Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 8:23 AM
335 online now:
Aussie, Joe T, Pressie, Stile, Tangle (5 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,207 Year: 23,813/21,208 Month: 1,778/2,468 Week: 287/822 Day: 13/67 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5988
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 271 of 331 (590340)
11-07-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by JRTjr
11-07-2010 5:48 PM


Been there, done that...
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.

This has been done. That is why the theory of evolution is taught, and religious myths are not taught, in science classes.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 5:48 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 272 of 331 (590386)
11-07-2010 10:16 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?

Nearly, apart from the bit where you say it fits the definition of a religion.

Obviously, atheism is not really a religion. However, for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment it ought to be treated as one --- for example, it should be illegal for public school teachers to indoctrinate children with atheism. Atheist opinions should not be given a free ride with respect to the Establishment Clause just because atheism is technically not a religion. It would be every bit as wrong to establish atheism as to establish Christianity or Islam or Hinudism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:52 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2010 11:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 273 of 331 (590388)
11-07-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by JRTjr
11-07-2010 3:24 PM


Re: The "religion" of atheism
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.

I guess that we're good with that. So what you are going to say now is, first, that the word "Adequate" has another "a" in it, between the "u" and the "t"; second, that you meant "seem" rather than "seam"; third, that you meant to say "wrapped" rather than "rapped"; and fourth, that creationism is is a load of fatuous garbage and you're sorry for wasting everyone's time by talking nonsense.

You're welcome.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:24 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5988
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 274 of 331 (590391)
11-07-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dr Adequate
11-07-2010 10:16 PM


Re: It is, but it isnt !?!?!?
Obviously, atheism is not really a religion. However, for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment it ought to be treated as one --- for example, it should be illegal for public school teachers to indoctrinate children with atheism. Atheist opinions should not be given a free ride with respect to the Establishment Clause just because atheism is technically not a religion. It would be every bit as wrong to establish atheism as to establish Christianity or Islam or Hinudism.

The creationists get the "atheism is a religion" from two court cases.

Torcaso v. Watkins, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealt with a requirement in a Maryland that one take religious test to hold office. The court overturned that. In the decision, Justice Black included a footnote equating treatment of secular humanism and other "religions." Creationists are obviously unaware that footnotes (dicta) in decisions have no legal force.

The second, Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was a case where a prisoner in Wisconsin wanted to form an "atheists" group to get time off on Sunday, along with religious groups. The court agreed that for this purpose he was justified in getting that time off. They didn't declare that atheism was a religion as creationists will claim. Rather, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection, along with religions, under the Establishment Clause.

Pretty thin gruel there, eh? But creationists are used to making things up from nothing so it fits right in.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2010 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2010 1:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6149
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 275 of 331 (590973)
11-11-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Coyote
11-07-2010 11:20 PM


Coyote writes:

quote:
Pretty thin gruel there, eh? But creationists are used to making things up from nothing so it fits right in.

True, but part of the problem has to do with the fact that we're dealing with 18th-century language and means of thinking. That is, the people in the 1700s weren't completely oblivious to the idea of atheism, but it wasn't treated in the same way we do today and the sheer pervasiveness of religion was different than it is today. Thus, the First Amendment talks about "establishment of religion."

Since atheism isn't a religion, one could come to the conclusion that this means the government is free to establish atheism, but that wouldn't be the best solution. Official denial of the existence of god by the government can be just as burdensome to the idea of "freedom of religion" (a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution) as does official endorsement of same.

Instead, the best idea is to remain neutral on the subject and simply not say anything, one way or the other. Yes, religion has played an important part of our cultural history and it would be a disservice to the Humanities to ignore that. So yes, the government can do things like preserve churches of historical significance with government funds. But just as it is completely inappropriate to put "In God We Trust" on the money, it would be just as bad to put "There Is No God" on the money, too.

It isn't because atheism is a religion and that would be establishment. It's that it would endanger free exercise and call into question equal treatment under the law. Imagine how a believer would feel walking into court and having to hear the judge pause to officially denounce the existence of god. To have signs on the wall extolling the virtues of living without belief. Could the participants really expect a fair hearing with such official animus thrown against them?

So atheism should be treated in the same manner as religion not because it is a religion but rather because its establishment harms the free exercise of religion of others.


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 274 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2010 11:20 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:03 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 276 of 331 (590981)
11-11-2010 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Rrhain
11-11-2010 1:27 AM


Coyote writes:

quoteretty thin gruel there, eh? But creationists are used to making things up from nothing so it fits right in.

True, but part of the problem has to do with the fact that we're dealing with 18th-century language and means of thinking. That is, the people in the 1700s weren't completely oblivious to the idea of atheism, but it wasn't treated in the same way we do today and the sheer pervasiveness of religion was different than it is today. Thus, the First Amendment talks about "establishment of religion."

Since atheism isn't a religion, one could come to the conclusion that this means the government is free to establish atheism, but that wouldn't be the best solution. Official denial of the existence of god by the government can be just as burdensome to the idea of "freedom of religion" (a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution) as does official endorsement of same.

Instead, the best idea is to remain neutral on the subject and simply not say anything, one way or the other. Yes, religion has played an important part of our cultural history and it would be a disservice to the Humanities to ignore that. So yes, the government can do things like preserve churches of historical significance with government funds. But just as it is completely inappropriate to put "In God We Trust" on the money, it would be just as bad to put "There Is No God" on the money, too.

It isn't because atheism is a religion and that would be establishment. It's that it would endanger free exercise and call into question equal treatment under the law. Imagine how a believer would feel walking into court and having to hear the judge pause to officially denounce the existence of god. To have signs on the wall extolling the virtues of living without belief. Could the participants really expect a fair hearing with such official animus thrown against them?

So atheism should be treated in the same manner as religion not because it is a religion but rather because its establishment harms the free exercise of religion of others.

This wiill be a bit offtopic, though the usa is known for having laughable court trials, like someone suing god for not giving him a talent to play guitar, or a microwave company cause they did not put do not dry your cat in the microwave on the manual. Has anyone tried to use the god did it defense in any trial and got away whit it.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2010 1:27 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 10:38 AM frako has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 277 of 331 (591008)
11-11-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 9:19 AM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
I have given evidence in these strings that Macro-evolution is a Myth, and not scientifically plausible;

This is of course true: as your in depth participation in your own threads clearly shows.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=page&t=150...

Full marks, extra tuck for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 9:19 AM JRTjr has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 278 of 331 (591012)
11-11-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by frako
11-11-2010 5:03 AM


frako writes:

Has anyone tried to use the god did it defense in any trial and got away whit it.


Every single insurance company when trying to avoid making a payout considers using that defence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:03 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 10:59 AM Panda has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 279 of 331 (591016)
11-11-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Panda
11-11-2010 10:38 AM


Every single insurance company when trying to avoid making a payout considers using that defence.

Oh yea the act of god clause, in most countries it is usless though, in slovenia we went arround that clause by insuring for specific disasters or problems if you inshure for fire and your place burns down you get paid no mattter if lightning caused the fire, though if it gets hit by a hurricane your fire insurance is worth shit.

the act of god clause was a big hit in the 16 hundreds where the insurance guy would say yea you pay me and if something happens to your stuff il pay for the damages, then lightning strikes your house and it burns down he says well that is clearly an act of god he wants you to lose your hous i cant pay you. A nother win for christian morals.

To not go so far off topic

How can you promote any religions creation story if that religion is only in place to screw whit the poor people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 10:38 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 11:04 AM frako has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 280 of 331 (591017)
11-11-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by frako
11-11-2010 10:59 AM


frako writes:

How can you promote any religions creation story if that religion is only in place to screw whit the poor people.


There are 2 types of people: one type uses knives to cut bread and another type that uses knives to stab you in the face.
Religion has been used for good and bad.

Teaching a non-scientific subject as science is the mistake IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 10:59 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 11:21 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 281 of 331 (591021)
11-11-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Panda
11-11-2010 11:04 AM


There are 2 types of people: one type uses knives to cut bread and another type that uses knives to stab you in the face.
Religion has been used for good and bad.

Teaching a non-scientific subject as science is the mistake IMHO.

I think ORGANISED religion should be banned altogether, you wanna pray and and accept jesus as your savior be my guest but do it at home dont go selling your religion at mass, or on tv and then laugh how gullable those idiots are for giving you their money. Or at least it should be TAXED hard. And a restraining order from schools at least one mile away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 11:04 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2010 11:19 PM frako has responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 282 of 331 (592128)
11-18-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coyote
10-01-2010 2:25 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
yes
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2010 2:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 283 of 331 (592132)
11-18-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by frako
11-11-2010 11:21 AM


I think ORGANISED religion should be banned altogether, you wanna pray and and accept jesus as your savior be my guest but do it at home dont go selling your religion at mass, or on tv and then laugh how gullable those idiots are for giving you their money. Or at least it should be TAXED hard. And a restraining order from schools at least one mile away.

Also we could throw 'em to the lions, it totally worked for Nero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 11:21 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by frako, posted 11-19-2010 7:53 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 284 of 331 (592221)
11-19-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2010 11:19 PM


Also we could throw 'em to the lions, it totally worked for Nero.

No some publick flogging would do

No seriusly organised religion should be Taxed like any other organisation.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2010 11:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 285 of 331 (592703)
11-21-2010 9:56 AM


An interesting fact

According David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia":

there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, we guess that there are probably at least 500 different creation stories to draw from

http://www.associatedcontent.com/...and_intelligent_pg3.html


    
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017