Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 84/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 208 of 331 (584375)
10-01-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.
Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of religion, the opposite of religion. Creationists love to claim it is a religion, but that's just another thing they are wrong about.
Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science; Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life; however, it is still taught as if it were ‘Fact1’ in science classes.
Evolution is a fact, and there is nothing creationists can do about that other than complain.
The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.
More creationist nonsense. Most atheists don't pay the "gods" any attention at all.
As far as what should be taught in public schools; ‘Facts’ should be taught in science classes, ‘Comparative religions’ in Social Studies, Etc.
Are you aware that facts by themselves have no meaning? You need theories to organize those facts and to explain them. Good theories allow predictions and lead to the discovery of new facts.
And that describes the theory of evolution--it explains facts and has led to the discovery of new facts through accurate predictions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 282 by tsig, posted 11-18-2010 10:49 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Coyote writes:
Are you aware that facts by themselves have no meaning? You need theories to organize those facts and to explain them.
Ya, Coyote, that’s Called ‘Science’. So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted; if to many of the facts dispute a given theory it must be discarded and another theory that supports more of the facts should be put in its place.
I am glad you agree with this. Now start checking your pet "theories" (actually religious beliefs) against the facts. I think you will find that science has contradicted much of what creationism believes, and certainly everything that has successfully been tested. The young earth and global flood beliefs are two of those. You probably won't agree with this, but that's where the facts lead.
The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of ‘just so’ ‘accidental’ happy ‘coincidences’ that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.
Not so. First, there is no credible evidence for supernatural critters. This includes the mythical "designer" that was invented when creation "science" was removed from the schools by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1980s.
Second, the facts don't point toward creation at all. I studied evolution for several years in graduate school and I got to see a lot of those facts. I handled many of the important casts of fossil critters, and studied about the rest. I don't need creationists who hate evolution for religious reasons to try and tell me what the facts are and what they mean. And the biological sciences are even stronger evidence of evolution than are the fossils!
On the other hand, the "facts" proposed by IDers such as Behe have not withstood the critical examination that is required by science. Behe made an absolute fool of himself on the witness stand in the Dover trial. You can find some details on the wiki page:
Michael Behe - Wikipedia
And, oh yes. Atheism is still not a religion. It is the absence of religion--the opposite of religion. But it is just like creationists to try to make the opposite of religion into a religion. That is just another area in which they are wrong.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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 it’s 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 replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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 isn’t !?!?!?
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 replied

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 291 of 331 (606898)
02-28-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by JRTjr
02-28-2011 8:49 PM


Re: 'Establishment' Forbidden??
Where, in an American Court, has any book (other than the Bible) ever been used to affirm the Oath to tell the truth?
North Carolina Judge: Court Witnesses Can Take Oath With Koran
RALEIGH, N.C. A Wake County judge ruled Thursday that any religious text can be used to swear in a witness or juror in the state's courtrooms, not just the Bible.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued a law that some judges said required the state's courts to use the Bible alone is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over other religions.
The ACLU sought a court order clarifying that the law is broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts, or else declare the statute unconstitutional.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/...,2933,275266,00.html#ixzz1FJEcOPcx

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 8:49 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by JRTjr, posted 03-01-2011 2:22 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 302 of 331 (606914)
02-28-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by JRTjr
02-28-2011 10:45 PM


Re: comparative religion class?
In a comparative religion class it would be up to the teachers/school board with religions would be represented in there creation myths.
That would be up to the anthropologist teaching the class, not some school board.
Religious practitioners and other shamans have no business trying to teach such a class. They are not qualified.
Comparative religion can only be taught by someone who has some degree of separation from a particular religion. This is to avoid the preaching you would get otherwise.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 10:45 PM JRTjr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:53 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 316 of 331 (606958)
03-01-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by dennis780
03-01-2011 4:53 AM


Re: comparative religion class?
I'm saying just as it's important for a science teacher to understand science, it is equally important for a religious teacher to understand the religion. How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?
Comparative religion is best taught by someone who is a dispassionate observer, not someone who favors one religion over another.
And it is best taught by someone with a background in Anthropology, rather than a background in one particular religion.
Otherwise you are liable to end up with inherent biases.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:53 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022