The allegations from the Complaint, which claims the teacher’s actions violated the child’s First Amendment rights:
1. In February of 2015, A.B. was a second grader at Forest Park Elementary School, a school that is within Fort Wayne Community Schools. During a discussion with classmates on the playground he responded to a question by indicating that he did not go to church because he did not believe in God. This resulted in his teacher interrogating the child as to his beliefs and requiring the child to sit by himself during lunch and not talk to his classmates during lunch for three days. This violates the First Amendment. The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day “banishment.” No meaningful attempt has been made to remedy these injuries and the child seeks his damages. . . .
7. In February of 2015, A.B. was a second-grade student at Forest Park Elementary School. . . .
9. On or about February 23, 2015, A.B. and his classmates were on the playground during the school day immediately before lunch when A.B. was asked by one of his classmates if he attended church.
10. A.B. responded by stating that he did not go to church and did not believe in God. He also stated that it was fine with him if his inquiring classmate believed in God.
11. The classmate said that A.B. had hurt her feelings by saying that he did not believe in God and started to cry.
12. A playground supervisor reported to [A.B.’s teacher] what had happened.
13. At that point the students were going to lunch and [the teacher] asked A.B. if he had told the girl that he did not believe in God and A.B. said he had and asked what he had done wrong.
14. [The teacher] asked A.B. if he went to church, whether his family went to church, and whether his mother knew how he felt about God.
15. She also asked A.B. if he believed that maybe God exists.
16. [The teacher] told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother — although she never did.
17. This was very upsetting to A.B. as he was made to feel that he had done something wrong.
18. A day or two after the initial incident, A.B. and his fellow-student who had become upset with his comment on the playground were sent to another adult employed at Forest Park Elementary School.
19. This person asked them what the problem was and A.B. indicated that his classmate had become upset when, in response to her question, he had said he did not go to church and did not believe in God.
20. Upon hearing this, the adult employee looked at A.B.’s classmate and stated that she should not be worried and should be happy she has faith and that she should not listen to A.B.’s bad ideas. She then patted the little girl’s hand.
21. This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong.
22. On the day of the incident and for an additional two days thereafter, [the teacher] required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
23. When V.S. was told by A.B. what had happened she called the Assistant Principal of the school and demanded an explanation.
24. The Assistant Principal set up a three-way telephone conversation with V.S., [the teacher] and himself.
25. [The teacher] confirmed her involvement in this matter as noted above.
26. V.S. demanded that the school not isolate her son or punish him for his beliefs.
27. After three days A.B. was allowed to join his classmates for lunch and all sanctions and restrictions were lifted.
28. After this three-day period, and after V.S. complained, A.B. was told by [the teacher] and other teachers that he could believe what he wants.
29. But this was after A.B. had been publicly separated from his classmates and informed that he could not speak to them. All the students in his class heard and were aware of this. He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.
30. No efforts were made to correct the damages that had been done.
31. A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.
32. Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.
33. Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.
34. At all times defendant acted, and refused to act, under color of state law.
The school district released a statement saying, “It is clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected.” So far, the court hasn’t decided any substantive matters in the case, but it did issue a decision last Tuesday allowing the child’s mother (as the child’s legal guardian) to proceed anonymously, so as to preserve the child’s anonymity to the extent possible:
A.B. is a young child and this suit involves religion and public schools-a topic that “has a tendency to inflame unreasonably some individuals” in most communities, including Fort Wayne. Accordingly, at this time, the Court finds that the risk to A.B.’s health and safety, if his mother is identified by name, outweighs the public’s interest in judicial openness and overcomes the presumption against anonymous litigation.
The complaint was filed by the ACLU of Indiana.
Does this warrant a lawsuit? In my opinion, no; typical ACLU overreaction. Should the people involved attend sensitivity training or the like and make an official apology to the student and his family? Yes.
Religious people get moments of silence and other things in school but a 7-year old is not allowed to answer a classmate's question honestly without being punished and given the 3rd degree?
Every member of staff involved should be sacked. Their handling of the situation was below any standard expected of those working in a school. They demonstrated a complete inability to conduct themselves in a professional way and so do not belong in the positions they are in.
Na. They should all hug it out. Maybe sing a song. I know: the Safety Dance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Religious people get moments of silence and other things in school but a 7-year old is not allowed to answer a classmate's question honestly without being punished and given the 3rd degree?
See the staff should be given an award. Now the child knows the value of subterfuge and deceit, the building blocks for every good politician. After all I'm sure the parents won some bank off Jr's torment. A kid's gotta earn. See it all worked out in the end.
Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).
Teachers, like people, are dumb and do dumb things. I had an atheist teacher tell me my parents where a part of a cult and where actually worshiping Satan. Now I was about 6 and no idea what atheist meant back then but I was legitimately worried about being a Satan lover for a while. For the next few years kids thought I worshiped Satan as a result too (I had to explain a lot of times that no, I do not worship Satan etc). I hated that lady for a while.
Reminds me of the 3rd year after 9/11 and our teacher decided to give his opinion on the subject. Talking about oil and jihads and so on. Now this would have been fine if he didn't throw his opinion on how it was an inside job etc. I actually went home thinking America blew up their own towers.
Those are 2 times I remember a teacher being dumb in a way that effected me.
I don't think you can stop people doing silly things, but you can simply sack/warn them. Then teachers can learn to keep opinions to themselves. Ultimately that is all I think countries need to do. Punish teachers who don't teach from the book. In theory the Parents should also keep up to date with what is in the books too and then everyone is on the same page. Harshly punish any teacher who decide their opinion is important enough to shove down another kids throat, especially during a time where they are gullible.
Does this warrant a lawsuit? In my opinion, no; typical ACLU overreaction. Should the people involved attend sensitivity training or the like and make an official apology to the student and his family? Yes.
Religious people get moments of silence and other things in school but a 7-year old is not allowed to answer a classmate's question honestly without being punished and given the 3rd degree?
If it was like say in high school i wouldn't really care
But at 7-years old. a reaction like that from an authority figure can having a hella impact for the way he could grows up. They absolutely need to apologize in person to this child and there family.
without a lawsuit or some crazy social media justice warrioring they probably wont.
Why do you think they will now? Rule one is shut up when sued.
Note: to be clear on Frazzled view: *Frazzled once went to high school looking to puncherize the kid who ambushed his kid and everyone who got in his way. As a Dad I'd say the Dad needs to puncherize everyone involved.
The family should sue for whatever it takes to move to a better school district where the child can have a safe classroom experience. The kind of ostracizing he is experiencing can be extremely harmful. If someone shamed my child like that, I'd be furious, and I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting my child to be cared for at that school any more no matter what disciplinary action was taken.
Full disclosure, my wife had an experience like this in grade school, where a teacher publicly shamed her for not being a True Christian (her family was Mormon), and told the other children not to play with her. One of her closest friends at the time stopped talking to her. It had a fairly big impact on her life and her view of religious people in general.
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think they will now? Rule one is shut up when sued.
Note: to be clear on Frazzled view:
*Frazzled once went to high school looking to puncherize the kid who ambushed his kid and everyone who got in his way. As a Dad I'd say the Dad needs to puncherize everyone involved.
I did that but it wasn't the kid I puncherized but the adult version of the kid who was immediate blood family. His dad was my proxy. He decided not to press charges against me and I decided not to press charges against his son for multiple groping my daughter.
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think they will now? Rule one is shut up when sued.
Note: to be clear on Frazzled view:
*Frazzled once went to high school looking to puncherize the kid who ambushed his kid and everyone who got in his way. As a Dad I'd say the Dad needs to puncherize everyone involved.
I did that but it wasn't the kid I puncherized but the adult version of the kid who was immediate blood family. His dad was my proxy. He decided not to press charges against me and I decided not to press charges against his son for multiple groping my daughter.
Why punish him in school? Isn't that God's responsibility? If I read this correctly, the other kids were upset at what the boy said? Maybe the teacher did it thinking to protect the other students or something like that? In any case, religion has a place in school, but so does non-religiousness. The lawsuit should be dropped (courts really have better things to do than bother themselves with this kind of stuff) teacher should apologise to the kid (in front of the classroom) and maybe the kids should have the situation explained to them. Punishing the teacher for something this minor seems very odd. I mean, why is this even news?
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think they will now? Rule one is shut up when sued.
Note: to be clear on Frazzled view:
*Frazzled once went to high school looking to puncherize the kid who ambushed his kid and everyone who got in his way. As a Dad I'd say the Dad needs to puncherize everyone involved.
I come from a culture more rich with lawyers than with athletes. A lawsuit is how my people express a punch to the face.
Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think they will now? Rule one is shut up when sued.
Note: to be clear on Frazzled view:
*Frazzled once went to high school looking to puncherize the kid who ambushed his kid and everyone who got in his way. As a Dad I'd say the Dad needs to puncherize everyone involved.
I did that but it wasn't the kid I puncherized but the adult version of the kid who was immediate blood family. His dad was my proxy. He decided not to press charges against me and I decided not to press charges against his son for multiple groping my daughter.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why punish him in school? Isn't that God's responsibility?
If I read this correctly, the other kids were upset at what the boy said? Maybe the teacher did it thinking to protect the other students or something like that?
In any case, religion has a place in school, but so does non-religiousness. The teacher should apologise to the kid (in front of the classroom) and maybe the kids should have the situation explained to them. Punishing the teacher for something this minor seems very odd. I mean, why is this even news?
Because a teacher should under no circumstance punish a 7-year old for over 3 days. Regardless of circumstances, this is not something that the teacher can do without involving parents.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Enlighten me sir, guide me to the light! My mind is not empty like the sheeple around me, how am I to gain this enlightenment you have obtained over the masses?
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Enlighten me sir, guide me to the light! My mind is not empty like the sheeple around me, how am I to gain this enlightenment you have obtained over the masses?
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit. If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Enlighten me sir, guide me to the light! My mind is not empty like the sheeple around me, how am I to gain this enlightenment you have obtained over the masses?
move on.
Come on, if he can make fun of people for believing in an invisible sky man, I can make fun of him for X reasons too.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Your bigotry permeates your post. I'm sure there are teachers like that too. I knew professors like that.
Perhaps he was punished as a child for having the wrong religion. It just goes to show how much damage this teacher could have caused. Better sue for additional damages to cover therapy and sensitivity training.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Owning several fedoras is not a reason to make fun of somebody.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why punish him in school? Isn't that God's responsibility? If I read this correctly, the other kids were upset at what the boy said? Maybe the teacher did it thinking to protect the other students or something like that? In any case, religion has a place in school, but so does non-religiousness. The teacher should apologise to the kid (in front of the classroom) and maybe the kids should have the situation explained to them. Punishing the teacher for something this minor seems very odd. I mean, why is this even news?
Because a teacher should under no circumstance punish a 7-year old for over 3 days. Regardless of circumstances, this is not something that the teacher can do without involving parents.
Agreed. But I still don't get why this is made such a big deal of. My teacher once had me write an entire essay after I drew a line on my neigbour's piece of paper. That was far out of proportion, but it did not make the internet. Maybe I should have started a lawsuit too?
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit. If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Actually you proof quite the opposite. Knowledge and understanding of religion and respect for other people are important to teach, lest people end up with the sheer ignorance, disrespect and lack of common sense displayed by the above comment.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why punish him in school? Isn't that God's responsibility?
If I read this correctly, the other kids were upset at what the boy said? Maybe the teacher did it thinking to protect the other students or something like that?
In any case, religion has a place in school, but so does non-religiousness. The teacher should apologise to the kid (in front of the classroom) and maybe the kids should have the situation explained to them. Punishing the teacher for something this minor seems very odd. I mean, why is this even news?
Because a teacher should under no circumstance punish a 7-year old for over 3 days. Regardless of circumstances, this is not something that the teacher can do without involving parents.
Agreed. But I still don't get why this is made such a big deal of. My teacher once had me write an entire essay after I drew a line on my neigbour's piece of paper. That was far out of proportion, but it did not make the internet. Maybe I should have started a lawsuit too?
I wonder if everyone making a big deal out of this will effect the child more than if the parents simply explained it to the kid and moved on. This will more than definitely be stuck in the childs mind for a long time now.
Verviedi wrote: Owning several fedoras is not a reason for somebody to be made fun of.
No, but unnecessary hatred is a great reason. What's that called? Oh yea... Bigotry.
I generally do not allow my emotions to take command, however in this case I was being a bit hateful.
I do not like religion in schools because it irritates me to see people bully people due to their sexuality or personal beliefs and prevents teachers from teaching certain elements of health and biology. I posted an example somewhere of what happened the last time I talked about evolution in a school, and this caused people to dislike me even more.
Verviedi wrote: Owning several fedoras is not a reason for somebody to be made fun of.
No, but unnecessary hatred is a great reason. What's that called? Oh yea... Bigotry.
I generally do not allow my emotions to take command, however in this case I was being a bit hateful.
I do not like religion in schools because it irritates me to see people bully people due to their sexuality or personal beliefs and prevents teachers from teaching certain elements of health and biology. I posted an example somewhere of what happened the last time I talked about evolution in a school, and this caused people to dislike me even more.
So, let me get this straight. You disrespect others and their way of life because you feel that they do not respect others and their way of life? Good job...
Verviedi wrote: Owning several fedoras is not a reason for somebody to be made fun of.
No, but unnecessary hatred is a great reason. What's that called? Oh yea... Bigotry.
I generally do not allow my emotions to take command, however in this case I was being a bit hateful.
I do not like religion in schools because it irritates me to see people bully people due to their sexuality or personal beliefs and prevents teachers from teaching certain elements of health and biology. I posted an example somewhere of what happened the last time I talked about evolution in a school, and this caused people to dislike me even more.
Yep and in life people will continue to do it. I was made fun of by an atheist for my parents religion (as said in my first comment). It doesn't matter the religion, race or gender or anything. People piss each other off, and you blaming religion like it's the source of wrong in this world is not helping anything. I don't know how old you are, but you will meet people every day without knowing their religion etc, but you will likely think of most people you meet as good normal people. Why? Because people are not part of hive mind groups. I mean, rappers kill each other over lyrics or something man. People always find reasons to be a pain in the but, and "eliminating religion in school" does nothing at all to change that.
I just made fun of you for a hat. A hat (which, as we all know, is stupid. Why did I do it? Well simply put hatred fuels hatred and turns normal people into dummies). I didn't even know you owned one. Like the above, people will always find a reason to make fun of someone etc. The trick is not to use huge paint brushes when doing it.
Sprouting out you think they are stupid for believing in, how did you put it... "invisible sky man", does nothing to help the situation. It simply gets a ruse out of someone and the cycle of hatred continues.
In every single group of people, there are nutters. Every single person is dumb in one way or another. I am dumb, you are dumb, Frazzled is dumb, my mother is dumb and the list goes on (a bit of sarcasm don't worry). Look at sport, we have people like the armstrong guy who simply took his carrier too far with enhancing drugs etc. TFG is war gaming. Warrior Christians and warrior atheists. The list goes on.
You could have mentioned you like McDonald's and got hate for it. Ultimately shouting out words like "mythical sky men etc" when talking about someones largely harmless life (with nutter exceptions) is just going to get a silly response in return. You are helping fuel the circle of hatred.
Comparing the Bible to a comic book just shows the depths of his bias/ignorance.
I wonder what was actually said between the children that upset them so. Maybe the teacher sought to calm the others who were upset more than trying to punish the boy. From insulting things I've seen adult atheists say I'd be curious to see what a child who believed in no higher power would say.
Verviedi wrote: Believes myth should be not taught as fact =/= Disrespect.
Thats not actually what you originally posted, but I am more than happy if we move back to the original topic now.
ON the OT, was their a judgement and amount? I couldn't tell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder what was actually said between the children that upset them so. Maybe the teacher sought to calm the others who were upset more than trying to punish the boy. From insulting things I've seen adult atheists say I'd be curious to see what a child who believed in no higher power would say.
I was wondering if the kid was trying to be a bully and this is a 3rd party skewed report. Even assuming that however, they'd get fun run suspension for that period only I would think.
Comparing the Bible to a comic book just shows the depths of his bias/ignorance.
I wonder what was actually said between the children that upset them so. Maybe the teacher sought to calm the others who were upset more than trying to punish the boy. From insulting things I've seen adult atheists say I'd be curious to see what a child who believed in no higher power would say.
Bang on. My best friend went through an Angry Atheist phase and told me (someone from a religious family) that all religious people need to die for the world to be a better place. I was pretty hurt for a bit, but ultimately, like most people he grew up. Unfortunately not all grow out of it.
I was wondering if the kid was trying to be a bully and this is a 3rd party skewed report. Even assuming that however, they'd get fun run suspension for that period only I would think.
Considering most of the "article" is quoting the Complaint from the suing family I'd say it's guaranteed there's more to the story.
1. They should be approached entirely scientifically (like your biology teacher describes an ant), but they are sometimes assumed to be true instead of leaving that judgment to the student.
2. Religions are not given equal coverage, or even proportional to their spread/popularity.
1. They should be approached entirely scientifically (like your biology teacher describes an ant), but they are sometimes assumed to be true instead of leaving that judgment to the student.
2. Religions are not given equal coverage, or even proportional to their spread/popularity.
It's simply too biased. Fix that and it's fine.
English is the language of my country and so is Māori, we are educated on both English and standard Māori (If I knew how, I could hand in an essay in Māori and pass etc). However I am not told how to speak Malaysian or Spanish etc because those subjects are not relevant to my country. It is the same as religion. I am more versed in christian teachings than I am in Muslim ones, because my nation is Christian. We are also educated on Maori myths, because it is a part of our past. To give all religion equal coverage is not a good idea, just like giving languages equal coverage is not a good idea. It makes sense to teach the kids the religion of their nation and they have the option as they get older to move on to another religion in more specialized classes, just like language.
How religion is presented is up to personal taste, personally in my country there isn't a problem with it in the education system. If there is, it's because of individuals not the system.
The problem is, the United States is a secular nation with a plurality of religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, America is a secular nation with pluralistic religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation? See it's like saying French should have a place in school despite the vast majority speaking English. You guys have the flag and must sing to it (is it every morning?) in a school yet that too assumes most people are American in your country (correct). Just like English being in school is on the basis that the vast majority is English.
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, America is a secular nation with pluralistic religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation? See it's like saying French should have a place in school despite the vast majority speaking English. You guys have the flag and must sing to it (is it every morning?) in a school yet that too assumes most people are American in your country (correct). Just like English being in school is on the basis that the vast majority is English.
I don't see a real problem here.
Because separation of church and state is one of the foundations of the USA. Schools are public institutions and therefore must be free from favouring one religion over another.
Swastakowey wrote: Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation?
Because our nation has freedom of religion, and sending your children to public school where the state imposes an alternate religion on your child is a violation of the guardians freedom of relligion.
You have to remember, some people find Christianity offensive and immoral; the kind of thing they would precisiely not want their children to participate in.
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, America is a secular nation with pluralistic religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation? See it's like saying French should have a place in school despite the vast majority speaking English. You guys have the flag and must sing to it (is it every morning?) in a school yet that too assumes most people are American in your country (correct). Just like English being in school is on the basis that the vast majority is English.
I don't see a real problem here.
Because separation of church and state is one of the foundations of the USA. Schools are public institutions and therefore must be free from favouring one religion over another.
Then why limit it to religion? Shouldn't then all theories be considered? All styles of writing? All forms of Language? What about the history of every nation? Where does the equal coverage of all things end? It is not favouring, it simply makes sense to teach Christianity in a nation where the majority are Christian.
If most people are Christian, then they should be catered to a degree, given their proportion of the population. Just like English or even history etc. You simply cannot pretend they don't exist to make you feel better.
Swastakowey wrote: Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation?
Because our nation has freedom of religion, and sending your children to public school where the state imposes an alternate religion on your child is a violation of the guardians freedom of relligion.
You have to remember, some people find Christianity offensive and immoral; the kind of thing they would precisiely not want their children to participate in.
How can a school "impose" a religion onto a child?
Some people find Abortion immoral, or homosexuality etc. Should their views be catered for as well (I know your answer, don't worry). What you are asking for here is for the system to cater to your own beliefs over others. Which is kind of unfair to the majority who happen to be christian.
I severely doubt schools in the USA enforce religion on anyone, but it would make absolute sense to have the religion of the majority told over other religious beliefs.
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, America is a secular nation with pluralistic religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation? See it's like saying French should have a place in school despite the vast majority speaking English. You guys have the flag and must sing to it (is it every morning?) in a school yet that too assumes most people are American in your country (correct). Just like English being in school is on the basis that the vast majority is English.
I don't see a real problem here.
Because separation of church and state is one of the foundations of the USA. Schools are public institutions and therefore must be free from favouring one religion over another.
Then why limit it to religion? Shouldn't then all theories be considered? All styles of writing? All forms of Language? What about the history of every nation? Where does the equal coverage of all things end? It is not favouring, it simply makes sense to teach Christianity in a nation where the majority are Christian.
If most people are Christian, then they should be catered to a degree, given their proportion of the population. Just like English or even history etc. You simply cannot pretend they don't exist to make you feel better.
Ah yes I forgot the missing portion of constitution that separated writing and history from state
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, America is a secular nation with pluralistic religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Why does it not have a place if it is the majority of the nation? See it's like saying French should have a place in school despite the vast majority speaking English. You guys have the flag and must sing to it (is it every morning?) in a school yet that too assumes most people are American in your country (correct). Just like English being in school is on the basis that the vast majority is English.
I don't see a real problem here.
Because separation of church and state is one of the foundations of the USA. Schools are public institutions and therefore must be free from favouring one religion over another.
Then why limit it to religion? Shouldn't then all theories be considered? All styles of writing? All forms of Language? What about the history of every nation? Where does the equal coverage of all things end? It is not favouring, it simply makes sense to teach Christianity in a nation where the majority are Christian.
If most people are Christian, then they should be catered to a degree, given their proportion of the population. Just like English or even history etc. You simply cannot pretend they don't exist to make you feel better.
Ah yes I forgot the missing portion of constitution that separated writing and history from state
Yea I don't know your constitution (it does not matter to me one bit what it says). Why does it matter what it says? If it said drink Coke over Pepsi would you site it to every person as a national excuse to drink Coke?
It's like me saying to a black kid "it's the law that you use the dirty bathroom" like it's an excuse. Ultimately your only true reason is that you happen to agree with the constitution on this matter.
How can a school "impose" a religion onto a child?
Not sure if this is a serious question. It should be evident that there exist in the world, almost everywhere in the world including the US, an abundance of schools whose primary goal is to impose religion on a child. You'd have to consult them about their mehtods. In the US, school prayer is a method of religious imposition that has been controversial in the past,
Swastakowey wrote: Some people find Abortion immoral, or homosexuality etc. Should their views be catered for as well (I know your answer, don't worry).
I think its generally a good idea for teachers not to preach religion or politics in the public school system of a pluralistic society.
Swastakowey wrote: What you are asking for here is for the system to cater to your own beliefs over others. Which is kind of unfair to the majority who happen to be christian.
Not at all. If you're a public school teacher, simply don't preach religion in the public school. Its unconstitutional in the United States. Them's the rules!
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
How can a school "impose" a religion onto a child?
Not sure if this is a serious question. It should be evident that there exist in the world, almost everywhere in the world including the US, an abundance of schools whose primary goal is to impose religion on a child. You'd have to consult them about their mehtods. In the US, school prayer is a method of religious imposition that has been controversial in the past,
Swastakowey wrote: Some people find Abortion immoral, or homosexuality etc. Should their views be catered for as well (I know your answer, don't worry).
I think its generally a good idea for teachers not to preach religion or politics in the public school system of a pluralistic society.
Swastakowey wrote: What you are asking for here is for the system to cater to your own beliefs over others. Which is kind of unfair to the majority who happen to be christian.
Not at all. If you're a public school teacher, simply don't preach religion in the public school. Its unconstitutional in the United States. Them's the rules!
See I thought people are upset at the teaching of religion (something I do not understand) because they don't like religion. But do schools force this prayer on the kids? At school I was allowed to not participate on the monthly singing of the national anthem by merely saying I don't have to, I did not have to participate in Christmas events or Easter events by merely saying no. Surely this is the case in USA (I know Jehovahs witness kids from the USA are allowed to not partake in prayer or national anthem at schools etc). I am very certain this is the case in most schools. Do schools actually enforce religion, or do they cater to the majority with the option not to partake?
As an extension of the government, schools are bound by the same separation of church and state. It isn't a matter of siding with the side of the majority or minority, or of reinforcing beliefs in a particular set of morals or ethical behavior. A government institution cannot A) promote a religion, or B) repress a religion. There's a little more leeway in B (at least, it's much easier to plausibly get away with), but that isn't the case here. The teacher in question undeniably violated part A.
I'm not sure that a lawsuit or termination are in order, but some form of reprimand certainly is (at the very least a public apology in front of her students).
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
Well trumps all in your country...
Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.
@Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional in the US public school system. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.
jasper76 wrote: @Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.
Could you simply choose not to prayer though? I know Jehovahs witnesses could opt out even back then, surely this means anybody can simply chose not to follow it. In that case it is not really enforced, it is simply there for the majority of people being christian yes?
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
Well trumps all in your country...
Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.
Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
Well trumps all in your country...
Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.
Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.
So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?
Ultimately I find it hard to believe a school can force religion upon others. it simply makes sense a religion will be more supported due to popularity over another (or none).
jasper76 wrote: @Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.
Could you simply choose not to prayer though? I know Jehovahs witnesses could opt out even back then, surely this means anybody can simply chose not to follow it. In that case it is not really enforced, it is simply there for the majority of people being christian yes?
I'm sure it was a mixed bag, with some schools allowing their students to opt out, and others punishing students who did not comply. If you care about the feelings of children in the minority, then there's an additional point to be made about the fact that they can be ostracized for not participating. And then on top of that, the point which I made earlier about the guardians' freedom of religion.
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
Well trumps all in your country...
Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.
Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.
So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?
Is the religion being promoted, besides allowing for them to do their daily prayer requirement? I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.
jasper76 wrote: @Swas... It was in the 60s that official prayer was decided to be unconstitutional. Before that, there was official Christian school prayer in some public schools, which is a clear state endorsement of a particular religion.
Could you simply choose not to prayer though? I know Jehovahs witnesses could opt out even back then, surely this means anybody can simply chose not to follow it. In that case it is not really enforced, it is simply there for the majority of people being christian yes?
I'm sure it was a mixed bag, with some schools allowing their students to opty out, and others punishing students who did not comply. If you care about the feelings of children in the minority, then there's an additional point to be made about the fact that they can be ostracized for not participating. And then on top of that, the point which I made earlier about the guardians' freedom of religion.
See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.
Ustrello wrote: So by your logic, I should go around killing people because why does it matter what a law says.
No, not all.
I am saying, just because the law says something it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Which I am sure is basic common knowledge.
And I am sure its basic common knowledge that the constitution trumps all. That is why it is extremely difficult to change it, to make sure an overwhelming majority of people want it.
Well trumps all in your country...
Out of interest, how much was the constitution told to you at school? Is it like your national anthem where you have to sing it a lot etc? Because ultimately how they teach the constitution (as far as I am aware, could be wrong) is exactly what you don't want them to do with religion. Which brings me back to original point, you are only against the religion side of things because you personally dislike religion. If the constitution did not mention it, chances are you would still hate it (like a minority of people here hate it). If the constitution supported it you would try change it. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the constitution says except what is on paper enforceable.
Yes trumps all in my country, which guess what? This case is taking place in my country. I'll let you in on something though, I would be saying the same exact thing if it was judaism, hinduism, islam, or any other religion being taught or promoted like this.
So if a Muslim kid went to a school in your country and they had a form that let them do their prayer in a room while other kids are still in class would this be against the law too? After all they are allowing the Muslim children to practice their religion?
Is the religion being promoted, besides allowing for them to do their daily prayer requirement? I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.
Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.
Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.
Having official religious prayer in the United States public school system is a problem, because its unconstitutional, meaning its illegal.
I don't know how common it is. I do not recall any school prayer in my public school education, but that has been a while ago now.
I don't think religion should be removed from schools, it should be taught as an important academic subject.
Ustrello wrote: Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
I did not know letting someone do their religious requirements is actively helping them. That is more of a passive which is not active if my vernacular is correct.
Ustrello wrote: I did not know letting someone do their religious requirements is actively helping them. That is more of a passive which is not active if my vernacular is correct.
Ustrello wrote: Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
it is, check out the meaning of promote.
It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.
If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.
See the punishment part is wrong. Punishing someone for religion is like punishing them fro not speaking English. Obviously that there is a problem, but having prayer is in no way a problem until they actually force people to do it. But I have a hard time believing this is common outside of special situations like the one above. Other than that, removing religion from school just sounds like a huge waste of time.
Having official religious prayer in the United States public school system is a problem, because its unconstitutional, meaning its illegal.
I don't know how common it is. I do not recall any school prayer in my public school education, but that has been a while ago now.
I don't think religion should be removed from schools, it should be taught as an important academic subject.
Yes it may be illegal but that doesn't stop me thinking it's incredibly silly. It should be illegal when they punish people for not partaking. Not when they have the option to do so. I grew up in a school that had the option not to partake (growing up Jehovahs witness I was not allowed to partake anyway). Once a week the nice old church ladies would come down and answer questions about god and sometimes they would have games etc. The surrounding camps here are run by religious charities but I was allowed to not go to them and if I went I did not have to partake in anything against my beliefs.
To me, that system is perfectly fine. The Korean students also did not partake and we simply went to another room and did our own thing.
The solution is incredibly simple and does not have to involve the law at all. Simply allow the minorities an opt out choice.
Swastakowey wrote: Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.
But other kids aren't forced to join so they aren't affected.
I'm probably biased, having some beef with organized religion, but IMO as long as no one is forced it's OK. Even witnessing a religious event isn't really forcing you to take part - but if the music teacher asks you to sing the baritone for a Christmas Mass and docks you points if you don't it's surely religious discrimination. I had a Baptist pastor as music teacher in grades 7-9 and we did that X-mas thing, but I just saw it as a thing to do. The old man wasn't preaching or anything, just doing his job and letting us give a good show to the rest of the school. Aye, I think Baptists are cool. They won't baptise you until you're old enough to have some idea of what you're doing. That's both fair and decent.
Ustrello wrote: I am pretty sure jewish kids are allowed to wear kippahs, and christians are allowed to wear crucifixes.
Last i remember i though that was actually a no.
though i think it had mostly to do with jewelry distractions at school or something.
it could be wrong though.
If crucifixes were banned, believe you and me we would have heard the screams of christians already. I did find one article about a maryland school principal requiring jewish students to bring letters from their rabbis saying they were jewish to wear the kippah. But it seems like the public went for the most part against him.
Ustrello wrote: Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
it is, check out the meaning of promote.
It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.
If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.
It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
Swastakowey wrote: Technically it is yes, it is saying being Muslim is ok (endorsment) and allows the kids to progress in their religion (without the schools support they would not be allowed to leave class and pray at their allocated times) so yes it kind of is promotion them.
But other kids aren't forced to join so they aren't affected.
I'm probably biased, having some beef with organized religion, but IMO as long as no one is forced it's OK. Even witnessing a religious event isn't really forcing you to take part - but if the music teacher asks you to sing the baritone for a Christmas Mass and docks you points if you don't it's surely religious discrimination. I had a Baptist pastor as music teacher in grades 7-9 and we did that X-mas thing, but I just saw it as a thing to do. The old man wasn't preaching or anything, just doing his job and letting us give a good show to the rest of the school. Aye, I think Baptists are cool. They won't baptise you until you're old enough to have some idea of what you're doing. That's both fair and decent.
It was the same in my families religion. Despite growing up Jehovahs Witness I never chose to baptize (and I was encouraged to wait until I am sure).
I agree with you, if nobody is forced what is the harm? Seems more like beef with religion than simply letting parents and kids decide what is bets for their kids individually and having the school allow the options. Plus the children may learn some things they would otherwise be shut off from learning (even if it is kids becoming atheist, or kids becoming religious).
With a simple opt out option no one needs to be offended.
Ustrello wrote: Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
it is, check out the meaning of promote.
It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.
If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.
It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
And when you can prove that supporting someone's right to do something automatically means you support them doing that thing, then you may have a point.
The theoretical teacher is supporting the muslim students right to freely practice their religion. That does not mean that they are supporting the religion.
Ustrello wrote: Um no its not? Because they already allow for jewish kids to eat kosher, and christian kids to pray if they chose (which are brownie points basically so they are actually advancing themselves further)
it is, check out the meaning of promote.
It is not promoting Islam, it is allowing muslim students to practice their religion freely.
If the teacher told the children that being a muslim was the best thing in the whole world and that they should all become muslims, too? That would be promoting a religion.
It is, because promoting involves support. Unless you want to ignore the support bit.
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
And when you can prove that supporting someone's right to do something automatically means you support them doing that thing, then you may have a point.
The theoretical teacher is supporting the muslim students right to freely practice their religion. That does not mean that they are supporting the religion.
Fair enough, but then a school offering a prayer for a majority of Christians but allowing atheist children to opt out is not supporting a religion, it is giving all the kids the option to freely practice their religion.
Ustrello wrote: Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.
It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.
So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.
Ustrello wrote: Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.
It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.
So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.
Can you quote me some scripture on that? Because I have check and its not there.
jasper76 wrote: In the US, children are not restricted from praying in public schools. Only official religious endorsements, such as official prayers, are restricted.
In case the difference between the two is not apparent.
Ustrello wrote: Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.
It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.
So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.
I was raised a christian and that is not true with how I was raised. Maybe it is for your particular type of Christianity but it is not universal. Rather than the school do the prayer, couldn't the Christian students just do it themselves if they felt the need to?
Things are simple as long as people are civil and don't act like tools towards each other over differing beliefs. When people stop being civil is when lawsuits start and, in the US, they might eventually make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Establishment Clause is a touchy subject for a number of people for varying reasons and it was inevitable that several, high profile cases would make it all the way up the chain.
Engel v Vitale found that any government-directed prayer is counter to the Constitution and an opt-out is not valid. The way around this is the "moment of silence" that is pervasive these days. Mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to create an issue.
Student sponsored religious expression is legal but schools but not during class (clubs and the like) as long as all religions have equal access.
jasper76 wrote: In the US, children are not restricted from praying in public schools. Only official religious endorsements, such as official prayers, are restricted.
In case the difference between the two is not apparent.
That is fair enough I suppose.
How do schools treat Easter and Christmas then?
You'll have to ask someone else. I dont have kids and haven't been a student in years.
When I was a kid, we got time off for Easter and Christmas, but the schools did have secular decorations for both (Easter Bunny, Snowmen, etc.)
welshhoppo wrote: I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist.
.
That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.
In the religion I grew up in prayer is something we did before every meal and before/after service plus the times we chose to do it ourselves.
Is this not the case for all Christians? I mean even on TV they pray before meals.
They can, but it is not required by the new testament. Hence why I called christians praying brownie points, because they don't have to but if they do they might be seen in a better light.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist.
.
That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.
In the religion I grew up in prayer is something we did before every meal and before/after service plus the times we chose to do it ourselves.
Is this not the case for all Christians? I mean even on TV they pray before meals.
They can, but it is not required by the new testament. Hence why I called christians praying brownie points, because they don't have to but if they do they might be seen in a better light.
As a kid we got in trouble saying prayers loudly unless it was a group prayer. Otherwise we said it silently to ourselves because it was meant to be personal. So for me growing up prayer was never a public thing, most kids did not even notice. I would hardly call it brownie points.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist.
.
That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.
In the religion I grew up in prayer is something we did before every meal and before/after service plus the times we chose to do it ourselves.
Is this not the case for all Christians? I mean even on TV they pray before meals.
They can, but it is not required by the new testament. Hence why I called christians praying brownie points, because they don't have to but if they do they might be seen in a better light.
As a kid we got in trouble saying prayers loudly unless it was a group prayer. Otherwise we said it silently to ourselves because it was meant to be personal. So for me growing up prayer was never a public thing, most kids did not even notice. I would hardly call it brownie points.
And then you see those crazy mega church things and I think "have you even read the bible?"
I remember being in a school where everyone was christian, the school teams were themed around it, and it was a weird situation growing up. It's still like that in my hometown, as it's only been a few years. No this wasn't private school before you say it, we're talking about a public school. This stuff happens more than it should. (Luckily once in HS the school got in trouble and the faith tidbits were broken into after school clubs and totally avoidable if you ignored them.)
It makes me sad that the teachers aren't encouraging a young child to make his or her's own decisions. It's like when my teachers and my grandparents would smack my hand for writing with my left hand or questioning the things they taught. (This was the late nineties, so shouldn't of happened at all.) Then aagaaaain, I live in a place that is like the movie deliverance so that shouldn't have any bearing on this thread.
I agree the school in the op should be sued if they don't fire the staff responsible.
Ustrello wrote: Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.
It is required. A Christian is meant to pray before every meal and whenever they feel the need to pray for help. They also pray before every service and after every service (which is not related). I know, I was raised one.
So if a school did a prayer before eating lunch (as required) then had an opt out feature it is simply allowing children to practice their religion.
Can you quote me some scripture on that? Because I have check and its not there.
That's more of a baptist thing I think though a lot of other Christian/Catholics do it too, I have read the scripture and I do not see that in their either but, I have encountered it a lot.
I think the "prayer before eating" thing is just a tradition, rather than an actual requirement.
It has just been around long enough that in some sects it has become part of the religion, rather than just something you can do to make sure the big man knows you're thankful for having some food.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist.
.
That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.
In the religion I grew up in prayer is something we did before every meal and before/after service plus the times we chose to do it ourselves.
Is this not the case for all Christians? I mean even on TV they pray before meals.
They can, but it is not required by the new testament. Hence why I called christians praying brownie points, because they don't have to but if they do they might be seen in a better light.
As a kid we got in trouble saying prayers loudly unless it was a group prayer. Otherwise we said it silently to ourselves because it was meant to be personal. So for me growing up prayer was never a public thing, most kids did not even notice. I would hardly call it brownie points.
And then you see those crazy mega church things and I think "have you even read the bible?"
Yea I noticed myself saying that a lot growing up too. Like using the cross as a symbol of worship was the one thing that got me the most. It's one of those clear things you are not supposed to do. But then it hit me after going preaching that people see so many different things in that book. Some see things in there to validate their actions and the list goes on. Sometimes it puzzles me what other people think they see in the bible. One guy came once to a service and said that the bible predicted a political event that happened. He had never been to a church before, he just randomly came. When he showed the passage I saw nothing to support his claim. Of course I said nothing as the elder or someone baptized was nearby who was more educated on the matter could step in. But it is odd what some people can find in the bible.
jasper76 wrote: The problem is, the United States is a secular nation with a plurality of religious backgrounds. Religious history is fine in schools, but any material that promotes a particular religion really has no place in our school public school system. And fortunately for religious minorities such as atheists, it is also unconstitutional.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Enlighten me sir, guide me to the light! My mind is not empty like the sheeple around me, how am I to gain this enlightenment you have obtained over the masses?
Well, if you consider for a moment that there are what... 2 billion or so followers of Islam, around 2 billion followers of various forms of Christianity, and several million followers of Judaism, plus around a billion Buddhists (obviously, these are very rough numbers here)
And ALL of them (except the Buddhists) say, "Our way is the only way to 'heaven', all the others are false and will lead you to eternal damnation" And even then, you get Baptists saying, "if you're Catholic, or Mormon, you're not a REAL Christian, and you're going to hell" and then you get the Catholics saying, "those Lutherans, Baptists and Mormons... all going to hell" and then the Mormons saying, "we're Christians too!!!" And then you get the Klan members, or the Westboro people all saying, "what we believe in is the RIGHT way!!!"
How is it that, if you are one of 2 billion followers of a religion, that 5 billion people are wrong? Especially when those 5 billion other people tend to believe that THEIR religion is the right one, and it is YOU that is wrong.
Yeah... I don't very much respect religion any more.
To the OP: I think that the original teacher should be fired for sure, with the second adult involved possibly being fired as well. Especially since it is a PUBLIC school, not a private, Christian school.
That said, there IS a place for religion in school, and that is in a "World Religions" course wherein a teacher instructs students on the beliefs of various systems without holding judgement over them. Which is better taught by someone who practices no religion, or can clearly demonstrate an adherence to the separation of church and state.
Yea I noticed myself saying that a lot growing up too. Like using the cross as a symbol of worship was the one thing that got me the most. It's one of those clear things you are not supposed to do.
That argument has been had since the earliest days of Arianism, and caused the split between what is now known as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
What is it with kids bursting into tears when a classmate tells them they don't share their belief in God? Makes you wonder what things they've been told at home that makes this so tragic for them, probably something like 'well if little Timmy at school doesn't believe in God he'll just burn in hell'.
The way the teacher handled this was terrible. But this is what happens when people get self-righteous about religion or politics, it can override professional judgment. There's no way the child should have been punished for this let alone over several days. Isolation and humiliation are not ways to handle disagreements between children aged 7 FFS.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm fairly certain that the bible says that prayer should be a personal and private experience. You do it in your own time.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist.
.
That's what Jesus had to say about it. And I think he's the head honcho in Christianity.
But what do I know, I'm an atheist, too.
In the religion I grew up in prayer is something we did before every meal and before/after service plus the times we chose to do it ourselves.
Is this not the case for all Christians? I mean even on TV they pray before meals.
All christians pray before (and after) eating, but different groups do it different ways. generally, (Russian-)Orthodox prayer for example is much more ceremonial and ritualistic than Protestant prayer, which is often improvised while sitting at table. Also, Russian Orthodox often chant, rather than say prayers.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
If a teacher is allowed to say invisible men in the sky are real, using a the bible as "proof", I should be able to teach that Spiderman is real, using Spiderman comics as proof.
Enlighten me sir, guide me to the light! My mind is not empty like the sheeple around me, how am I to gain this enlightenment you have obtained over the masses?
Well, if you consider for a moment that there are what... 2 billion or so followers of Islam, around 2 billion followers of various forms of Christianity, and several million followers of Judaism, plus around a billion Buddhists (obviously, these are very rough numbers here)
And ALL of them (except the Buddhists) say, "Our way is the only way to 'heaven', all the others are false and will lead you to eternal damnation" And even then, you get Baptists saying, "if you're Catholic, or Mormon, you're not a REAL Christian, and you're going to hell" and then you get the Catholics saying, "those Lutherans, Baptists and Mormons... all going to hell" and then the Mormons saying, "we're Christians too!!!" And then you get the Klan members, or the Westboro people all saying, "what we believe in is the RIGHT way!!!"
How is it that, if you are one of 2 billion followers of a religion, that 5 billion people are wrong? Especially when those 5 billion other people tend to believe that THEIR religion is the right one, and it is YOU that is wrong.
Yeah... I don't very much respect religion any more.
And how are atheists any different in insisting that their way is the only correct one? It has nothing to do with religion specifically, you see the same in other things, it is just human nature to believe that "our way is best".
Also, not all christians believe their way is the only right way. Most modern christians believe that only faith in Christ is enough to receive His blessing, the details of how you worship being irrelevant, as long as your faith is good. Even non-Christians can be saved if they are good people, the Bible contains several examples.
Yea I noticed myself saying that a lot growing up too. Like using the cross as a symbol of worship was the one thing that got me the most. It's one of those clear things you are not supposed to do.
That argument has been had since the earliest days of Arianism, and caused the split between what is now known as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
iirc, the Great Schism was more of a power struggle between Rome and Constantinople based on whether one patriarch (the one of Rome) should have seniority over the other patriarchs or not. The actual doctrinal differences were rather small at that time and mostly served as an excuse.
Iron_Captain wrote: And how are atheists any different in insisting that their way is the only correct one? It has nothing to do with religion specifically, you see the same in other things, it is just human nature to believe that "our way is best".
Also, not all christians believe their way is the only right way. Most modern christians believe that only faith in Christ is enough to receive His blessing, the details of how you worship being irrelevant, as long as your faith is good. Even non-Christians can be saved if they are good people, the Bible contains several examples.
Atheists/Agnostics such as myself don't say, "our way is best"...... Sure, there are plenty of "militant atheists" as I call them, and they are certainly ones who do go out of their way to decry ALL religion as being evil, backwards thinking and that they are SOOOoooOOOoooo enlightened, and you should be more like their shining snowflake example.
Personally, I take what I said above... "What are the odds that ONE group is truly correct, and then there are 5-6 billion people who are 'wrong'... that don't sound right to me" But, as you said, "most modern Christians believe that only faith in Christ is enough...." that implies that Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who don't believe in the salvation of Christ or have faith in him are still wrong. And that doesn't sit well with me.
I have heard recently that there's a "coalition" of Buddhists and Christians that meet up fairly regularly on the West Coast of the US, and have formed a sort of alliance, dealing with living good and avenues where the two ideologies intersect in everyday life.
iirc, the Great Schism was more of a power struggle between Rome and Constantinople based on whether one patriarch (the one of Rome) should have seniority over the other patriarchs or not. The actual doctrinal differences were rather small at that time and mostly served as an excuse.
My comment about Arianism was dealing more in the general sense, that "Christians" have been disagreeing with one another, ESPECIALLY in regards to icons, and as you say, the hierarchy of the church, basically since day one. Anyhow, according to Wiki, Arianism was "dealt with" at the First Council of Nicea, where Constantinople had drafted up the Nicene Creed of 325, which in part denounced Arius' writings and exiled all who would not only deny them, but also exiling those who wouldn't condemn the man. The other, main point of the Nicene Creed, was the relationship of the Trinity (Arius argued that The Son was subservient to The Father, while, as we know Constantinople and most others argued that they were in fact, on being coexisting)
Swastakowey wrote: Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).
Teachers, like people, are dumb and do dumb things. I had an atheist teacher tell me my parents where a part of a cult and where actually worshiping Satan. Now I was about 6 and no idea what atheist meant back then but I was legitimately worried about being a Satan lover for a while. For the next few years kids thought I worshiped Satan as a result too (I had to explain a lot of times that no, I do not worship Satan etc). I hated that lady for a while.
Reminds me of the 3rd year after 9/11 and our teacher decided to give his opinion on the subject. Talking about oil and jihads and so on. Now this would have been fine if he didn't throw his opinion on how it was an inside job etc. I actually went home thinking America blew up their own towers.
Those are 2 times I remember a teacher being dumb in a way that effected me.
I don't think you can stop people doing silly things, but you can simply sack/warn them. Then teachers can learn to keep opinions to themselves. Ultimately that is all I think countries need to do. Punish teachers who don't teach from the book. In theory the Parents should also keep up to date with what is in the books too and then everyone is on the same page. Harshly punish any teacher who decide their opinion is important enough to shove down another kids throat, especially during a time where they are gullible.
we had a english lit teacher show the beheading of journalists in his class during school hours, we had another teacher refer to all marines as "baby killers" and the same teacher negatively graded students who went to see the Military recruiters when they came to our school. Eventually the one teacher got canned and the other was told that a repeat performance of Beheadings in an English Lit class would lead to his firing.
Swastakowey wrote: Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).
Teachers, like people, are dumb and do dumb things. I had an atheist teacher tell me my parents where a part of a cult and where actually worshiping Satan. Now I was about 6 and no idea what atheist meant back then but I was legitimately worried about being a Satan lover for a while. For the next few years kids thought I worshiped Satan as a result too (I had to explain a lot of times that no, I do not worship Satan etc). I hated that lady for a while.
Reminds me of the 3rd year after 9/11 and our teacher decided to give his opinion on the subject. Talking about oil and jihads and so on. Now this would have been fine if he didn't throw his opinion on how it was an inside job etc. I actually went home thinking America blew up their own towers.
Those are 2 times I remember a teacher being dumb in a way that effected me.
I don't think you can stop people doing silly things, but you can simply sack/warn them. Then teachers can learn to keep opinions to themselves. Ultimately that is all I think countries need to do. Punish teachers who don't teach from the book. In theory the Parents should also keep up to date with what is in the books too and then everyone is on the same page. Harshly punish any teacher who decide their opinion is important enough to shove down another kids throat, especially during a time where they are gullible.
we had a english lit teacher show the beheading of journalists in his class during school hours, we had another teacher refer to all marines as "baby killers" and the same teacher negatively graded students who went to see the Military recruiters when they came to our school. Eventually the one teacher got canned and the other was told that a repeat performance of Beheadings in an English Lit class would lead to his firing.
Had the same problem not in HS but, actually in college. It never makes any sense.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Your bigotry permeates your post.
I object. Bigotry implies that what he said was somehow unfairly or irrationally intolerant. However, calling a spade a spade is neither irrational or unfair. There is literally zero credible evidence for the existence of a god, and the Christian god is frankly impossible. All the evidence is from one unreliable book which has been heavily edited (as a matter of record) and which was written generations after the events it describes, events which not only aren't corroborated, but contradict more reliable sources. And contains stories that appear to be directly lifted from Babylonian mythology. Hell, even god's own country Israel, means the Land of El, El being a Zeus figure from the Canaanite religion, who appears to be distinct from Yahweh. The Yahweh figure himself having a chequered history before his followers eventually started pitching him as "the one god of the universe".
How anyone can believe all these stories, which apparently started out as completely different stories, but have slowly been amended and changed throughout the centuries, usually as a response to political events such as the Babylonian captivity, and the Roman occupation. How anyone can believe that after all that messing about, these stories could retain any truth (if there were any in the first place). It's completely absurd.
God is only a "possibility" on an extremely philosophical level, in the same way that everyone else being robots is a possibility. But back in the real world, it's 100% BS, and calling it what it is should not be a crime, even if it does offend a few gullible believers.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Comparing the Bible to a comic book just shows the depths of his bias/ignorance.
True. Comic books are more entertaining, better stories, clearer separation between canon and fanon, less continuity errors and retcons... and this is telling!
Swastakowey wrote: English is the language of my country and so is Māori, we are educated on both English and standard Māori (If I knew how, I could hand in an essay in Māori and pass etc). However I am not told how to speak Malaysian or Spanish etc because those subjects are not relevant to my country. It is the same as religion. I am more versed in christian teachings than I am in Muslim ones, because my nation is Christian. We are also educated on Maori myths, because it is a part of our past. To give all religion equal coverage is not a good idea, just like giving languages equal coverage is not a good idea. It makes sense to teach the kids the religion of their nation and they have the option as they get older to move on to another religion in more specialized classes, just like language.
How are you missing the elephant in the room that languages are not contradicting each other and that there is not only one true lan,uage (or zero)? One learns languages to be able to communicate with people, so the value of the language is linked to who you will be able to communicate with. This is regional. One learns religion to find some universal truth, that is totally not regional. That is, unless you teach religion as culturul myths and legends with no truth attached to them...
Swastakowey wrote: Fair enough, but then a school offering a prayer for a majority of Christians but allowing atheist children to opt out is not supporting a religion, it is giving all the kids the option to freely practice their religion.
Certainly not. It is allowing Christian children to practice their religion. In no way does this allow Sikh or Zoroastrian children to practice theirs. You would need special accomodations for literally every religion to do so. With the obvious problem demonstrated just below.
Ustrello wrote: Prayer is not required by christianity, so offering a prayer is promoting christianity.
It is required.
Would anyone really want the state to be in a position where it has to arbitrate doctrinal debates? Or should we accept any gak because "this is my personnal doctrine"?
Some schools here are based on a religion, almost always some form of Christian. There are Catholic schools and Church of England schools, but there will always be a secular school in the same area. These will probably do similar to the report states, and every child there is expected to be of that religion.
But, it is the parents that get the child into that school, and often go to great lengths to get them there. I would expect to (very quietly) hear about some kind of punishment or 'extra teaching' if a child did as the report's non-believer did. Nothing to this level, but a few 'quiet words' would be had.
Schools are supposed to be a place of learning, and learning about people and what they believe should be part of that. Building the teaching around a certain set of beliefs is where it goes wrong, though.
I'd be furious if I found out one of my colleagues did something like that to a kid. I'd hit the roof.
Whatever our personal beliefs, it is totally out of order to do what those teachers did. The right thing to do is to neutrally arbitrate between the two kids and help them come to an understanding. Otherwise one kid goes away thinking they were bad and wrong, and the other goes away with their beliefs confirmed.
When I taught in the UK, the RE teachers had a "god bus" come in and basically preach at the kids. I found out that they were telling the kids that evolution was not based on evidence and was not true. As a science teacher I requested the right of reply, but I was refused. Then I had to deal with kids derailing biology lessons to spout the crap they had heard on the god bus at me. Argh.
Also, I've seen some americans often differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Surely Catholics ARE christians, as in, they believe in Christ? Is this some sort of america specific thing? Do they mean "protestant" when they say "christian"?
Well, that's really weird! I grew up Catholic and we always considered ourselves Christian. I'd say anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to die for our sins and all that malarkey is a Christian.
Seems a bit insulting if others claim Catholics are not "real" Christians, but whatevs. I suppose it's just as bad to call others heretics.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Tips Fedora...
We need a ork happy face for this.
Why is it that, by being an atheist, it immediately means you're a fedora-tipping neckbeard? I swear, I'm beginning to get afraid of even stating I don't believe in any of that religious stuff simply because I'll get shunned as some sort of neckbeard.
Quite ironic this is happening on a forum about playing war with little plastic men, really.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Tips Fedora...
We need a ork happy face for this.
Why is it that, by being an atheist, it immediately means you're a fedora-tipping neckbeard? I swear, I'm beginning to get afraid of even stating I don't believe in any of that religious stuff simply because I'll get shunned as some sort of neckbeard.
Quite ironic this is happening on a forum about playing war with little plastic men, really.
Being an atheist is fine. Being an atheist is simply not believing in a higher power yes? I did not ridicule this guy fro his atheism, but more for his stupidity and comment.
See when people make something their identity so much, they see anything said against them as attacking their "identity". So when someone laughs at what someone says and they get defensive about it being 'against their belief", you can normally tell they have made the belief as way too much of their identity. Maybe being atheist is too much of your identity, so when you say dumb things you attribute the criticism to your belief instead of the dumb thing you said? That's what it sounds like anyway.
Clearly mate... I was making fun of him for being the stereotype 14 year old "angry atheist" by spouting hatred. Ironically when talking about hatred from the group he clearly hates. It may surprise you to hear I too am atheist... (or the one who hasn't decided, an almost atheist?). People like him are an embarrassment, regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.
If you say you are an atheist nobody cares. Say you are an atheist and call most the planet a bunch of morons and the world will see you as a nut job (and rightfully so). It's that simple.
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Tips Fedora...
We need a ork happy face for this.
Why is it that, by being an atheist, it immediately means you're a fedora-tipping neckbeard? I swear, I'm beginning to get afraid of even stating I don't believe in any of that religious stuff simply because I'll get shunned as some sort of neckbeard.
Quite ironic this is happening on a forum about playing war with little plastic men, really.
Being an atheist is fine. Being an atheist is simply not believing in a higher power yes? I did not ridicule this guy fro his atheism, but more for his stupidity and comment.
See when people make something their identity so much, they see anything said against them as attacking their "identity". So when someone laughs at what someone says and they get defensive about it being 'against their belief", you can normally tell they have made the belief as way too much of their identity. Maybe being atheist is too much of your identity, so when you say dumb things you attribute the criticism to your belief instead of the dumb thing you said? That's what it sounds like anyway.
Clearly mate... I was making fun of him for being the stereotype 14 year old "angry atheist" by spouting hatred. Ironically when talking about hatred from the group he clearly hates. It may surprise you to hear I too am atheist... (or the one who hasn't decided, an almost atheist?). People like him are an embarrassment, regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.
If you say you are an atheist nobody cares. Say you are an atheist and call most the planet a bunch of morons and the world will see you as a nut job (and rightfully so). It's that simple.
I've sadly seen way too many times people replying with "*le tips fedora*" shenanigans simply when someone states he doesn't believe in a higher being.
I believe the term you might be looking for is "agnostic"? As in "I don't know if there's anything or if there isn't anything"?
Verviedi wrote: Just get this fething mythical BS out of schools, dammit.
Then there's this. sigh.
Requesting clarification.
Tips Fedora...
We need a ork happy face for this.
Why is it that, by being an atheist, it immediately means you're a fedora-tipping neckbeard? I swear, I'm beginning to get afraid of even stating I don't believe in any of that religious stuff simply because I'll get shunned as some sort of neckbeard.
Quite ironic this is happening on a forum about playing war with little plastic men, really.
Being an atheist is fine. Being an atheist is simply not believing in a higher power yes? I did not ridicule this guy fro his atheism, but more for his stupidity and comment.
See when people make something their identity so much, they see anything said against them as attacking their "identity". So when someone laughs at what someone says and they get defensive about it being 'against their belief", you can normally tell they have made the belief as way too much of their identity. Maybe being atheist is too much of your identity, so when you say dumb things you attribute the criticism to your belief instead of the dumb thing you said? That's what it sounds like anyway.
Clearly mate... I was making fun of him for being the stereotype 14 year old "angry atheist" by spouting hatred. Ironically when talking about hatred from the group he clearly hates. It may surprise you to hear I too am atheist... (or the one who hasn't decided, an almost atheist?). People like him are an embarrassment, regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.
If you say you are an atheist nobody cares. Say you are an atheist and call most the planet a bunch of morons and the world will see you as a nut job (and rightfully so). It's that simple.
I've sadly seen way too many times people replying with "*le tips fedora*" shenanigans simply when someone states he doesn't believe in a higher being.
I believe the term you might be looking for is "agnostic"? As in "I don't know if there's anything or if there isn't anything"?
It's not the belief the joke is meant to make fun of, but the delivery or superiority complex in the delivery of said belief. Of course some people take jokes too far as with all jokes, but I have yet to see someone make fun of someone online merely for being atheist. It's when you act enlightened or superior to the majority of the world and insult what is likely going to be many people reading the text where people start to ridicule. It's all in the attitude.
Swastakowey wrote: regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.
I agree that what he said was insensitive, but it was not stupid. He was pretty much spot on. The only difference between the Marvel myths and Bible myths is that the bible myths were made up thousands of years ago. Objectively, they are both just stories, and both bear little resemblance to the real world.
Why people choose to believe one and not the other is more complicated than people just being "dumb", but the result is the same. People shouldn't be shamed and called "militant" when all the evidence points to them being correct. I think it is far more shameful to humour these delusions, like they have any merit: "hmmm, well yes there might be a god, we don't know" sounds very reasonable, but I think it's too reasonable. It's like saying "pigs might fly, we don't know" which is a lie, because we do know, pigs don't fething fly! It is true we can't say it with 100% certainty (perhaps they fly when we're not looking), you can't say anything with 100% certainty, but it's still a fact. Pigs do not fly. Atheists shouldn't pussyfoot around this.
Here is a comment I found the other day whilst reading about the Brighton Pride parade at the weekend.
Homosexuality is a sin.This is not my opinion,it's what GOD SAYS.I am simply repeating what I read and believe in the Bible.Who on earth would want to shout out their sins?!"Hey,I'm a murderer!" or "Hey,I just had sex with someone else's wife/husband?" or "Hey,I just broke into my neighbor's house and boy,I made off with everything!" When will we realize that we are under great Judgement because of what we have allowed in our country?
This is a pretty hateful person, expressing hateful opinions. Oh but they are not his opinions they are "gods"... Seriously, feth these people and their sensitivities. Their god isn't real, and the sooner they realise that, the less stupid there will be in the world.
Da Boss wrote: Well, that's really weird! I grew up Catholic and we always considered ourselves Christian. I'd say anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to die for our sins and all that malarkey is a Christian.
Seems a bit insulting if others claim Catholics are not "real" Christians, but whatevs. I suppose it's just as bad to call others heretics.
You're only Catholic if your mass is in its original language...Spanish.
Swastakowey wrote: regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.
I agree that what he said was insensitive, but it was not stupid. He was pretty much spot on. The only difference between the Marvel myths and Bible myths is that the bible myths were made up thousands of years ago. Objectively, they are both just stories, and both bear little resemblance to the real world.
If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.
Smacks wrote: Why people choose to believe one and not the other is more complicated than people just being "dumb", but the result is the same. People shouldn't be shamed and called "militant" when all the evidence points to them being correct. I think it is far more shameful to humour these delusions, like they have any merit: "hmmm, well yes there might be a god, we don't know" sounds very reasonable, but I think it's too reasonable. It's like saying "pigs might fly, we don't know" which is a lie, because we do know, pigs don't fething fly! It is true we can't say it with 100% certainty (perhaps they fly when we're not looking), you can't say anything with 100% certainty, but it's still a fact. Pigs do not fly. Atheists shouldn't pussyfoot around this.
People should be shamed if they disrespect the beliefs of others (as do you) and they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).
Smacks wrote: Here is a comment I found the other day whilst reading about the Brighton Pride parade at the weekend.
Homosexuality is a sin.This is not my opinion,it's what GOD SAYS.I am simply repeating what I read and believe in the Bible.Who on earth would want to shout out their sins?!"Hey,I'm a murderer!" or "Hey,I just had sex with someone else's wife/husband?" or "Hey,I just broke into my neighbor's house and boy,I made off with everything!" When will we realize that we are under great Judgement because of what we have allowed in our country?
This is a pretty hateful person, expressing hateful opinions. Oh but they are not his opinions they are "gods"... Seriously, feth these people and their sensitivities. Their god isn't real, and the sooner they realise that, the less stupid there will be in the world.
Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions. It is things like this why f̶e̶d̶o̶r̶a̶s̶ atheists are not taken seriously anymore.
thenoobbomb wrote: "Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"
Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?
Yes, when both sides have no unbiased evidence (actually belief in the existence of God does have evidence, albeit not unbiased), it is logical to go with the option that offers the best explanation for the things it is supposed to explain.
That teacher needs unpaid leave. What happened was wrong, straight up.
I don't agree with a passing idea about punishing teachers that stray from the book. I imagine good teachers would do just that and crazies should get noticed and punished based on the content of what they teach.
I'm also a bit leery of the idea proposed by smacks that as soon as we get rid of religion things will be unreservedly better. If religion is so lacking in redeeming qualities and the majority of humanity indulges itself in it anyway, what on earth gives you the idea we wouldn't all move on to other, equally destructive vices immediately after?
thenoobbomb wrote: "Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"
Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?
No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.
So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?
Not appropriate example. It should be, if someone tells you when you die the big invisible dragon in their garage will take you to Valhalla.
As there is no evidence post death so far there's no default.
thenoobbomb wrote: "Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"
Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?
No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.
So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?
Not appropriate example. It should be, if someone tells you when you die the big invisible dragon in their garage will take you to Valhalla.
As there is no evidence post death so far there's no default.
Ok...I think both the truth claims about the invisible Dragon and the invisible intelligence behind the universe are about on the same standing. Ie. Extraordinary claims backed by no good evidence.
In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.
In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.
I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.
And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.
But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.
In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.
I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.
And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.
But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.
I think the same can be said about "knowing" that there is a God.
In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.
I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.
And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.
But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.
I think the same can be said about "knowing" that there is a God.
Belief or disbelief in God is beside the point, gents.
22. On the day of the incident and for an additional two days thereafter, [the teacher] required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
23. When V.S. was told by A.B. what had happened she called the Assistant Principal of the school and demanded an explanation.
24. The Assistant Principal set up a three-way telephone conversation with V.S., [the teacher] and himself.
25. [The teacher] confirmed her involvement in this matter as noted above.
26. V.S. demanded that the school not isolate her son or punish him for his beliefs.
27. After three days A.B. was allowed to join his classmates for lunch and all sanctions and restrictions were lifted.
The Principal knew what the teacher was doing and still did it. The child was isolated from his classmates without cause for 3 days.
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.
In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka
Superman duh! He'd just like fly around and shoot him with his phazer eyez!
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.
In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.
By reading about the formation of the solar system and the theory of evolution. There is plenty of information on those topics which is accessible to a 7 year old.
Both of those subjects directly contradict the version presented in the bible unless you do some mental gymnastics to twist the words and claim it is one of the sections that must be "interpreted" rather than the literal word of god.
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.
In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.
By reading about the formation of the solar system and the theory of evolution.
Both of those directly contradict the version presented in the bible of the formation of the earth and life on earth. Evolution is also a proven fact.
I think you may be overestimating the state of cognitive development of the average 7 year old. Were talking about 1st and 2nd grade here.
Religion has no place in school, it should be taught by the parents if that is there wish, in any part of society that has even the slightest bit of power, religion has no place.
People can practice their own beliefs however they like, just not in a way that they can use those beliefs to control others lives or enforce a certain code of conduct on others that don't believe the same.way, and if it is found they have, then it should be a criminal offence.
Iron_Captain wrote: If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.
Hey, slow down there pal! Before you go making assumptions, FYI, I have read the bible, in fact I read it quite frequently. It's something I find very interesting. And telling me I don't know what a work of fiction is, is just patronising. Of course fiction and myth are different (sometimes), but what they both have in common is their questionable relationship with reality.
Iron_Captain wrote: People should be shamed if they disrespect the beliefs of others
Not all beliefs are equally deserving of "respect", it depends on the veracity of the belief. Lies don't deserve respect.
Iron_Captain wrote: they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).
So I'm a militant for insisting pigs don't fly, and should be shamed for openly contradicting those that "dare to believe" pig do fly? You're completely out of touch with reality. The reason I insist pigs don't fly is because there is no evidence that they can fly (because they can't), just because I can't prove conclusively that they can't fly does not make it 50:50 that I'm wrong. The chance of me being wrong is so close to 0% that it's hardly worth mentioning. And the chance of me being wrong about the Christian god is also close to 0%. The negligible room for doubt does not make it 50:50.
Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God.
The burden of proof is not on me, and a negative can't be proven. However there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions.
There is a really important difference. That person is claiming (wrongly) that the bible is the word of god, and using that to justify his hatred for another person.
All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.
It is things like this why f̶e̶d̶o̶r̶a̶s̶ atheists are not taken seriously anymore.
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka
Even seven year olds are capable of having intellectual discussions on a basic level and this forms part of normal school teaching to help them develop their critical faculties.
Another reason why the teacher's actions are reprehensible is because she prevented this type of pedagogy from taking place.
How to put this??...I think you may be overestimating the state of cognitive development of the average 7 year old. Were talking about 1st and 2nd grade here.
I don't think so. When you boil it right down, the basic principles are very simple and with the right approach could be explained to an inquisitive child.
People underestimate children's abilities and hinder them by assuming that they won't understand, when really it could be that the adult doesn't have the necessary understanding to break a complex system down into its most simple parts.
For example on the formation of the solar system:
There are things we call forces. Forces cause things to move, such as if you were to push your train along the track, you are putting a force on it. One of these forces is called gravity. Gravity is what makes things stick to other things. If we jump in the air, gravity is what pulls us back down and stops us from flying up into the air forever. At the beginning of the solar system it was just a big cloud of dust and gas. Gravity pulled this dust and gas together. When it was pulled together it got hot, like when you hug someone and feel their warmth and your own. Eventually there was enough stuff all pulled together that the stuff got hot enough to burn. This made the Sun. Smaller clumps of stuff also stuck together and eventually became the planets, such as the Earth. These planets were a lot smaller than the sun and so started to move around it in what we call "orbits" This all took a very long time to happen, even longer than grandma has been alive.
Or something like that. Throw in some experiments to help demonstrate some stuff and you're golden.
About the Marvel versus Bible debate, I think there are two differences between those. The first one is that Marvel's story have always been presented as fiction, unlike the Bible. The second one is that our societies have given a huge, HUGE varnish of respectability. So, I think a better comparison would be with the South Park episode about scientology where they have a segment with "this is what scientology actually teaches". Here, Trey Parker and Matt Stones just expose the scientologist beliefs directly, without the varnish that the cult's evangelists would take a great deal of time and effort to add. The result is that the beliefs just looks to silly to ever take seriously. Well, once you remove the varnish, so does the bible. And to say the truth, so does most scientific theories. The big difference is how each knowledge was obtained, and even more so how it can be used. Classical mechanic is known to be false. It is still, by the way it came to existence, a pretty good approximation of truth for many, many purpose, and it is still irremplacably useful for humanity. The day christianity is proven false, it becomes as useless and irrelevant as, say, Greek mythology. And it is a less interesting story overall .
Da Boss wrote: Also, I've seen some americans often differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Surely Catholics ARE christians, as in, they believe in Christ? Is this some sort of america specific thing? Do they mean "protestant" when they say "christian"?
Some American are ignorant donkey-cave. In other news, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and basically every country in the world has its fair share of bigots and donkey-cave.
jasper76 wrote: One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...
How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?
I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka
Even seven year olds are capable of having intellectual discussions on a basic level and this forms part of normal school teaching to help them develop their critical faculties.
I don't disagree there at all. I'm just saying that the conversation about God isn't too intellectual for a 7 year old and that it really is no different than any number of other conversations that kids have around that age: is Santa Claus real, what happens when my pet dies, can Superman beat up Batman. I'm not trying to belittle the importance of what either one of them think about God, I'm just saying that it's just another conversation and disagreement between two 7 year old kids at school.
Another reason why the teacher's actions are reprehensible is because she prevented this type of pedagogy from taking place.
I agree there as well. The long term effect this conversation would have had on their mental well being is pretty insignificant. Sure, the one kid was upset, but was she really more upset than any number of kids are when their classmates tell them that Santa isn't real? The response by the teachers is the real problem, not what each of the kids believe and who agrees with which kid.
Also, I've seen some americans often differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Surely Catholics ARE christians, as in, they believe in Christ? Is this some sort of america specific thing? Do they mean "protestant" when they say "christian"?
You can go pretty far down the rabbit hole with this if you want to, depending on the individual groups.
You have Christians vs Everybody else (Jews, Muslims, Atheists, whatever)
Then you split between Protestants (aka: "Christians") vs Catholics.
Then you split Evangelicals (aka: "Christians) vs the other Protestants.
Then you split Baptists (aka: "Christians) vs the other Evangelicals.
Then you split Southern Baptists (aka: Christians) vs the other Baptists.
Then you split Southern Baptists who read the King James Bible (aka: Christians) vs the other Baptists who read the false translations.
Now that doesn't apply to the vast majority of folks, but if you speak to the right people or the right congregation, you can get pretty splintered with certain folks thinking that their way is the only right way.
The way I look at it is this. Reverse the situation, if people would be all up in arms, pitchforks and torches at the ready, then the inverse is also as important.
Example. Teacher Athiest, Student Christian. Athiest segregates( cause that is what the teacher did) the student based on belief. Would this fly? Should it?
If the answer is no, then the inverse should also not fly. As an Athiest, I would not sue, I would ruin lives. I mean this would follow you. It is no different than any other form of segregation or discrimination. What next, students who have 2 gay parents get segregated so as not to allow other students to catch the Gay?
redleger wrote: The way I look at it is this. Reverse the situation, if people would be all up in arms, pitchforks and torches at the ready, then the inverse is also as important.
Example. Teacher Athiest, Student Christian. Athiest segregates( cause that is what the teacher did) the student based on belief. Would this fly? Should it?
If the answer is no, then the inverse should also not fly. As an Athiest, I would not sue, I would ruin lives. I mean this would follow you. It is no different than any other form of segregation or discrimination. What next, students who have 2 gay parents get segregated so as not to allow other students to catch the Gay?
You should read your own link The fallacy fallacy is committed when a conclusion is rejected as false because one of the arguments used to support it was fallacious. I don't recall rejecting any conclusion, I just tried to warn you that you were setting up a strawman.
Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.
Very debatable.
@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.
Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.
Very debatable.
@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.
Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.
In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.
Iron_Captain wrote: If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.
Hey, slow down there pal! Before you go making assumptions, FYI, I have read the bible, in fact I read it quite frequently. It's something I find very interesting. And telling me I don't know what a work of fiction is, is just patronising. Of course fiction and myth are different (sometimes), but what they both have in common is their questionable relationship with reality.
If you read the Bible, and actually look into what the words mean, you will notice how different such a kind of book is from a comic book.
Just because apples and oranges both happen to be fruits, doesn't mean they can be compared. In the same way, because both the Bible and Spiderman have no scientific evidence to back them up, doesn't mean they can be compared, much less mentioned as being the same kind of thing.
Iron_Captain wrote: they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).
So I'm a militant for insisting pigs don't fly, and should be shamed for openly contradicting those that "dare to believe" pig do fly? You're completely out of touch with reality. The reason I insist pigs don't fly is because there is no evidence that they can fly (because they can't), just because I can't prove conclusively that they can't fly does not make it 50:50 that I'm wrong. The chance of me being wrong is so close to 0% that it's hardly worth mentioning. And the chance of me being wrong about the Christian god is also close to 0%. The negligible room for doubt does not make it 50:50.
No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous because no one claims such a thing. I am therefore speaking of your attitude towards religion, not towards imaginary people who believe in flying pigs.
Also, you have no evidence for your claim that the chance that you are wrong is close to 0%, so I can't help but seriously doubt that and question your self-righteousness.
Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God.
The burden of proof is not on me, and a negative can't be proven. However there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.
And there is quite a lot of evidence to support that the Bible stories are historical.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions.
There is a really important difference. That person is claiming (wrongly) that the bible is the word of god, and using that to justify his hatred for another person.
All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.
Which is called hypocrisy, because you too have absolutely no evidence to support your belief. And then you use this belief to justify your hatred for that person.
zgort wrote: Why does anyone have to convince anyone?
Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?
I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.
The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.
Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.
In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.
Much of the stuff I've seen on the subject point to "someone" living in that region, but was not named Jesus. And that the ONLY mention of a "Jesus" from the time period when he was supposed to have lived, was written by a Josephus Flavius who has for some time now, been disproved in basically all of his writings (as in, he either plagiarized or straight made up stuff, and called it a historical account)
And I agree with you... in a situation where convincing is the goal (one could say that the "ultimate" goal would be conversion to whatever religion), that the person who believes something should be proving what they believe is true/right, not disproving the other person's belief
zgort wrote: Why does anyone have to convince anyone?
Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?
If you believe that there is a pink unicorn in your bedroom who controls all life in the universe I am pretty sure psychiatic evaluation would feature strongly in your future.
Why is believing there is an invisible being who infuses the universe and impregnated a woman to give birth to an aspect of itself to absolve us of some sins heaped upon us by that same being because a snake tricked the original two people in the world into eating a magic apple somehow exempt from people being concerned about your mental health?
Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.
Very debatable.
@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.
Well put and fair enough :-)
As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)
Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.
As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)
Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.
If I, an atheist was in that exact position (a young child saying that they do not believe in god, or go to church... during school time), I would probably say something like, "That's OK that you don't do that, just as it's Ok if Sally (the name I just gave to the girl he was talking to initially) and her family DO go to church or believe in gods" Conversely, I would say to a religious student "It's OK to believe in your religion, just as it's OK for others to believe what they do".... the only way I'd go a step further, is if the child was berating another over their beliefs
As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)
Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.
If I, an atheist was in that exact position (a young child saying that they do not believe in god, or go to church... during school time), I would probably say something like, "That's OK that you don't do that, just as it's Ok if Sally (the name I just gave to the girl he was talking to initially) and her family DO go to church or believe in gods" Conversely, I would say to a religious student "It's OK to believe in your religion, just as it's OK for others to believe what they do".... the only way I'd go a step further, is if the child was berating another over their beliefs
Thats because we're reasonable people lol, bet Richard Dawkins would rip the kid a new one
Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.
In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.
Much of the stuff I've seen on the subject point to "someone" living in that region, but was not named Jesus. And that the ONLY mention of a "Jesus" from the time period when he was supposed to have lived, was written by a Josephus Flavius who has for some time now, been disproved in basically all of his writings (as in, he either plagiarized or straight made up stuff, and called it a historical account)
And I agree with you... in a situation where convincing is the goal (one could say that the "ultimate" goal would be conversion to whatever religion), that the person who believes something should be proving what they believe is true/right, not disproving the other person's belief
You do realize that even bart ehrman says that jesus existed right? and he is a leading atheist religious scholar.
zgort wrote: Why does anyone have to convince anyone?
Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?
I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.
The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.
True enough, but to play devils advocate (heh, relevant), isn't atheism a system of belief that propogates itself? A psuedo-religious take on logic, reason, and science to "enlighten" those silly theists? One that if you do not subscribe to it, you are shunned as illogical, crazy, or stupid? This exact propagation that you describe is in this forum from both sides.
@SilverMK2 - I don't think it is fair to call theists mental. Just because you personally don't share their beliefs doesn't mean you cannot respect that they are important to others. I would hope they extend that same respect to your beliefs. Also, even discounting the specifics of a religion, there are positive aspects to religion itself: positive ethical codes, charity, and community building come to mind.
zgort wrote: Why does anyone have to convince anyone?
Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?
I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.
The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.
True enough, but to play devils advocate (heh, relevant), isn't atheism a system of belief that propogates itself? A psuedo-religious take on logic, reason, and science to "enlighten" those silly theists? This exact propagation that you describe is in this forum from both sides.
Nah. Most atheists are more than happy to let people believe whatever they want; you get "militants" in any belief system (or non-belief system) but established religions actually have documents that require followers to go forth and preach to the ignorant masses. I ran into a ton of "elder" such and such's when I lived in Asia, trying to convince the heathens to see the light.
Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
You do realize that even bart ehrman says that jesus existed right? and he is a leading atheist religious scholar.
keyword being religious scholar.
And, a quick jaunt around Wiki, as well as google shows that there are many like him who present arguments for a historical jesus, just as there are many historians and anthropologists (not religious scholars) who argue against his historical existence.
These things are not really hard sciences, so for an individual, it comes down to who "you" think presents the best case, or best aligns with your beliefs.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
It's more about being called a fedora tipper, really.
Nah. Most atheists are more than happy to let people believe whatever they want; you get "militants" in any belief system (or non-belief system) but established religions actually have documents that require followers to go forth and preach to the ignorant masses. I ran into a ton of "elder" such and such's when I lived in Asia, trying to convince the heathens to see the light.
Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.
It sounds like a case of lumping all religious together and lumping all atheists together. Most athiests are probably chill, and most religious are probably chill, and the gakheads from both piss everyone off.
If I recall correctly, Jesus taught something to the effect of go preach, and if they don't accept you, shake the dust from your sandals and move on.
Doesn't sound any more offensive than a vendor yelling "hot dogs here, tasty hot dogs here."
Only instead of tasty hot dogs, it's yummy religion?
You are right, by definition. But how many people take it upon themselves to berate someone else because of their beliefs (religious are not exempt here)? Just read this thread to find out!
zgort wrote: @SilverMK2 - I don't think it is fair to call theists mental.
Believing something in direct contradiction of demonstratable reality is, one might say, a textbook definition of someone who needs help and support.
That aside, you asked why someone would challenge someone on their beliefs... If someone says they believe something I think is incorrect, I will challenge them on it (if it is appropriate to do so). I do not agree that one can make claims without a grounding in reality and be able to justify them on the grounds of personal faith... Especially not if they then attempt to rule the lives of others based on those beliefs.
Just because you personally don't share their beliefs doesn't mean you cannot respect that they are important to others
I am unsure why you feel that I cannot understand that people are invested in their beliefs. One can respect that while having little, no, or massive amounts of respect for their actual beliefs. The two are utterly separate.
I would hope they extend that same respect to your beliefs.
I would hope that my beliefs are based enough in reality to withstand any lack of respect people care to give them. Lack of respect in no way diminishes them.
Also, even discounting the specifics of a religion, there are positive aspects to religion itself: positive ethical codes, charity, and community building come to mind.
The key point here is discounting religion. Religion is not required to develop positive societies overflowing with the qualities listed.
So again, live and let live.
I entirely agree. I may disagree entirely with what a person believes or live their life but they are entitled to do with their time on earth almost whatever they want... So long as they are not harming others. That however does not mean they escape questioning by playing the faith card if they make claims in the public sphere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.
Interestingly I was talking to a Russian friend of mine in the pub a couple of weeks ago about religion and he was talking about organised atheism in the USSR being very much preached, with "priest"-like figures, meetings, etc. Although I would argue that was more about clearing the old social and political constructs than atheism itself.
Believing something in direct contradiction of demonstratable reality is, one might say, a textbook definition of someone who needs help and support.
You are painting billions of people with a very broad and unflattering brush. That is why I said it is not fair. Your earlier post was demeaning in the extreme - most religious people do not take the story in genesis literally, they know it is ridiculous. There are smart religious people, just like there are ignorant atheists (though one may hold more than the other haha) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advance, albeit slowly, including evolution, big bang (fun fact: big bang was postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest, and Einstein wasn't a fan of the math behind it initially), and more recently, climate change.
That aside, you asked why someone would challenge someone on their beliefs... If someone says they believe something I think is incorrect, I will challenge them on it (if it is appropriate to do so). I do not agree that one can make claims without a grounding in reality and be able to justify them on the grounds of personal faith... Especially not if they then attempt to rule the lives of others based on those beliefs.
No, I said why do you have to convince anyone. The reality is, if you do not have an open mind, you won't be able to change them to atheism any more than they can change you to be religious. Challenging their beliefs is only going to spiral into a waste of time for everyone. (The futility of my words is becoming realized...now)
One can respect that while having little, no, or massive amounts of respect for their actual beliefs. The two are utterly separate.
Truth
I would hope that my beliefs are based enough in reality to withstand any lack of respect people care to give them. Lack of respect in no way diminishes them.
Of course lack of respect does not make truth less true, but respect is accepting someone exactly as they are, regardless of their beliefs. It shows in your words you truly do not respect theists, which is not going to attract ANYONE to atheism. This is why religion is so prevalent, I think. Where so many atheists are content to just do their own thing, or to tear down religious people, those theists are actively reaching out to others, showing something attractive.
I entirely agree. I may disagree entirely with what a person believes or live their life but they are entitled to do with their time on earth almost whatever they want... So long as they are not harming others. That however does not mean they escape questioning by playing the faith card if they make claims in the public sphere.
This is the entire point of what I posted earlier. Why do you feel the need to question/correct the beliefs of others? What does it matter to you? That's why I posted there is no need to antagonize anyone. Just live your life, worry about yourself, and the rest isn't worth a gak.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
You do realize that even bart ehrman says that jesus existed right? and he is a leading atheist religious scholar.
keyword being religious scholar.
And, a quick jaunt around Wiki, as well as google shows that there are many like him who present arguments for a historical jesus, just as there are many historians and anthropologists (not religious scholars) who argue against his historical existence.
These things are not really hard sciences, so for an individual, it comes down to who "you" think presents the best case, or best aligns with your beliefs.
I am an agnostic, but I personally believe that there was a Jesus and we can go back to the historical Buddha as far as religious prophets. Abraham and Moses? Not so much. But when you have a hard line atheist like Erhman who greatly dislikes Christianity and he says Jesus existed, I tend to believe him.
zgort wrote: @SilverMK2 - I don't think it is fair to call theists mental.
Believing something in direct contradiction of demonstratable reality is, one might say, a textbook definition of someone who needs help and support.
That aside, you asked why someone would challenge someone on their beliefs... If someone says they believe something I think is incorrect, I will challenge them on it (if it is appropriate to do so). I do not agree that one can make claims without a grounding in reality and be able to justify them on the grounds of personal faith... Especially not if they then attempt to rule the lives of others based on those beliefs.
Just because you personally don't share their beliefs doesn't mean you cannot respect that they are important to others
I am unsure why you feel that I cannot understand that people are invested in their beliefs. One can respect that while having little, no, or massive amounts of respect for their actual beliefs. The two are utterly separate.
I would hope they extend that same respect to your beliefs.
I would hope that my beliefs are based enough in reality to withstand any lack of respect people care to give them. Lack of respect in no way diminishes them.
The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
SilverMK2 wrote:
Also, even discounting the specifics of a religion, there are positive aspects to religion itself: positive ethical codes, charity, and community building come to mind.
The key point here is discounting religion. Religion is not required to develop positive societies overflowing with the qualities listed.
That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?
SilverMK2 wrote:
So again, live and let live.
I entirely agree. I may disagree entirely with what a person believes or live their life but they are entitled to do with their time on earth almost whatever they want... So long as they are not harming others. That however does not mean they escape questioning by playing the faith card if they make claims in the public sphere.
Interestingly I was talking to a Russian friend of mine in the pub a couple of weeks ago about religion and he was talking about organised atheism in the USSR being very much preached, with "priest"-like figures, meetings, etc. Although I would argue that was more about clearing the old social and political constructs than atheism itself.
Your friend was right. Atheism was the official state 'religion' of the USSR and had all kinds of meetings and organisations to 'convert' theists etc. Your assumption however is wrong. The eradication of religion was an ideological goal as much as a political goal. In fact, the heaviest persecution of religon took place long after the political power of the church was broken.
The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.
SilverMK2 wrote:
zgort wrote: Why does anyone have to convince anyone?
Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?
If you believe that there is a pink unicorn in your bedroom who controls all life in the universe I am pretty sure psychiatic evaluation would feature strongly in your future.
Why is believing there is an invisible being who infuses the universe and impregnated a woman to give birth to an aspect of itself to absolve us of some sins heaped upon us by that same being because a snake tricked the original two people in the world into eating a magic apple somehow exempt from people being concerned about your mental health?
Didn't you just say: "Live and let live"? If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?
Also, your second statement does not reflect any actual religion. Christianity is not about snakes tricking people into eating apples, it is about the message that is contained within that story. The Bible is just that, a bunch of stories written to get the actual message across.
Next time you feel like taking a stab at religion, could you please attack actual religious teachings? It is kinda hard to have a nice, constructive discussion otherwise.
Swastakowey wrote: Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).
For minor breaches there's generally a three strike policy. But you can't punch the CEO and expect to get a first strike.
And this is not really a minor thing, a teacher didn't just lose their cool and shout at a student or anything spontaneous like that. If the lawsuit is the whole story, then the teacher reacted to a completely non-provocative student's statement about religion with a three day long program of social isolation. That's fething incredible.
The teacher should be fired, and anyone in his direct line of management who knew what was happening and did nothing should be fired as well.
Swastakowey wrote: Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).
For minor breaches there's generally a three strike policy. But you can't punch the CEO and expect to get a first strike.
And this is not really a minor thing, a teacher didn't just lose their cool and shout at a student or anything spontaneous like that. If the lawsuit is the whole story, then the teacher reacted to a completely non-provocative student's statement about religion with a three day long program of social isolation. That's fething incredible.
The teacher should be fired, and anyone in his direct line of management who knew what was happening and did nothing should be fired as well.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.
A minority/small amount of people attacking other people shouldn't paint the rest of the group for you.
On Topic: Not sure the lawsuit is really justified, but the teacher DOES need to be punished in some way, what the teacher did was obviously illegal (from what I got from the story) and handled it in nearly the worst possible way, but suing might be more than a little out of hand, if they're doing it for money. If it was simply to get the teacher fired, that might be different (again, assuming the this is the full story).
You are painting billions of people with a very broad and unflattering brush. That is why I said it is not fair. Your earlier post was demeaning in the extreme - most religious people do not take the story in genesis literally, they know it is ridiculous. There are smart religious people, just like there are ignorant atheists (though one may hold more than the other haha) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advance, albeit slowly, including evolution, big bang (fun fact: big bang was postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest, and Einstein wasn't a fan of the math behind it initially), and more recently, climate change.
Didn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson say something to the effect of, "I'm a Christian, but I leave my Christianity at home" I know he's often called out the overly religious in regards to their denial of scientific "fact" (I'd say, more appropriately, it's fact as we currently understand it)
IMO, he is one of the best spoken, most articulate scientific people that we have roaming the earth at the moment. I can't tell you how many times I've actually sat through a "boring" science documentary, simply for the fact that he's explaining everything to us (viewers) in a way that makes sense, as well as not demeaning scientists as being elitist.
While I agree with you that the number of people who believe that the Creation story is a great story, but believe in the science behind evolution are in the majority, sadly, I think they may be near the minority in the US. Idiots like Ken Ham (who we've all debated and ridiculed on these boards) and the Young Earther movement seems to be growing (if they aren't they sure as hell are vocalizing like they are)
Iron_Captain wrote: If you read the Bible, and actually look into what the words mean, you will notice how different such a kind of book is from a comic book.
Actually, no. You will juet see that if you read it in a very, very different way, you arrive to a different conclusion. If you had read Spiderman under the supervision and with the enlightedcommentaries of cult leader Peter Porker, you would find the comic so deep and true and all too. Remembesr when Charles Manson did just that with the Beatles' lyrics? It is not about what you read, it is about how you read it.
Could anyone disprove Greek mythology to me? Or should everyone take me seriously and accomodate my burning of animal offerings? Why does everyone seem to define atheism as not believing in ONE god? And why do agnostics and theists seem to only consider the possibility of a unique divinity rather than a full pantheon? A pantheon makes so much more sense...
zgort wrote: You are painting billions of people with a very broad and unflattering brush. That is why I said it is not fair.
You will of course note that I am not actually calling anyone mentally ill. Nor does it say anywhere that life has to be fair
Your earlier post was demeaning in the extreme - most religious people do not take the story in genesis literally, they know it is ridiculous. There are smart religious people, just like there are ignorant atheists (though one may hold more than the other haha) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advance, albeit slowly, including evolution, big bang (fun fact: big bang was postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest, and Einstein wasn't a fan of the math behind it initially), and more recently, climate change.
Sometimes things are unflattering. Again, life does not come with a guarantee that everyone will agree with what you think and be happy and supportive of it.
Some of the earliest scientific thinkers throughout human history were nominally religious (and often priests). Sitting around with plenty of time and money and having been educated to think while the rest of the people toil around in the mud to scratch a living and supply wealth and goods to keep you living a life of leisure often means that you will be in a position to advance human knowledge and understanding. Again, it is not inherent in the state of being religious. As can be seen when religious individuals, groups and organisations attempt to drag us back into the bronze age mythology they believe in...
No, I said why do you have to convince anyone. The reality is, if you do not have an open mind, you won't be able to change them to atheism any more than they can change you to be religious
Erm - perhaps we mean different things when we think of challenging people. When I see someone doing something I think is wrong, I will attempt to highlight what and why is wrong and convince them of the wrongness so that they hopefully don't do it again.
Challenging their beliefs is only going to spiral into a waste of time for everyone. (The futility of my words is becoming realized...now)
And yet there are many people who are swayed, made less extreme, or are convinced. Maybe not on a grand sweeping change of heart, bit on individual issues or concepts. You need to remember that the internet is full of the loudest voices; those who (generally) have made up their mind about something. But many more people read than contribute, and not every discussion happens with the die hard.
Besides which, the more noise is made about an issue and the higher peoples awareness of it, the more likelihood it will be discussed in the mainstream. Many minority issues have gained momentum through modern dissemination of information and the amplification of an individuals voice to enact real change.
Of course lack of respect does not make truth less true, but respect is accepting someone exactly as they are, regardless of their beliefs. It shows in your words you truly do not respect theists, which is not going to attract ANYONE to atheism. This is why religion is so prevalent, I think. Where so many atheists are content to just do their own thing, or to tear down religious people, those theists are actively reaching out to others, showing something attractive.
I work and live with many people of many beliefs - I fully accept them as people and would fight to protect their right too continue as they are. I do not randomly go up to my friends and colleagues or even strangers and start extolling the wrongs of religion (nor can I think of many atheists who would, unlike the many religious people I have encountered who seem quite happy to do the opposite). Most atheists exist quietly for three simple reasons; they are not on a crusade to convert the heathens (if you will forgive the expression ) because atheism is not generally organised, nor a passionate driver in peoples lives; simply a lack of belief. Secondly because in many places in the world "coming out" as atheist is not a healthy thing to do for your relationships with those around you. And lastly, because challenging peoples beliefs is not a conversation that happens every day, and in combination with point one, most people with weak belief (or lack of belief) will be content to simply get on with their day.
Religion is so prevalent for the simple fact that for thousands of years it as the only way to live and it has been indoctrinated from generation to generation worldwide. It certainly has its draws aside from any spiritual or universal correctness; unlike "atheism" you get a ready made community and the support that brings (for example).
This is the entire point of what I posted earlier. Why do you feel the need to question/correct the beliefs of others? What does it matter to you? That's why I posted there is no need to antagonize anyone. Just live your life, worry about yourself, and the rest isn't worth a gak.
If the topic of conversation is about belief, am I not entitled to state my own? If people want to debate belief can I not take part? I am not standing on a street corner or in a pulpit shouting angry words to the masses and forcing them to agree with me. I am not ostricising family members, friends or colleagues who do not tow the same line of belief as me.
The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
And yet religion does not reflect reality (the kind of observed, tested, repeatable reality that science has helped discover for us over the years). Religious claims are often demonstrably wrong, obvious copy pastes from earlier religious or cultural myths, or later edits by meddling individuals or groups. One does not need a subjective reality to doubt a religious claim that is obviously made up...
That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?.
Do you need to believe in the tooth monster who comes and punches your teeth out if they are dirty in order to carry out dental hygiene? What is gods position on toothpaste selection when it comes to that?
The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.
The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.
Or one should take away that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs...
Atheism in the USSR was as much a tool to inspire hatred of the political opponents of the leadership as religion was a tool of the kings and popes who sent out countless crusades into the middle East.
In both cases there were those who genuinely believed in their cause, but many more who saw it as a means to an end.
Didn't you just say: "Live and let live"?
No, I didn't. You misquoted the person I was replying to.
If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?
If that person believes something that is untrue it does not suggest good things about their relationship to reality. They could potentially be a danger to themselves and others. And if they hold a position of power, especially if their position of power is held because other people who also believe in the pink unicorn helped get them there, then you have a serious problem
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.
Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.
Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.
"Dog is dead"
-Nietsche
Well, at least it took this long to roll out the ol' "oh nose there are people talking about religion in a not utterly positive way - they must be bashing it!" post
Disrespect for atheists is hard-coded into Christianity and Judaism:
"The fool says in his heart, there is no God."
"...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him."
Theists might be surprised how often these features of Judeo-Christianity are used as actual arguments in the ultimately trivial "Is there a God?" debate, and often this stuff is thrown out after we merely answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" honestly. So we are called fools and worthy of wrath not only by theists, but by the source material itself.
I'm not trying to avoid Islam here. I'm sure the Koran has equally disgusting passages.
It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.
Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.
Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.
"Dog is dead"
-Nietsche
Well, at least it took this long to roll out the ol' "oh nose there are people talking about religion in a not utterly positive way - they must be bashing it!" post
@Frazz: I guess your post was in reference to mine?
Not sure how pointing out source texts, and stating that these texts are used often by some theists to disrespect atheists, is religion bashing.
I was responding to the assertion that atheists frequently ridicule believers, which to me is a pot meet kettle issue. Atheists are frequently called fools and told they deserve to burn forever, and this often happens in my experience for the simple offense of answering "Do you believe in God?" with an honest "No."
CptJake wrote: Calling people mentally unstable for being religious has got to come close to meeting your definition of bashing, doesn't it?
Again, if someone has beliefs that in no way reflect reality, we often consider professional intervention. Somehow though religious beliefs get a free pass.
You may also note that at no point did I call anyone mentally unstable. Nor have I bashed anyones beliefs.
CptJake wrote: Calling people mentally unstable for being religious has got to come close to meeting your definition of bashing, doesn't it?
Again, if someone has beliefs that in no way reflect reality, we often consider professional intervention. Somehow though religious beliefs get a free pass.
You may also note that at no point did I call anyone mentally unstable. Nor have I bashed anyones beliefs.
Yeah, you pretty clearly stated anyone with religious beliefs fits your definition of mentally unstable. You can try to weasel word around it, but that is disingenuous at best. You may not be bashing their beliefs, instead you are bashing them for holding the beliefs. Perhaps in your mind that is better.
One can hold beliefs through logical application of knowledge that, to me, are flawed. Many religious beliefs fall into this category (imo).
One can also hold entirely innocent beliefs which are nonsensical (to someone at least!) but are ultimately harmless and exist as part of an otherwise "sane" outlook on life.
Both significant departures from equating all belief with mental illness. Certainly, I did not particular differentiate the point however.
Most people are mentally unstable in one way or another, or suffer from some form of mental issue.
Religion, if it is classified as such, is (often) a pretty benign expression of psychological weirdness.
Expecting pure rationality from people is equally unrealistic. As an atheist/agnostic, I think that's what gets me most about "new atheism" - this sort of perspective that reason and rationality can trump all and will trump all. It just doesn't bear out in real life in any way.
Iron_Captain wrote: If you read the Bible, and actually look into what the words mean, you will notice how different such a kind of book is from a comic book.
Actually, no. You will juet see that if you read it in a very, very different way, you arrive to a different conclusion. If you had read Spiderman under the supervision and with the enlightedcommentaries of cult leader Peter Porker, you would find the comic so deep and true and all too. Remembesr when Charles Manson did just that with the Beatles' lyrics? It is not about what you read, it is about how you read it.
Could anyone disprove Greek mythology to me? Or should everyone take me seriously and accomodate my burning of animal offerings? Why does everyone seem to define atheism as not believing in ONE god? And why do agnostics and theists seem to only consider the possibility of a unique divinity rather than a full pantheon? A pantheon makes so much more sense...
Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
And yet religion does not reflect reality (the kind of observed, tested, repeatable reality that science has helped discover for us over the years). Religious claims are often demonstrably wrong, obvious copy pastes from earlier religious or cultural myths, or later edits by meddling individuals or groups. One does not need a subjective reality to doubt a religious claim that is obviously made up...
First of all, science does not help us discover reality. Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable. For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true. Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.
Secondly, you will have to elaborate on your conclusion that religion does not reflect reality, because right now you are just ranting without backing it up.
Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.
SilverMK2 wrote:[
That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?.
Do you need to believe in the tooth monster who comes and punches your teeth out if they are dirty in order to carry out dental hygiene? What is gods position on toothpaste selection when it comes to that?
This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?
SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.
So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.
SilverMK2 wrote:
The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.
Or one should take away that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs...
Atheism in the USSR was as much a tool to inspire hatred of the political opponents of the leadership as religion was a tool of the kings and popes who sent out countless crusades into the middle East.
In both cases there were those who genuinely believed in their cause, but many more who saw it as a means to an end.
Any state religion is a tool of the state, that is why it is a state religion.
That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.
And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?
SilverMK2 wrote:
If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?
If that person believes something that is untrue it does not suggest good things about their relationship to reality. They could potentially be a danger to themselves and others. And if they hold a position of power, especially if their position of power is held because other people who also believe in the pink unicorn helped get them there, then you have a serious problem
Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality. The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.
Who are you to say that your reality is better than their reality?
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?
Especially antagonizing people who are religious. Why bother?
(See what I did there? Back to the beginning )
But more seriously; when actually discussing things with a person for the first time I certainly do not go straight for the antanonistic approach. Topics on Dakka however... I speak perhaps a little more bluntly, although ultimately my position is the same. If you make a truth claim you need to justify it as ultimately any deviation from "there is nothing" is a positive claim which must be proven as any other claim, scientific, faith based, or anything else must be (akin to how the null hypothesis must be disproven by demonstrating evidence for the positive claim). If people make a claim I feel is wrong I will attempt to refute it - regardless of the topic. It just so happens that most relgious claims are claims that I feel are wrong and can be demonstrated as such... and people love talking about their religious beliefs and how society would be better off if we all followed whatever particular brand of religion they are espousing so it turns out that I end up discussing such subjects with reasonable frequency.
You might feel the need to rebuke it, but that doesn't justify breaking rule 1 and being antagonistic about it.
If every Christian on here who thought you were wrong would start preaching to you non-stop and try to convert you every time they could see an opening you would be pissed and you would hit the triangle quite a bit.
If they would start personally attacking you with statements like "atheists are too ignorant to consider the truth", "they are too weak minded to accept that there is something bigger than them", "atheists are all donkey-caves who wear fedoras and want to feel important", and "atheists, I'm glad when they all burn in hell, feth these guys", then you would really be pissed and hit the triangle a lot (as well you should).
tl;dr: You can be right/wrong, and you can be a dick/not a dick. It's up to you which combination you want to be on the internet.
Edit: the second point really doesn't matter. Just follow the 1st...
Iron_Captain wrote: Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false.
But in the end, that's the "grand" thing with science: those who practice it (scientists) are more willing than pretty much any group to change their minds in the face of new evidence.
Conversely, you get some overly religious types, Young Earthers, specifically, who refuse to acknowledge science in any meaningful way, and seriously think that there are ZERO gaps between the 6-days to build earth story, and Noah's flood and on to Moses grabbin' his people and making a break for it.
Most often, when a previously held theory turns out to be false, it isn't so much that it's outright false, just that the new theory, or new model fits the evidence better than the old one.
d-usa wrote: You might feel the need to rebuke it, but that doesn't justify breaking rule 1 and being antagonistic about it.
If you feel that I have broken rule 1, please feel free to report it not only to the admins but to myself - I am happy to be "antagonistic" but I do aim to refrain from being insulting.
If every Christian on here who thought you were wrong would start preaching to you non-stop and try to convert you every time they could see an opening you would be pissed and you would hit the triangle quite a bit.
Given the frequency of religious threads (or threads which descend into religious threads) that I have taken part in here on Dakka (or read through) I can't actually recall the last time I reported a post. I think there may have been... one or two in the however many years I have been a member here?
If they would start personally attacking you with statements like "atheists are too ignorant to consider the truth", "they are too weak minded to accept that there is something bigger than them", "atheists are all donkey-caves who wear fedoras and want to feel important", and "atheists, I'm glad when they all burn in hell, feth these guys", then you would really be pissed and hit the triangle a lot (as well you should).
Well, for a start I would refute the points being made rather than being insulted. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that my beliefs can hold up to questioning and are not reduced through people not respecting them. If people started actually getting insulting then sure, I would probably hit the yellow triangle of friendship.
tl;dr: You can be right/wrong, and you can be a dick/not a dick. It's up to you which combination you want to be on the internet.
But more seriously; when actually discussing things with a person for the first time I certainly do not go straight for the antanonistic approach. Topics on Dakka however... I speak perhaps a little more bluntly, although ultimately my position is the same. If you make a truth claim you need to justify it as ultimately any deviation from "there is nothing" is a positive claim which must be proven as any other claim, scientific, faith based, or anything else must be (akin to how the null hypothesis must be disproven by demonstrating evidence for the positive claim). If people make a claim I feel is wrong I will attempt to refute it - regardless of the topic. It just so happens that most relgious claims are claims that I feel are wrong and can be demonstrated as such... and people love talking about their religious beliefs and how society would be better off if we all followed whatever particular brand of religion they are espousing so it turns out that I end up discussing such subjects with reasonable frequency.
This is a much better response. Very well articulated. I respect your beliefs, and I appreciate you.
Good work everyone. Really great results. Pack it up - let's go ruin a different thread.
Iron_Captain wrote: First of all, science does not help us discover reality.
That is kind of expressly what science does... Science helps explain the universe around us by making observations, undertaking testing and suggesting methods of explaining the results of those observations and tests.
Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable.
One can account for the accuracy of instruments and perception (for the most part) when making observations, doing tests and interpreting results. Nor does one require an absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality.
Scientific theories change and adapt to improvements in understanding; that does not mean that prior understandings are fundamentally flawed, or current understanding is worthless because new discoveries might come along.
For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true.
And yet the theory of gravity can be used to explain the vast majority of observable situations in which gravity plays a part... Science does not claim to determine truth, just to discover more accurate explanations for the things we observe.
Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.
... right. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is serverely lacking.
Secondly, you will have to elaborate on your conclusion that religion does not reflect reality, because right now you are just ranting without backing it up.
Well, to illustrate...
Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.
Lets take one right from the start of the book shall we? "The universe was made in 6 days".
This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?
This is the second (as far as I can remember) time you have accused someone of introducing a strawman argument; I think you might want to look up what it actually means.
The point being made is that I went on to here:
SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.
So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.
Ah, three countries which all followed rather extreme versions of social revolutioary communism, using religious persecution as a weapon to break the back of established power structures?
That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.
... I don't believe that I claimed anything of the sort.
And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?
Questioning and criticising religion and religious claims is not persecution. Nor do I seem to remember scorning anyone for their beliefs unless those beliefs harm themselves or others.
Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality.
I think you mean... reality.
The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.
And yet in the little place we like to call actual reality the pink unicorn is fully false.
Who are you to say that your reality is better than their reality?
Well, as fun as it must be to have your own pink unicorn, I think the requirements and realities of actual reality trump those of make-believe land. If you believed that you were eating food but were in fact actually starving to death eating air would you say that your reality is better than actual reality?
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?
What problem would we have if any particular powerful group got into power and then started enacting policies based upon some make believe fiction which in no way connects to reality?
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?
Atheists in the United States have a legitimate concern over this. We have an extraordinarily powerful religious subset that is not content to simply live according to their own religious principals, but seeks to impose those principals on everyone, willing or unwilling, through legislation. This is most prevalent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of science curricula with religion, most frequently creationism. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to teach their own children that a divine intelligence created the universe, but they are driven to impose it on others.
If that feature of American religion is ever substantially diminished, I can almost garuntee you that the animosity between atheists and theists will decrease in correlation.
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?
Atheists in the United States have a legitimate concern over this. We have an extraordinarily powerful religious subset that is not content to simply live according to their own religious principals, but seeks to impose hose principals on everyone, willing or unwilling, through legislation.
I hate it when people seek to impose hose principals.
This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.
Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group. Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.
This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.
Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group.
Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.
In terms of power, this constiuency's representatives include sitting US Representatives and Senators, including viable Republican Presidential candidates, threatening to shut down our government over female access to abortion services as recently as yesterday. You must admit, it's not as if this lobby is 'nothing to worry about" for supporters of "choice" or whatever the phrase for access to birth control and abortion is called these days.
This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.
Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group.
Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.
In terms of power, this constiuency's representatives include sitting US Representatives and Senators, including viable Republican Presidential candidates, threatening to shut down our government over female access to abortion services as recently as yesterday. You must admit, it's not as if this lobby is 'nothing to worry about" for supporters of "choice" or whatever the phrase for access to birth control and abortion is called these days.
As Libertarian who loves the French view of separation of Church and State, I am quite aware of the extent their caterwalling.
Iron_Captain wrote: First of all, science does not help us discover reality.
That is kind of expressly what science does... Science helps explain the universe around us by making observations, undertaking testing and suggesting methods of explaining the results of those observations and tests.
Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable.
One can account for the accuracy of instruments and perception (for the most part) when making observations, doing tests and interpreting results. Nor does one require an absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality.
Scientific theories change and adapt to improvements in understanding; that does not mean that prior understandings are fundamentally flawed, or current understanding is worthless because new discoveries might come along.
So you mean to say you still believe in the miasma theory? The miasma theory was mainstream science and accepted as truth worldwide for centuries, similar to theories like gravity. Yet nowadays it is seen as ridiculous and mostly worthless. Pretending this can't happen to present-day theories is just closing your eyes. And stating that you don't require absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality is self-contradictory. Reality is reality because it can not be doubted. Without absolute precision there is room for doubt. You seem to be under the impression that science, like reality is objective. It is not. Science is conducted by humans and therefore inherently subjective. Thus science will never be able to determine an objective reality. In fact, it can be argued that reality does not even exist, but is purely an artificial social construct.
For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true.
And yet the theory of gravity can be used to explain the vast majority of observable situations in which gravity plays a part... Science does not claim to determine truth, just to discover more accurate explanations for the things we observe.
Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.
... right. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is serverely lacking.
Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.
Lets take one right from the start of the book shall we? "The universe was made in 6 days".
I asked for a religious claim. There is nothing religious about that claim, is there? Whether the universe was made in 6 days or not is ultimately unknowable and irrelevant. Whether it is true or false it has no impact on christian teachings.
In any case, it is not demonstrably wrong, because we have never witnessed the creation of the universe. We can therefore not say anything with certainty about it, because it will always rely on a subjective interpretation of the little information we have. And even if we had witnessed it, we would not be able to say anything about it with certainty, because our observation is subjective too. Reality requires objectivity. Objectivity does not exist. Therefore a objective reality doesn't exist either. Reality is inherently subjective. Here, there is even scientific "proof" for it: http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms The fact that the universe was created in six days may very well be wrong, but it is not demonstratable. In fact, it may very well be that the universe was both created in six days and in billions of years, and that it is only a matter of how you measure it.
This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?
This is the second (as far as I can remember) time you have accused someone of introducing a strawman argument; I think you might want to look up what it actually means.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
I don't recall advancing arguments about tooth monsters and tooth paste? Rather than directly refuting my argument, you set up an alternative with tooth monsters which you then refuted using a rhetorical question.
SilverMK2 wrote:The point being made is that I went on to here:
SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.
So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.
Ah, three countries which all followed rather extreme versions of social revolutioary communism, using religious persecution as a weapon to break the back of established power structures?
Communists usually are atheists, yes. Religious people are less likely to have communist views. So what? I fail to see your point here.
SilverMK2 wrote:
That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.
... I don't believe that I claimed anything of the sort.
I know you didn't. It was more of a general statement than aimed at you. But there are plenty of atheists out there that argue that religions are the cause of all wars and that it'd be better if we all were atheist. That is bs.
SilverMK2 wrote:
And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?
Questioning and criticising religion and religious claims is not persecution. Nor do I seem to remember scorning anyone for their beliefs unless those beliefs harm themselves or others.
I could dredge up several of your earlier comments in which you scorned religious people, but I think those comments are nasty, add nothing to a constructive discussion so I prefer to just ignore them and not see them again. I will therefore rest my case.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality.
I think you mean... reality.
No. Unless you can prove that your perception is indeed reality, I will, according to scientific method, have to believe that this is not the case unless you offer proof. In the meantime, I will believe that my perception is the reality, since both theories have equal amount of proof (none) and I am of the opinion that my theory offers the best explanation for my observations.
SilverMK2 wrote:
The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.
And yet in the little place we like to call actual reality the pink unicorn is fully false.
Can you proof that actual reality exists? No? Shouldn't you then by default assume that actual reality does not exist?
SilverMK2 wrote:
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?
What problem would we have if any particular powerful group got into power and then started enacting policies based upon some make believe fiction which in no way connects to reality?
Oh wait, you mean like politicians already do? In any case, to see the problems you would have, look at Russia in the 90's. But I fail to see how this is relevant to our little scenario? How would their belief in a pink unicorn affect their decision-making abilities?
Citing experimental results supporting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics without understanding it?
That's funny.
That experiment didn't say that reality is subjective, it just supported the theory that reality for a quantum system is the superposition of all the possible eigenstates of the corresponding wavefunction which, upon observation, will collapse to a single wavefunction which will, from that point on, be the only possible wavefunction that the state could have taken at that exact moment in time.
Which has been the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics for some time but this is just further evidence to support it.
While I do prefer to argue the points raised in the discussion rather than the person making them I feel some combination of your age and language barriers are creating too much of a hinderace to debate Iron Captain.
While I appreciate your input and willingness to step into the ring I currently don't have the inclination to wade through your post again.
Suffice to say that there is a distinct difference between philisophical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty. It is all very well saying that reality is subjective because human experience is incomplete, but at some point in the day you need to accept that if gak is going to get done you have to stop with the existential angst and accept the best your "limited" certainty can offer.
Science has done pretty well so far in (generally) making the world a better place. Well... unless we are all imagining it I guess
Iron_Captain wrote: Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.
So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous...
I'm glad that you agree that flying pigs are ridiculous, but why? Is it because there is no evidence for such a creature? That is a not a strawman. A strawman is misrepresentation. Flying pigs, and the popular "flying spaghetti monster" are not misrepresentations, they are wholly accurate representations of the kind of fantastic claims you are trying to make, based on nothing but hearsay. The flying spaghetti monster also "cannot be disproved", does that make him real? The flying spaghetti also has many miracles attributed to him, is that "evidence" that he exists? There is also a Pastafarian creation story,do you think it really happened?
If you aren't able to see how your own imaginary thing is exactly the same, and just as ridiculous, as other people's imaginary thing, then you wouldn't be the first. Most religious people are too close to their religion to be able to be objective about it.
Smacks wrote: there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.
And there is quite a lot of evidence to support that the Bible stories are historical.
Except there isn't.
There is no evidence that the world was created in 6 days, there is no evidence that humans all descended from two people, there is no evidence that the world is six thousand years old, or that it is in the centre of the universe, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood causing a mass extinction ~3000 years ago. there is no evidence that all animals alive today are descended from two animals on the ark, there is no evidence that the Jews were held captive in Egypt, there is no evidence of a mass exodus, there is no evidence of Moses' people roaming the desert for 40 years, there is no evidence of Israelites overthrowing the Canaanites, there is no evidence of a sprawling Davidic empire, there is no evidence of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.
In fact, all the evidence we have, and everything we know, completely contradicts these claims. For example: genetic evidence indicates that the smallest bottleneck in our ancestral population was ~10,000. There never was any Adam and Eve, from whom we are all descend. This completely undermines the idea of "original sin", which is the basis for practically the whole thing.
Smacks wrote: All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.
Which is called hypocrisy, because you too have absolutely no evidence to support your belief. And then you use this belief to justify your hatred for that person.
You're wrong on both counts. All of the evidence supports my position. And I don't "hate" anyone. The person I quoted was claiming that he knew God's opinion, and God's opinion was that homosexuals are sinners. Pointing out that the person doesn't know gods opinion, and that god likely doesn't even exist is not "hateful", it's just a statement of fact.
Iron_Captain wrote: Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.
So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?
I'm pretty sure that there is no reality at this point...
Also, IronCaptain, there is something to be said about scientific theories being false. I mentionned it already, but it is worth repeating. Even if relativity is one day proven wrong, it would stiln have alnowed, and would still allow to make GPS. If Christianity was proven false, it would be utterly useless. Actually the "best representation of reality" nature of science is what is making it useful, while religion's claim to an unquestionable reality is just hubris.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, please let this sink in: disproven science is better at allowing us to predict useful stuff than never disproven religion will ever be!
there is no evidence that the Jews were held captive in Egypt,
there is no evidence of a mass exodus,
Actually, there is evidence that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt. Whether they were captive or enslaved is another matter.
This is also evidence of a "mass exodus" of people. Whether this migration was under duress (ie, the Exodus story where Pharoah gathers up all the war-boyz in their Trukks (chariots) and chases a bunch of people to a body of water that miraculously parts for one group, and collapses in on the second) is a whole other can of worms.
Beyond that, I agree with everything else you've said, regarding science. What some, like IC are seeming to fail to understand is that, if I drop a bowling ball rated at 16 pounds, from a laser leveled height of 2m, while standing in Miami, Florida, and someone else takes a bowling ball rated at 16 pounds, and drops it from a laser leveled height of 2m while standing in Vienna, Austria; we collectively know, through our current understanding of gravity and Newton's Laws, that each of the bowling balls should hit the ground at basically the same elapsed time.
That's the thing with science, if it's a working theory, then it is provable and repeatable by many people.
I mean, please let this sink in: disproven science is better at allowing us to predict useful stuff than never disproven religion will ever be!
And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'. That is like saying my flat tired bicycle is better at driving on highways than a sandwich will ever be.
I'm not sure about the major Eastern faiths, but all three major Abrahamic faith are heavy into the prophecy business.
Christianity and Islam prohpecize about what happens to human beings after death, and how the world will end. You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.
And the Old Testament is so replete with prophecies, vague and specific, you can basically open a random page and find a prophet predicting something.
And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.
Prophecy, dude, prophecy.
Explain. Which major religion claims to or is even used to 'predict useful stuff'?
Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.
Also, they make an excellent method of control, because people are scared about what will happen to them once they die. So they also give hope to people that want it.
Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.
The Book of Revelations would like to have a word with you.
As would every prophet, seer, soothsayer, fortune teller, etc in the history of religious practice. If we go walking around DC long enough, I can show you this in action.
You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.
Reading fail of the day: I read this as
"You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle Earth...."
You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.
Reading fail of the day: I read this as
"You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle Earth...."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Actually, there is evidence that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt. Whether they were captive or enslaved is another matter.
This is also evidence of a "mass exodus" of people. Whether this migration was under duress (ie, the Exodus story where Pharoah gathers up all the war-boyz in their Trukks (chariots) and chases a bunch of people to a body of water that miraculously parts for one group, and collapses in on the second) is a whole other can of worms.
I "suspect" that there probably was some migration from Egypt. Certainly, if you look at the history of Canaanite pantheon, Yahweh appears to have been introduced by nomadic (ethnically Canaanite) peoples migrating from the south. I suppose the point I'm really making is that a story having "a grain of truth" is not the same as it being historical. The search for Moses' people has been consistently fruitless, and the nature and scale of the exodus mentioned in the Bible doesn't seem to be corroborated by any Egyptian account, or by the archaeology.
Do you happen to have a link to the evidence that you mean? Not that I wish to dispute it, I would just like to read it because it's interesting to me.
CptJake wrote: And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'. That is like saying my flat tired bicycle is better at driving on highways than a sandwich will ever be.
Hehe! That made me lol. Though I think the conversation had turned to philosophy and the nature of "reality". Science and religion do both attempt to make sense of reality in their own way. The ability to make accurate predictions is a good indicator that the model is doing what it is supposed to. Iron_Captain seemed to be suggesting that religion was an equally valid method for making sense of reality. In your analogy that would be like saying: "a sandwich is as good a method of transport as anything". So someone pointing out that sandwiches aren't good at driving on highways is actually a fair comment.
SilverMK2 wrote:While I do prefer to argue the points raised in the discussion rather than the person making them I feel some combination of your age and language barriers are creating too much of a hinderace to debate Iron Captain.
While I appreciate your input and willingness to step into the ring I currently don't have the inclination to wade through your post again.
Suffice to say that there is a distinct difference between philisophical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty. It is all very well saying that reality is subjective because human experience is incomplete, but at some point in the day you need to accept that if gak is going to get done you have to stop with the existential angst and accept the best your "limited" certainty can offer.
Science has done pretty well so far in (generally) making the world a better place. Well... unless we are all imagining it I guess
I agree here. If you want to get things done, you need to make do with what you perceive as reality and act as if that is indeed reality, even if it is not certain. Otherwise you would never be able to do anything or do proper science. 100% certainty is not required for science, as you said, and that is good, because otherwise we could never discover anything. Subjective reality is just something you need to keep in the back of your mind when dealing with other people.
And yeah, debating in English is a hard thing (I sometimes spend hours writing a post). But I do learn a lot of new words and ideas every time, so it is good for me.
I am okay with stopping our discussion here. I made my points and I am happy about them, and I think you made your point as well. It is not like we are going to convince each other on this.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.
So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?
Haha, no.
What I meant is that because polytheism has much fewer people who believe in it, it is logical that it is much less talked about. Especially in the West, where christianity is pretty much the only religion. I was saying nothing about their religion being false.
Smacks wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous...
I'm glad that you agree that flying pigs are ridiculous, but why? Is it because there is no evidence for such a creature? That is a not a strawman. A strawman is misrepresentation. Flying pigs, and the popular "flying spaghetti monster" are not misrepresentations, they are wholly accurate representations of the kind of fantastic claims you are trying to make, based on nothing but hearsay. The flying spaghetti monster also "cannot be disproved", does that make him real? The flying spaghetti also has many miracles attributed to him, is that "evidence" that he exists? There is also a Pastafarian creation story,do you think it really happened?
If you aren't able to see how your own imaginary thing is exactly the same, and just as ridiculous, as other people's imaginary thing, then you wouldn't be the first. Most religious people are too close to their religion to be able to be objective about it.
And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it. Pastafarianism is not a religion because it has no believers. It is a parody of religion, not religion. And like most parodies, it hugely simplifies and misrepresents its source material in order to ridicule it.
Do you happen to have a link to the evidence that you mean? Not that I wish to dispute it, I would just like to read it because it's interesting to me.
I wish I did.. There was one program that I do remember being on the Military Channel (US Cable channel), and possibly another History special (not Ancient Aliens) That might be a decent starting point.
One point that I do remember, which is why I remember the first one, was that they took "military experts" and talked about the early Jewish tribes as not being a "lost" civilization wandering the desert, but as a military force. A piece of "evidence" that they call on for the "parting of the red sea" as exodus accounts, is that there have been many, many chariot wheels and parts found in the water pretty much right next to what used to be extremely shallow/marshy spots. The theory that the "military experts" were running with, was that an experience military commander would have known about these shallows, and used them to escape during a period of low/lower tides. Then, somehow the chariots either don't know about them, or the soft ground gets them mired, and the "escape" is good.
I think that there are many problems with even that theory, plus, as you mention, there's not much archaeological evidence of a "vast" migrating people (even if it was only 50-100,000 people that would quite large a group, and should leave some evidence somewhere). If one views Exodus as a "historical baseline" ie, the events happened, but perhaps not as literally as written, then I think one could make a somewhat reasonable assumption that the reason for a lack of archaeological evidence could be found in the actions and roots of the ten commandments. By this I mean the condemning of people worshiping idols, on top of the whole being nomadic bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.
I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.
CptJake wrote: And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.
Remind me the purpose of any religion, then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.
Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faithlol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Haha, no.
What I meant is that because polytheism has much fewer people who believe in it, it is logical that it is much less talked about. Especially in the West, where christianity is pretty much the only religion. I was saying nothing about their religion being false.
Well, I feel it deserves to be discussed much more. Because unless there is a very real reason to discard it that does not discard atheism or monotheism, it is just as valid an option. I am bringing this up because, once again, polytheism, like Marvel stories and all that, largely lacks the varnish of respectability that monotheism enjoy, so I hope that by making people think about it, I can get them to make reasoning that they would never had with monotheism, and them show them how it woulo equally apply to monotheism...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I wish I did.. There was one program that I do remember being on the Military Channel (US Cable channel), and possibly another History special (not Ancient Aliens) That might be a decent starting point.
One point that I do remember, which is why I remember the first one, was that they took "military experts" and talked about the early Jewish tribes as not being a "lost" civilization wandering the desert, but as a military force. A piece of "evidence" that they call on for the "parting of the red sea" as exodus accounts, is that there have been many, many chariot wheels and parts found in the water pretty much right next to what used to be extremely shallow/marshy spots. The theory that the "military experts" were running with, was that an experience military commander would have known about these shallows, and used them to escape during a period of low/lower tides. Then, somehow the chariots either don't know about them, or the soft ground gets them mired, and the "escape" is good.
That actually sounds really familiar. Was there a part about the word Hebrew possibly coming from the Habiru (who were sort of nomadic, auxiliaries/mercenaries)? And another part which talked about the pillar of fire, possibly being a burning standard used by the marching column as reference point? I think there was also a part about Moses moving the pillar to the back of the column to deceive the perusing Egyptians. I don't remember the name of the program, but it was really fascinating.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think one could make a somewhat reasonable assumption that the reason for a lack of archaeological evidence could be found in the actions and roots of the ten commandments. By this I mean the condemning of people worshiping idols, on top of the whole being nomadic bit.
Historically, that might still be awkward, because the idea of Yahweh as the one god doesn't appear until much later. The 10 commandments are also reminiscent of the Babylonian code of Hammurabi, where the law is handed down to Hammurabi by god, and was also written on stone tablets. There are some huge differences, but when you also factor in the flood story of Gilgamesh (which basically is an earlier version of the Noah story), then it starts to paint a picture of Babylonian culture being assimilated by the Israelites during the Babylonian captivity ~600-500bc, long after exodus. I expect that the old testament started to be written and compiled around this time, probably as a response to the political climate. There are a lot of motifs in the OT to do with captivity, and land rights etc...
Iron_Captain wrote: And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.
I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.
I also went to a Church of England school, where we did the prayers and songs every morning, and studied stories from the Bible. It wasn't until I was about 16-18 that I made a conscious decision to question if god really was there. That in itself was difficult, since you're going against a whole lifetime of hearing how god will punish you, for such transgressions. But I think once I stepped out, everything started to make sense. I understood why god allows children to die of starvation, and gives them cancer, and why he always seems to be "moving in mysterious ways" instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing. I realised my whole life I had been making excuses for god "he doesn't like being tested", "he doesn't answer my prayers because I wasn't devout enough", "he didn't know about dinosaurs or heliocentrism because we just weren't interpriting the Bible properly".
The sad thing is, I will never fully be able to let go of god emotionally. I (among many others) were essentially brainwashed and conditioned every single day for years on end. I still ask God for a sign sometimes, and wonder if he is there, why he would hide himself so convincingly from me. If anyone deserves a sign it's me. I actually want to believe, I'd like it to be true. But I can't believe in something that doesn't make any sense.
I suppose it's a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. I'd love if one day someone finally proved that those things exist, it would be such a fascinating discovery. But all we ever actually see are hoaxes and grainy photographs. When we go looking for these creatures, they just aren't there, and when we actually crunch the numbers we can show that the local ecosystem would not be able to support such large creatures. So they really just aren't there, and never were. It's disappointing, but you can't ignore the facts.
welshhoppo wrote: Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.
Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faithlol.
So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Na. They should all hug it out. Maybe sing a song. I know: the Safety Dance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Religious people get moments of silence and other things in school but a 7-year old is not allowed to answer a classmate's question honestly without being punished and given the 3rd degree?
See the staff should be given an award. Now the child knows the value of subterfuge and deceit, the building blocks for every good politician.
After all I'm sure the parents won some bank off Jr's torment. A kid's gotta earn. See it all worked out in the end.
These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy
welshhoppo wrote: The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying religion isn't updated because it doesn't need to be?
I can think of lots of instances when religion got an update. The decision recently to remove limbo from the catholic doctrine, for example. The church knew they were wrong saying dead babies had to burn in hell, just as they knew they were wrong about the geocentric solar system, but they can never come out and say "God was wrong, and now he's changed his mind", because that undermines the whole idea of an all knowing god. So we have to go through all this BS of them "reinterpreting the scripture" and having "revelations" before they eventually arrive at the conclusion that we already knew they were going to arrive at, which is to update the doctrine, and say the old doctrine was a mistake (only it was our mistake, not gods). Of course, all the rest of the time the doctrine is the irrefutable word of god, which sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it.
So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.
If you consider Mormonism to be a sect of Christianity, they've had some major "updates" round about the time of the end of the civil rights movement. There's also their founding in the 1800s, which is pretty recent. As is the foundation of the Assemblies of God denomination of Christianity, I think they were somewhere in the 1930s or so.
Xenomancers wrote: These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy
Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.
The solar-system style model of the atom is taught as a basic stepping stone to more accurate, but harder to comprehend models. I don't know how it was when you were in school but we learned about electron probability clouds rather than solar-system models of atoms from about 16, following the first qualification that young people generally sit (GCSE's).
And the reason we still teach that model is that it can be used to explain one hell of a lot about atomic interaction. If there was a fundamental flaw in the model (such as it did not explain why chemical reactions happen the way they do) then I doubt it would still be used.
Xenomancers wrote: These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy
Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?
It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.
I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.
It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.
Xenomancers wrote: These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy
Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?
It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.
I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.
It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.
I think the golden rule was the key part I was referencing
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.
Frazzled wrote: I'm thinking someone forgot about the Mormons and the Pastafarians.
I wouldn't really call Mormons a upgrade, I have very few good things to say about their founder.
My post was about the fact that religion can be extremely inflexible. It doesn't adapt to the times and it can cause massive problems, especially in America. Which, considering it was founded on the basis of there being no major religion is one of the most extremist countries when it comes to Christian faith. You had a civil war over it.
In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.
Bohr model is taught even up to degree level as it is very good at explaining and calculating the energy levels of electrons in Hydrogen-like atoms. For more complex atoms it breaks down.
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.
Not really used as a source material, though is still referenced. Kind of like saying "well, we still use the wheel so it hasn't changed!" while then comparing an aircraft tyre made with specialist weave and materials against a slightly rounded log
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.
Not really used as a source material, though is still referenced. Kind of like saying "well, we still use the wheel so it hasn't changed!" while then comparing an aircraft tyre made with specialist weave and materials against a slightly rounded log
It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.
And really, all science textbooks are just compilations of the findings of countless research papers. There is no "science Bible"
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.
If we are trying to score 'age points' a lot of mathematics are much older than that.
The CofE mostly uses the New English Bible today. The significance of the King James version is that it was the first Bible published in English rather than Latin, thus opening access to anyone who could read.
The RC church changed from Latin to modern languages in the 1970s.
Iron_Captain wrote: And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.
I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.
I also went to a Church of England school, where we did the prayers and songs every morning, and studied stories from the Bible. It wasn't until I was about 16-18 that I made a conscious decision to question if god really was there. That in itself was difficult, since you're going against a whole lifetime of hearing how god will punish you, for such transgressions. But I think once I stepped out, everything started to make sense. I understood why god allows children to die of starvation, and gives them cancer, and why he always seems to be "moving in mysterious ways" instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing. I realised my whole life I had been making excuses for god "he doesn't like being tested", "he doesn't answer my prayers because I wasn't devout enough", "he didn't know about dinosaurs or heliocentrism because we just weren't interpriting the Bible properly".
The sad thing is, I will never fully be able to let go of god emotionally. I (among many others) were essentially brainwashed and conditioned every single day for years on end. I still ask God for a sign sometimes, and wonder if he is there, why he would hide himself so convincingly from me. If anyone deserves a sign it's me. I actually want to believe, I'd like it to be true. But I can't believe in something that doesn't make any sense.
I suppose it's a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. I'd love if one day someone finally proved that those things exist, it would be such a fascinating discovery. But all we ever actually see are hoaxes and grainy photographs. When we go looking for these creatures, they just aren't there, and when we actually crunch the numbers we can show that the local ecosystem would not be able to support such large creatures. So they really just aren't there, and never were. It's disappointing, but you can't ignore the facts.
Being raised in a religious environment doesn't mean you will understand religion. I mean, theologists and priests study their entire life, and even they admit to not understanding everything. Most priests I know even say that religion can't be understood with the mind at all, you need to ''feel'' it. Religion is emotional, not rational. I don't think you should try to approach it with ration. I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life? Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.
I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And really, all science textbooks are just compilations of the findings of countless research papers. There is no "science Bible"
A Bible is also just a compilation of different stories, compiled by a bunch of theologists in the 4th century and regularly changed after that. There is also not really such thing as "the" Bible. There are many different kinds of Bibles, and their content can be very different as well.
God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.
That is complete bs.
Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.
It was actually asked which science book has been used the C17 without adaptation. Newton's work is not used as originally printed, hence it has been adapted. Only the curious would actually look up the original book
Iron_Captain wrote: I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life? Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.
I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.
This is a nice post, I think you have presented your idea in a way that is understandable, and not confrontational, and I appreciate that. Exalt from me.
I agree with you that the value in the bible is within the stories, and what they can teach us about how to live a good life. However, they are very old stories, which you seem to agree were written by people with a very limited knowledge of (if nothing else) the solar system. If we can't trust them to teach us about the solar system, then can we really trust them to teach us about morality? Morality has come a long way in 2000 years, there has been a lot of philosophising about ethics, law, human and animal rights, government etc... We don't really need the bible's morality any more. In fact, it seems that the bible is now just sending mixed messages, because its outdated morality can be seen to justify things like stoning and the death penalty (for adultery), stuff which seems vengeful and barbaric by modern standards (amoral).
I can understand that you might feel that there is a power in the universe, and that you can feel closer to that by praying (or meditation). I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But to then say that power is the judeo-christian god, and that for some strange reason one tribe of ancient nomads knew about him, even though they didn't seem to know anything else useful about natural history. Don't you think that's a little far fetched?
So many people go straight to tearing down the Bible. While considered divine-inspired for it's overall messages, it was ultimately written by ancient people. Broken, imperfect people.
Same goes for attacks against the historical organizations. There have been atrocities committed in the name of God, shame on those people. Again though - churches are made of broken and imperfect people.
The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit. Science produces good fruit, knowlege is to be strived for, to better help our fellow man, but it does not necessarily have to be to the exclusion of all religion.
I have seen first hand the selfless compassion of missionaries, the enormous charity wrought by these billion-strong organizations. There is so much good produced by people of faith. There is also comfort provided in philosophy, that we have consciousness for a reason. That your life has purpose, given to you by a living, loving creator. That there will always be a place to go, even when life kicks you in the teeth (which it will), that will take you with open arms, no questions asked.
The ultimate teaching seems to be to love, to forgive, and not to judge others.
Surely there is room for these kinds of people in our world?
kronk wrote: That's my argument, but my wife won't let me help Europe with it's declining birth rate!
You need to direct her to Genesis 16.2:
So Sarai said unto Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; so that I may build a family through her." Abram agreed...
Xenomancers wrote: These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy
Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?
It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.
I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.
It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.
I think the golden rule was the key part I was referencing
I do hope you detected my sarcasm - however there is a point in every atheists life that you realize sometimes you are better off avoiding talking about religion with people who are religious. Yes, sometimes you are better off lying to them. I've never ment an atheist that doesn't feel this way. This boy learned early - so really - good for him. It doesn't excuse the teachers actions.
welshhoppo wrote: Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.
Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faithlol.
So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Major religions get updated every time there is a new sect or a new consensus. Vatican 2, Mormonism, Reform Judaism, Chabad Judaism, Jews for Jesus, So many new sects or revisions of old dogma.
As for translations, I think the KJv is the oldest and most archaic of mainstream translations. Just look in the bible section of any bookstore. There's the NIV, for example, as well as many updated versions to appeal to modern reading sensibilities. There are more direct translations of the OT from the original Hebrew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: Proof there is a higher power: I just ordered a chili-cheese burrito at Taco Bell and they let me add bacon to it.
/drops mic
And one hour later, you will be whimpering that there is no God.
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.
I'm pretty happy that we don't use his books for Calculus, though. Newton's Method...ugh.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.
It was actually asked which science book has been used the C17 without adaptation. Newton's work is not used as originally printed, hence it has been adapted. Only the curious would actually look up the original book
Euclid's Elements are used today in whatever translation Dover has the rights to.
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today?
Naw, religions change their outlook/practice all the time. I know, for example, catholics underwent a major change called vatican 2 that shook up some old stuff (and upset old people).
There are more recent bible translations than the king james, too. Different sects use different translations of varying ages. The message is usually the same though.
They'll change their tune if they think they are doing it wrong.
This could have severe psychological damage on the kid. Yes, the school should be sued for this. Or at least have the teachers who did such irreparable damage to the kid's psyche fired. Horrible damage, you ask? Kids that age will believe a lot of what teachers tell them. If the teachers showed them it was acceptable (and correct!) to avoid this student, then he or she is a pariah in class, even if the teachers later "change their minds". The damage has already been done. As a Christian, do I feel sad that a 7 year old kid doesn't believe in God? Of course. But he/she shouldn't be treated like an outcast or shunned. And the teachers involved have done just that. I wouldn't be surprised if the student was taken out of school and brought to another one where the reputation hasn't already been tarnished. Can the kid eventually move on? Probably. But it'll likely take a while, especially if he/she doesn't know what was done wrong.
tl;dr-fire the teachers involved, kid might have some serious emotional scarring from this.
zgort wrote: So many people go straight to tearing down the Bible. While considered divine-inspired for it's overall messages, it was ultimately written by ancient people. Broken, imperfect people.
Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass. You do realize that less "imperfect" peoples have written way better books on morality by now?
zgort wrote: Same goes for attacks against the historical organizations. There have been atrocities committed in the name of God, shame on those people. Again though - churches are made of broken and imperfect people.
Okay. But once you got rid of the bible and of the churh, what remains of religion? Some extremely basic morality, that anyone with a shred of empathy will understand without any need for religion (and please stop implying that only religious people do humanitarian stuff) and some mythology that comes from the bible, and therefore is "broken and imperfect"...
zgort wrote: The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit.
Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...
The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit. Science produces good fruit, knowlege is to be strived for, to better help our fellow man, but it does not necessarily have to be to the exclusion of all religion.
Religion (at least, Christianity) has no fruits at all - Adam and Eve ate the only one!
Indeed... Things in the bible that are good: -Good Samaritan parable. -Prodigal Son. -Feeding the hungry masses with only a little bit of food. (seriously, if you don't take it literally, it becomes a story about feeding those who have no food with what you have, even if it's not "enough") -I'd say probably a good 8 or 9 of the 10 commandments are pretty good and universal. (obviously, I take issue with the whole "thou shalt not worship any god but this one" thing).
But there are also some bad things: -if a guy rapes a girl, and she gets knocked up, he should marry her. -If a wife cheats, she should be put to death. -If you're a guy, don't be putting your thing into wrong holes. -Sodom and Gomorra was pretty bad -Slavery is pretty bad as well.
All that said, I'd bet you could find plenty of similar aspects in the Qu'ran (which I've only managed to read parts of, unabridged). You can find similar positives and negatives in the Poetic Edda and the Sagas, or a large number of religious texts out there.
Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass. You do realize that less "imperfect" peoples have written way better books on morality by now?
Yes, I am saying that. If all you take from the Bible is the old testament, you've missed the mark. The purpose of the old testament was to convince practicing Jews that Jesus is the messiah by him fulfilling the various prophesies. The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright. That is what Christians hold dear, not the old testament.
Okay. But once you got rid of the bible and of the churh, what remains of religion? Some extremely basic morality, that anyone with a shred of empathy will understand without any need for religion (and please stop implying that only religious people do humanitarian stuff) and some mythology that comes from the bible, and therefore is "broken and imperfect"...
I am saying take the good with the bad. Nobody dogs science because of Joseph Mendell, scientists got together to make codes to fix it. When you have many millions of scientists, some are bound to be bad. Neither should religion be docked for crimes people commit against its tenants forever, provided they fix it.
You are correct, non religious people do humanitarian work, I would not imply otherwise. You also cannot deny that religious institutions together feed, clothe, and provide more medical care than entire nations, even continents, could ever hope to.
Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...
There are bad fruits. But there are bad fruits from EVERYTHING. Try to look at this objectively, instead of with an anti-religion lense.
CptJake wrote: Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...
As others refuse to consider the good...
Pot, meet Kettle.
I think you are using that wrong. Refusing to consider the bad fruits has very different implications to refusing to consider the good. It would not be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For example: refusing to tell someone about the poison in a bottle labelled water, is not the same as refusing to tell someone about the water in a bottle labelled poison.
In any case, I don't think anyone was refusing to consider the good people. It's true that there are lots of good people who follow the bible. Given the shear amount of murder, rape, genocide, more rape, incest, child murder, and torture that is perpetuated by the protagonists of the book, it is nothing short of "miraculous" that so many followers are so good. Though I suspect most "Christians" haven't read the bible and just assume the "do unto others" bit and "the good Samaritan", are representative.
However, religion trying to take credit for people being good is disagreeable to me. I propose that those people are good in spite of religion, not because of it. Religeous people are equally likely to be found spreading misinformation about evolution and birth control, referring to women as "unclean", waving "god hates fags" billboard, and condoning murder in the name of [whoever].
As Steven Weinberg so eloquently put it: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
CptJake wrote: Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...
As others refuse to consider the good...
In any case, I don't think anyone was refusing to consider the good people.
Clearly your interpretation of some of the posts in this thread is a lot different from mine. The full post I replied to for example includes this gem:
Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass.
And there is the whole 'anyone who believes in a god is either stupid or mentally deranged' thing going on in the thread too. None of that is indicative of considering the good...
But there are also some bad things: -if a guy rapes a girl, and she gets knocked up, he should marry her. -If a wife cheats, she should be put to death. -If you're a guy, don't be putting your thing into wrong holes. -Sodom and Gomorra was pretty bad -Slavery is pretty bad as well.
A lot of this is old testament. The Bible also has Jesus preventing an adulteror from being stoned by saying (paraphrase) whoever has no sin may cast the first stone. Teaching to turn the other cheek when you are struck. And to humble yourself to service, even washing anothers feet.
Paint the whole picture, there is good in there too.
Part of why the teachings of Jesus were so radical are they they went against the traditional "eye for eye" and "vengeful God" in the old testament.
However, religion trying to take credit for people being good is disagreeable to me.
I would NEVER claim that people are good because of religion. Empathy is universally human. I was trying to stick up for something that is important to me by presenting the other side of the case.
Also - I find it appalling when people wrap God around their own twisted agenda. It happens too often.
If what you are doing doesn't meet the criteria of love, forgive, and do not judge, you have no place putting God's name on it.
zgort wrote: The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.
That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".
zgort wrote: The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.
That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".
I do remember reading that if you are a "uber true Christian" then the old testament does not apply and you should only follow the new one. I'll try and find the link.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'd say probably a good 8 or 9 of the 10 commandments are pretty good and universal.
Not really, half of them are gak insane.
1. Have no other gods.
....A useless and meaningless commandment.
2. No idols.
....Also a pointless commandment and one which is ignored by everyone that is not an extremist nutcase.
3. Do not blaspheme.
....Blasphemy is not a sin, but the prohibition of blasphemy is wicked and evil. This isn't a good commandment - it is absolutely vile.
4. Remember the Sabbath.
....This one has got to be a joke right?
5. Honour your parents.
....What if your parents are evil people who abuse you? People deserve respect for their actions. Diktats like this are so wrong.
The no adultery one is pretty weak when you take into account the no lying one. So long as you aren't cheating or lying to your loved ones it should be no one else's concern who you're getting down with. The remaining four are pretty good, but seriously if you need a religion to tell you that killing people is bad then you've got some big issues.
And so the legal systems for most western countries don't use the ten commandments as inspiration for their laws.
zgort wrote: The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.
That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".
I do remember reading that if you are a "uber true Christian" then the old testament does not apply and you should only follow the new one. I'll try and find the link.
I believe it comes from the Last Supper, where by Jesus telling the disciples to drink of his blood he was violating the Jewish laws regarding Kosher food and hence freeing them of some of the rules from the Old Testament.
Or at least I remember hearing something about that from somewhere.
Smacks wrote: A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".
I am not sure which passage you speak of - would you mind referencing the passage? I have never heard of Jesus saying to kill anyone. I think the text you reference is here, if you care to read it, but I am not sure. You will see, if you read the source, the context is that Jesus is actually rebuking following law to the letter. He is calling the Pharisees hypocrites, not actually criticizing them for not killing children.
It is easy to google hateful things about religion/Christianity, it is much more difficult to take the time to understand it.
But this is not a Bible class. My original post on this thread was essentially "live and let live," but for some reason people are not content with that - they feel the urge to trash religious teachings. If it is what makes you happy, no one can stop you. I do want to impart that, just like most things in life, religion is much more nuanced than it appears at first glance. It's offerings deserve more than a passing dismissal, if for no other reason than it's importance to our culture.
Of course anything in English is a bastardized version of the documents that were used to make up the bible. What people read today is the result of heavy pruning and the equivalent of retconning what they didn't like. The Council of Nicaea and later of Trent made serious revisions to the Bible and Christianity as we know it today. I studied Latin and Greek (but not Aramaic) in college and read some of the older documents and translations. What you hear in church is not what was actually written all those years ago. I especially hate how the apostle Paul's writings about temple prostitutes were changed into validation of hate against homosexuals and the bit about sodom and gamora being destroyed because of homosexuality when the references from the source material were about congress with angels.
When you said congress with angels all I can think about is a bunch of angels sitting around shouting at each other about politics.
Regardless of my views, I do find language interesting, but we have to remember that retcons become the new canon, and this applies to GW just as much as it does religion. It doesn't matter what any holy text originally said, all that matters is how people are interpreting it now. I mean, holy crap, that is pretty much the basis for the entire Imperium of Man, not to mention current splinter groups of Islam.
To quote Batman, "It's not who I am, but what I do that defines me."
Vitali Advenil wrote: When you said congress with angels all I can think about is a bunch of angels sitting around shouting at each other about politics.
Regardless of my views, I do find language interesting, but we have to remember that retcons become the new canon, and this applies to GW just as much as it does religion. It doesn't matter what any holy text originally said, all that matters is how people are interpreting it now. I mean, holy crap, that is pretty much the basis for the entire Imperium of Man, not to mention current splinter groups of Islam.
To quote Batman, "It's not who I am, but what I do that defines me."
Heh heh heh. I said congress.
It's all very interesting to take a long view approach in examining religion and how each of them have changed over time. My personal fav is Shinto; really cool stuff there.
I'm actually pretty down with Taoist philosophy. It's a "go with the flow while staying firm," balance sorta deal. It's not as extreme as Buddhism (eschewing material possessions completely) and it's generally pretty chill.
zgort wrote: You will see, if you read the source, the context is that Jesus is actually rebuking following law to the letter. He is calling the Pharisees hypocrites, not actually criticizing them for not killing children.
I know the passage, it is also in Mark (incidentally, Mark is my favourite). I read it differently. Jesus' disciples are breaking gods law, by not washing their hands before eating (probably one of the few laws worth keeping). When the pharisees ask him why, he goes off on a big rant about them being hypocrites, but then cites an example where the law clearly contradicts itself (where someone can only honour their father and mother by taking from god). In this case the pharisees would not condemn the man (necessity is a good defence even now). Yet Jesus somehow infers that they are playing this wrong.
But let it not be said that Smacks is uncompromising in discussions. I will accept your point that the New Testament is much less violent and horrible than the Old Testament. And there is a case to be made that Christians don't need to follow the laws in Leviticus. Although given how many contradictory statements are made in the bible, there is a case for just about anything.
However, I think the New Testament still needs to be read in the context of the Old Testament. Jesus quotes from it a lot, and is essentially claiming to be Yahweh, who did all those terrible things. And he doesn't seem to change his mind about stealing, and homosexuality, so I'm really not sure how much Christians can legitimately distance themselves from OT morality.
God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.
That is complete bs.
Oh please, do me a favour and stop just saying useless gak like that. If you think it is bs, explain why it is so. Don't just say things in a discussion without an argument.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.
The Bible isn't the word of God. The Bible was not written by God. The Bible is the word of God as interpreted by thousands of different writers over a thousand years. Of course it is going to have inaccuracies, even if the original version was flawless.
zgort wrote: The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit.
Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...
As others refuse to consider the good...
Pot, meet Kettle.
Sure there are parts of the bible that teach good lessons...why credit it to the bible though? You could learn a much better morality through reading Dr. Suez - to my knowledge suez doesn't condone slavery,rape, or murder. Theres plenty of moral codes to follow that predate the new testament too...Socrates anyone?
Are you arguing that modern Christians should hold slaves, condemn homosexuals, have concubines and marry their dead brothers' wives?
That doesn't sound like the kind of thing I would argue. To recap:
1. Zgort asserted that people are too quick to tear down the bible, and that this was somehow bad (or at least misses the point).
2. Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl replied: Are you implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by many as the ultimate moral reference?
3. The old testament being the ultimate moral reference is untenable.
4. There was discussion in which I felt Zgort (very wisely) tried to disconnect the old testament from the new.
5. My point is that this is not possible. Even if you allow yourself to ignore Leviticus. You are still worshipping the same god that demanded babies heads be dashed against rocks. So the bible is certainly worth tearing down as a moral reference point.
Regarding your post, many Christians currently do condemn homosexuals. Not so long ago they also kept slaves (and cited the bible as justification). That stuff isn't even exclusive to the Old Testament, it found its way into the NT as well. I think this is just a case in point of what a poor moral reference it really is.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life? Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.
I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.
This is a nice post, I think you have presented your idea in a way that is understandable, and not confrontational, and I appreciate that. Exalt from me.
I agree with you that the value in the bible is within the stories, and what they can teach us about how to live a good life. However, they are very old stories, which you seem to agree were written by people with a very limited knowledge of (if nothing else) the solar system. If we can't trust them to teach us about the solar system, then can we really trust them to teach us about morality? Morality has come a long way in 2000 years, there has been a lot of philosophising about ethics, law, human and animal rights, government etc... We don't really need the bible's morality any more. In fact, it seems that the bible is now just sending mixed messages, because its outdated morality can be seen to justify things like stoning and the death penalty (for adultery), stuff which seems vengeful and barbaric by modern standards (amoral).
I can understand that you might feel that there is a power in the universe, and that you can feel closer to that by praying (or meditation). I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But to then say that power is the judeo-christian god, and that for some strange reason one tribe of ancient nomads knew about him, even though they didn't seem to know anything else useful about natural history. Don't you think that's a little far fetched?
I agree with you here. The Bible is not a science book, was never intended as such and should not be used as such. I think that people who take all the stories literally are extremist nutjobs. And morality has come a long way (just look at the laws of Mozes). However, the Bible did form an important basis to the modern Western culture and morality. Many of the things we now take for granted can be traced back to the Bible. Many lessons from the Bible, especially the more important New Testament, are also still completely relevant and have been repeated by many philosophers since. The Bible is not the only source of morality, but that does not take away it can still teach many valueable and beautiful lessons. Sure, you could learn those lessons elsewhere, but does that really diminish the value of the Bible? I have read quite a lot of philosophers on ethics and religious texts. But nothing ever quite 'struck' me like the Bible did, even though I come from a family that is either atheist or non-practising chrisitian.
I think a problem many Churches and individual christians struggle with is the decision which parts of the Bible are relevant, and which are outdated, and how those outdated passages can be interpreted in modern times so that we can still learn from them. And of course the problem with interpretation is that different people see different things. I think this is something everyone needs to decide for himself. In the end my opinion is that the only thing that really matters is the Great Commandment (Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself), which, funnily enough can be found not just in christianity but in every religion (with 'God' obviously replaced by the deity(s) of that religion).
And as for your last point. No, there is no way of knowing this "power" is God. Maybe all the other gods exist too. Maybe it is just one single god with many names and aspects. Maybe it is a single god who made himself known to all people, but different peoples interpreted the same thing radically through their different cultures, thus creating different religions. I don't really care either way. I believe what I do and that feels right for me. If other people have something else that feels right for them, that is great. I hate it when people try to force their way on others.
Dads gotta do what a Dad's gotta do.
.
)
