Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Obviousness Of The Reality Of God


Brother Jeff

Recommended Posts

Nothing about the big bang suggests that something came from nothing. Nothing about the big bang posits any explanations about evolution. Nether does evolution attempt to explain how everything started. Furthermore, the big bang theory is but one of a number of ideas for the origin of the universe.

 

As such, the goddidit explanation, no matter how you apply it, answers far fewer questions compared to any scientific approach than it raises. And a good answer is one that raises the fewest necessary questions.

 

As Dave said (it always surprises me when I agree with him), you are posing a non answer, which cannot be investigated and substantiated. Nothing wrong with thinking the way you do, but you would do better to state your position as something other than an answer. Like I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    49

  • Mythra

    26

  • Dave

    26

  • Lycorth

    11

Well, Dave, we'll have to agree to disagree again. There is absolutely no constitutional problem with the teaching of religion in public schools.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Do you not want students taught about the Inquisition or witch trials or the Crusades, because these have their origin in religion?......
Conflating history and religion is not going to work. Teaching about all the myths that humans have come up with is fine as long as the christian mythology is taught as such.
The only fanatics you may see are the religious ones.....

That logical fallacy isn't going to work either.

 

In the School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp case, the Supreme Court ruled that religion may be taught in public schools if it is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of religious education." This 1963 case was upheld in 1980. The Supreme Court has made it clear that teaching about religion is absolutely allowed under the First Amendment. Indoctrination is disallowed, and I'm sure we'd all agree that this is wise. The Hall case (1981 ), the Gibson case (1989), the Chandler case (1997), and many others have affirmed the right to teach about religion in public schools as long as doing so is educational not devotional. The case law is relatively clear on this.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an either-or situation, in my view.

We understand that. For believers they have to include things to support their beliefs when science doesn't.

One can make use of many means of knowledge to learn and grow in our understanding of the universe/the world/this life. I do not believe that science is the way, the truth and the life -- an exclusive "savior" trumping all others.
The problem with that is that religion is not a source of knowledge, it is an end to knowledge. Religion is not a way of understanding, it gets in the way of understanding. Religion is not a source of truth, it is a way to escape the truth. Science is not a "savior" nor is one needed. Science does not "trump all others," it is a method of uncovering how the Universe works.

 

And science is a wonderful way to acquire knowledge. So is poetry. And art. Religion, too.

 

I don't understand this exclusivist viewpoint that asserts than only one way is acceptable. I really don't.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about the big bang suggests that something came from nothing. Nothing about the big bang posits any explanations about evolution. Nether does evolution attempt to explain how everything started. Furthermore, the big bang theory is but one of a number of ideas for the origin of the universe.

 

As such, the goddidit explanation, no matter how you apply it, answers far fewer questions compared to any scientific approach than it raises. And a good answer is one that raises the fewest necessary questions.

 

As Dave said (it always surprises me when I agree with him), you are posing a non answer, which cannot be investigated and substantiated. Nothing wrong with thinking the way you do, but you would do better to state your position as something other than an answer. Like I do.

 

I know how you feel. When I agree with Dave, it sends shudders up and down my spine! :HaHa: (I'm not kidding, Dave, but I mean that as a compliment to you, not a jab.)

 

Many of our answers cannot be investigated or substantiated at this time. This fact does not invalide them as theses.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of our answers cannot be investigated or substantiated at this time. This fact does not invalide them as theses.
The goddidit comes from nothing. Sure, there are certain theories (Actually, in this case I believe the most accurate term is hypotheses) that can't currently be substantiated, however, they find their basis in that which can be substantiated. The god theory (any such theory) has no basis and is very likely faulty if there is any substantiation at all. Aside from that, god is forever beyond the realm of investigation.

 

Besides, getting back on topic, you said you saw god as the least complex answer. The reality is that all you end up with is another set of questions tacked onto the beginning. Removing god actually makes it simpler. Btw, I'm not an atheist, philosophically, just so you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Dave said (it always surprises me when I agree with him),

That's why you have to pay attention..... I get something right once in awhile. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp case....

I know the decision. It disagrees with what you want to have done. As I said, and the law agrees, you can teach the christian myths along with all the other myths in a class on mythology. It has no place in any other class and most certainly must be kept out of science classes. And that teacher that tried to teach it in a "literature" class got busted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And science is a wonderful way to acquire knowledge. So is poetry. And art. Religion, too.

No, religion is the antithesis of gaining knowledge, it is only useful in learning dogma. This country is a perfect example of that; over half of the people have a religious block to gaining knowledge of evolution and science.

I don't understand this exclusivist viewpoint that asserts than only one way is acceptable. I really don't.

Maybe one day when you gain some knowledge, you might. This forum is filled with people that didn't understand as you do. They understand now. And for over 500 hundred years of human history there was a religious "exclusivist viewpoint." It's called the Dark Ages. What you see as anti-religious behavior by "fanatics" is just people trying to prevent a return to the Dark Ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of our answers cannot be investigated or substantiated at this time. This fact does not invalide them as theses.

It does. A thesis, or hypothesis, needs to be testable. Claiming "god did it" is not testable, therefore not falsifiable. Claiming that it might be testable at some future date is a logical fallacy; argument to the future. Many of the questions believers ask cannot be answered because they automatically assume "god did it" and their questions are predicated on that a priori assumption. They are questions that religion tells you to ask and then conveniently gives you the only answers allowed. It's a vicious circle that is hard to escape from. Many on this forum can explain how hard it was to get out of that loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's quite logical to consider the formula for creation as outlined in the Babble to be discredited. All the evidence points towards a much older earth than the Genesis account can embrace, as well as for the order in which life-forms and other things in the universe came int being. The Genesis account reads like mythology, no differently than the creation myths of other religions, and should be considered as such.

 

I also agree that Xianity, if it is taught at all, belongs as a mythology course. To teach it as a "religion" course (ie, as Cathoholics might present it, for example) would be to give the clear implication that it is the truth and that the institution in question is trying to present it as such. Only testable, verifiable subjects should be presented and taught as truth, not religious myths which happen to have been widely held in recent times. Truth, not popularity or custom, must dictate educational policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp case....

I know the decision. It disagrees with what you want to have done. As I said, and the law agrees, you can teach the christian myths along with all the other myths in a class on mythology. It has no place in any other class and most certainly must be kept out of science classes. And that teacher that tried to teach it in a "literature" class got busted.

 

Teaching the Bible as literature is constitutional, as long as it is not devotional. A class on the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Dhammapada or the Vedas or the Satanic Bible is acceptable, constitutionally. (Can you imagine the next school board meeting, though, if someone proposed teaching the Satanic Bible! Trust me, I've been in some very heated school board meetings and once I was the topic under discussion, but I can't imagine what would happen to the poor soul who proposed the Satanic Bible...I've never read it myself...)

 

Let me see if I understand your view correctly, Dave:

 

May one teach about the various religions in a history class?

 

May one teach about the various religions in sociology class?

 

What about a class on philosophy?

 

If a student asks a biology teacher about the controversy, is the teacher allowed to explain the controversy?

 

What if the teacher assigns the reading of any book the student would choose, can the student choose one of Rabbi Kushner's books? Or would only Sam Harris's books be allowed? Can the student give a book report on a religious book?

 

What about speech class, where students are allowed to pick their topics? May a student pick a religious topic?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And science is a wonderful way to acquire knowledge. So is poetry. And art. Religion, too.

No, religion is the antithesis of gaining knowledge, it is only useful in learning dogma. This country is a perfect example of that; over half of the people have a religious block to gaining knowledge of evolution and science.

I don't understand this exclusivist viewpoint that asserts than only one way is acceptable. I really don't.
Maybe one day when you gain some knowledge, you might. This forum is filled with people that didn't understand as you do. They understand now. And for over 500 hundred years of human history there was a religious "exclusivist viewpoint." It's called the Dark Ages. What you see as anti-religious behavior by "fanatics" is just people trying to prevent a return to the Dark Ages.

 

Perhaps you can't see it, Dave, but this post comes across as terrible, rigidly dogmatic. Often what happens when we rebel against one wrong (in this case, religious dogmatism and exclusivist ideology) is that we employ the methods of that against which we are rebelling in preventing its return. Circular history: It happens again and again, in different guises.

 

I'm afraid you are doing just this. You are speaking the words of religious exclusivists to support your non-religious vision. Seems to me. We need a middle ground.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of our answers cannot be investigated or substantiated at this time. This fact does not invalide them as theses.

It does. A thesis, or hypothesis, needs to be testable. Claiming "god did it" is not testable, therefore not falsifiable. Claiming that it might be testable at some future date is a logical fallacy; argument to the future. Many of the questions believers ask cannot be answered because they automatically assume "god did it" and their questions are predicated on that a priori assumption. They are questions that religion tells you to ask and then conveniently gives you the only answers allowed. It's a vicious circle that is hard to escape from. Many on this forum can explain how hard it was to get out of that loop.

 

God did not do it also is an a pirori assumption.

 

But science is about offering materialistic explanations for materialistic phenomena. This is as it should be. I have no argument against this, absolutely none at all. Religion/philosophy/poetry are about the why's, the meanings, the purposes.

 

I'm in bed with Stephen Jay Gould and his proposal about "nonoverlapping magisteria." The link.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's quite logical to consider the formula for creation as outlined in the Babble to be discredited. All the evidence points towards a much older earth than the Genesis account can embrace, as well as for the order in which life-forms and other things in the universe came int being. The Genesis account reads like mythology, no differently than the creation myths of other religions, and should be considered as such.

 

I also agree that Xianity, if it is taught at all, belongs as a mythology course. To teach it as a "religion" course (ie, as Cathoholics might present it, for example) would be to give the clear implication that it is the truth and that the institution in question is trying to present it as such. Only testable, verifiable subjects should be presented and taught as truth, not religious myths which happen to have been widely held in recent times. Truth, not popularity or custom, must dictate educational policy.

 

To quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

 

This view mimics the church's desire to exclude science from acceptable human knowledge. We mustn't commit the same errors the church did in seeking to prevent one type of understanding from being in the public square. The public schools are our primary public square. What about academic freedom?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching the Bible as literature is constitutional, as long as it is not devotional....
A teacher already tried that and got busted. Christians cannot be trusted to teach the courses you're talking about. They will always revert to proselytizing the kids.
Let me see if I understand your view correctly, Dave:
No, you do not.
If a student asks a biology teacher about the controversy, is the teacher allowed to explain the controversy?

As has been explained before, there is no controversy.

What if.....

anyone can make up any "what if" they want. I find them useless in discussions such as this.

 

The ONLY reason christians want their religion taught in schools is to give the impression that their religion is the only one that could ever be right and to give the impression that the government endorses their religion over all others and to give the impression that non believers are wrong. You teach your religion to your kids all you want, just leave it out of the public schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you can't see it, Dave, but this post comes across as terrible, rigidly dogmatic.....

And do ou actually believe that you do not come off a rigidly dogmatic?

I'm afraid you are doing just this. You are speaking the words of religious exclusivists to support your non-religious vision. Seems to me. We need a middle ground.

We have a middle ground; you keep your religion out of our public schools and we'll keep government out of your religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God did not do it also is an a pirori assumption.

No, it is following the evidence. There is no evidence for a god so it cannot be part of any conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God did not do it also is an a pirori assumption.

 

We may have anti-religionists such as Dawkins or Harris saying that.

 

But, I don't believe that science classes in today's schools do. (and I could be wrong - it's been a while since I was in school)

 

But, science teaches the evidence. Geology teaches what we know about geologic time, tectonic plates, the way mountains and canyons and rock formations are formed.

 

Science teaches from the fossil record. And from the observable microscopic world. From the data.

 

It's up to the religionist to draw their own conclusions. If the evidence cannot be reconciled with "and on the third day, God created...)" , then there is a dilemna. Throw out the evidence, or find a way to work God in there somewhere, or take God out of the equation and see if that makes sense.

 

The world makes (a lot) more sense to me when there is no all-powerful deity yanking the strings and waving a magic wand like Merlin the magician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But science is about offering materialistic explanations for materialistic phenomena.

I think this is somewhat off the mark. I don't think the basis of living phenomenon, for instance, is material. Look at how materially diverse the organisms of Earth are, yet we recognize a single class of natural systems called organisms. I suspect that the basis of life has more to do with organization, function, and relationships than it has to do with matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching the Bible as literature is constitutional, as long as it is not devotional....
A teacher already tried that and got busted. Christians cannot be trusted to teach the courses you're talking about. They will always revert to proselytizing the kids.
Let me see if I understand your view correctly, Dave:
No, you do not.
If a student asks a biology teacher about the controversy, is the teacher allowed to explain the controversy?

As has been explained before, there is no controversy.

What if.....
anyone can make up any "what if" they want. I find them useless in discussions such as this.

 

The ONLY reason christians want their religion taught in schools is to give the impression that their religion is the only one that could ever be right and to give the impression that the government endorses their religion over all others and to give the impression that non believers are wrong. You teach your religion to your kids all you want, just leave it out of the public schools.

 

Do these Christians of which you speak drink the blood of non-Christian children they slaughter Easter eve to appease their god? Do they control the media? The banks? Do we need a crusade against them to purify and protect our fatherland? Shall they be forced to sew yellow crosses on their clothing for close monitoring and identification?

 

I'm not trying to antagonize you, Dave, just saying that it seems to me dangerous and counterproductive when the world is divided between any "them" and any "us," and that anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination are as harmful to our culture as any other kind of bias.

 

Can't we all be neighbors? Learning from each other, growing together, helping each other and enjoying each other's company?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do these Christians of which you speak drink the blood of non-Christian children.....

I see you're getting desperate. Hyperbole isn't the greatest debate tool.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, Dave, just saying that it seems to me dangerous and counterproductive when the world is divided between any "them" and any "us," and that anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination are as harmful to our culture as any other kind of bias.
Yes, such a division is counterproductive and Atheists, along with many believers, are trying to prevent people like you from making such divisions.
Can't we all be neighbors? Learning from each other, growing together, helping each other and enjoying each other's company?

Soviet Russia said the same thing and firmly believed that the only way to achieve that goal was under their guidance. The Vatican is no different. As long as we all go along with the religious way of believing we'll all get along..... oh wait.... history has proven that doesn't work. How can we be neighbors with christians trying to force their religion into our schools and government? How can we learn from each other when christians automatically dismiss anyone that does not believe as they do? How can we enjoy each others company when christians exclude non believers? You're talking to the wrong people here, you need to get your own house in order before you complain about ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

 

This view mimics the church's desire to exclude science from acceptable human knowledge. We mustn't commit the same errors the church did in seeking to prevent one type of understanding from being in the public square. The public schools are our primary public square. What about academic freedom?

 

Placing things in their proper category has nothing to do with "academic freedom." Unless a religion can be proven to be completely true and accurate, why should it be taught as if it were? That would be dishonest, and not up to the goals of academia, which is to pass on knowledge.

 

One cannot pass on knowledge about something that isn't known - one only has theories or guesses at best.

 

The churches forbade such things as science or philosophy because it was, to them, a horrid offense against their god. Hence, their reason for opposition becomes emotionally-driven and based on assumptions, not on facts. For us to say religions should by taught as mythologies unless proven true is not to do as the churches did - it's merely placing things in their proper categories, so as not to muddle education or present as true that which cannot be proven as such.

 

And I'm also not saying that we should forbid teaching different religions - that would be the true parallel to the churches' actions of yore. I'm just saying that we should take a more honest stance on religious teaching, not ban it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do these Christians of which you speak drink the blood of non-Christian children.....

I see you're getting desperate. Hyperbole isn't the greatest debate tool.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, Dave, just saying that it seems to me dangerous and counterproductive when the world is divided between any "them" and any "us," and that anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination are as harmful to our culture as any other kind of bias.
Yes, such a division is counterproductive and Atheists, along with many believers, are trying to prevent people like you from making such divisions.
Can't we all be neighbors? Learning from each other, growing together, helping each other and enjoying each other's company?

Soviet Russia said the same thing and firmly believed that the only way to achieve that goal was under their guidance. The Vatican is no different. As long as we all go along with the religious way of believing we'll all get along..... oh wait.... history has proven that doesn't work. How can we be neighbors with christians trying to force their religion into our schools and government? How can we learn from each other when christians automatically dismiss anyone that does not believe as they do? How can we enjoy each others company when christians exclude non believers? You're talking to the wrong people here, you need to get your own house in order before you complain about ours.

 

I'm not complaining about anyone's house, just making a point. I guess we'll have to do what you and I often end up doing, Dave, dropping the subject between ourselves and agreeing to disagree. I'm sure we'll engage again down the road on other matters!! :HaHa:

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

 

This view mimics the church's desire to exclude science from acceptable human knowledge. We mustn't commit the same errors the church did in seeking to prevent one type of understanding from being in the public square. The public schools are our primary public square. What about academic freedom?

 

Placing things in their proper category has nothing to do with "academic freedom." Unless a religion can be proven to be completely true and accurate, why should it be taught as if it were? That would be dishonest, and not up to the goals of academia, which is to pass on knowledge.

 

One cannot pass on knowledge about something that isn't known - one only has theories or guesses at best.

 

The churches forbade such things as science or philosophy because it was, to them, a horrid offense against their god. Hence, their reason for opposition becomes emotionally-driven and based on assumptions, not on facts. For us to say religions should by taught as mythologies unless proven true is not to do as the churches did - it's merely placing things in their proper categories, so as not to muddle education or present as true that which cannot be proven as such.

 

And I'm also not saying that we should forbid teaching different religions - that would be the true parallel to the churches' actions of yore. I'm just saying that we should take a more honest stance on religious teaching, not ban it altogether.

 

No religion should be taught in a public school as though it is true. Never. Prefaces such as, "Many Christians believe...." or "Most Orthodox Jews contend..." or "Some Atheists would say..." Problem solved. The teaching of religion is a wonderful interdisciplinary subject!

 

Before we teach anything other than reading, writing, and arithmetic, however, our kids need these core skills, and so many have none of them!

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No religion should be taught in a public school as though it is true. Never. Prefaces such as, "Many Christians believe...." or "Most Orthodox Jews contend..." or "Some Atheists would say..." Problem solved. The teaching of religion is a wonderful interdisciplinary subject!

 

Well what do you know. I'm gonna agree with you on something...

 

I think a class on Comparative Religions should be taught in every single high school or junior high. (at least as an elective).

 

How can people make up their minds about these things if they are ignorant about them.

 

I stand as guilty as any. I scoff at Islam and Hinduism and Shintoism and Scientology and many others, when I have to honestly admit I don't know all that much about them.

 

Now, Christianity, on the other hand..... I have some knowledge of. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.