Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
42 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,260 Year: 5,906/14,102 Month: 54/438 Week: 98/83 Day: 0/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 1996 of 2024 (889310)
11-15-2021 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1982 by Percy
11-13-2021 10:46 AM


Hello Percy,

Thank you for your helpful advice on quoting.

My responses to your statements:

quote:
How do you tell the difference? Your truth is someone else's sectarian dogma, and vice versa, and neither of you have any objective criteria for making such judgments, not to mention that you may as well be arguing about elves and ogres.

If I told you the truth that water is wet, what would be your view? Is it that water is powder?

I thought that truth unites us by delivering from conflicting opinions.

quote:
If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?

Please note the definition of "religion."

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs;

Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

∴ Actions according to ones belief that he has no religion thus makes his belief a religion.

quote:
What counts is how you establish what is true and what is false. If you're relying solely upon real world data then your answers have a far better chance of being correct than if they're based upon myths and prayers.

Although we may establish on our own what we think is true or false or right or wrong, the Bible tells us what IS true or false or whats right or wrong.
It is written: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (Proverbs 12:15)."

quote:
The Bible and science do not contradict each other. One revolves around spiritual knowledge, the other scientific.

Spiritual knowledge governs the doer of science.

quote:
If Biblical behavior is the standard for good then we're in trouble. Fortunately we're a country of democratically established laws, not of some religion's interpretation of their holy book in the way of Isis, the Taliban and Iran. Perhaps you should read The Handmaid's Tale.

Our nation is a democratic republic--a democracy based on law. Otherwise, democracy alone would support evil if 51 percent voted for the evil. Our nations laws are based of the Bible. Where did we find the commandments not to kill or steal?

ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1982 by Percy, posted 11-13-2021 10:46 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2001 by Percy, posted 11-16-2021 11:33 AM EWolf has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1997 of 2024 (889311)
11-16-2021 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1995 by EWolf
11-15-2021 10:23 PM


quote:
What knowledge do you count as essential?

I would say that the knowledge of how to learn and how to reason is essential.

quote:
Biblical truth is settled and as unmovable from debate as pi is unmovable from the value of 3.14.

Men can’t ”settle” the truth by decree. The Bible does contain myth and legend - and there are disagreements between the books of the Bible. You can’t simply dismiss that truth because your sect teaches otherwise or because you don’t like it.

quote:
If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us

Many Christians hold that the central message is what counts - not trying to pretend that myths are literal facts.

quote:
Do we even realize that we are fallen?

Do you even realise that that doctrine doesn’t fit with a simple literal reading of the original story? Don’t you think that’s a sign that a simple, literal reading is not the correct way to read it?

quote:
The evolution mindset hides this vital fact. What other hope is there?

Many Christians would disagree.

quote:
Biblical truth is not from man and my speech is not based on mere belief of man's rhetoric, but based on personal testimonies as a witness to the power of Biblical truth. It

Oh, it is from men. It is certainly men who told you that the myths must be taken literally - and those personal testimonies were all from humans, too.

quote:
If you own a good business how would you like for someone to smear it to make you appear as if evil?

There are plenty of business owners who take steps to suppress criticism. Simply claiming that the business is good and calling the criticisms smears is not an answer.

quote:
As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.

I have not argued that God is evil. I leave that to people like you.

quote:
As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth

Indeed - creationism is exactly that. The Bible never puts a great emphasis on taking myths as fact. It’s not required for salvation. Nor is putting on an appearance of piety.

quote:
We witness today the same scenario as that at the time when Adam and Eve in the Bible were deceived into doubting God's word not to eat the forbidden fruit. The fall thus resulted. Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview

And there is a fine example of an attempt to “victimise” science through “faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive”.

quote:
A forgiven, redeemed life with God is far beyond sectarian dogma that I am also tired of. Such dogma is what makes the power of the cross non-effective as Paul warned in I Corinthians 1:11-17.

Then I guess you’d better get beyond promoting sectarian dogma and misrepresenting the Bible,

quote:
The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.

Which is why you were bragging about finding a clever loophole in the First Amendment. No, preaching the doctrine of one religion - let alone a sect of that religion is not something that belongs in schools.

The notoriously dishonest behaviour of creationists is another count against your claim. Why would people with lives “enriched” by their belief be full of falsehood and hate and hypocrisy? If they believe that the Bible is the Word of God why do they show it so little respect? They seem to worship a Bible of their own imagining and reject the actual book - which they seem reluctant to even read.

It doesn’t make sense if things are as you say, does it?

Edited by PaulK, : Fix typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1264
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 1998 of 2024 (889313)
11-16-2021 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1994 by EWolf
11-15-2021 9:56 PM


Tch tch ! Naughty naughty ! Seeking to avoid the awkward question.

Let's try again. Is it evil to drown an innocent child ? Yes or no ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1994 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 9:56 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20410
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1999 of 2024 (889316)
11-16-2021 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1995 by EWolf
11-15-2021 10:23 PM


EWolf writes:

Biblical truth is settled and as unmovable from debate as pi is unmovable from the value of 3.14.

This is such a relief. So how did it finally come out? Are we saved by faith or works?

If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us?

You've just won the "Who can cram the most fictions into a singe sentence" contest.

Do we even realize that we are fallen?

Not really. Only Christians believe in original sin.

The evolution mindset hides this vital fact.

Okay, I'll bite. How does evolution hide a fiction? Does it hide unicorns, too?

What other hope is there?

That we're fallen is our only hope?

Biblical truth is not from man and my speech is not based on mere belief of man's rhetoric, but based on personal testimonies as a witness to the power of Biblical truth.

So when it comes to the Bible, you believe your interpretation of everything you read.

It's unfortunate that some Christians compromise their faith to believe evolution that counters Biblical truth.

It's unfortunate that so many Christians confuse faith with science.

If you own a good business how would you like for someone to smear it to make you appear as if evil? As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.

You evaded the issue in your reply to Vinesey, too (Message 1994). Using the blatantly obviously relevant portions of the Old Testament, make the case that God isn't evil.

And as Vimesey (I think it was him) pointed out, he didn't need God to tell him any Golden Rule. Or as Robert Fulghum said in the title of a book, "All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten." Where on Earth did you develop the fantasy that morality and goodness are the exclusive realm of religion?

As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth.

I think you have an inflated idea of how relevant scientists find religion to science.

We witness today the same scenario as that at the time when Adam and Eve in the Bible were deceived into doubting God's word not to eat the forbidden fruit. The fall thus resulted.

Do you still believe Mother Goose, too?

Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview.

Could you connect the dots on this one please? I think it'd be a lot of fun watching you do that.

A forgiven, redeemed life with God is far beyond sectarian dogma that I am also tired of. Such dogma is what makes the power of the cross non-effective as Paul warned in I Corinthians 1:11-17.

So true, so true. And don't forget Frodo and the power of the One Ring.

The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.

From public education? As in a comparative religions class, or perhaps history or sociology?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM EWolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2004 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2021 1:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 2000 of 2024 (889318)
11-16-2021 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1994 by EWolf
11-15-2021 9:56 PM


EWolf writes:

As for the killing of the innocent, was God responsible for destroying the 62 plus million lives of unborn individuals before they could commit their first sin?


He was responsible for killing almost everybody on the earth with a flood. Do you think there were no unborn individuals (or even newborn individuals) who had not yet committed their first sin?

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1994 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 9:56 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20410
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 2001 of 2024 (889320)
11-16-2021 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1996 by EWolf
11-15-2021 11:12 PM


EWolf writes:

quote:
How do you tell the difference? Your truth is someone else's sectarian dogma, and vice versa, and neither of you have any objective criteria for making such judgments, not to mention that you may as well be arguing about elves and ogres.

If I told you the truth that water is wet, what would be your view? Is it that water is powder?

You sure are an evasive coot. Do you really need reminding that there is evidence that water is wet, but no evidence for your sectarian dogma. Now, again, how do you judge between your sectarian dogma and someone else's? It's a simple rhetorical question requiring no answer beyond, "Oh, yeah, the evidence. Now where is that, I thought it was lying around here somewhere. Well, in the meantime I'll just make more unsupported declarations and claim they're fact."

I thought that truth unites us by delivering from conflicting opinions.

You thought wrong. A growing body of evidence that increasingly points in the same direction is what causes a consensus to form within science. No such process exists in religion, which is why there are so many conflicting ones.

quote:
If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?

Please note the definition of "religion."...etc...more nonsense...etc...

Next you'll be telling us that not having a mythology is a mythology. Your argument isn't worthy of a response. You seem to believe many silly things.

quote:
What counts is how you establish what is true and what is false. If you're relying solely upon real world data then your answers have a far better chance of being correct than if they're based upon myths and prayers.

Although we may establish on our own what we think is true or false or right or wrong, the Bible tells us what IS true or false or whats right or wrong.

Declaring something so still leaves you with a glaring lack of evidence, the gold standard for determining what is likely true or false or indeterminate at this time.

It is written: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (Proverbs 12:15)."

Used car salesmen must love you.

quote:
The Bible and science do not contradict each other. One revolves around spiritual knowledge, the other scientific.

Spiritual knowledge governs the doer of science.

Another bald declaration unsupported by any evidence or argument. That which is asserted without evidence or argument can be dismissed in exactly the same way, e.g.: Spiritual knowledge does not govern the doer of science. See how easy that was? So now what? Maybe you could try presenting evidence along with arguments to frame that evidence into a supportable position?

Our nations laws are based on the Bible. Where did we find the commandments not to kill or steal?

I think what you really meant to ask is where did our laws against killing and stealing come from if not from the Biblical commandments? They probably came from the same place as laws against killing and stealing in non-Christian countries. There's not a country in the world of any religion that doesn't have laws against killing and stealing. That killing and stealing are bad did not originate with the Bible.

You're doing nothing more than baldly declaring over and over again that, in essence, if the Bible says it it's true.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1996 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 11:12 PM EWolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2002 by jar, posted 11-16-2021 11:42 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2003 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2021 12:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33496
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 2002 of 2024 (889321)
11-16-2021 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2001 by Percy
11-16-2021 11:33 AM


Percy writes:

You're doing nothing more than baldly declaring over and over again that, in essence, if the Bible says it it's true.

Yet it is obvious from his posts that either he has never read any Bible or that he is simply incapable of actually reading with comprehension at all.

He is the Classic example of the Christian Cult of *********.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2001 by Percy, posted 11-16-2021 11:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 2003 of 2024 (889322)
11-16-2021 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2001 by Percy
11-16-2021 11:33 AM


Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

Our nations laws are based on the Bible. Where did we find the commandments not to kill or steal?


I think what you really meant to ask is where did our laws against killing and stealing come from if not from the Biblical commandments? They probably came from the same place as laws against killing and stealing in non-Christian countries. There's not a country in the world of any religion that doesn't have laws against killing and stealing. That killing and stealing are bad did not originate with the Bible.

Mosaic Law (traditionally c. 1391–1271 BCE (as per Rabbinic Judaism) or c. 1571 BCE (as per Ussher), but not actually documented until 2nd century BCE) was obviously derived from the centuries earlier Code of Hammurabi (c. 1810 – c. 1750 BCE) which was given by the gods, Bel and Anu.

So then let us denounce that false plagiarizing god, YHWH, and sing praises to the True Law-Givers, Bel and Anu! Somebody give us an "Amen"!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2001 by Percy, posted 11-16-2021 11:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 2004 of 2024 (889326)
11-16-2021 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1999 by Percy
11-16-2021 9:59 AM


A few additional things for EWolf:

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

The evolution mindset hides this vital fact.


Okay, I'll bite. How does evolution hide a fiction? Does it hide unicorns, too?

First, he needs to explain just what this fictitious "evolution mindset" is supposed to be? So far, all it tells us is that he has absolutely no clue what evolution is.

Also, Scotland wants to know where these unicorns are being hidden. The one that they have chained up is getting lonely, so the Scots want to organize another hunt.

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

It's unfortunate that some Christians compromise their faith to believe evolution that counters Biblical truth.


It's unfortunate that so many Christians confuse faith with science.

What the hell is he even talking about? Evolution is part of how the real world works, so it would only conflict with something that also conflicts with reality. If a god did in fact create the universe, then the universe (AKA "reality") would be how it was created, including evolution. There would be no conflict.

If EWolf's "Biblical truth" conflicts with reality, then that shows that his "Biblical truth" is faulty, not the Creation. Why does he have this problem?

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

... As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.


... And as Vimesey (I think it was him) pointed out, he didn't need God to tell him any Golden Rule. ...

Well, besides just about every religion having its own Golden Rule, within the Judeo-Christian tradition it is a Pharisee teaching.

In 20 BCE a Gentile troll was making the rounds harassing all the schools (what we would now call yeshivas (or "yeshivoth"). His schtick was to demand that they recite the whole of the Torah (AKA "the Law") from memory while he stood on one foot (still being about 1500 years before the printing press, students had to memorize entire books; nowadays, they also have to memorize the Talmud which is the size of a large set of encylopedias). When he trolled the Pharisees, the head Pharisee, Rabbi Hillel, told him: "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is just explanation." Besides being the Golden Rule taught a full half century before Jesus' purported version, it is also an example of the Pharisee principle of placing the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law.

Percy writes:

Where on Earth did you develop the fantasy that morality and goodness are the exclusive realm of religion?

As we have all witnessed over and over again, that fantasy of EWolf has been and continues to be the source of so much evil.

Religion is like the GQP (formerly known as the GOP) in that it does nothing constructive (and even works against good) and then steps in to take all the credit from those who had actually done good things. Hypocrites! (and I am certain that, like almost all other Christians, EWolf has never bothered to actually read the Bible that he worships, so that reference will be completely lost on him)

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth.


I think you have an inflated idea of how relevant scientists find religion to science.

The disinformation is strong in this one. He desperately needs to visit reality much more often. And to kick his Kool-Aid habit.

Scientific truth derives from studying the physical universe in order to discover how it works. So basically, science is the study of reality. Science bases its work on physical evidence and observations. Since the supernatural cannot be observed or tested or even detected, science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations but rather must restrict itself to naturalistic explanations. Science does not disprove the supernatural; it simply cannot use it and so excludes it from scientific methodology. Science is not anti-supernatural per se, but rather non-supernatural.

Not only do supernaturalistic explanations serve no purpose in science, but forcing science to use supernaturalistic explanations (as Intelligent Design (ID) advocates insist upon) would have the effect of killing science. Many years ago, we had a topic on that, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), in which nobody was able to answer how ID's supernatural-based science was supposed to work -- out of over 200 messages posted in that topic, only a couple even began to try.

Since theism is based on speculations and stories about the supernatural, it normally has nothing to do with science. Hence science is non-theistic. Unfortunately, in their ignorance theists misinterpret the non-theistic nature of science as being anti-theistic, which in reality it is not. They try to claim that science is attacking religion and seeking to disprove God, which is absolutely false. Not only would attacking religion serve no purpose, but science is completely unable to disprove God. For that matter, the only endeavor I have seen which has been able to disprove God has been creationism (but only if you accept its false premises that naturalistic explanations disprove God).

But of course, if religion makes false statements about reality (eg, young earth, Noachian Flood actually happening) then science is able to address those claims. That is because those claims are about the natural world, which science can address, and not supernaturalistic claims which science cannot address.

Again, the only time there's a conflict between science and religion is when religion makes false proclamations about the physical universe. And obviously in such cases it's religion that's the instigator, the culpable party.

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview.


Could you connect the dots on this one please? I think it'd be a lot of fun watching you do that.

Support for evolution comes from scientific evidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible nor with any worldview based on interpretations or misinterpretations of the Bible.

On the other side, worldviews based on misinterpretations of the Bible have a habit of being anti-evolution in particular and anti-science in general (which also makes them anti-reality). Yet again, that makes them the instigators and creators of any conflict here, not science. Though when science and science education is attacked, then obviously we will respond in defense.

Percy writes:

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

>> non sequitur consisting of blatant and meaningless preaching <<


So true, so true. And don't forget Frodo and the power of the One Ring.

Verily it has been revealed that Frodo gave his finger for us.

Percy writes:

EWolf writes:

The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.


From public education? As in a comparative religions class, or perhaps history or sociology?

Here is a web page based on an email exchange in which I responded to this kind of question: BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God? The basic answer, which that creationist refused to accept, is that the religious training of children is the responsibility and sole right of their parents. It is most definitely not the role of the government (HINT: public schools are government agencies and public school teachers serving in that role are government agents).

In my response to that question, I consider as many aspects and interpretations of that highly ambiguous question: "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" In brief outline:

  • The answer is exactly the same regardless of whether any particular god exists or not, so the condition is superfluous.

  • Being "taught about God" could mean either being given information about a subject matter (which is the goal of secular education) or proselytizing and indoctrinating the students in a particular religion (which has no place in public schools and indeed violates the First Amendment's establishment clause):

    • It is fit and proper in the appropriate classes (eg, social studies, history, geography, English lit, art history) to teach factually about the history, doctrine, practices, etc of a range of religions or of a particular religion that a particular art work or story/poem is based on. Hence a work based on Roman or Greek mythology would justify reviewing Roman or Greek religion. Key to the approach taken would be this statement from California's anti-dogmatism statement:
      quote:
      "Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."

      and later in the same document:

      "We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them."



      So the goal of education is that the student understand the subject matter without compelling them to believe in it (eg, the USAF training us in socialism and communism without any intent to turn us into Commies).

    • The other meaning is to indoctrinate the student in that religion, which is the purpose of religious education practiced by churches and religious schools. There the goal is to compel the student to believe in what he's being taught. This kind of "teaching about God" also includes proselytizing and converting.

      This meaning has no place in public schools in any class, since such activities would constitute the government establishes a religion in violation of the US Constitution.

    • The use of creationist materials in science classes is a clear violation and cannot be allowed. To support the point, when "public school" creation-science materials have been used, each lesson after having misinformed the students about evolution would then pressure the students to decide right then and there to believe either in the "unnamed Creator" (weasel-wording to "hide the Bible") or "atheistic evolution" (a complete and utter lie, since science is not atheistic but rather non-theistic, God-neutral).

  • Factual teaching about the history, beliefs, and practices of religions without attempting to proselytize or indoctrinate can be performed anywhere by anybody who is competent and knowledgeable.

  • Proselytizing, converting, and/or indoctrination in a particular religion must never involve the government nor government agents acting in their official capacity. So, no indoctrination on public school grounds. A public school teacher can only indoctrinate as a private citizen outside of school grounds and with the expressed permission of the child's parents (so no following the kids into an off-campus alley in order to proselytize).

  • A very important consideration not in the original question is that religious indoctrination can only be allowed if the parents approve of it. Because the only authority that may choose what religious instruction and indoctrination children receive are their parents. Period!

For a complete discussion (one-sided, since the creationist asking the question completely refused to deal with it -- indeed, he cancelled his email account in order to evade the simple question of why he insisted that I hadn't answered his question), follow that link above.

Hence, since EWolf has been advocating the use of the government to promote and impose his religion on everybody else, especially school children, he is most definitely in the wrong on this point. And when God catches wind of what EWolf has been doing, then he "will have his reward" (NT wording for those committing the sin of making public spectacles of prayer, which is hypocrisy, getting their just Divine punishment).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1999 by Percy, posted 11-16-2021 9:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM dwise1 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2005 of 2024 (889327)
11-17-2021 7:43 AM


Why not Astronomy?
According to Genesis 1 the sky is a solid dome with water above it (verses 6-8) and the sun, moon and stars (including the planets) are just lights in the dome (verses 14-18)

But creationists never seem to argue for that. When they do try to take on astronomy they usually accept that the stars are hugely distant - and they also never condemn the moon landings or NASA’s planetary missions as frauds. Which they must surely be if the Biblical picture of the universe is correct.

It’s as if they know the Biblical cosmology isn’t “settled truth” at all.


  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 10
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 2006 of 2024 (889368)
11-20-2021 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2004 by dwise1
11-16-2021 1:44 PM


Hello dwise1 and the rest of you guys,

If I assume all of you correct as for why religion should be kept from education except for comparison of religions, may I ask if there's any concern for the bad side effects shown on the following links?:

The effect of removing School Prayer

What are some statistics on children when prayer was taken out of school? - Answers

Even though this sight includes responses that opposes, they do not negate The Biblical command that all should pray and faint not (Luke 18:1).

Moral decline due to absence of school prayer – PantherNOW

The free exercise and expression of Biblical religion is not a forced, inappropriate teaching of its doctrine, but freedom to exercise its good fruit.

* * *

Is God murderous when He judges societies including its children, here are two helpful sights that should give insight. The first sight attempts to address the state of children that are not yet at the age of accountability.

Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People?

The Wrath Of God 2

* * *

Unbelief toward God is not like refusal to believe there's a such thing as a horse-like creature with a single horn called a unicorn, but is like ones denial of the presence of an elephant staring at him in his face.

* * *

As for you that demand proof that God of the Bible is not a figment of imagination and that the Biblical truth I shared is not the lofty words of fallen man, I need help! Please? To show me how I shall carry out the proof you want, please show me how to prove that your house, car, and computer have builders and that the builders are real. Please? Then I will follow your pattern. God has already proven Himself repeatedly. The proof is all around us if we care to observe. But when a person asking for the proof is asked will he believe God if proof is given to his satisfaction, his answer is generally "no." Is it really scientific proof that he wants?

Why do we find the many commands in the Bible to believe? It is because God of the Bible that knows no other God is the only one that deserves to be believed because He is the only one true. He is THE truth. Remember this that's written: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6 )."? There's no such thing as "faith versus science." One may have faith either way: faith in God and His word or faith in the words of those that promote evolution as science. The scientist shares the results of his experiments that he witnessed. Has anyone ever witnessed millions of years evolution?

* * *

Finally, this "terrible, terrible" guy called a creationist would like to share the advantage of having the creationist mindset. Think of the owner of a half million dollar super performance sports car that enjoys his machine that drives like a dream. His respect and appreciation not only goes toward the assemblage of materials, but toward the builder who envisioned and lovingly built it with much precision, care, skill and ingenuity for it to serve the driver at its very best. So does the believer that God created as the Bible said appreciates creation, the laws that govern, and the infinite worth and sanctity of humanity that God fearfully and wonderfully made.

The driver that cares for the car only as an assemblage of materials is most likely to abuse it. Even though the builder of the car is paid for his work, he would see carless abuse of his creation as an act of war. The evolutionist that only sees the material side of humanity that's made in the image of God likewise is most likely to abuse it as well as himself.

* * *

As for whether or not to believe all that I shared with pleasure, let's please remember that we all have our appointments with reality that will concretely show what really is and what really is not good and bad, hopefully not too late, to act on what reality reveals to us.


ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2004 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2021 1:44 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2007 by ringo, posted 11-20-2021 12:35 PM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 2008 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2021 12:54 PM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 2009 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2021 4:16 PM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 2010 by vimesey, posted 11-21-2021 5:55 AM EWolf has not yet responded
 Message 2012 by Percy, posted 11-21-2021 11:24 AM EWolf has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 2007 of 2024 (889369)
11-20-2021 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


EWolf writes:

Is God murderous when He judges societies including its children....


Murder means "unlawful homicide" - so the questions is, "Whose law?" God may not be a murderer by His own law, but since when does that count for anything?

The killing of thousands of children by the Flood is certainly wrong under any human standard of morality.

EWolf writes:

... here are two helpful sights that should give insight.


We don't debate links here. Present the argument in your own words.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 2008 of 2024 (889370)
11-20-2021 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


quote:
If I assume all of you correct as for why religion should be kept from education except for comparison of religions, may I ask if there's any concern for the bad side effects shown on the following links?

There’s no real concern that these figures - to the extent that they are true (David Barton is notorious) - are due to the removal of school prayer. Nor do any of your sources make any attempt to show otherwise.

quote:
The free exercise and expression of Biblical religion is not a forced, inappropriate teaching of its doctrine, but freedom to exercise its good fruit.

School prayer IS forcing your religion on others. That was why it was banned.

quote:
Unbelief toward God is not like refusal to believe there's a such thing as a horse-like creature with a single horn called a unicorn, but is like ones denial of the presence of an elephant staring at him in his face.

That is rather obviously untrue.

quote:
As for you that demand proof that God of the Bible is not a figment of imagination and that the Biblical truth I shared is not the lofty words of fallen man, I need help! Please?

What “Biblical Truth”? - perhaps a start would be to do more to avoid telling unbiblical untruths. Or indeed to engage in discussion of the issues rather than simply stating opinions.

quote:
To show me how I shall carry out the proof you want, please show me how to prove that your house, car, and computer have builders and that the builders are real. Please?

For a start it is possible to see humans actually engaging in the processes of building houses or manufacturing cars. Surely you know that? Do you have anything equivalent?

quote:
The proof is all around us if we care to observe

I’m afraid it isn’t. That’s why philosophers have struggled to find arguments for the existence of god for many centuries - and still haven’t succeeded.

quote:
But when a person asking for the proof is asked will he believe God if proof is given to his satisfaction, his answer is generally "no." Is it really scientific proof that he wants?

I don’t think that anyone would reject the idea that a God existed if given proof.

quote:
Why do we find the many commands in the Bible to believe?

Because the writers didn’t have good evidence either?

quote:
There's no such thing as "faith versus science."

There certainly is.

quote:
One may have faith either way: faith in God and His word or faith in the words of those that promote evolution as science

Not really, since it is only by faith that you attribute the words to God and it is only by trust in men that you interpret them in the way you do. If asked to choose between men promoting falsehoods and science - which is a collective effort aimed at discovering the truth - then I will choose science. And that is - for instance - the case when discussing Noah’s Flood (which even Old Earth Creationists usually interpret as a local event)

quote:
The scientist shares the results of his experiments that he witnessed. Has anyone ever witnessed millions of years evolution?

As I have said, you really don’t know much about science. Science is mainly about finding explanations for why things are the way that they are. Evolution is such an explanation, resting on a huge amount of evidence and research. Ask yourself why Young Earth creationists still don’t have a valid explanation of the Law of Faunal Succession. And that’s a small part of the evidence (though one that’s been known since the early 19th Century).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 2009 of 2024 (889372)
11-20-2021 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


Prayer has never been taken out of US public schools. My ex-wife was a teacher so she knew what the law was on that. Individual personal private prayer has always been allowed; the only problem would be when that student is being disruptive. What is not allowed is government-run prayer in the public schools.

Besides, Jesus was against school prayer in that it is a public display of prayer:

quote:
Matthew 6:

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.



So what kind of Christian opposes Jesus' teachings? Oh yeah, a "true Christian."

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote and which got published. It followed an almost steady stream of letters demanding school prayer. After my letter was published, the school prayer crowd went silent for at least two years:

quote:
CLEARINGHOUSE
Orange County Register
1985 August 02

The nation's better off without school-prayer laws

It is ironic that people like the Rev. Randy Adler ("Fighting back against liberals," July 11 letter) should be fighting so hard to obtain something they have always had. He was responding to the Rev. Robert Tanksley's June 16 letter, "Religion can do quite well without government help."

Tanksley had asked, " .. why mandate prayer only in the schools? Why not in theaters and restaurants?" Adler said, "The reason is that only in public schools is prayer forbidden. Prayer is already permitted in theaters and restaurants." Adler's statement is wrong for two important reasons.

  1. Prayer is not forbidden in the public schools. Whereas organized, vocal prayer in the classroom has been ruled unconstitutional, students have always had the right to silent prayer.

  2. Public schools differ greatly from theaters and restaurants in that the public schools are run by the government. The owner of a theater or restaurant may advocate whatever religion he wishes, but the government is restricted from doing so by the First Amendment. The teaching of religious beliefs and practices is the duty of the parents and the churches, not the government.

So why should so much effort go into lobbying for unnecessary laws for silent prayer? Since the experiences of other states show that once a silent- prayer law is passed, it sets the precedent for a vocal-prayer law which soon follows, we should look at the effects of a vocal-prayer law.

The enactment of a vocal-prayer law means that the government must compose and/or endorse a particular prayer. In a monolithic society, this would be no problem, but in our pluralistic society, serious problems arise.

Less than 57 percent of our population is Christian, so no religion enoys a clear majority. We have the Jewish faith, Muslims, Buddhists, Krishnas and even Rajneesh followers. By choosing a particular religion's prayer, the government would be sponsoring that religion.

A generalized prayer that doesn't offend any particular faith would be so watered-down and meaningless that the whole exercise becomes ludicrous.

What effect would school-prayer laws have on children? They would benefit little and could be harmed.

A child learns most of its moral, religious and social values between the ages of 3 and 10. The single most powerful force in shaping the child's values is the family.

Since moral values are independent of religious values, and are largely learned before the child enters school, the recital of prayer would have little, if any, effect on the child's moral values.

Adler claims that the public schools are now being used to strip our children of faith and morals, yet if government were to promote a particular religion in the public then the effect would be to strip the children of other religions of their faith.

Even if the prayer were non-sectarian Christian, then the 43 percent of non-Christian students would have another religion forced on them.

Like Adler, I am concerned with the preservation of traditional values. We have traditionally been a pluralistic society ruled by a secular government. In Washington's time, we were not a Christian nation. With the Constitution intact and with less than 57 percent of our population being Christian, we are still not a Christian nation.

Despite the acts of Congress in 1954 and 1956 to change our national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many parts, one") to "In God we trust" and to insert the words "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance, we must continue to not be a Christian nation

Only by avoiding the state sponsorship of a particular religion can we guarantee everyone's right to freedom of religion.

School-prayer laws are unnecessary and highly undesirable. Our children already enjoy the right to pray silently, of their own volition, and should continue to do so without the interference of Adler's conservative clergy.

David C. Wise
Tustin



If anything, the decline of morality is far more likely to have been caused by those unconscionable sectarian religious intrusions of the mid-1950's (ie, in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 splitting "one nation indivisible" with sectarian wording, on our currency in 1955 with "In God We Trust" being added, and in 1956 replacing our National Motto since 1776, "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One", a statement of national unity), with a sectarian religious statement which only serves to divide society).

 
Why are you incapable of understanding that we must not allow the government to establish religion? When the government requires school children to recite a government mandated prayer, then the government will have established a religion over all others, including the religions of most of the students. Different religions (namely Protestants, Catholics, Jews) have different versions of the Ten Commandments, so when the government posts the Ten Commandments in the schools then it is the government which chooses which religion to support and promote and impose upon the students. Against the wishes of the parents!

Having observed your messages, I feel it safe to assume that you are a fundie (referred to euphemistically as "Evangelicals" and "Conservative Christian"). Most fundies I have known hate the Catholics and Mormons and consider their religions to be false.

You keep pushing the position that the government must be put in charge of our children's religious indoctrination. So then, if you had children in the public schools, you must be whole-heartedly in favor of your children being indoctrinated in Roman Catholicism. Or even Mormonism! Or some other Christian sect that your religion deems to be false. Or Islam. And whichever religion the government chooses is perfectly fine with you regardless of how much it opposes what you want your children to believe.

How very odd and extremely atypical. Most parents would oppose such government actions very strongly. That is why we have the parochial school system because Catholic parents were outraged that their children were being forced to recite Protestant prayers and read the Protestant Bible (when the Bishop or Archbishop of Philadelphia tried to suggest that Catholic students be allowed read the Catholic Bible and recite Catholic prayers, which triggered days of violent anti-Catholic rioting). One of the school-prayer cases involved Engel, a Jew who objected to his children being forced to recite Christian prayers -- to appreciate why a Jew might object, please recall their experience of nearly 2000 years of Christian persecution of the Jews, including the multitude of pogroms seeking to kill them (not even including the Holocaust). And yet you would not only gladly welcome subjecting your children to a foreign religion, but you also campaign actively for the government to commit such an atrocity.

You haven't stated your political affiliation, but given the rapid decline of "Evangelicals" into Q-Anon and MAGAt worship of The Beast (ie, Trump), I would assume that you would side with the mobs screaming for the primacy parents' rights to determine what is taught and done in the schools, even to the point of threatening horrific and tortuous murder against teachers, school boards, public health officials, and their families.

If you are affiliated with any form of such "parents' rights" causes, then why are you so adamantly in favor of violating parents' rights to deciding what religious instruction their children receive? Your flagrant and gross hypocrisy is showing.

 


 

Think of the owner of a half million dollar super performance sports car that enjoys his machine that drives like a dream. His respect and appreciation not only goes toward the assemblage of materials, but toward the builder who envisioned and lovingly built it with much precision, care, skill and ingenuity for it to serve the driver at its very best. ...

The driver that cares for the car only as an assemblage of materials is most likely to abuse it.

The owner you describe does not care about nor appreciate the car itself (indeed, to use such a "super performance" car to drive in the city (especially on the Los Angeles parking lot which is the 405 Freeway) demonstrates how little he thinks of that car). Rather, the only reason why he bought that car is because of the name of its builder. He just bought it as a status symbol, as a "steel penis" to compensate for just one of his many shortcomings. He doesn't care anything about the car's designer outside of the hollow prestige he might get from the name. He would just drive it into the ground and then get a new one -- especially since always having a new car would be another status symbol to fluff up his flaccid ego. By your own analogy, that would be a "believer" whose only goal is to be able to flash the "God" logo in everybody's face.

But then there is the owner of a car, of any car, who has learned how the car works, appreciates that car for how it works, and who uses that knowledge to take proper care of it. This would be the scientist in your analogy. Unlike the "true Christian" status symbol seeker, he would take care of that car and not abuse it.

The evolutionist that only sees the material side of humanity that's made in the image of God likewise is most likely to abuse it as well as himself.

The fundie believes in the End Times (when I was a Jesus Freak fellow traveler c. 1970, they were absolutely obsessed with two things: End Times and demons. Christianity Today's description of the fundies' premillennialist view of politics was that the world was literally about to go to Hell, so any attempt to preserve or save the environment or anything else, such as getting involved in politics, would be like "polishing the brass on a sinking ship". Add that to "true Christians'" drive to persecute "non-believers" (eg, Catholics, etc) and we can clearly see that it is they who would be the most likely to abuse the Creation.

SIDENOTE: The Christian Reconstructionist movement was postmillennialist, such that they believed that the Second Coming would be after the "Thousand Years of Christian Rule", as opposed the fundies' premillennialist belief that the Second Coming would come before and hence usher in the Millennium. Therefore, the Christian Reconstructionists were intent on turning the US into an Old Testament theocracy while the fundies thought that getting involved was pointless. That changed around 1980 with the Radical Religious Right (RRR) merging fundie theology with Christian Reconstructionist politics to create what's now (or at least last I checked) called "Dominionism" or "Dominion Theology", turning the US into a theocracy. Something that we see you, EWolf, advocating.

In contrast, the "evolutionist" will have studied the real world and so would having an understanding of how it works and of what effects we have on it. He would also know that this is the only planet we've got so we have to preserve it. He would also tend to have the same attitude towards other people since, unlike "true Christians", he has no reason nor motivation to persecute anyone.

 
To gain an idea of how normals think and how that differs from right-wing authoritarians (RWA) such as yourself, I strongly recommend The Authoritarians (2006) by now-retired psychology professor Bob Altemeyer. It is a readable summary of his decades of research into right-wing authoritarianism -- his other papers contain huge amounts of math and so would be nearly unreadable for us. You can get it through this link, where it's available for free as a PDF or some eBook format or in one of two other formats (including audio) at small cost.

John Dean based one of his books on this book and the two of them have recently cowritten a book, Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers, about Trump and the MAGAts.

HINT: in his self-deprecating humor (he's Canadian, so closer to British than we are) he warns the reader to avoid the masochistic exercise of reading the footnotes. Do read those footnotes, because they contain the most interesting information in the book.

Rather a propos to your misunderstanding (as expressed in your failed car analogy) is an experiment that he describes. His son was involved in a simulation game in which the participants are assigned to the nations of the worlds, each nation elects its leader, and they then run their countries and interact with other countries. At one point, they are presented with a global environmental emergency that requires international cooperation to address.

A note on terminology. Altemeyer arrived at a scoring spectrum which he called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) index and he produced questionnaires to give each participant a RWA score. If a person had strong authoritarian tendencies, that would be reflected in a high RWA score and he would be a "high RWA". Similarly, a person with lesser authoritarian tendencies would have a lower score and could even be a "low RWA". Read the book for a more complete explanation.

So Altemeyer added a twist to his son's simulation by loading one game with all non-authoritarians (low RWAs) and a second game with all authoritarians (high RWAs), all without the participants' or facilitators' knowledge (hence making it a double-blind experiment). The two games couldn't have been any more different.

I quoted that entire section last July in Message 191 which was a reply to Phat, so you can read it there in its entirety.

Basically, the low RWAs were able to work together towards common goals and to resolve their differences peacefully. When the ecological emergency hit, they were able to work together to resolve it. The facilitators running it described that game as having the best outcome that they had ever seen.

The game with the high RWAs was completely different. Every country was in it for itself and treated the minor countries with aggression. At one point, Russia invaded North America, which led North America to retaliate with nuclear weapons. At that point, all the lights were turned off and the participants were informed that now everybody was dead. The facilitators turned the clock back two years and let the game restart from that point. And of course, when the ecological emergency arose, everybody just ignored it. When the game ended:

quote:
By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.

The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”

The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.


Obviously, you are of the high RWA camp. That your assessment of your sports car analogy is very gravely mistaken should now be obvious even to you.

In that reply to Phat, I ended quoting that section of Altemeyer's book with:

DWise1 writes:

So based on that, who would you rather have running your world? The "liberals" who try to work together for our mutual survival? Or your "conservatives" who would destroy the entire world and kill everybody off if it got them a few percentage points greater profit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1264
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 2010 of 2024 (889373)
11-21-2021 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


Is God murderous when He judges societies including its children, here are two helpful sights that should give insight. The first sight attempts to address the state of children that are not yet at the age of accountability.

I do love it when a religious fundie backs themselves into a logical corner from which there is no escape.

1. Quotation from your link:

However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor

2. According to that position, if a human being kills a child, that child is automatically rewarded with heaven (being incapable of making moral choices, apparently). The human being is apparently doing them a favour.

3. As a logical result of that position, infanticide is never a crime, and should in fact be rewarded. (You know, by the perpetrator being worshipped and fawned over and given 10% of everyone's wealth etc).

Personally, my view is that infanticide is never morally right. (In fact, it's about as evil as you can get). You seem to think it is morally acceptable - even laudable.

I leave it to others to decide who is the more moral human being out of the two of us.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2011 by dwise1, posted 11-21-2021 10:59 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 2014 by dwise1, posted 11-21-2021 6:31 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021