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.

 

Memo: Stop teaching evolution

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Of course the science of our history and evolution should be taught to students, but why not include classes that have the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc... as text books ?

Why? That'd be a waste of time. And do you really trust some schlept to doa good job of teaching the lessons of the bible, torah, koran, et?

We don't use religious texts as textbooks because our public schools are secular, and should stay that way. We don't use religious books because they are faith based and thus, utterly irrational, there's nothing to teach from them other than irrational beleifs.


If every student had a basic understanding of religion and science they would be able to draw their own conclusions as to what is faith and what is truth.

Why do we need government appointees to teach religion? Teach them science, make sure they understand it, and then they can find out about whatever faith they want to and see how it stands up.



They would be able to think for themselves as they view the world around them and not be indoctrinated into blindly following one idea.

By having a teacher instruct them on what the deep meanings of the religious texts are, we'd be indoctrinating them.
They are irrational religious texts, they mean NOTHING other than what the individual gives to them, you can't have an instructor in a school telling them what it means.

but I would hope such a class could be taught without the bias and personal opinions of the educator entering into the lesson.

How? These texts have NO objective and unbiased meaning.

Let's make sure we blind them while they're young so they never see the truth

How is teaching them about the jibberish and silly beleifs of other people 'unblinding' them?
All religious beleifs are ridiculous, except to the individuals that beleive them. SO how can they be taugh in schools to non-beleivers?




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Not to hijack the thread: Since there is no empirical scientific proof or evidence that God exists; people's believe in God is strictly based on faith. Likewise; since there is no empirical scientific proof or eveidence that there is no God; isn't Atheism also based on Faith? I think Atheism is no more reasoned or logical than the belief that God exists.


It's not really faith in no god. It's a disbelief in any god, ever, at all, no questions asked. Atheism, since it has no 'play book' (bible), relies on philosophy. But Atheists don't 'not believe in a god' for the any of the same reasons. It's different for each Atheist. So, even if you wanted to label that as faith, every single Atheist has a completely different 'faith' from every other atheist. So you still can't really lump them together (and make sense).

And as the saying goes...You can't prove a negative. So why bother. That's not what Atheists try to do anyway. People who try to prove that a god doesn't exist (on their own without anyone asking them the question) are known as Agnostics. Since they must realize and understand what kind of god they are trying to disprove. If you know the god you're trying to disprove, you cannot disprove it, because it will exist always, in your mind.

But that's for another thread altogether.

To answer your previous statement about instructors not being able to teach w/out bias...yeah, you were correct.

But that happens anyway, whether it's religion or not. One instructor will have a bias in history, others in sociology, others in philosophy, etc, etc. So you can't escape bias anyway, so I wouldn't worry about the bias factor. But then again, faiths (being dogmatic) are probably going to have much more of a bias effect than history or another subject. So I guess, I can still see your point there as well. But then again, you need to know other's religions to understand a culture's art (whether ancient or current), social structure, and even diet, so it's important as well. Man, we could argue circles with this, ha...
It's not for us to decide, so I'm not going to worry about it anymore, heh.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Freedom_for_sum, things need to be proven for them to be believed

is it a faith issue that there is no tooth fairy?
is it a faith issue that spider-man isn't real?
is it a faith issue that thor with his mighty hammer mjolnir is nothing more than a myth?

no, because things that go unproven shouldn't be accepted as fact
not accepting an unproven hypothesis isn't a faith issue, it's a LOGIC issue



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Arcane Demesne said:



People who try to prove that a god doesn't exist (on their own without anyone asking them the question) are known as Agnostics.

Hmmm, not quite, I call myself Agnostic, defined by me, it means.

'There is no proof of god, no proof there ain't one either. So I am neither Atheist, nor am I a theist.'

I am open minded, but I tend toward right of center, veering toward Atheism, nobody has ever proven that there is a god, but I can't say with certainty there isn't a god.
Unless or course Arcane, you mean the person sort of believes and tries to prove they are stupid for thinking that?

If there is a god, I hope it's not the same dude from the 'ye olde testament'


What a jerk!



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Freedom_for_sum, things need to be proven for them to be believed

is it a faith issue that there is no tooth fairy?(et al)


Not a fair comparison. It's not a faith issue because everyone knows there is no tooth fairy (close your eyes kids). Put another way: Those who create the notion of a tooth fairy (parents) know there is no tooth fairy. However; those who create the notion of God don't know there is no God. No one can tell with certainy there is no God.

The true definition of an agnostic is he/she is one who believes the true nature of God cannot be proved or known. I used to consider myself an agnostic until I learned this definition. I for one believe that one day, humans will know the true "nature" of God.

What the poster said before about proving a negative is correct. If there is no God it is virtually impossible to prove, with evidence, that something doesn't exist (because there is no evidence left behind by something that doesn't exist).

Thanks for all yor feedback.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
ffs, my thor comparison still stands
the general world population does not belong to the norse neo-pagan movement
and therefore they consider thor to be nothing more than a myth

yet the person who thought up thor certainly believed he was a real figure


the negative doesn't need to be proven, the positive does
that is how science works
unless the positive is already seemingly proven, than the negative has the burden



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Madness;

If a crime is commited; say a man is murdered with a bullet to the brain; there is no question that a crime has been commited. The scene is the unquestionable proof of the crime occuring. The question that must get answered is; Who commited the murder? Since a prosector knows the crime was caused by a person he must prosecute the case with positive evidence that specifically points toward a person; rather than specualte on a suspect and letting him prove he didn't commit the crime (which, as you know, could be impossible for the suspect).

With respect to God; the "crime scene" is everything that exists around us. It had to come from somewhere; but from where; and by whom; etc. The prosecutor(s) in this case (us humans) endeavor to determine who caused this "crime". The problem is that there is no evidence that leads to any specific "suspect". But this doesn't mean that the prosecutor(s) must rely on negative evidence. It only means that we must continue searching until we find positive evidence that points toward a specific "suspect".

God proponents take it on simple faith (due to lack of scientific evidence) that God is the supect. Atheists take it on simple faith (due to lack of scientific evidence) that it's a "suspect" other than a god. But neither position can adequately explain the cause of the "crime scene". Both positions are faith-based belief systems. The "crime scene" exists and simply proclaiming "there is no god" doesn't adequately address how we got here.

From where I sit, the case is still pending and I'm comfortable in saying "I don't know". I've got my best detectives working the investigation and until proof-positive evidence is discovered that leads to the "suspect"; I'm uncomfortable proclaiming, either way, the existence/non-exisence of God.

And this is why I'm uncomfortable with introducing religion, in any form, into publicly funded classrooms; where my tax dollars would be used to teach a concept that cannot be defined by science. Science is the only pathway toward truth. (just to get back on topic)


[edit on 21-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund

I am open minded, but I tend toward right of center, veering toward Atheism, nobody has ever proven that there is a god, but I can't say with certainty there isn't a god.
Unless or course Arcane, you mean the person sort of believes and tries to prove they are stupid for thinking that?


Well, yeah, that's what I meant. Agnostics have an idea of god (whether taught or otherwise), and tries to prove to either himself (or others) that that particular god (the one he views as god) does or does not exist.

Agnostics have the idea of the god they aren't sure about. Atheists on the other hand, don't care to think about what particular gods do or don't exist. We just discount them all!




If there is a god, I hope it's not the same dude from the 'ye olde testament'


What a jerk!


yeah, he as an @$$.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Not a fair comparison. It's not a faith issue because everyone knows there is no tooth fairy (close your eyes kids). Put another way: Those who create the notion of a tooth fairy (parents) know there is no tooth fairy. However; those who create the notion of God don't know there is no God. No one can tell with certainy there is no God.


WRONG. Sorry for the outburst, that hit me funny, heh.

The men who invented god, KNEW DAMN WELL, that there was no god. Almost all religions were created as tools for learning (and brainwashing in extreme situations). Others were created from 'visions' (the use of alkaloids helped
)



The true definition of an agnostic is he/she is one who believes the true nature of God cannot be proved or known. I used to consider myself an agnostic until I learned this definition. I for one believe that one day, humans will know the true "nature" of God.


So you are no longer an agnostic. Are you christian? Or just prescribe to the 'Great Architect' so to speak.



What the poster said before about proving a negative is correct. If there is no God it is virtually impossible to prove, with evidence, that something doesn't exist (because there is no evidence left behind by something that doesn't exist).

Thanks for all yor feedback.


Right. I love bringing that out. Chalk that up to Philosophy 101,


But remember, one must think of something for it to exist (in that mind). If one does not think of god, then god does not exist (in that mind), thus making a need for any proof (for or against) obsolete, as there is nothing to argue about...


[edit on 2/21/2007 by Arcane Demesne]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

With respect to God; the "crime scene" is everything that exists around us. It had to come from somewhere; but from where; and by whom; etc. The prosecutor(s) in this case (us humans) endeavor to determine who caused this "crime". The problem is that there is no evidence that leads to any specific "suspect". But this doesn't mean that the prosecutor(s) must rely on negative evidence. It only means that we must continue searching until we find positive evidence that points toward a specific "suspect".


There is NO crime scene around us. That's like saying someone must be prosecuted for suicide. The Universe came from itself, by no one. And without a crime scene, you don't need a suspect. You're looking for something that does not exist (except in the mind).

If you think a crime scene (the universe's existence) exists, you must prove that first, before you can start looking for suspects. Police just don't go around asking people if they did anything wrong (well, not yet...but that's a different thread all together,
)



God proponents take it on simple faith (due to lack of scientific evidence) that God is the supect. Atheists take it on simple faith (due to lack of scientific evidence) that it's a "suspect" other than a god. But neither position can adequately explain the cause of the "crime scene". Both positions are faith-based belief systems. The "crime scene" exists and simply proclaiming "there is no god" doesn't adequately address how we got here.


Again, wrong. Atheists don't see a crime in the Universe's existence. If you wanna have another witch hunt, be my guest, but don't drag us into it.



From where I sit, the case is still pending and I'm comfortable in saying "I don't know". I've got my best detectives working the investigation and until proof-positive evidence is discovered that leads to the "suspect"; I'm uncomfortable proclaiming, either way, the existence/non-exisence of God.


What are they looking for, fairy dust?
soory, couldn't resist.



And this is why I'm uncomfortable with introducing religion, in any form, into publicly funded classrooms; where my tax dollars would be used to teach a concept that cannot be defined by science. Science is the only pathway toward truth. (just to get back on topic)



I agree with you there, religions themselves, should not be taught in classrooms.

I believe an elective (not a mandatory class) that DESCRIBES different cultures' histories (and in effect, religions) would be great in a high school.

I realize schools have a 'World History' class given, but an elective that went into greater detail on different cultures and their religions would have been great. But maybe I'm the only one who would have been interested to learn that.

But, back to the thread topic:

The guy that sent out the 'stop teaching evolution' memo. He's a 'tard, and could probably have benefited from a class as I described.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Again, wrong. Atheists don't see a crime in the Universe's existence. If you wanna have another witch hunt, be my guest, but don't drag us into it.


In that post I was using "crime scene" as a metaphor for the universe; prosecutor(s) as a metaphor for us humans; "case" as a metaphor for our quest to find truth; and detectives as a metaphor for the scietific community. I never said Atheists see a crime in the universe's existence.

Back to the memo.........

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join