O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in school

[bankside]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I get a good laugh out of the idea from religious apologists that we don't need to worry about old testament slavery and genocide and so on, because, hey! we're now featuring more jesus!

As though god was entitled to be so immoral and capricious before he arranged for his child to be nailed to a tree.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Of course not. I wish there was a way of reprogramming you lot away from this dangerous bullshit but unfortunately it's not that simple. On topic though, should it be allowed in schools? No, never, unless it's being taught objectively. I'd go so far as to say that all faith schools should be abolished, given the effect teaching this crap to a child has. It's child abuse and one day it will be illegal.

I draw you back to the passage I mentioned earlier. I would have thought what jesus said on the subject would hold a bit more sway than what his followers had said, after he'd kicked the bucket.

Totalitarian at heart -- seems Stalin is a better example of atheism than I thought.

Jesus said the same thing -- that He fulfilled the Law, which means its job is over with.

The Theory of Evolution will eventually pass or fail by provable scientific facts.

The Belief in Intelligent Design, by it's very definition, has no provable scientific facts to present and never will.

IMO, further attempts to elevate ID as a classroom alternative to Evolution is a colossal waste of time ..... period! The mere mention of Bill O'Reilly as an ID proponent seals the deal for me, because the man is a boob.

I'd never be so confident as to make the second assertion. I'll just add a comment tossed out during a late-night (into early morning) physics (relativity with pizza and beer) study group when I was at OSU: "Does a Catholic have mass?"

Your last item says roughly what I claimed a number of posts back: O'Reilly didn't show us much of anything about religion, he just showed something about himself.

Heh -- if he were a mobster, his mob name would have to be Bill "the Boob" O'Reilly.

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Indeed. A fact that seems to bounce of thier thick coat of logic armour whenever it's thrown at them.

"So god was...a cunt back then, but now he loves us all?"

"No god is love, he's always loved us."

"Yeah but he used to sanction genocide, rape, the most horrendous forms of capital punishment for minor infractions, like adultery, buggery and givin' yer old man a bit of back-chat...and he loves us?"

"Yup, yup, yup!"

Morons...

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I want to say that religious people can hinder the progress of the country if they focus so much on their religion and God and put the society around them in the bottom list. I love the fact that in my country,the younger generation appears to have more liberal/atheistic tendencies while some of them are still practicing their parent's religion (we have many radical religious crazy teenagers in here). I hope religion can disappear soon and the world will move toward a better place. I approve and agree with the good teaching in every religion,I just hate the organization behind it.

Indonesia's election is 1 month again and I hope religion based party will lose their popularity and won't get more seats at the parlement. Or we will be doomed toward syariah law.

It depends to a great extent on the religion: to a great extent it was by focusing on their religion that a number of early groups contributed to making America strong and prosperous -- from preachers who took up their muskets to fight for the doctrine that man must be free, to women who ran businesses and became merchants because the Bible says a woman should provide for her household (see Proverbs).

It's when someone takes it into their mind that their religion demands that everyone else be puppets that it not only can hinder the progress of a country, but turn it backwards.

In Christianity, a "religion-based party" is a contradiction in terms, because Jesus said not to seek political power. In Islam... well, the Prophet never separated religion from politics.

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Totalitarian at heart -- seems Stalin is a better example of atheism than I thought.

What, because I'd rather see a world without these ridiculous, dehumanising belief systems that makes me totalitarian? So be it.

Jesus said the same thing -- that He fulfilled the Law, which means its job is over with.

Again, this is your interpretation of it. I've heard people with the opposite interpretation. I know you're going to say they're reading it incorrectly, but they would say the same of you. This is an impossible, circular argument. Although I could save both camps some time by pointing out that Jesus probobly didn't exist, dunno if that helps?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I have a great deal of sympathy for you there man. The thing is, even the sort of righteous minded, basiclly good religious types are also a danger, in that in continuing to follow this crap, they give a platform to the extremists.

By that token an argument could be made for doing away with police, because so many are corrupt.

Certainly atheists have done some horrendous things in the last century or so, but I would point out that they didn't do it because they were atheists, because of the lack of commune with devine in thier lives, as many god-botherers will have you believe. Stalin, Hitler (debatable though it is that old Adolf was an atheist,) were not following some great atheist dogma when they killed all those people. They did it through following a certain ideology, ideology which would have been equaly malignant with or without religion. Also, they did it because they were a pair of monumental cunts (although Hitler did use religion to suit his purpose, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity )

Nor were such as the Crusaders following any great religious dogma when they screamed "Deus vult!" and strapped on their swords to go spill blood in the Holy Land.

When you say "ideology", you've nailed it: religion is not the culprit, nor atheism, nor whatever other -ism people may invoke (or others accuse them of invoking); it's ideology, mixed with the fact that (as the Bible observes, BTW) we humans are a contentious lot, given to striving and strife.

By the same token though, the god squad will always hold up people like MLK as an example of religious faith triumphing over opression....eh, no. That was people triumphing over opression, and I think it cheapens thier indevours in an extremely crass way to put it all down to the beardy one.

I'd sooner put up the example of the American Revolution. Not only was it fanned and joined by numerous preachers, but it was often popularly viewed as a matter of divine work to be done. I've been reading some of Washington's correspondence with and orders to Congress and military officers in the year 1776, and it's quickly evident that to him and many others in leadership positions the Revolution was a matter of "faith triumphing over oppression" -- or at least, hoping to triumph, since in 1776 Washington was not always optimistic as to the outcome.

 

[smelter]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Quote:
Originally Posted by smelter
The Theory of Evolution will eventually pass or fail by provable scientific facts.

I definitely need to clear something up here. The theory of evolution is true. It is already accepted fact, and needs no pass or fail, it's already passed.

Ken Miller acknowledges that it is only a theory. I agree that the factual evidence is so overwhelming that it should be elevated to accepted fact. If the scientific community is not prepared to drop the qualifier of 'Theory' then I'm not either.

 

[bankside]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

A theory is not the opposite of a fact.

A theory explains how facts relate. Maybe a better explanation will come along and we'll use a new theory. But that does not change the facts.

 

[smelter]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

A theory is not the opposite of a fact.

A theory explains how facts relate. Maybe a better explanation will come along and we'll use a new theory. But that does not change the facts.

I agree ..... and the facts from the old theory would remain only to be added to or replaced by different facts that explain the need for the new theory.

 

[FirmaFan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Quote:
Originally Posted by smelter
The Theory of Evolution will eventually pass or fail by provable scientific facts.

Ken Miller acknowledges that it is only a theory. I agree that the factual evidence is so overwhelming that it should be elevated to accepted fact. If the scientific community is not prepared to drop the qualifier of 'Theory' then I'm not either.

A scientific theory is higher than accepted fact. You are still skewing the definition of what a scientific theory actually means.

www.notjustatheory.com

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

You're not helping our case.

We are just as worst as the Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and to an extent... the Hindus if we have to force people to be like us. History has shown us that it never works to force people to change, even if we kill anyone that doesn't obey.

Frankly I don't want a monolithic world, and I'm fine with what we have now, I just don't want us (American Atheists) to be the subject of discrimination.

It's a mut point anyway man. It's always been counter-productive to force folk to think a certain way. It's how we ended up with religion in the first place. All I was saying is if there was a way to errase the mental illness that is mass-religion, I'd quite like to see it implamented. It was entirely hypothetical.

 

[smelter]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

A scientific theory is higher than accepted fact. You are still skewing the definition of what a scientific theory actually means.

www.notjustatheory.com

I understood it, it was just my clumsy way of explaining it that was the problem.

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

By that token an argument could be made for doing away with police, because so many are corrupt.

The police serve a vital purppose. Religion serves none.

Nor were such as the Crusaders following any great religious dogma when they screamed "Deus vult!" and strapped on their swords to go spill blood in the Holy Land.

When you say "ideology", you've nailed it: religion is not the culprit, nor atheism, nor whatever other -ism people may invoke (or others accuse them of invoking); it's ideology, mixed with the fact that (as the Bible observes, BTW) we humans are a contentious lot, given to striving and strife.

They were following the orders of the pope. Within the confines of thier religion, they were doing gods work. Religion is the culprit in cases like these because it is, depite your claim otherwise, an ideology. It's very difficult to use atheism in a similar vain, as it is a denial of, it's a negative. Theism is the affirmation of, so any ideology surrnounding it will be intrinsicly wrapped up in it and have whichever particular dogma at the core of it.

 

[FirmaFan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

They were following the orders of the pope. Within the confines of thier religion, they were doing gods work. Religion is the culprit in cases like these because it is, depite your claim otherwise, an ideology. It's very difficult to use atheism in a similar vain, as it is a denial of, it's a negative. Theism is the affirmation of, so any ideology surrnounding it will be intrinsicly wrapped up in it and have whichever particular dogma at the core of it.

It is a common fallacy that atheism is seen as much of a faith based belief system as any religion. I guess the reason behind it is to establish atheism as a dogmatic set of beliefs in order to place blame upon atheism for the actions of those who follow the "church of atheism," thereby giving credence to such arguments as "the actions of Stalin and Hitler were caused by atheism". I think it's a way to throw the fundamentalist religious suicide bomber/terrorist/Phelps/etc argument back in the fact of those who made it by declaring that atheism is just as much a fundamental religion as any other, and, like any fundamental religion, motivated people to commit atrocious acts based upon their atheistic beliefs. The whole thing is bullshit, of course, as atheism is not a belief, can not be dogmatically followed, and has never once been shown that people think "hmmm, I think I'll go kill that guy, atheism says I should." But I can recall a few times where people think "hmm, I'll go kill that guy, god says I should."

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Well I'm not denying that atheism can be misused when adopted by an ideology, but it's not an ideology in it's self, unlike religion. Like you said man, there are no dogmatic elements that state that it's ok to kill people that aren't atheists.

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

the New Testament sets aside all but the principles of the Old Testament. That's not some concept brought in, it's what's in the book. An example I've given before repeatedly is in the book of Acts, where the Apostles hold a council, and afterward declare that the Holy Spirit told them that the Old Testament law doesn't apply to anyone except Jewish folks born before Jesus came along. That's not interpretation, that's what the book says. So anyone running around trying to impose all the rules and details of the Old Testament on the basis of the Bible can accurately be portrayed as not knowing how to read -- or of being very good with scissors (or cut & don't paste).

. . .

But I'm not telling you how -- what I'm telling you is what the Bible says of how. As for the Old Testament laws, it's said multiple times, from multiple angles, that their time is over. There's no ambiguity to that whatsoever -- just consider a quick sampling:

"You are not under law, but under grace."
"All things are 'lawful'."

So any accusation about religion based on pulling out parts of the Bible which the Bible itself says are doe with just demonstrates either an ignorance of the Bible, or a determination to criticise religion regardless of the truth.

All right, now that I've addressed the derivative character of the household codes and the roots of creationism in the Hebrew concept of the creative word, it's time to take up the New Testament's ambiguous attitude toward the Law.

First, you are interpreting the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council found in Acts 15--either that or you just don't know how to read. The Jerusalem Council did not abolish all the Law with respect to gentile Christians. It specifically imposed circumcision and abstinence from fornication and eating animals that were strangled upon all Christians. Paul was there. He was well aware of these strictures. Nevertheless, his response was to ignore at least part of their conclusion. He continued his ferocious campaign against circumcision in shockingly strong terms in Galatians. Also notice his failure to impose circumcision on Titus. The only reason he required it of Timothy was so that Timothy could be admitted to the temple. Thus there was disagreement about how much of the law had been abolished.

Further, Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5-7 that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it--that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the law. Thus at least one of the gospel writers did not believe that the Law was abolished.

Further still, Paul himself asserted the usefulness of the Law to reveal sin in Romans chapter 7. Even Paul, who rejected circumcision, found a use for the Law.

On this basis as well as the fact that the primitive Christians continued to cite and use the Old Testament (including the Law) as authority, it is perfectly acceptable to cite the Old Testament against the morality of God.

I would only add that this god does not love everyone. See Romans chapter 9 where he quotes Malachi, the Old Testament prophet, who said, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." Malachi was using the ancestor to show that God hates all Edomites. God does not separate the sinner from his sin. He hates both of them. Fred Phelps is correct, at least in principle. God's love is restricted to those he chose, not on the basis of anything foreknown in the creature but on the basis of his own whimsical grace.

 

[smelter]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Well I'm not denying that atheism can be misused when adopted by an ideology, but it's not an ideology in it's self, unlike religion. Like you said man, there are no dogmatic elements that state that it's ok to kill people that aren't atheists.

Maybe we should develop some! If you want, I can list a few religious zealots that would be good candidates for the first use of the atheist's sword.

 

[EwanSF]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Captial idea! I'll get the fertiliser, you bring the nails and the detonators!

 

[construct]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Let me correct one point in my last post. Sorry, I was working strictly from memory and have had a chance to consult Acts 15. The Jerusalem Counsel's general letter did not specifically address circumcision. It did, however, forbid meat offered to idols. Paul at least minimized that stricture by adopting a "don't ask don't tell" approach. He advised the Corinthians not to ask their hosts at dinner whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols. They were to just shut up and eat it. Thus Paul did not meticulously follow the Jerusalem Council's directive. So there was a difference of opinion as to what extent and how strictly the Law applied to all Christians. My point stands despite my example being incorrect. Sorry for my sloppiness.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I definitely need to clear something up here. The theory of evolution is true. It is already accepted fact, and needs no pass or fail, it's already passed. Many many people get caught up with the idea that evolution is "just a theory". I understand that when people say that, the word "theory" to them means something along the lines of an educated guess that has yet to be conclusively proven by evidence. But, when talking about "theory of evolution by natural selection" the word "theory" has a very different meaning. What a "theory" is thought to be by most people in everyday use is actually more like a hypothesis. In science, a "theory" is a framework to explain the mechanisms by which a vast number of known observable facts operate. It is the highest level of understanding of a subject that can be achieved. Why people say evolution is "just a theory" is beyond me. I'll give other examples of "theories," none of which anyone would say "is just a theory": The theory of gravity, the theory of general relativity, quantum theory, the cell theory. And actually, when evolution is compared to others, it is the best supported scientific theory there is. Pound for pound, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection than there is for the theory of gravity. I think a lot of people have a grave misunderstanding about how well supported evolution actually is, specifically because of how little is taught in schools due to the irrational prejudice based in religious beliefs that contradict the theory. It's easier just to subtly ignore it in biology classrooms than to evoke the outcry that might come from teaching it. I know that when I took biology in high school, I, along with 5 other people, spent 1 lunch hour learning about evolution because it was to be a part of an elective exam we had been privileged to be selected for. That was the extent of evolution taught by my highschool: 1 hour for 5 students.

One huge problem here is that too many writers of evolution material use words like "adapted" in ways that bestow a personality on the process; words like "choice" and "developed" are used carelessly, all giving the impression to the casual, common reader that there is some driving mind, or at least programming behind the "progress" (another poor choice of word) of evolution. Reading DISCOVER magazine, Science News, and other popular publications which address evolution, I get ever so tired of finding phrases such as "in response to these changes, the <organism in question> developed a new trait, X"; I throw up my hands and lecture the magazine, "Lamebrain, either trait X already existed, so that those with it didn't die out, or the species wouldn't be there for you to study!" When my <organism in question> is actually "the panda", "the gray moth", or some other specific designation, to the popular reader the impression is given that some mystical guiding force discovered that the panda/moth/whatever was at risk, sat down and designed some genetic tweak to enable the creature to survive in the new circumstances, magically inserted it in a chosen few, and sat back beatifically to watch the species thus interfered with go on propagating.

I've heard that defended as a matter of "you have to understand about evolution", or "people who understand evolution know" -- which to me is part and parcel of the problem Dr. Miller pointed out, that evolutionists look down on those who actually communicate about the subject to ordinary people. What they don't realize is that by doing so they're not only dissing those who can actually address the problem they so greatly lament -- that most of the public doesn't believe evolution -- but feeding ammunition to the anti-science crowd by making it appear as thought what they really have is a religion with the mysterious force/entity Evolution in place of God.

I disagree with your claim that "Pound for pound, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection than there is for the theory of gravity" -- there's never been anything that contradicts the theory of gravity (though some evidence lately has suggested that the mathematical formula for gravitational attraction may not be entirely accurate).

I can't believe your high school had so little to say about evolution. When I was student teaching, in a town that was 95% conservative Christian, evolution showed up in middle school and got pretty darned heavy the sophomore year in high school -- where I was working. I considered myself fortunate to be under a teacher who right at the start took his students through their textbook and had them change all the stupid wording that made evolution seem to be some sort of entity driving a process, rather than just a process, and who had some very creative ways to get points across -- my favorite being a card game in which cards were exchanged and shuffled to mimic inheritance, and in which every few hands a file card was drawn at random to announce an "environmental change/challenge"... and which card you needed to have in your hand at that moment to "survive". Not just the fronts of the cards, but the backs counted, too; having a four of clubs wasn't enough, sometimes; it had to be a four of clubs with a checkered back, or a four of clubs with any back but the blue-striped ones -- a method to show that secondary characteristics were in the game, so to speak, as well.
He didn't even care if his students believed in evolution -- which may have been why the community didn't complain (much). He flat out said at the beginning of the card-game term that he didn't care if they believed evolution was true, but he was going to make darned sure that they understood what it was they didn't believe, instead of just following a pile of silly ignorant distortions as though those made any difference. It was a delight to watch students argue over the validity of evolution without hearing any of the crap spewed by the Creation Research Institute folks!

Totally on the side -- I once had the dubious honor of meeting one of the founders of that [STRIKE]madhouse[/STRIKE] institution: what struck his fans as devotion and fervor struck me as the slickness of a used-car salesman deluded enough to believe his own hype and a nearly-demented fanaticism oblivious to reality.
I shudder all over again just thinking of that handshake!