Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 196 of 331 (584329)
10-01-2010 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 11:27 AM


Re: The Universe(s) !?!?!?!?
May I point out here the Bible states emphatically that there is something beyond this known universe.
"This known universe" being defined in the Bible as this plate-like thing we live on, the waters surrounding (and below?) it, and the stuff, including storehouses for hail, between us and the solid "firmament" above us.
Color me less-than-impressed, JRT.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 11:27 AM JRTjr has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 197 of 331 (584346)
10-01-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by JRTjr
09-30-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
By using your #6 def, Stamp collecting, devotion to a sports team, or the political parties are religions.
All you are doing is demeaning actually organized religions.
Edited by bluescat48, : added line

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by JRTjr, posted 09-30-2010 5:28 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 198 of 331 (584352)
10-01-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
08-10-2010 6:11 PM


Atheism!?!?
Dear Jar,
Great to hear from you again.
Jar writes:
To claim that there is some "fervently held belief that this universe is all that is" or even "a belief that this universe is all that is" are in themselves simply misrepresentations of atheism.
First, they are simply word salad, strawman creations that have no meaning in reality and serve only as an attempt misdirect the audience attention while you try to palm the pea and change the subject.
Jar, you make me sound as if I am a master manipulator, capable of dazzling crowds, a magician of unparalleled power and prowess.
Thanks! ;-}
But; before my head gets to big, let me remind everyone of what I have stated in my posts before.
I am a High School dropout who has spent about ten years working security. I do not think I have managed to turn anyone who has responded to my post to my side of the argument so I must not be the great manipulator you claim me to be.
Also, let me point out here that I am not the one that has strayed from the main subject. I would love to get back to weather or not ‘Old Earth Creationism’ should be taught in science class; however, I am simply trying to give a reasonable response to the people whom have commented about what I have stated.
As for what Atheists believe or do not believe; I am only going by what they themselves have stated.
Example:
Richard Lewontin writes:
We {Atheists} have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. (I Don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist,123. Quoted from Billions an Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 31.) {emphasis mine}
So, if you want to stick to the main topic; that is fine with me.
Enjoy your input Jar,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 6:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2010 12:51 PM JRTjr has not replied
 Message 200 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 12:58 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 201 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 1:14 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2010 1:33 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 1:40 PM JRTjr has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 199 of 331 (584354)
10-01-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


King of the quote mine
First of all I do not even know who Richard Lewontin is, but he is not some sort of high priest of Atheism and he speaks only for himself, no one else.
Second maybe you should read the whole quote, not just snippets that have been altered. No where does he mention atheists. Where in the original is Atheist mentioned?
quote:
"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
The "we" seems to be generally people with a science background as a whole, not atheists. Unless you think all scientific people are atheists.
Some comments on how what he said was manipulated.
quote:
Answers in Genesis makes it appear as if by "patent absurdity", Lewontin means evolution, when he is really talking about astronomy.
Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.
Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.
Remember creationist sites lie.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 200 of 331 (584357)
10-01-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Atheism!?!?
I would love to get back to weather or not ‘Old Earth Creationism’ should be taught in science class; however, I am simply trying to give a reasonable response to the people whom have commented about what I have stated.
No, no version of creationism should be taught in any science class.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 1:57 AM jar has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 201 of 331 (584361)
10-01-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Atheism!?!?
Yes, Old Earth Creationism should be taught in schools.
Sunday Schools.
Isn't it working there?

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 9:25 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 202 of 331 (584365)
10-01-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Atheism!?!? + Jainism
JRTjr writes:
{emphasis mine}
And {Atheists} also yours.
I know that quote, and I know who Lewontin is. The "We" really refers to "scientists".
I'm an atheist, and I disagree with Lewontin. The "divine foot" is not kept out of the door a priori. It is not included in science because no such thing has ever been observed directly or indirectly. In other words, science does not at present include the divine foot for the same reason it does not include the unicorn's horn and the mermaid's tail.
As for the topic, I recommend that the Jain religion's account of the universe should be described in western schools (although not in the science class). This is because of the popular misconception that all religions have creation stories.
The Jain description is an ancient non-creation description of an eternal universe with no creators creating anything. Learning about such traditions would illustrate to kids that the "God created everything" type of religion that they're familiar with is just one of many traditions in the world, and that different religions don't just mean different gods and scriptures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 1:46 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 251 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 9:51 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 331 (584366)
10-01-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Atheism!?!?
As for what Atheists believe or do not believe; I am only going by what they themselves have stated.
Er ... you seem to be getting your ideas of what atheists think from an essay entitled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist".
Surely some mistake?
Can you provide some context for your quote?
Of course not. It was quote-mined for you.
Finally, let me point out that Lewontin is only one person, and that your "they themselves" is disingenuous.
I do have enough lack-of-faith to be an athiest. Here is what I think:
We {Atheists} do not have a prior commitment to materialism. It is that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, and we are not forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is not absolute for we can in principle allow a divine foot in the door.
Now you know what one self-proclaimed atheist does believe, and you can read it in the context in which it was written.
Feel free to quote me next time you want to talk about what atheists think.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 10:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 331 (584367)
10-01-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by bluegenes
10-01-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Atheism!?!? + Jainism
I know that quote, and I know who Lewontin is. The "We" really refers to "scientists".
Ah, I see. He was actually talking about methodological naturalism, then, and not atheism at all.
I also disagree with methodological naturalism as it is usually understood, though for reasons which would be beyond the scope of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2010 1:33 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2010 2:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 205 of 331 (584371)
10-01-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2010 7:37 PM


The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Dear Dr Adequate,
Dr Adequate writes:
for the purposes of the First Amendment atheism is indeed counted as a religion; which is why, for example, an atheist public school teacher would not be allowed teach students that there is no God, nor could a school board packed with atheists make it compulsory for all teachers so to teach.
Do you want to change that in the name of free exercise?
Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.
However, your have two myths here:
First is the myth that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that all government entities be completely religiously neutral. I.E. they cannot express any religious opinions at all.
There is a difference between a government official stating. I do not believe in a god that created the universe and making it a law that only ‘Young Earth Creationism’ be taught in public schools.
The First Amendment does not stop a public official from stating his own religiously held belief nor does it allow the government to force one religiously held belief on everyone.
Again, freedom of religion, not from religion.
Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science; Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life; however, it is still taught as if it were ‘Fact1’ in science classes. The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.
As far as what should be taught in public schools; ‘Facts’ should be taught in science classes, ‘Comparative religions’ in Social Studies, Etc.
Thank you for your time and interest,
JRTjr
1. Fact:
—noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

(Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Coragyps, posted 10-01-2010 2:12 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 207 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 2:17 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2010 2:25 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 209 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 2:47 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 211 by Nij, posted 10-01-2010 9:15 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 9:25 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 213 by Strongbow, posted 10-08-2010 9:39 AM JRTjr has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 206 of 331 (584372)
10-01-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life;
Start us a new thread to present that "proof," JRT. I seem to have missed it.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 10:23 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 207 of 331 (584374)
10-01-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science; Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life; however, it is still taught as if it were ‘Fact1’ in science classes. The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.
So much in there that is simply not true it is hard to know where to start.
Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science;
Not true. Can you provide support for that assertions?
Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life;
Not true and also another example of trying to misdirect the audience's attention while you palm the pea. Macro-evolution has not been disproved and it has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.
Yet more totally false statements and unsupported allegations. The fact that Evolution has happened and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that has been presented and tested is taught in all but the Christian Cult of Ignorance schools.
BUT, none of that is even relevant to the topic.
There is NO Christian Creationist model that explains what we see.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 9:19 AM jar has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 208 of 331 (584375)
10-01-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.
Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of religion, the opposite of religion. Creationists love to claim it is a religion, but that's just another thing they are wrong about.
Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science; Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life; however, it is still taught as if it were ‘Fact1’ in science classes.
Evolution is a fact, and there is nothing creationists can do about that other than complain.
The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.
More creationist nonsense. Most atheists don't pay the "gods" any attention at all.
As far as what should be taught in public schools; ‘Facts’ should be taught in science classes, ‘Comparative religions’ in Social Studies, Etc.
Are you aware that facts by themselves have no meaning? You need theories to organize those facts and to explain them. Good theories allow predictions and lead to the discovery of new facts.
And that describes the theory of evolution--it explains facts and has led to the discovery of new facts through accurate predictions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 282 by tsig, posted 11-18-2010 10:49 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 209 of 331 (584382)
10-01-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Stop the funny fonts
What's with the funny fonts and colors? Are you reaching for Biblical effects?
Whatever the reason, please stop.
This aging atheist's eyes, unlike prayer-healed Christian eyes, have faded.
Just plain, readable text will serve if you have words worth reading; all the fancy italics and colors in the world won't help if you don't.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 2:54 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 210 of 331 (584383)
10-01-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Atheism!?!? + Jainism
It's a review of a Carl Sagan book, and the general theme is public understanding of science and popularizing science.
RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons
Dr. Adequate writes:
I also disagree with methodological naturalism as it is usually understood, though for reasons which would be beyond the scope of this thread.
It's a 1980s term, and comes from a Christian American academic at one of the Christian colleges. Its use, IMO, has a lot to do with the need of "pro-science" religious people to separate reality into "twin non-overlapping magisteria".
Science, for me, is the study of all reality, and has no need of definitions like "methodological naturalism", which imply restrictions. But, as you say, this isn't directly on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024