Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is why atheists become outspoken:

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:23:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

I think one of the first comments I read on the article took the words out of my mouth:

"Holy Sh1t!"
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

And people wonder why I left Texas.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:49:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
http://www.patheos.com...

Here's more of the same...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:59:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:30:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

And people wonder why I left Texas.

Yep, this is definitely one of the bad things about Texas.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:01:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:23:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

I think one of the first comments I read on the article took the words out of my mouth:

"Holy Sh1t!"

LOL. I immediately looked to see if she was running for my district!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty. Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:08:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Yes people have the freedom to be stupid. Where in the constitution does it say stupid speech and ideas are censored from public display?

You are a fool and if the constitution and subsequent bill of rights didn't protect stupid people their wouldn't be craziness like safe zones or athiest decrying any public display or mention of God.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:14:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty. Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

No, I'm hardcore for individuals rights and liberties. What I am not for is forcing religiously motivated ignorance on the populace. What the religious fail to understand is that forcing their beliefs into public education actually limits freedom of religion - i.e. for every religion other than theirs or non believers.

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything

That's a strawman. Do you realize it is my right to speak out against candidates I don't like. It seems you are actually the one trying to limit atheist's right to Freedom of Speech.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:15:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Here's a thought answer the questions I posed.

Do you think the constitution affords everyone the opportunity to participate in the democratic process?

Do you think religious people should be banned from office?

What do you think the 'shall make no law impeding the free excersise of religion' means?

Are you aware doesn't automatically get the position? People have to vote for her.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:16:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:08:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Yes people have the freedom to be stupid. Where in the constitution does it say stupid speech and ideas are censored from public display?

You are a fool and if the constitution and subsequent bill of rights didn't protect stupid people their wouldn't be craziness like safe zones or athiest decrying any public display or mention of God.

FYI, ignorance is not mentioned in the Constitution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:22:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:14:38 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty. Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

No, I'm hardcore for individuals rights and liberties. What I am not for is forcing religiously motivated ignorance on the populace. What the religious fail to understand is that forcing their beliefs into public education actually limits freedom of religion - i.e. for every religion other than theirs or non believers.

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything

That's a strawman. Do you realize it is my right to speak out against candidates I don't like. It seems you are actually the one trying to limit atheist's right to Freedom of Speech.

But if they force athiesm then it's okay.

What makes you think her position will be used to force her religious doctrine on people?

Are you aware she has to be voted in by the people?

Do you know what a representative is? Are you aware the constitution was to set up a government where people would elect others to make rules that reflect thier own priorities? Not to make everyone happy but the most people content.

Again just point out in the constitution where it says what an athiest deems stupid can be censored from public display?

Cite where ignorance is not protected by the constitution?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:24:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:15:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Here's a thought answer the questions I posed.

Do you think the constitution affords everyone the opportunity to participate in the democratic process?

Yes, do you?

Do you think religious people should be banned from office?

No, but I am against religiously motivated curriculum. It seems likely that someone who holds such ignorant positions would be a poor judge of what curriculum should be.

What do you think the 'shall make no law impeding the free excersise of religion' means?

There will be no laws restricting or endorsing religion. I think you think it means, "there will be no laws restricting religion".

Are you aware doesn't automatically get the position? People have to vote for her.

Yes, of course. Consider this an advertisement against her. :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:25:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty.

That's odd, it is freedom and liberty that is being attacked by Bruner and it is us non-believers who are aghast at this bat sh1t crazy woman's ideals and initiatives.

Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

ALL of the people in that area?

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything

LOL. Sometime you just say the silliest things, where do you dream up this stuff?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:27:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This thread is why athiest are elitist desiring dictatorships and the public censhorship of peoples spiritual, religous, metaphysical convictions.

Where free public excersise is redefined to mean quitely alone in ones bedroom.

Masturbation and nakedness have more public freedoms in an athiest's mind than religion
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:28:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?
Did you know that atheists are banned from public office in seven states?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:32:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:22:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:14:38 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty. Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

No, I'm hardcore for individuals rights and liberties. What I am not for is forcing religiously motivated ignorance on the populace. What the religious fail to understand is that forcing their beliefs into public education actually limits freedom of religion - i.e. for every religion other than theirs or non believers.

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything

That's a strawman. Do you realize it is my right to speak out against candidates I don't like. It seems you are actually the one trying to limit atheist's right to Freedom of Speech.

But if they force athiesm then it's okay.

Well, I'm not sure how atheism is being forced.

What makes you think her position will be used to force her religious doctrine on people?

Experience.

Are you aware she has to be voted in by the people?

Answered in another post.

Do you know what a representative is? Are you aware the constitution was to set up a government where people would elect others to make rules that reflect thier own priorities? Not to make everyone happy but the most people content.

The constitution applies to all citizens. Everyone agreeing to break the law regarding separation of church and state doesn't make it legal..

Again just point out in the constitution where it says what an athiest deems stupid can be censored from public display?

Show me where it says I cannot petition against what I consider to be a horrible choice for an elected position...or that I am trying to censor anything. Did you forget I am the one (probably) who made you aware of this lady?

Cite where ignorance is not protected by the constitution?

If ignorance is protected by the constitution, then public schools are illegal. Public schools exists and are not illegal - its actually illegal to not go to school. Your argument is ridiculous.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:36:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:27:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This thread is why athiest are elitist desiring dictatorships and the public censhorship of peoples spiritual, religous, metaphysical convictions.

Are you okay, Myhkiel? You already made a post stating essentially the same thing.

Where free public excersise is redefined to mean quitely alone in ones bedroom.

Public exercise is fine, so long as you're not acting on behalf of the government while you do it.

Masturbation and nakedness have more public freedoms in an athiest's mind than religion

Strawman.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:37:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:28:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?
Did you know that atheists are banned from public office in seven states?

Yes, I did. It irritates me greatly, especially when we have views like Myhkiel's where he claims atheists are trying to take away the rights of believers.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:42:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:24:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:15:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Here's a thought answer the questions I posed.

Do you think the constitution affords everyone the opportunity to participate in the democratic process?

Yes, do you?

Then why did you say "she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks." This implies you don't think religious people should participate in or hold public office.

Then why did you say the "Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights" Yet you haven't demonstrated how this is the case? Or who makes this judgement call of what is ignorant and what is not?


Do you think religious people should be banned from office?

No, but I am against religiously motivated curriculum. It seems likely that someone who holds such ignorant positions would be a poor judge of what curriculum should be.

So instead of addressing her actual platform on curriculum, or to support your disapproval of her by citing her actual actions in regard to the education system you make a post in which you implicitly state something along the lines of:

"this person is religious! She should have no say or participation in the education system regardless of the democratic process."


What do you think the 'shall make no law impeding the free excersise of religion' means?

There will be no laws restricting or endorsing religion. I think you think it means, "there will be no laws restricting religion".

That is what it means. None restricting religious expression. There is only one entity cited as being unable to endorse a religous view. "Congress".

Because you felt like you could comment with out reading the constitution I'll cite the relevant text:

Who are we talking about? "Congress"
Will not do what? "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
But will allow what? ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is Congress who can not endorse a religion. By extension implicitly but not explicitly the courts have ruled government institutions.

So you are correct it means "there will be no laws restricting religion" you are incorrect in asserting that the non-establishment clause applies to anyone but Congress.

And atheist organization have done a great job of contorting the law into no one can say anything religious in public. At least they got their anti-constitutional view correct in their name "freedom FROM religion"


Are you aware doesn't automatically get the position? People have to vote for her.

Yes, of course. Consider this an advertisement against her. :-)

Good. Glad we cleared that this is an opinion based on her not being a representative of your emotional desires. And that you wish we lived in an Atheist dictatorship instead of a democracy where people are elected by the people to serve the people's desires.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:46:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

There's a difference between being religious and denying verifiable facts. Not to mention the article gives the impression she'd push for a more christ-centric form of education.

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

The First Amendment is of much contention when it comes to the meaning of separation of church and state. But democracy doesn't work when a theocrat is elected and imposes their moral values on other - along with science denialism.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:48:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:42:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:24:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:15:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Here's a thought answer the questions I posed.

Do you think the constitution affords everyone the opportunity to participate in the democratic process?

Yes, do you?

Then why did you say "she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks." This implies you don't think religious people should participate in or hold public office.

Then why did you say the "Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights" Yet you haven't demonstrated how this is the case? Or who makes this judgement call of what is ignorant and what is not?


Do you think religious people should be banned from office?

No, but I am against religiously motivated curriculum. It seems likely that someone who holds such ignorant positions would be a poor judge of what curriculum should be.

So instead of addressing her actual platform on curriculum, or to support your disapproval of her by citing her actual actions in regard to the education system you make a post in which you implicitly state something along the lines of:

"this person is religious! She should have no say or participation in the education system regardless of the democratic process."


What do you think the 'shall make no law impeding the free excersise of religion' means?

There will be no laws restricting or endorsing religion. I think you think it means, "there will be no laws restricting religion".

That is what it means. None restricting religious expression. There is only one entity cited as being unable to endorse a religous view. "Congress".

Because you felt like you could comment with out reading the constitution I'll cite the relevant text:

Who are we talking about? "Congress"
Will not do what? "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
But will allow what? ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is Congress who can not endorse a religion. By extension implicitly but not explicitly the courts have ruled government institutions.

So you are correct it means "there will be no laws restricting religion" you are incorrect in asserting that the non-establishment clause applies to anyone but Congress.

And atheist organization have done a great job of contorting the law into no one can say anything religious in public. At least they got their anti-constitutional view correct in their name "freedom FROM religion"


Are you aware doesn't automatically get the position? People have to vote for her.

Yes, of course. Consider this an advertisement against her. :-)

Good. Glad we cleared that this is an opinion based on her not being a representative of your emotional desires. And that you wish we lived in an Atheist dictatorship instead of a democracy where people are elected by the people to serve the people's desires.

Interesting. This lady implies I all of her social media that she will advocate for religious teaching to replace secular education and Mykie doesn't see a conflict with the Constitution but does see it when others exercise their freedom of speech to make known her disdain for real knowledge and the CONSTITUTIONALLY required separation of church and state. Check that plank in your own eye before worrying about the mote in others', Mykie.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:51:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:32:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:22:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:14:38 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:05:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This post is why people are outspoken against atheist. Atheism seems to be some mental poison where atheist just hate freedom and liberty. Where the decry the democratic process of voting for individuals the represent the viewpoint of the people in an area.

No, I'm hardcore for individuals rights and liberties. What I am not for is forcing religiously motivated ignorance on the populace. What the religious fail to understand is that forcing their beliefs into public education actually limits freedom of religion - i.e. for every religion other than theirs or non believers.

Atheist advocate for an elite and select few to rule over everyone else. People who shockingly are atheist and secular like themselves. Atheist want it to be law that only people who think like atheist can govern anything

That's a strawman. Do you realize it is my right to speak out against candidates I don't like. It seems you are actually the one trying to limit atheist's right to Freedom of Speech.

But if they force athiesm then it's okay.

Well, I'm not sure how atheism is being forced.

What makes you think her position will be used to force her religious doctrine on people?

Experience.

Are you aware she has to be voted in by the people?

Answered in another post.

Do you know what a representative is? Are you aware the constitution was to set up a government where people would elect others to make rules that reflect thier own priorities? Not to make everyone happy but the most people content.

The constitution applies to all citizens. Everyone agreeing to break the law regarding separation of church and state doesn't make it legal..

Again just point out in the constitution where it says what an athiest deems stupid can be censored from public display?

Show me where it says I cannot petition against what I consider to be a horrible choice for an elected position...or that I am trying to censor anything. Did you forget I am the one (probably) who made you aware of this lady?

Cite where ignorance is not protected by the constitution?

If ignorance is protected by the constitution, then public schools are illegal. Public schools exists and are not illegal - its actually illegal to not go to school. Your argument is ridiculous.

no your rebuttel is ridiculous. You don't define what ignorance is, or who makes this judgement in the interest of barring people from public office. You equate Schooling with eliminqtion of ignorance, but international test results shows that at least in a quantitative measure is incorrect.

And yes truancy is illegal. But is it to make kids smart? Or is it because the school get's tax payer money for each child they have. And they administer each child a test to get more tax payer money. And so when a child is taken out of school by a parent for an educational trip or to actually learn something the school loses money. And so the schools (rather the individual people in control of schools who want more money for themselves) have lobbied to make it illegal to take tax payer money away from them.

Of course a parent can quit their job source of income and teach their kids themselves. but the parents don't get taxpayer money to educate their children even though the government still requires the child to pass exams the school system give their children.

Again no where in the constitution does it say this woman for her religious ideas is barred from running for and being elected to that office.

Why don't you admit you were wrong?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:53:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:27:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

This thread is why athiest are elitist desiring dictatorships and the public censhorship of peoples spiritual, religous, metaphysical convictions.

But, that's what Bruner is trying to do, dictate her "spiritual, religous, metaphysical convictions" onto the public domain, regardless of what religion or lack thereof the public represents. She is trying to censor science, freedom and liberty.

Where free public excersise is redefined to mean quitely alone in ones bedroom.

Why is that a problem? Why would you think your spiritual, religous, metaphysical convictions are required in public?

Masturbation and nakedness have more public freedoms in an athiest's mind than religion

There you go again saying the silliest of things.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:54:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:48:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:42:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:24:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:15:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:04:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:01:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:56:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:47:25 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:13:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
http://gawker.com...

This lady endorses Biblical literalism, denies scientific facts, and by the same faulty reasoning, accepts conspiracy theories as the Gospel. Additionally, she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks. Can we agree on that?

So if a person is religous they should be able to run for elected positions?

Have you read the bill of rights? Are you aware of how a democracy works?

Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights. Are you aware of that?

We're talking about a lady spewing ignorance running for the Board of Education. Surely, you can see the irony in that.

Ignorance is protected by the bill of rights. If you haven't read it and lack a fundamental understanding of representative government you only needed to answer 'no' to the questions I asked

Ignorance is protected by the Bill of Rights? This is news to me. I guess that makes public schooling unconstitutional!!

Here's a thought answer the questions I posed.

Do you think the constitution affords everyone the opportunity to participate in the democratic process?

Yes, do you?

Then why did you say "she is running for the Texas State Board of Education. *groan* Sometimes religion sucks." This implies you don't think religious people should participate in or hold public office.

Then why did you say the "Ignorance, even if it is religiously based, is not protected by the bill of rights" Yet you haven't demonstrated how this is the case? Or who makes this judgement call of what is ignorant and what is not?


Do you think religious people should be banned from office?

No, but I am against religiously motivated curriculum. It seems likely that someone who holds such ignorant positions would be a poor judge of what curriculum should be.

So instead of addressing her actual platform on curriculum, or to support your disapproval of her by citing her actual actions in regard to the education system you make a post in which you implicitly state something along the lines of:

"this person is religious! She should have no say or participation in the education system regardless of the democratic process."


What do you think the 'shall make no law impeding the free excersise of religion' means?

There will be no laws restricting or endorsing religion. I think you think it means, "there will be no laws restricting religion".

That is what it means. None restricting religious expression. There is only one entity cited as being unable to endorse a religous view. "Congress".

Because you felt like you could comment with out reading the constitution I'll cite the relevant text:

Who are we talking about? "Congress"
Will not do what? "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
But will allow what? ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is Congress who can not endorse a religion. By extension implicitly but not explicitly the courts have ruled government institutions.

So you are correct it means "there will be no laws restricting religion" you are incorrect in asserting that the non-establishment clause applies to anyone but Congress.

And atheist organization have done a great job of contorting the law into no one can say anything religious in public. At least they got their anti-constitutional view correct in their name "freedom FROM religion"


Are you aware doesn't automatically get the position? People have to vote for her.

Yes, of course. Consider this an advertisement against her. :-)

Good. Glad we cleared that this is an opinion based on her not being a representative of your emotional desires. And that you wish we lived in an Atheist dictatorship instead of a democracy where people are elected by the people to serve the people's desires.

Interesting. This lady implies I all of her social media that she will advocate for religious teaching to replace secular education and Mykie doesn't see a conflict with the Constitution but does see it when others exercise their freedom of speech to make known her disdain for real knowledge and the CONSTITUTIONALLY required separation of church and state. Check that plank in your own eye before worrying about the mote in others', Mykie.

See this is why you don't add any worth to any discussion.

The OP equates her being unqualified with her having religious ideologies. Not due to the actual curriculum she wants to implement.

Do you even understand the words coming out of my mouth? Do you understand the difference?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:57:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The OP equates her being unqualified with her having religious ideologies. Not due to the actual curriculum she wants to implement.

Which is contrary to the first amendment and the right of the people to elect their representatives and the right of people to participate in their local and national government.

And that's all I'll say. The Atheist of this forum can now come in and redefine words, move goal posts, and try to say that is not what the OP implied. It's pretty obvious it is.