Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[Sleipnir]

So what I'm saying is that if one book of a religion is allowed to be disseminated in schools, then all should be, as well as books that refute religion.

If that ever happens I would expect the national IQ average to drop rapidly for future generations.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Peanutbutter]

If that ever happens I would expect the national IQ average to drop rapidly for future generations.

I don't see how giving students more information and allowing them to make up their own minds can be a bad thing. How is reading more bad for you?

[Sleipnir]

I don't see how giving students more information and allowing them to make up their own minds can be a bad thing.

It is the type of information you're teaching them that matters. There's a difference between teaching relevant and irrelevant information in school - religion being the latter.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is the type of information you're teaching them that matters. There's a difference between teaching relevant and irrelevant information in school - religion being the latter.

This is mistaken at several levels....not only does religion teach history and language, it also teaches social systems, geography, and scholarship. This is above and beyond any teaching of specific dogma. Any western civilization course of study without religion isn't worth a damn.

[cybercoma]

Exactly. Which is why the statement that atheism is a religion for some people is a correct statement.

More people should take asking for evidence to backup claims as a religion. Come to think of it, some religious people do that too. They're called teachers. So what exactly is their religion? Do they follow multiple religions? That's not very devoted. Edited February 15, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I'm new here but are you always this inflammatory? I don't think there is any need to say people who believe in God, be it a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or what have you, is a "completely stupid person". I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent people who are religious and/or spiritual.

Maybe read the quote you're replying to. I said people who believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever look stupid. To be fair, they may also look insane. Imagine a full-grown adult with an imaginary friend. Pantently absurd.

[cybercoma]

This is mistaken at several levels....not only does religion teach history and language, it also teaches social systems, geography, and scholarship. This is above and beyond any teaching of specific dogma. Any western civilization course of study without religion isn't worth a damn.

No crap. But the context of the discussion is teaching religion in a science class. You're talking about teaching religion in the humanities, which is where it belongs.

[bush_cheney2004]

No crap. But the context of the discussion is teaching religion in a science class. You're talking about teaching religion in the humanities, which is where it belongs.

Nope....it belongs in "science class" too. Contributions from religious thinkers and historical context are too numerous to ignore. Intellectual production was directly related to religion for obvious reasons.

I am always amused by the self anointed elitists who assume they are superior for ignoring religion's contribution to the sciences, because it demonstrates who is really the most ignorant.

Edited February 15, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Peanutbutter]

Maybe read the quote you're replying to. I said people who believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever look stupid. To be fair, they may also look insane. Imagine a full-grown adult with an imaginary friend. Pantently absurd.

So you follow up your first insult by repeating it a second time?

Saying that all people who believe in God are stupid and now insane isn't very helpful at all.

Barrack Obama believes in God. Is he also stupid and possibly insane?

How about Gandhi? Albert Einstein? I could go on and on here.

Just because you don't agree with someone's pov that shouldn't mean that you're now able to call them names. How does this help any discussion at all?

[TimG]

Maybe read the quote you're replying to. I said people who believe in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever look stupid. To be fair, they may also look insane. Imagine a full-grown adult with an imaginary friend. Pantently absurd.

This is where your atheism has clearly become a religion for you. While it is true that most theist religions make claims which make no scientific sense you also ignore the psychological benefits that come with believing in a higher power whether it is real or not. Do you really want to say that a drug addict is better off dying from their addiction if the solution requires that they believe things that you assert are not true?

[GostHacked]

This is where your atheism has clearly become a religion for you. While it is true that most theist religions make claims which make no scientific sense you also ignore the psychological benefits that come with believing in a higher power whether it is real or not.

Psychological benefits? Let me know when you find, Santa, the Easter Bunny, a Leprechaun, and a unicorn. I was pretty pissed to find out Santa was not real. It's nice to live in a fantasy world , but that's all it is.

Do you really want to say that a drug addict is better off dying from their addiction if the solution requires that they believe things that you assert are not true?

I've read this sober and stoned, and did not make sense either way.

[cybercoma]

You all seem to be confused about something. Demanding evidence before believing in something is not asserting that something is not true.

And sorry, PB, but you seem to be having trouble understanding my post. I didn't mention God once in either of them. You're inferring that God fits my criticism, but my criticism is not limited only to Gods.

[TimG]

You all seem to be confused about something. Demanding evidence before believing in something is not asserting that something is not true.

You don't seem to understand the point of the spiritual experience which comes from believing in things without proof. No one should be asking you to believe these things if you don't want to. At the same time, you have no business telling people that do believe these things that they should not. In places, where conflicts need to be resolved, such as education, a compromise needs to be found. This could be found by teaching evolution as the best and only scientific theory for the origin of life with the caveat that a supernatural creator cannot be ruled out but such metaphysical discussions cannot be part of the scientific method because they undermine the scientific method. Edited February 15, 2013 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

not only does religion teach history and language, it also teaches social systems, geography, and scholarship.

I'm referring to classrooms.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Sleipnir

[The_Squid]

...teaching evolution as the best and only scientific theory for the origin of life....

Clearly you don't even know what evolution is. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.

[Canuckistani]

caveat that a supernatural creator cannot be ruled out but such metaphysical discussions cannot be part of the scientific method because they undermine the scientific method.

No caveat, no mention of the supernatural belongs in a science class. But study of religions, in a non sectarian way, does belong in schools. Unfortunately the dogmatic religious would have more trouble with this than anybody else, since it would imply that other religions are equally valid to their own.

It's by extremists on both sides of the discussion, who insist on co-mingling the spiritual and the mundane that the problem arises. One has "objective" "proof" (and the philosophers of science will tell you about the limits of that) the other one subjective experience. They are not talking about the same subject nor using the same language. The problem arose with American protestants reacting to mainstream Protestantism by insisting on biblical inerrancy. People who just couldn't handle the new ideas coming out of science that underminde their certainty. The problem was then compounded by materialists who tried to make science the only truth of human experience. Really they deserve each other, as we see on this forum.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

No caveat, no mention of the supernatural belongs in a science class.

Actually, it does. Students need to be given a coherent explanation about why mixing supernatural discussions into the scientific method makes no sense and undermines the value of science. i.e. even if one believes that a god created the universe one cannot advance human knowledge by claiming 'god did it' whenever something is not understood. For knowledge to advance we must assume that god did not do it and search for mundane explanations.

I personally believe this approach would be more effective than telling believers that they are full of crap. Obviously, some believers would still resist that nuanced treatment but it is still an improvement because it teaches kids how to reconcile the beliefs they are taught at home with the proper scientific method without being required to repudiate either.

Edited February 15, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

OK. I thought you meant teaching alternatives to evolution etc. What you're talking about is the philosophy of science. I l don't know how much time to spend on that, because the smart ones at some point will also realize the limitation of science and the whole idea that an objective observer is possible. If you follow Ken Wilber's journey from Chemistry grad student to "Einstein of the Transpersonal" say - his teachers didn't have any use for him wanting to discuss these ideas. I think it also undermines the spiritual to try to chase it with "objective" "facts" It can be fun, but only take you so far and get you really muddled.

[cybercoma]

You don't seem to understand the point of the spiritual experience which comes from believing in things without proof. No one should be asking you to believe these things if you don't want to. At the same time, you have no business telling people that do believe these things that they should not.

Asking people to support their claims is not telling them they should not believe those things. It's telling people they should support their claims.

And more importantly...

In places, where conflicts need to be resolved, such as education, a compromise needs to be found.

This is exactly where your argument falls apart. There is absolutely no reason to compromise with people that hold positions that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Otherwise, people can make up whatever wild-ass claims they want and you would be required to compromise with them. Not only does that not make any sense, but it's also an insanely dangerous proposition.

[cybercoma]

...with the caveat that a supernatural creator cannot be ruled out

I forgot to add, this also makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Nothing can be absolutely ruled out logically. You can never prove absolutely that something does not exist. This is a burden of proof problem. You're saying that "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you must teach it in science classroom because he does (or might)." Using that logic, anything might exist. Any unproven fiction that someone can dream up about the origins of life would have to be presented as a caveat. How about we stick to the science in science classrooms. Since that's what they're learning, as opposed to philosophy or story-telling.

[Peanutbutter]

I'm not sure that religion belongs in a science classroom but a world religion course should be a mandatory course for every student. In my view it's better for students to make informed decisions and have the facts instead of relying on half truths from the internet and hearsay.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure that religion belongs in a science classroom but a world religion course should be a mandatory course for every student.

Absolutely it should. Religion is fundamental to the way we've developed philosophy and our society. I'm not sure anyone has argued otherwise. I've said repeatedly that being an atheist has nothing to do with eliminating religion, or put differently pretending religion has never existed and has no influence on society.

[GostHacked]

You don't seem to understand the point of the spiritual experience which comes from believing in things without proof.

I think we do understand that part. However we are not dealing with spirituality, we are dealing with faith with logic tossed aside.

No one should be asking you to believe these things if you don't want to. At the same time, you have no business telling people that do believe these things that they should not. In places, where conflicts need to be resolved, such as education, a compromise needs to be found. This could be found by teaching evolution as the best and only scientific theory for the origin of life with the caveat that a supernatural creator cannot be ruled out but such metaphysical discussions cannot be part of the scientific method because they undermine the scientific method.

What is so hard to understand that science does not deal with the supernatural? Never has, never will. Science CANNOT deal with the supernatural. We've been over this again and again. This is the sole reason why faith/spirituality and god are not considered in science. There is no testable means to validate god.

[TimG]

Asking people to support their claims is not telling them they should not believe those things. It's telling people they should support their claims.

Why do you care? The fundamental tenet of our society is live and let live. If people feel they derive a benefit by believing in a higher power they have no obligation to justify it to you.

You're saying that "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you must teach it in science classroom because he does (or might)." Using that logic, anything might exist.

What I am saying a belief in god is part of the human experience and kids need to reconcile the scientific method with the supernatural beliefs that they learn elsewhere. Simply telling kids that their parents are full of crap is NOT the way to go about it. Explaining how the scientific method works and why the supernatural does not belong in that discussion is the way to go about it.

I find it interesting that you can find nothing factually wrong with my statement but you object because it mentions god. Such dogmatism is the hallmark of a zealot.

Edited February 15, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

What is so hard to understand that science does not deal with the supernatural?

Why don't you read what I wrote. Think about it and try reposting...