The dumbing down of America continues...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Is theology a class generally taught at the K-12 level in public schools?

As I said before, it's all about the context. Teaching about religion in a history or social studies class is perfectly acceptable. Teaching religious beliefs as an alternative to scientific theories in a science class is not acceptable.

Well isn't that exactly what I said?

So you have no problem with creationism being taught in a theology class?

For the record, I took a theology class in high school. And creationism was taught...and very well presented by my teacher. Our whole class, atheists AND theists...all agreed that we all walked away having learned something.

Time Magazine had an article a while back....and the author presented a very well-written case of why the Bible SHOULD be taught in a theology class. And why students SHOULD have a chance to learn about it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...1845-2,00.html

Don't you think you should give students a chance to learn about the most dominant book of our history?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you have a problem with creationism, or creation as pointed out in the Bible being taught in a theology class?

Sure it isn't science...we all know that...but it is theology.

Far as I know, they don't have theology classes in public schools.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that something exists. It's not the onus of the non-believer to disprove the existance of God, because that's no more possible than disproving the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot.

And like it has been pointed out many times....someone trying to PROVE that God exists is an idiot.

You cannot prove something with factual evidence when it has been based on faith for centuries.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Great post.

It bugs the hell out of me too. I have a problem with the prevailing arrogance of atheists. Many, not all, believe they are smarter than people of faith. They are atheists because they are intelligent enough to know that what religion teaches can't be true. The believers are idiots.

Well the links posted a bit ago show that in fact in general atheists are smarter and more educated. How does one explain that? Is it eduction or intelligence which itself decreases the likelihood of religious belief? Or is it that people who are smarter or who seek education are already pre-disposed to non-belief? I'd be interesting to see a study on it with before and after post secondary education numbers.

But even with that, most atheists don't think that believers are idiots. The brain is hard wired for belief, to see and hear things that aren't there, to trust authority and to need to have a reason for things. So a believer isn't an idiot, everyone is vulnerable to the same things. That's why psychics are so successful, why people believe in crop circles and faces on Mars, etc.. (I'm not equating religion with those things, just using them as illustrations).

An atheist just thinks that more education, critical thinking and such are needed. And that beliefs shouldn't be sacred cows beyond question, everyone should be able to say why they believe what they do.

I think it's hilarious that people actually think that they can comprehend all the universe has to offer. We don't know squat.

Is there any scientific evidence that magical space pixies DON'T exist?

Science makes no claims that it comprehends the universe; quite the opposite, science has demonstrated time and again it will change everything when presented with new evidence. The claim that it comprehends the universe is actually the claim of some religions (i.e. a literal reading of the Bible that the earth is 6000 years old and any evidence to the contrary is bad science, planted by satan, etc...).

And for the magic pixies, as has been said the burden of proof is on those claiming there are magic pixies; in general you can't prove a negative.

However given our current understanding of things you can talk about the likelihood of things.. if I find a hoof print in my yard, based on my understanding of reality I can get a sense of how likely that it was a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn that did it. I can't prove it wasn't a unicorn though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Far as I know, they don't have theology classes in public schools.

There are high schools with the resources to teach these classes.

With the introduction of SuperNet to all Alberta schools...public schools could very well be in a position where more classes are made available to the students. And why not?

[MarchHare]

For the record, I took a theology class in high school.

Did you go to a Catholic or other form of religious school? I didn't have a theology class until I took a philosophy elective at the undergraduate level.

Don't you think you should give students a chance to learn about the most dominant book of our history?

Of course, so long as it's done in the proper context. Teaching about the history of various religions, contrasting their beliefs, etc., are all valuable parts of a proper education. Preaching to the class and teaching as if what is written in the Bible is factually accurate has no place in a public school (but would certainly be fine in a private school).

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Not labeling myself a creationist here, but not all creationists believe the universe was created that recently.

Which is why I keep repeating the point that when talking about this stuff one as to find out what the other means by specific terms.. such as creationist. Creationists run the gambit from 6000 year old earth with no evolution, to God guiding evolution along, to God triggering the big bang and letting it go.

Like I said, when atheists talk about creationists, they're typically referring to the modes of creation that deny scientific facts.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

And like it has been pointed out many times....someone trying to PROVE that God exists is an idiot.

You cannot prove something with factual evidence when it has been based on faith for centuries.

1) nonsense

2) why not?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't you think you should give students a chance to learn about the most dominant book of our history?

Yes, The Origin of Species.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that something exists. It's not the onus of the non-believer to disprove the existance of God, because that's no more possible than disproving the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot.

I didn't claim magical space pixies exist. I asked if there was evidence that they didn't.

I get the difference between evidence and faith. I understand why atheists (and myself) gravitate to the former. Where I have a problem is when people belittle other's beliefs like you did with your magical space pixies comment.

You KNOW that God doesn't exist. But the thing is....you don't know.

[photon]

Just because it seems to fit this thread

[MarchHare]

Where I have a problem is when people belittle other's beliefs like you did with your magical space pixies comment.

I don't believe that I've belittled anyone's beliefs in this thread. In fact, I think I've been quite respectful towards others who have a view different to my own.

You KNOW that God doesn't exist. But the thing is....you don't know.

That's rather presumptious of you, isn't it? As a matter of fact, I don't know that God doesn't exist. My personal views lie somewhere between agnosticism and weak atheism.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Well the links posted a bit ago show that in fact in general atheists are smarter and more educated. How does one explain that? Is it eduction or intelligence which itself decreases the likelihood of religious belief? Or is it that people who are smarter or who seek education are already pre-disposed to non-belief? I'd be interesting to see a study on it with before and after post secondary education numbers.

But even with that, most atheists don't think that believers are idiots. The brain is hard wired for belief, to see and hear things that aren't there, to trust authority and to need to have a reason for things. So a believer isn't an idiot, everyone is vulnerable to the same things. That's why psychics are so successful, why people believe in crop circles and faces on Mars, etc.. (I'm not equating religion with those things, just using them as illustrations).

An atheist just thinks that more education, critical thinking and such are needed. And that beliefs shouldn't be sacred cows beyond question, everyone should be able to say why they believe what they do.

You may be speaking for yourself...and it shows in what you write. Respectful, never condescending. But if you read over this thread you will find a lot of arrogance and chastising of faith. I have to disagree with you when you say most atheist don't think believers are idiots. I think most atheists feel superior.

Originally Posted by photon

Science makes no claims that it comprehends the universe; quite the opposite, science has demonstrated time and again it will change everything when presented with new evidence. The claim that it comprehends the universe is actually the claim of some religions (i.e. a literal reading of the Bible that the earth is 6000 years old and any evidence to the contrary is bad science, planted by satan, etc...).

And for the magic pixies, as has been said the burden of proof is on those claiming there are magic pixies; in general you can't prove a negative.

However given our current understanding of things you can talk about the likelihood of things.. if I find a hoof print in my yard, based on my understanding of reality I can get a sense of how likely that it was a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn that did it. I can't prove it wasn't a unicorn though.

I wasn't talking about science with my statement, I was talking about atheists...specifically the one's that I described above. They belittle the faith of believers and refer to their God as magical space pixies or sundry other make believe creatures. To me, this says that they have closed their minds to any possible alternate explanations (most believers have done the same...it's really no different).

As I've said before, I think that there may be things that have happened, are going on or will happen that we do not have the capacity to comprehend as humans. I don't think we know squat.

BTW...I adhere to science and it's method. Science can't prove, it can only disprove.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't believe that I've belittled anyone's beliefs in this thread. In fact, I think I've been quite respectful towards others who have a view different to my own.


That's rather presumptious of you, isn't it? As a matter of fact, I don't know that God doesn't exist. My personal views lie somewhere between agnosticism and weak atheism.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure why you referred to faith as believing in magical space pixies though.

I believe many atheists fall into the space where I mistakenly slotted you. My apologies if I offended you.

Followed your link...sounds like we believe the same thing.

[MarchHare]

I'm not sure why you referred to faith as believing in magical space pixies though.

I didn't.

The point I was making is that those with faith invoke supernatural power (which I called magical space pixies just for stylistic flair) when confronted with a problem they cannot explain whereas scientists simply say, "we don't know the answer to that yet, so further research is required".

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are high schools with the resources to teach these classes.

With the introduction of SuperNet to all Alberta schools...public schools could very well be in a position where more classes are made available to the students. And why not?

"Why not" isn't a concern of mine. I don't have anything against a decent theology class being taught in a public school. I myself learned a bit of theology in junior high language arts when we did a unit on Greek mythology.

My comment was, wrongly it seems, addressing the idea that creationism should be taught in public schools in a theology class. I didn't think they had theology in public schools so I thought it was a pointless discussion to get into. I was wrong.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yes, The Origin of Species.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)

That was part of the class as well. It wasn't indepth, certainly not what you would expect in a University class, but enough to make me aware of both sides.

March...I absolutely agree that it should not presented to the class as if to 'preach'...neither should anything in science be presented as if you're trying to 'preach' something. Preaching about the Bible in a theology class is something that could happen, yes...but it could happen in a history class, where a teacher will mislead his students to adhere to his teaching.

A good teacher will present each side, and let us decide what we think and what we want to believe. Which is why I absolutely agree with teaching the Bible in high school, in a theology class. If such a class can be offered.

This, 'throw the Bible away I don't want to hear about it anymore' nonsense is banning one sides viewpoint in order to get a point across. Hardly a method that would be considered unbiased and fair.

And I'll say it again...anyone who thinks you can prove/disprove God's existence is woefully ignorant to what they are suggesting. Like I said, the belief in God has been based around faith for centuries. If certain people feel that after all this time, with all the technology we now have, and all the knowledge we have acquired, that we can finally disprove that God exists, they are wrong.

Which is why what I said is not nonsense Troutman. If you choose to believe that faith is not your route, that is your decision. But you cannot hold me and my faith to your 'requires factual evidence before I believe it' standards.

[MarchHare]

neither should anything in science be presented as if you're trying to 'preach' something.

Science is a method of discovering knowlege. There's nothing you could "preach" about it. I suppose you might have an atheist science teacher who tries to promote his views in class, but I would think most people (myself included) would consider that to be inappropriate.

This, 'throw the Bible away I don't want to hear about it anymore' nonsense is banning one sides viewpoint in order to get a point across. Hardly a method that would be considered unbiased and fair.

Who is proposing that? Teaching about Christianity should be an important part of a proper social studies or history curriculum...just like teaching about other major world religions would be proper in that context. Do you agree that Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. should be given equal time in the classroom to Christianity?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Science is a method of discovering knowlege. There's nothing you could "preach" about it. I suppose you might have an atheist science teacher who tries to promote his views in class, but I would think most people (myself included) would consider that to be inappropriate.

You only suppose? Just like you 'suppose' you might have a theist theology teacher who tries to promote his views in class?

It goes both ways.

Who is proposing that?

I have talked to a lot of atheists that feel the Bible should be banned from any public place/school and government building. Including everything that has ANYTHING to do with the Bible. Ten Commandments? Ban them? In fact, didn't they force the government to remove a plaque somewhere in the US? Why? Something wrong with the Ten Commandments?

Teaching about Christianity should be an important part of a proper social studies or history curriculum...just like teaching about other major world religions would be proper in that context. Do you agree that Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. should be given equal time in the classroom to Christianity?

Absolutely. Although I wasn't talking about teaching Christianity in a theology classroom. Christianity is a religion, not a theology.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You may be speaking for yourself...and it shows in what you write. Respectful, never condescending. But if you read over this thread you will find a lot of arrogance and chastising of faith. I have to disagree with you when you say most atheist don't think believers are idiots. I think most atheists feel superior.

Some for sure. I guess we're each going based on the atheists we've had experiences with, most of the ones I interact with try to be respectful. Although after dealing with some political creationist organizations and proponents who constantly lie, misrepresent, and don't deal honestly I can understand why some less tolerant.

I do think though that questioning religious beliefs is a bit taboo in our society, so when people do it it comes across as maybe more arrogant and disrespectful than it really is.

I wasn't talking about science with my statement, I was talking about atheists...specifically the one's that I described above. They belittle the faith of believers and refer to their God as magical space pixies or sundry other make believe creatures. To me, this says that they have closed their minds to any possible alternate explanations (most believers have done the same...it's really no different).

Some atheists are more militant than others I agree, but I think most come by it honestly.. Someone like Dawkins believes there is a net negative impact on humanity for having faith. And he provides support for his position. So while he comes across as arrogant and militant, he's doing so against abstract things like faith. He's usually very respectful of individuals. But not everyone can see the distinction and view an attack on faith as an attack on themselves. At worst he sees people with faith as victims.