It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Age of the earth, evolution and age of the universe aren't anti theistic unless you are a biblical literalist. If that's the case, the problem is with you as there is no reason to take the bible as 100% literal truth. Most religious people are not literalists. You MAKE THEM anti theistic because of your narrow view that a compilation of numerous unverified stories written over a thousand+ year period could somehow be the direct absolute word of god.

BTW theories are backed by science, regardless of what your religious propaganda site ICR claims about them. They are wrong. Radiometric dating is a fact as is evolution. No, we don't know every absolute detail, and no they don't disprove god. Stop fighting science in favor of fundamentalism. It's not healthy.


I only want children to be taught proven science in public schools until they are adults in college.

When they fully understand the difference between scientific law and scientific and theory.


How can you say that when YOU don't even know the difference?
edit on 19-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
@OP So you propose not following the most up to date scientific knowledge, and propose, instead, that we teach our kids based on 2,000+ year old texts written by men who believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth? (or is that too scientific?)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Why do you see these theories as specifically against theism? As a social group, anti theists will predictably agree with them as "Truth," but the theories themselves have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. God could have easily created things to work how we theorize they happen.

Regardless, I do agree with the premise, though I would like to see it go even further. I believe early education should focus almost entirely on fostering a strong foundation rather than regurgitating factoids that might be outdated by graduation.

So, I'd like to see the youngins encouraged to explore the world around them through the scientific method. Let them play, build forts, and explore the world around them. Then, have them try to improve their understanding and inventions through an iterative process. Technology can really help enable this process.

Once they truly know how to approach learning and life with such thinking, then "officially" introduce what we currently know and theorize.

As long as we teach them what to think before we teach them how to think, we are doing a disservice to both the individual and society. Indoctrination works as a control mechanism, but there are better means to that end.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

My conclusion to this thread.

Scientists are one of the most indoctrinated and cultish of all groups in society.

Can't fault your for coming to that conclusion. But not all scientists are arrogant, narrow-minded, fools who dutifully parrot the current institutional stance and think the latest peer-reviewed study is the most sacrosanct piece of literature ever to be written.

They may be the minorty, but there are free-thinking people practicing true science. They're surely ostracized, if not for questioning the mainstream theories then for refusing to rubber stamp the dubious studies done by their 'peers.'

ATSers, though...well your conclusions are pretty accurate in regard to that bunch. There are a few scientific minds here, but I haven't seen any reply to you.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

*Yawn*

Let me guess... the "true" scientists are the charlatans who peddle to the same pseudo-scientific twaddle you credulously buy into?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist
I don't know, ghost and astynax provided a well worded and accurate rebuttal...
Perhaps you should read them?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yawn is right...
How many times are creationists, young earthers, and other various cavemen going to start threads espousing their beliefs as truth, and science as false, and then consequently have their assas handed to.them in a very tall hat?
They bring the same tired arguments as if they've never been heard or rebutted before, the actual science gets explained in painful detail, stomping of feet and fingers in ears, lalalala GOD!, rinse and repeat.
Who are you preaching to?
Those of us who don't believe will not be swayed by your illogical presumptions, and you can't come to grips with what science even is, let alone carry on a logical debate about, so what exactly are you trying to accomplish other than being annoying?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

Your civil tone is a much appreciated rarity in this thread.

I believe I read the replies you refer to, and do not doubt those members' grasp of conventional scientific theories relating to the OP.

But they're still citing assumptions. Assumptions made by people with Ph.D.'s, but assumptions none-the-less.

As the OP has said, most here admit the lack of proof. What surprises me is the tenacity I see in those who desperately cling to contemporary theory. Why does a person insist a particular theory must be correct, when that person acknowledges they have no hard proof?

Such people should read more about the great scientific minds of the past. If any of you think the opinions on ATS represent academia at its best, you are fooling yourselves.
edit on 19-10-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Some of the greatest minds theorized everything, there wasn't always hard proof for it and some thought they were above needing it.
Not everything comes from inductive reasoning.

And the theories are not to say they have to be correct, no one but the people who try and disprove them take that thought process.

It is an explanation, the best explanation of the available evidence.
edit on thMon, 19 Oct 2015 20:00:11 -0500America/Chicago1020151180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I don't believe anyone with a grasp of the scientific method believes that a theory must be correct...afterall, it says right in its name that it isn't a for sure thing, just a good starting point with known facts..
I agree there is a lot of arrogance in the scientific world, especially in disciplines of archaeology..
There is certainly a lack of eloquence, but these people spend there lives furthering knowledge for the human race being "attacked" by people who don't even understand from even the most basic standpoint what it is they are attacking, and using millennia old superstitions and beliefs that were invented purely as a control mechanism of the rulers of the time as an argument...I'd be less than gracious myself...
Especially since the book they are using in their defence as the word of God is anything but.
Unless of course there is some correspondence from God to the council of nicea asking them to please do a little editing for him, its obvious its a work of man.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
I believe I read the replies you refer to, and do not doubt those members' grasp of conventional scientific theories relating to the OP.


Is that so? In that case you should be able to easily dismiss all my responses to the OP's question in the middle of page 8?

Can you show how all those answers depict a lack of 'grasp of conventional scientific theories"?


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
But they're still citing assumptions. Assumptions made by people with Ph.D.'s, but assumptions none-the-less.


No... Assumptions are formed with little to no evidence. The great thing about science is that when someone makes a Hypothesis, it isn't just magically accepted by all who 'believe in science'. It is rigorously scrutinized by as many scientists as possible to validate it's original hypothesis, or to disprove it.

Assumptions don't work that way. If all science was made up from assumptions, you couldn't just go out and test the claims of another scientist, because assumptions aren't based off of evidence like the scientific method requires.

You're bias is getting in the way of you understanding that.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
As the OP has said, most here admit the lack of proof. What surprises me is the tenacity I see in those who desperately cling to contemporary theory. Why does a person insist a particular theory must be correct, when that person acknowledges they have no hard proof?


Not sure how many times we have to say that science doesn't deal with "absolute proof". Everyone who claims to accept various scientific theories and fields knows this as a fact. However, you're misrepresenting what we are saying (or simply misunderstanding it entirely)

Absolute proof is not the same as Proof. When we say we don't have absolute proof of the functionality of Gravity, that doesn't mean there isn't any proof at all. Once again, we form hypothesis based off of evidence (proof), but we can never know anything with 100% certainty in an open system universe.

That is the fundamental notion both you and the OP seem to be incapable of understanding.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
Such people should read more about the great scientific minds of the past. If any of you think the opinions on ATS represent academia at its best, you are fooling yourselves.


These aren't mere opinions. What you're spouting is opinion. I can actually go and grab scientific articles for everything I claim science is stating. I have done that in the past, but those articles are ignored by people like you and the OP because you two really don't want to learn anything new. You want to spread disinformation to protect your extremely fragile view of how the universe functions, a view virtually which everything around us disproves.

So how about instead of just slandering others in this thread, you directly respond to their comments and set up an actual rebuttal with confirmation by valid sources?


edit on 19/10/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

This is my primary issue with these debates.
If you are science, you must back up your claims with evidence, that is ultimately misrepresented, either intentionally or out of willful ignorance, but if you're religion, its "I don't have to prove anything".
I've seen this time and again.
That, on its face is ridiculous, but what's more ridiculous is that it's been allowed to continue...and if you question it, you are slapped down.
I'm probably dangerously close right now, lol



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
Actually, the biggest misconception is that it's a legit debate to begin with.
You might as well be debating on why everyone on sesame street is comfortable with all the various multi colored monsters in their midst, but dont believe the snuffleupagus exists...



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Its really just the same cycles repeating. We rarely learn from history, in the behavioral sense.. and 'rarely' is being exceedingly generous.

Its usually a form of appealing to authority mixed with zealotry. Rarely are those who defend "X" with great fervor involved with the progress and advancement of "X." In this sense though, a significantly more potent form of manipulation exists in a mechanism that provides hard goods rather than relying solely on the faith of the constituents.

I actually find it all quite fascinating, if one can get past the notion that it "should" be another way.

That said, we definitely agree that judgments of the scientific community should not be based on ATS interactions. Its a rather flawed expedition from the get-go!



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: Ghost147

This is my primary issue with these debates.
If you are science, you must back up your claims with evidence, that is ultimately misrepresented, either intentionally or out of willful ignorance, but if you're religion, its "I don't have to prove anything".
I've seen this time and again.
That, on its face is ridiculous, but what's more ridiculous is that it's been allowed to continue...and if you question it, you are slapped down.
I'm probably dangerously close right now, lol


I find it incredibly ironic that those who demand the most absolute proof are the same individuals who rely entirely on faith and lack of evidence to support their claims



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
Fear of the unknown is a hell of a thing.
Some people would rather "believe" than find out for sure, so much so that they will disregard reason to the point of outright denial of what is in front of them.
And you're right about appealing to authority.
The same people that believe in God are the first ones to look down on you for questioning authority (with the exception of scientific authority, of coarse).
Bloody nonsense.
If you're not questioning authority you are a complete idiot.
No authority has it completely right, and if they act like they do it us your duty to take their authority away,by force if they won't go quietly, end of story.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
I can actually go and grab scientific articles for everything I claim science is stating.

Yes, I'm sure you can. Finding one that does not include a single assumption, that gets tricky.

Though one man's foolish assumption is another man's plausible hypothesis. Definitions can become subjective when human factors like gullibility and critical thinking are involved.

By the way, you misread my previous reply, and in turn missed my point entirely.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam
I think you are quite right. The human race is no different than before, we just have nicer toys.

It's as if people cannot be happy without an authority to dictate their perceptions. If only I could view it with fascination as you do. Frustration is my natural response.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Your statements could be construed in several ways...ambiguity is best used when you're not trying to make a point.
Be that as it may, are you for anthropomorphic global warming?
I find many people who crap on one science are ready to tout another if it conforms to their worldview.
I guarantee if scientists came out tomorrow and said, "we were wrong about evolution, we actually found proof of God...she left us a note on a gene in a DNA sample from a virus",
the "flock" would be up in arms that God is a she...it would have to be some satanic trick, or other some such nonsense.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: Ghost147
I can actually go and grab scientific articles for everything I claim science is stating.

Yes, I'm sure you can. Finding one that does not include a single assumption, that gets tricky.


It's as if you didn't read my post at all. Science does not make assumptions, it gathers evidence and forms conclusions from that evidence.

If it was all based on assumptions then confirmations through various tests by any given amount of people wouldn't yield the same results.


originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: VictorBloodworth
By the way, you misread my previous reply, and in turn missed my point entirely.


If I misread it, then please explain.
edit on 19/10/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join