Page 12 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415161722 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 675
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    "Misled"?
    Shop, I don't know if you ever read Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. In it there was a company who's main business was to create bespoke planets, but they would not just create a nice surface, but would actually include sedimentary layers and fossils and all the things that give an indication of a planet much older than it is. Even fjords.

    On Earth there are many many many indications that the earth is very old. Certainly older than 100 000 years, and its normally quotes at 4.5 billion years old. However it seems most creationist believe the earth is actually much younger, and the only explanation, if we do not discount all the processes, is that God set up the planet to look older to any intelligent being who would bother looking in to it, and therefore chose to mislead us as to the real age of the planet.

    Why would God do that? On the other hand, he does some rather bizarre things in the Bible, so I would not put that beyond Him. Maybe He hired Slartibartfast and that was just part of the package.

    Surur
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    [the idea that religion and science can coexist)
    I have to disagree with this proposition.

    Religion seeks to explain the world based on faith, mostly centered around beliefs in supernatural beings performing acts in defiance of known laws of physics. True faith rejects new ideas and changes because is an emotional (not empirical) believe.

    Science, on the other hand, seeks to explain the world through empirical observations evolving into theories that are plausible within the constrains of the known laws of physics. Science is open to new ideas and theories to account for new observations. And no, science does not have all the answers.
    In my opinion, the predominant goal and "purpose" for religion is to allow for a human "purpose" with our existance, as well as give moral and ethical guidance. In that sense, they can completely co-exist.

    When religion starts to enter the realm of scientific debate, it still is possible for them to co-exist, as long as there is not a literal interpretation of religious docterine.

    The concept of a divine presence in NO WAY runs counter to any, ANY scientific theory or statement that I can think of. As such, having a religious belief about a divine being can completely run side by side scientific ideas and principles.

    Chris
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    How's that working out for us by the way?

    (sorry....couldn't resist)
    Actually, I think it's working great. People in America have relatively strong religious freedoms. We just happen to have some high-profile conflicts around prayer, evolution, and maybe a few other issues.
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    I have no problem with children being exposed to religious ideas in school - as long as those ideas are not presented as SCIENCE, in a scientific setting. I am a strong proponent of some sort of comparative religion class in high school, which could include beliefs of creation.

    In terms of praying in school, go ahead if you want to, no problem with that.
    But, as you say, a different discussion for a different place.

    Chris
    A comparative religion class may work so long as ALL religious and atheistic ideas are presented in an unbiased informative way. I for one have no clue how this can be achieved.

    I agree with the free exercise of religion including ALLOWING students to pray in public schools if they so choose, so long as prayer is not REQUIRED by the school.

    Freedom of religion as expressed in the US Constitution was intended to prevent the government from adopting and imposing a state religion, not to prevent or coerce the free exercise of religious believes by it's citizens.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    In my opinion, the predominant goal and "purpose" for religion is to allow for a human "purpose" with our existance, as well as give moral and ethical guidance. In that sense, they can completely co-exist.
    In that context, then yes I am in agreement.

    When religion starts to enter the realm of scientific debate, it still is possible for them to co-exist, as long as there is not a literal interpretation of religious docterine.
    That is the main problem with science and religion, there is a literal interpretation of the Biblical accounts by many and that is the reason of this type of debates.

    The concept of a divine presence in NO WAY runs counter to any, ANY scientific theory or statement that I can think of. As such, having a religious belief about a divine being can completely run side by side scientific ideas and principles.
    As long as you do not take the Bible or Church dogma as literal absolute infallible truths, yes is possible. Where I see a problem is with Evolution versus Creationism, I don't see a way to reconcile those at all.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  6. #226  
    I loved religious education in school. You were allowed to chose not to participate, so while everyone else got their religion on I could do other homework, read a book or just doodle. (wish I had my smartphone then.) Same with prayers, I could just stand around looking around while everyone stood with their eyes closed. It was Win-Win really.

    Surur
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I loved religious education in school. You were allowed to chose not to participate, so while everyone else got their religion on I could do other homework, read a book or just doodle. (wish I had my smartphone then.) Same with prayers, I could just stand around looking around while everyone stood with their eyes closed. It was Win-Win really.

    Surur
    Not in a public school, I hope.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    I agree with your honest appraisal; the original argument implied that because we are atheist we can have no knowledge of right-wrong, morality or ethics, with that one I totally disagree.



    Again, totally agree, religion (or abscence thereof) is not responsible for good or evil behaviors, the person is. The original idea presented by Musicman insinuated that without religious ideas we can not find the truth or behave in a morally acceptable way - I reject this idea completely.



    I have to disagree with this proposition.

    Religion seeks to explain the world based on faith, mostly centered around beliefs in supernatural beings performing acts in defiance of known laws of physics. True faith rejects new ideas and changes because is an emotional (not empirical) believe.

    Science, on the other hand, seeks to explain the world through empirical observations evolving into theories that are plausible within the constrains of the known laws of physics. Science is open to new ideas and theories to account for new observations. And no, science does not have all the answers.
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    A comparative religion class may work so long as ALL religious and atheistic ideas are presented in an unbiased informative way. I for one have no clue how this can be achieved.
    Well, an unboased way wouldn't be expressing the "truth" or validity of any of the beliefs, but rather simply discussing what those beliefs ARE. Descriptive, that's all. As for atheism, they would haven't to be a large section - "atheists do not belief in any divine being". The end.

    Chris
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    In that context, then yes I am in agreement.

    In my opinion, the predominant goal and "purpose" for religion is to allow for a human "purpose" with our existance, as well as give moral and ethical guidance. In that sense, they can completely co-exist.
    That is the main problem with science and religion, there is a literal interpretation of the Biblical accounts by many and that is the reason of this type of debates.
    The "purpose" part may be the utility or religion, but the goal of religion has always been just to continue to exist. All organizations large enough develop the urge of self-preservation, and religion has lasted longer than all of them. Seen from an evolutionary or political perspective its very easy to predict what the successful traits and themes of a particular religion would be. Statement such as "go out and multiply" and banning contraception, chosen people etc are all part of attempts to grow the base of believers, and ensure the continuation of the organization.

    Surur
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    That is the main problem with science and religion, there is a literal interpretation of the Biblical accounts by many and that is the reason of this type of debates.
    I am not as versed in other creation myths, but I would think it is not just Biblical creation. A litereal belief in ANY creation story is going to cause problems.



    As long as you do not take the Bible or Church dogma as literal absolute infallible truths, yes is possible. Where I see a problem is with Evolution versus Creationism, I don't see a way to reconcile those at all.

    I agree, there really isn't any way to reconcile creationism and evolution. Intelligent design is another matter, but only if intelligent design is not simply another word for creatinism.

    Chris
  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    How can you say he is infecting young minds? Why not teach them both about evelution and creation and that there minds decide themselves?
    Well, for one thing, I don't think he's infecting young minds since it was stated that he was a college professor. OTOH, I do find it odd that he would imply that a legal mandate was the only reason he would teach evolution in a college science course. That being said, creationism and it's pseudo-science offspring intelligent design have no place in a science class.

    Quote Originally Posted by George Will
    The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum.
    Source
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    As for atheism, they would haven't to be a large section - "atheists do not belief in any divine being". The end.

    Chris
    That does raise an interesting question of whether atheism is covered in religious education these days. I suspect not.

    Surur
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    That does raise an interesting question of whether atheism is covered in religious education these days. I suspect not.

    Surur

    IMO, that centers on the debate as to whether atheism is a religious belief or not.

    Since it is the rejection of the idea of a divine being, should it still be classified as a religion?

    I know there are many atheists out there who have, for lack of a better term, a religious zeal when promiting their beliefs, but that in itself does not make atheism a religion.

    Truthfully, I don't know where I stand on the issue.

    One argument I have heard is that atheism can, and should be considered a religion, and thus by EXCLUDING paryer from school (which I don't agree with) you are promiting a different religious belief (one that believes in a lack of prayer).



    Chris
  14. #234  
    Interesting article here.

    Children to study atheism at school

    Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
    Sunday February 15, 2004
    The Observer

    Children will be taught about atheism during religious education classes under official plans being drawn up to reflect the decline in churchgoing in Britain.

    Non-religious beliefs such as humanism, agnosticism and atheism would be covered alongside major faiths such as Christianity or Islam under draft guidelines being prepared by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which regulates what is taught in schools in England.

    Although some schools already cover non-religious beliefs, there is currently no national guidance for what is taught, even though all schools must provide religious education.

    The draft plans being drawn up by the QCA will not be compulsory, allowing religious schools the freedom to keep devout parents happy. But they will be regarded as best practice for heads, and are likely to be followed across the country.

    A spokesman for the QCA said its guidance would be released for consultation in the summer term, but added: 'It is very much the intention that young people in the context of religious education should be studying non-religious beliefs. There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously.'

    The plans risk sparking a conflict between evangelists, who want to strengthen faith teaching, and secularists, who argue it is becoming irrelevant to modern life.

    The first shot in the debate will be fired with a controversial report to be published tomorrow calling for RE to be renamed religious, philosophical and moral education and children encouraged to debate such ethical issues as whether it is permissible to express racist views.

    'The whole thing is terribly biased in favour of religion right now - it's all about encouraging an identification with religion,' said Ben Rogers, author of the report for the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank.

    'There are huge numbers of people who are atheists or whose families are atheists and who are coming into a class where their family's view is not acknowledged. You should be able to have a conversation about ethics that doesn't collapse into a conversation about religion.'

    While 19 per cent of Britons attended a weekly religious service in 1980, by 1999 that had fallen to 7 per cent - prompting some to argue that RE should be scrapped as a compulsory subject. Secularists say there is little point trying to drum religion into sceptical children at school.

    'We're not trying to suggest that nobody should learn anything about religion: it is part of our culture and informs our art and our literature,' said Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, which has written to Education Secretary Charles Clarke calling for atheism to be included on the syllabus.

    'But if you try to teach morality through "the Bible says" or the Ten Commandments, most children won't accept it as they don't believe the religious message. It would be much better if people learned morality by looking at current examples. It's philosophy that we really want to be teaching.'

    Religion in schools is a sensitive subject, with France renewing a ban on the wearing of the hijab while in Britain it emerged last week that a Luton schoolgirl had launched legal action after being sent home for wearing traditional dress.

    But Rogers said that trying to keep religion out of schools would not work: 'It won't make religious strife go away - if anything it will exacerbate it. Religious education can play an important part in combating prejudices.'

    If non-religious beliefs were included in classes, parents should lose their current right to withdraw pupils from RE lessons, Rogers said.
    http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...148669,00.html

    Surur
  15. #235  
    That does raise an interesting question of whether atheism is covered in religious education these days. I suspect not.

    Surur
    Of course not.

    I loved religious education in school. You were allowed to chose not to participate, so while everyone else got their religion on I could do other homework, read a book or just doodle. (wish I had my smartphone then.) Same with prayers, I could just stand around looking around while everyone stood with their eyes closed. It was Win-Win really.

    Surur
    Well, that was freedom of choice.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #236  
    Wouldn't it be most appropriate for such a personal matter as one's religious beliefs be exclusively taught at home and/or a place of worship?
  17. #237  
    Since it is the rejection of the idea of a divine being, should it still be classified as a religion?
    Probably not, but the idea should be taught so children learn that abscence of religious belives is also a valid phylosophy that they can also explore.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  18.    #238  
    Atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god - root Greek

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495200.html
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #239  
    ^ Thank god!
  20. #240  
    As for atheism, they would haven't to be a large section - "atheists do not belief in any divine being". The end.
    Just presenting the idea that not chosing to believe is also an acceptable option would bring some balance to the class.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo

Posting Permissions