Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 199. (Read 901362 times)

You stay away from me, especially with all this buddy stuff.

Choosing definitions? The definition of "religion," as I have shown in past posts, shows that atheism IS a religion.

It's easy to avoid teaching religion in school... simply, don't teach anything that is not true... easy

Um...since you can't help but teach religion in school...

Like I say, a focus on the 'Three R's would be of value.  The first R is 'reading'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXFY29ZRHB8

You do not get to choose which of the several definitions you prefer... that's not how definitions of words work...
Words have different definitions depending on the context in which the word is used (6th time I've explained this to you)

Atheism is not a religion... Atheism is not taught in schools... please provide an example of exactly what you are referring to

Now you want religion in the schools? since science has proven God to exist? Make up your mind... (like in the same breath).

Right! And since atheism is a religion according to the dictionary definition, religion has been in the schools for ages, now.

Can't attack a non-existent argument.   

Your solution is... since you can't teach religion in school... get rid of schools?!?

NO! NO! NO!

The solution is... only teach provable facts in public schools... if you can't prove it, don't teach it!

As always, you can attend a private school and be brainwashed any direction you like... but don't try that bullshit in public schools!

Currently our educational systems seem to be effectively teaching a great deal of Gaia worship green bullshit so, in my opinion, teaching religion is already happening.  My solution would be to get rid of the classroom since nobody can use it without pushing their own agenda.

A centrally controlled educational system simply wants to pump out workplace ready robots and are increasingly good at it.  To the extent that it is failing here in the West, it is because there is no more 'workplace' so the shift is to pump out lemmings who will throw themselves over the cliff when the time is right.

Can you possibly make a post that is something other than an argumentum ad hominem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If you want to defend teaching religion in science class... don't attack my character... attack my argument

Stop pegging me. The least you can do is say it straight out.    

Man are you going off the deep end! Even an animal doesn't want to have sex that much. But you want to fuck just about everything in sight... politeness, religion, science, classrooms in their PERIODS, morons, your buddy tvbcof... and you even want tvbcof to do it to himself.

Folks, watch out for this Moloch, guy. He is going off the fucking deep end.  

IIRC, I pegged you as a 23 yr old white female who was home-schooled and has an IQ of 120... how close am I?

You look foolish for the name you chosed not for something somebody told on you.


Best regards.

Haven't shown any evidence yet, and since my IQ is about 50... oh that's right, you are off by about 50. Yours is about 150, right? And still I can whip you with all sorts of evidence, facts, and language. I'll keep mine, and you would benefit if you copied me.

Naw, fuck that... its time to stop being polite... religion is fucking bullshit... it is NOT SCIENCE and RELIGION SHOULD NEVER BE TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM... NEVER!... PERIOD. FULL-STOP!

If you disagree, it is your right... but know that it makes you a fucking moron when you say people should teach religion in a science classroom... it makes us all look like morons because we are associated with you... go fuck yourself, and quit making me look foolish in front of the entire world!

For most of my life I had been fairly rabidly of the opinion that this guy spouts.  As of the last few years, not so much.

 - Our education system is a wreck and I don't think that teaching gibberish in science class can possibly make the results any worse.  It's probably better than teaching basically wrong or at least vastly oversimplified stuff with some vague assertion of legitimacy 'because, science.'

 - It's probably more dangerous to have a unified and inflexible curriculum defined by a single state and designed to achieve the goals of that state than it is to have a more flexible locally influenced one.  I'm now of the opinion that basically the state should mandate no more than that kids somehow learn 'the three R's and provide some basic support for that available to those who wish to use it, and everything else (including science, history, etc) should be left to the student, parent, and community.

 - I don't have a real problem with there being individual and regional differences in inputs and outcomes.  I simply don't believe that 'uniformity' is very critical and not even all that desirable.

 - I don't give a fuck what people in other nations think about us and it absolutely should not define our internal systems.  To be honest, I don't think very highly of most of them when it comes to a lot of fairly important things.

The only difference between me and you is that I have facts and evidence to back up every claim I make...

Well, that and about 50 IQ points