Dear God, please leave me alone... prayer in school?

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Thanks a bunch, but you know what? I wrote all this on a Saturday night at home on my computer. Let's face it, in the end: I LOSE!

Evolution should NOT be taught in the classroom, because it just like Creation Can NOT be Proven...it's philosophy, a theory....nobody knows where we came from, or how the world came into being for certain...so, it's ignorant to promote ANY theories on the matter whatsoever....and even more ignorant to promote a God-less one and not give equal credence to a God-Filled one...

I say Ban Them both from The Classroom
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
If I had to guess, I'd say you are right. I don't believe you have evolved yet either.

If I'm wrong...I lose nothing

If you're wrong..then to quote Han Solo..."I'll See You In Hell"
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
Evolution should NOT be taught in the classroom, because it just like Creation Can NOT be Proven...it's philosophy, a theory....nobody knows where we came from, or how the world came into being for certain...so, it's ignorant to promote ANY theories on the matter whatsoever....and even more ignorant to promote a God-less one and not give equal credence to a God-Filled one...

I say Ban Them both from The Classroom

Young Alvy in "Annie Hall" gives up on life. Why? The universe is expanding, and someday it will contract and destory the whole cosmos. His mother smacks him on the head and snaps, "What has the universe got to do with it? You're here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!"

Science in school isn't quite real science. Close, maybe, but it isn't the same science they have over at MIT or CalTech. It's practical science. The point is to give children a basic idea of how the natural world works, get them to understand and apply the scientific method, and in a wider sense teach them how to think critically. Anyone who has engaged a teacher in any subject in a sophist's gambit to waste class time by making extreme arguments on the wild frontiers of thought-- I was often guilty of this crime-- knows that the teacher always has the upper hand because the "absolute truth" isn't the point and never was. Finishing the unit, the chapter, the semester-- that is the point.

Evolution makes up a small part of high school science curricula, is useful knowledge even without getting into the question of the absolute first origins of life, and at any rate is not taught dogmatically. 999,999 out of a million teachers wouldn't waste two minutes responding to an earnest Christian child's questioning, let alone refuting it. The one who would is probably going through a messy divorce at home and feels like standing in front of her class and yelling, "Sorry, you kids who believe in God-- all that stuff is a fairy tale!", and she'd be working the French fry machine at McDonald's the following week.

Evolution is part of mainstream science. It should be taught. If you want to argue that it can be questioned, go ahead. Just not in high school science. In high school science, Brooklyn is not expanding.
 
Last edited:

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Young Alvy in "Annie Hall" gives up on life. Why? The universe is expanding, and someday it will contract and destory the whole cosmos. His mother smacks him on the head and snaps, "What has the universe got to do with it? You're here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!"

Science in school isn't quite real science. Close, maybe, but it isn't the same science they have over at MIT or CalTech. It's practical science. The point is to give children a basic idea of how the natural world works, get them to understand and apply the scientific method, and in a wider sense teach them how to think critically. Anyone who has engaged a teacher in any subject in a sophist's gambit to waste time by making extreme arguments on the borders of rationality-- I was often guilty of this crime-- knows that the teacher always has the upper hand because the "absolute truth" isn't the point and never was. Finishing the unit, the chapter, the semester-- that is the point.

Evolution makes up a small part of high school science curricula, is useful knowledge even without getting into the question of the absolute first origins of life, and at any rate is not taught dogmatically. 999,999 out of a million teachers wouldn't waste two minutes arguing with an earnest Christian child's questioning. A teacher who felt like standing in front of her class and yelling, "Sorry, you kids who believe in God-- all that stuff is a fairy tale!", would probably refrain, knowing she'd be working the french fry machine at McDonald's the following week.

Evolution is part of mainstream science. It should be taught. If you want to argue that it can be questioned, go ahead. Just not in high school science. In high school science, the correct answer is: Brooklyn is not expanding.

But can you PROVE the Big Bang...the Primoral Cest Pool...that some monkeys got bigger brains and decided to mold themselves into humans? NO you can't...

Therefore it's just as much of a "fairytale" as God and anything else you chose to label as such...

Fairytales have no place as part of school curriculum...
 

Mmmmmm

Dangling Member
But can you PROVE the Big Bang...the Primoral Cest Pool...that some monkeys got bigger brains and decided to mold themselves into humans? NO you can't...

Therefore it's just as much of a "fairytale" as God and anything else you chose to label as such...

Fairytales have no place as part of school curriculum...

Look, evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. Both are supportable, demonstrable, explainable and still being improved upon by people working with empirical methods and data . The fossil record may be incomplete but it isn't a fairy tale. I can't prove to anyone definitively that there was ever a Roman Empire. To deny it in the face of a huge body of archaeological evidence, however, would make me look like an idiot. The inability to rebuild Rome or to say with absolute certainty why it 'declined and fell' shouldn't prevent the facts and developing theories from being taught. How else could we possibly advance human knowledge?

Besides, teaching students the differences between and limitations of scientific theories and myths keeps them from making asinine statements like "some monkeys got bigger brains and decided to mold themselves into humans".
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
But can you PROVE the Big Bang...the Primoral Cest Pool...that some monkeys got bigger brains and decided to mold themselves into humans? NO you can't...

Therefore it's just as much of a "fairytale" as God and anything else you chose to label as such...

Fairytales have no place as part of school curriculum...

Yes, I think these things are provable. I think scientists can offer up some pretty solid evidence. A teacher opens a book, lays out the theories, and discusses the evidence.

But I know you don't necessarily agree with that-- fine. The argument I was trying to make, above, is that every part of school-- all of it-- can be argued away as a fairy tale. There isn't a single class a student goes to that she couldn't blow up as a fairy tale of some sort. All the dynamite is there, the fuses are just waiting to be lit. Not only education but pretty much our entire society would fall apart if we disallowed fairy tales in all their myriad shapes and forms.

Education is forensic in nature. As in a murder trial, for instance, the jury doesn't decide what is the absolute truth of the events in question, but rather what has been proved or disproved given the evidence. Science offers more proof than the Bible-- by a mile. One could be a believer in God and hold that statement to be true.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Look, evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. Both are supportable, demonstrable, explainable and still being improved upon by people working with empirical methods and data .

WRONG

You can prove the Theory of gravity, by throwing a rock into the air...

Do you have any breaking footage to send Fox News that shows how the Universe began? Or any great photos showing how The spark of life somehow made something lifeless come alive? Or better yet any chimpanzees in Africa suddenly learning to Talk and Reason?

NO you don't...because it's A Theory...one that takes FAITH

just like the theory that a supernatural being was behind the whole thing...

It's a choice of which you chose to believe...
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Yes, I think these things are provable. I think scientists can offer up some pretty solid evidence. A teacher opens a book, lays out the theories, and discusses the evidence.

But I know you don't necessarily agree with that-- fine. The argument I was trying to make, above, is that every part of school-- all of it-- can be argued away as a fairy tale. There isn't a single class a student goes to that she couldn't blow up as a fairy tale of some sort. All the dynamite is there, the fuses are just waiting to be lit. Not only education but pretty much our entire society would fall apart if we disallowed fairy tales in all their myriad shapes and forms.

Education is forensic in nature. As in a murder trial, for instance, the jury doesn't decide what is the absolute truth of the events in question, but rather what has been proved or disproved given the evidence. Science offers more proof than the Bible-- by a mile. One could be a believer in God and hold that statement to be true.

I have never stated that the bible by any means should be presented as fact...

I have stated that the idea of Intelligent Design is just as probable and credible as Evolution...and in fact, does agree with many evolutionary theories....the fact that it has religious origins in irrelevent...if one theory is allowed to be taught, then an alternative theory should be allowed as e well..or they should BOTH be banned from the classroom, as neither one will EVER be Proven As ABSOLUTE FACT
 
D

Dave

Guest
Mmmmmm;673936You are getting close to a conclusion, but you are still defining your argument in Christian terms:

Do you believe that I am coming at this from a Christian perspective? I have 100% faith but I don't think my beliefs would be embraced by Christians.


If by this, you mean atheists (no need to capitalize) require demonstrable evidence or a defensible theory before they will accept a something as believable, then you are right on. That doesn't make us fundamentalists. We will by our own principles change our beliefs as new and better theories develop.
No, what I mean is that whenever I hear an atheist in this thread they are reacting to a Christian belief system. "I don't believe in God. Who could believe in a man that lives in the sky..." etc. They're reacting to a cartoon version of the Christian belief system.



Why? If by "creator" you mean a force (gravity, fusion, magnetism etc.), your language is misleading. I see no reason why fundamental forces such as these could not have always existed, and indeed why they could not have been responsible for the creation of the present universe. If one can believe in an omnipotent god who has always existed, why not a natural cosmic force responsible for creating universes.

I believe thought precedes form and is manifested, by an interior force. I believe that the Universe itself is conscious. You're breaking a total "thing" down into parts and naming the parts and I'm talking about the sum of the parts and the "spark", the energy, that came before and exists within them.




Why do we need to invent supernatural beings to explain difficult cosmic concepts? The fact that matter exists is in no way evidence of a deity. There may be many questions we have yet to answer about the nature and origin of the cosmos, but let's not name our ignorance 'god'. While a mud puddle and I may be made of the same constituent elements, the development of consciousness took billions of years (on this planet). Neurological evolution is reasonably well understood and the selective forces favoring greater awareness of environment are quite within the realm of logic. It is not at all random just as it is perfectly natural.

Fundamantal difference of opinion here. I'm not "inventing" something, I'm just trying to define what I percieve. I don't understand "supernatural" in this context. Your last sentence states that neurological evolution... First of all, can we call it consciousness? There's no way to trace neurological evolution. That may be a term I'm unfamiliar with but I know the two words, and we can only test, gauge, or measure anything from our own perspective, so I find it impossible that we can trace neurological evolution. If this concept is not random, then it is predictible, so it has a pattern? And where there is a pattern there is intelligence?

I also don't know what "perfectly natural" means but it doesn't sound atheist.

Here's the thing. I have my own experiences which are impossible to impart. I don't ask anyone to believe what I know in my own mind to be true. I do find it irritating when a straw man argument is used to deny the existence of something greater than ourselves. That's what I meant by "atheists are fundamantalists".
They say:
1. This is the definition of God
2. This does not exist.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.



I don't know any atheists who don't acknowledge the infinite complexity and greatness of the universe. They just don't call it "god". If you wish to call the sum of proven, theoretical and unknown cosmic forces "god" (in the same way Einstein did) then you may well be an atheist. Atheists don't define "god", they are by definition without one. They deny the existence of other people's definition of god.

Einstein was not an atheist.
Lacking the ablity to define something does not mean it does not exist, and gets to the heart of my argument. It exists. It is greater than us. It was here before we were, and will be here after we are gone. We come from it and return to it.


Why must the forces that create the universe be outside of the ability of humans to comprehend? You are borrowing the logic of religion and applying it to science. We do not have all of the answers and we may never have all of them, but this doesn't mean - as you posit - that they are too complex for human intellect.

Because we come from it and are a part of it. We are smaller than it. All we can ever see is a model that represents the reality, but not the thing itself.


Let's think outside of the terms of the media debate. The phrase "descending from apes" (never mind that evolutionists don't even argue this) exists to rile the pride of humans. Why apes and not amphibians, fish, bacteria or star-dust? All are equally true. A jealous, vindictive magician in the sky is far less awe-inspiring than natural forces such as nuclear fusion or evolution.

I never talked about jealous, vindictive magicians. This is you seeing my belief in "God" as the opposite of your disbelief in that same "God". This again, is why I say atheists are fundamentalists, and reject other people's definitions, due to lack of understanding. You got this image of "God" imprinted on you when you were very young, and it didn't make sense to you then and doesn't now. Join the club. Me too. Why would God feel these petty human emotions? I recognized that as a child.

But I got past that. I'm not letting other people define my terms.

God can and has been put into words. Way too many of them and they are rife with contradictions, untruths, deliberate lies, ambiguities and misleading advice. In this case it is the adherents of these flawed words who are driving the "moment of silence" because secular schools threaten belief in those words.

No. Models of God have been put into words. Other people have done their best to put their perceptions into words, but it's not possible. If it were you could just find the right book and read it and you would be enlightened. It doesn't work that way. People that know things don't always guard them because it is a secret they are keeping, but because it is impossible to pass the knowledge along.

Instead of a moment of silence, why not add an extra moment of astrophysics so that we can gape in awe of the facts (as best we understand them) rather than pray to our ignorance.

I am not a teacher. I used to teach guitar. I started giving free group lessons at the library in addition to private lessons. This led to me getting a job through a referral at a court ordered school for teenagers who are between juvenile hall and public school. I only taught 6 of them at a time. I don't have the training or skills that Buzzetta has. I can't tell you what it would have meant to be able to have a moment of quiet reflection. The idea of a time when the students can't talk to each other but must spend that time in silence doing whatever they want sounds great to me.

I agree that the wonders of astrophysics or whatever higher ideas can be shared would also make a nice daily "ritual". I don't see why there can't be both.
 

HIM

New Member
Mmmmmm;673936You are getting close to a conclusion, but you are still defining your argument in Christian terms:

Do you believe that I am coming at this from a Christian perspective? I have 100% faith but I don't think my beliefs would be embraced by Christians.


If by this, you mean atheists (no need to capitalize) require demonstrable evidence or a defensible theory before they will accept a something as believable, then you are right on. That doesn't make us fundamentalists. We will by our own principles change our beliefs as new and better theories develop.
No, what I mean is that whenever I hear an atheist in this thread they are reacting to a Christian belief system. "I don't believe in God. Who could believe in a man that lives in the sky..." etc. They're reacting to a cartoon version of the Christian belief system.



Why? If by "creator" you mean a force (gravity, fusion, magnetism etc.), your language is misleading. I see no reason why fundamental forces such as these could not have always existed, and indeed why they could not have been responsible for the creation of the present universe. If one can believe in an omnipotent god who has always existed, why not a natural cosmic force responsible for creating universes.

I believe thought precedes form and is manifested, by an interior force. I believe that the Universe itself is conscious. You're breaking a total "thing" down into parts and naming the parts and I'm talking about the sum of the parts and the "spark", the energy, that came before and exists within them.




Why do we need to invent supernatural beings to explain difficult cosmic concepts? The fact that matter exists is in no way evidence of a deity. There may be many questions we have yet to answer about the nature and origin of the cosmos, but let's not name our ignorance 'god'. While a mud puddle and I may be made of the same constituent elements, the development of consciousness took billions of years (on this planet). Neurological evolution is reasonably well understood and the selective forces favoring greater awareness of environment are quite within the realm of logic. It is not at all random just as it is perfectly natural.

Fundamantal difference of opinion here. I'm not "inventing" something, I'm just trying to define what I percieve. I don't understand "supernatural" in this context. Your last sentence states that neurological evolution... First of all, can we call it consciousness? There's no way to trace neurological evolution. That may be a term I'm unfamiliar with but I know the two words, and we can only test, gauge, or measure anything from our own perspective, so I find it impossible that we can trace neurological evolution. If this concept is not random, then it is predictible, so it has a pattern? And where there is a pattern there is intelligence?

I also don't know what "perfectly natural" means but it doesn't sound atheist.

Here's the thing. I have my own experiences which are impossible to impart. I don't ask anyone to believe what I know in my own mind to be true. I do find it irritating when a straw man argument is used to deny the existence of something greater than ourselves. That's what I meant by "atheists are fundamantalists".
They say:
1. This is the definition of God
2. This does not exist.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.



I don't know any atheists who don't acknowledge the infinite complexity and greatness of the universe. They just don't call it "god". If you wish to call the sum of proven, theoretical and unknown cosmic forces "god" (in the same way Einstein did) then you may well be an atheist. Atheists don't define "god", they are by definition without one. They deny the existence of other people's definition of god.

Einstein was not an atheist.
Lacking the ablity to define something does not mean it does not exist, and gets to the heart of my argument. It exists. It is greater than us. It was here before we were, and will be here after we are gone. We come from it and return to it.


Why must the forces that create the universe be outside of the ability of humans to comprehend? You are borrowing the logic of religion and applying it to science. We do not have all of the answers and we may never have all of them, but this doesn't mean - as you posit - that they are too complex for human intellect.

Because we come from it and are a part of it. We are smaller than it. All we can ever see is a model that represents the reality, but not the thing itself.


Let's think outside of the terms of the media debate. The phrase "descending from apes" (never mind that evolutionists don't even argue this) exists to rile the pride of humans. Why apes and not amphibians, fish, bacteria or star-dust? All are equally true. A jealous, vindictive magician in the sky is far less awe-inspiring than natural forces such as nuclear fusion or evolution.

I never talked about jealous, vindictive magicians. This is you seeing my belief in "God" as the opposite of your disbelief in that same "God". This again, is why I say atheists are fundamentalists, and reject other people's definitions, due to lack of understanding. You got this image of "God" imprinted on you when you were very young, and it didn't make sense to you then and doesn't now. Join the club. Me too. Why would God feel these petty human emotions? I recognized that as a child.

But I got past that. I'm not letting other people define my terms.

God can and has been put into words. Way too many of them and they are rife with contradictions, untruths, deliberate lies, ambiguities and misleading advice. In this case it is the adherents of these flawed words who are driving the "moment of silence" because secular schools threaten belief in those words.

No. Models of God have been put into words. Other people have done their best to put their perceptions into words, but it's not possible. If it were you could just find the right book and read it and you would be enlightened. It doesn't work that way. People that know things don't always guard them because it is a secret they are keeping, but because it is impossible to pass the knowledge along.

Instead of a moment of silence, why not add an extra moment of astrophysics so that we can gape in awe of the facts (as best we understand them) rather than pray to our ignorance.

I am not a teacher. I used to teach guitar. I started giving free group lessons at the library in addition to private lessons. This led to me getting a job through a referral at a court ordered school for teenagers who are between juvenile hall and public school. I only taught 6 of them at a time. I don't have the training or skills that Buzzetta has. I can't tell you what it would have meant to be able to have a moment of quiet reflection. The idea of a time when the students can't talk to each other but must spend that time in silence doing whatever they want sounds great to me.

I agree that the wonders of astrophysics or whatever higher ideas can be shared would also make a nice daily "ritual". I don't see why there can't be both.

dave, are you off work, today?
 
D

Dave

Guest
NO, I've spent valuable time writing these things and now I'll be up doing my packing til all hours.
 

Zenith Nadir

Senõr Member
You just knew that this thread was going to end up a few pages long. It's hard not to chip in or attach emotion to your response because you're dealing with the greatest philosophical question of all time.

This was something I saw buried on youtube recently which I though was excellent. "The Creation: Science v Religion", debated by some incredibly smart people. To acknowledge Dave's criticism, the argument put forward here is by a Christian, so this should rather be titled "a particular Christian's PoV versus a particular atheist's PoV", or something similar.

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4

If you're a Christian, you'll probably see the slam dunk in the believer's argument. Likewise if you're an atheist, you'll nod along in awe at some of the non-believing scientists explanations.

The epiphany for me in the whole documentary was suddenly "getting it" about the big bang and how cosmologists can make claims about the universe growing. Perhaps the freakiest thing was understanding that you can watch universal history unfold. The further into the universe you peer, the further back in time you're looking, in theory getting closer and closer to the bang itself. I might only have an extremely basic understanding of what they're trying to articulate, but mind blowing stuff for me nonetheless.

It's an old documentary, and I'm sure many things have changed since then. The incredible photographs that the Hubble telescope sent home must have lent to or changed some theories. This documentary changed mine. Last year or earlier this year I wrote that I didn't believe in the big bang, even as an atheist. I now do, although I concede that this still doesn't answer many questions. It might even create more than it answers. So I will say this: what I believe now is not what I've always believed in the past, and may not be what I believe in the future.

our galaxy


someone else's

www.hubblesite.org
 
D

Dave

Guest
links to earlier links

So I will say this: what I believe now is not what I've always believed in the past, and may not be what I believe in the future.

I think that's a very reasonable intelligent viewpoint. I like talking to people that are confident in their beliefs but now unreasonably fixed and set in their ways.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Worm

Taste the diffidence
Here's one example. The observer effect.

Also, it's something I've percieved personally but I wouldn't try to use that as evidence. I know it's subjective, but for me it's real.

A simple example is when you "feel" someone's gaze on the back of your head.

I have very limited knowledge about field theory but this sounds like it.
 
D

Dave

Guest
Sounds like witchcraft to me. :D

My link was wrong though. What I'm looking for is this experiment where they are watching photons pass through "gates". There are a series of gates and they shoot photons, I believe, and open gates...

Here's a forum where they discuss it, but I have a book somewhere that explains it better, with nice pictures.
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
Here's some information right from The National Academy of Sciences. Note how the language sounds, particularly the second-to-last section and its explanation of how the word "fact" is used. This is not presented as a "fairy tale" or "founding myth" as Creationism is. Nor does it deny the existence of God, but merely says "Based on the evidence we have..." Scientists do not claim absolute truth.

What is evolution?

Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and Earth have changed through time, and so has life on Earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," which remains a good definition of biological evolution today.

Isn't evolution just an inference?

No one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved. Science is practiced in many ways besides direct observation and experimentation. Much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation and observation in which inferences are made, and hypotheses generated from those inferences are tested.

For instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon—and that is true about the past, too.

In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past. For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If two-winged flies evolved from scorpionfly-like ancestors, as comparative anatomy suggests, then an intermediate true fly with four wings should have existed—and in 1976 fossils of such a fly were discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene.

Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key mechanisms of evolution occur over relatively short periods and can be observed directly—such as the evolution of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data, including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution.

Adapted from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).
 

Hellie

Lost
How anyone can possibly believe that humans are not descended from apes is beyond me.How anyone can possibly believe that we exist because of the intervention of a God is beyond me also.We all came from the primeval soup and evolved simply because we are suitably situated the correct distance from our sun and moon.Without the sun there would be no light nor life,without the moon no weather system.Somewhere out there there will be such a similar planet.

However the truth really is only a truth if any given individual is prepared to believe it is and therein lies the rub.I have a friend who believes literally in the Bible and that is her right and her truth.As is mine.Someone who believes exclusively one thing will not be persuaded to accept any theology.I never say i think she is wrong,because its something she wouldn`t say to me ,we just disagree.

Scientific evidence is based on facts.The most intelligent minds in the world who have ever existed have explained that we have evolved from apes.As humans we have an arrogance that refuses to accept that we could have come from apes.But I am inclined to believe Darwin than I am to believe that we are part of any great plan.We are just a fortunate race that live on a little insignificant planet floating in the eternity that is space.
our lives are short and if someone chooses to believe that God made the earth and man in his image it affects only them. The only problem comes when they try to shove it down other peoples throats.
 
Last edited:

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
How anyone can possibly believe that humans are not descended from apes is beyond me.How anyone can possibly believe that we exist because of the intervention of a God is beyond me also.We all came from the primeval soup and evolved simply because we are suitably situated the correct distance from our sun and moon.Without the sun there would be no light nor life,without the moon no weather system.Somewhere out there there will be such a similar planet.

Someone who believes exclusively one thing will not be persuaded to accept any theology.

We are just a fortunate race that live on a little insignificant planet floating in the eternity that is space.
our lives are short and if someone chooses to believe that God made the earth and man in his image it affects only them. The only problem comes when they try to shove it down other peoples throats
.

.......Just like you're trying to shove it down our throats that we came from apes?
 

left out

New Member
People have always used mythologies to try to explain the world around them. As peoples circumstance, social environment and understanding of the physical world have changed so have mythologies with them.
Even within one religious denomination, for example, the Church of England there are those who take the Bible literally, the fundamentalists, and there are those who regard it as a useful mythology, to help people make sense of their lives. One person's understanding of God is going to be very different from another's and much of the misunderstanding and lack of respect found in debate on religious matters and “religion versus science”, comes with confusion about what “God” really means to the person speaking.

I think it's fair to say that organised religion in Western society has suffered a sharp decline from where it was, say, a hundred years ago. Some would claim social disintegration has been the result. Is this because people have turned away from the truth or because the old truths are no longer relevant? Who will provide the new mythologies? Religious leaders, politicians, social reformers? The musicians and artists whose music and ritual have always been a part of religious practice?

The musician/singer up on stage, with a microphone in his/her hand is in a powerful position. Most appear to be concerned solely with fame/money and stick to the established formula of "I want you to want me", or "look what you made me do" for the majority of their material. Perhaps this is wise since they don't seem to have much else to say. And those who do try to mix politics and music like Bono, risk getting a fair amount of stick for it. Morrissey has received boos for making political statements, and even for appearing in the football strip of a rival team.

Giving allegiance to religion or a person or a nation, or even a sports team may help you make sense of the world you live in but is inevitably going to limit your understanding and appreciation of others’. You can try to persuade others of the value of your opinions. You can't make them believe.
It's important that children learn to think for themselves. Teaching them about religion, how it works and what people believe is useful as part of a wider curriculum but religious belief should not dictate the curriculum. Weakening the distinction between church and state, as in the subject of this thread, could lead to further intrusion of religion into public life, and people are right to be concerned about this. It is the stated intent of Christian right-wingers.
 
Top Bottom