Religion is the classroom?
Offline This is an open question to all religious people working to get Intelligent Design/creationism into schools and science classrooms. I have one question. If your superstitious delusions are allowed into the classroom, on what logical basis do you have to deny any and every other creation myth from being presented alongside your own myths? I hear these religious types talk about telling students about BOTH options, between evolution via natural selection (supported by all the available scientific data) and the personal religion (usually fundamentalist Christianity) of the IDiots. Wait a minute, there's only two options? I was apparently unaware that every creation myth ever constructed by the human mind (very good at creating works of fiction, looking at the evidence) had been disproven EXCEPT yours. So either all creation myths are ok for the science class or none are. It's funny, because the religious types will most likely jump through theological hoops to show that while all the other deiti(es) constructed by the human mind are works of fiction, theirs and theirs alone are actually true.
"The closest a theist can get to understanding the mind of an atheist is to think of their delusion as they think of other religions delusions. We don't reject the Christian god anymore then a Christian rejects Allah or a Muslim rejects Buddah. You have to belive they exist to reject them. You simply don't believe. We just add in your sky daddy delusion with the rest of them." Me
Now GET IN THE SACK!
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
- Login to post comments
Thank you for that inspiring sermon Rev. B166er!
Instead of answering my question, David Henson, you just call me by that most derogatory of terms, "rev.". So if any other theists can answer my question, since David Henson has proven that he cannot, please answer this:
If you think that your religion belongs in the classroom, on what logical grounds would you deny the same room to every other creation mythos?
Serious answers please.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
Well, I don't think that unless it's a comparative religion class, which would automatically include other religions, so that's why I didn't answer.
ciarin.com
There are only four or five 'real' theists on this site, that response might be all you get.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I would not consider a comparative religion class what I was talking about. Comparative Religious studies usually never take a stand on a certain religion, unless taught by a deluded partisan teacher. What I was talking about was the goals of I.D., in that their religious positions be taught on equal footing as science. My biggest problem with the C.R. classes is that it's almost impossible to find a relatively unbiased teacher to teach without emphasizing their own personal delusion above the rest. In an ideal world, a C.R. class would be able to teach the true history and dogmas of the world religions, and would educate students about the various creation myths people have used to try and explain the universe and their place in it, but most likely you will get a religious person dedicated to their faith teaching, thus not an impartial teacher.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
I didn't answer the question because it wasn't really directed at me. I don't expect you to have read all of my posts so I will explain. I don't think that creationism of any kind under any name should be taught in schools. Primarily for two reasons. 1. I don't trust public education to do anything but transmogrify any of the Bible's teachings and 2. it doesn't belong in the schools anyway. For the sake of the Church and the sake of the state they should, in every possible way, remain separate.
If, on the other hand . . . and I mean IF they did decide to teach creationism in the schools then I completely agree that there should be a fair representative there of any possibility. You are talking to a guy who has published sacred texts from each of the major religions. Buddhism's Dhammapada and Four Noble Truths, Confucianism's Analects, Hinduism's Bhagavad-Gita, Islam's Qu'ran, Judaism's Pirque Aboth, Shinto's Nihongi, and Toaism's Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu. I believe that you should investigate as many possibilities as you can.
You, on the other hand, believe that science class should be limited to the instruction of the most current science and I happen to agree with you. Right or wrong as far as the science goes, it should still be exclusively taught in the science class.
But you still sound like a politician or preacher.
What exactly would constitute a 'real' theist? Your opinion? What then, is a 'real' atheist?
Pantheists and deists are considered theists, but I don't think they are included in most discussions when people say, "theist". This one, for example.
This forum only has a handful of non deistic or pantheistic theists, and most of those don't stick around for long.
I don't have a nonstandard definition of atheist, just someone who does not believe in god(s).
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
David is just pushing your buttons. He's already stated elsewhere that he doesn't think creation should be in the classroom (supposedly because he believes that kids don't remember anything they learn in class anyway).
That said, most of the theists here probably wouldn't assert that creation should be taught in school- the active ones are largely the "god of the gaps" types.
You might be able to find a drive-by poster to reply, though.
Best of luck!
EDIT: Woah, storm of posts. Didn't see any of those before I replied- others beat me to it.
I see what you mean.
Well, you got it right as usual, Blake. I'm not familiar with the term "god of the gaps," though - could you explain what that means, please?
Also, if you are interested and have the time I would like to hear your feedback on this post I made here recently. I'm very courteous.
Its a discussion I had with Atheistextremist, and I'm particularly interested in what you think of my observations on the Hebrew word yohm (day) in the creation account.
god of the gaps is when a person doesn't know how to explain a natural phenomenon and so uses god to explain the gap.
ciarin.com
Ah . . . I see. Thanks, Ciarin. Is that pronounced like Karen?
It's pronounced Ciarin.