What do you believe about believing

[gypsyjoker]

yeah there you go again lets change the subject let us not speek truth to power, and clay is one powerfull dude

yaba daba dub come oc yabby

yaby be a lot more help than e-dog

COme On Yabyum

hammer hammmer

[mnaz]

I believe that personal belief is most meaningful and powerful when it is stripped down to its most basic essence.... Jesus' core message of redemption through love, which underpins Christianity, for example.

But the more regimented belief structures-- various species of thorny, unwieldy "doctrine", which grow out from and around the fertile core truth and propagate in all directions-- threaten to choke off the entire garden, to separate the Regimented Believer from the essential, fertile bloom(s) of more universal truth which underpinned "belief" to begin with.

Or something along that line..... (so I would like to "believe"...hehehe)

I also tend to believe that to "believe nothing", as LR proposes, is
likely impossible. Everyone has items of belief.... (even if they consist only in conjunction with some sort of systematic rejection of
belief itself).

[gypsyjoker]

Jesus' core message of redemption through love, which underpins Christianity, for example

excellent point, but the language is wore out, my core belief is this
"I knew there was one who could speak to my condition"Fox

Now that is all well and good when you are dealing with some papriarchial god of a bunch of sand niggers runing around killing of goyem.

I got to go back and read cecils post again. the best thing I have read so far on this subject
"he who can not say there is no redemption, is not fit to live"

I apprecaite the comeback mr truckdriver, just trying to stay focused on Clay, not george bush,

[gypsyjoker]

Belief is acceptance in another’s experience.

If we blindly accept another’s experience as being our own, we fail to validate that experience, and merely continue to wag a tail that is not our own, simply mimicking another’s words that may or may not fully translate the experience, thereby weakening said experience into vacant explanations of an experience that has already become the past, therefore construing a past as being presently a belief that in reality that has become no longer valid within its own right. We subjugate our own possibility of attaining our own experience thru the shortness of explanations thru the limitations of a language that pales to experience itself.

I have read so many wonderful stories and songs about other's experiences of christ, fuking enough of that what does my belief about jesus have to do with clay . but I owe him my best shot, Clay I posted some thing some where about what the jews think of jesus, one phrase comes to mind is world wearie, and another was "render unto musslini" they was some good stuff to his genuis for stories and parables and things like the that
I know nothing about the religion I picked up a book called basic judaism I put a post some where on s S* about it but I for got where, may mystic. the book had a chapter or two on what the jews thought about jesus
it also said that he was kind of a chauvinist, or nationalist or racist maybe, some shiksa asked him for a blessing he said something nasty. dam I wish remember where i put it was from Basic Judiasm by guy named steinberg, Still has convinced me to convert, i got study for my bar mitzva, I don't no if I can afford to lose much more fore skin, hardly any left. but a man has got to do when he got the love sick blues, man I needed that experience bad clay, I got dem in spades.

thanks cecil

clay screwed this post up bigtime trying to edit it. the bit about steinberg's book is pretty mangled. I got to workd but I am putting a watch on this one because like cecil I very interested in how it goes.

[manic]

I believe that we all form our own morals and live by our own rules
I believe we should be considerate to others and do our best by them

[hester_prynne]

"I believe for every drop of rain that falls....a flower grows..."

"OH I believe in you......I believe in you"

"you gotta believe
and you will surely find
you gotta believe
it'll surely blow your mind
C'mon on on believe
in something in up above
hey whass tha somethin,
that sumpthin is love...."

"I thought love was only true in fairy tales....
meant for someone else but not for me.....
ahhhh
love was out to get me
de de de de
that's the way it seems
de de de de
disappointment haunted all my dreams....
then I saw your face....
now I'm a believer.....
not a trace
of doubt in my mind....
i'm in love
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i'm a believer
i couldn't leave him/her
if i tried...."

"Do you believe in magic, in a young girls heart...."
etc...etc....etc....etc....

I believe in music.....

H

[tinkerjack]

I believe in experience but I am such a slow learner. taken me years to understand that

I believe that we all form our own morals and live by our own rules
I believe we should be considerate to others and do our best by them

Hester have you recorded that. What about Funny face

[tinkerjack]

hester tinker jack is for you
I wonder why did it take me sixty four years to know what manic knows. must be a guy thing, after so many fights and broken bones, I think there is more to life then experience, there is fate,

sorry manic to take your name in vain, I used to get flammed all the time for doing that on another place. I guess I never learn.

"I used to stand and wonder, now I only stand."jitterbug

[Zlatko Waterman]

(FURTHER BELIEVING FROM THE PRESIDENT)


Published on Monday, August 8, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle



Bush Pushes Very Hot Button
President's Comments Embolden Anti-Evolutionists

By Joe Garofoli


The real impact of President Bush weighing in on the national debate over how to teach the origins of life may be felt in the classroom, where much of the anti-evolutionary lobbying is done under the radar.

One tactic is for a student or parent to present the teacher with a list that's popular in conservative circles called, "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher."



What (Bush) is doing is divisive, something to take people's attention away from all the other things going on with schools. Why isn't he talking about funding issues, or class size or...Do you want me to go on?


California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell
The result, observers say, is that some teachers fear even mentioning "the e-word."

"That's what people would somewhat jokingly call it," said Al Janulaw, who spent more than 30 years teaching science in elementary and middle schools. For the past six he has been a Sonoma State University instructor teaching student teachers how to teach science.

The White House entered one of the country's most politically charged red- and-blue battles last week when Bush was asked at a news conference about his views on evolution and intelligent design -- a critique that says Charles Darwin's natural selection theory doesn't explain some features of the natural world.

"I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught," Bush said. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

The mere fact that Bush mentioned intelligent design on the same footing as evolutionary teaching is being seen as a huge moral boost for anti-Darwin critics.

Although California schools are not in the center of the debate, as are schools in other parts of the country, some of the state's science teachers are apprehensive and see Bush's comments as an unwelcome intrusion of religion into the science curriculum.

Supporters of intelligent design say some elements of the natural world "are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection," said John West of the Discovery Institute.

But defenders of traditional evolutionary theory say intelligent design is really a euphemism for creationism. If there's an intelligent design, they say, then there must be an intelligent designer. Or creator.

"Our guys here were calling it 'Creationism Lite,' " said California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. He said evolutionary theory is tightly interwoven throughout California's science teaching standards and is not in danger of changing at the statewide level, where policy is crafted.

But many of the attacks on teaching evolution are largely unreported, and are raised in scattered school board meetings and classrooms.

One member of the California Science Teachers Association said the issue is most likely to come up in more conservative Southern California school districts.

"There are teachers who avoid teaching evolution -- or put it off until the end of the curriculum so if they don't get to it, they can skip it," said longtime teacher Judy Scotchmoor, a board member of the association. She said she was speaking only for herself.

"This (evolution controversy) is a very, very weird situation that we're in," she said. "It's a game that we (science teachers) don't know how to play. It's 'he said, she said,' and we're used to proving things scientifically.

UC Berkeley biology Professor David Lindberg tells the story of a Christian pastor who appeared at the classroom of a Contra Costa County teacher on the first day of school.

The pastor had a simple question for the teacher: "How do you plan to teach biology this year?"

The implication of such visits to teachers, according to Lindberg and other evolutionary theory defenders: You'd better at least mention intelligent design or some other critique of evolution or you'll have to answer to some angry parents or other clergy. Or possibly the school board. Or a court.

Even though Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, downplayed the president's remarks by telling the New York Times that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept," others were pleased to hear the remarks coming from the nation's bully pulpit.

"We're happy that he said that," said West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, one of the nation's leading think tanks in the fight to include Darwinian challenges in the classroom.

West said his organization "isn't pushing for intelligent design; what we are pushing for is for the scientific criticism of Darwin's theory" of all kinds.

Conservative scholars and legal theorists supporting the president's position -- it is a favorite of evangelical Christians -- cast this as a free speech issue, and they feel that their side is not getting equal play in the nation's public schools.

After Bush's remarks, more than 95 percent of the 78,000-plus votes cast in an online poll offered by the conservative American Family Association say "students should be exposed to the theory of intelligent design in public schools" as opposed to "shield(ing) them" from it.

However, 54 percent of 50,000-plus respondents to an America Online poll opposed teaching intelligent design.

"This is about critical thinking," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento organization that generally defends conservative positions in cases involving religious freedom issues. "And critical thinking has nothing to do with theology.

"This shows the degree of close-mindedness academics have when it comes to challenges like this."

Intelligent design has been gaining political support in school districts in several states, but the vast majority of the nation's scientists, starting with the president of the National Academy of Sciences, says intelligent design is not even worthy of being compared to the theory of evolution on a scientific level.

"The president and most people in this country don't understand how science works," said Lindberg, chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology and curator for the UC Museum of Paleontology, which created a Web site, evolution.berkeley.edu, to help teachers fend off the attacks of evolutionary challengers.

"Words like 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean something to scientists. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory," he said. "Science is not a democracy. We don't vote on what theory we like best.

"And I have to say that we, as scientists, have not done a good job explaining to people how science works.'

The Bay Area is home to big thinkers on both sides of this debate -- including one of the leading proponents of intelligent design, UC Berkeley law Professor Phillip Johnson, and evolutionary teaching's defenders at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland -- but few believe that intelligent design has made significant inroads in California.

In Roseville, parent and attorney Larry Caldwell has been fighting for two years -- so far without success -- to have "the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory" included in the public schools there. Dacus said he's fielded calls from school board members in a dozen different districts over the past year or so inquiring about how evolution is taught.

But state schools chief O'Connell said intelligent design is "not an issue in California. It just hasn't come up."

When told about teachers avoiding the e-word, O'Connell said, "That's really regrettable."

"What (Bush) is doing is divisive, something to take people's attention away from all the other things going on with schools," he said.

"Why isn't he talking about funding issues, or class size or," O'Connell said, pausing, "Do you want me to go on?"

© 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

[Glorious Amok]

"intelligent design"? i'm not familiar with the term, but i presume that's newspeak for what they used to call the Book of Genesis.

i don't see why more than one idea can't be taught, let each student decide for themselves. you could even hold a class letting students openly discuss their choices of what they believe to be the truth of creation, or let them keep their beliefs personal.

expose them to many different ways of thinking. let them see how 30 people in a room can all have different beliefs.

[Anonymous-one]

Google result :

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/



Intelligent Design



The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.




Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.


Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

[stilltrucking]

I reject it utterly and totaly

Creationism by any other word is just as sweet.

And all I have seen of creationism is reall bad fuking science.