Creationists, LOL

“You seem to be getting into a lather about nothing, Shockadelic.”

I think it's you guys doing that, actually.

“You present a fascinating set of examples of "hardly essential" subjects. Not sure how they compare, value-wise, with religious indoctrination, though.”

They cost a lot of money and are ultimately the parent's responsibility (many parents already spend money on these things). Yet no objections to this -waste-of-money-that's-really-parental-responsibility. You are hypocrites. The only time you object to anything is when it offends you *personal belief system.
There is music and sport and woodwork in school not just because they have “value”, but because parents *want this and are happy for public money to be spent on them.
They also have no problem with SRI. Only a tiny minority of self-obsessed whiners do.
Should we discard woodwork lessons or tennis if some loony minority kick up a fuss about it?

Jimmy Jones “Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted...”

No, you couldn't, unless you already had knowledge of Christianity.
The only reason you could discuss Joan of Arc is because you *do have that knowledge.

“Medicine is more than medicinal drugs, so you can't denigrate the whole [the medical discipline] by attacking a part [medical drugs].”

I didn't denigrate “the whole medical discipline”.
I pointed out a particular case where modern medicine has created rather than solved a problem, in response to your blind faith in it.

Dug “Joan of Arc explained”

No, you haven't.
That is your contemporary *interpretation* of Joan of Arc, based not only on today's alleged “knowledge” of the human mind, but also on a knowledge of CHRISTIANITY.

You cannot “explain” Joan of Arc if you have NO knowledge of Christianity, because that is an intrinsic element of who she was and why she did what she did.

You cannot prove Joan had delusions. In fact, you cannot prove that any person ever has had delusions, as nobody knows for absolute certain what “reality” is.

Regarding creation/evolution, what is your explanation for the symmetry so common in lifeforms?

Why all this symmetry?

If symmetry were some practical evolutionary advantage, why are *some* things *not* symmetrical?
(non-symmertrical livers, hearts and intestines, but symmetrical lungs, kidneys, testes,
or symmetrical leaves and flowers on non-symmetrical trees)

And why are there deep sea fish with *coloured* scales?
At that depth, there's no light to reflect colour.
How could colour be an evolutionary advantage if nobody can see it?

It is always a good discipline to leave a discussion when your fellow-disputant comes up with an unanswerable point.

>>...nobody knows for absolute certain what “reality” is.<<

Thank you shockadelic, that gives me the perfect opportunity to back away, slowly.

Have a great day.

Assuming of course that you are able to work out for absolute certain what a "day" is.

Saltpetre

Please make up your mind either atheists deliberately disown a god in order to behave badly:

"so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)".

Or

"We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives."

The afore-mentioned quote from you is a sweeping and insulting generalisation of atheists, the latter quote grudging acknowledgement that a some people may lead exemplary lives. Is this your "get out of jail free card"? Your attempt to defuse your insults?

I ask you to take note that I have not attacked you personally, simply drawn attention to your claims regarding non-christians. Please note that Buddhists do not believe in a singular deity either, not all religions are the same. However, 2 major religions from the Middle East have, throughout history, attempted to indoctrinate, proselytise and subsume others with their dogma. The SRI being the latest attempt to misinform, mislead and modify the thinking of children into a narrow, divisive and stultifying method of thought.

There are churches, mosques and other appropriate places for religious people to have their children taught whatever religion in which they believe.

Schools are for all children - not just those of christian parents.

Dan S D M.

"all the water went into the oceans" ROFL - according to you the entire planet was one big ocean - there is no geological evidence for this, whereas there is overwhelming proof of plate tectonics, a near complete fossil record and be aware we are one tiny little planet within just a single galaxy ..... I feel a Monty Python moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2JU4gX6rg8

Ammonite,
On the SRI issue, you say schools are for all, not just for kids of Christian parents. That’s true. But going back to the year dot, there’s always been a lot of Christian parents sending their kids to state schools, and they still do. It would not be a positive move, nor educationally enriching, that atheists should suddenly rule the roost and expel all RI.

--

On the issue of life's origins and what the Bible says: there is always more than one way to look at the same evidence.

You [both you and Dug] say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you.

This includes all the evidence of plate tectonics, geological strata, fossil record, etc. etc. I would suggest that you are conditioned to looking at the evidence only one way.