Atheism

[Tiger74]

Not at all. What scientific evidence is there that supports creation thy?

No idea, but with 5 billion people supporting it in some shape or form doesn't it warrant acknowledgement as an option?

I agree teaching about Jesus or Buddha does not belong in the science room, but I have no issue with Creationism being put on the table as an option, if for no other reason for it to be tested and assessed by the next generation of kids. You simply say, "modern science believes "abc", but some people believe a god or a consciousness created everything per "def"... discuss". Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and saying "some people disagree" is not teaching dogma. Also most kids are already asleep in class at this point, so its not like it going to change any minds

Creationism I have no issue with, but it has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists who have grouped it in with all their beliefs. Discussing it in a proper context gets rid of all the other rubbish that is being attached to it. For instance I have massive issues with a lot of the Intelligent Design stuff (like that museum in the States), because some have manipulate a lot of facts to not support Intelligent Design, but to say the Bible is right. This is what I don't want in a classroom, which is bringing a dogma of a particular faith into the science class.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I really don't know what scientific publications you have been reading, but your examples have little, or nothing, to do with science and aren't discussed in scientific writing.

That isn't to say that that scientists don't have opinions and rationale for those opinions in these areas, but that is not science.

There is no God.

Belief in god is a faith-based premise, that is not really addressed by science --> it doesn't have falsifiable hypotheses. There is empirical evidence against certain types of god, but the ultimate question can't ever really be known.

We are nothing but pattern seeking apes.

We are pattern-seeking. We are apes. I personally don't think we are nothing.

Life is meaningless

I don't think that. Why ever would you suggest such a thing?

Morality is subjective.

It isn't?

One religion is as good as another

When it comes down to brass tacks all religions are faith-based and therefore just as believable (or unbelievable) as another. I will say that the beliefs of some religions seem more preposterous than others.

Faith is irrational

The sacrosanct position of faith is something that intrigues me. What is rational about believing in something that there is no evidence for. You can apply that in many places where you would say it is irrational.

Evolution makes athiests 'intellectually fulfilled'.

The process of evolution provided an insight into something that has interested man forever, the 'where from' question. Prior to this discovery this question was well and truly in the domain of 'god of the gaps'.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No idea, but with 5 billion people supporting it in some shape or form doesn't it warrant acknowledgement as an option?

I agree teaching about Jesus or Buddha does not belong in the science room, but I have no issue with Creationism being put on the table as an option, if for no other reason for it to be tested and assessed by the next generation of kids. You simply say, "modern science believes "abc", but some people believe a god or a consciousness created everything per "def"... discuss". Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and saying "some people disagree" is not teaching dogma. Also most kids are already asleep in class at this point, so its not like it going to change any minds

Creationism I have no issue with, but it has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists who have grouped it in with all their beliefs. Discussing it in a proper context gets rid of all the other rubbish that is being attached to it. For instance I have massive issues with a lot of the Intelligent Design stuff (like that museum in the States), because some have manipulate a lot of facts to not support Intelligent Design, but to say the Bible is right. This is what I don't want in a classroom, which is bringing a dogma of a particular faith into the science class.

Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom. Like I said in my earlier post, I have no issue teaching children about religions, including creationism, but in the correct forum.

The fact that 5 billion people believe it does not make it science.

 

[Tiger74]

Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom. Like I said in my earlier post, I have no issue teaching children about religions, including creationism, but in the correct forum.

The fact that 5 billion people believe it does not make it science.

There is a difference between teaching and acknowledging. I'm advocating acknowledging, because excluding makes it appear like you have something to hide.

Banning this stuff only makes it become sacred, like what happened in the USA when they banned discussing Creatism in school. Now some schools are being forced to peddle church propaganda which is completely against what I want.

 

[evo]

Djjev,
How could morality possibly be anything other than subjective,even Christians can't agree amongst themselves about it.Have a bit more of a think about it.

 

[evo]

There is a difference between teaching and acknowledging. I'm advocating acknowledging, because excluding makes it appear like you have something to hide.

Banning this stuff only makes it become sacred, like what happened in the USA when they banned discussing Creatism in school. Now some schools are being forced to peddle church propaganda which is completely against what I want.

What other non sciience would you like to see 'acknowledged' (whateverthehell that means) in the science classs room just becuase it's popular?

Astrology?
The healing power of crystals?
Thepotency of eating Tiger penises?
UFO theory perhaps?

 

[Disco08]

There is a difference between teaching and acknowledging.

What exactly would that difference be? Are you suggesting teachers take up time teaching kids the details of creationism and ID but at the same time make it very clear that none of it is accepted by scientific community? Isn't this just a complete waste of everyone's time?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There is a difference between teaching and acknowledging. I'm advocating acknowledging, because excluding makes it appear like you have something to hide.

Banning this stuff only makes it become sacred, like what happened in the USA when they banned discussing Creatism in school. Now some schools are being forced to peddle church propaganda which is completely against what I want.

Re-read my post. I don't want it banned. I want it taught...in the correct forum. It has nothing to do with science, so it shouldn't be taught there. Acknowledging it there only grey the lines on what constitutes science to the layperson (which is grey enough....obviously).

 

[AngryAnt]

This begs the question. Surely the sites are simply presenting facts about God from a theistic POV. Are they really attacking science? Maybe they are attacking materialists that are trying to make science say things about the nature of man which are beyond the scope of the data. This is not intellectually dishonest.

Be specific about the sites we mean. The http://big-bang-theory.com, http://allaboutscience.org, http://allaboutphilosophy.org etc etc. They are all part of the same meta-site - http://allaboutthejourney.org which is this guy who was an athiest (so he claims) and is now a true believer. All well and good, but the problem is having these sub-sites (not being indicated as sub-sites mind you) which purport to be about science. They aren't. This is a mechanism to catch readers who do a search on big bang theory for example, then get drawn into a web of Christian apologetics.

If you don't think that's intellectually dishonest, you have a different attitude to what is honest and what isn't than I do. If I go to a shop called "Science books" and it turns out it's all Christian apologetics, I'd wouldn't be very pleased. If I bought a book called "Big Bang Theory" and it was all about how the Big Bang Theory is wrong and it is all about Genesis, I'd have a good case for misleading advertising for a start.

Interested to see how you can rationalise this one Djevv.

 

[jb03]

What other non sciience would you like to see 'acknowledged' (whateverthehell that means) in the science classs room just becuase it's popular?

Astrology?
The healing power of crystals?
Thepotency of eating Tiger penises?
UFO theory perhaps?

UFO theory sounds good but I would like to see the phenomenon of the Hole In The Wall acknowledged.

 

[Djevv]

I really don't what scientific publications you have been reading, but your example have little, or nothing, to do with science and aren't discussed in scientific writing.

That isn't to say that that scientists don't have opinions and rationale for those opinions in these areas, but that is not science.

Belief in god is a faith-based premise, that is not really addressed by science --> it doesn't have falsifiable hypotheses. There is empirical evidence against certain types of god, but the ultimate question can't ever really be known.

We are pattern-seeking. We are apes. I personally don't think we are nothing.

I don't think that. Why ever would you suggest such a thing?

It isn't?

When it comes down to brass tacks all religions are faith-based and therefore just as believable (or unbelievable) as another. I will say that the beliefs of some religions seem more preposterous than others.

The sacrosanct position of faith is something that intrigues me. What is rational about believing in something that there is no evidence for. You can apply that in many places where you would say it is irrational.

The process of evolution provided an insight into something that has interested man forever, the 'where from' question. Prior to this discovery this question was well and truly in the domain of 'god of the gaps'.

Point is these are opinions that atheists generally hold, but are promulgated by latching them onto the credibility of science. I think they are in reality religious opinions. Science doesn't directly refute them so it is seen to support them. I reckon they are post-modern societies opinions, but they are often justified by 'science'.

You don't seriously think I hold these positions do you? If you want to know what I think:
There is a Creator to whom we are all accountable
We have some apelike features, but we are fundamentally NOT apes. We were created in the image of God.
Life only has objective meaning when lived in harmony with the Truth, revealed in the Bible. All other meanings are purely imaginary.
Morality is objective - God is it's origin.
Religions are man's way of getting to God. Jesus is God's way. They are not equivalent in any way.
Faith is how the knowledge and understanding of ourselves, God and our purpose is communicated to us.
Evolution is a group scientific theories and hypothesis with nothing to say about faith or God.

 

[Djevv]

Be specific about the sites we mean. The http://big-bang-theory.com, http://allaboutscience.org, http://allaboutphilosophy.org etc etc. They are all part of the same meta-site - http://allaboutthejourney.org which is this guy who was an athiest (so he claims) and is now a true believer. All well and good, but the problem is having these sub-sites (not being indicated as sub-sites mind you) which purport to be about science. They aren't. This is a mechanism to catch readers who do a search on big bang theory for example, then get drawn into a web of Christian apologetics.

If you don't think that's intellectually dishonest, you have a different attitude to what is honest and what isn't than I do. If I go to a shop called "Science books" and it turns out it's all Christian apologetics, I'd wouldn't be very pleased. If I bought a book called "Big Bang Theory" and it was all about how the Big Bang Theory is wrong and it is all about Genesis, I'd have a good case for misleading advertising for a start.

Interested to see how you can rationalise this one Djevv.

Why on earth do you think I need to rationalise anything about this? Is it my site? Contact the owner if you are upset. Post the reply here if you want to.

 

[Disco08]

Evolution is a group scientific theories and hypothesis with nothing to say about faith or God.

It has something to say about the truth of the Christian God's word though no? Surely God creating all the creepy things that creepeth yada yada doesn't imply that he created single cell beings and allowed them to evolve into today's flora and fauna?

 

[Tiger74]

Re-read my post. I don't want it banned. I want it taught...in the correct forum. It has nothing to do with science, so it shouldn't be taught there. Acknowledging it there only grey the lines on what constitutes science to the layperson (which is grey enough....obviously).

This area of science reeks of grey lines. No one knows absolutely without any shadow of a doubt how this whole thing started, and its BS to pretend that we do.

Why are you afraid for kids to ask questions? Sooner they learn to question, the sooner they learn to disregard crap like the crocoduck.

 

[Disco08]

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer the question of how it all started, it only theorises how species evolved. These are two completely separate topics.

And if Pantera wants it taught how exactly do you come to the conclusion he is afraid of children asking questions?

 

[evo]

This area of science reeks of grey lines. No one knows absolutely without any shadow of a doubt how this whole thing started, and its BS to pretend that we do.

I warned you mate.If you try to sit on the fence all the time you start painting yourself into corners like this.

Ultimate 'starts' aren't a scientific question.How do you propose we test that empirically?

 

[Tiger74]

I warned you mate.If you try to sit on the fence all the time you start painting yourself into corners like this.

Ultimate 'starts' aren't a scientific question.How do you propose we test that empirically?

Willing to let other sides be acknowledged is not fence sitting.

I am a big advocate for David Irving coming to Australia. The reason is because with him banned, all the freaks think the Govt is trying to hide "the Truth" about the holocaust. Its a crock, his views are rubbish, and any basic analysis of his views shows how stupid they are. Yet we put the wall up to protect us all, and as a result give the joker credibility.

Creation theory discussion has been hijacked by the Intelligent Design agenda unfortunately. I have absolutely no issue acknowledging that science has some theories on how the universe was created, but in terms of what caused that instance from nothingness to somethingness (sorry for poor wording) no one has a concrete explanation yet. Saying some say "....." and some say "...." and some say "a faith based explanation" I have no issue with. Science explains the rest, but it cannot yet explain that bit.

Unfortunately the Intelligent Design mob have jumped on the bans, and instead of just having to acknowledge the possibility of a creationist start to the universe, we now get people wanting to get into science agendas the world being made in 6 days and so on. For this stuff we do have science which clearly says we are not 5000 years old, and it took longer than 6 days to create the world, but the bans on this stuff opened the fundamentist floodgates. I don't even mind this stuff being raised by students in class, because they are curious, and they may actually learn something. Right now its illegal for some teachers to even respond to the question "how can dinosaurs be millions of years old when the world is only 5000 years old".

There is nothing wrong with free flow of info, and the more of it that occurs with students, the more likely they are to learn something themselves, than have a dogma implanted in them.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This area of science reeks of grey lines. No one knows absolutely without any shadow of a doubt how this whole thing started, and its BS to pretend that we do.

Of course no one knows how it all started. There is scientific evidence supporting certain hypotheses and theories on the the origin of the universe and the origin of life. These can be presented, along with the evidence, the strength of that evidence and areas where further research is required. That is science and what should be taught in the science classroom. As evo pointed out science does not address ultimate 'starts', so why should they be discussed in a science classroom? Your implication that science pretends to know everything puzzles me...would your care to elaborate?

Why are you afraid for kids to ask questions? Sooner they learn to question, the sooner they learn to disregard crap like the crocoduck.

What? I am in favour of providing kids with as much information as possible, teaching them to critically analyse information and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. They will see the crocoduck for what it is if they are taught to be sceptical of blind assertions and demand certain standards of evidence.

Again I am puzzled why you think that am afraid for kids to ask questions? Where did I suggest such a thing?

 

[Tiger74]

Of course no one knows how it all started. There is scientific evidence supporting certain hypotheses and theories on the the origin of the universe and the origin of life. These can be presented, along with the evidence, the strength of that evidence and areas where further research is required. That is science and what should be taught in the science classroom. As evo pointed out science does not address ultimate 'starts', so why should they be discussed in a science classroom? Your implication that science pretends to know everything puzzles me...would your care to elaborate?

What? I am in favour of providing kids with as much information as possible, teaching them to critically analyse information and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. They will see the crocoduck for what it is if they are taught to be sceptical of blind assertions and demand certain standards of evidence.

Again I am puzzled why you think that am afraid for kids to ask questions? Where did I suggest such a thing?

I definitely think you don't want questions. If a kid asks his teacher a religion based question in science class, you are telling him go to Christian Ed for your answer on that one as it doesn't belong in science class. You don't advocating banning discussion, you just want it in the right places, and for you this is religious ed. And my problem with that is Brother Ignatius is likely to give a very unscientific answer to the question of the crocoduck.

 

[evo]

Willing to let other sides be acknowledged is not fence sitting.

I am a big advocate for David Irving coming to Australia. The reason is because with him banned, all the freaks think the Govt is trying to hide "the Truth" about the holocaust. Its a crock, his views are rubbish, and any basic analysis of his views shows how stupid they are. Yet we put the wall up to protect us all, and as a result give the joker credibility.

I agree.But david Irving is in the field of social sciences/humanities.That is indeed a grey area.

In fact maybe you could point this out to Djevv.He seems to think subjects like morality and history can be objective,like the spped of light,or Pi, or 2 + 2=4, or something

Irvings theories are not analgous with theories like 'irreducable complexity' though, which are scientific propositions, and which BTW have been well and truly debunked--the news just hasn't reached the Southern Baptists yet(and Djevv)

Creation theory discussion has been hijacked by the Intelligent Design agenda unfortunately. I have absolutely no issue acknowledging that science has some theories on how the universe was created, but in terms of what caused that instance from nothingness to somethingness (sorry for poor wording) no one has a concrete explanation yet. Saying some say "....." and some say "...." and some say "a faith based explanation" I have no issue with. Science explains the rest, but it cannot yet explain that bit.

It will never explain it mate.It's not a scientific question.

Unfortunately the Intelligent Design mob have jumped on the bans, and instead of just having to acknowledge the possibility of a creationist start to the universe, we now get people wanting to get into science agendas the world being made in 6 days and so on. For this stuff we do have science which clearly says we are not 5000 years old, and it took longer than 6 days to create the world, but the bans on this stuff opened the fundamentist floodgates. I don't even mind this stuff being raised by students in class, because they are curious, and they may actually learn something. Right now its illegal for some teachers to even respond to the question "how can dinosaurs be millions of years old when the world is only 5000 years old".

There is nothing wrong with free flow of info, and the more of it that occurs with students, the more likely they are to learn something themselves, than have a dogma implanted in them.

Fine.

In philosophy classes.