» Flaming
General discussion thread
(723 posts) (32 voices)-
It just shouldn't be in schools, beliefs have nothing to do with learning, It's just like making a class called dating and putting a wife beater as a teacher.
Mister we slice little girls into pieces in our country but at least we can't shoot them.
- DieAPosted 6 months ago # -
i dont agree with you at all lamb. i believe both should be taught so that people can choose for themselves. also religon is the basis for many of our moralistic beliefs.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Beliefs have nothing to do with learning? They have everything to do with it. It's basically impossible to find any teacher, or person who can teach anyone anything without being affected by their beliefs. This is basic human behaviour, you are affected throughout your entire life by your beliefs, and you act accordingly.
Or what about philosophy? Philosophy shouldn't be taught either? Any concept of love, friendship or anything of that nature that you can't prove scientifically is based on faith.
It's possible to teach about those things without religion. But right now, in most societies, this is what the people want. And as long as they can choose to learn about it or not, I don't see the problem."you’re mosdef doing it wrong… you’re not near enough of a condescending opinionated teenie-bopper to be the ‘real’ dieA…"
- DisplacedTexanPosted 6 months ago # -
Here are the requirements that I think are necessary and fair.
- Religion classes should not be mandatory
- Religion classes should be separate from science/ history classes
- Nothing should be taught as a scientific/ historical fact in the religion classes
If my art teacher tells me that painter A is especially good, and admirable, that's his belief and he's practically teaching me that. Hardly any human is objective enough to go even a few hours without stating their beliefs as facts.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Sailor is funny? Damn and here I thought I was naturally funny.
Heh. running down the History of religions would make for a class more filled with blood and violence than my western civilization class.
And no, no apologies for my religion, it was a creed for ravagers, plunderers, pirates and conquerors.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Our society is saturated in religion... children are force fed ideas about god practically from birth.. if not from their parents, than TV and peers. The only way I would feel okay about religion being taught in school is if it were a philosophy/humanities/history course such as those found at college... where religion as a whole is discussed, the history explored, etc. People in the U.S. are completely ignorant of the vast majority of religions that are out there.
Schools should provide children with tools to read, write, learn... to think. That's it.
Posted 6 months ago # -
@Snow
i dont agree with you at all lamb. i believe both should be taught so that people can choose for themselves.
By that way of thinking all religions have to be thought.also religon is the basis for many of our moralistic beliefs.
Morals should be based on your way of thinking, not an old book where rape victims are forced to marry their rapist.
@Antagonista
Beliefs have nothing to do with learning? They have everything to do with it. It's basically impossible to find any teacher, or person who can teach anyone anything without being affected by their beliefs. This is basic human behaviour, you are affected throughout your entire life by your beliefs, and you act accordingly.
Philosophy, it's in the title, it's self explaining that it's not something... let's say, official.
Or what about philosophy? Philosophy shouldn't be taught either? Any concept of love, friendship or anything of that nature that you can't prove scientifically is based on faith.Here are the requirements that I think are necessary and fair.
- Religion classes should not be mandatory
- Religion classes should be separate from science/ history classes
- Nothing should be taught as a scientific/ historical fact in the religion classesYou know that's never going to happen
If my art teacher tells me that painter A is especially good, and admirable, that's his belief and he's practically teaching me that. Hardly any human is objective enough to go even a few hours without stating their beliefs as facts.That's not the same thing, horrible example. He's not saying his the best, he's saying that's his favorite.
@out
Schools should provide children with tools to read, write, learn... to think. That's it.
You go girlPosted 6 months ago # -
Must've deleted what I said by accident
You know that's never going to happen.Here are the requirements that I think are necessary and fair.
- Religion classes should not be mandatory
- Religion classes should be separate from science/ history classes
- Nothing should be taught as a scientific/ historical fact in the religion classes
Posted 6 months ago # -
If religion is going to be taught at the high school level (or below), it must be done as a Comparative Religion course. I think it's an excellent idea because the more a person knows about religions in general, the less likely they are to be ignorant evangelicals. Lack of knowledge about the world outside one's community is so important. I'm still taken aback by the astronomical level of total ignorance that I'm surrounded by. It's getting better w/ the availability of internet capable computers, but not where religion is concerned, as is evidenced by the level of debate on any forum about religion.
Shutup woman, get on mah horse...Posted 6 months ago # -
@nyokki - religion is an emotion driven belief set... so it makes sense that it's an area where people are going to clash. the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again. :p
Posted 6 months ago # -
I can't believe I missed this.
also religon is the basis for many of our moralistic beliefs.
Actually, the foundation of those "moralistic beliefs" were there before the religions were. Religions are like katamari balls... they run over and absorb everything that gets in their way... making it easier to manipulate people to worship what they want them to.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Philosophy, it's in the title, it's self explaining that it's not something... let's say, official.
Could you be any more vague. You obviously have only a problem with how these things are being taught in your area. It's not everywhere like that. I'm confident to say that here they teach religion the same way they would teach philosophy at the universities.
You know that's never going to happen.
So instead of agreeing that these would be first major improvements, you just say that's never going to happen.
What do you want to happen then? Do you think they're going to remove religion completely just like that. If you think those suggestions I made are never going to happen, how do you expect them to remove it completely?
The things you say don't add up.That's not the same thing, horrible example. He's not saying his the best, he's saying that's his favorite.
What is that supposed to mean. Does your religion teacher say he's the best? Because mine never did. It wasn't even about that. It was about stating a belief as if it were a fact. If you can't comprehend that, I can't help you.
Posted 6 months ago # -
outofocus
the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again.
Then they're not really agreeing, now are they. Atheists are individual believers as well. You will never find a group of any kind that agrees inherently on any emotional subject. Atheists get emotional over this subject just the same as theists.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I wouldn't say "just the same". Atheists around other atheists tend not to even discuss religion, not here anyway. I think we're just happy not to be discussing religion at all. ;) Once you move away from religion AND you start talking philosophy, things can get interesting all over again.outofocus
the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again.
Then they're not really agreeing, now are they. Atheists are individual believers as well. You will never find a group of any kind that agrees inherently on any emotional subject. Atheists get emotional over this subject just the same as theists.
Posted 6 months ago # -
outofocus
the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again.
Then they're not really agreeing, now are they. Atheists are individual believers as well. You will never find a group of any kind that agrees inherently on any emotional subject. Atheists get emotional over this subject just the same as theists.
I wouldn't say "just the same". Atheists around other atheists tend not to even discuss religion, not here anyway. I think we're just happy not to be discussing religion at all. ;) Once you move away from religion AND you start talking philosophy, things can get interesting all over again.
Nah, she was specifically talking about this subject, not in general, and that's what I replied to.
It's part of human nature, to get emotional over things that affect you directly. Unless you're a machine, I don't see how an atheist could not get emotional over it. There are only very few, extremely objective people, who can give you a somewhat neutral opinion a.k.a. reboot. Though for the most part this is not the case, which you can see on the front page any time, when atheists discuss these things.Posted 6 months ago # -
I suppose, but most I know don't go looking for the religion argument. It's an argument neither side can win. It's pointless and frustrating. I'll throw a few snippets in here and there, but refer to not get involved, unless you get a riverdickdragon going, that's fun. Most pro-religion types (not all..locust and nate) use pseudo-logic and try to argue that there 'proof' is equivalent to scientific proof and it's not. They try to convince that science and atheism is just another type of religion and that we're fooling ourselves to think otherwise and seem incapable of understanding the differences.outofocus
the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again.
Then they're not really agreeing, now are they. Atheists are individual believers as well. You will never find a group of any kind that agrees inherently on any emotional subject. Atheists get emotional over this subject just the same as theists.
I wouldn't say "just the same". Atheists around other atheists tend not to even discuss religion, not here anyway. I think we're just happy not to be discussing religion at all. ;) Once you move away from religion AND you start talking philosophy, things can get interesting all over again.
Nah, she was specifically talking about this subject, not in general, and that's what I replied to.
It's part of human nature, to get emotional over things that affect you directly. Unless you're a machine, I don't see how an atheist could not get emotional over it. There are only very few, extremely objective people, who can give you a somewhat neutral opinion a.k.a. reboot. Though for the most part this is not the case, which you can see on the front page any time, when atheists discuss these things.Posted 6 months ago # -
outofocus
the only group of people who consistently agree with one another on that subject are atheists... well, until you get to the discussion of what to do about theists and then the disagreements begin again.
Then they're not really agreeing, now are they. Atheists are individual believers as well. You will never find a group of any kind that agrees inherently on any emotional subject. Atheists get emotional over this subject just the same as theists.
I wouldn't say "just the same". Atheists around other atheists tend not to even discuss religion, not here anyway. I think we're just happy not to be discussing religion at all. ;) Once you move away from religion AND you start talking philosophy, things can get interesting all over again.
Nah, she was specifically talking about this subject, not in general, and that's what I replied to.
It's part of human nature, to get emotional over things that affect you directly. Unless you're a machine, I don't see how an atheist could not get emotional over it. There are only very few, extremely objective people, who can give you a somewhat neutral opinion a.k.a. reboot. Though for the most part this is not the case, which you can see on the front page any time, when atheists discuss these things.I suppose, but most I know don't go looking for the religion argument. It's an argument neither side can win. It's pointless and frustrating. I'll throw a few snippets in here and there, but refer to not get involved, unless you get a riverdickdragon going, that's fun. Most pro-religion types (not all..locust and nate) use pseudo-logic and try to argue that there 'proof' is equivalent to scientific proof and it's not. They try to convince that science and atheism is just another type of religion and that we're fooling ourselves to think otherwise and seem incapable of understanding the differences.
Yeah that's true. But it's not only religious people who think they can 'prove' anything. It's also atheists who think they can disprove spiritual things with scientific facts. It doesn't work either way.
I just don't like when atheists get grouped together like that. It's even strange to group Christians together, for example. It's awfully difficult to find two Christians from two different towns, who agree on everything when it comes to their religion.
Atheists? I don't see why anyone would talk about them as a group. I don't feel like I have anything significant in common with all people who are not mentally ill. At least not when it comes to my beliefs, or morals.Also, science has nothing to do with atheism. Yes, you can disprove certain aspects of religion with scientific facts, but you can't disprove god, just like you can't disprove aliens.
I have heard many people say that atheism is a religion, and I perfectly understand what they mean. While it's easy to find specific religions inconsistent and nonsensical, it takes faith, to be certain that there is no god or gods.
Though assuming that atheism is a religion, because of that, is way too far stretched. I know that.Here's another thing to ponder on. There are over six billion different interpretations of what god is or isn't, on this planet.
I've talked about religion with many people. Some said right away that I'm an atheist. Other's have said I'm clearly an agnostic, deist, Jew and even Christian!
I think alone because of the way the human mind works, you can't group Atheists, or theists together. A theist is capable of being a rational person, with respectable morals even though his bible teaches him otherwise, and an atheist is capable of being a delusional killer, even though he accepts scientific facts.And I don't think Lotus and Nate are pro religion. I would say they're pro human rights, for the most part.
Posted 6 months ago # -
@nyokki, dieA,: "Truly you have a dizzying intellect."
What is with all the little windows inside windows separating quotes? Gave me vertigo, thought I was going to fall into the screen.Posted 6 months ago # -
Well of course I'm talking about my area.Could you be any more vague. You obviously have only a problem with how these things are being taught in your area. It's not everywhere like that. I'm confident to say that here they teach religion the same way they would teach philosophy at the universities.
got my thereSo instead of agreeing that these would be first major improvements, you just say that's never going to happen.
What do you want to happen then? Do you think they're going to remove religion completely just like that. If you think those suggestions I made are never going to happen, how do you expect them to remove it completely?
The things you say don't add up.
Yeah, I put the words funny in that one... I said the art teacher says that the specific painter is the best, it's clearly a point of view and he doesn't shove it down anyone's throat.What is that supposed to mean. Does your religion teacher say he's the best? Because mine never did. It wasn't even about that. It was about stating a belief as if it were a fact. If you can't comprehend that, I can't help you.
I've never heard of anyone trying to disprove God, only disprove religions, which is something totally differentAlso, science has nothing to do with atheism. Yes, you can disprove certain aspects of religion with scientific facts, but you can't disprove god, just like you can't disprove aliens.
Ignoring the last sentence, It doesn't take faith to not believe in God, does it take faith to not believe in leprechauns? unicorns? bridge trolls? ok, bridge trolls exist.I have heard many people say that atheism is a religion, and I perfectly understand what they mean. While it's easy to find specific religions inconsistent and nonsensical, it takes faith, to be certain that there is no god or gods.
Though assuming that atheism is a religion, because of that, is way too far stretched. I know that.
You can't group agnostics with atheist and theists, you can be either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic doesn't go alone.Some said right away that I'm an atheist. Other's have said I'm clearly an agnostic, deist, Jew and even Christian!
That's just scarySomeone just sent me this.
Posted 6 months ago # -
got my there
What?
Yeah, I put the words funny in that one... I said the art teacher says that the specific painter is the best, it's clearly a point of view and he doesn't shove it down anyone's throat.
My religion teacher never did that either, he just explained what certain passages in the bible mean, he didn't point a gun at anyone and said you believe this or else!
I've never heard of anyone trying to disprove God, only disprove religions, which is something totally different
There are a lot of people who try to disprove god, or think they already did. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Ignoring the last sentence, It doesn't take faith to not believe in God, does it take faith to not believe in leprechauns? unicorns? bridge trolls? ok, bridge trolls exist.
It takes faith, to be absolutely %100 sure that there is no god, no gods or anything like that. You don't disbelieve based on any scientific facts, therefore you need faith to assume something like that.
You can't group agnostics with atheist and theists, you can be either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic doesn't go alone.
Haha, what? Are you just playing dumb, or are you being serious.
I wasn't grouping anyone together with anyone. Are you insane. I said that people who have talked to me, and heard what my specific beliefs about specific aspects of religions are, have stated, without me having clarified prior to that as what I identify, that they think I'm an atheist. Or a theist. etc. Different people, have assumed these things about me, after they heard certain opinions of mine.
Is that clear enough?
You're completely ignoring my main questions. Instead you comment on replies I have made to other people.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Meant to say: You got ME there.got my there
What?
Yeah, I put the words funny in that one... I said the art teacher says that the specific painter is the best, it's clearly a point of view and he doesn't shove it down anyone's throat.
My religion teacher never did that either, he just explained what certain passages in the bible mean, he didn't point a gun at anyone and said you believe this or else! Mine did, Believe in this or go to hell, woohoo!
I've never heard of anyone trying to disprove God, only disprove religions, which is something totally different
There are a lot of people who try to disprove god, or think they already did. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Still haven't heard of them.
Ignoring the last sentence, It doesn't take faith to not believe in God, does it take faith to not believe in leprechauns? unicorns? bridge trolls? ok, bridge trolls exist.
It takes faith, to be absolutely %100 sure that there is no god, no gods or anything like that. You don't disbelieve based on any scientific facts, therefore you need faith to assume something like that. no, it doesn't. There is no scientific method to disprove that unicorns once thrived on earth, seriously, there isn't. Or if Bigfoot exists. I need no faith to NOT believe in something.
You can't group agnostics with atheist and theists, you can be either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic doesn't go alone.
Haha, what? Are you just playing dumb, or are you being serious.
I wasn't grouping anyone together with anyone. Are you insane. I said that people who have talked to me, and heard what my specific beliefs about specific aspects of religions are, have stated, without me having clarified prior to that as what I identify, that they think I'm an atheist. Or a theist. etc. Different people, have assumed these things about me, after they heard certain opinions of mine.
Is that clear enough? I don't think you got the point to this one, you made a list: agnostic, deist, Jew and even Christian.
One doesn't belong. This one is just semantics, no reason to make a fuss.
Yeah, I don't know what you main question was. Repeat it, or point me to it.You're completely ignoring my main questions. Instead you comment on replies I have made to other people.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Mine did, Believe in this or go to hell, woohoo!
That means your religion teacher is the problem, and not the fact that religion is being taught at schools.
Still haven't heard of them.
Richard Dawkins.
There is no scientific method to disprove that unicorns once thrived on earth, seriously, there isn't. Or if Bigfoot exists. I need no faith to NOT believe in something.
Let me put it this way, if you say, I believe there is no god, you're admitting that there is faith involved. Of course you could just say, I disbelieve in any god, but the fact remains that you talk about faith.
I don't think you got the point to this one, you made a list: agnostic, deist, Jew and even Christian.
One doesn't belong. This one is just semantics, no reason to make a fuss.I think you didn't get the point. I have made a list of the different things, different people have thought of me.
Do you still not comprehend. I talked to one man about what I think god is or isn't, and he would say, I'm clearly an atheist. I would tell another one the same thing, and he would say I'm clearly a deist.I meant EXACTLY what I said. Many people have thought of me as an atheist, while others have thought of me as a theist. You're simply too narrow minded to understand that people have different interpretations of these ideas, and how complex my opinions may or may not be, get a grip.
Posted 6 months ago # -
And my main question was the one where you apparently answered with, 'you got me there.'
Yeah, real nice argument. Now that's convincing.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Actually teacherS, not just oneThat means your religion teacher is the problem, and not the fact that religion is being taught at schools.
Really? didn't know, but I have FAITH that you're telling the truth.Richard Dawkins.
You keep saying this, but you're ignoring my examples. If something is so far fetched, so different from the reality in which you live, not believing in it is not a sign of faith.Let me put it this way, if you say, I believe there is no god, you're admitting that there is faith involved. Of course you could just say, I disbelieve in any god, but the fact remains that you talk about faith.
Jesus Christ! I was just saying that the word agnostic doesn't go alone. You can't call some one agnostic, THE END. When you say agnostic you have to specify theist or atheist. What you said is not the debate, the word itself is.I think you didn't get the point. I have made a list of the different things, different people have thought of me.
Do you still not comprehend. I talked to one man about what I think god is or isn't, and he would say, I'm clearly an atheist. I would tell another one the same thing, and he would say I'm clearly a deist.
I meant EXACTLY what I said. Many people have thought of me as an atheist, while others have thought of me as a theist. You're simply too narrow minded to understand that people have different interpretations of these ideas, and how complex my opinions may or may not be, get a grip.
you should be happy, you won that argument.And my main question was the one where you apparently answered with, 'you got me there.'
Yeah, real nice argument. Now that's convincing.Posted 6 months ago # -
Really? didn't know, but I have FAITH that you're telling the truth.
Yeah he defined the probability of god's existence. He's the most famous one I assumed you know of. But there are many many more who have clearly stated they can disprove god through scientific facts.
You keep saying this, but you're ignoring my examples. If something is so far fetched, so different from the reality in which you live, not believing in it is not a sign of faith.
No I made that example just now, by way of semantics.
Jesus Christ! I was just saying that the word agnostic doesn't go alone. You can't call some one agnostic, THE END. When you say agnostic you have to specify theist or atheist. What you said is not the debate, the word itself is.
Why not?
"Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'.[4][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion."
Again, interpretations vary.
you should be happy, you won that argument.
If that's all I wanted I would have conversations with kindergarteners instead.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yeah he defined the probability of god's existence. He's the most famous one I assumed you know of. But there are many many more who have clearly stated they can disprove god through scientific facts.
No, I know who he is, just didn't know he tried to disprove god.
No I made that example just now, by way of semantics.
And the rest:
If something is so far fetched, so different from the reality in which you live, not believing in it is not a sign of faith.
.
Why not?
"Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'.[4][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion."
Again, interpretations vary.So one SHOULD specify what kind of agnostic someone is. So not to get confused.
If that's all I wanted I would have conversations with kindergarteners instead.
No, you can't win fights with kids, it's like talking about evolution to creationists. I accepted defeat, you were right, I was talking of particulars when I had to be objective.
Posted 6 months ago # -
So one SHOULD specify what kind of agnostic someone is. So not to get confused.
No, I'm afraid that's not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Also, "Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) have been Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell."
No, you can't win fights with kids, it's like talking about evolution to creationists.
It was a joke. And you really need to talk to some more young earth creationists. Aside from questionable evidence they have that giants existed and that should disprove evolution, the only argument I can still remember was, 'it just makes more sense than evolution.' That's easily defeated.
It's hot in here.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Anyway, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't pretend to know what created the Universe, or even what the Universe really is. I'm just really sure it wasn't something conscious (i.e. not a being).No, I'm afraid that's not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Also, "Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) have been Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell."
I know, but it was fun to say. Of course it's easy defeated, for someone who thinks rationally.It was a joke. And you really need to talk to some more young earth creationists. Aside from questionable evidence they have that giants existed and that should disprove evolution, the only argument I can still remember was, 'it just makes more sense than evolution.' That's easily defeated.
Well... take something off. [wink]It's hot in here.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.