|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Randman's call for nonSecular education... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: but i still think you'll find the crusades far outweigh mao. you don't wage war for 200 years and not kill a whole lot of people. How many people you can kill with a two hundred year war, depends for a large part on when in human history you wage that war. Around the time of the crusades, the total world population is estimated to have been between 250 and 400 million. Obviously, by far the most of those people were not living in the areas affected by the crusades. Here's a site that may provide some useful information in this discussion.
quote: I don't know how reliable this site is, but it looks as though the maker has put some serious effort in it. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Nov-2005 10:35 AM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
we did learn some of the things it said, because some of the things it said are the foundation of modern law. Yes we learned a few things that it said, but did not study the actual text. Like you don't have to learn the ten commandments and the Mosaic laws, to be taught that it contained a legal code for Jews and Xians.
the bible has a similar role in history, and is (and should be) taught accordingly. While I can agree, that does not help the point that it should be taught in any but the briefest of ways. I did not get taught about the specifics of the Code or the Bible in school. It did not hinder my understanding of history or literature at all. I went on to learn both and I still say that my understanding of history and literature were not harmed by not being taught in depth. Obviously the more you learn about anything the more comprehensive knowledge you have and that is not a bad thing. I am not trying to argue that it has no redeeming value. The only point being made here is that a functional and useful knowledge of history and literature, including US history, can be had without getting into specific texts of the Bible. Do you agree that an educational system can produce a fully functional and successful student without getting into the text of the Bible? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think the idea of teaching religion in school should be dumped and have public schools teach ethics, logic, and the principles of methodological naturalism and let people get their religion at home or in their churches. Then maybe American students would learn to think, write, spell, understand science, and have a grasp of history that at least minimally approaches the levels in other Western countries. Otherwise, we will end up with a country of people as poorly informed as randman....on the average, we already well on our way to such a sad fate. I'm not sure if I'd teach ethics. Ethical systems are like religion to me in that they should be taught at home. And if there were to be ethics courses then I think they should emphasize comparison of systems rather than instruction of any. Frankly an ethics course should allow people to discuss religious views as that is where many derive their ethical rules. Other than that I agree completely with the rest. Just to let you know you would have been one of my top choices for POTY, except you seemed to be posting less this year. Less active. I know you said you may not be around much in the coming year, but I hope you still show up here and there. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi holmes,
I should have clarified what I meant by ethics. I had a college course which was more philosophy and ethics where all sorts of really complex dilemas were presented to the students and we had to logically justify our positions or defend a position we disagreed with etc.. It might be guided by someones religious background in some cases but the class managed to debate ethics without bringing up much less favoring any particular religion (especially since the class was really ethnically mixed). It was an interesting excercise. But it is probably not necessary at the junior high/high school level. Thanks for the POTY mention...like Quetzal, and MrHambre who I had regular off forum contact with last year, we are all getting swamped by our regular lives which makes it harder to keep track of things at EvC much less post. But I will hang out/contribute as much as I can..also to keep up with what you are saying since it is always enjoyable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 478 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Mammuthus writes:
This reminds me of a philo of ethics class I took a couple years ago. On the first day of class, the prof gave us all a handout that presented the first ethical dilemma in the class. It reads something like the following: I should have clarified what I meant by ethics. I had a college course which was more philosophy and ethics where all sorts of really complex dilemas were presented to the students and we had to logically justify our positions or defend a position we disagreed with etc You walk in the park and suddenly god appears in a thunderous light and a thunderous voice tells you that New York has become a sinful city and you must go on a shooting spree to kill as many as you can you are stopped by the sinners. What do you do? After people started discussing with each other (our prof usually just let us debate it out on our own)groups began to form. Ultimately, there were two main groups. Group 1: Yes, you should do it because god is all knowing so he knows what's best for you and you should never question him. Group 2: You should proceed to seek out a professional for a psych evaluation. Um... I was in group 2 by the way. Ok, my point in all of this. Before then, I had no idea that people could have faith in something so much that they never stop to question their own sanity. What surprised me the most was that the people in the group that was seriously trying to argue that you should always "trust" god without question (yes, it very quickly broke into a religous debate) even if you have to commit mass murder or even genocide looked like your average college students. Scary, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 478 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Hey dude, reread what jar said. I read it through once and I was able to see where you've misrepresented him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 478 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
randman writes:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html Stalin killed somewhere between 60-110 million people. According to that government website, the current population of Russia is 143,420,309 (July 2005 est.). Stalin killed between 60-110 million people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, randman, let's say that we do as you advise and spend years and years of time teaching American schoolchildren all about the Bible.
...which Bible? And who's interpretation of that Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Zhimbo tells me that he took a class called "Values" quite early on, in grade school. He's still asleep so I can't ask him about it at the moment, but he seemed to think, when we spoke of it in the past, that it was a basic sort of "treat others as you would want to be treated" sort of class. Nothing religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yep, which is why their current population is not higher, but those numbers include more than just in Russia.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 12:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Like including the Germans killed by the Red Army during WWII?
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Nov-2005 05:33 PM "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
No, unless you count POWs, but it does include the Russians that Stalin executed for being captured.
Truthfully, the more I think about it. I have heard estimates as low as 20 million, and looking at the web, some claim 17 million, and 50 million was a number once bandied about. Dissidents in Russia who lived in the gulag said Western estimates were low, that it was 120 million. So listing the range from 60-110 is not the most accurate. I'd say more like 20-80 million is a better estimate. But even if it is as low as 17 million, it still exceeds the Crusades and things like that by a long shot. Additionally, Mao's Red Guards alone probably killed 30 million in the cultural revolution, and if you count the tens of millions that starved because of Mao prior to that, and then add in Pol Pot and other communists, you can see communism is indeed the worst and more genocidal force on the planet. Ethnic warfare such as in Rwanda comes in 2nd. This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 01:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6467 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Randman, yet again you are spewing nonsense.
The fact of the matter is more people have been killed in the name of atheism (communism) than anything else? This is an idiotic statement. Not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists (although most probably are). The two are not the same. Further, the secular nature of communist government is irrelevannt to the atrocities commited. They were committed to assert secular control. The communist dictatorships choose to be atheist because they wanted all the misplaced loyalty people showed towards their particular mythology to be directed instead towards the state. Finally, exactly how do massacres and atrocoties commited by communist regimes (which, as I explained above, have nothing to do with atheism but rather just happened to be atheist) excuse the centurys of pain, anguish and death perpetrated by religion and in it's name? I presume you are an adult, Randman, in spite of some of your opinions. Would you, when confronted with your wrong doings point at someone else and say they did it too? Do you think such an action is really any defense? It isn't, in case you didn't know. This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-15-2005 01:42 PM to remove an innacurate statement This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-15-2005 01:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
This is an idiotic statement. Not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists (although most probably are). The two are not the same. This is an idiotic statement. Not all Christians are Catholics, and not all Catholics are Christians (although most probably are. The two are not the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You guys say Christianity was a force for slaughter: then certainly atheism has been a force for slaughter even more so. If you don't like being lumped in with Stalin, then stop lumping Christians in with the Pope. As far as atheism, the communists did persecute and do persecute religious people, calling religious beleif a psychological disease. So I am not sure what you are getting at. If they had been religious communists or had no beef with religion, they would have acted differently. Their religion though was atheism, and still is in some areas of the world. This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 01:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As far as atheism, the communists did persecute and do persecute religious people, calling religious beleif a psychological disease. So I am not sure what you are getting at. If they had been religious communists or had no beef with religion, they would have acted differently. Their religion though was atheism, and still is in some areas of the world. I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The communists of Russia and other nations were not atheists, they were statists. They had a state religion that was the deification of the state and the state leader. You've heard the phrase "God is the state; the state is God"? What did you think they meant by that? Just because they persecuted the Orthodox church doesn't mean that they were atheists or opposed to all religions. Like most religions, they were simply violently opposed to all other religions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024