Re: Atheist Q/A (because everyone else has one)
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:46 am
JJJJ, why do you sacrifice orphans and drain their blood?
No, because to me they aren’t equal both ways. (I’m beginning to see that to you they may be, and that is clearing some things up.)jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:The same can be said for you. If I were on your side, atheists would seem pretty dumb because anything that keeps people from believing in God and other religious beliefs must be fallacious if those religious beliefs were truth.
Ok, fair enough.jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:It's easier in the United States, one of the most Christian countries in the world, and a good majority of Europe to be Christian than somewhere else like say Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
I do agree with Bill Nye in that I don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools. I don't think that it is appropriate to be teaching a creation myth as fact to impressionable children especially in a science classroom. Science is supposed to be about what is verifiable, what you can back up with hard evidence. Not mythology and superstition. If you want to teach creation myths to children, that is fine. Just keep it in a religious studies class or a history class. Those are excellent, and indeed necessary, places to talk about religious beliefs and how they influence the world. Creation should be taught in public schools, in religion and history classes. Not in the science classroom because it really isn't science. No more than astrology or magic.
That’s a tricky choice of words. It technically is correct, but remember that the Church believes to teach the objective truth. It’s kind of like saying my math teacher brainwashed me into believing 2x2=4.~JCGJ~ wrote:I agree that the Church does indeed brainwash their children
I feel like I've gone over this before in this thread: a "theory" in science is a hypothesis with a large amount of data and research supporting it. It is as close to a fact that you can get because all ideas can be overturned if new evidence shows it to be incorrect. There are gravitational theory, germ theory, quantum theory, and numerous others. Evolution is indeed a theory, but not in the way that you mean the word.~JCGJ~ wrote:However, I do believe that they should present Evolution etc. as a Theory (if not a Hypothesis), and not as cold, hard fact, because it isn't hard fact. It is simply one of the best explainations we have come up with that describes how we came to be... Not fact.
They shouldn't be taught creation myths in a biology classroom. No more than they should be taught astrology in astronomy class. Or geo-centrism in astronomy. Or the idea that the earth is flat in geography. Children should be taught these ideas in other classes but not in science where you are trying to teach them about the way the world works. I do think that it's very important for children to learn about various religions and their beliefs and mythologies. It is extremely important. If you don't know anything about religion, you don't really understand most of history, sociology, psychology, or the way politics work.~JCGJ~ wrote:I personally believe that the children in the Public School system should be presented with all the eveidence supporting Atheistic Evolution, Christian Creationism, Islamic Creationism etc. (in an un-biased way... ), so they can choose for themselves which is the more viable Theory.
That is not necessarily true. You forget the fact that many people don't want to believe various scientific ideas. People like to believe in magic or things they can't explain. They like to believe myths about how the world came to be or other myths. They don't want to have that neat little world interrupted. And children are especially that way, they believe whatever myths you tell them and those myths solidify in their mind for years to come. Children have an increased sense of imagination than adults, it is much easier for them to adopt magical thinking than adults. Thus it is even more important to not teach magical things as if they were fact to children, especially in a public school setting and especially in a science classroom. We need to teach them various magical belief systems. But not as fact and certainly not in a science classroom.~JCGJ~ wrote:If Evolution truely is the best Theory, then (when presented with the evidence supporting all theories) Evolution should win out.
Again, it's the survival of the fittest. If all arguments are presented fairly, then the strongest arguement will win.
However, if one argument is severly undermined (ie. Creation), then obviously it will win.
Well as I said, the word "theory" here is used in a very different way than the scientific definition. You're using the word "theory" as a guess, which in science it certainly isn't. Theory is an idea that attempts to explain a large body of evidence. Basically a hypothesis that works for many different experiments and evidence. It isn't a guess, it's the closest we can get to fact.~JCGJ~ wrote:I am simply saying that people should be presented with a choice between Theories; not have one certain Theory shoved down their throats as cold hard fact.
The same can be said for the church...
Well that of course depends on your definition of "brainwashing." The things the scientific community teaches can generally be backed up by hard data. And most every scientist will encourage you not to take their word for it and to go look it up for yourself. They encourage you to question what they say and be skeptical. You are free to go look it up, the information is right there for you to look if you really want to know.~JCGJ~ wrote:I agree that the Church does indeed brainwash their children, but I also believe that the scientific comunity/public school system does just as much brainwashing as the Church.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I do agree with Bill Nye in that I don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools. I don't think that it is appropriate to be teaching a creation myth as fact to impressionable children especially in a science classroom. Science is supposed to be about what is verifiable, what you can back up with hard evidence. Not mythology and superstition. If you want to teach creation myths to children, that is fine. Just keep it in a religious studies class or a history class. Those are excellent, and indeed necessary, places to talk about religious beliefs and how they influence the world. Creation should be taught in public schools, in religion and history classes. Not in the science classroom because it really isn't science. No more than astrology or magic.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I feel like I've gone over this before in this thread: a "theory" in science is a hypothesis with a large amount of data and research supporting it. It is as close to a fact that you can get because all ideas can be overturned if new evidence shows it to be incorrect. There are gravitational theory, germ theory, quantum theory, and numerous others. Evolution is indeed a theory, but not in the way that you mean the word.~JCGJ~ wrote:However, I do believe that they should present Evolution etc. as a Theory (if not a Hypothesis), and not as cold, hard fact, because it isn't hard fact. It is simply one of the best explainations we have come up with that describes how we came to be... Not fact.
In a science classroom you teach things as if they are fact to children because you don't have time to go into all the evidence or other things. They can look that up on their own, but in a science classroom you don't have time to do these things. And you generally don't use phrases like "according to the best evidence," "based on current evidence," or "as close as we can tell," because those phrases make people think you don't really know what you're talking about even though you do. It's the best available position based on evidence, but to non scientists, that phrase can make people think that scientists have no idea what they're saying. It's the same reason why art critics don't use phrases like "in my opinion," because it makes them look like they don't really have an opinion. There is no way to get an objective opinion on art, that's why it's called an opinion. However art critics don't talk like that.
Also in a science classroom, you don't have a whole lot of time. You've usually got about a semester or maybe a year to go over the basics of whatever science you're talking about. You, unfortunately, don't have time to go over all the evidence for each thing. It's an overview course, not a specific detail course. The great thing about science is that all of that information is available to anyone who wants it thanks to the internet and libraries.
They shouldn't be taught creation myths in a biology classroom. No more than they should be taught astrology in astronomy class. Or geo-centrism in astronomy. Or the idea that the earth is flat in geography. Children should be taught these ideas in other classes but not in science where you are trying to teach them about the way the world works. I do think that it's very important for children to learn about various religions and their beliefs and mythologies. It is extremely important. If you don't know anything about religion, you don't really understand most of history, sociology, psychology, or the way politics work.~JCGJ~ wrote:I personally believe that the children in the Public School system should be presented with all the eveidence supporting Atheistic Evolution, Christian Creationism, Islamic Creationism etc. (in an un-biased way... ), so they can choose for themselves which is the more viable Theory.
That is not necessarily true. You forget the fact that many people don't want to believe various scientific ideas. People like to believe in magic or things they can't explain. They like to believe myths about how the world came to be or other myths. They don't want to have that neat little world interrupted. And children are especially that way, they believe whatever myths you tell them and those myths solidify in their mind for years to come. Children have an increased sense of imagination than adults, it is much easier for them to adopt magical thinking than adults. Thus it is even more important to not teach magical things as if they were fact to children, especially in a public school setting and especially in a science classroom. We need to teach them various magical belief systems. But not as fact and certainly not in a science classroom.~JCGJ~ wrote:If Evolution truely is the best Theory, then (when presented with the evidence supporting all theories) Evolution should win out.
Again, it's the survival of the fittest. If all arguments are presented fairly, then the strongest arguement will win.
However, if one argument is severly undermined (ie. Creation), then obviously it will win.
Well as I said, the word "theory" here is used in a very different way than the scientific definition. You're using the word "theory" as a guess, which in science it certainly isn't. Theory is an idea that attempts to explain a large body of evidence. Basically a hypothesis that works for many different experiments and evidence. It isn't a guess, it's the closest we can get to fact.~JCGJ~ wrote:I am simply saying that people should be presented with a choice between Theories; not have one certain Theory shoved down their throats as cold hard fact.
The same can be said for the church...
Well that of course depends on your definition of "brainwashing." The things the scientific community teaches can generally be backed up by hard data. And most every scientist will encourage you not to take their word for it and to go look it up for yourself. They encourage you to question what they say and be skeptical. You are free to go look it up, the information is right there for you to look if you really want to know.~JCGJ~ wrote:I agree that the Church does indeed brainwash their children, but I also believe that the scientific comunity/public school system does just as much brainwashing as the Church.
The Church does no such thing. It is generally encouraged that you don't look into various church doctrines and beliefs. It's generally encouraged that you don't question those beliefs you've been taught. It's generally encouraged that you don't question the very basic premises like: 1. God exists. 2. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. 3. Jesus came back to life after being executed. And so on and so forth. You're generally supposed to not question these things.
So it seems the church is doing the "brainwashing" not the scientific community. Of course that depends on your definition.
If one is in a good Church, that church will encourage the person to explore their own faith and ask LOTS of questions.JJJJ wrote:The Church does no such thing. It is generally encouraged that you don't look into various church doctrines and beliefs. It's generally encouraged that you don't question those beliefs you've been taught. It's generally encouraged that you don't question the very basic premises like: 1. God exists. 2. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. 3. Jesus came back to life after being executed. And so on and so forth. You're generally supposed to not question these things.
Well as Rand pointed out, ID is, historically and logically, creationism repackaged but trying to take all the religious words out of it. It was an attempt to make it seem less religious in nature, even though it really still is religious. As for origins of life, I'm not exactly qualified to talk about that. How life can come from non-life. But even if we don't know how it works, that's no reason to automatically conclude that something or someone started the process. Not knowing right now simply means we don't know right now. There's no reason to jump in and say something started that process any more than there is to say that I don't know how computers work therefore magic.Astronomer wrote:I'm unsure how that answered my question. That seems directed toward creationism being taught in the classroom. I'm asking about Intelligent Design. Many scientists find that it is nearly impossible for life to spring from nothing, so obviously some sort of intelligent design was necessary. What is your opinion of something/someone starting life's evolution?
I do agree that it is hard to believe in the God of the Bible given all the morally wrong things he does and allows to happen. But no, just because it's hard to believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. God could exist and be evil just as much as he could exist and be good. That's not the reason i reject the assertion nor do I think is it a good reason to reject the belief in God.Ayn Rand wrote:Question for JJJJ: I was just reading a book and a phrase stuck out to me and I realized I had seen it many times before. One of the characters said something like it's hard to believe in God when x happens or when He let x happen. Do you agree that the idea that belief in God is hard justifies or is a good argument for atheism?