Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by Kailassa
Really, it's a generalization about Taoism to quote a Tao myth?

To take a Tao myth and place it out of context, yes. It would be like posting one of Darwin's many discarded theories as representative of his major work. Some Taoists accept evolution. Some don't. Many are of different religions and Taoist. The I Ching is a Chinese work, translated by Taoists, though. Such a short time on the thread and so many generalizations encountered ! I now see how one becomes a conspiracy theorist.

You know not all Christians believe in the Biblical account of creation, right?
Yet some Christians want this account taught in Biology class.

I'm just suggesting Taoism deserves equal repect, and if we are to teach creationism, we should include the account that is part of the Taoist tradition.

And you find this offensive somehow? I hope your descendants, if ever you have any, evolve thicker skin.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy.

Wouldn't want some bright kid to discover anything new, or to see what has been overlooked, would we? Oh, the horror of the intellect of the free thinker! The greatest scientific and philosophical minds probably haven't even graduated elementary school yet. God forbid one of them uses religion or spiritual inspiration to discover something that can actually assist humanity, rather than tear it apart.

One day science and spirituality will become one. It is inevitable.

I wonder: what would be better for religion?
A) For science to prove the existence of a God.
B) For God to remain a myth.

I think (B) would be better for the individual religions, but (A) would be better for humanity as a whole; although (A) is a guaranteed powder-keg, obviously. Can't have a "legitimate spiritual science" nullifying all the other religions (and much of the other sciences), can we?

Science is undoubtedly the work of the Devil, after all. (sarcasm)

"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing." (Albert Einstein)

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." (Albert Einstein)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, we just don't want non-science taught in a science class. I'd just as much oppose a study of Chaucer in the middle of a physics lecture.

Science is a standard, as is religion. Likewise, the two are opposite ends of the same spectrum. At this point in time, both are reaching their maximum potential, if they haven't already. I'm convinced there's only so far you can go in either direction before you turn back and ask the other side for assistance.

Personally, I think philosophy and meditation (both spiritual-based sciences) should be mandatory in all schools, but that's just me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, (A) is impossible as the concept of a deity is non-falsifiable. There's no scientific test that can be made to prove such an existence.

No scientific test as of yet. This is the problem with science; we let the standards define the limits, instead of trying to achieve the impossible.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Hey, you quoted an atheist who saw all wonder and glory as belonging to the natural world!

Non-secular doesn't imply atheist. I'm almost convinced Einstein was both a schizophrenic and an avid believer in a higher power. If anything, Einstein was omni-religious.

Nothing will ever change unless we let the youth pick apart the wisdom which is forced on them. The youth knows what's best for their future; the elders only know what was best for their past.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein)
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." (Albert Einstein)

If anything is missing from our schools, it's imagination.

P.S.
Religion belongs in the computer classroom.
It is a programming language, after all.

Originally posted by xiphias
Science is a standard, as is religion.

A standard what? Or a standard of what?

Likewise, the two are opposite ends of the same spectrum.

What is this spectrum called?

At this point in time, both are reaching their maximum potential, if they haven't already.

Why do you say this? Where is the evidence?

I'm convinced there's only so far you can go in either direction before you turn back and ask the other side for assistance.

Why? What assistance can religion offer science? How is that even possible?

And what can science do for religion, except destroy it?

Personally, I think philosophy and meditation (both spiritual-based sciences) should be mandatory in all schools, but that's just me.

Yes, and thank goodness it's just you.

This is the problem with science; we let the standards define the limits, instead of trying to achieve the impossible.

What idiot tries to achieve the impossible?

I'm almost convinced Einstein was both a schizophrenic and an avid believer in a higher power. If anything, Einstein was omni-religious.

Read his actual writings and see his words in context. Einstein was never schizophrenic (what an insult!) and his views on religion were both consistent and clearly expressed.

Nothing will ever change unless we let the youth pick apart the wisdom which is forced on them.

This happens in every generation. No need to force it.

Back on topic: should religion--not 'meditation and philosophy' --be taught in science class? Have you an opinion on the subject or are you just here to blow off holistic hot air?