religion and schools

1. 61

   MBP42posted 15 years ago

   If atheists are so open minded why is ok to teach thier version of reality the "big bang" theory but no ok to teach the Christian version of reality the God created the universe theory? Why are they allowed rights that are denied to Christians, it's ok for them to vocalize thier opinions publicly but not for Christians - how did it come to this?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      One reason is that if you teach the Biblical creation story you should also teach every other creation story from around the world, or at least every one that can demonstrate a reasonable number of believers.
      There is a fundamental difference in status between a genuinely scientific hypothesis and an untestable old story.
      Where I would support you is in saying that the Big Bang theory should not be presented as proven fact. It is an undisproven hypothesis, and our best attempt yet. The problem is that most school teachers still do not understand the methodology of science.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You mean there are other creation stories but Christian?
         
         Come on, be real, only Christianity tells THE TRUTH!

         replyreport
      2. 61

         MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Is there a way to stop them from presenting the big bang theory to our children as fact and forcing them to learn something as fact that is fundamentally flawed and in conflict with our relligious beliefs?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. It's called education. Teach would-be teachers scientific methodology. And remove religion from the school curriculum.

            replyreport
   2. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Are you unable to tell the difference between a scientific theory and a faith based belief?
      
      Although it is rather entertaining that you think this scientific theory is the atheist's version of reality. All that shows is that you do not understand it and are too ignorant to bother educating yourself.
      
      I pity you.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Soon as I saw the topic, I could bet my bottom (dollar), you would bite!
         We are such predictable creatures, yes??

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            And once again, here you are right behind me.
            
            People are starting to talk.............

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Ivan the Terribleposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               From Ivan the Terrible:  It's only a theory, but not like a theory in court.  A scientific theory has the backing of hundreds and/or thousands of bits of evidence and support, at times proofs, that the theory is on the mark.  You use the bible as your basis for claiming god created everything but then you use the bible to support the claims the bible makes, in a circular logic that makes no sense.  You can't and won't confuse science with your religious beliefs.  The last time that was used was in Stalinist Russia where Stalin made up ideas about science and forced his scientists to conform to his beliefs.  That is why millions died in starvation because Stalin had the same ideas most fundamentalists do about how science works.  Learn what scientific methods and scientific theories actually mean before you make light of them.  They are much more deep and solid than you make them out to be.  And they have a lot more in favor of believing them than does your bible and scripture, which has very little or no proof at all other than your beliefs they must be true.

               replyreport
      2. 61

         MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You say you pity me but the fact remains that they cling to this unproven theory and love it they way a Christian loves their bible. big bang theory should not be taught in the schools at all. If we are not teaching creation stories then we should not teach this one either in the grade schools leave the whole topic for college and let them decide for themselves what they wish to believe. Faith is not a matter of religion but of belief. You have faith that the chair you are about to sit on will hold you and you sit without even looking at the chair. Atheists have faith that a big bang created everything and they can no more prove that to me than I can prove Christ to them.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I pity you your lack of education.
            
            No theory is ever proven. I am an atheist and I don't even understand the big bang theory.
            
            But my atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang theory. It has everything to do with people like you and not making any sense to me. Just listen to your ridiculous certainty - every one knows the story of Christ was stolen from previous religions and you do not seem to be aware of that.
            
            Try reading a few more books.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               precisely it is a theory because it is unproven so why do they act as if it is a fact and they have the right to teach it in our public schools to young children indoctrinating them into this nonsense they call the big bang theory. Oh yeah and what books have you been reading?

               replyreport
            2. 61

               MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               precisely it is a theory because it is unproven so why do they act as if it is a fact and they have the right to teach it in our public schools to young children indoctrinating them into this nonsense they call the big bang theory. Oh yeah and what books have you been reading?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  "As believers we do count what we believe to be what we know."
                  
                  I can heartily recommend "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and "A brief history of Time" by Stephen Hawking.
                  
                  And by your argument that nothing can be proven therefore everything must be taught as the truth in schools - what about all the other creation fairy tales? Surely they should be taught also - which would leave no time for useless information like science.........
                  
                  My personal belief is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. At least there is actual proof for that one. How else do you explain pasta?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     You misunderstand me I am not saying teach all creation stories I am saying that if we cannot teach all unproven theories than we should not teach the unproven theory of the big bang. ps how does eating pasta figure into your religion?

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        I know what you are saying. You are saying that no unproven theory should be taught in schools. Which means that no theories should be taught in schools. As no theory is ever proven.
                        
                        Which is irrational, illogical and a transparent attempt to get your ridiculous faith based rubbish on an even level with genuine knowledge. 
                        
                        Now go and look up the difference between baseless bronze age god myths and genuine scientific theories.
                        
                        Eating Pasta and drinking wine is an affirmation of the existence of the one true god and the very act proves, daily that he is good and watches out for us on an individual level. He is that sort of god - wise, all-knowing and generous to a fault. Except where it comes to unbelievers spouting lies about there being other gods. Then his anger is mighty to behold. The second world war was to ensure pasta was spread beyond the shores of Italy and to show the heathen the one true way to heaven. Just look how many died for suggesting rice was an alternative.

                        replyreport
   3. 59

      Junksterposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      If you're going to teach religion in schools then it should be evenly focussed, cover as many religions as possible.
      
      It'd be wrong to teach about half of the periodic table but not the other elements in physics (sorry, the only analogy I couid make!)
      
      I personally think religion has no place in schools, I went to a catholic school and with the ammount of stuff going on and things that they let people do they ended up just looking like hypocrites.  One example being allowing someone who dealt drugs on the property got expelled, parents came in and yelled at the spineless headteacher, bang next day the dope slinger was allowe dback in and whats worse is the whole school got dragged in to a poxy assembley to explain why they had to "cave in" and let the idiot back in.
      
      That's why religion in school is ridiculous, especially since I personally saw the same person dealing something round the back of one of the buildings not even a month later!

      replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   I believe you are on TV 24 hours a day, and certainly Sunday mornings. Problem is when you insist that we use faith in God instead of stop lights.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Huh? what are you talking about I am not on t.v. I am on my laptop. I would never replace a stop light with faith in God, though I have called on God a couple of times while driving when people have cut me off or hit my car.

      replyreport
3. 0

   C. C. Riterposted 15 years ago

   some toys for my religion forum friends
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      so how long did it take you to come up with this?

      replyreport
4. 60

   TravelMonkeyposted 15 years ago

   That proves how ridiculous religion is in schools. It enables teachers to make decisions which put the children in danger. If something had happened to my child by a pupil who should have been expelled then I would cause anarchy at the school. Leave until they can make their own minds up, then they will see that it is all nonsense.

   replyreport
5. 67

   RKHenryposted 15 years ago

   [A little off topic]
   
   Here in the USA prayer in schools are a big hot button.  I found this article and since the topic of danger was brought up, I thought maybe some of you might be interested in seeing first hand why prayer and religion belongs at home.  Not at school or the work place. 
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090324/od_nm/us_crash

   replyreport
   1. 67

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        The point is??
      Another person may have panicked, and just "froze"! Or something else. The point is not that he prayed, but that he panicked, and didn't follow procedure.
      Better training might have been useful. Some people can actually pray WHILE they do what has to be done!

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, I don't think we can blame that one completely on his thinking prayer was an alternative to doing something. He was obviously poorly trained and stupid. I would have thought you might want to ask that question in the pilot's interview.....
         
         Faced with the possibility of crashing, what do you do?
         
         a) Pray to the almighty for deliverance.
         b) Jump out of the plane with your parachute
         c) Follow emergency procedures............

         replyreport
         1. 67

            aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not conviced he was even christian. Just because he was Italian (I presume) might make him catholic, and even that might not be anything. Not enough info in the article.
            I'm with you on the procedures though. If all that failed.... then pray like mad, knowing you have done all YOU can.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Dude should have followed emergency procedures landed at the nearbye airport and then prayed. He lacked faith if he panicked in the first place. Faith is what enables us not to panic in the first place. THe word says that no weapon formed against us can prosper. AS believers we know that even if satan kills our bodies he can never kill us because that part of us that is created in God's own image will go to heaven. (if we have accepted Jesus Christ). So if we know God will care for us then why should we panic? This man did not follow protocol. He should go to jail for not following protocol not for praying. But the enemy can use a situation like this to make one more place where prayer is politcaly incorrect. We have become a society where it is more ok to say god-d*** then to say I love Jesus.

               replyreport
6. 88

   Paragliderposted 15 years ago

   MPB42 - you wrote "As believers we know"    Please look at your statement with fresh eyes.    There is no logic in it. All you can possibly say is - "As believers we believe". In other words, you have beliefs, not knowledge.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      MBP42posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      As believers we do count what we believe to be what we know. Does knowledge have to be first hand to be considered knowledge? Archeology has gone a long way to proving many of the statements made in the old testament and archeology has found evidence of people named in the new testament as actually exisiting, such as pontius pilate. His house with a foundation stone with his name and rank on it has been found. Why do you say I cannot know what I believe or why do you make a distinction between belief and knowledge?

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I've explained all this in a hub called Freedom from Belief. Reading it would save you the time it takes to read important works by Russell, Popper and others on epistemology. Or better still, might even encourage you to read them for yourself. As to archeology, the Romans kept good records so it's no surprise that there is evidence that Pontius Pilate was their governor in Judea. There is less tangible evidence that Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary. There is zero evidence to support statements like 'he sits at God's right hand'. The more extreme a claim, the more supporting evidence it needs for reasonable people to take it seriously.

         replyreport
7. 67

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   What and how much evidence do we have that William Shakespear actually lived, and that he "actually"wrote anything? Scientiffically speaking?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The short answer to that is - plenty. However, even if someone else wrote his works (which a few people believe) it doesn't alter the fact that one of the world's greatest writers lived in Elizabethan England and left us a lifetime's work of great drama and poetry. No-one is claiming Shakespeare to be the word of God. And as far as I know, no-one believes that a real Puck really gave Bottom the head of an ass.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         So, if that is accepted, then, the Bible, which is hugely more established, and outsold ANY publication in human history, ...fits in where exactly?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            It's a compilation of many books by many people over many centuries. But I'm sure you knew that already. No-one's denying the existence of the bible. But your claim that it the word of god is wholly unsubstantiable.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               So, how would you substantiate, if it were so, (just for arguments sake)?

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  I wouldn't, because I don't make the claim of divine authorship. But I'd have to ask why there are two mutually exclusive creation stories before you get past the first couple of pages. You can't believe both, so was God lying or just joking when writing the one you don't believe?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     One topic at a time please? IF, (hypothetically) you were to want to substantiate it, what methodology would you use?
                     We can back to the other issues later. BTW, it is very L8, I must retire.
                     Nice chatting with you, thanks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        OK, goodnight    I think you're asking how I would set about testing whether or not the Bible is God's word? I wouldn't start from there, because the claim is itself derivative. I would first have to check up on the existence of God before looking into his literary output. And I'd fall at that first hurdle, for lack of evidence.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry, I didn't make it very clear.I was not asking for how you would substantiate it as the Word of God, but rather it's literary authenticity, historical basis and accuracy, and overall unified content.
                           I agree with you wholeheartedly that deductions/revelations that it be TWofGod are derivative.

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              I wouldn't attempt it. But if I wanted to find out more I'd consult some of the thousands of scholarly works devoted to the subject. But nothing I've seen so far convinces me of the historical accuracy of the creation, the flood and some other episodes. I think the book is a compilation of many different genres from many different authors, with no genuinely unified content or coherence.

                              replyreport