To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[PacificBoy]

I always question why there is such resistance to teaching both sides of the theory of creation in schools. Why can't we present both arguments and let the students decide for themselves? If it's such a cut and dried case for evolution, why should atheists fear having both sides theories clearly represented?

You mean several sides don't you? If we entertain theistic theories on creation and evolution in school, there should be a fair and representative selection of views from the different religions/denominations practised.

 

[MrsKent26]

You mean several sides don't you? If we entertain theistic theories on creation and evolution in school, there should be a fair and representative selection of views from the different religions/denominations practised.

That's an excellent point. It would be unfair to present only Christian ideas to represent creationism in schools.

Also, I've never seen the need for religion in schools. If people want to learn about it, they can go to a church, temple, etc. There's no church for people to attend if they want to learn about evolution, so they can learn it in school instead. There's space in people's lives for both things.

 

[Greens]

I always question why there is such resistance to teaching both sides of the theory of creation in schools. Why can't we present both arguments and let the students decide for themselves? If it's such a cut and dried case for evolution, why should atheists fear having both sides theories clearly represented?

This is completely nonsensical. Why would you teach something in science class that isn't science?

I know it's hard for you to believe, but there are no two sides. Evolution belongs in biology class, creation belongs in a religious class.

 

[moviedoors]

They are just like, give scientist time to figure it out. But the religious need an explanation right then and there or what they believe is illogical.

That's because one of those groups is making a claim. I wouldn't be pressing religious people if they weren't making a claim they can't back up. Then there's people using their religious beliefs to justify bigotry, and you'd better believe I expect a better answer than "I feel it in my heart!" when it comes to just accepting crap like that.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

That's because one of those groups is making a claim. I wouldn't be pressing religious people if they weren't making a claim they can't back up. Then there's people using their religious beliefs to justify bigotry, and you'd better believe I expect a better answer than "I feel it in my heart!" when it comes to just accepting crap like that.

Well I seen a lot of non religious people make a claim God isn't real, Jesus wasn't real , and there is no afterlife. None have provided any hard truth or evidence to any of those claims other than it doesn't make sense to them personally so it's false ( opinion). Then they cite what a science says as if it isn't without flaws. The scientific theories out there are are not flawless theories whether you want to accept that or not. Nobody was around to witness the creation of earth or the creation/ evolution of life. Therefore, its impossible for anyone to say the creation of the earth happened exactly like we said it did with 100% assurance. Who's to say things didn't happen differently? Maybe scientist interpreted something wrong? You never know.

As far as I know, no there is no theory/ evidence that supports the claim that there is no God, or afterlife. It's just people opinions, but yet they use this to justify their beliefs and look down on the religious. The non religious just "feel it in their heart" that their views are correct. The idea that science and people will be able to explain every unexplainable occurrence/ gap in knowledge is kinda arrogant to me. Not saying every random occurrence should be considered an act of God. Most non religious believe in aliens (other life forms) and other universes do you think we are the smartest beings out there? Also, if you believe in that, how is it so far fetched to believe in a higher power? Like I said before, I believe that a person can be religious and accept science ( I am one of those people) but I am not one of those people that think a theory disproves God and I never will be.

 

[Human Torch]

You mean several sides don't you? If we entertain theistic theories on creation and evolution in school, there should be a fair and representative selection of views from the different religions/denominations practised.

Fair enough. But generally speaking,people either fall on the evolutionist side or the creationism side of the argument. Some except a higher power's involvement, while others don't. There really isn't a need for getting hard core into religion.But present both sides equally.

 

[Human Torch]

This is completely nonsensical. Why would you teach something in science class that isn't science?

I know it's hard for you to believe, but there are no two sides. Evolution belongs in biology class, creation belongs in a religious class.

So in other words, continue to suppress any form of debate on the subject, regardless of how many people choose to believe in creationism and the evidences thereof,and keep indoctrinating atheism to students instead of giving them enough information on all sides to make up there own minds?

 

[Greens]

So in other words, continue to suppress any form of debate on the subject, regardless of how many people choose to believe in creationism and the evidences thereof,and keep indoctrinating atheism to students instead of giving them enough information on all sides to make up there own minds?

This is a slippery slope. Like someone said before, we might as well teach EVERY possible alternative in the world. The fact is, creationism and evolution are NOT on the same level in terms of evidence and credibility. Evolution is taught in science class because it's SCIENCE.

 

[Shikamaru]

Human Torch, you're falling for the middle ground fallacy. Two sides of an argument doesn't necessarily equate to both sides having equal credibility. We shouldn't have to pretend like creationism is as credible of a stance as evolution just so the Creationists wouldn't get upset. After all, the whole point of science class is to teach whatever is scientifically held as truth.

That and there exists separation between church and state.

So in other words, continue to suppress any form of debate on the subject, regardless of how many people choose to believe in creationism and the evidences thereof,and keep indoctrinating atheism to students instead of giving them enough information on all sides to make up there own minds?

See, this is the problem right here.

First, "debate" implies there's about an equal amount of credibility on each side. There simply isn't. We have the evidence, you don't. Until we find some evidence, your beliefs cannot be taught as universal scientific truths.

Second, you fail to realize that the "debate" has already occurred in the past. That's how religion got removed from the public school system in the first place. It was a decision we got to after years of realizing what worked and what didn't, what was acceptable in science class and what wasn't.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Even if schools gave students the OPTIONAL classes that discussed creationism and other religious views along side the standard evolution and big bang theory, I feel as though the non religious would still cry foul try to fight it. Something along the lines of " it's the evil religious folks trying to push their views on the youth". Science and religious views can't co exist in their view in their eyes. If it can't be analyzed or understood by us its false. Because the world would fall apart if students are allowed to learn about all theories out there and form their own opinions. And again, I am not saying anyone should disregard science.

 

[chaseter]

It's like a sadder version of the Scopes Monkey Trial in here.

 

[chaseter]

Even if schools gave students the OPTIONAL classes that discussed creationism and other religious views along side the standard evolution and big bang theory, I feel as though the non religious would still cry foul try to fight it. Something along the lines of " it's the evil religious folks trying to push their views on the youth". Science and religious views can't co exist in their view in their eyes. If it can't be analyzed or understood by us its false. Because the world would fall apart if students are allowed to learn about all theories out there and form their own opinions. And again, I am not saying anyone should disregard science.

I'm not willing to pay taxes towards teaching religion in public schools. Send your kid to a private school, to church, or tell them yourself. Why should everyone else be subject to religious indoctrination in schools?

 

[Human Torch]

Even if schools gave students the OPTIONAL classes that discussed creationism and other religious views along side the standard evolution and big bang theory, I feel as though the non religious would still cry foul try to fight it. Something along the lines of " it's the evil religious folks trying to push their views on the youth". Science and religious views can't co exist in their view in their eyes. If it can't be analyzed or understood by us its false. Because the world would fall apart if students are allowed to learn about all theories out there and form their own opinions. And again, I am not saying anyone should disregard science.

Exactly. It all boils down to secularism. The Left wants to remove all vestiges of God in the name of "Enlightenment". It's easier to get away with any social ills you want to indulge in,without a pesky, disapproving God in the way.

 

[Greens]

I'm not willing to pay taxes towards teaching religion in public schools. Send your kid to a private school, to church, or tell them yourself. Why should everyone else be subject to religious indoctrination in schools?

This is the response you're gonna get : why should everyone be subject to scientific indoctrination?

 

[Shikamaru]

Even if schools gave students the OPTIONAL classes that discussed creationism and other religious views along side the standard evolution and big bang theory, I feel as though the non religious would still cry foul try to fight it. Something along the lines of " it's the evil religious folks trying to push their views on the youth". Science and religious views can't co exist in their view in their eyes. If it can't be analyzed or understood by us its false. Because the world would fall apart if students are allowed to learn about all theories out there and form their own opinions. And again, I am not saying anyone should disregard science.

We already have those classes here in Canada and in American universities. They teach religions from a historical point of view, go over what each religious denomination of a particular religion believes, how those beliefs originated, how similar or unique they are to other religions, etc. The difference is those classes don't aim to indoctrinate students with any particular faith or try to convince them faith is more valid than the other, or that a faith is as scientifically credible as actual science in the first place.

But I do love how much Christians in America love to play the victim card without even realizing what actual suppression is and how much Christians have suppressed other groups in America both in the present and in the past. Then in that same breath they turn around and complain about other groups playing the victim card but to lesser extents. They feel they're entitled not to equal status, but to greater status.

 

[Shikamaru]

Exactly. It all boils down to secularism. The Left wants to remove all vestiges of God in the name of "Enlightenment". It's easier to get away with any social ills you want to indulge in,without a pesky, disapproving God in the way.

Yay. Another conspiracy theory.

 

[Human Torch]

Human Torch, you're falling for the middle ground fallacy. Two sides of an argument doesn't necessarily equate to both sides having equal credibility. We shouldn't have to pretend like creationism is as credible of a stance as evolution just so the Creationists wouldn't get upset. After all, the whole point of science class is to teach whatever is scientifically held as truth.

That and there exists separation between church and state.



See, this is the problem right here.

First, "debate" implies there's about an equal amount of credibility on each side. There simply isn't. We have the evidence, you don't. Until we find some evidence, your beliefs cannot be taught as universal scientific truths.

Second, you fail to realize that the "debate" has already occurred in the past. That's how religion got removed from the public school system in the first place. It was a decision we got to after years of realizing what worked and what didn't, what was acceptable in science class and what wasn't.

There are plenty of Creationists that beg to differ. The debate isn't over. And there should be full access to all view points for students. Otherwise, you're suppressing one side.

I remember studying Hamlet. And the teacher there really took the thing apart. Looked at it from every angle imaginable. "Maybe Hamlet was gay.Maybe Ophelia killed herself because she was carrying Hamlet's child. Maybe Hamlet had an Oedipus Complex. Maybe his father's ghost was a demon sent to cause Hamlet's downfall." And any number of those interpretations could be vaguely supported in the text. But as a kid,I was like 'just let me read the damn thing and make up my own mind.'. But later, I realized he was doing his job very well. He was teaching all aspects that could be found there. I couldn't really resent his teaching all the interpretations, since he wasn't telling me which I had to believe at the end of the day. And so that's the way it should be in ALL matter's of education. Teach ALL views.Give kids a chance to make up their own minds with ALL the evidence presented.

 

[chaseter]

This is the response you're gonna get : why should everyone be subject to scientific indoctrination?

The sad part is, science can't discredit religion but some on the religious side think religion can discredit science. Evolution in no way contradicts the Bible but these people have warped the Bible's words to create a backwards thinking new age dogma that they want to pass on to our kids in an attempt to indoctrinate and suppress scientific advancement. It's the old guard holding onto their vestigial ways akin to the world is flat because ya know...God.

 

[Greens]

with ALL the evidence presented.

That would be an extremely short creationism class. I'm all for that.

 

[Shikamaru]

There are plenty of Creationists that beg to differ.

And? There's many different groups that beg to differ. There's still some flat-earthers running around that beg to differ (believe it or not). That doesn't mean we should act like everyone who disagrees has credible points. By that logic, the beliefs held by the Nazis were just as credible as the ones held by the Allies. They were just as sure in their pseudo-scientific justification for which races were inferior as the hardcore creationists are in creationism. Are we "suppressing" Neo-Nazis if we allow science classes the reality that there is no superior race among humans?

The debate isn't over. And there should be full access to all view points for students. Otherwise, you're suppressing one side.

I remember studying Hamlet. And the teacher there really took the thing apart. Looked at it from every angle imaginable. "Maybe Hamlet was gay.Maybe Ophelia killed herself because she was carrying Hamlet's child. Maybe Hamlet had an Oedipus Complex. Maybe his father's ghost was a demon sent to cause Hamlet's downfall." And any number of those interpretations could be vaguely supported in the text. But as a kid,I was like 'just let me read the damn thing and make up my own mind.'. But later, I realized he was doing his job very well. He was teaching all aspects that could be found there. I couldn't really resent his teaching all the interpretations, since he wasn't telling me which I had to believe at the end of the day. And so that's the way it should be in ALL matter's of education. Teach ALL views.Give kids a chance to make up their own minds with ALL the evidence presented.

That's not a good example. Hamlet is a piece of art. Art is, by its nature, entirely subjective. Scientific truth is, by its nature, entirely objective.

Plus even with art, you can probably find a decent amount of evidence to support most interpretations of Hamlet. You can't do the same with the claims Christianity makes about the nature of the world.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

This is article does speak some truth.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/why-aren’t-more-intellectuals-believers

Despite what it may seem like in this thread, I am not in the opposition of science or people having questions about about God. I do not attend a church that just shuts out scienctific reasoning, but it also does not support the idea that science disproves the existence of God. Sadly, there are some churches that do and teach blind faith and stamps out all scientific reasons. That needs to change. Now, as Christian we should have faith it in our beliefs, but it's sad that some Christians are easily swayed to atheism or they feel pressure from society to change their views, just because things don't always make sense in the natural.

 

[MrsKent26]

As far as I know, no there is no theory/ evidence that supports the claim that there is no God, or afterlife. It's just people opinions, but yet they use this to justify their beliefs and look down on the religious. The non religious just "feel it in their heart" that their views are correct. The idea that science and people will be able to explain every unexplainable occurrence/ gap in knowledge is kinda arrogant to me. Not saying every random occurrence should be considered an act of God. Most non religious believe in aliens (other life forms) and other universes do you think we are the smartest beings out there? Also, if you believe in that, how is it so far fetched to believe in a higher power? Like I said before, I believe that a person can be religious and accept science ( I am one of those people) but I am not one of those people that think a theory disproves God and I never will be.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. You say it's arrogant to believe that science will explain every gap, but why would that be? If you think people should be free to believe in religion, which has no evidence to support it whatsoever, why shouldn't people be free to believe in something else without being called arrogant? It's no more arrogant to say that science can fill every gap than to say that their is an afterlife. Either way, most science supporters don't think it will fill every gap, but that it could if it weren't subject to human limitations.

Also, I doubt most atheists just "feel it in their hearts" that there is no god. There is no evidence that there is a god and that's probably a popular reason some people don't believe in gods.

As for support of science, there is plenty of evidence. The whole aim of it is to find answers. Many things in this world have been explained that way. For me, it's not a stretch to theorize that our knowledge of our own natural world could be applied to theories for things we don't know about the beyond. Obviously, those are still theories and science, being the wonderful concept that it is, acknowledges this. That's why the Big Bang is called a theory. Science, and by extension people who support it, is not selling itself as having all the answers. It postulates them or offers a method for postulating them that has been proven to give answers to things more easily studied. Does this make it similar to religion? In some ways, yes. Some things in science cannot, or have yet to be, proven. All things, or at least the central and important thing, in religion cannot be proven. The difference lies in the fact that scientific method has proven many things and IMO, that renders it more worthy of faith than religion. It's not about feeling anything in my heart, it's about what I've been shown and what I've never seen. The limits in science exist because of the limits of people. We simple cannot go back in time to see how the Earth came about or reach hidden areas of space. All we can do is apply scientific ideas that have provided us some truths about other things to the things we simply don't have the capability to explore and/or support religion.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Exactly. It all boils down to secularism. The Left wants to remove all vestiges of God in the name of "Enlightenment". It's easier to get away with any social ills you want to indulge in,without a pesky, disapproving God in the way.

Even though, I don't really side with one political party or the other. From the many atheist that I have encountered that statement pretty much sums up the reason that are resistant to the idea God. I am like you do know religious views and scientific views can co exist right? And Christian's can live their life pretty much the same way atheist do just with some reasonable limits. I can better myself with education, I can go out to bars and nightclubs and have a good time, without trying to get every girl I see to come home with me or intentionally getting drunk. It's really a common misconception that living your life in accordance to God's teaching some how limits your life.

 

[Shikamaru]

ShadowBoxer, when you say you believe science and religion can co-exist, I think you're only referring to the science that doesn't contradict your beliefs. You've bluntly stated in the past that you not only not believe in evolution, but that those who don't take the Adam & Eve story literally aren't true Christians. If you choose to cherry pick scientific facts whenever they're convenient and ignore them when they're not, then you're not really that open to scientific views no matter how much you claim you are. I mean, we're not talking quantum mechanics here; just basic scientific stuff when it comes to topics like evolution and the origin of man.

Also, that article speaks no truth. It lost credibility in my eyes the second it resorted to the common unfounded religious conspiracy that there's "anti-God bias" in intellectual circles. Extremists and propagandists label facts and critical thinking as "bias" all the time (see Fox News). It's nothing new.

 

[MrsKent26]

This is article does speak some truth.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/why-aren’t-more-intellectuals-believers

Despite what it may seem like in this thread, I am not in the opposition of science or people having questions about about God. I do not attend a church that just shuts out scienctific reasoning, but it also does not support the idea that science disproves the existence of God. Sadly, there are some churches that do and teach blind faith and stamps out all scientific reasons. That needs to change. Now, as Christian we should have faith it in our beliefs, but it's sad that some Christians are easily swayed to atheism or they feel pressure from society to change their views, just because things don't always make sense in the natural.

In the article, the writer says:

"If we are to bolster the perception of Christianity in an increasingly secular world, we must welcome the skeptics, and we must be willing to answer their questions."

Indeed. That's always been an issue for me. They either don't or can't answer. It's always something vague about how God is mysterious or "read the Bible" circle talk. Perhaps if they had answers, some of these "intellectual atheists" would be willing to listen.