Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 7:17 PM
401 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, CRR, edge, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (7 members, 394 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,793 Year: 13,399/21,208 Month: 2,881/3,605 Week: 223/933 Day: 119/104 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15922
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 256 of 331 (589735)
11-04-2010 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 10:12 PM


Re: Conversation all rapped up!?!?
Dear Dr Adequate,

Can you provide some context for your quote?
Of course not...

I love when someone asks me a question and, presuming I cant answer it myself, proceed to answer it for me.

Since you seam to have this conversation all rapped up; Ill let you do both sides of it.

Sure. In that case you apologize to everyone for ripping a quote out of context in order to create a false impression; you promise us never to do it again; and you thank us for the valuable lesson in intellectual integrity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 10:12 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15922
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 257 of 331 (589736)
11-04-2010 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 9:51 PM


Re: Atheism!?!? + Jainism
Not mine, I did not come up with the definition; nor did I tell them what to say or think. I simply quoted what they themselves have said. I youre not happy with there definitions or ideas Im sure they would not mind you giving them your two cense.

Who are "they"? Does Lewontin, who was not talking about atheism, have a mouse in his pocket?

Or are you so dishonest as to pretend that when Lewontin, who is one person, was not talking about atheism, he was in fact all atheists talking about atheism?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 9:51 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 258 of 331 (590144)
11-06-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
10-01-2010 2:17 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Dear Jar,

Great to hear from you again.

JRTjr writes:

Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science;

Jar writes:

Not true. Can you provide support for that assertion?

Are you asking if I have supporting facts for my assertion? or just rejecting what I said out of hand?

As to my Macro-evolution is a Myth statement.

I have given evidence in these strings that Macro-evolution is a Myth, and not scientifically plausible; and all Ive seen from the other side is there accusations, scorn, and complains about my motives.

I state Facts, and they just say Not so and think that should be the end of it.

Well, Not so!

If what I say is so easily disproved then bring it on!

Show me where, in public schools in America today, that the scientific evidence for a Creator is taught; and I will recant my statement that: atheism is taught in public schools under the guise of science;

Show me where Macro-evolution explains the Cambrian explosion, the fact that speciation has dropped to practically zero cense the end of the Cambrian explosion, how completely different and new organs, and organisms can just appear under Macro-evolutions watchful eye; and a myriad of other things I, as of yet, have not heard a reasonable evolutionary explanation for; and I will recant my Macro-evolution is a Myth statement.

Disprove the Christian Creationist model explained in the book Creation as Science; and I will accept your statement that There is NO Christian Creationist model that explains what we see.

Until then, Ill stick by what I have said.

Thank you , and I hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 10-01-2010 2:17 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 11-06-2010 11:28 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 277 by Larni, posted 11-11-2010 10:33 AM JRTjr has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 259 of 331 (590151)
11-06-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coyote
10-01-2010 2:25 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Dear Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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.

Apparently you did not go to my original statement and read the definitions I gave in support of my supposition that Atheism a religion

Ill re-post them here for you:

Religion, according to Dictionary.Com is:

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.)

Atheists hold to a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon mainly that there is no god; and, yes, they hold to that idea religiously. ;-}

Coyote writes:

Evolution is a fact, and there is nothing creationists can do about that other than complain.

Constantly repeating a lie does not make it true.

I can also play the whine game: Creation is a fact, and there is nothing Atheists can do about that other than complain about it.

Coyote writes:

the theory of evolution explains facts and has led to the discovery of new facts through accurate predictions.

Even bad theories can explains some of the facts and lead to new discoveries; and I do not argue that, it is the myriad of other facts that Macro-Evolution cant explain, and that make Macro-Evolution impossible that cause me to denounce it as scientifically plausible.

JRTjr writes:

As far as what should be taught in public schools; Facts should be taught in science classes, Comparative religions in Social Studies, Etc.

Coyote writes:

Are you aware that facts by themselves have no meaning? You need theories to organize those facts and to explain them.

Ya, Coyote, thats Called Science. So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted; if to many of the facts dispute a given theory it must be discarded and another theory that supports more of the facts should be put in its place.

The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of just so accidental happy coincidences that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.

Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2010 2:25 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Rrhain, posted 11-06-2010 9:38 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 11:48 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 263 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2010 12:17 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28823
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 260 of 331 (590161)
11-06-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 9:19 AM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
And as I pointed out to you in the very post you are replying to, even if they were true it has NOTHING to do with the topic which is "Which religions creation story should be taught?"

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 9:19 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6096
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 261 of 331 (590223)
11-06-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 10:29 AM


JRTjr writes:

quote:
Religion, according to Dictionary.Com is:

Argumentum ad dictionary? Is there nobody who understands this isn't an argument?

Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. While it is important to define terms so that we know what we're talking about, you do not get to pull out the dictionary as justification in an attempt to distract from your logical error of equivocation. Specifically, you refer to "religion" meaning "a fundamental set of beliefs and practices" and then immediately equivocate to the definition of "something on believes in and follows devotedly."

Your own example shows you the fallacy of this equivocation:

to make a religion of fighting prejudice

By this logic, we should not teach anything in school because there are people who "make a religion" out of anything and everything. That's often one of the reasons that teachers go into teaching: They have "made a religion" out of their particular subject and "believe in" and "follow devotedly" the various events within that area of study.

quote:
Atheists hold to a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon

No, they don't. That's the entire point. That's why atheism isn't a religion: There is no "fundamental set of beliefs and practices." There is a fundamental lack of such beliefs and practices. That's why it's called "A"-theism. It is the absence of such.

quote:
Constantly repeating a lie does not make it true.

Indeed. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that atheism is a religion, that still won't make it true.

quote:
I can also play the whine game: Creation is a fact

Then surely you can provide the journal references that support that claim, right? Why is it I can't find a single article in any biology journal that provides any such evidence? Why is it that the only thing I can find repeatable, observable facts for is evolution?

quote:
it is the myriad of other facts that Macro-Evolution cant explain

What did you just say about constantly repeating a lie? You can chant that all you want, that still won't make it true. We have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny that?

Hint: There is no such thing as "macro-evolution." There is only "evolution."

Question: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

quote:
So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted

Precisely. That's why creationism and Lamarckism and all other speculations about how life diversified on this planet were dropped in favor of the modern synthesis of evolution.

quote:
The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of just so accidental happy coincidences that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will not make it true.

And since when did evolution mean atheism? The official position of the Catholic Church is that life diversified via evolution. Are you saying the Pope is an atheist? Note, I'm not asking you to claim to be a Catholic or to believe any of their dogma...I'm simply asking of you think the Pope doesn't believe in god.

So since evolution doesn't mean atheism, which creation story should be taught?


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15922
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 262 of 331 (590237)
11-06-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 10:29 AM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Would you please stop formatting your posts like you're a crazy person?

Much of what you say, while wrong, is at least sane. You may be a creationist, but you're not actually mentally ill. But you present it as though you've gone off your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 263 of 331 (590238)
11-07-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 10:29 AM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Coyote writes:

Are you aware that facts by themselves have no meaning? You need theories to organize those facts and to explain them.

Ya, Coyote, thats Called Science. So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted; if to many of the facts dispute a given theory it must be discarded and another theory that supports more of the facts should be put in its place.

I am glad you agree with this. Now start checking your pet "theories" (actually religious beliefs) against the facts. I think you will find that science has contradicted much of what creationism believes, and certainly everything that has successfully been tested. The young earth and global flood beliefs are two of those. You probably won't agree with this, but that's where the facts lead.

The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of just so accidental happy coincidences that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.

Not so. First, there is no credible evidence for supernatural critters. This includes the mythical "designer" that was invented when creation "science" was removed from the schools by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1980s.

Second, the facts don't point toward creation at all. I studied evolution for several years in graduate school and I got to see a lot of those facts. I handled many of the important casts of fossil critters, and studied about the rest. I don't need creationists who hate evolution for religious reasons to try and tell me what the facts are and what they mean. And the biological sciences are even stronger evidence of evolution than are the fossils!

On the other hand, the "facts" proposed by IDers such as Behe have not withstood the critical examination that is required by science. Behe made an absolute fool of himself on the witness stand in the Dover trial. You can find some details on the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

And, oh yes. Atheism is still not a religion. It is the absence of religion--the opposite of religion. But it is just like creationists to try to make the opposite of religion into a religion. That is just another area in which they are wrong.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 264 of 331 (590308)
11-07-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Omnivorous
10-01-2010 2:47 PM


Re: Stop the funny fonts
Dear Omnivorous,

Omnivorous writes:

What's with the funny fonts and colors, please stop.

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.

Agreed, yes, for you, I will not use anymore funny fonts. Others have asked if I would not use colors in my posts; and, as with them, I am more then happy to concede.

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 2:47 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 265 of 331 (590309)
11-07-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Nij
10-01-2010 9:15 PM


Re: The "religion" of atheism
Dear Nij,

{because you'll either ignore or dance around this point, I'll say it now}
Yeah, didn't think you could.

As I said to Dr. Adequte: I love it when someone asks me a question and, presuming I cant answer it myself, proceed to answer it for me.

Since you seam to have this conversation all rapped up; Ill let you do both sides of it.

Enjoy ;-},
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Nij, posted 10-01-2010 9:15 PM Nij has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2010 10:57 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 266 of 331 (590310)
11-07-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2010 9:25 PM


It is, but it isnt !?!?!?
Dear Dr Adequate,

Dr Adequate writes:

The judiciary have (rightly) agreed to treat atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment.

So, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I want to make absolutely certain Im not putting words into your mouth.

Youre saying that the Government judiciary treats atheism as a religion; and even though you agree with that; it, in no way, makes atheism a religion?

You agree is should be treated as a religion; but not called a religion even though it fits the definition of a religion?

Have I got it right this time?

Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Edited by JRTjr, : Minor editing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2010 9:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by bluescat48, posted 11-07-2010 5:09 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2010 10:16 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 267 of 331 (590318)
11-07-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Strongbow
10-08-2010 9:39 AM


I concur!
Dear Strongbow,

I concur with your statement wholeheartedly.

As we get into our late twenties and grow older, we tend to lock it our beliefs; and when something comes along to challenge those beliefs our tendency is to cling to our cherished beliefs that much harder. This seams universal across religions, races, upbringings, etc.

I was faceted with one of those accept the facts and change your beliefs or cling to your beliefs and work around the facts problems about fifteen years ago {I am now 42}. I chose to accept the facts and adjust what I accepted as true accordingly.

I believe that everyone should be open to adjusting what they accept as true (what they believe) when faced with new evidence.

That is also part of the reason I participate in these discussions. If I come across some evidence that makes me question what I thought to be true I can examine it more closely and adjust my beliefs accordingly.

I hope you are enjoying our discussions, and I pray you will continue to participate,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Strongbow, posted 10-08-2010 9:39 AM Strongbow has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 268 of 331 (590330)
11-07-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by JRTjr
11-07-2010 3:52 PM


Re: It is, but it isnt !?!?!?
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I want to make absolutely certain Im not putting words into your mouth.

Youre saying that the Government judiciary treats atheism as a religion; and even though you agree with that; it, in no way, makes atheism a religion?

You agree is should be treated as a religion; but not called a religion even though it fits the definition of a religion?

Have I got it right this time?

To clarify this use the idea of political parties.

In the US there are 2 major parties, the Democratic & Republican plus a number of smaller parties. There a re a number of voters who do not belong to any of the parties. They call themselves independent, but there is no Independent party. For statistical purposes the independents are considered a party. Otherwise, for statistical purposes a who block of voters could not be compared to the actual voters of the real parties. The same with religious beliefs, for anything requiring a religious belief, if Atheists weren't statistically listed a a religion it would do the same thing, omit a large number of people from the statistical lists. In regard to the first Amendment, if Atheism wasn't considered a religion there would be about 10% of the population would not covered. The point is simply, in reality Independent is not a political party any more than Atheism is a religion. But for statistical purposes they have to be listed to include all possibilities.


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 266 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:52 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by JRTjr, posted 03-01-2011 1:42 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 269 of 331 (590336)
11-07-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
10-26-2010 1:20 PM


Avoiding Your Question??
Dear Jar,

Im sorry; however, I am not avoiding the question.

I answered that question in message #77. I stated that To make the determination of which{Creation Stories} should be taught in science classes would require us to decide which one(s) come closest to fitting all of the available scientific facts, and evidence Not just a statement of an opinion.

Unfortunately, we are told from the time we enter school until we graduate collage that Evolution is the only scientifically plausible explanation for the existence of everything we see.

We also know that if you tell a lie long enough most people will eventually believe it; and children are more susceptible to believing lies then adults are.

So even when a scientifically plausible explanation comes along, and is presented, more often then not, it is rejected out of hand. Not on its lack of scientific plausibility; rather because it does not fit the ideas and notions already accepted by peers of the establishment.

In other words, to put it as succinctly as I can; the evidence should be examined without bias, and the theory that supports as many of the known facts, with out ignoring any, should be the one that is taught in school no matter its religious ramifications.

Thank you,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 1:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 11-07-2010 5:58 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2010 6:06 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28823
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 270 of 331 (590339)
11-07-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by JRTjr
11-07-2010 5:48 PM


Re: Avoiding Your Question??
Except absolutely nothing in your post addresses the questions raised in the post you are replying to.

Let me repeat the questions and try yet again to see if you will answer.

quote:
Except, of course, it is not a matter of Truth but only your belief.

But it still has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Is there any reason that one or more of the various Christian Creation myths should be taught?

Is there any reason that one or more of the various other Creation myths should be taught?


Nor is there ANYTHING of relevance or significance in Message 77 that is relevant to the topic.

In addition there is nothing in your response related to science.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 5:48 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017