Since the western countries are supposed to be the parents of the world, maybe they should just take it from them and tell them they can't have it back unless they stop acting like children and learn to share. If they throw a temper tantrum than we spank them and send them to their rooms.


<.<

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]Since the western countries are supposed to be the parents of the world, maybe they should just take it from them and tell them they can't have it back unless they stop acting like children. If they throw a temper tantrum than we spank them and send them to their rooms.


<.<[/QUOTE]

Well you see, until 1948, Arabs inhabited Palestine. Not a lot, actually, most of them have moved in there. Jerusalem was the only really inhabited place and nowhere near as big as it is today.

Then in 1948 we (the west, the UK specifically) gave the jews a 'homeland' in Palestine.

I'm amazed that SavageX hasn't posted in this thread yet. :p

That said, hooray!

Not again...

This is how intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Consider an opaque box with a ball inside. The only thing we know for sure about the ball is that it's not red.

ID-style theory: the ball is green. Why? Because it is not red.

That is only the position of extremists-fundamentalists on both sides. The general consensus in Israel is that Palestinians need their own state on their own land, and the general consensus among Palestinians is that Israel should be recognized as a legitimate state. The main reasons that Israel is still in the occupied territories are -

1) Large Israeli settlements that can't simply be uprooted, no matter how much anyone would like to do so. Historical claims aside, it's just not possible, humanely, logistically or otherwise, to cut & paste entire towns from the West Bank to Israel and transplant 200,000 people.

2) Palestinian terrorist organizations that have overwhelming control and influence over impoverished and uneducated Palestinian society. As long as they remain in power, Israeli withdrawal will be interpreted as "victory" throughout the Arab world and encourage more terrorism, since terrorism "works".

Wow, beautiful way of putting it Fardreamer.

Seriously, though. ID is the silliest thing anyone can ever consider science. Lets reveiw ID, shall we?

Smartguy: **** is really complex. Man, if **** were even a little different, exsistance as we know it would be totally messed up and different.

Brainman: Because we're the way we are, someone must've made us, eh?

Notaretard: Oh man, of course. There's probably some sentient being that planned us! Good gosh, we sure are smart!

JediKirby

...now, there's people that put forward stupid arguments, and there's people that put forward stupid interpretations of stupid arguments...

Well... I live in the Netherlands. Church and State are officially seperated, and as far as politics go, they are... (although there are religious political parties ofcourse) But we still have 'special schools'. And 'special schools', over here, means that they're religious schools. So Christian, or Muslim, or whatever. All the other schools are called 'public schools'.

As far as I'm concerned (and a whole lot of people over here think the same) special schools should be abolished. I have nothing against religion. I think it enriches and inspires a lot of people's lives, although I do not consider myself religious. However, it does not belong in school. Why? Because in school, we are taught 'facts'. (As far as those are correct - but you know what I mean), history, geography, maths, languages, all 'facts', so to speak. Religion is not fact. I think education about religions, simply 'facts' about what those religions are about, fine. But religion belongs at home. You can't just teach kids that 'God, or some other higher intelligent power created us' as fact, in school. Period. I think it's a crime that it still happens in the 21st century.

Now I don't really want to enter into a debate here, but I really would like to clarify a few of your points:


This is true. However, Jefferson was quite conflicted on the issue of slavery. In fact, many even call him a hypocrite because not only was a he a slave owner, but it is also widely believed now that he had an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings. Besides all of this, upon his death, Jefferson's will revealed that only a select few of his slaves were to become free.

I have a high respect for Jefferson as a leader and thinker, but I do have to doubt some of his principles in regards to slavery. It's not as cut and dry as many people think it is. Jefferson himself once said "It seems we now have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither safely hold on nor let go."


This is an example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. I think everyone in the world should [hopefully] believe in micro-evolution. THe difference is this: micro-evolution is the change of an organism within its species, whereas macro-evolution crosses the boundaries between one species and another. For example, miniature horses have been bred for thousands of years, and with careful breeding, they have managed to "evolve" into smaller and smaller animals. However, trying to breed a cow and a horse would be rather complicated.

Are those 'special schools' private schools? Because if they are not government funded you have little right to complain unless they are;

a:Funded by your taxes

b:Funded by your taxes

c:Funded by your taxes

And yes, religion is fact to some people. Just like much of current scientific fact will be ridiculous medieval nonsense in a few years. Lots of it will be the same, but a lot won't.

The children sent to those schools do have right to complain, though. Is it really fair for them to be indoctrinated into dogma simply at the request of their parents?

Sure, the parents can take educate their children at home and take them to church, but they should never deny their children the advantages given by a genuine secular education.

As well as the right to go to a different school or simply ignore whats being taught.

No, they're not private schools. They're funded by the government. All of them. Should have mentioned that, sorry.

Being indoctrinated into dogma is unavoidable.

Such is evidenced by the pre-faded, newly bought Led Zep tour, and A&F humor shirts prevalent at my high school.

In the scientific process, there is no such thing as "fact". There is the phenomenon, which is an indisputable observable piece of evidence, like "the sky is blue". Then there is the hypothesis, which is the proposed explanation for it, and is never considered fact. It can make predictions that are testable through experiment, but even if the predictions are correct, it is still not considered "fact".

I think that is what I was trying to say, while using common words and not sounding pretentious.

You managed it better.

Yes, being indoctrinated with dogma is unavoidable

Wow, you sure proved your point with that one.

So what is it considered? Isn't the statement "the sky is green" a fact, even if it is incorrect? I think you are confusing fact with something being law or complete truth?

Being indoctrinated by dogma is unavoidable

The sky is green if you're wearing yellow sunglasses.
This is all about your OWN way of seeing things, and also why are we quarraling about a topic we cannot change?

Being indoctrinated by dogma is unavoidable.

...do you not understand the purpose of debate? It's to expand knowledge, for either party, not to "win." It's not "quarraling" at all. And if you don't like it, maybe you should just leave the thread? Derrr?

Fardreamer: Nevermind my previous post, I just got what you were saying more clearly.

Being indoctrinated by dogma is unavoidable

Emon: I was just trying to point out a common misunderstanding about science.

Hmm, it sure didn't sound like you were trying to say that. Had me fooled there.

*SLAP*

I'm not quite sure I understand, could you repeat it a few more times

Being indoctrinated by dogma is unavoidable

You will succumb.

I still didn't get that, could you break it down maybe and say each word real slow?

Being

indoctrinated

by/with dogma

is unavoidable

I don't understand

Could you say it with a definition of each word next to it?

At what are you all trying to get?

Postwhore.

I am not trying to prove any points, Emon. I already gave my opinion on the matter, and do not care to discuss it with simpletons, such as yourself.

I do, however, take offense at people who make denigrating remarks about rather important matters without any knowledge of the subject. Most US citizens don't quite understand our Constitution; I highly doubt that a fog-breathing drunkard would be capable of having a solid understanding it's complexities. Having studied it, I can say that it is an extremely well crafted and delicately worded document.

My, you come across as a pleasant chap.