When I am saying Evolution I am referring to one animal changing into another.

Wtf did you get taught in school? I'm genuinely curious. Do you really think that's what evolution-theory is?

and this is why we need gulags

@Tabby Great idea.

"You want to enforce one point of view and ban all opposing points. Sounds like indoctrination to me. "

Your logic is fucked.

Enforcing one point of view would be a teacher that walks into a classroom and stating, "God is a fallacy. Anyone who believes otherwise is a moron and does not deserve to pass this class.".

No one's asking Science Class to include anti-religious sentiment. They're requesting religious beliefs not be intermixed with actual Science.

Creationism is not Science, therefore it has no place in a Science class. This pretty fucking basic.

Opting to not teach things that have no scientific evidence is not indoctrination. Teaching them is. Teaching them also takes time away from other subjects which should be being taught instead.

Maybe in a lore and history class, or as a side note when teaching evolution

Yours in Christ

- Joseph Kony

Let's ban opposite views and teach children our point of view but WOHOHOOHOHOWOHOWOHWOH Its not indoctrination! It's the right way....

"Let's ban opposite views and teach children our point of view but WOHOHOOHOHOWOHOWOHWOH Its not indoctrination! It's the right way...."

Are you trolling or stupid?

Scratch that, let me rephrase.

You're definitely stupid. Are you also trolling?

I find it hard to believe that anyone can't tell the difference between a law that bans creationism being taught and Indoctrination.

By definition, science cannot be indoctrination.

"the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

That's the definition of indoctrination. If something isn't critical, it isn't Science. That's the problem. Everything in Science has supporting evidence, creationism does not.

Yes, lets quote Nazis to back up Atheism, that's totally a logical way to make something look reasonable.

Like, seriously, your post is something a sock puppet who is actually rallying against atheism by pretending to be an atheist would post.

Edited 8/16/2017 15:08:34

Utter nonsense. National Socialism might as well be a religion. It's the same type of indoctrination. Same goes for any form of nationalism.

You seem very confused. You lash out against religion, yet propagate similar views.Religion is the #1 cause of racism and fear/hatred of those different than oneself.

You propagate the hatred without the underlying cause.

I'm certainly never going to "learn" to be a bigot.

I don't care what race, religion, sex, social class, etc. a person is. A person is just a person. I'll take it a step further too: I don't care if someones related to me. They're still just a person. Not only do I not hold views that favor Americans over the rest of the world, I do not even favor my relatives over the rest of Americans or the rest of the world. Individuals earn the right to be respected or favored over others through their actions, not as an inherent benefit of some aspect of their background.

If I respect someone it's because they achieved something that impressed me, not because of some underlying trait about them that isn't even in their control.

Oh boy nice insults! Shame that you can't back it up with actual arguments. Idiots like you make me laugh.

Yes, as far as i know you are one of the only people who don't insult.

Edited 8/16/2017 15:57:03

>posts Hitler's views about Christianity in a mail thread to shitpost
>tabby runs with it
>tabby is now an atheist, individualist, natsoc, rational skeptic

woah I wonder what he'll become if we tell him Stalin was an atheist

You're claiming that a ban on creationism would be indoctrination, and then claiming I am an idiot and can't back up my statements? Really?

Grab a fucking dictionary. Or better yet, read the contents of my posts again.

Communism still has Christian characteristics.

...я продолжал смотреть в окно и вдруг заметил, что портреты на фронтоне аэровокзала вовсе не те, с которыми я простился, улетая отсюда несколько лет тому назад. Сквозь запотевшее стекло они были плохо видны, но что-то в них было непривычное.
Их было пять. На левом с краю был нарисован человек, похожий на Иисуса Христа, но не в рубище, а во вполне приличном костюме с жилеткой, галстуком и даже, кажется, с цепочкой от часов. Рядом с ним помещался Карл Маркс. Два портрета справа изображали Энгельса и Ленина...

По мере нашего приближения к аэровокзалу я все пристальнее вглядывался в висевшие на фронтоне портреты и спросил Смерчева, кто этот человек, похожий на Иисуса Христа.
Как кто? - удивился Смерчев. Это и есть Иисус Христос. Но мы поклоняемся ему...не как какому-то там сыну Божьему, а как первому коммунисту, великому предшественнику нашего Гениалиссимуса, о котором Христос правильно когда-то сказал: "Но идущий за мною сильнее меня!"
Я совершенно точно знал, что эти слова принадлежали не Христу, а Иоанну Крестителю, но на всякий случай возражать не стал.

- Москва 2042

...I continued to look at the window and suddenly noticed, that the portraits on the terminus's pediment were not quite the ones that I said goodbye to, flying out some years ago.
Of them there were five. To the left side was drawn a fellow, looking like Jesus Christ, but not in rags, but in a fully decent suit and vest, a tie, and even what seemed like a watch chain. Next to him Karl Marx was placed. The two portraits to the right portrayed Engels and Lenin...

As we came to the terminal, my gaze fixed on the hanging portraits on the pediment and asked Smerchev who was that man, looking like Jesus Christ?
"How do you mean, 'who'?" Smerchev was surprised. This is Jesus Christ...But we worship him not as some son of God, but as the first communist, the great forerunner to our Genaralissimo, of whom Christ correctly once said: "But he that comes after me is stronger than me!".
I knew full well that these words didn't belong to Christ, but to John the Baptist, but in any case I didn't try to correct him.

- Moscow 2042

Edited 8/16/2017 19:54:13

^

What the fuck?

Edited 8/16/2017 21:18:08

BTW nice ad hominem goy, come back when you calm down REEEE boy

But you're apparently scared enough of it that you have to ban it.


In any case. I still hold that neither creationism or evolution should be banned. Let people decide for themselves which they want to believe.

I don't know ... banning bullshit sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Of course evolution should be taught.

Children should be locked in a room with Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

An example of evolution:

Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection. The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.

For further reading: https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm

In the linked article you may read about MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). The advent and spread of antibiotic resistant microbes was understood to be a danger prior to their appearance.

Excerpted statements of particular interest from the Science Daily article.

CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.

In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.

Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.

CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.

A knowledge of evolution is one of the mental tools that all adults need to understand the world.

Edited 8/16/2017 23:28:10

"BTW nice ad hominem goy, come back when you calm down REEEE boy"

Calling out your "logic" as the retarded pile of dog shit that it is isn't ad-hominem. Insulting someone isn't ad-hominem either.

The post claiming I am committing ad-hominem is actually the closest thing to actual ad-hominem in the thread. Attacking someones character, rather than their argument as a means of trying to win an argument is not remotely the same as insulting someone for being incapable of making a rational argument. Only the former is ad-hominem.