Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because it's demonstrably a load of old nonsense, and frequently peddles disinformation about what the theory of evolution actually predict (hint, it's not a Crocoduck), and tries to dissuade people from actual science - that'd be science which has got us where we are today?

Let's try and make posts that add to the discussion, please.(Mod Kilkrazy)

I do feel that the is a place for religious education in public schools, as long as it is delivered in an unbiased way.

So you could look at Christianity for x weeks, covering its core principles, history, differences between denominations, major events in a typical christians life (baptism etc.)

Then you do X weeks of Judaism, covering the same topics but for Judaism.
Then X weeks of Islam, X weeks of Buddhism, X weeks of Hinduism, X weeks of Sikhism, etc.

However it should always be grounded in the facts. When you discuss the history, you are not just recounting the creation stories in the religious texts but the actual physical history of the religion itself, its origins, spread, evolution and so on.

What there is no place for is religious beliefs about the physical universe being taught as facts, especially when these beliefs run counter to scientific consensus.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I do feel that the is a place for religious education in public schools, as long as it is delivered in an unbiased way.

So you could look at Christianity for x weeks, covering its core principles, history, differences between denominations, major events in a typical christians life (baptism etc.)

Then you do X weeks of Judaism, covering the same topics but for Judaism.
Then X weeks of Islam, X weeks of Buddhism, X weeks of Hinduism, X weeks of Sikhism, etc.

However it should always be grounded in the facts. When you discuss the history, you are not just recounting the creation stories in the religious texts but the actual physical history of the religion itself, its origins, spread, evolution and so on.

What there is no place for is religious beliefs about the physical universe being taught as facts, especially when these beliefs run counter to scientific consensus.

In Poland, we have two different words describing this very distinction:
1. Religia - the actual system of beliefs, lessons of Religia teach you how to pray, how to properly attend to mass etc...
2. Religioznawstwo - this is the word to describe a science that deals with history of humanity belief systems, from early fertility and animalistic cults to modern monotheistic religions and parareligious systems like Buddhism.

And while every "well, all round educated" person should have basic knowledge about Religioznawstwo, because it is fundamental to understanding modern society and politics, knowledge about any and all Religia should be a matter of personal choice to believe any particular god from those "available" to humanity.

One misconception in this thread, that I would like to name: creationism is this "6000 year old earth" concept. Believing in universe obeying physical laws but created by God is called Deism.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I do feel that the is a place for religious education in public schools, as long as it is delivered in an unbiased way.

So you could look at Christianity for x weeks, covering its core principles, history, differences between denominations, major events in a typical christians life (baptism etc.)

Then you do X weeks of Judaism, covering the same topics but for Judaism.
Then X weeks of Islam, X weeks of Buddhism, X weeks of Hinduism, X weeks of Sikhism, etc.

However it should always be grounded in the facts. When you discuss the history, you are not just recounting the creation stories in the religious texts but the actual physical history of the religion itself, its origins, spread, evolution and so on.

What there is no place for is religious beliefs about the physical universe being taught as facts, especially when these beliefs run counter to scientific consensus.

Sadly, those determined to have Creationism taught as a science aren't open to the same being extended to other religion's creation myths (my favourite is ancient Egypt, where a god had one off the wrist, and spaffed two kids into the desert)

Whats wrong with it? Everything.

This is like asking whats wrong with flat earthism or the 'healing' power of crystals.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Sadly, those determined to have Creationism taught as a science aren't open to the same being extended to other religion's creation myths (my favourite is ancient Egypt, where a god had one off the wrist, and spaffed two kids into the desert)

There are some bat gak mental creation myths, they should definitely be taught in RE.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I do feel that the is a place for religious education in public schools, as long as it is delivered in an unbiased way.

So you could look at Christianity for x weeks, covering its core principles, history, differences between denominations, major events in a typical christians life (baptism etc.)

Then you do X weeks of Judaism, covering the same topics but for Judaism.
Then X weeks of Islam, X weeks of Buddhism, X weeks of Hinduism, X weeks of Sikhism, etc.

However it should always be grounded in the facts. When you discuss the history, you are not just recounting the creation stories in the religious texts but the actual physical history of the religion itself, its origins, spread, evolution and so on.

What there is no place for is religious beliefs about the physical universe being taught as facts, especially when these beliefs run counter to scientific consensus.

There is a GCSE called Philosophy of Religion which has something like that curriculum.

If you want to be taught creationism go to a religious school that doesn't receive tax funding. They want to use it taught secondary to evolution as biblical fact.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/bill-nye-children-taught-creationism-will-not-be-able-to-participate-in-the-future/


Why don't we learn how the Earth came about for <Insert another religion>. At some point you need to teach based of fact and not fiction.

Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

I think the real question is how do we teach kids about the Old Gods without summoning them from the nether plain?

The real issue would be making sure everyone reads the section on Kandarian incantations silently.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
But on a personal basis it should be nurtured and people should be encouraged to believe whatever they want if it makes them feel better.

False beliefs should not be encouraged. Obviously we shouldn't persecute religious people or attempt to force them to stop believing, but we shouldn't pretend that there is anything true or worth nurturing about belief in a god.

You know, I used to be quite a hard atheist like you. But when you start listening to people like Dawkins and his followers, you realise just how preachy and mirror sounding they are to the hard-core religious types. Almost like it's turned into their own religion. I personally turned agnostic, because while I don't necessarily believe in the idea of a creator God, I don't dismiss the idea entirely. Simply because we don't have the ability to say one way or the other. But in terms of schools, let them teach RE classes, just not as hard fact. That's up to the child to decide if they want to follow a religion and in what way.

Summed up my feelings entirely.

Hardcore atheists are just as bad as firebrand preachers.

I am not a fanatic i hold the truth! (holding up the Bilble/Darwin's On the Origin of Species/etcetera)

 LordofHats wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

I think the real question is how do we teach kids about the Old Gods without summoning them from the nether plain?

Simple, just never say "Y'golonac".

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You know, I used to be quite a hard atheist like you. But when you start listening to people like Dawkins and his followers, you realise just how preachy and mirror sounding they are to the hard-core religious types. Almost like it's turned into their own religion. I personally turned agnostic, because while I don't necessarily believe in the idea of a creator God, I don't dismiss the idea entirely. Simply because we don't have the ability to say one way or the other. But in terms of schools, let them teach RE classes, just not as hard fact. That's up to the child to decide if they want to follow a religion and in what way.

Summed up my feelings entirely.

Hardcore atheists are just as bad as firebrand preachers.

I strongly disagree, and I think that kind of pandering by reasonable people just encourages unreasonable people that their ridiculous ideas have some validity.

Let me put it this way: it's difficult to "know" anything with 100% certainty. There are a lot of things that I really only "know" because I have been told them on "good authority". For example: I've never been to Timbuktu, so how can I be sure it is a real place? Some people claim that they have seen it, and they've got photos, but then people make similar claims about UFOs. Can I really trust what other people say? Even if I had seen it with my own eyes, can I even trust my own eyes? (they've played tricks on me before). There is always a little bit of room for doubt in all things, and if we entertain that doubt, then we would all be forced to be "agnostic" about almost everything. Being able to say whether something is true or false, will always require a certain degree of "faith".

However, not all faith is equal. Two people arguing about Timbuktu: one claiming he had faith it was real, and the other claiming he had faith it was not, would superficially sound the same, but they are not the same. So for a third person to turn up and say "we don't have the ability to say one way or the other", well that's just BS, because we do have the ability to say, and we don't need to send someone there to falsify it, we can make a decision right now. In this reality, Timbuktu is a real place.

With regards to the existence of the biblical god, we also do have the ability to say whether it is true or not. We might not strictly be able to send someone to check, but we do still have the ability to say one way or the other, because we can use reason. All the evidence, and everything we know is consistent with the story being false. You can look at genetics, population dispersal patterns, dinosaurs, the composition of stars, archaeology, contemporary accounts, or just try to answer some common sense questions, like: why the hell a supreme being, has such a big hangup about foreskins?

The only evidence for the story being true, is a really old book, which we know has undergone thousands of years of edits and interpolation, and appears to have never been a first hand account in the first place, and also appears to contain plagiarised ideas from other myths. Basically, no evidence at all. Not to mention the fact that people make up these kind of stories all the time. I can literally find you a hundred examples of people claiming to be the messiah.

In conclusion, no, Richard Dawkins is nothing like a fireband preacher. He's a very intelligent man, who has made valuable contributions to science, and with regards to the god issue, has arrived at the only intelligent conclusion. He may be forthright, but then he also has an overwhelming amount of evidence and good reasoning to back up what he says. The probability of him being wrong about this is, for all intents and purposes, zero. If you can't see that already, then you probably just need to look a bit harder, because it's there.

 Verviedi wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

I think the real question is how do we teach kids about the Old Gods without summoning them from the nether plain?

Simple, just never say "Y'golonac".

Dude!



Why did you say it?!!?!?!?!!?!?

 Verviedi wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

I think the real question is how do we teach kids about the Old Gods without summoning them from the nether plain?

Simple, just never say "Y'golonac".

Whelp, you just doomed us all....way to go. of course watching the elder thing on trumps head is scary enough.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since there are so many religions, each would only get about 15 minutes of time.

Satanism and Paganism would get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

I think the real question is how do we teach kids about the Old Gods without summoning them from the nether plain?

Simple, just never say "Y'golonac".

Dude!

[MEMETIC HAZARD EXPUNGED]

Why did you say it?!!?!?!?!!?!?

Y-vulgtlagln Y'golonac. Y'golonac ah r'luh c-gnaiih. H'hupadgh Shugg, H'fm'latgh hlirgh orr'e. H'Sll'ha. Uln Y'golonac Shugg h'ah.

Sorry, it just sort of slipped out.

Am I the only one disappointed that nobody was foolish enough to try defending creationism here?

Depends on how much you wanted to get into a horrific internet argument that nobody will enjoy. Why not be glad that apparently creatonism is getting rarer?

 Verviedi wrote:
Depends on how much you wanted to get into a horrific internet argument that nobody will enjoy.

Hey, I enjoy horrific internet arguments. Peregrines are people too!

If that's the case, why not get your citations out and have a meta-argument about the value of horrific internet arguments?

 Peregrine wrote:
Am I the only one disappointed that nobody was foolish enough to try defending creationism here?

ok, Ill bite, but just for you though. gimme a bit to look up creationism or I will just say that the movie "prometheus" has a good creationist theory we should make mandatory in all schools, the intelligent design of aliens so smart and advanced that to us mud-dwelling hairless apes, they are gods.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Am I the only one disappointed that nobody was foolish enough to try defending creationism here?

ok, Ill bite, but just for you though. gimme a bit to look up creationism or I will just say that the movie "prometheus" has a good creationist theory we should make mandatory in all schools, the intelligent design of aliens so smart and advanced that to us mud-dwelling hairless apes, they are gods.

Can we do Poke-creationism, then? It's a well known fact that the almighty Arceus created the universe, clearly He intended for Pokemon to evolve!

So... Since we have gone full circle being derogatory about people's beliefs and now have descended into babbling and picking fights.

Lock?

Yep, we seem done here