Creationism

[Doc Savage Fan]

Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Having Republicans in power is like having your ass do your thinking.

Do you always walk around with one eye closed?

You, of course, prefer to walk around with both eyes closed.

LOL, no. And knowing my disapproval for at least the Republican party, you should know your assumption to be wrong. Perhaps it is your self hatred that has caused you to assume such a thing.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

So Obama is a king now?

Exactly what I mean. You are blind about both parties, blinded by ideological prejudice, so when you vote you walk off a cliff.

When you look into the mirror, it is not me who you speak to.

I have always had eyes in the back of my head.

Does it hurt when you sit on them?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

:thumbsup:


One of the funnier things in this debate is that, amidst all the bickering and nonsense, the creationists and the atheists are really fighting over the issue of the passage of time. The creationists say God made it all in 6 days 6,000 years ago (because the book said so, even though it really doesn't), the atheists point to the irrefutable science that proves that is not possible.
But, what they both seem unaware of is that science has also proven that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it really does NOT make a sound. Text
So it could have taken a trillion years, but if the first conscious mind became aware of it just 6,000 years ago, then the passage of time began then as well. Time existed before, of course, but its outcome only as countless probabilities. Not until an average outcome was observed by a conscious mind was this reality as we know it brought into existence.

Meh, that's gonna go over a lot of heads, including mine.

Simply put, my opinion is that science has revealed that God is more glorious and His 'creation' more wondrous than the ancients could have ever imagined. Unfortunately, it seems that the most vocal religious factions in this country are more obsessed with maintaining their power structure than they are with the glory of God.

 

[WHAMPOM]

When a tree fall in the forest, the other trees hear it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

:thumbsup:


One of the funnier things in this debate is that, amidst all the bickering and nonsense, the creationists and the atheists are really fighting over the issue of the passage of time. The creationists say God made it all in 6 days 6,000 years ago (because the book said so, even though it really doesn't), the atheists point to the irrefutable science that proves that is not possible.
But, what they both seem unaware of is that science has also proven that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it really does NOT make a sound. Text
So it could have taken a trillion years, but if the first conscious mind became aware of it just 6,000 years ago, then the passage of time began then as well. Time existed before, of course, but its outcome only as countless probabilities. Not until an average outcome was observed by a conscious mind was this reality as we know it brought into existence.

Meh, that's gonna go over a lot of heads, including mine.

Simply put, my opinion is that science has revealed that God is more glorious and His 'creation' more wondrous than the ancients could have ever imagined. Unfortunately, it seems that the most vocal religious factions in this country are more obsessed with maintaining their power structure than they are with the glory of God.

There are many different 'Creationist' beliefs and interpretations of Genesis. However, the literal interpretation of '6 days' is probably the most ludicrous and the prime example used to stereotype all Christians as nonsensical. People love their strawmen...too much work to study and understand a subject I guess.

On Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were created. I personally think it's obvious that the term 'day' is a span of time and definitely not a 24 hour day since 24 hour days didn't exist until both the Earth and Sun were created. I understand that the Hebrew word actually used is "yôm", which in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age" which could be the equivalent to millions or billions of years.

I don't know about hearing the tree fall...but if it lands on Schrödinger's cat, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it would holler.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

:thumbsup:


One of the funnier things in this debate is that, amidst all the bickering and nonsense, the creationists and the atheists are really fighting over the issue of the passage of time. The creationists say God made it all in 6 days 6,000 years ago (because the book said so, even though it really doesn't), the atheists point to the irrefutable science that proves that is not possible.
But, what they both seem unaware of is that science has also proven that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it really does NOT make a sound. Text
So it could have taken a trillion years, but if the first conscious mind became aware of it just 6,000 years ago, then the passage of time began then as well. Time existed before, of course, but its outcome only as countless probabilities. Not until an average outcome was observed by a conscious mind was this reality as we know it brought into existence.

Meh, that's gonna go over a lot of heads, including mine.

Simply put, my opinion is that science has revealed that God is more glorious and His 'creation' more wondrous than the ancients could have ever imagined. Unfortunately, it seems that the most vocal religious factions in this country are more obsessed with maintaining their power structure than they are with the glory of God.

The 6000 years thing was created by a guy who "estimated' using the ages and family trees of everyone and took a couple of "liberties" in guessing how far back Adam and Eve were created. So your first point is correct in that the bible doesn't say how old the earth is.

Also, we DO know about the cat dilemma and how observation is needed to make a decision, but you neglect to realize that

1. It really applies at the quantum level. At the macro level, we are 99.9999999% sure of how many things happen because they all follow the laws of physics to the letter, which isn't true at the quantum level. If a tree falls in a forest, we are 99.9999999% sure it makes a sound because it won't disappear, as the atoms in the tree will not suddenly teleport themselves into orbit, and the tree wont go through the floor, as the chances of all the atoms of a tree going through the floor are so ridiculous, even scientologists would have trouble believing in it.

2. You assume that the observer has to have been a "human" because we are the ones who have "observed" the earth 6000 years ago. You neglect that other animals can also act as an observer, and that animals have also existed for over 6000 years. Also, even a bacterium can "feel" the passage of time, which means that, no, it is not possible for the earth to have been created over trillions of years and only observed for 6000, because science knows that animals have existed for over 6lk years, and they also function as observers

3. So no, there have been observers for more than 6k years based on our understanding of earth millions of years ago.

4. Also, science has not proven anything. Science cannot prove anything,. Theories can only be disproven. Any "law" is just a theory that has craps loads of evidence that support them so we accept them, but as soon as a single piece of credible evidence came out that the law was wrong, it would instantly be rejected and formed into a new theory.

And after that you say that it shows how "glorious" how God is when in all reality, all of this hits into the anthropic principle. If alot of what science has discovered in physics never "was", we wouldn't know it because we wouldn't exist. We are able to appreciate the world BECAUSE we can observe it, which means that it doesn't show anything about the "glory" of God more than it shows how lucky we were to exist in a universe that is able to support us

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

There are many different 'Creationist' beliefs and interpretations of Genesis. However, the literal interpretation of '6 days' is probably the most ludicrous and the prime example used to stereotype all Christians as nonsensical. People love their strawmen...too much work to study and understand a subject I guess.

On Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were created. I personally think it's obvious that the term 'day' is a span of time and definitely not a 24 hour day since 24 hour days didn't exist until both the Earth and Sun were created. I understand that the Hebrew word actually used is "yôm", which in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age" which could be the equivalent to millions or billions of years.

I don't know about hearing the tree fall...but if it lands on Schrödinger's cat, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it would holler.

It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Dari
Is anyone else worried that the next VP could be a Creationist? ... It's fucking scary.

there's a facet of Christian Theology called "day age Creationism", which
follows from common sense - "if God is so powerful, maybe he/she/they
have the ability to travel at or near the speed of light".

in this case, the principles of relativity set in, and one day for God is
different than the day we measure on Earth.

if you go with the "earth created in 7 days" arithmetic, and spread
7 days over 3.5 billion years - at what speed do you have to travel
to have one day equival to 500 million years ?

the one common them i hear among people who decide to interpret
the Bible literally is the, "if you want to be Right with Jesus, you have
to support Israel." a lot of politics baked into those "prophecy updates"
at one of the larger wealthier churches in San Diego.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
The 6000 years thing was created by a guy who "estimated' using the ages and family trees of everyone and took a couple of "liberties" in guessing how far back Adam and Eve were created. So your first point is correct in that the bible doesn't say how old the earth is.

That "guy" was an 16th century Anglican bishop named Ussher.

Also, we DO know about the cat dilemma and how observation is needed to make a decision, but you neglect to realize that

1. It really applies at the quantum level. At the macro level, we are 99.9999999% sure of how many things happen because they all follow the laws of physics to the letter, which isn't true at the quantum level. If a tree falls in a forest, we are 99.9999999% sure it makes a sound because it won't disappear, as the atoms in the tree will not suddenly teleport themselves into orbit, and the tree wont go through the floor, as the chances of all the atoms of a tree going through the floor are so ridiculous, even scientologists would have trouble believing in it.

You missed the point. The macro level is an average of the quantum states. The tree could teleport into orbit, or it could fall through the floor, those outcomes are just highly improbable. But who is to say it didn't happen if it's not observed?

2. You assume that the observer has to have been a "human" because we are the ones who have "observed" the earth 6000 years ago. You neglect that other animals can also act as an observer, and that animals have also existed for over 6000 years. Also, even a bacterium can "feel" the passage of time, which means that, no, it is not possible for the earth to have been created over trillions of years and only observed for 6000, because science knows that animals have existed for over 6lk years, and they also function as observers

3. So no, there have been observers for more than 6k years based on our understanding of earth millions of years ago.

True, but I was just making a point as to why humans might believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. You're acting like I was stating some kind of fact which I did not state. I knew this was going to go over some heads, and I even said so. For the record, I am strongly opposed to the notion of young earth creationism.

4. Also, science has not proven anything. Science cannot prove anything,. Theories can only be disproven. Any "law" is just a theory that has craps loads of evidence that support them so we accept them, but as soon as a single piece of credible evidence came out that the law was wrong, it would instantly be rejected and formed into a new theory.

Yawn. You're actually helping my argument here.

And after that you say that it shows how "glorious" how God is when in all reality, all of this hits into the anthropic principle. If alot of what science has discovered in physics never "was", we wouldn't know it because we wouldn't exist. We are able to appreciate the world BECAUSE we can observe it, which means that it doesn't show anything about the "glory" of God more than it shows how lucky we were to exist in a universe that is able to support us

How does luck factor in? If this universe could not support us, we wouldn't even be aware of it. Luck has nothing to do with that.
Once again, you missed the point. We exist, and are aware of our existence, because in a universe where anything can happen, EVERYTHING DOES. And that is the universe we live in. It's all probability.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

Look NOTHING can prove or disprove the existence of God, so how could Evolution do it? Even if we could go back in time and got recordings in which Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad all admitted that they were phonies - just guys trying to make a buck - THAT wouldn't disprove the existence of God.

So what you've written is beside the point.

But I believe there will be troubling events on the God front in the decades ahead. The real challenge to the belief in God will come when we fully understand the brain states and chemicals that correspond to that belief. At some point, we'll be able to take a person and turn their belief in God on and off simply by giving them a pill. We'll be able to reproduce in people a "feeling of His presence," "love," or "transcendence" with the right brain cocktail.

When it's seen just how pliable the human brain is, I think people will "naturally" believe in God less and less as they realize just how meaningless their beliefs are.

None of this will "disprove" the existence of God. But it will in effect come to the same thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

There are many different 'Creationist' beliefs and interpretations of Genesis. However, the literal interpretation of '6 days' is probably the most ludicrous and the prime example used to stereotype all Christians as nonsensical. People love their strawmen...too much work to study and understand a subject I guess.

On Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were created. I personally think it's obvious that the term 'day' is a span of time and definitely not a 24 hour day since 24 hour days didn't exist until both the Earth and Sun were created. I understand that the Hebrew word actually used is "yôm", which in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age" which could be the equivalent to millions or billions of years.

I don't know about hearing the tree fall...but if it lands on Schrödinger's cat, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it would holler.

It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

Does it matter what I think or anybody else says for that matter? When it comes down to brass tacks...it only matters what you think. Strawmen are always based on superficial "knowledge" and false dichotomy stereotypes. Maybe you should take a look into it...your call.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

Wait - 45% of Americans believe this? Care to back that statement up?

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481
no, not really.

I was taught ID in high school alongside evolution. it wasn't indoctrination, more of a discussion about what some people believed and the science/religion both behind and in conflict with it.

That's theproblem. ID came from a religious background. Most science is based on curiosity, not faith. Since it is based on faith, you are inclined to believe it even though it can be proven false. Science base theories, on the other hand, tell you to disregard the theory as soon as any part proves false.

If you really think ID cames from religious circles, then you don't know what it is. It sounds like you are confusing it with creationism.

ID is creationism. This was successfully argued in court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...hool_District#Decision

ID, creationism, flat-earth beliefs are all fine with me. Just don't force it upon kids as "science". Teach it in religion class or neocon society discussions by all means.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy


It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

Wait - 45% of Americans believe this? Care to back that statement up?

Gallup poll

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Does it matter what I think or anybody else says for that matter? When it comes down to brass tacks...it only matters what you think. Strawmen are always based on superficial "knowledge" and false dichotomy stereotypes. Maybe you should take a look into it...your call.

IMO it does matter when laws are being made based on spiritual beliefs.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy


It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

Wait - 45% of Americans believe this? Care to back that statement up?

Gallup poll

obligatory

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

There are many different 'Creationist' beliefs and interpretations of Genesis. However, the literal interpretation of '6 days' is probably the most ludicrous and the prime example used to stereotype all Christians as nonsensical. People love their strawmen...too much work to study and understand a subject I guess.

On Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were created. I personally think it's obvious that the term 'day' is a span of time and definitely not a 24 hour day since 24 hour days didn't exist until both the Earth and Sun were created. I understand that the Hebrew word actually used is "yôm", which in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age" which could be the equivalent to millions or billions of years.

I don't know about hearing the tree fall...but if it lands on Schrödinger's cat, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it would holler.

It's not really a straw man when about 45% of Americans think that people were created by god in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This isn't some fringe belief that people are using to paint all Christians as nuts, this is something that a high proportion of people believe.

Does it matter what I think or anybody else says for that matter? When it comes down to brass tacks...it only matters what you think. Strawmen are always based on superficial "knowledge" and false dichotomy stereotypes. Maybe you should take a look into it...your call.

Well a straw man is deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's viewpoint in order to make it easy to defeat. While Christians certainly aren't a monolithic body that you could ever speak for as a whole, what I'm saying is that considering the large proportion of them that do in fact believe in YAC, it is not unreasonable to ascribe that view to the group in some circumstances and therefore is not a straw man.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

That "guy" was an 16th century Anglican bishop named Ussher.

So? It doesn't change the fact that a single guy "figured out" the age of the earth merely by attempting to trace entire bloodlines. Which is retarded when huge holes exist in even the historical text.

You missed the point. The macro level is an average of the quantum states. The tree could teleport into orbit, or it could fall through the floor, those outcomes are just highly improbable. But who is to say it didn't happen if it's not observed?

No one doubts it can't happen. We doubt that there is any reason to believe it WILL happen. It would take a couple of hundred particles longer than the lifetime of the Universe to happen to all move in the same direction. Sure a tree might teleport if given the lifetimes if millions of universes to do so, but at the point, there is no reason to base ANYTHIGN off that tree teleporting.

True, but I was just making a point as to why humans might believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. You're acting like I was stating some kind of fact which I did not state. I knew this was going to go over some heads, and I even said so. For the record, I am strongly opposed to the notion of young earth creationism.

And I'm saying that their mode of thinking is flawed even in a scientific sense

Yawn. You're actually helping my argument here.

What? I was just asnwering your "proof" about uncertainty on the macro level. The fact of the matter is, that you can't disprovethe existance of anything. Just like i can't dispve the existanceof some pink unicorn

How does luck factor in? If this universe could not support us, we wouldn't even be aware of it. Luck has nothing to do with that. Once again, you missed the point. We exist, and are aware of our existence, because in a universe where anything can happen, EVERYTHING DOES. And that is the universe we live in. It's all probability.

Luck factors in because we were "lucky" for a Universe to have been created in a Big Bang that has the constants to support higher life. (Though this works off the multiverse theory) Just because anything can happen, doesn't mean everything will happen. Just because my body can suddenly blow up in a nuclear explosion because my atoms decided to reach super critical mass doesn't mean that I WILL explode because it would take such a long time it is retarded to base ANYTHING off these probabilities.

Its nice and fun to talk about all these cool theoretical things, but the fact of the matter is that there is no point to basing anything off these theories because they just wont happen within a time frame that has any relevance to anything

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Does it matter what I think or anybody else says for that matter? When it comes down to brass tacks...it only matters what you think. Strawmen are always based on superficial "knowledge" and false dichotomy stereotypes. Maybe you should take a look into it...your call.

IMO it does matter when laws are being made based on spiritual beliefs.

Exactly. And, IMO, it is not so much that we need politicians who understand and comprehend evolution, but politicians who understand and comprehend the idea of separation of church and state. Politicians who understand the difference between scientific theory and religious belief.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

ID=creationism=the bibles account and distorting any evidence found to the contrary either as gods will or something a "higher poser" (i realise i made a spelling mistake and i went back to correct it, but it fits just fine as it is) has done.

Evolution is about testable evidence, it's the entire reason that we have active vaccines to viruses not even developed yet, it's the one thing that drives us forward. What on earth has creationism or ID ever produced?

Yo, like this is kinda how it's kinda done, like this dude, like the higher poser did it all, end of story, or in the creationism story, God did it.

Equally unusable, equally unprovable, testable, falsifiable... Ok, so god did it, do like the Jehova witnesses x10 and deny any forms of advanced antibiotics, regular treatment for torn muscles, infections, inflammations, infectious diseases because ALL modern treatments are based on the theory of evolution.

Good thing would be that the idiots would die off and evolution would be just fine, but the idiots, while denying it, are taking advantage of things they proclaim to be false.

The amount of hypocracy is astounding.

 

[XMan]

I wonder if any of those who speak out so vehemently against the Christian faith would have the same things to say about living under Sharia law. I realize that it's different because of the experiences most of the Americans on this board have had, but it's definitely an interesting absence.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evolution does not in anyway prove or disprove the existence of God. It is what it is...nothing more...nothing less.

To say 'evolution proves God doesn't exist' is complete fallacy. However, many Creationists and atheists wrongly think otherwise and can't rationally differentiate between belief and fact.

Creationism and ID are clearly theology...not science...and should NEVER be taught as such. Likewise...evolution is clearly science...not theology...and it should NEVER be taught as such.

It disproves the interpreted interpetation of the interpreted interpretation changed by politics into KJV's account of the literal interpretation of what they believe.

To believe, literally, in something that they don't have a literal interpretation of makes them extra special stupid.

I'm sorry, but you'll never win this fight by going half way, we need to evolve beyond these clowns before we can have science that is not held back by politics (still born or aborted unadultured stem cells have been invaluable in a shitload of projects in Europe and Asia that you benefit from).

If American left the dark ages that the European continent have gone through, you could help.

Is there a REASON why scientists are leaving the US? Is there a REASON why there are better educated scientists elsewhere? Is there a REASON why the US is slipping in EVERY important area?

Why yes, there is, science is regarded as mild witchcraft among the 90+ morons that inhabit the nation.

And yes, i said morons, i mean it too, if you feel insulted, you've gotta be taking the piss if you don't think the glove fits you just right.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: XMan
I wonder if any of those who speak out so vehemently against the Christian faith would have the same things to say about living under Sharia law. I realize that it's different because of the experiences most of the Americans on this board have had, but it's definitely an interesting absence.

I honestly don't give a shit if you are Taliban or Evangelical, it's your faith and yours alone, don't try to force it on to anyone else. You can state your opinion and that is just fine by me but once you try to punish or enslave others under your laws of faith, that's when i will be the first one on the scene to put my G3 under your neck and you know what? Most people change their mind real fucking fast when its THEIR life on the line.

Sharia law is just as stupid and you know it, it's ridiculous to separate the two of them, because EVERY successful first world country has one thing in common, we separate the state from any religious belief.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: XMan
I wonder if any of those who speak out so vehemently against the Christian faith would have the same things to say about living under Sharia law. I realize that it's different because of the experiences most of the Americans on this board have had, but it's definitely an interesting absence.

You sure you're not religious, because that's the a classic Christian apologist line. "Oh, you wouldn't be so brave about going after Muslims!" You sure that's a comparison you want to make?

Oh, and the answer to

I wonder if any of those who speak out so vehemently against the Christian faith would have the same things to say about living under Sharia law

is yes.