends up in Penn’s mouth and Penn’s marked bullet ends up in Teller’s. I am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, ‘It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It’s got to be supernatural.’ But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is ‘paranormal’.

[afx114]

With respect to irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins says it best:

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller’s marked bullet ends up in Penn’s mouth and Penn’s marked bullet ends up in Teller’s. I am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, ‘It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It’s got to be supernatural.’ But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is ‘paranormal’.

[afx114]

With respect to irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins says it best:

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller’s marked bullet ends up in Penn’s mouth and Penn’s marked bullet ends up in Teller’s. I am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, ‘It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It’s got to be supernatural.’ But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is ‘paranormal’.

[afx114]

With respect to irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins says it best:

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller’s marked bullet ends up in Penn’s mouth and Penn’s marked bullet ends up in Teller’s. I am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, ‘It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It’s got to be supernatural.’ But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is ‘paranormal’.

[afx114]

With respect to irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins says it best:

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller’s marked bullet ends up in Penn’s mouth and Penn’s marked bullet ends up in Teller’s. I am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, ‘It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It’s got to be supernatural.’ But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is ‘paranormal’.

[afx114]

Stalin and Mao may have been atheists, but are you claiming that their atheism systematically influenced them to commit their atrocities in the name of atheism? Hitler and Stalin has mustaches. So did Saddam. Using your logic I can conclude that mustaches must lead to genocide.

[afx114]

Stalin and Mao may have been atheists, but are you claiming that their atheism systematically influenced them to commit their atrocities in the name of atheism? Hitler and Stalin has mustaches. So did Saddam. Using your logic I can conclude that mustaches must lead to genocide.

[Author]

Posts