|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024