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."
They live in New Jersey so when they wind up in Hell it won't be much different.
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
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 "school principle" wasn't his pal.
Funny how until about a decade ago, Science was welcomed and seen as the answer, then suddenly the Discovery Institute came up with Intelligent Design and suddenly the thought that science shouldn't be taught anymore comes up.
Does anyone remember what the dark ages were? Looks like we're about to have a relapse.
MABASPLOOM!
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.
Quite the contrary. Dawkins talks a lot about the 'moderate' Christians, as he considers that a large number of those have a 'soft' belief that is succeptible to rational argument. He describes the antics of the fundamentalists in an attempt to get through to the millions. And good luck to him.
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
Mod parent up.
Don't. It's propaganda pandering to the oppressors.
Stick Men
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.
Religious people of pretty much any flavour seem to be normal people until you hit that one spot where the gears seem to just mash into each other and they go haywire.
This guy shouldn't be teaching, particularly not history. Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.
Marx was right, it is an opiate, because there certainly seem to be a fair share of the users acting like they're on something.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
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
They call it teevee.
Stick Men
Everything I've read by Dawkins suggests that he has no concept what non-fundamentalist Christians are; he's talking only about apathetic fundamentalists.
He and the fundamentalists need each other, so he treats fundamentalists as the essential definition of Christianity (rather than as a modernist group under two hundred years old, and a definite minority among Christians in general), and they treat people like him as the essential definition of atheism. Both get the bogeyman they need to have people buy their "cure".
There is a huge difference between reading about him, and reading what he actually wrote.
This is so wrong. Dawkins is British, and knows well the Church of England, a far from fundamentalist branch of Christianity. He has spoken at length about what he feels about Christianity and religion in general, even moderate versions. If you think Dawkins is only targetting minorities in religious, you really haven't read him in any detail.
Actually, Dawkins talks about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science all the time.
You obviously don't read many of his books (such as the latest one, The God Delusion), nor listen to many of his speeches (most of which can be found on YouTube or at RichardDawkins.net), because Dawkins has made that seemingly benign group of people the target of many of his criticisms.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins examines how he thinks these people are able to compartmentalize their lives in such a way that makes belief in God possible while also having a natural and healthy skepticism about other, non-religious claims. For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage.
While Dawkins certainly loves picking the low hanging fruit (the right-wing religious wackos), he is more than happy to address what he views as the hypocritical moderates. In fact, he has said numerous times that he almost has more respect for people who are steadfast in their religious beliefs than those who are willing to blend modern life with religious dogma.
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.
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).
You don't see scientist sneaking into Religious schools to teach evolution.
No, but you do see teachers ridiculing and berating students to *do* have religious beliefs. Wanna try it out? Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).
Betcha if this guy had done that there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage about it -- at least not on Slashdot.
Regardless, this guy deserved to go anyway... if he lies during the course of an investigation then he has no place teaching anywhere.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Where the "gears grind" (well put!) is called cognitive dissonance. The tension that occurs when 2 strongly held cognitions (beliefs, feelings, concepts etc) conflict. Common in anybody with strongly held beliefs such as some religious fundies, left/right wing political nutjobs, and audiophiles. People who not only refuse to accept evidence that their beliefs are wrong, but actually may not be able to accept it without a sort of major ego collapse. Kind of scary when you encounter it, isn't it?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Unless it is a seminary class, there should be NO room for religion in the class. Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Seriously, learning and study are on the opposite end of memorization and faith. It's not just a simple difference of opinion among some "teachers". It's a fundamental difference between logic and reason, and blind retardation.
No person espousing any type of religious dogma should be considered a teacher by the simple definition of the word. They are not in fact a teacher at that point, but a malignant propagandist for a religious agenda that, 99% of the time is ignorant and bad for humanity, and the rest of the living things on the planet.
If there is debate between religion and science, it is no longer a class room but a seminary room involving a lame argument devolved between two parties where one side uses reason and logic, and the other side says, "The bible says so!".
It's stupid and pointless and if YOUR tax dollars are paying for it, you should be damned pissed off.
I certainly am.
God can go hang out wherever he wants, but not where my money is getting wasted by morons.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
and wonder why non-Christians hate them.
This kind of crap happens ALL THE TIME. It is a given for any fundamentalist Christian sect that they will take whatever forum where they think they can get away with it and use it to give the hard sell. (And I do mean "sell", because it's not benevolence they're offering, but a product.)
Another Baptist preacher once used my uncle's funeral as an opportunity to try and convince the non-Christians in our family that we had better accept Jesus before OUR time was up. This jerk didn't even know my uncle, but just wanted to exploit the situation to try to get more people into his church.
Here, another typical instance of high-pressure salesmanship from a fundamentalist preacher, only this time it's not just you he's trying to sell his product to... but it's your CHILDREN.
So he tells your kids that they are going to burn in hell if they don't buy his shtick. That's damn close to child abuse.
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.
Not exactly fundamentalists no.
Reminds me of the C of E Bishop who was asked what basic beliefs a person really needed to have if they wanted to become an ordained priest within the C of E. The questioner didn't find the answer very informative so he tried to start from a more concrete position: would one need to believe in God? The Bishop's reply: "That's a very good question."
The Church of England is so far away from the fundies it's not funny. Although they didn't want poofters (that's faggots in the US) to be priests so they're still reactionary in some ways.
Being a poofter/faggot myself, I do find this a little reactionary, but they are reactionary in a mild and English kind of way.
Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...
[Knock][Knock]
Homeowner: Yes, hello?
Atheist: Hello. Have you considered not believing in God?
Homeowner: Um, I hadn't really -
Atheist: Perhaps you would care to read some of these pamphlets!
Homeowner: That's okay I -
Atheist: They clearly explain the benefits of not believing in God. Not believing in God changed my life, and it can change yours too.
Homeowner: Uhuh, whatever -
Atheist: Don't you see what not believing in God can do for you? If you don't not believe in -
[SLAM!]
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
As much as I believe in the seperation of church and state, I do also believe in equity. During my education, from junior high through college, there would occasionally be a teacher who would go out of their way to ridicule religion to the class. Not just talk about good or bad aspects, but just come out and ridicule religion - or even class members who were religious. I was never really involved or concerned one way or another, but the teachers were pretty mean-spirited towards some of the class members.
So, in be equitable, I think that the same standard should be applied to both sides. Either let everyone talk about religion as they please, or tell everyone to shut up about it. Just don't tell one group that they have to keep quiet, but allow the other side to keep on about it.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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.
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".
A moderate religious belief is still a belief in an unprovable deity. It is still irrational. Since when has questioning the irrational, no matter how moderate, become fundamentalist?
After all they were the only country scoring below the USA for belief in Evolution (recent survey). They were 34 on the list the USA was 33. Then again maybe he is disgruntled that Turkey is winning the race to root out rational thinkers.
t ype=scienceNews&storyid=2006-11-22T141111Z_01_L092 65541_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-TURKEY-EVOLUTION- DC.XML
When is "Intelligent Design" going to incorporate the belief that Darwins Evolutionary theory is the root of Terrorism? Another area where Turkey is ahead.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?
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!
Public school teacher tells class: "You belong in hell"
Transcript: A look at what was said in KHS class
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.
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?
Well, that's a silly example. There's evidence the Earth isn't filled with custard. It has a magnetic field.
*However*, if the earth were filled with *magnetic* custard...
How can you be subject to the law of gravity, if you never studied law? (It may have worked for the roadrunner, but don't try it at home, kids.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
>..Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...
--
Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8
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.
Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God which is quite a different matter.
Wonderfully put! They feel kind of mildly skeptic or agnostic, but believe that a belief is a good thing to have...
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.
Actually, questions about "god" are *NOT* central to philosophy---at least, not in the last 100 years or so, and at least in the mainstream anglo-american tradition. (I offer this tidbit since I am a professor of philosophy.) With few exceptions, any such discussions are limited to professors covering classical arguments for the existence of god in a intro class or to some discussion of "philosophy of religion".
Moreover, it is a pretty invidious distinction to say "well, the god question is old, and so real, but the FSM is new and just parody." I mean, the Jesus hypothesis was pretty new at one point . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
"Who would have ever thought there was such a place as Robot Hell? And that it would be in New Jersey?"
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.
Buddhism is even more diverse than this. You have your choice of the following:
1. In the earliest classical orthodox variants, if you committed an gross aggressive act against another person, you would wind up reincarnated HERE, but as a less advanced form of life. Thus after descending to being an understudy of a reality show film double, you would come back the second time as the particular molecule of virus that scientists rip apart to make the hollow double used to prevent the spread of virulent AIDS. Thus through your immediate torment and suffering for your action, you would help save another's life, and thus begin your climb back up the chain of karma.
2. In the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, you experience a subjective emotional hell right here, right now. You know, that blinding screeching rage against the machine, and Bogombo Snuff Boxes. (Ask Kurt Vonnegut about that last one. Sorry, Kurt Vonnegut short stories are not available through P2P.)
3. In fact, you do not go anywhere. All you have succeeded in doing is making a minor conceptual mistake, for which Buddhism is quite lenient. You are hereby sentenced to another lifetime of approximately the qualuity you are experiencing now, to further study the error of your ways. Sound dull? That's the point. None of that artificial excitement of Christianity.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Of course, you are right. There is also imagined evidence, which is very important!
Mock me not! I have seen evidence of this! Someone showed me this little tube I could look through and there they were, swimming around waving their cilia in scandalous and unholy abandon!
Still, they did look a little Noodly, but they weren't the rightsort of Noodly. And there weren't any pirates, even though I was looking through a tube.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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.
It's nutritionally enhanced custard, with added iron.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
Baptist preacher? Why, that uppity Heretic!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They're not really so benign, because they give religion its power. Without them, fundamentalists would have a much more difficult time with their trash-talking and hatred.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
I didn't mean a different type of free speech, I meant that his rights are limited and thus not free speech.
Granted, a teacher is free to express opinion *provided* that opinion is one related to the subject at hand, but not just any opinion. We don't have automata teaching children, but nor should we have people who will use a classroom to push their own unrelated agenda.
I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the professor has disagreed with the student, but did not "lay into" him. It was basically a "you're entitled to your beliefs, but if this comes up on a test..." type of response. I'm guessing the average professor is too smart to take up class time (or his own) on what will no doubt be a pointless exercise. (I know a couple people who have gone from being Creationists to believing in evolution, but in both cases it involved letting that person come to their own conclusion. Trying to "preach" to them is very unlikely to do any good.)
Now in no way are my few experiences proof that it never happens, or really even that it doesn't often happen - I admit they are just a few case studies. Still, my belief is that it doesn't happen at your average University.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The most common example is that free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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
Atheists on TV? I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching.
Evolution isn't atheist at all. Even John Paul II, the last Pope, stated evolution was correct. He said something along the lines that "God" used evolution to create life. Of course the new Pope may very well change that. As for myself, I strongly believe in evolution but I am not an atheist. What I am is agnostic, "a", without, and "gnostis", knowledge. I am without knowledge on the subject of whether there is or is not any supreme diety, soul, or spirit.
You don't choose the things you believe in, they choose you!
FalconShould there be a Law?
I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience :), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)
If you want to argue about contradictions within a belief system (which IMO necessarily include the physical world), then fine. But don't deny that believing in concepts such as causality, reproducibility, etc., are still beliefs. They may be beliefs of an arguably different nature, but still beliefs. Science is, in fact, based on a set of axioms. Those axioms are the cornerstones of the "faith".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Actually we have a holiday about Fertility and Growth (hence egg, hence rabbit) Jesus may well have been crucified at that time of year but maybe not. But those who aren't Christian don't celibrate the death and reasurection of Christ at that time of year, they celibrate fertility and growth or maybe they celibrate nothing. Easter as a word has no origin in Christian mythology either, to quote wikipedia:
'The English and German names, "Easter" and "Ostern", are not etymologically derived from Pesach and are instead related to ancient names for the month of April, Eostremonat and Ostaramanoth respectively.'
So yeah I can understand a parent getting annoyed at a teacher foisting their mythology on a charge of theirs when the celebration has nothing to do with it.
Loop, twist and loop again.
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.
How about
;-)
"Thanks for the explanation, it went completely over my head".
I'd probably say something like: "Easter was originally a Pagan festival that celebrated the end of the dark nights of winter and the coming of new life to the world in spring. That's why we have the eggs-and-bunnies thing. Some time later, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the best way to convert the Pagans to their brand of religion was to hijack all of their festivals so they tied in with Christianity. So they moved Jesus' birthday to Midwinter and his 'deathday' to Eastre - an ancient word for spring. Which is why we have all that hot-cross-buns-and-going-to-church thing."
Lots of people were crucified in Roman times. To non-christians (who don't believe in the resurrection) there's not much point in 'celebrating' Jesus' crucifiction in particular as he was just another bloke nailed to a bit of wood.
I say teaching about religious beliefs should be left to the RE teachers. I don't bang on about Atheism in my ICT lessons, why should this idiot be allowed to bang on about Christianity in his history lessons?
Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.
Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is presented carefully. However, it would be very easy for either a Christian or a non-Christian (Jew, atheist, etc.) to slip up when discussing this, so I'd make sure I had a script to go by when discussing it, I'd make sure that I had discussed the script with the principle, and I certainly wouldn't deny mentioning it if asked by a child's parent.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Public schools in the US are government-managed and as such, the government's responsibility not to endorse any religions means that the teacher's preaching is more in violation of the First Amendment than supported by it.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Homeschooling.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
Telling to "the public" that earth is flat is "free speech"
Telling children that earth is flat is "lying".
Or to drive the point through
Making a video of yourself having intercourse with is protected by free speech under the impression that it could be art, and this is probably good, since the exact limit is very hard to define.
Bonking the cleaning person in front of the children might be seen as educative, but nevertheless is a nono and might get you in jail. Using not to good looking images and diagrams is deemed more adequate for sex-ed.
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.
I am, what most people would call, a right wing fundamental Christian. I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to meet with God. Because of my relationship with God, I find evolution a laughable concpet... I am 100% convinced that intelligent design is the only explanation. I go to church, twice on Sundays, and a few times during the week. I give over 10% of my money to the church. I however, do not go around telling people they will go to hell. I enjoy reading Slashdot science articles, I don't firebomb abortion clinics. I don't hold up signs like "gay's go to hell" in protest against the Mardi Gras. I'm looking forward to playing Rainbox 6: Las Vegas (sweeeet). I cringe when i saw the youtube video about the crazy Jesus lady. These kind of things embarass me and don't at all reflect who I know my Jesus to be. I try to love as many people as I can, because that is what Jesus did. People, like this pastor, mean well - Jesus is the best thing that's ever happened to me - but their method is their own, and not God's. So don't put us in a box. Don't think this man is a horrible person, in His mind (and mine) the best thing he could ever show the kids in his classroom is Jesus. Unfortunately, his actions showed Jesus to be something that he is not. A liar and a manipulator, and that's the saddest part.
Jesus Saves
A classical answer would be "Touché."
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Actually, the very historicity of Jesus is subject to challenge. However, that's not unusual for history; many historical issues are unclear. However, they are generally presented as being unclear. When it comes to Jesus, however, the very debate tends to get suppressed.
Take the cruci-fiction (spelling deliberate). The Romans kept very good records of criminal trials and executions. Many, but not all, of these records survive today. That the Romans did use crucifixion in Palestine as a form of capital punishment is historical fact. That a Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, during the Passover celebrations, sometime between 20BC and 50AD, is not - the dated records don't survive. Neither the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, both of which are old enough to _have_ the documentary evidence, are prepared to release any.
Now, there is good secondary evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified. But there is sufficient doubt, along with enough supporting material for alternative theories, that teaching the Crucifixion as historical fact is intellectually dishonest.
As for Easter - yes, you'd want to say that it's a secular holiday based on the Christian tradition of remembrance of the Crucifixion of Jesus. That is fact, even if the Crucifixion itself isn't. You may then want to say that, because the country you live in was a strong Christian tradition, some of the Christian holy days have become secular holidays (and then segue into the etymology of the word). You may then want to point out that Easter should coincide with the Jewish Passover celebrations (which it doesn't any more - well, the Orthodox Christian Easter still does). While you're at it, you may want to point out that Christmas was picked as a date rather arbitrarily.
While you're at it, you may want to point out that Thanksgiving is an old celebration imported from Europe, and it is all about being thankful that you've got enough food put aside that you'll survive the winter. The fact that this original purpose is now mostly irrelevant (it's been a long time in a Western country since widespread famine in winter and Spring was a problem) doesn't mean that the holiday doesn't have a modern reason to continue.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
To get picky, weak atheism (mere non-belief) is extremely defensible, although it's very hard to present an affirmative case for it. Strong atheism (active disbelief) is justifiable for some entities, less so for others.
I have certainly met people who were religiously zealous about their atheism; I have seen someone call other people fake atheists and accuse them of believing things that are wrong for atheists to believe. I've seen an atheist who believed firmly that he had seen convincing evidence for psychic stuff get mercilessly shredded by other people who insisted that a REAL atheist wouldn't believe that.
I would argue that, from a scientific standpoint, the God question is just plain ill-formed; the only scientifically viable position is probably "we will act as though there isn't". But not all of life is science; it's no different from the way that, most of the time, we apply brakes rather than waiting to see whether a hypothesized car-stopping-fairy will materialize.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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
...says the anonymous coward. But there are many not afraid to speak openly about this topic, such as myself.
I would be what someone might label as fundamentalist, in that I believe in the infallibility of God's message to us. However, the correct meaning of fundamentalist as used in these conversations is really an extreme legalism (they take things to the extreme on the language, usually failing to realize that the infallible word does not mean someone can't do a biased translation).
I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal of the United Pentecostal Church. We're Oneness (only One, not three in one). We're also classified under the Charismatic, because we practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're separate from them, though, in our Oneness beliefs and also in what are known as standards. Our women don't cut their hair and usually wear dresses and skirts, our men keep their hair cut short and wear long sleeve shirts and full length pants. We generally don't watch TV (which isn't universally practiced, dvds are allowed to an extent, etc... , but is part of our standards bylaws, debate on this issue continues), go out to movies, drink, smoke, or take any other types of drugs.
So, from reading that, you would think we're the far far far right of all issues, especially on science. You would also be furthest from the truth.
The truth is that our church realizes one thing, that science cannot and will not disprove God, if that science is truly logical in basis and not some half baked theory. Evolution remains unproven, but if you were to ask our scholars, they would similarly tell you, every bit of Evolution (or any other scientific area) that is proven fact is fully in line with biblical accounts. On the other hand, we have no faith that science will ever bring humanity even one inch closer to salvation. We simply recognize that many misguided people would use theory and out of context facts to make a case against Christianity, as if there really were some disagreement between science and biblical truth.
Churches are filled with the technologically gifted. Who do you think runs sound booths, cameras, websites, etc.? Churches have massive IT infrastructures. Christians broadcast on tens of thousands of radio stations worldwide and several denominations run entire TV networks. So, before anyone jumps on the "religion is for low IQ people", like the "New Atheism" people do, realize that such a view is mainly based in geographic epicenters revolving around creation and design, not implementation (the programmers, not the professional users).
As such, the "low IQ" bias doesn't hold, considering the proliferation of "media ministries". And we certainly passed our science and math classes with flying colors. Many will also tell you that faith is not blind. Faith is that we've seen enough evidence to be persuaded, which is the actual use of the word faith in the bible. As Jesus did say, if you don't believe because I'm telling you, believe because of the works you've seen me do. (paraphrasing heavily) We recognize that God has never refused a test, though you better be careful not to tempt him. There's a difference between testing and tempting. If you don't believe, you can test. If you believe, but ask anyways for some undeserving reason, you tempt. That's a very simplified explanation, but should get the message to you.
Now, as for this case, this teacher was misguided, and I'm still waiting for the downloaded audio to listen to the context. But I recognize a few things right off the bat. First off, he was setup.
"The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for
I8-D
As a practicing Zen Buddhist, you ego doesn't get reincarnated which is the "I" or "Me" that we experience.
What is reincarnated however is the negative karma, the suffering you have caused yourself and others is recincarnated into the cycle of birth and death. The good karma is 'absorbed' into the Cosmic Buddha.
Everyone is a Buddha, no matter how "bad" or "wicked" they are. It is a matter of realizing your true Buddha nature, the perfection of yourself and others sans the delusional thinking.
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.
Buddhism doesn't believe in any higher power or god. It doesn't really matter, everyone is responsible for themselves, God/god(s) or not.
As a side note, if you are thrown into a Buddhist hell, according to Buddhist pantheon seems like a far worse place to be than the Christian Hell. But in Buddhist hell you can be reborn into another realm by doing virtuous deeds and saving and helping any sentient being.
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
This is hardly a new issue. Back around 1970 I took a course at UCB in the history of science. The text for the course was A History of the warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/), by Andrew Dickson White, first published in 1896. Little has changed since then (either 1896 or 1970, your choice).
The salient and interesting point of White's work is captured in the title. The warfare is between Science and Theology, not between Science and Religion. White's position, strongly defended, was that science and religion, characterized as faith or belief in powers and existence outside the immediate corporeal world, were not at odds, but that theology, as put forth by religious scholastics with a vested interest in convincing the general populace of the value of unquestioned dogma, was completely at odds with science.
It's a tough go, but worth the effort. After thirty-five+ years, I can still cite that book, although I cannot remember the names of more that a handful of the professors I endured or, in a very few cases, was privileged to study with (requiescat in pace, Dr. Pimentel).
Spiritus ex Machina
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."
Philosopher Daniel Dennett often uses the expression "belief in belief" in his lectures. There are many fascinating audio and video lectures of his found here:
http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php
Also, in the general debate of Science vs/and Religion, there are a number of great video discussions here (15 hours worth!):
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
Session 9 includes particularly fired up conversations...
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."
Why would I choose to be an agnostic only in order to just "get along" when the religious say I'm going to hell and the atheists tell me I'm just being indecisive?
I'm agnostic, but I'm also highly-critical in religious arguments. If I see something which I don't believe makes sense, I don't hesitate to point it out. I'm very confrontational.
My philosophy regarding religion isn't "Let's get along." My philosophy is "I haven't heard a single convincing argument yet, so I don't know."
Albuquerque PC
You're describing Pascal's wager.
The fallacy in Pascal's wager is that you've got several religions to choose from, not just one. What grounds, other than it is the religion you were brought up in, do you have for Christianity (and the flavour thereof that you follow) being the "One True Path" that gets you into the good afterlife and lets you avoid the bad one?
How would you feel if it turns out that you should have converted to Islam? Or that you were out of luck if you weren't born a Jew in the first place? (there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus only ever extended the salvation to the Jews, and that Paul expanded on the message when he started to try to convert the Romans). Maybe Joseph Smith _didn't_ pull Mormanism out of his posterior and it really was revealed to him by God. Or you perhaps should be worshipping Brahman (possibly in one of the many sub-aspects, such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti)? Mind you, if the last one turns out to be correct, you'll get another turn on the Wheel later to try again, so that's probably not worth the risk the first time around.
The point here is that, most likely, the only reason you are a Christian is that you were born into a Christian family. If you'd been born in Iran, you'd probably be Muslim. I repeat - how do you choose which religion to follow?
As for the Bible not contradicting itself, that's flat out wrong. Both the Old and the New Testament are full of contradictions, both within each Testament and between them. Heck, arguably the most important story in the New Testament, the story of the birth of Jesus, is completely different between Matthew and Luke.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
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!
Bodhisattva does not rule. Bodhisattva serves.
I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
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.
Try Russell's teapot then. Entirely physically possible (though rather unlikely) and certainly can't be disproven - do you believe there's a teapot orbiting the sub between earth and mars? Are you agnostic about it? Or do you simply not believe in it? Most atheists are "weak atheists", which is to say that they happily admit the question of the existence of God remains unresolved. They do believe, however, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence, and, pending further evidence, have to lean toward non-existence.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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
We really need this for agnostics too. Something like... Not Jehovah's Witnesses Because We Don't Actually Have Proof For Or Against It.
*knock knock*
Homeowner: "Hello?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Have you ever considered not knowing whether to believe in God or not?"
Homeowner: "Come again?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "God. Have you ever considered that it's impossible to tell whether he exists or not because we do not have irrefutable proof for either?"
Homeowner: "...no?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Do you want a pamphlet?"
Homeowner: "That's a big cardboard box with philosophy books in it."
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Well, without this stuff you can't really make an informed decis--"
*slam*
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
If he was a practicing Zen buddhist, he shouldn't be, since that would mean he doesn't believe in much of anything. Depending. Zen is typically more of a philosophy than a religion. A Zen buddihst may or may not believe that he will be reincarnated after he is dead. He may in fact believe or not believe that he is going to die some time in the future, depending on his feelings that day, or not. Imagine the following exchange of words between a Zen master and a student: Student: Hey, what happens when I die? Master: How should I know? Student: But you are a master! You must know! Master: Well, duh, I'm not dead yet! At it's core Zen doesn't teach you anything that is "supernatural". Reincarnation is what happens to you here and now. Every moment that you experience something your old "self" (oversimplification, who knows if there is a "self") dies and is re-born as a new "self" due to the experience you just had. If that continues after you are dead is just another dumb, and extremely irrelevant, question. What matters is where, how and what you are now. The grandparent feels that Zen meditation helps him deal with what he calls his Buddha nature. Good for him. Another person may find that surfing the beaches of Southern California does the same. I am not sure what you think is nonsense about what he believes, or why you think you know what he believes, but then again, does it matter?
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.
This post was clearly not meant to be funny. I've noticed over the year or so that I've been a member here that you have a habit of labeling posts as funny when they try to represent an unpopular viewpoint, particularly when this viewpoint is religious in nature. If you don't want to believe what a person has to say, that's fine--but it's no reason to call their argument a joke. I was under the impression that /. was meant to be nerd *news*, not some childish nerd popularity contest. Perhaps I was wrong...
In future, I would appreciate you giving *all* viewpoints--even ones which go against the crowd or which you may think are dumb--a fair mod. If the other readers don't agree, let them submit a credible argument against it.
But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
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
So, the way the GP was using these words is consistent with 1b for both definitions. It's how a lot of people use these words. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Now, I actually find the distinction between "not knowing" and "not believing" to be a whole lot harder to pin down than the distinction between "not believing there's a god" and "believing there's no god", but maybe that's just me. As for the latter, there are plenty of people who DO believe there's no god, so what do you call them if not atheist? I understand your etymology argument, but similar reasoning might lead to the idea that "inflammable" means "not flammable" (yes, I know that it comes from "inflame"), and although I'm no wordsmith, I'm sure there are dozens of examples in the English language where what the word means does not agree with its etymology.
Now if you're looking for another distinction that's not captured by these words - and perhaps this is what you're getting at - there are at least two types of agnostics: those who aren't sure whether there's no God, and those who aren't sure whether there are any gods. I.e., you can be agnostic and still think, "Well if there is a God, it's (probably) the Christian God." Such people might describe themselves as being "Christian agnostic". (I added the word "probably" because I think even self-described "Christian agnostics" might be willing to entertain the idea that it's a single God, but not necessarilyl the God of the Old and/or New Testaments.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
A little nonsense, now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Dawkins does indeed talk about science-accepting Christians. He feels they are *still* damaging their children by teaching them to respect and honor faith as something valuable, as something that's a source of wisdom.
Most of these Christians also tell their kids that Grandma is in heaven with Grandpa now, and she's happy. They tell their kids that God is watching and he'll know when they do something bad. They take their kids to church, where the kids are told (and made to recite) that God art in heaven and is the creator of heaven and earth, Jesus is his only son (and is also God), Mary was a virgin who gave birth, and various miracles actually happened.
I didn't grow up in a fundamentalist family by any stretch of the imagination (just fairly standard suburban Roman Catholic), but I was fed all of this stuff as a kid, and it took a long time to go back and really "clean house" in my brain to toss out all of that.
At some point standing in church reciting lines with the crowd like "it is right to give Him thanks and praise", and stuff like the Nicene Creed every week started to creep me out. But most people go on saying we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth... his only son born of the Virgin Mary, etc. on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures, he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, etc. etc.., every week.
And think about how children are inculcated with such a sense that religion is an inarguable source of "right/wrong" information that many of those children are thus far easier to be manipulated later. Is a politician religious? Then he'll probably know right from wrong, won't he? Of course you've noticed how politicians attack this angle for all their worth.
Dawkins also talks about (and actively debates with) scientists and others who argue that religion and science occupy different magisteria -- the idea that they answer different kinds of questions, and thus they don't conflict because they don't overlap. His argument is that of *course* they overlap. If science came up with DNA evidence that Jesus really was born somehow outside of the bounds of normal human sexual reproduction, he guarantees you wouldn't hear religious leaders saying "nope; doesn't count -- science is a separate realm from religion". Instead, religion purports to answer questions that either are impossible to answer (like "why are we here" and "what's our purpose in life") or questions that science has no solid answers for currently (like "how the the universe begin"). His response is basically: some questions are simply invalid questions, and some science cannot yet answer... but why in the world would our own invented mythology have a better chance somehow at answering these problems? We might as well use explanations based on the ancient Greek pantheon... it's the same thing.