nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 148:
Line 148: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 14:35, December 31, 2007
, 14:35, December 31, 2007→It's not a religion: Rather one-sided.
::So all you're stating here is that God doesn't exist, and we should believe your word on the subject, as well as every like-minded individual? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)
::So all you're stating here is that God doesn't exist, and we should believe your word on the subject, as well as every like-minded individual? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:: "''Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion ...''": Isn't that consistent with what Roopilots6 said?
:: "''...the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools.''": I'm sure they never did that.
:: "''It is nothing childish.''": Mocking rather than rational debate is not childish?
:: "''it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom.''": That's evolutionary spin for "it's a protest against allowing any other view than ours into supposedly-neutral classrooms".
:: "''There is no science beind creationism;''": So how come almost all the early scientists were creationists? And how come science only arose because of a Christian (creationist) worldview? I'd suggest there's more science behind creationism than behind the atheist origins myth (evolution).
:: "''...is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools.''": No, that's not the reason.
:: "''Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?''": No. Is anybody claiming that we should? No. So why bring up red herrings?
:: "''If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory.''": No, it would be ''balanced'' between teaching a creator vs. no creator. At the moment, only the no-creator view is allowed a look in. Is that fair?
:: "''It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups ...''": As opposed to the bias by atheist pressure groups?
:: "''... that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible ...''": Huh? I'm not sure that even makes sense.
:: "''..by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom''": As opposed to the atheists already doing just that?
:: It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)