Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Classrooms Torn Between Science and Religion
Dystopian Rebel writes "A New Jersey public-school history teacher was recorded telling his students that they 'belong in Hell' if they do not accept Jesus. The teacher, who is also a Baptist Pastor, lied later when he was asked by the school principle what he said to the students. Unfortunately for this dodge, a student recorded the teacher's 'lesson'." From the article: "The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school."
It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.
It's a clear violation of the separation of church & state doctrine.
You're not allowed to prosceletize in a public school, period.
The school & teacher could be looking at a sizeable lawsuit.
Oddly enough, the capthca word for this post is "idiots".
I don't see much difference between this religion and the apocolyptic eco-crazy memes they pump into kids at school these days. Instead of "Your soul will go to hell if you don't study" it has become "The earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle."
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Well, if they end up in Hell, Grand Cayman, that would certainly be a step up from Jersey. Hell, Michigan, probably not so much.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There's no excuse for that teacher's actions. However, school systems need to be consistent. There are plenty of examples of teachers teaching or communicating inappropriately on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, drugs, and politics.
The comments made by this teacher were totally inappropriate and took advantage of his authority position. So why not call them that instead of using phrases like "anti-scientific" that imply a war between religion and science?
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
And this kind of thing happens roughtly a million times a day all over the world.
The big question is: Was anyone supprised by this sensational piece of news?
I'm a beliver of something non-scientific myself, but i never ever forget that it is something that i *believe* in.
It's not a law, or even a propable theory or model, just because i happen to belive in it. I've always found the "this-proves-religion-X" style argument totally foolish and a complete waste of time.
The sad thing is that i often find myself quite alone with this oppinion when among other belivers of this-or-that.
Nobody in America remembers what the Dark Ages were, they never had one.
Jonathanjk.com
Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe, otherwise they should be killed/crucified/outcasted/suffer for eternity in the afterlife? Aren't these the people that killed thousands during the Crusades? Aren't these the people that are killing thousands now in the name of Allah? Are all the religions and dieties that man-kind have believed in one way or another so damn righteous as to demand that their followers mame all others in their name?
I just don't understand why people can't accept that others can believe different things than they do. If the whole world was just more accepting of others and respected others' beliefs even if they disagreed, the world would be a much, much better place. Not to mention that millions of innocent people wouldn't have had to die in ages past.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher. If the school district and state dictates that a science teacher should teach evolution, that's what they need to teach. If they dictate they should teach intelligent design, that's what they should teach. And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school. Public schools are kind of like McDonalds ... you may not receive the top of line, but it should always be consistent.
If this pastor/teacher thought that he was going to convert a bunch of high schoolers by damning them all to hell, he must not have a very successful church, and certainly should be fired immediately. If he really wanted to use the classroom as a pulpit, he should have chose philosophy as a subject, or just taught at a parochial school. The most he could have done was to just express his religion very simply (e.g. a cross around his neck, picture on his desk, whatever), and use kids' natural curiousity as a chance to invite them to his church to learn more outside of school. This is dangerously close to some line in the sand, but better to toe the line than to jump clear over it like he did.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
Nobody in America remembers what the Dark Ages were, they never had one.
Yet.
So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that atheism is inherently more rational. Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither. Dawkins, however, has a ton of faith in the latter.
Isn't this kid guilty of copyright infringement for recording the teacher/pastor's lecture/sermon? The teacher could therefore sue the kid, and have the evidence thrown out.
BTW. How can you go to hell if you don't believe in the Christian universe (and therefore Jesus). Is their an atheist's universe with a seperate hell? Maybe the various deities and non-dieties contracted out the management of their hells to some contractor (like Halliburton).
The Dark Ages weren't all that dark.
They were filled with people with hopes and dreams, making discoveries and learning new things just like people do today. Just because they didn't have computers to post on Slashdot or the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today doesn't mean they were "dark."
Science was progressing, albiet more slowly, and for different reasons. Many "natural philosophers" made scientific discoveries while they were looking to prove the bible, or learn more about the nature of God and creation.
The Scientific Revolution roughly 300 years ago was when people started doing research for the sake of expanding knowledge, not for anything else. Yes, scientific knowledge increased and technology became more advanced, but to assume that everything before that point was just darkness and ignorance is arrogant, uninformed and shortsighted.
I have a strong interest in science, which people should remember is not working closer and closer to a definite answer but to a broadening understanding. Scientific study often enough doesn't definitively answer questions, it just raises more questions. For example, quantum physics. 100 years ago scientists thought they could close the physics books. Then Quantum physics came along. Now every new discovery raises more questions. I think that's pretty exciting.
As for creation "science," which is deservedly flame bait, I wish people would distinguish between people who are fanatical about the politics of "Christendom" building ridiculous museums when the millions of dollars should have gone to house the homeless and feed the hungry, and those who are followers of Christ. I consider myself the latter -- simply, a Christian. I believe God created the universe. How he did it is a matter for science to explore.
And I'm more interested in the why.
Oh, I agree. TV preachers are there to fuel the Sunday couch potato lifestyle of the typical god-fearing American. Still, what atheist needs to preach? and to whom? Also, did you not detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in turgid's tone?
This is not the signature you're looking for.
Thank you. This is a story of something that isn't so bright. :\ Christians are just like everyone else - the majority of them are stupid (just as with atheists, muslims, catholics, etc).
:(
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians...who acknowledge Jesus with their, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That, is what an unbelieving world, simply finds, unbelievable."
Bad #1 - Preaching hellfire and brimstone in a school classroom about science. The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Sure, saying you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus may very well be a fact, it has been well established that you are supposed to seperate church from state in a public classroom. To try to get away with it was stupid.
Bad #2 - Lying about it. He acknowledged Jesus with his lips, THEN turned around and denied him by his lifestyle. What are those very students going to think now?
If you feel justified in defying established rules and try to preach the gospel openly in a public school classroom, you have to walk the walk, and accept the consequences. You can't do this halfway. Either way he was stupid to try it, but lying about it makes it even worse.
Gives Christianity a bad name on every front.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I think that applies to everyone. Everyone's got a button that when pressed, causes them to focus insanely on that subject and usually abandon rationality. The most laid-back, accepting people on the planet - pot heads - will start spitting nails if you tell them they shouldnt smoke pot. (Try it!) With heavily religous people their button is just more likely to be about religion (and things that relate to thier religions teachings).
Marx is the opiate of the stupid.
This story isn't flamebait. It's interesting. The teacher recorded arguably violated a fundamental first amendment protection -- freedom from state established religion. The fact that it'll make some people mad doesn't make the story less relevant or deserving of publication. That anger needs to be heard and understood in order to evaluate the news.
Also, the fact that some religious folk who think that the state SHOULD be able to establish religion will get angry is okay too. Once again, their emotions are apropos.
Sometimes the most relevant news is news that provokes an emotional response.
Why are you anonymous?
:(
Anyhoo, I'm a christian, I've never claimed to be otherwise. What you state here may very well be true, but you're being prideful and not terribly humble or meek. You're not meeting hte needs of others with your statements.
"Yeah, this is all an accident. Get REAL."
Okay, look. You just insulted a very large base of intelligent people. Evolution, big band, blah blah blah...I would never term those things as "accidental", however there are a large number of Christians that will sit back and plain say that things that are factual, can be PROVEN are fiction in a blind sheep-like sunday-school faith. That's BS too, and you know it. You sound very educated in your studies, you also understand that the King James version is a TRANSLATION from original language, and as such meaning gets lost in translation. There are things that appear contradictory because meaning gets lost...there are cultural norms that there are NO WAY the average person can understand in casual reading.
So please, come down off of your soap box, and lead by serving others. Don't try to build yourself up in a public forum by sounding like a know-it-all and gloating about how everyone else is going to hell. The one that got whipped, beaten, ridiculed, impaled, had nails run through his head, and got to hang there while people argued over his clothes and his friends and family looked on in horror...would probably not appreciate the attitude.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither.
I agree completely. Further, there's no scientific evidence that giant flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. Nor is there evidence that underpants gnomes don't exist (in fact, given the rate of underpants disappearances, I would argue *for* their existance!).
Therefore, as a true scientist, I choose not to take a stance on these issues until evidence is provided that *proves* that flying spaghetti monsters and underpants gnomes don't exist.
yes, but tv is something people can choose not to watch, it's a little thing called freedom of speech combined with freedom to choose. A teacher however has a duty of care which overrides any freedom of speech right they may hold outside the classroom.
That duty requires them to teach the children in their care in the manner the community and government define, this is clearly not what happened in this case. Thus the teacher is in breach of their duty of care. T
It's as simple as that.
So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that atheism is inherently more rational. Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither. Dawkins, however, has a ton of faith in the latter.
This is a rather strange definition of skeptic.
Let's try an analogy.
The Earth is filled with custard - lots of it, hot and molten.
What do you mean, you don't think so? Surely a good skeptic should neither believe or not believe in that?
It is hard to be a skeptic by your definition - all those (possibly infinite) number of things to neither believe and also not believe!
All Dawkins is doing is being a true skeptic, and saying that he doesn't believe in anything without evidence.
Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything.
A school's job is not meant to brainwash people into believing something, whether that be Science or Jesus. It's job is to teach them how to gather evidence from all points of view, and then come to logical conclusions about that evidence using critical analysis, sound reasoning, valid thought processes, and logic.
Individuals who promote a certain viewpoint, whether that be religious, political, scientific, or whatever, must be able to back their viewpoints with such reasoning and evidence. Otherwise their thoughts are little more than opinions and/or delusions, whether theirs or someone else's, that lack justification, accountability, and credibility.
The idea is that by providing people with valid, unbiased thought-processes through proper schooling, they will be able to draw their own conclusions, and a perception of reality for what it actually is will emerge. This would eliminate the ability for people to be easily manipulated, and/or brainwashed into believing non-truths, fairy tales, and superstition.
Any such schooling is a direct threat to organizations based upon such fantasies, like religions. It becomes next to impossible to make someone believe in something without being able to offer them a whole-hearted explanation, taking all relevant factors into account.
Because of this, fantasy-based organizations become threatened with this type of schooling. The chessboard needs an ample supply of pawns, if you will, and if those pawns disappear, so does the religion. It's not surprising then to see members of a religious cult, such as Jesus Teacher Lady here, lash out against a student in her class.
There will be more lashing out in the years to come, especially seeing as science is starting to exponentially increase its speed of discovering new things about the world around us, many of which completely contradict the bible.
I predict that within the next 30 years, scientists will be able to create life from non-life in a lab. It'll mark a definitive moment in human history, shattering religions to shreds. You can expect protest far greater than Jesus Teacher Lady, and quite possibly far more dangerous.
It -is- a very good question. Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God which is quite a different matter. And in most religions, that is good enough to get you the carrot.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Because that's what God told them, and you don't argue with God. If God says "believe in me or else spend eternity in hell," then who the fuck are you, to use your puny humanoid intellect -- a brain so small that it can't even conceive of 1% of the Lovecraftian aweful truth -- to try to talk God out of his ultimatum?
Now let's say you're a caring, loving person to whom God has told his message. You don't like what God has done, maybe you even hate him for it. You don't understand its seemingly infinite evil, but you also know that you'll never really understand why God has done this, and you just have to accept it. And the thing you have accepted is this: you believe it is a fact that if someone doesn't do what God demands, they will suffer infinitely. It's not something you have chosen; it is the reality imposed upon you.
Is it responsible, given this undesirable situation, to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? If some hippie says that he understands the universe better than God does, and that "Be good to one another," is a perfectly acceptable policy (and it's certainly a pleasant one!) does that make what the hippie says, be true? Or is it deceiving, taking the easy way out?
Might you be willing to commit a relatively minor atrocity, for the "greater good?" Isn't it really worth it, when you get right down to it, to torture people, put them on the rack or burn them alive, writhing in intense agony -- even doing it for a decade if only a person could actually burn that long without dying -- if it might result in that person doing the right thing? What is a few minutes, or even a century, of suffering, compared to the eternal timescales described in religious dogma? You might not personally have the stomach for it, but "rationally" (please don't explore this too closely ;-) you know that it's a good policy to break a few eggs to make that omelette.
Think about it: is there any conceivable thing, any possible evil, than any puny human can possibly commit with their tiny limited means and impotent nuclear weapons (or even planet-destroying Death Stars), that even compares slightly or is anywhere nearly in the same league, to the infinite eternal suffering that a person will endure if they are not saved?
Killing people? Geez, everyone dies eventually. The long-term question is how many people are going to be saved and enjoy the afterlife forever, versus how many people will be utterly destroyed forever or be tortured forever by the devil's minions.
I think that once a fundamentalist really accepts religious dogma -- if they really believe it -- their seemingly-cruel decisions aren't really all that cruel or evil. They are executing the best policies they can, given a rather nasty premise.
My question to mystics is: What causes you to believe that? What do you see, that the rest of us don't? How did God's message get into your head? That's what's really baffling, not the things that they do as a consequence once they have been given The Aweful Truth.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The problem, for religious types, shows up when we start drawing macro-conclusions that contradict their religious beliefs. Since they can't possibly accept the conclusions, they have to deny the theory and the science that supports it... and that's all that I'm going to say about that.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
There's been a lot of teachers doing similar thing in the past, including, but not limited to, the idea that the US government carried out 9/11, and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.
The fact is that there are many, MANY teachers who use their position of authority to try and brainwash their students. I'm sure most of you can think of at least one such experience in your student days. It's irrelevant whether the teacher is pushing religion, politics, historical revisionism, or wacky conspiracy theories; any of them constitute an abuse of authority, and none of them should be allowed. Teachers need to be able to present relevant information in an unbiased manner, not preach from the pulpit of their favorite cause célèbre.
each religion claims that their's is the only correct one and the non-believers will go to hell
Not really, many probably exists that don't (I think Buddhism sends you up the eternal ladder of reincarnation if you're a good person, by it's standards, but not a Buddhist) or don't even have a hell. The point was that at least one other religion damns you to hell.
I'm not going to get over it. These people are breaking the law and clandestinely subverting the authority of parents, while being paid by the parents (through taxes) to do it.
Some people like to rape and murder as well. Do you tell them and their families to "Get over it"? Asshole.
"Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals."
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
The idea that people will to hell if they don't accept christ as their personal savior is, to my understanding, fairly mainstream Christianity. It is very hard to try and prove that one person's irrational belief is ridiculous and radical whereas your irrational belief is completely reasonable. How do you prove a difference? Trying to claim that your religion is demonstrably "truer" or "more Christian" on rational grounds is going to be a bit of a stretch. I'd say that most Christians aren't very Christian in the sense of following the teaching of Christ which centered primarily around caring for the poor among us. By that standard, the idea of a rich "Christian" preacher is an oxymoron.
Also, your analogy is bunk. Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith. It adapts its theories as more information is learned and tested. It is a system of separating what appears to be true from what is true and it slowly changes and adapts. Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason. It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn. It starts out with an inalienable premise and praises people for sticking with it in spite of evidence against it. A person could not be a scientist and still believe in a flat earth because Science is about Empirical Evidence. A person can be Christian and disagree with the parent poster because Christianity isn't a system based on facts and there is no way to prove a person's Christian beliefs to be "right" or "wrong."
"Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything."
But it does mean that you have faith in skepticism as the correct philosophy to live by.
No, it doesn't work like that. Skepticism is not a faith, it is a state of mind that we all achieve, to a greater or lesser extent, simply by growing up - it is part of mature human nature. When we are young, we are are trusting and naive.
Simple, you perform the requested job as required.
As a teacher, convey the information you are instructed to teach in an effective manner. Maintain classroom behaviour and enforce the rules fairly and with compassion.
If you feel it is morally wrong not to try and convert the students to your religion, the ethical thing to do is to simply be honest and not take a job where you would be prevented from what you personally consider your moral responsiblity. Lying saying you will not preach then doing so is also unethical.
I think it's interesting that people will display their "moral reponsibilities" to lie and break the law, while ignoring the fact that such actions aren't ethical.
The Dark Ages weren't all that dark.
They were filled with people with hopes and dreams, making discoveries and learning new things just like people do today. Just because they didn't have computers to post on Slashdot or the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today doesn't mean they were "dark."
They weren't so dark because they were lit by the fires of burning heretics, witches, and anyone who espoused a knowledge or wisdom not sanctioned by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Other than that, it was a peachy time to be a European.
Every teacher passes on values to their students. Usually this is a combination of their values, and society's values. If you were cynical, you could call this a form of indoctrination, but really, that's what education is to a fair degree. It can help keep society stable, as it prevents a total re-evaluation of society's foundations with every new generation.
The problem here seems to be that this teacher's values are more in line with a minority (of religious wackos) rather than those of greater U.S. society (more pluralistic), and he appears unwilling to teach according to society's values rather than his own.
Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
No, it mocks people who believe in invisible things for which there is absolutely no evidence, who then attempt to elevate their beliefs to the level of scientific fact, or alternatively, attempt to drag science down to the level of religion.
Similarly, if I met someone who still believed that disease was caused by demonic possession, I'd mock them, too.
It's called counterexample. The fact that the counterexamples used are funny/mocking (or even rude, to some) doesn't make them any less valid. You're right that the question of gods existing is a central question in philosophy. And counterexample is a technique VERY commonly used in philosophy.
He was going up against this:
There is no evidence for or against X, therefore there should be no belief or disbelief in X.
And he filled in X with FSM instead of God. The fact that one is a "central question in philosophy" and the other isn't is exactly the purpose of counterexample.
the issue is not the willpower of the children, it's that he acted in a way contrary to that which he was required to act. A teacher is a public servent, and thus not given the same free speech rights as people in other professions.
Erm....I don't necessarily wrong you for being upset about Christians that attempt to force-feed you their belief set. The bible does call people to seek and save, but I still feel most christians go about it all wrong.
I do have to take exception to your qualm about Easter. Sure, cultural norm is easter bunnies and hiding eggs, candy, etc, however if you're going to teach facts, how exactly do you tell a child what Easter is without telling them about the crucifixion? Even if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you can't deny the fact that Easter is a holiday in the rememberance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That is a fact, not a matter of faith. It's a well documented historical fact.
So....I can't figure out what your problem is there. You aren't required to believe he rose from the dead, but there's not denying the fact that he was indeed crucified, and we have a holiday that takes remembrance of that fact. You may take issue with that holiday, but taking issue with the fact that a teacher explained it is a bit silly, isn't it?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Just because you believe it doesn't give it any evidence to it being true, material or whatever else you want to call evidence. I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have.
Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
You really ought to have been able to do this exercise on your own impulse if you had any intention at all of understanding the point the poster was getting at, but since you insist on being spoon-fed, here comes the big choochoo: replace FSM and Underpants gnomes with Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, etc. etc. If your agument doesn't work as well for them as for the christian God, you really need to provide an explenation why.
sudo ergo sum
The church of England is a very weird thing. At one end you have the guys over in the US and Canada, who are so permissive they're just about to get kicked out. Then there are the churches over in Africa and other third-world countries that are rather conservative (maybe even what you call 'fundamentalist'). And then there's the part that's actually in England which is leaning towards the permissiveness of the US and the Canadians. If things continue as they are going right now, the Church of England might not exist in England anymore!
At any rate, the Anglicans are a rather diverse bunch and it's unfair to make a blanket statement about them. Even my generalisations were probalby too much.
What, then, *is* "evidence" in your book? Please give us a clear definition.
"Evidence" is a word with a defined meaning. You can't just take it and claim that "having a warm and fuzzy feeling about something" also qualifies as evidence, because... it doesn't.
If you need a word to describe your personal feelings about the existence of god, then go and invent one by yourself, instead of misusing a well-known terminus in an attempt to somehow give your personal beliefs more credibility.
Please, do not equal our brain induced social properties of behaviour to a proof of a god, divinity or a spiritual existence of any kind. Thank You.
What are their rituals? Where do I sign to become a member? Do their preachers have to live celibate? How often do they pray? What's their concept on afterlife like, heaven/hell, reincarnation or something completely different? Do they have a concept of reward/punishment like sins or karma?
Free as in mason.
It's possible to replace every occurance of God with FSM and still have the philosophical question be as relevant. It's just the nonsensical name that makes people think 'God' is more acceptable than 'FSM' and thats the whole point of the FSM argument - it doesn't make sense and it's just like 'God'.
This Buddhism thing is really interesting... but I have a question. I can't remember any past lives, so how can I avoid making the same mistakes that I presumably made during my past lives?
I don't understand how I can make progress and gain karma if I can't learn from my mistakes.
>> The Dark Ages weren't all that dark.
Europe went from the ancient world of Rome/Greece with its democracy, literacy, technology, plumbing etc, to a world where 90+% of the population were tied to a feudal lord to work land they did not own, were illiterate, shat outside and plagued by disease.
Almost nothing was recorded because almost nobody could write, except people who were so religious they make intelligent design supporters look tame! Sounds pretty dark to me.
A classical answer would be "Touché."
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Most Christians spread the Gospel not to fill up their church, but because we were commanded to share the one thing in life that we have discovered and that has been life-changing for us. Alright, there are Christians who do preach just to fill up their church. There are always people with corrupt motives. But majority does it out of pure concern for their fellow humans.
I don't have a problem with "spreading the gospel". That's fine. If you think you're helping people, great.
But don't hijack another forum with a captive audience and threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't start living like you.
That's the problem people have with Fundamentalist Christians. And no, it's not all Christians, it's those that want to control what our kids are taught in school, that want to get involved in the government and tell us all how to live, who we can or can't marry, what we can or can't do with our genitals, what kind of science we can study, what kind of movies we can watch, what kind of books we can read, and even what kind of vaccinations our kids can get.
-If- Christianity in fact was true, however, it would the atheist society that was committing child abuse. The atheist society today does alot more to try to spread atheism than the Christian society does to try spread the Gospel.
Name 4 atheist churches. Name 4 atheist political groups. Name 4 atheist anything. I could come up with at least 20 so-called Christian groups that want to influence the government or the media or do something else to "spread the gospel". There is no organized atheist movement of any consequence.
People falsly accuse only Christians of being overly opinionated and biased.
I'm sorry, did I hear a victim? Let me get out my violin and play some music to go along with the moaning.
Honestly, I've never heard anyone accuse Christians--especially in the general sense--of being overly opinionated or biased.
Anybody who chooses to have faith in a belief has an absolute right to it. My problem is when they use their unproven beliefs to control how I'm allowed to live. That's not being overly opinionated or biased. That's being tyrannical.
Well then, since we can't really prove which of the two (atheism or theism) is correct, that means atheists -also- are as opinionated- as it is right now, they are even more opinionated and biased.
I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian, so this dichotomy strikes me as rather silly. But that's fine. You've framed the discussion so let's go with it.
Atheists are not the polar opposite of Christians. The fact that neither can be proven does not mean that either is just as or more opinionated than the other.
Letting people make their own unbiased decisions of what to believe or not believe in can never be done by only spreading one side of it as fact.
Um, ok. So keep your nose out of it and let people make their own decisions. Public schools don't "teach atheism". There is no atheism class. There are no "atheist teachings" sprinkled throughout the curriculum. There is no statement on whether there is a god or not a god in a public school or even generally on television. There is generally no atheist thought projected in music or movies either. I've never seen a movie proclaim that there is no god. The only examples of music declaring a non-existence of God can be found in a couple of heavy metal songs.
There are, however, Christian music, Christian movies and Christian television. There are Christian schools if you want to send your kids there. I've never heard of an optional Atheist school to send your kids to, but maybe one exists... somewhere.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russell
In short, you're a friggin' idiot.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
In fact, this is a key principle. We as people have to deal ourselves with the damage caused by others. No dispatching this to Anonymous (Noel) Cowards in the sky.
The perpetrator will presumably become miserable when it catches up to him, but there are no magical fixes.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Did any of you actually listen to this? This guy is getting a harsh deal - this was a class where ideas (the very ideas we were discussing) were to be discussed openly. He's not discussing history - in fact he says that he's not saying Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark are not facts or scientific or even true. They're trying to openly discuss ideas. They're not being tested on this.
The guy wasn't telling his class that they would go to hell. They are having an argument, and he's allowing his students to maintain their beliefs, but also expose them to other beliefs. I have no problem with this kind of discussion in schools. The guy's an idiot, but so are many high school teachers.
Go listen to this tape before you say anything.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
If I did something bad, then lied about it to my boss, I should be fired. If I thought it wasn't bad, then I would have not lied about it. It's the lie that *everyone* should be behind getting him fired for. A kid claimed that the teacher said something. He bore false witness against the kid. The teacher is a pastor, but openly breaks the Commandments. He should be fired from being a pastor for that. He is a teacher but lies to his boss (the principal) about it. He should be fired for that. The idea of religion doesn't need to even be brought up to show that this guy is an undependable liar that should be fired.
Learn to love Alaska
I would argue that your comment should read:
"I long for the day when teaching religion to children in public schools is classified as child abuse."
If I should choose (a nice American privilege, still extant, thank the Goddess!) to pay a private school, religion-affiliated, to educate my child, that's my business, not some goverement's. And if you don't believe that every parent teaches her/his offspring religion, you don't have children. (FWIW: Atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism are all religions, they just don't have all the spiritual trappings of other religions. (But consider, for example, the near canonization of Ayn Rand among Objectivists.))
The current administration may be (hah! IS) eroding our [American] civil liberties, but a few still remain.
Spiritus ex Machina
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."
To the teacher I remind him of one of the more significant commandments:
Thou shalt not bear false witness!
Over and over again, I have to sit and watch virtually every "religious" person I see break their god's laws on a regular basis. I live in the U.S. so I guess that's to be expected. Wish I could get some insight into why Bush think's it's okay to kill when his god says thou shalt not.
Religion sucks. It makes people lie to themselves and to others.
Reposting as "plain old text" -- that appeared on one line because I accidentally posted as "HTML Formatted". Oops.
I've heard this argument before.
You generally find, when you talk to agnostics, that their response to the question "Does God exist" is "I don't think so." Let's face it -- if God came down [theonion.com] to clarify his existence and perhaps set us straight, the hard Atheists would be the first on the scene. If you're really intellectually honest, you'll be looking for both evidence that this is fake (Look at that man behind the curtain!) and evidence that it's real (That bush is on fire, but the leaves are still green!)
And of course, nothing would ever be conclusive enough. We were lied to as children, first about Santa, and then about God. As adults, it will be much harder for us to accept either. And yet, of course we'd be curious if we heard jingle bells on the roof.
Now, atheists often argue that without any evidence for a position, we shouldn't believe it. Therefore, since we have no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe at all -- but it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve, and shut your eyes if God ever appears.
So, the argument goes, "An agnostic is someone who is ignorant of what an atheist is." I'd argue the converse, as well: "An atheist is someone who is ignorant of what an agnostic is." I am, in fact, agnostic about everything -- but that doesn't mean I have to operate, day in and day out, with "I'm not sure". Having opinions and expectations is fine, so long as you're prepared for them to be wrong -- "I think so" or "I don't think so" is perfectly acceptable, and is, in fact, what any intellectually honest atheist would say.
Throughout my daily life, I operate on a set of useful assumptions, and I speak and act as if they were true. Linux, as much as it sucks, is the best operating system we've got right now -- and I don't have to do a cop-out of "At least, I think so, but maybe Bill's right?"
I act as if my assumptions were true, because it'd be absurd to be questioning them every second of the day. "Am I really breathing, or do I just think I am? Will I still pass out if I hold my breath too long? Let's find out..."
What makes me agnostic, and what makes any reasonable atheist a closet agnostic, is that I am prepared to let go of any of my assumptions. Not at the drop of a hat, mind you -- I'm still skeptical -- but given sufficient evidence, I may be forced to operate on a new assumption. For instance, I used to assume that everyone used Windows because no one knew about Linux -- now I realize I was young and stupid. I currently assume the Earth is mostly full of molten rock, but given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced that it's full of molten custard.
And yes, I include in my set of assumptions the assumption that it's logical to see the world as a set of assumptions, not a set of beliefs.
If that makes me naive, well... I'm proud to be naive. Better to be naive and curious than rigid and dogmatic.
If this sounds like you, then we're really just arguing semantics. Assumption, belief. Atheist, agnostic. Potayto, potahto.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So, you're "agnostic" about little pink supernatural unicorns that cause earthquakes by running upside down along faultlines and crap gold deposits when stimulated with fish dildos weilded by mermaids, too?
Or perhaps are you willing to stipulate that when someone invents some silly set of ideas with no basis in reality, atheism -- that is, lack of belief -- is more appropriate than agnosticism?
If you're atheist with regard to the unicorn, but remain agnostic with regard to the idea of "god", perhaps you would enlighten all of us, or even just me, why you give the idea more credence, other than wanting to "get along."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As a practicing Zen Buddhist, you ego doesn't get reincarnated which is the "I" or "Me" that we experience.
Doing Zen meditation (maybe koan study) and following the ten precepts is the only way to realize your true Buddha nature. The ten precepts are not too different than the ten commandments intrestingly enough.
Do you ever worry that what you believe in is complete nonsense?
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
> Science was progressing, albiet more slowly, and for different reasons. Many "natural
> philosophers" made scientific discoveries while they were looking to prove the bible, or learn
> more about the nature of God and creation.
And then they were excommunicated, stoned, burnt, quartered, dipped in boiling tar and otherwise tortured or murdered.
The progress of mankind was set back by perhaps a thousand years. Many of the "discoveries" that kick-started the industrial revolution were inventions that had already been made by the Greeks and Romans, among them glassworks, pigments, clockworks, aqueducts and related farming techniques and the steam engine.
It was a bad time for Western civilization. Men lived in ignorance, fear and squalor. Romanticize it if you'd like. Go back to that kind of life if you'd like. I'd rather not.
Yeah, and when they talk about the fact that the earth is round and circles around the sun, that is also atheists preaching. Or to put it differently: Are you retarded?
How about: For thousands of years, farming has been an important part of huma lives. This has meant that we have celebrated various things over the course of the seasons. Springtime we used to celebrate the planting of seeds etc, that tradition morphed into what is now Easter i Christianity and Passover in Jewis traditions. We also celebrated the phases of the moon and the sun, since these were so significant features in our lives. For thousands of years we (in the north) have celebrated that mid-winter means longer days and a move towards light, summer and life again. This was always a very big celebration, particularly in Europe. The Christians high-jacked this celebration and made it their most important celebration.
When you think about it Son, there was hardly anything new in Christianity at all when it was created. Most of what the teacher says that the New Testament says are old Egyptian and Greek myths re-branded as stories about this "Jesus" character. The old Greeks and Egyptians should sue the Christians for plagiarism.
That's because it's not actually evidence. It's simply your beliefs.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A little nonsense, now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey