Take THAT religious nutters!

[Zanarkand]

If you want to live in ignorance then don't expect real schools to rubber stamp your stupidity.

Who are you to call christians stupid? You are seriously not in a position to judge whether or not christians live their lives in ignorance, just as I am not in a position to judge whether or not you are. I bet you'd just love it if a bunch of christians started posting threads where they told every atheist on this forum they were a bunch of "atheist nutters". Start respecting what other people believe in.

Now, about the whole school-thing. I myself went to a christian high school, and even though the school was based on christian values, non-christians were accepted. In fact, about half the students were non-christians. If christian schools started to refuse allowing non-christian students into their schools, thousands of people would be on their asses within a few hours. People have a way of looking at christianity as a faith, and atheism as what's true. Let's not forget that atheism is also a belief, just as christianity.

[trev]

We'll agree to disagree there because I think once you leave the scientific method and go into spirituality (two mutually independent realms imo) you're heading into an area where I can't follow.

Science is generally seen as an attempt to explain the world. If a subset of that world (spirituality) is excluded then the answers given by science have significant odds of being wrong. It is only when ALL data is included and analysed correctly that there is a real possibility that correct answers will be calculated. Too many scientists today automatically exclude data that could have anything to do with spirituality and therefore arrive at incorrect answers.
I imagine that some will ask for examples. The bible describes dinosaurs in the book of Job as examples of Gods creation that were known to Job. This evidence that dinosaurs existed about the time of Job (approx 3200 years ago) is ignored despite the very realistic description of such a creature. A scientist correctly assessing the data would admit the possibility that dinosaurs survived to 3200 years ago, even if they were rare. But because they refuse to accept data from spiritual sources they make the incorrect statement that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years ago.
A second example is in an essay by St John of Damascus, an early 8th century Arab monk. Quotes from the essay 'Dio [Cassius] the Roman who wrote the History of the Roman empire and republic reports the following: One day when Regulus, a Roman consul (3rdC. BC) was fighting against Carthage, a dragon suddenly crept up and settled behind the wall of the Roman army. The Romans killed it by order of Regulus and sent the hide to the Roman Senate. When the dragon's hide was measured by order of the Senate it happened amazingly to be 120 feet long and the thickness was fitting to the length.' Also another quote from same essay 'This dragon is a type of beast like the rest of the animals, for it has a goat-like beard and a horn at the back of its head. Its eyes are large and gold-coloured. These dragons can be either big or small. All serpent kinds are poisonous, except dragons, for they do not emit poison.'
This essay by St John of Damascus describes the Romans killing a very large dragon (ie dinosaur) and also St John describing dragons (dinosaurs) as a creature he knows about and was living around his time.
There is therefore evidence that dinosaurs existed right up to the 8th century AD. This is denied by evolutionists who claimed they died out 60 million years ago. The very real fact is that when a subset of data is ignored (spiritual writings) then wrong conclusions will be drawn and errors made
When scientists are willing to include all data and analyze that data objectively, then maybe religious people will be more believing of scientists. But when they routinely dismiss data that does not agree with their theories, then it is only reasonable that some people should also dismiss those theories made without use of all the data.

[Cort Haus]

Spiritual writings are not data.

[trev]

Spiritual writings are not data.

Spiritual writings are data, admittedly data that must be assessed in context. The data I referred to gave very realistic descriptions of dinosaurs, this realism and in the 2nd series of quotes the factual manner in which it was presented means that this data should not be dismissed out of hand as you have done and almost all scientists have done. As I stated TRUE SCIENCE should take account of all available data and use it. Errors are frequently made because data from 'spiritual sources' is ignored even when it provides realistic descriptions and plausible information. This dismissal of data without good reason is why errors will continue to be made in science.

[dannubis]

The Bible (the OT) is a collection of the oral tradition of a people.

Oral traditions do from time to time have a historic background. But largely they are culturally colored.

BTW, I only know of 1 place in the OT where it is claimed that the words written down came directly from god: The 10 commandments.

And guess what, no mention of anything scientific, just a social code.

All the rest has een written by people for people and should be treated as such.

[Provost Harrison]

They're religious nutters? Well I never!

And all I can say is: Ditto Whaleboy. You're a more patient man than I for arguing with the brick wall that is Ben Kenobi.

Ben, just for one minute, suspend what you hold to be true, your preconceptions, for one minute and analyse this data on its merits. Analyse the data!

[trev]

All the rest has een written by people for people and should be treated as such.

If this is the case, why should it be dismissed out of hand, it should be considered along with other evidence, particularly segments which provide realistic information. Why is it that something written 2000 or so years ago is routinely dismissed out of hand for no valid reason.

[Provost Harrison]

Because it is just a piece of text, it doesn't reference any evidence or observation. Legitimite articles will reference actual, repeatable observations and experiments. That is why The Bible is not valid as a source of evidence. It may be interesting for an ancient historical analysis (with archaeological evidence) but apart from that, it's just another book. Would you refer to a film or a book as a source of evidence? How about Harry Potter or Fantasia? Of course you wouldn't!

[dannubis]

What did I dismiss ???

I just said it were stories. They might help historians finding archeological sites. In that they have their worth.

Astrophysics and evolutionary theory however, they do not.

EDIT - What PH said also --- in reply to trev

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, just for one minute, suspend what you hold to be true, your preconceptions, for one minute and analyse this data on its merits. Analyse the data!

PH, don't you get it?

You aren't showing me anything I haven't already believed at one point or another.

I've seen all that and you think now, my opinion is going to change? Do you think I was raised a Christian? Please don't assume I grew up in Christ, because I didn't, and the sooner you realise that you'll find better arguments.

[Arrian]

The converts are always the worst.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

Amen !

[Cort Haus]

He is the Messiah though. I should know, I've followed a few.

[Lord Avalon]

Shoe or gourd?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've actually read the decision, and not the reporters analysis of it which Oerdin has posted. They said, we have no problems with accreditation provided you excise any mention of God from the textbook.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf

I couldn't find the part you mention here. Is this the decision you read?