all of religion is "intuition". then you would agree with me that someones" intuition"should not be taken too seriously and certainly not taught in science class?
Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
all of religion is "intuition". then you would agree with me that someones" intuition"should not be taken too seriously and certainly not taught in science class?
Yes, religion should not be taught in science class; religion should be taught in religious class to students who opt for relgious instruction. On the other hand in instances where the science is really scientific speculation such as it often is in matters dealing with the ultimate origins of the universe then such science should be identified as speculation and not fact in science class.
Science as taught in public and high schools (excluding cosmogony) should not pose a threat to any but the most fundamentalist religious beliefs because it should be exclusively about observed behaviors of the material world - the world we all must live and function in on a practical, non-metaphysical basis.
You are such a troll. Sure athiests "say a lot of things". From the troll playbook... chapter on sentences which may be used to qualify any previous garbage you fraudulently stated. (chapter 7 of the book... Stu's sentence which means virtually nothing. copyright Stu 2005-2011.)
But what does an atheist state which sets him apart... which defines him. What is the definition of Atheism.
An atheist states there is no God
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
But lets ask you
So lets see it... as an atheist... do you have no belief in God
or do you state there is no God.
Now lets consider that statement in light of your impressive trolling on these boards.
then hopefully you would agree that we should teach to the best of our knowledge and so called intelligent design , which is a religious concept, should be excluded from the textbooks.
Like here were you "thought" you "reasoned away" the existence of God with your laughably moronic, self-contradictory drivel? STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions 
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
STUpid certainly doesn't. Here he proved he knows less about the universe than most grade schoolers do:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513
Oh, here I'll break it down for you.
First, I appreciate that you surveyed a physics course, all of that experience with theodelites, inclinometers, trigonometry and geodesy could come in handy if, say, you need to survey the Indian subcontinent.
If the premise is that we live in an entropic universe and that all resultant processes are thermodynamically entropic (no outside energy introduced, no "design", pure randomness) then we would not expect self-organizing systems to appear. The idea that self-organized organic processes appeared on Earth spontaneously is problematic. Energy was added and that energy appears to have been directed with intent.
It was perhaps not Jesus, the apostles or God as primitive man has conceived but certainly energy was added to the system and the energy was directed with intent.
Now freethinker and stu and others will follow with dozens of posts employing words like pseudo-science and other philosphical improvisations but little of what they say has any basis in hard science. They like to yammer about it and this is the forum for such blatherings so no worries. But don't tell me that a huge cauldron of boiling random inorganic compounds leads to cellular life because I know it is malarkey.
I personally believe in a multiverse with the power of infinity at work. There are an infinite number of universes and a fraction of infinity is...infinity. So if a fraction of universes possess life then and there are an infinite number of them. I find this comforting given that the expansion of our universe means a cold, dark end for anything living in the distant future. The stars fly away from one another and eventually burn up all of their fuel. Our universe ends at absolute zero temperature and completely dead.
The End.