Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 8:27 PM
92 online now:
Dr Adequate, jar, kjsimons, Rrhain (4 members, 88 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,289 Year: 28,895/21,208 Month: 961/1,847 Week: 336/475 Day: 101/82 Hour: 4/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Neutral Education
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6219
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 34 (448503)
01-13-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by johnfolton
01-10-2008 4:52 PM


Tim writes about Anthony Flew:

quote:
It likely a must read by atheists to try to understand how one of the foremost atheists on the planet could recant atheism.

Hold your horses there, Tim. Flew doesn't believe in god the same way you do. He's pretty much a Deist in conceptualization: God got it started and then abandoned creation. As he said:

"I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god".

Flew rejects god as a source of either evil or good, claims there is no afterlife, rejects the "fine tuning" claim of creationists, and has actually recanted his recantation:

"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

He's not exactly the paragon of theism you make him out to be.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2008 4:52 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 01-13-2008 9:07 PM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-13-2008 10:52 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 17 of 34 (448514)
01-13-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 8:30 PM


And besides that, Flew didn't have anything to do with that book other than allowing his name to be put on it.


Few men and fewer women had the means or the desire to write a book on "How I failed to overcome my humble origins." -- Graham Robb
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 8:30 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 18 of 34 (448546)
01-13-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 8:30 PM


Random acts of moderation - References for those quotes, please
Not picking on Rrhain, but I think that when one is pulling information, quotes, etc. from any source, there should be a reference/credit/link to that source.

Any discussion of this messages content should go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 8:30 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 10:57 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6219
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 34 (448550)
01-13-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Adminnemooseus
01-13-2008 10:52 PM


Re: Random acts of moderation - References for those quotes, please
References:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

A letter to Richard Carrier from December 2004.

I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god

An interview with Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News from December 2004.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-13-2008 10:52 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-14-2008 1:23 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 20 of 34 (448575)
01-14-2008 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Rrhain
01-13-2008 10:57 PM


The apparent online source of the quotes
Googling those phrases led me to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Rrhain apparently got the quotes from that page, which in turn contained the references Rrhain supplies. I really would have preferred that the wikipedia link also had been included as a reference.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2008 10:57 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2008 2:13 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6219
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 34 (448579)
01-14-2008 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Adminnemooseus
01-14-2008 1:23 AM


Re: The apparent online source of the quotes
Um...I didn't get them from there, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference. It isn't reliable.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-14-2008 1:23 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 34 (448715)
01-14-2008 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Reality Man
01-13-2008 8:01 PM


What I meant was teach people the main things we should and are learning, it seems to be working.

What are you looking at the suggests that it seems to be working?

But when it comes to teaching religion, nothing specific should be taught.

A fine opinion, but unsubstantiated.

What about those people who believe that they should be teaching their religion, like evangelicals?

Simply expressing your opinion that they shouldn't be isn't doing much. WHY shouldn't they be evangelising?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Reality Man, posted 01-13-2008 8:01 PM Reality Man has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 23 of 34 (448831)
01-15-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Reality Man
01-13-2008 8:09 PM


Re: What beliefs?
Hi Reality man,

they are loyal followers of their beliefs.

If they are loyal followers of their beliefs, did they really believe them if they didn't teach you about them? Or did they teach you about them but tell you to look into everything? Do they believe in a god of any kind or do they believe that everyone has the same god? or do they believe there is no god? None of those are neutral -you have to believe something -maybe not with conviction but you must have a general idea of what's true.

As for the history I learned, nothing too elaborate but I learned a good deal about the different great empires of ancient civilizations, leading to modern history

And what did you learn about what you're doing here? How did it all begin? Origins -what is your purpose on this earth or do you have none.

I did not read the bible or any other holy scripts, so don't judge me too too quickly.

Not judging don't worry - just trying to assess what you actually do believe for interests sake and for discussion's sake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Reality Man, posted 01-13-2008 8:09 PM Reality Man has not yet responded

  
Indecision
Junior Member (Idle past 3418 days)
Posts: 2
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Joined: 05-07-2008


Message 24 of 34 (465531)
05-07-2008 10:14 PM


Personally I think both the creation story of the religous majority (of the city/town/province/district) and evolution should be taught at schools. However the creation story should be taught in a religion class and evolution should be taught in a science class. Also the unit on evolution as well as creation story should be optional and those not wanting to hear a specific side of the argument and should be able to opt out of the unit at any time. I also believe that these subjects should only be taught at a higher grade level when they can create their own intelligent opinion on the subject.

Edited by Indecision, : Clarifying thoughts


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Creation Is Fallacious, posted 05-11-2009 9:58 PM Indecision has not yet responded
 Message 29 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2009 1:37 AM Indecision has not yet responded
 Message 30 by hitchy, posted 05-28-2009 10:41 AM Indecision has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 25 of 34 (465566)
05-08-2008 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Reality Man
01-10-2008 1:55 PM


The religious aspect though must be carefully taught. Time studying Christianity should be equivalent to time spent studying Judaism or Buddhism, or whatever. It should be taught from an anthropologist’s point of view.

This I disagree with. I think more time should be spent on Christianity for two reasons:

1. It's the world's largest religion.
2. It's more culturally relevant. For the same reason that pupils from any given country spend a disproportionate amount of time studying the history of their country; the prevalent religion both currently and historically in that country deserves extra attention.

I agree with your second point though, religious study should look at the practices, beliefs and history of a religion. I see no reason to spend much time at all on studying the Bible in religious study classes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Reality Man, posted 01-10-2008 1:55 PM Reality Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 11:06 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
vincent2008
Junior Member (Idle past 3251 days)
Posts: 3
From: New York
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 26 of 34 (486530)
10-22-2008 5:47 AM


Neutral Education
Every children have the right to get Neutral Education in this world. It is a basic education. Every children should know atleast reading and writing in this world.
============================================================
Advertising removed.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


    
Creation Is Fallacious
Junior Member (Idle past 3049 days)
Posts: 7
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 27 of 34 (508256)
05-11-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Indecision
05-07-2008 10:14 PM


should we make the WWII and holocaust unit of history optional for the people who don't believe it happened?
should we cut out heliocentrism for those who thing the sun orbits the earth?

a link to a relevant photo
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3283462572_04f03bc220_o.jpg


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Indecision, posted 05-07-2008 10:14 PM Indecision has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1804 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 28 of 34 (508273)
05-11-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Jack
05-08-2008 5:37 AM


Mr Jack writes:

It's the world's largest religion.

Correction, Christianity is not a religion but an umbrella name for hundreds of religious denominations which the only thing that ties them together is a belief that Christ was the Messiah.

Edited by bluescat48, : sp


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 25 by Dr Jack, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 29 of 34 (508286)
05-12-2009 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Indecision
05-07-2008 10:14 PM


There is no Neutral In Some Instances, Including Education
Indecision writes:

Personally I think both the creation story of the religous majority (of the city/town/province/district) and evolution should be taught at schools. However the creation story should be taught in a religion class and evolution should be taught in a science class. Also the unit on evolution as well as creation story should be optional and those not wanting to hear a specific side of the argument and should be able to opt out of the unit at any time. I also believe that these subjects should only be taught at a higher grade level when they can create their own intelligent opinion on the subject.

Welcome to EvC!

Where do I start with what is wrong with this argument?

First, what is a 'religious majority' of the city/town/province/district. Obviously someone will have to make the decision on the scale of what constitutes the appropriate geographic entity. For example, I suppose the majority of the people in Utah would choose to teach the Mormon explanation, the people in Minnesota the Lutheran, and the people in Texas the Baptist (whatever that is, as they don't agree among themselves).

Would the people in Schliecher County around 100 miles south of where I am now be taught the wonders of polygamy, as that cult may actually constitute a plurality of the population in that unit. Should the people in Los Alamos County in New Mexico be taught the wonders of the natural sciences, while their neighbors in Santa Fe County are taught the wonders of crystal power, channeling, and screwing up any decent interpretation of American Indian religion, simply due to a plurality of woo-woo clowns that are often the target of Penn and Teller?

More important, should any given majority of some fanatical fundamentalist Protestant sect be allowed to curse and condemn to hell all mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians etc. and use taxpayer funds to foment their false 'religion' of hate and fear? (or their direct violation of the precepts of any major religion in presuming to speak for God?) Should the superiority of the Aryan race and holocaust denial be taught in northern Idaho, the stronghold of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian with forced taxpayer support essentially at the end of a gun barrel?

Second, should anyone be allowed to ditch classes they don't agree with? Should prospective nurses that disagree with science be allowed to treat patients according to any so-called holistic principles of the witch doctor or whatever form of voodoo they may choose simply because they don't know any better due to that self-regulated curriculum? Should a prospective voter be taught only the principles of whatever political persuasion may hold sway in this arbitrary district, be it racial supremacy, gay-bashing, the sanction of torture, or indeed even dominionism (aka Christian Nationalism) in opposition to basic civics and world history?

If you ask me, perhaps such people should come under the purview of child protective services as well as any educational establishment.

{ABE} What you suggest regarding education is known as the 'tyranny of the majority,' a concept that has been known since Socrates drank hemlock and which has been rejected by virtually all deep thinkers since that time. It is also a rejection of the concept of the social contract, the bedrock idea behind the US Constitution.

I have a suggestion. Think thoroughly about the consequences of what you post, this place is not forgiving when it comes to sloppy thinking.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Indecision, posted 05-07-2008 10:14 PM Indecision has not yet responded

    
hitchy
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 30 of 34 (510175)
05-28-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Indecision
05-07-2008 10:14 PM


uh...what?
As a biology teacher in a somewhat conservative area, I see no reason to give time to an idea that makes fallacious statements about geology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, biochemistry, genetics, history, anthropology...should I continue this list?

Teaching students that every opinion, no matter how patently false, deserves equal footing with established facts and theories is inane. Our country is already behind in the sciences, should we continue to push ourselves back?

Besides, everything in biology points to common ancestry, not special creation regardless of the religion proferring it.

A class on special creation cannot be "neutral" anyway. All of the evidence against special creation would make the class moot. Also, the claims of creationists are so thoroughly refuted that the class would be antithetical to its stated purpose. Time for class. Take care.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Indecision, posted 05-07-2008 10:14 PM Indecision has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017