Critical Thinking

I even dug up my book for this.

The book spends a chapter saying it, so it's hard to gel down to a small thought.

To be doing critical thinking right, you have to read to opposition's material.

That means that even if you're an atheist, you have to read the believer's crap if you are going to be debating the topic. If you don't read it then you are a closed minded zealot, and not worth debating with because there's no chance of changing your mind. You are not debating, you are recruiting; there's a world of difference.

And what are we really all worked up about here Atheists? Manger scene on public property? Teaching that despite appearances to the contrary, there might have been divine creation? What harm do these things really do? You are taking the position that you are the rational, thinking side on this, how were you harmed?

While we're vaguely on the topic of what schools are teaching, the whole Creationism debate takes a lot of moral capital away from some much more important battles. For example; Why don't the schools teach civics? Why don't they teach personal finance? Why do we have to pay for the state school even if our children are enrolled in a school that is decidedly religious? Why does that parochial school have to teach evolution when the state funded one doesn't have to teach creation?

That raises some interesting questions in my mind too. A parochial school will have a position on creation that will be inline with their religion; that position could very well deny evolution.

To have religious freedom, YOU HAVE TO LET THEM DENY IT AND TEACH IT LIKE IT WAS THE TRUTH!

I am getting really fed up with people demanding freedom by demanding other people be less free.

There are some serious warts with freedom, real freedom.

Real freedom means I can refuse to serve blacks at my restaurant because I am a racist. Real freedom means I can allow my customers to smoke. Real freedom means that I can hire a man for a job over a woman because I think he'd fit in with my current employees better than the, on paper, more qualified female.

We're not ready for that, are we? The cure for smoking is to allow the customers to decide. If the businesses get enough business to stay open, then they do. If you can convince enough smokers to boycott the place until it goes under, good for you! But bringing in the state to fight your battle because there are more than enough smokers to float a business...

It became clear that there were more than enough smokers and people who didn't care about the smoke that no business was going to go smoke free for economic reasons. The anti-smoking crowd decided that their right to eat out trumped the smokers and restaurant owners rights to have a smoking section. Then they put the full power of the state behind their opinion. Freedom! Freedom! Rah rah rah! Um, wait a second, how is it freedom to be dictated to by the state about what I can and cannot do? I wasn't forcing the non-smoker to come eat here, tell me again how I infringed on their rights?

Atheists, take note, you are using almost identical arguments about mangers as the anti-smokers used about smoking sections. You do not sound clever or smart when you go on and on about your religion. And you have chosen a religion. And you are just as tedious in your attempts to convince me as the Jehova's Witnesses at my door.

I will toss one bone. 1st amendment says no state religion. 14th amendment says that applies to lower government as well as the federal. That means a manger scene on the courthouse lawn can be read as an endorsement of Christianity, so it's not allowed unless every other religion is allowed to put their holy symbols up too.

It seems the real cure to the situation is to have a whole lot less state. No state schools, no chance the state is teaching something forbidden by the Constitution or infringing on my rights to worship in the fashion of my choosing.