LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 211
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Turtle Island
    Posts
    5,328
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by DevineWind View Post
    Agree on the teaching part. Though you had a beef with the parent notification stuff for evolution.
    Nah man, I'm all for as much communication b/t parents and schools as possible, also for parents to teach their kids whatever they want. But I do believe in separation of church and state.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by seldom seen View Post
    Nah man, I'm all for as much communication b/t parents and schools as possible, also for parents to teach their kids whatever they want. But I do believe in separation of church and state.
    No effing theocracy for me!

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,791
    Quote Originally Posted by DevineWind View Post
    why? if a parent is ultra religious, they should have the option to opt out.
    Then they should also opt out of all school. The degree doesn't mean the same if you aren't learning the same information.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,791
    Quote Originally Posted by live4truth View Post
    Hmmm...I would disagree with you on that one my man...c.f., Myth of Religious Neutrality. Great read...the fact of the matter is most of the sciences originated due to a theological belief. Just because science uses a empirical epistemology doesn't necessarily separate it from the realm of philosophy/theology. Sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse IMHO...

    Further, we believe what we think to be true based upon a host of factors, sociological, geographical, theological, educational, etc. These factors cause us to be biased or head down a particular trajectory...wehter dealing with evolution, creationism, etc. The fact of the matter is...scientific fact is interpreted and is not as dogmatic as you are making it out to be...just because something is "found" within the scientific community does not reduce it down to an absolute.
    Science and theories aren't absolutes. Religion is an absolute. Science is ever evolving and changing, while religion sticks to the same belief structure with no regard to outside evidence. Scientific topics are what they are. Religion isn't science. It doesn't rely on peer reviewed studies, data, or "proof" of any kind. For that reason, it is more fitting to be part of philosophy, if we want to categorize it as something to study. When you study theology, you are studying philosophies and philosophical topics. It doesn't matter what origins science had, in relation to old world religion. Religion does not want or need contribution from the scientific community today, nor did it want this in the past. Hell, just a few hundred years ago, conducting scientific studies could put you on the chopping block with the Catholic church.
    I fear we are diving too far into a realm that no one wants to enter. You are going to see some really strong opinions in regards to this. Just understand, I don't call religion a philosophy out of disrespect. In fact, I think if more people used it in this way, the world would be a better place.
    Last edited by brewengineer; Jun 18, 2014 at 07:56 PM.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    I fear we are diving too far into a realm that no one wants to enter. You are going to see some really strong opinions in regards to this. Just understand, I don't call religion a philosophy out of disrespect. In fact, I think if more people used it in this way, the world would be a better place.
    While I disagree with your premise...I agree with you that the topic is not worth the ridiculous perspectives that would come up--happy to PM you about that topic just lmk.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hilton Head Island - OB, SD
    Posts
    4,745
    Images
    26
    No to be Joe the Plumber over here again guys, but have you noticed that our currency says "In God We Trust". Take your wallet out, pull out a $1, I know y'all at least got that in your pocket. Look at it. Remember that. And remember the hypocrisy that a lot our our country lives in. Our national songs mention religion, our currency has it. What we consider "America/European" culture was ALL based and founded on these beliefs... I am not saying that kids have to pray in school if they don't want to. Not saying they even have to say the "PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE" for gawds sake.... But as "far" as we have come as a nation, with tolerance, acceptance and freedom to do and think pretty much whatever you want, you BEST NOT forget your past and where we came from, and everything that the men before us believed. Not saying you gotta believe it. Not saying that I do. I am just saying, with all the BS I have seen in my brief times on this earth and everything that is so PC and unacceptable, one thing that I think needs to be left alone is the church in our country. So what if it's in the curriculum. Teach them both. Explain that these are the two "theories" or whatever, but you must tolerate both....


    I know that there are plenty of other religions that have populations in our country, as well as a HUGE portion of atheists... But be careful of the other side of strong beliefs, cause I am pretty sure OWNING, USING or even HOLDING the American $1.00 bill is probably against every other religion on earth. You dont "Believe" in these things, but you live on this soil. You live in this nation. You work for this dollar. You live with this dollar. You feed your family with this dollar. So you had better respect this dollar and where it came from and where it has been, otherwise, move to China.

    Just my thoughts, but you would have to remove most of our nations culture to "rid" it of religion. We would then have no past and no future. Just one big, politically correct cesspool.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hilton Head Island - OB, SD
    Posts
    4,745
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    Science and theories aren't absolutes. Religion is an absolute. Science is ever evolving and changing, while religion sticks to the same belief structure with no regard to outside evidence. Scientific topics are what they are. Religion isn't science. It doesn't rely on peer reviewed studies, data, or "proof" of any kind. For that reason, it is more fitting to be part of philosophy, if we want to categorize it as something to study. When you study theology, you are studying philosophies and philosophical topics. It doesn't matter what origins science had, in relation to old world religion. Religion does not want or need contribution from the scientific community today, nor did it want this in the past. Hell, just a few hundred years ago, conducting scientific studies could put you on the chopping block with the Catholic church.
    I fear we are diving too far into a realm that no one wants to enter. You are going to see some really strong opinions in regards to this. Just understand, I don't call religion a philosophy out of disrespect. In fact, I think if more people used it in this way, the world would be a better place.
    I forget what corny movie this is from, but it was a response to being told how religous the man's son had become. He replied "Anything that makes my son a better man, I am all for it."

    That is what religion is supposed to be all about. About making yourself, your family and this world the best that it can be. Religion was supposed to govern people. To give them faith, hope and piece of mind. It was twisted and manipulated by men to build their churches, to build their wealth and they changed the message from being a better person, to having to be a lifelong recruiting agent for the "cause" or the church. On they wanted the authority to govern people, not god. So, religion was high jacked by power, wealth-hungry men, like a SI thread by shark hunter. It was never meant to be this way. In it's proper application, it was supposed to keep us all from killing, raping and pillaging each other.... And instead, every religion in the world at some point or another has manipulated it into the exact opposite. The reason we should kill, instead the reason we should not....

    It's a shame. All humanity ever wanted was hope. Without hope, what is there?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long branch
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the...act-or-fallac/
    Again, it is best to do some fact checking. Many have found issues with the China Study, even those who usually push vegetarianism.

    the first article you presented uses a study from the Weston A price foundation that promotes a high animal fat diet. they call butter a superfood. hmm

    the second article is by Denise Minger, who coincidentally is affiliated with the Price foundation., has been found to have many flaws in her critique of the china study..

    denise minger is a 23 yr old English major with no medical degree, no certification in physiology, biochemistry, or nutrition. not qualified in math or statistics, no experience with actual patients, and is not licensed to practice medicine, or to dispense human nutritional or medical advice to the public.

    compared to the author of the china study dr. colin t campell
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Colin_Campbell

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long branch
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the...act-or-fallac/
    Again, it is best to do some fact checking. Many have found issues with the China Study, even those who usually push vegetarianism.
    btw the china study does not promote veganism. one large misconception. it suggests to limit animal protein to only 5% of caloric intake and the rest of calories from whole plant foods.. not the 20% plus that todays westerners eat.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,791
    Quote Originally Posted by archy View Post
    the first article you presented uses a study from the Weston A price foundation that promotes a high animal fat diet. they call butter a superfood. hmm

    the second article is by Denise Minger, who coincidentally is affiliated with the Price foundation., has been found to have many flaws in her critique of the china study..

    denise minger is a 23 yr old English major with no medical degree, no certification in physiology, biochemistry, or nutrition. not qualified in math or statistics, no experience with actual patients, and is not licensed to practice medicine, or to dispense human nutritional or medical advice to the public.

    compared to the author of the china study dr. colin t campell
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Colin_Campbell
    The first article only mentions that other study. Hall still makes separate points that are real issues with the study. Other MDs have brought up issues with the China Study as well. I honestly picked the most popular. The fact remains that the study is no a peer reviewed research piece written by an unbiased author. Good points to consider: http://drlwilson.com/Articles/CHINA%...K%20REVIEW.htm
    Honestly, I have automatic doubts when anyone skips the peer review process. Instead, he writes a book and sells it as good scientific research. Of course, the vegans buy up anything that promotes their lifestyle.
    Last edited by brewengineer; Jun 18, 2014 at 10:56 PM.