Separation of Church and State. Why Anti-Theistic Theories don't belong in Public Education.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Isurrender73
I can only say I agree that if Religion and its teaching is not allowed in school (any religion) then anti-religion teachings should not be allowed either.

No transidental Meditation or Tantric teachings because it is a practice of Hindus and Buddhist.

No prayer because all religions pray

No religion No anti-religion plain and simple.

Thank you. This is what I am suggesting.

I imagine in high school we could allow teens to join different groups that may share religious, scientific or philosophical views. However these groups need parental approval and can't teach or pass out any information. They would need to be completely voluntary. This is a practice that currently exists and I see no reason it needs to end as long as it's not in the lesson plan.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ksihkehe

The consistency of the law and modern psychology tend to agree with my assessment of morals.

My theory that morals haven't changed much since the beginning of religion is based on more observable evidence then your theory that suggests morals are completely subjective.

Plato and the religious texts, which 84% of the world claim to follow state that virtue is not subjective, but instead that morals are often ignored for personal gain or when it comes to ideas of self-preservation.

Have you ever had a thought that made sense? Plato posited the allegory of the cave, which meant that what we see is only a shadow of the truth and they each person might see a different shadow.

Most people would not deny that most of the 10 commandments are actually a pretty good set of rules. Don't kill, don't envy... so on... so there are some really good ideas there.

Good ideas are great. It's a shame that your ideology only allows for good ideas that happened a few thousand years ago.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

My point is I have the right to direct my child's mind in the areas of unproven science.

And because what one believes about science theory has absolutely no bering on one's quality of life we don't need to indoctrinate our children in unproven theory.

Many scientific theories have changed since I was a child. This is what science theory does. So why push science theory on young minds. It is no different then pushing religious theory. Except religious theory is kess likely to change.

I love science. I want our children to grow up imaging how things came to be. But teaching anything that can't be proven as fact is a form of mind control. Something the collegiate mind is much more prepared for.

Well hopefully you are trolling otherwise you do not understand anything you posted. The Ptolemy Earth centered universe (based on aristotles views) was shown to be inaccurate in the 15th century. That is a proven fact. Noahs flood never happened, that is proven. The earth is 4.65 billion years old, proven fact.
Radiometric dating is consistent. Fact. Dating fossils in sedimentary rocks by dating igneous rocks around is dictated by such things as the "law of superposition etc geology 101. So like I said, and yes I am using the words proof/proven/fact because they are, you just do not understand basic scientific concepts.

Also your point about religipus "theories" staying consistent is terrible. Walk down the street and everyone has a different concept of religion depending on thier upbringing.

a reply to: Phantom423

There are no absolutes in science or in this universe. Everything can be questioned. If we accepted your position on education, no one would be prepared to move forward by the time they got to college. Mathematics itself isn't necessarily correct in each and every case.

It's good to see you have taken my teaching to heart, Phantom.

My point is I have the right to direct my child's mind in the areas of unproven science.

You are mistaken, OP. You have no rights whatsoever over your child's mind.

I want the ability to shape my childs mind.

What a monstrous, perverted thing to want.

This is worse than trying to control somebody else's mind. Trying to bend and twist an innocent child's mind so that you won't even need to control it thereafter, because it can only operate along the lines you have forced it into.

The old Chinese practice of foot-binding was less crippling than what you propose. At least the Chinese only did it to their own children. You want to cripple the minds of everybody's children.

Vade retro, Satanas!

a reply to: Astyanax

Take a chill pill and relax.

We are instructed to raise our children in the way they should go and when they get older they will not depart from it.

Anyone who does not raise their children will have the govt do it for them.

Should the masses raise our children or should we as their parents?

Don't be so hard on Isurrender73 he is protecting his children the way he sees fit. As I hope you would do yours.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

We are instructed to raise our children in the way they should go and when they get older they will not depart from it.

Instructed by whom? By a stupid book written by members of a patriarchate who were deeply committed to maintaining the social order that had placed them at the top of society?

You are the dupe of a 3,000-year-old conspiracy.

a reply to: Isurrender73

it's a debate about unproven science infringing on religious beliefs.

So knowledge that doesn't align itself with the theological narrative is antitheistic and therefore should be removed from school. That's most of our knowledge. I guess we better remove education from school then.

a reply to: Astyanax

Do you have children?

Do you teach them anything? Do you ever punish them for anything? Or is it complete anarchy and social disorder without rules?

To everyone's children? First I teach my daughter evolution, because in her lifetime science might actually prove something.

Second I'm not trying to teach anyone else's children anything. I am trying to get scientific hypothesis that contradicts God as creator out of public schools.

Send your child to a private school if you don't like it. There is no reason to teach what cannot be observed using scientific method to children in a public school.

a reply to: Astyanax

I have grown tired of people who think they are intelligent who have no ability to debate without putting someone else down. Your aggressive attitude and world view on religion is deeply flawed. You shouldn't be teaching anyone anything IMO.

Whenever anyone attacks evolution, evolutionist swear the attacker just doesn't understand. You must understand the only plausible solution that is not backed by creation is evolution. If evolution is wrong then by default creation must be right.

The problem with evolution.

Everything outside of speciation is founded on observational hypothesis with absolutely no scientific method to verify it.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Cellular to multi-cellular can not be observed by any experiment so it is only hypothesis.

Organisms birthing anything other then something of the same genus can not be observed by any experiment so it is only a hypothesis.

There are no experiments that can prove the eyes, lungs, sexual organs or anything actually evolved from simpler forms. All evidence suggests these things are fully formed in all creatures without evidence that they evolved or are evolving. There are no experiments that can prove the evolution of organs so this is only a hypothesis.

The foundations of evolution is a multitude of sophisticated hypothesis. The fact that it is called a theory even though it can not be tested by scientific method is simply ignoring the guidelines of science.

The seperate science of Abiogenesis, which evolutionist are always so quick to point out is a separate science can not be proven by any experiment, so it is also only a hypothesis.

Evolution has become the religion of natural origins based on a multitude of hypothesis. If someone refuses to believe in the possibility of creation then evolutionary science becomes the closest thing to God in science. This is why evolutionist defend evolution as fervently as theologians defend God.

But believing in creation or evolution is not a sign of intelligence, it is simply a different hypothesis.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Isurrender73

it's a debate about unproven science infringing on religious beliefs.

So knowledge that doesn't align itself with the theological narrative is antitheistic and therefore should be removed from school. That's most of our knowledge. I guess we better remove education from school then.

Removing science on origins and evolution from public education will do nothing to stifle either one of these fields. As they are currently taught they are not explained in enough details to be understood until collegiate courses.

You concern is completely unfounded. This is not a return to the dark ages. This is non indoctrination into hypothesis. No one can prove that God did not create according to kinds. DNA similarities is answered just as easily by assuming common creator.

Origins and Evolution are direct contradictions to religion and they are at best sophisticated sounding assumptions.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I actually like these responses, because they prove that these debates can't be kept civil by adults. The lack of civility and objectivity proves my point.

Children should not be taught these things because they are not ready to debate them.

The adult mind tends towards civil debates and can admit views that contradict their own. Typically the adult mind can rationalize that not everywhere shares the same opinion on the unproven sciences. It is this acceptance of different opinions in the scientific community that has historically pushed science forward. Unfortunately many want to stifle opinions different than their own.

I don't want to stifle science, I want to ensure that the mind is capable of rationality before we begin to teach the sciences that can't be demonstrated through scientific method.

Theories change, often times it is the imagination that leads to experiment. Stifling the imagination at a young age by presenting non testable theories is the opposite of promoting imagination.

a reply to: Isurrender73

No one can prove that God did not create according to kinds.

Is that the basis for a science curriculum that you'd like to public school institute? You can't proof that my god didn't do what my ancient text says he did.....

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Isurrender73

No one can prove that God did not create according to kinds.

Is that the basis for a science curriculum that you'd like to public school institute? You can't proof that my god didn't do what my ancient text says he did.....

Is everyone trying to be obtuse?

I said clearly that neither view belongs in public schools.

Shouldn't the hatred and inability to have a decent debate on this subject on ATS prove that children shouldn't be having this debate?

Evolution from cell to man is not even close to proven, or testable. It takes much assumption to get there. There is no benefit to our children to teach them this in public schools.

There is however potential for the same hate, name calling and superiority complex brought on by this debate to be present.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Shouldn't the hatred and inability to have a decent debate on this subject on ATS prove that children shouldn't be having this debate?

No, children shouldn't be having this debate. It's their parents that undermine their education by telling their children that their teachers and text books can't be trusted because they conflict with their personal take on ancient superstition.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Isurrender73

Shouldn't the hatred and inability to have a decent debate on this subject on ATS prove that children shouldn't be having this debate?

No, children shouldn't be having this debate. It's their parents that undermine their education by telling their children that their teachers and text books can't be trusted because they conflict with their personal take on ancient superstition.

Evolution is not a guarantee, it just happens to be the only possibility other then God. And it is sad that some people can't simply accept that God could be responsible.

I am not saying Evolution did not happen. I believe evolution is possible. However, without the evidence I prefer to believe God created everything according to its kind.

But many people say that God did not create all life according to their kinds as if it is an undisputed fact that man evolved.

To only believe in one possibility is narrow minded. I accept both possibilities, but I choose to learn towards God. This is my choice, the choice I share with my child. And there is nothing wrong, harmful, or ignorant about my choice.

No one should feel forced to choose between unproven things. Especially not children through peer pressure.

a reply to: Isurrender73

You believe in magic and a magical god that steps into this reality whenever he feels like it and breaks the laws of nature. He forms perfectly developed human beings from mud. Animals, insects fish and fowl, fauna and flora just poofed, ready made into existence, according to Genesis.

You believe in a god that flew around in a piller of fire, caused a flood that destroyed almost all his creation, had a man live in the belly of a fish for 3 days, caused a virgin to give birth to his son, who in turn also defying natural law to perform miracles.

None of that is science. Science explains why it's improbable that Jesus actually walked on water, multiplied fish and loaves, raised a man to life after his death, walked through wall, etc. You're going to have to explain to your child that you believe that Jesus was magic, but science still applies to her/him, regardless.

a reply to: windword

Yes I believe in miracles, since I believe life itself is a miracle. But I fail to see how any of that is harmful. And I'm not asking for those stories to be taught in public schools.

If anything those stories are the foundation for great imaginations.

And in this entire thread no one refuted me with science, except the one person who thought I was claiming radio carbon dating was how we determined the age of the earth. I apologized for the misleading wording.

But I was refuted by many highly emotional responses that are typical of religious fanatics.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Plato posited the allegory of the cave, which meant that what we see is only a shadow of the truth and they each person might see a different shadow.

Each person was seeing the same shadow they were simply describing the same sight differently.

You may be stuck in Plato's cave, but Plato's teachings dragged me into the Light so that I can see clearly and distinguish between wisdom and illusion.

Plato believed that living a life without virtue is not worth living. And anyone who didn't understand virtue was living in an illusion.

The allegory of the cave is about removing your shackles so you are no longer chained to the illusion.

But maybe I have never had a thought that would make since to you.

Most of my religious ideas are my own, since I don't follow any organized religion, nor any ritualistic dogma. I prefer to read the texts for myself and form my own opinions, which is the same way I approach science.

I can read and I can comprehend what I read. I don't need anyone to tell me what to think. And my child will not need anyone to tell her what to think. She is free to disagree with me and she is never been made afraid to express herself to me.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I am trying to get scientific hypothesis that contradicts God as creator out of public schools.

Send your child to a private school if you don't like it. There is no reason to teach what cannot be observed using scientific method to children in a public school.

So you essentially refuse to look up the definition of hypothesis and will continue to use the word in a way that makes it seem like it means fact.

A scientific hypothesis that involves evolution does NOT contradict god. God still could have created the systems, but since you choose to subscribe to a specific text it contradicts YOUR indoctrinated ideas of god.

If a child is not allowed to understand what a hypothesis is then there is no reason to teach science at all. Hypothesis is not fact. PLEASE look up the definition. If you were to look up the definition and teach it to your child then they can make their own decision... precisely as you want them to be able to do.

The only barrier to your child being able to make autonomous decisions is YOU because you refuse to look up the definition of words.