Public shadow boxing; step right up!

[RWE]

How many times do I have to answer the same question?

Just answer it once. Hanging a plaque is not enforcement. You said " some ground rules would have to be enforced." A plaque could be ignored like a No Parking sign. That's why cops have to write tickets for parking in No Parking zones even when there is a sign posted. So, how would you prevent churches from simply covering up the plaque? How would you prevent a preacher from standing in the pulpit and saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and that is a fact!"  ???

[Gnosisquest]

How many times do I have to answer the same question?

Just answer it once. Hanging a plaque is not enforcement. You said " some ground rules would have to be enforced." A plaque could be ignored like a No Parking sign. That's why cops have to write tickets for parking in No Parking zones even when there is a sign posted. So, how would you prevent churches from simply covering up the plaque? How would you prevent a preacher from standing in the pulpit and saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and that is a fact!"  ???

Why would anyone try and prevent a preacher from making a fool of himself?

[RWE]

Why would anyone try and prevent a preacher from making a fool of himself?

You made it Rule #6. It must have been pretty important to you at the time. At one time in this thread you said "I do expect these Churches would just roll over and be happy to comply in order to exist." As if you were going to cease their existence if they didn't accept your mankind saving ground rules. Now, its you who are rolling over.

[Gnosisquest]

Why would anyone try and prevent a preacher from making a fool of himself?

You made it Rule #6. It must have been pretty important to you at the time. At one time in this thread you said "I do expect these Churches would just roll over and be happy to comply in order to exist." As if you were going to cease their existence if they didn't accept your mankind saving ground rules. Now, its you who are rolling over.

[[/quote]
Nice of you to demonstrate the right wing tendency to distort what people say by editing a quote!
I said no teaching in any church or public facility any of their doctrine as fact. That does not mean they could not use the church for meetings and the teaching of their brand of superstition.

I do expect these Churches would just roll over and be happy to comply in order to exist. I would love to see them attempt to explain away how they have anything of value since they depend on Judaism for their existence. Judaism was created during the Seleucid period in history. In order for the people of the Jerusalem area to practice their cult rituals they had to demonstrate they were an old religion. To do so they employed the library at Alexandria, borrowing material from Berossus, Manetho, Greeks, Hittites etc. I fear none of the religious denomination desire aa full disclosure of the facts in regard to their Bible/Koran so that is not an issue.
[/quote]

There is the above quote in full, you are still editing what I said. The Churches would be more than happy to comply in order not to have all their discrepancies disclosed!

Here is a link to what one of the most Prominent Christian researcher openly admits today: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cocoon/JHS/a013.html
So since there is no possibility of defending any Biblical historicity and no possibility of them defending how the Bible obviously was created during the Seleucid period of History they would be happy to comply in order not to have all their discrepancies exposed.

I am against teaching as fact anything which is fable to young children; religion is just where children have more BS administered than anything else right now.

[RWE]

Why would anyone try and prevent a preacher from making a fool of himself?

You made it Rule #6. It must have been pretty important to you at the time. At one time in this thread you said "I do expect these Churches would just roll over and be happy to comply in order to exist." As if you were going to cease their existence if they didn't accept your mankind saving ground rules. Now, its you who are rolling over.

[

Nice of you to demonstrate the right wing tendency to distort what people say by editing a quote!
I said no teaching in any church or public facility any of their doctrine as fact. That does not mean they could not use the church for meetings and the teaching of their brand of superstition.

I do expect these Churches would just roll over and be happy to comply in order to exist. I would love to see them attempt to explain away how they have anything of value since they depend on Judaism for their existence. Judaism was created during the Seleucid period in history. In order for the people of the Jerusalem area to practice their cult rituals they had to demonstrate they were an old religion. To do so they employed the library at Alexandria, borrowing material from Berossus, Manetho, Greeks, Hittites etc. I fear none of the religious denomination desire aa full disclosure of the facts in regard to their Bible/Koran so that is not an issue.
[/quote]

There is the above quote in full, you are still editing what I said. The Churches would be more than happy to comply in order not to have all their discrepancies disclosed!

Here is a link to what one of the most Prominent Christian researcher openly admits today: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cocoon/JHS/a013.html
So since there is no possibility of defending any Biblical historicity and no possibility of them defending how the Bible obviously was created during the Seleucid period of History they would be happy to comply in order not to have all their discrepancies exposed.

I am against teaching as fact anything which is fable to young children; religion is just where children have more BS administered than anything else right now.
[/quote]

OK I get it. No, enforcement of Rule #6. When the churches come up against your superior intellect they will just stop teaching their dogma because you will expose them for the simpletons they are. Why don't you just do that now and put an end to their superstitions once and for all?

[Gnosisquest]

Why would anyone try and prevent a preacher from making a fool of himself?

I am against teaching as fact anything which is fable to young children; religion is just where children have more BS administered than anything else right now.

OK I get it. No, enforcement of Rule #6. When the churches come up against your superior intellect they will just stop teaching their dogma because you will expose them for the simpletons they are. Why don't you just do that now and put an end to their superstitions once and for all?

Ending superstition is neither desirable or possible. There is no problem if someone reflects on the possibility a black cat crossing the street brings bad luck. There is only a problem if we start exterminating all black cats in order to prevent people from having bad luck.

There are those that take comfort in the belief a sky daddy is looking after them, no reason to take it away. There is only a reason to let the population know that there is no evidence any of it is correct: Not just to permit children to grow up with less preconceptions but also in order to stop the senseless crimes done in the name of a deity!

[RWE]

Gnosisquest,
You can't prove that God does not exist, can you. You can't explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence, can you. You have faith that it just appeared out of nothing. You blindly accept that notion without question or proof. But you feel that you have the authority to impose your superstition on others.

[Gnosisquest]

Gnosisquest,
You can't prove that God does not exist, can you. You can't explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence, can you. You have faith that it just appeared out of nothing. You blindly accept that notion without question or proof. But you feel that you have the authority to impose your superstition on others.

It is impossible to prove a negative; the person arguing is the one that must furnish proof. After 1400 years of forgeries, excuses and distortions there is no solid evidence any of the dogma is correct; there is however a plethora of evidence against it being of Judaic origin.

If a person does not know how something came about it only proves that the person has something to learn, not that old superstitions have merit.

[RWE]

Gnosisquest,
You can't prove that God does not exist, can you. You can't explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence, can you. You have faith that it just appeared out of nothing. You blindly accept that notion without question or proof. But you feel that you have the authority to impose your superstition on others.

It is impossible to prove a negative; the person arguing is the one that must furnish proof. After 1400 years of forgeries, excuses and distortions there is no solid evidence any of the dogma is correct; there is however a plethora of evidence against it being of Judaic origin.

If a person does not know how something came about it only proves that the person has something to learn, not that old superstitions have merit.

Can you say with any certainty that there is no God? No. All you can say with certainty is that you do not believe there is a God. You could be wrong. Belief in God is then equal to not believing in God if neither can be proven. They are both leaps of faith. You can teach your leap of faith as fact in a classroom but then you want to deny others from teaching their leap of faith as a fact in a church.

[Gnosisquest]

Gnosisquest,
You can't prove that God does not exist, can you. You can't explain how all the matter in the universe came into existence, can you. You have faith that it just appeared out of nothing. You blindly accept that notion without question or proof. But you feel that you have the authority to impose your superstition on others.

It is impossible to prove a negative; the person arguing is the one that must furnish proof. After 1400 years of forgeries, excuses and distortions there is no solid evidence any of the dogma is correct; there is however a plethora of evidence against it being of Judaic origin.

If a person does not know how something came about it only proves that the person has something to learn, not that old superstitions have merit.

Can you say with any certainty that there is no God? No. All you can say with certainty is that you do not believe there is a God. You could be wrong. Belief in God is then equal to not believing in God if neither can be proven. They are both leaps of faith. You can teach your leap of faith as fact in a classroom but then you want to deny others from teaching their leap of faith as a fact in a church.

I did not say with certainty that there is no God only that the Judaic material is bunk. If there is a God he ain't it.
In other words; what I am saying is that when you teach something teach as true only that for which there is evidence. Everything else is speculation and the Sumerian deities of 10 000 years ago is equally valid for study as any of the others. Just because a set of beliefs are popular does not mean there is any merit to them.