God Squad:00 - Evolution:01

[English Lady]

True. And, why should they? I don't presume to know all the ways of god, but I think I can get closer through science. Arriving at even meager understandings do not diminish the wonder and awe at the creator. Interpreting the Scriptures as the inspired words of people who saw god in their lives does not diminish the One who they perceived.

There is a mystery in god, such that I don't know if it's even 'god' or 'God'. Seeing the hand of evolution, or the echoes of the creation, or formation of new stars out of dust - none of these diminishes my wonder.

Beautiful.

 

[NoJo]

I think God was taught to have created the world in our Religious Education classes at school, and the evolution thing was done in science.

At the end of the day I suspect thats the way it should be, though I reckon if you're likely to believe in God, you'll believe he created the universe any damn way He so desired *grins*

In the US, You're not allowed to teach religious theories in public schools, only scientific theories. The (Bush-appointed) judge decided that ID is not a scientific theory, so that's why it was deemed unlawful to teach in schools.

I'm not 100% sure of how school religious education works in the US. I think it's not the same as in the UK.

 

[amicus]

I should not do this, and perhaps will not...it is late, or early and I am surely in my cups...

It is the ambilvalence of those who claim to be intellectual, but without an absolute foundation, that cannot decide between faith and fact.

That is sad.

Those who are incapable of cognitizing, 'something exists because there is valid evidence of its existence' are excused.

There is no god, no deity, no supreme being, no purpose to the universe or life, as we know it, never has been, never will be.

Kinda tough for that 50 percent of the population under 100 IQ points, I know, but thas reality.

It is no longer humorous or even sad, in this day and age, that people, 'believe', trust, have faith, accept, one of the 1500 variations of creation theory.

Mankind needs to relegate to history the witch doctors, shamans, priests, popes and reverends, all high on something, that did their best to offer us a way out of facing reality.

There ain't no wait out.

We live and die, as nature determines, and the universe takes no notice, nor would it, if earth, Sol 3, Third Rock from the Sun, evaporated and expunged all 7 or 8 billion human lives currently existing.

There is no 'God'; never was, never will be, cannot be, and you are left with the realization that we human critters, are obligated to discover and practice our own moral and ethical code.

As much as most detest my avenue of thought, just imagine, for an instant, for the sake of conversation, that I have a valid point.

If there is no 'creator', then what is the meaning and the purpose of life? Existentialists and even those before them, addressed the same query and came up with Nihilism, that life has no purpose and no meaning.

Those few brave souls, (sic) such as myself, who maintain that 'life' has its own innate purpose and meaning, strive to present the idea that maybe we should begin to 'think' about such things rather than continue belief in the,"Grey Ghost of Galillee, (with apologies to Algernon Charles Swinburne, the poet).


If indeed, there is no 'God', no creator, and if indeed, there is no other life in the Universe, save us pesky humans, then what the fuck does it all mean?

Should you not begin 'thinking', and put aside your search for warm and fuzzy?

amicus...

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In Sweden, religion is taught as a subject just like English or French or Chemistry.

We learn what different religions there are in this world, how they originated, what the practioners believe in, and what rules the religions have. We do this so we'll have a better understanding of the cultures based on these religions.

Ofcourse, when religion gets mxed in with politics, that's when things get tricky... but that's what you study at university level.

 

[Pure]

How to think in circles

Ami says:1) There is ... no purpose to the universe or life*

Ami says that the non Brave Souls, however, believe: (Existentialists ...came up with Nihilism,)

2) that life has no purpose.

It would follow from 1) and 2) that Ami believes what the non-Brave Nihilists believe.

But Ami says (He's among the Brave Souls) who maintain

3) that 'life' has its own innate purpose**.

Ami contradicts himself, since 3) contradicts 1) [life has no purpose].

Further Ami maintains that the purpose of life is life (or, to continue living). The simple tautology. The purpose of the fire's burning, is to burn (to continue burning).

As the objectivists say, so piously, 'A is A'.

Q: How do you live your life?
Objectivist answer: You live your life.
Q: How do you die your death.
Answer: You die your death.


So we have perfect clarity:

For 'perfect clarity' = perfectly clarity' (law of identity).

Or maybe we have bunk, because

'bunk' = 'bunk'.


-----



*Ami: There is no god, no deity, no supreme being, no purpose to the universe or life, as we know it, never has been, never will be.

**Ami Those few brave souls, (sic) such as myself, who maintain that 'life' has its own innate purpose and meaning, strive to present the idea that maybe we should begin to 'think' about such things,,,

 

[rgraham666]

It took you this long to figure our friend out, Pure?

 

[amicus]

...never mind...

 

[English Lady]

In the US, You're not allowed to teach religious theories in public schools, only scientific theories. The (Bush-appointed) judge decided that ID is not a scientific theory, so that's why it was deemed unlawful to teach in schools.

I'm not 100% sure of how school religious education works in the US. I think it's not the same as in the UK.

That explains sooo much -thanks for that info

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would suppose a class on comparative religions would be allright in high school. Actually, it would be quite useful but the instructor would have to remain neutral. Since ID is essentially Creationism, it would not be allowed by itself, especially in a science course.

 

[Liar]

I would suppose a class on comparative religions would be allright in high school. Actually, it would be quite useful but the instructor would have to remain neutral.

Is there anything to be biased about? It's not a class in valuing the world religions, but to truthfully report how they work. No different than learning facts about other countries, historic dates and so on.

"This is Hinduism. It is practiced by X million people, most of them in India. A hinduist believes that bla bla bla and that when you die you bla bla bla. They pray to several different gods, the most prominent of them being bla bla bla bla..."

Doesn't say anything about right or wrong, or which religion kicks the other religions' asses.

I thought this was taught in any supposedly modern school,

...along with basic geography. Nothing fancy, just where the continents and oceans are located and what the biggest countries are called.
...some simple history. Who was Hitler, Julius Caesar, Djenghis Kahn, Napoleon, Cleopatra, Columbus, Lincoln, Da Vinci, Lenin... (May vary where you live tough, I'll bet there are a whole set of Asian and African historical giants that I have never heard of.)
...and rudimentary knowledge of society. A little about how stuff like how laws and the legislative bizniz works in your country, what rights and obligations a citizen have. Stuff like that.

Am I being totally naive here?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Is there anything to be biased about? It's not a class in valuing the world religions, but to truthfully report how they work. No different than learning facts about other countries, historic dates and so on.

"This is Hinduism. It is practiced by X million people, most of them in India. A hinduist believes that bla bla bla and that when you die you bla bla bla. They pray to several different gods, the most prominent of them being bla bla bla bla..."

Doesn't say anything about right or wrong, or which religion kicks the other religions' asses.

I thought this was taught in any supposedly modern school,

...along with basic geography. Nothing fancy, just where the continents and oceans are located and what the biggest countries are called.
...some simple history. Who was Hitler, Julius Caesar, Djenghis Kahn, Napoleon, Cleopatra, Columbus, Lincoln, Da Vinci, Lenin... (May vary where you live tough, I'll bet there are a whole set of Asian and African historical giants that I have never heard of.)
...and rudimentary knowledge of society. A little about how stuff like how laws and the legislative bizniz works in your country, what rights and obligations a citizen have. Stuff like that.

Am I being totally naive here?

That sounds like what we called "Civics" class in my high school. I don't think they teach it any more.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Doesn't say anything about right or wrong, or which religion kicks the other religions' asses.

I think herein lies the reason why religion as a separate subject isn't taught in American schools, Liar.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I would suppose a class on comparative religions would be allright in high school. Actually, it would be quite useful but the instructor would have to remain neutral. Since ID is essentially Creationism, it would not be allowed by itself, especially in a science course.

Yes. I actually had several classes in which various religions were discussed, either in terms of philosophy, or of effect on history, or what have you. That's the nub of it. One can actually say quite a lot about religion in a US school; one simply can't present it as an attempt to persuade the class to believe that religion.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Which is exactly as it should be.

 

[Liar]

Which is exactly as it should be.

But is it done? I only took Box's post as an indication that that's not the case, since he adressed it the way he did, that it would be quite useful.

 

[NoJo]

My teenage kids both enjoyed their (compulsory) Religious Education classes in school, probably because It was taught by a very inspiring and charismatic teacher.

In it, they learn the "facts" about religions, with most emphasis on the dominant religion here (Church of England). But they were also made to think about the kind of deep questions that many religions (claim to) provide answers to -- yannow, Good/Evil, Life/Death.

Their Religious Education classes have led them to think about questions of morality and ethics (and the crucial difference between the two), and whether there are any "universal themes" across all religions.

 

[hugo_sam]

But is it done? I only took Box's post as an indication that that's not the case, since he adressed it the way he did, that it would be quite useful.

I really cannot say for sure Liar.
When I was in school. No, at least not in public schools.
When my son was in school, the answer was still no but for a different reason. Their entire curriculum was so geared to standardized tests that anything not test driven English comprehension, science or math was skipped or covered so slightly that it might as well have been. History, Civics, Health, Music, Art or anything not on standardized tests was either eliminated entirely or glossed over.
Only comparative religion I ever had was in college.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar
But is it done? I only took Box's post as an indication that that's not the case, since he adressed it the way he did, that it would be quite useful.

I really cannot say for sure Liar.
When I was in school. No, at least not in public schools.
When my son was in school, the answer was still no but for a different reason. Their entire curriculum was so geared to standardized tests that anything not test driven English comprehension, science or math was skipped or covered so slightly that it might as well have been. History, Civics, Health, Music, Art or anything not on standardized tests was either eliminated entirely or glossed over.
Only comparative religion I ever had was in college.

I can't really say for sure either. I attended public high school many years ago and, although there was no actual religious instruction, we sang carols and even hymns sometimes. Christianity, the dominant religion (possibly the only religion in the school just then) was treated as something we all believed in, although therre were many students who had no religion at all. No distinction was made between different branches except that, in high school, fish was always served at lunch on Friday.

 

[hugo_sam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar
But is it done? I only took Box's post as an indication that that's not the case, since he adressed it the way he did, that it would be quite useful.




I can't really say for sure either. I attended public high school many years ago and, although there was no actual religious instruction, we sang carols and even hymns sometimes. Christianity, the dominant religion (possibly the only religion in the school just then) was treated as something we all believed in, although therre were many students who had no religion at all. No distinction was made between different branches except that, in high school, fish was always served at lunch on Friday.

Come to think of it, it was when I was in school too, Box. I forgot about that. Those tan fish cake mystery meat kind of things.
Growing up in surburban Atlanta was very heterogenus religion wise in a broad sense. Porbably 90% or better of the poplulous was White Anglo Saxon Protestants. There was a very small smattering of Roman Catholics, all three Jewish families and both Black families.
It was quite an awakening for me when I moved to downstate NY with the wonderful melting pot of cultures there. Having lived in both, I take the melting pot.
Religion was still not taught in school but it was by association in the neighborhoods.
At that time and place, Near Asian and Far Asian and Middle Eastern cultures were not well represented but it was still quite a varied grouping. Still it was not taught in Public Schools, at least none I attended or knew anyone who did. Shame, all in all.