Conquer Club

Continuation of Christianity debate.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby unriggable on Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:15 pm

Well luns the thing is that it's hard to put any religion under one ideal. The only thing is that not enough muslims live in America to stop the media from portraying it that way.
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Re: Specifically for Guiscard

Postby Stopper on Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:54 pm

luns101 wrote:
Guiscard wrote:Some atheists seek to argue against religion for various reasons, but that is no different to arguing against slavery, or genocide or whatever you fancy really. It isn't because atheism tells you to argue, it is just that you see it as wrong and may want to stop it.


Do you have any idea how offensive that last assertion is...to equate the arguing against religion (which I think you really meant as Christianity) as arguing against slavery & genocide?!!


You know, I was trying to ignore this thread, but luns, you seem to take offence so readily when it's against your own beliefs, but you've got form in offending others, without explaining yourself. I mean, you posted some pictures up in this thread to "prove" your assertion that Britain was about to "fall" to Islamism, and possibly take America with it. But when people quite quickly responded to you, and somewhat derisively, you just ignored it all, without addressing anyone.

Now that you seem more talkative these days, do you feel like coming back to that?
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby CrazyAnglican on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:20 pm

Guiscard wrote:OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!



Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm

I understand the U.S. is not the world. There have been some ABC News peices done on the explosion of Christianity in Africa. The third biggest single church in the world is in Nigeria now and brings in 50,000 members a month, according to that news source.

Also the Anglican CHurch is growing in Southern and Eastern Asia. Korean Baptist churches are not that uncommon a sight around my hometown either. I just don't see atheists as the silent majority.
Last edited by CrazyAnglican on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Corporal CrazyAnglican
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:16 pm
Location: Georgia

Postby Anarchy Ninja on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:29 pm

remember that america isnt the entire world :wink:

woops didnt read the bottom part :oops:
Last edited by Anarchy Ninja on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Anarchy Ninja
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:12 am
Location: Back

Postby unriggable on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:29 pm

CrazyAnglican wrote:
Guiscard wrote:OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!



Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm
[/quote]

Yeah I was a bit confused myself when I heard 'billions of atheists'
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby CrazyAnglican on Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:00 pm

Anarchy Ninja wrote: woops didnt read the bottom part :oops:


That's because it wasn't there. My mistake, I was revising as you were typing :oops:
User avatar
Corporal CrazyAnglican
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:16 pm
Location: Georgia

Postby Stopper on Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:37 am

CrazyAnglican wrote:
Guiscard wrote:OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!



Okay I'd like to chime in here. Where are all of these billions of silent atheists? The University of New York did a random sampling survey (a pretty valid test considering the subject matter) of 50,000 people. Their findings were that 76.5 % of Americans were Christians. It also stated that while 14.5 % considered themselves "Not religious" only 0.4% identified themselves as atheist.


Well, it very much depends on who you define as being a Christian. A great many people will define themselves as Christian simply because they were baptised as Christian.

They then have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity for the rest of their lives, except the odd funeral and wedding. This behaviour seems to be common throughout Europe, East Asia and a great deal of the USA. Personally, I'd say that that kind of behaviour would be tantamount to a kind of atheism, regardless of what the person themselves professed themselves to be.

Because if a person does nothing to demonstrate any kind of belief in Christianity, then what meaning can that belief have? Of course, Islam has some answers to that, but luckily, not many people on this forum are Muslim.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Atheism numbers

Postby drose on Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:25 am

There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

However, there are more Athists than jews, according to one source:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

which surprises most people.

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.

I agree that you should remember that america isnt the entire world, but the real point is that there are bugger all jews and hindus, and that most xians are anglican or catholic and are a direct result of colonial conquest (see Australia, South America, phillipines, east timor etc).

That doesn't detract from the numbers, but when you or your family is sick or starving and men with guns direct you to food, medicine and xinaity, there is a human instinct to go with the flow...


This carries on to other generations. IOW, religion is first and foremost a cultural thing. (duh.)

Luns101 -- where did you find religion? From you school/parents/community? From someone who helped you when you were down?

Perhaps from a careful analysis of the propositions and their implications and likelihoods?

Sorry, but religion doesn't wash for me. Also see the flying spaghetti monster.
User avatar
Private drose
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby Wind Warrior on Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:50 am

Religions are always rising and falling just like nations, but unless Christianity is willing and able to change it will not survive this century.
Everyone wears masks. Music is food for the soul.
User avatar
Cook Wind Warrior
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Atheism numbers

Postby Stopper on Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:26 am

drose wrote:There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.


I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.

I could call myself a "Jedi Knight", but given that I don't even know what a "Jedi" is, I think most people would quickly disregard that definition of myself. There's no reason why you can't do the same with "Christians", "Muslims" and "Jews".

Incidentally, I think much the same thing when it comes to the "socialists", "anarchists" and "patriots" etc etc, that I come across all the time.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Re: Specifically for Backglass

Postby 2dimes on Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:43 am

MeDeFe wrote:And on a side note, the "Forcing religion"-thread was started by a christian afaik.
No need for name calling. :(
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 13085
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Atheism numbers

Postby Aegnor on Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:46 am

Stopper wrote:
drose wrote:There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.


I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.

I could call myself a "Jedi Knight", but given that I don't even know what a "Jedi" is, I think most people would quickly disregard that definition of myself. There's no reason why you can't do the same with "Christians", "Muslims" and "Jews".

Incidentally, I think much the same thing when it comes to the "socialists", "anarchists" and "patriots" etc etc, that I come across all the time.


Well put, now all we need to do is convince the rest of the world and we will achieve world peace.
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left" -Anonymous
User avatar
Corporal Aegnor
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:29 am
Location: Uranus

Postby Anarchy Ninja on Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:08 am

people seem to think relegion is the no.1 cause of war. it is a major contributor for some reason desptie most relegions being based of peace i think the most prominent and well know of these would be the crusade. but i think the main cause of conflict is greed, from the beginning of time greed has caused people to fight and kill each other if we eliminate that we could almost live in utopian societys
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Anarchy Ninja
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:12 am
Location: Back

Re: Atheism numbers

Postby Guiscard on Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:22 am

Stopper wrote:...a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.

I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.


Just what I was about to say really. If you look at collectable and verifiable census information, sure Atheism doesn't rank in the billions worldwide (although the figure differs wildly). The actions and beliefs of those who claim to be religious on a census form often, however, entirely contradict the box they ticked. My mother ticks the 'Church of England' box because she was christened, went to a C of E school and was married in a church. Her family are Christian. She, however, doesn't believe in God whatsoever. People often see religion as a cultural thing. Traditional Roman Catholic families may very well contain generations of Atheists but they'll tick the Catholic box because that's there family culture. Although there is no accurate way of gauging that percentage, there are plenty of cases which indicate this trend. Whilst I was simply googling for figures I quickly came across this article here which describes a conservative scholar who recently 'came out' as an theist. She says that 'I was unaware of the depth of commitment to the idea that religion is the source of values and that conservatism and religion are inseparably linked.' because religious belief is so ingrained into certain societies people will claim to be Christian no matter what their actual beliefs (or lack of). Do you seriously think countries like Saudi who claim 96-98% Muslim do not contain a significant number of atheists? Religion is a cultural label people will give themselves even if they are very much atheistic.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Re: Atheism numbers

Postby Stopper on Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:47 am

Guiscard wrote: People often see religion as a cultural thing. Traditional Roman Catholic families may very well contain generations of Atheists but they'll tick the Catholic box because that's there family culture. Although there is no accurate way of gauging that percentage, there are plenty of cases which indicate this trend. Whilst I was simply googling for figures I quickly came across this article here which describes a conservative scholar who recently 'came out' as an theist. She says that 'I was unaware of the depth of commitment to the idea that religion is the source of values and that conservatism and religion are inseparably linked.' because religious belief is so ingrained into certain societies people will claim to be Christian no matter what their actual beliefs (or lack of). Do you seriously think countries like Saudi who claim 96-98% Muslim do not contain a significant number of atheists? Religion is a cultural label people will give themselves even if they are very much atheistic.


I agree with this - BTW, I'm not saying that labelling societies or communities as "Christian" and "Muslim" isn't a useful thing to do sometimes from a cultural point of view. Regardless of my own personal beliefs, I dare say it's useful sometimes to describe me as "Christian" or even "Catholic", because I'm bound to have many values and customs which I will have picked up from Christianity/Catholicism, even when I'm not aware of it. These will sometimes set me apart from Muslims/Protestants/whoever - although I can't think of any good examples off-hand - so the distinction is not entirely useless.

But my original point was addressing someone who talked about the personal beliefs of people in the world, and that, as I see it, is a separate matter from culture. Actually, we could go on about this 'til the cows come home, because the question of whether someone is genuinely Christian is a more complicated one than it might appear at first sight - and that's even long before you get into denominational differences.

Still, I say the majority of the world can be best described as "atheist". Most pursuits in life are minority pursuits, and religion isn't any different.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Re: Specifically for Backglass

Postby MeDeFe on Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:55 am

luns101 wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:Except that there aren't any classes on atheism, are there? And no, biology, mathematics and other sciences do not count. The fact that they don't mention god is not enough to make them atheistic.



I don't see how you can say that. Biology and other life sciences as currently taught from the evolutionist viewpoint inherently discount the existence of God and instead replace it with "natural causes" or "random chance". If that's not the backbone for atheism, then what is? I can't remember which skeptic it was here on the site, but somebody told me it was "nearly" impossible to be an atheist before Charles Darwin came along.



How is it atheistic to tell some kids about what parts a cell consists of, to let them have a look at the things through a microscope? Or to explain what nuclear power is, about fission and fusion of atoms and Einsteins theory of relativity? How is it atheistic to explain to kids how heredity works, why things like green eyes or blue eyes and stuff like that are often the same within a family? How is it atheistic to teach someone how to solve a quadratic equation? Why you shouldn't be mixing hydrogen and oxygen near an open flame?
God hasn't been "replaced" anywhere. What has happened is that we have found out how things work in a more exact way than before. From a religious perspective one could say that we have found out some rules god has implemented.
If knowing how things work is the backbone of atheism... well, that's bad luck for religion. But god has not been proven. If he had everyone would be a believer and probably everyone would believe the same. But that's not the case, the existence of a god hasn't been proven, nor has it been disproven. So why should children be told that everything they're taught in classes is only possible because god made it so or something like that? I don't know just how you would want god implemented in science classes so that's just guesswork on my part.
You say you took a good look at the different options before you became a christian. Would you not allow others to do the same?
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:20 am

BUMP!

reply someone!
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby heavycola on Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:19 am

Well I have something to add rather than a response to your post.


I went to two church of england-based schools, althouth they weren;t faith schools as such. I had chapel every day and church on a sunday. At each school evolution was as much a part of the curriculum as, say, shakespeare or glaciers. I don't think anyone - not even my christian biology teachers - thought to suggest that was another 'theory'.

And here is why: because the only evdience for creationism is the book of genesis. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has developed as a theory because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for it - geological, palaeontological and biological. It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.
Of my christian friends here in the UK not one has rejected the British National Curriculum version of events because of what the bible says. As MeDeFe put it, 'from a religious perspective one could say that we have found out some rules god has implemented'. That is, i believe, the C of E point of view. Jay used to use the phrase 'evolutionist atheist' as if the two went hand in hand, when of course they don't at all.

So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby vtmarik on Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:42 am

2 wrote:By saying that your God is scientific enough to teach in science class, you are also saying that science is spiritual enough to teach in church.


Penn Jilette wrote:No religion in schools, and no magic tricks in Church.


Want to teach ID in school? Let's also teach the Raelian version of ID that mankind wasn't created by a god but was in fact created by aliens called the Elohiem, and that all of the great religious figures in our time were actually robots.

It's just as valid, just as scientific, and therefore has to be taught in school in accordance with our first freedom. You can't single out one religion's version of the origin story, because that would count as state established religion. This is the country of all-or-none. Either you can wear any religious symbol around your neck, or you can't wear any.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Some responses

Postby luns101 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:48 pm

Hey Everyone,

I'm up here in Sacramento checking in for awhile so I'll take a little while to respond to things. It may be awhile before I can again. Backglass!!!...you were more right than you know about letting the lady just run the show...lol.

MeDeFe wrote:How is it atheistic to tell some kids about what parts a cell consists of, to let them have a look at the things through a microscope?


It's not, but when the interpretation of those observations is that it arose by chance without any consideration of an alternate theory, that it was supernaturally created, that's where the problem lies. The problem comes when it is interpreted exclusively to favor random chance.

MeDeFe wrote:So why should children be told that everything they're taught in classes is only possible because god made it so or something like that? I don't know just how you would want god implemented in science classes so that's just guesswork on my part.


They shouldn't be preached to. My contention is that the theory of supernatural creation is not even considered by a majority of biology & science teachers, and that is wrong. When I was in public school I can remember the teacher specifically telling us, "the only explanation for the existence of the universe is natural causes, not a God." He would say that at least once a week. That is preaching. I got the same speeches later in college (one professor even said that Christians/creationists should be eliminated from the debate).Kids should just be taught the facts and they will interpret it (probably with a bias from family/friends).

MeDeFe wrote:You say you took a good look at the different options before you became a christian. Would you not allow others to do the same?


Who am I stopping? Obviously nobody here at CC is going to be convinced to "convert", but that's not my intention. It seems that most evolutionists here are just upset that someone jumped to the other side.
User avatar
Major luns101
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Oceanic Flight 815

Response to HeavyCola

Postby luns101 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:58 pm

heavycola wrote:It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.


Hmmm, part of that I agree with. Since science is based on observation and experimentation, neither you nor I can observe the beginning of the universe and conduct experiments on it to come to a definite conclusion of how it began. So we both have to believe on faith of how it came into being.

heavycola wrote:So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.


Not necessarily, I think there are only 2 viable models of origins. The evolutionary model and the creationist model. These other theories would fall under one of those two and could be covered in World Religions-type class.

Are you sweating your own wedding preparations yet? Let me tell you, I will be one happy person when the whole process is over and the actual day-to-day realities of marriage set in. I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing or pm me if you start to go crazy and we'll suffer together!
User avatar
Major luns101
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Oceanic Flight 815

Response to Vtmarik

Postby luns101 on Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:12 pm

vtmarik wrote:Want to teach ID in school? Let's also teach the Raelian version of ID that mankind wasn't created by a god but was in fact created by aliens called the Elohiem, and that all of the great religious figures in our time were actually robots.


Intelligent Design is one of two models. Attempts have been made to fuse evolution & creationism together: theistic evolution. This "Raelian" Theory could be covered under a World Religions class. It would have to meet the standards that every other belief system has in order to convince people that it is the truth. The point of education is not to "preach" a certain belief but to present them and let students make up their minds.

I think the confusion here is that the skeptics here believe I want to start "indoctrinating" students minds with only Christianity. My contention is that in a majority of biology/science classes, that "indoctrination" is already taking place by only presenting one interpretation of the facts. It depends on the teacher though.

vtmarik wrote:Either you can wear any religious symbol around your neck, or you can't wear any.


Personally, I don't wear any. I attempt, to the best of my ability, to live a life that would please God. The average person is someone who is probably hurting because of a messed-up life and probably doesn't give a hoot about an evolution/creationist models debate. The scripture that I was reading yesterday as I did my devotions was 2 Corinthians 1: 3-4

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God."

You guys probably think I'm trying to "convert" you with that passage. Not at all, but at least you might see my intentions in a different light. What I've noticed here on this site is an attempt by some to redefine Christianity as a belief that wants to go around starting wars.
User avatar
Major luns101
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Oceanic Flight 815

Re: Atheism numbers

Postby drose on Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:10 pm

Stopper wrote:
drose wrote:There are NOT billions of atheists in the world, and anyone who tells others they are xian is not an athiest IMHO.

...

It's unreasopnable to assume that non chruchgoers are atheists, that's not allowed any more than assuming that all students at religious schools are xian.


I disagree with both of these points. I have a similar attitude to both religion and politics - a person may profess to be one thing or another, but if the way they live their life does not reflect what it is they profess to be, then actions speak louder than words.



How can you? I went to an Anglican school and the Jew in my class was not Anglican or xian at all.

He said the prayer, as I did, but didn't at all believe in Christ's divinity.

Also, plenty of Christians don't go to chruch, but still have complete faith. Surely you don't dispute this -- so that takes care of the second point.

As for the first, if you honestly are certain in your heart that there is no God, but you are willing to tell others that you think there is (even by implication) then this shows a fantastic weakness of character as far as I am concerned.

I suspect that if you refine this a little, what you're saying is that millions claim to be xian but are not, and if this is your argument then I agree 100%.

Hoever, not being xian is different from being atheist. They might be unsure about God, or decide that it doesn't matter, or have faith but be too lazy or selfish to behave in a xian fashion, and therefore invalidate that faith by hypocrisy.

So I agree that many many non-xians may indeed claim that faith, but I don't accept that a significant number of people who are utterly convinced of the absence of a higher force of any kind will casually assert that they do believe in fairy stories.



I've long held that the majority of the world's population can safely be regarded as atheist, just by their behaviour. It matters bugger-all if a person writes down on a census form that they are "Christian", if they then ignore absolutely all the precepts of Christianity in the rest of their lives, which is what the overwhelming majority of these so-called "Christians" do.

If you extend the definition of a "Christian" to absolutely anyone who professes to be one, then the description itself loses all meaning.
[/quote]
User avatar
Private drose
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Response to Vtmarik

Postby drose on Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:31 pm

luns101 wrote:
I think the confusion here is that the skeptics here believe I want to start "indoctrinating" students minds with only Christianity. My contention is that in a majority of biology/science classes, that "indoctrination" is already taking place by only presenting one interpretation of the facts. It depends on the teacher though.


This isn't really hard.

Biology is the scientific study of life. That's what it is, that's what you teach. It is shown that some guy did this experiment, and you can do too if you want. here's all the stuff, see if it works out the same for you -- wow, it did. That's what science is, a tool to investigate reality and develop theories which can be used to predict things.

Through scientific study we have developed a theory of evolution, amongst others, which fits observation pretty well.

The attack from the church on Biology is similar in naivety and ignorance to the attack on physicists and astronomers centuries ago when they announced their discoveries.

If you want to present ID, put it in an ID class, but DON'T pretend that it's part of a scientific study of living things, because it's not. That's why it doesn't belong in Biology.

Personally I'd be delighted if at around year 8 or year 9 all studies were suspended and students were taught about 20 of the worlds most significant or interesting religions.

This would not only help to foster understanding of others, but many of the kids woud discover how ridiculous and childish all these claims are when formally presented without candles and funny clothes, or music and excited jump-up-and-down healers.

I just don't see the two as competing; the churches want to "own" the explanation of existence, and they really can do fine in focussing on areas that science will (probably) never be able to explain. However, for those who insist on a science vs religion situation, I'll be happy to join any religion that can give me the equivalents of antibiotics, or vaccinations, or gene therapy, or chemotherapy, or nuclear medicine, or the Internet.

It is clear to anyone that scientific progress, for all its misuse (and that's a different thread) has produced are remarkable number of healing miracles.

I think that the attack on biology by the churches, because that's what it is, is treason.

How would you have felt if suddenly muslims turned up ten years ago and started suggesting that ID be taught in biology classes? More than one pundit would declare that it was an attempt to weaken the technological progress of the USA.

ID is just a copout that says "_I_ don't understand how all this could be here, therefore it must be magic".
User avatar
Private drose
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Response to HeavyCola

Postby heavycola on Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:25 am

luns101 wrote:
heavycola wrote:It does NOT discount the existence of god, luns. Not one bit. As was pointed out elsewhere, the question of god is outside science and has no place in a biology classroom.


Hmmm, part of that I agree with. Since science is based on observation and experimentation, neither you nor I can observe the beginning of the universe and conduct experiments on it to come to a definite conclusion of how it began. So we both have to believe on faith of how it came into being.

heavycola wrote:So Luns - if you want creationism taught as a valid theory in biology then logically you have to include every recorded creation story, too, because from a scientific viewpoint they are ALL EQUALLY VALID.


Not necessarily, I think there are only 2 viable models of origins. The evolutionary model and the creationist model. These other theories would fall under one of those two and could be covered in World Religions-type class.

Are you sweating your own wedding preparations yet? Let me tell you, I will be one happy person when the whole process is over and the actual day-to-day realities of marriage set in. I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing or pm me if you start to go crazy and we'll suffer together!


One word - mothers. Sheesh. actually they are being brilliant, sorting things out while I slave away here. It's being sat down and asked to choose between two differnet coulours of chysanthemum etc that is wearing me down. Ah well. When's your date?

I agree with you that there are two generally accepted models that explain our existence - evolution and creation. But evolution has a purely scientific basis, whereas it must be true that every creation myth is as unscientific (in a non-perjorative sense) as every other. I learned about genesis in RE, about the Olympians in Latin... shouldn't every religious explanation be taught in religious studies class?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users