Students to be taught there isn't a God

Of course you have both sides trying to slide their ways into the minds of the later generations with their indoctrinations. It really is a complete and utter war for indoctrination. And kids can go either way based on whatever.
And while that is the optimal position for this particular "war" to be at you ask me. There shouldn't be a "war" at all you ask me.

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by bigbert81

 

If you speak of the Government parties... I can't stand a single one of them. They all suck...


And no it isn't about whether I turned out good. I am saying thateven after being at a Chruch school, and then having years of Religious Study lessons. Only about 5 out of 50 children believe in God.

That completely contradicts all the accusations that children are being indoctrinated by lessons about religion. It simply isn't true.

Please provide a source for your information, as I find these stats very hard to swallow.

And I never said anything about indoctrinated, just that they would be receiving a higher/different level of education.

reply to post by bigbert81



Sorry, I should have made that clear, I shall edit my original post. I was speaking about 5 students from the 50 or so that we in my year at Junior school.

Not a stat for the country, obviously in Catholic school areas religious children will be in higher numbers than in areas without them.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I recommend leaving the whole thinly veiled "existance of god, pro or con" indoctrination question out of the educational process of our children wholy.
Let them make up their own minds when they have the ability to do so. Which I might add is what I have been doing with my own offspring.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

No child "makes up their own mind".


children are formed by their environment and the thoughts of those who they revere. They don't have the capacity to make up their own mind.

So if you don't mold a cosmology for them... someone else will.

Whatever your values are, whether a God or no God, I suggest you insitill it in your children. That's what parenting is.

Otherwise... your just not parenting.


[edit on 14-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Dulcimer

 

I couldn't agree more and since no one can scientifically prove GOD he should not be taught in our schools. besides who trusts the government schools anyways?

This of course would also be true for any other non scientifically provable courses such as EVOLUTION, also a belief and not proven by any Science a?nd SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT in our schools, again do You trust the Government

I'm there with you on the "We can't prove it, so why teach it" tip.

Question here though is should it be overtly taught that there is no scientific evidence to support God? Or maybe that should only be the response if someone pipes up in class to say "Mommy said God made the world in 7 days"

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Actually no. And I am sorry but it sounds like your simply trying to justify indoctrination. I came to my views independently thank you very much. And they run quite contrary to the ones held by those who were around me particularly my family.
And I would to say also didn't say I wouldn't teach my children and I resent your statement that I would not be doing such by not trying to indoctrinate them, I simply stated that I would not teach them what to think.

Originally posted by Notecreo
...I'm talking about empirical evidence, not "look at that mountain, it HAD to be made by god".

Before I start, I will, for example purpose, be pulling some data from a paper I once wrote and published online. So you know where I got the data from, its from this link

This begs the question of WHO says there is no evidence. Lets say I'm a student in that class and I give the following argument:

"There are 10 different astronomical factors that, if not exactly as they are now, would cause life to be incapable to exist:

1. gravitational coupling constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

It is much more statistical likely these factors ALL ending up exactly in the right proportions to allow for life to form as a result of an Intelligent Agent called God than by Chance."

Now, presuming the observations are accurate and the math is right one might still say this argument is bad evidence, or inconclusive evidence, but NO evidence? Hardly. The real problem theists such as myself have is the dismissal of what I might call very good empirical evidence without discussion. And I'm not refering to the touchy-feely stuff -- I can understand that. But arguments such as I have listed here deserve serious concideration and to have this group simply dismiss them is the height of arrogance, IMO.

But it shouldn't matter, since no one really knows if he exists, even religious people, because it's belief. You guys don't need proof either way and have gotten along without any sort of evidence (except fake evidence) for centuries.

This is factually incorrect. The definition of faith as given in the Bible is NOT belief in something that cannot be proven.

The word most often translated as "Faith" in the NT is the word "pistis". It is a word of rhetoric, defined by Aristotle as meaning "Trust based on evidence". And its used 240 times.

Your defintion is more like Soren Kierkegaard's defintion than the Bible's.

Why is it that you can mathematically show the high probability of life in other parts of the universe and still more people believe in god than extraterrestrials? It's like math doesn't matter that much.

I would argue that is not the case.

Originally posted by papabryant

It is much more statistical likely these factors ALL ending up exactly in the right proportions to allow for life to form as a result of an Intelligent Agent called God than by Chance."

This is not a solid argument... as if the constants were different, and life were able to come about with a different set of constants... we'd be sitting here arguing why life is possible within the alternative laws...

Hardly. The real problem theists such as myself have is the dismissal of what I might call very good empirical evidence without discussion.

Let's discuss then... How could you be certain life can't exist in a different set of constants? Or perhaps you are limiting life to life as you know it currently..

This is factually incorrect. The definition of faith as given in the Bible is NOT belief in something that cannot be proven.

Cool! so you come bearing actual evidence! Science has been waiting almost 3000 years for this moment...

The word most often translated as "Faith" in the NT is the word "pistis". It is a word of rhetoric, defined by Aristotle as meaning "Trust based on evidence". And its used 240 times.

oooh and using a greek to help define! This means we can assume you will be using the greek standards for this evidence?




[edit on 14-12-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by bigbert81

 

Sorry, I should have made that clear, I shall edit my original post. I was speaking about 5 students from the 50 or so that we in my year at Junior school.

Your really asked all 50 and they answered you honestly? Was it a controlled test to prevent people from answering dishonestly for fear of repurcussion. Did you write down names so you did not ask one person twice and another person no times by accident? Did you publish your study? Can you name the 5?

The opposite scenario would be much more devastating.

"Students to be taught there is a god."

We would be back in the dark ages.

They are to be taught science's best understanding as life as we know it, because it is going to be taught in SCIENCE class. If the students choose to take a Christian class in a private school, then your child can be taught there is a God.

Let's just face it, God and religion should be stripped from the Government. Ever heard of separation of Church and State? They don't follow it enough, but thank god they have kept it out of our Science class rooms. You do realize that public school systems are a branch of the Government, no?

Originally posted by papabryant


It is much more statistical likely these factors ALL ending up exactly in the right proportions to allow for life to form as a result of an Intelligent Agent called God than by Chance.

How? Which stat proves a god is involved anywhere? what are the chances that I will type ajkbgiadfhajnkmalkdfbhiabdfaer? But I just did, didn't I? Amazing, the chances against that happening are so astronomical that it must have been divine intervention and not me just typing.

Seriously, you can say "hey look, the chances are soooo slim that..." but then you cannot say it proves anything about any god. Please provide the part of your work where god is brought into the equation aside from your conjecture at the end.

This is factually incorrect. The definition of faith as given in the Bible is NOT belief in something that cannot be proven.

Ok, then which part of god is factual and proven exactly?



[edit on 14-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

The only thing they should teach about religion in school is that nearly every single was was started due to religious beliefs. After that just leave it out with the exception of college courses of course, considering they might be majoring in religion.

Originally posted by nj2day
This is not a solid argument... as if the constants were different, and life were able to come about with a different set of constants... we'd be sitting here arguing why life is possible within the alternative laws...

But then we're engaging in conjecture, rather than interpreting observation, right?

The point was that the argument SHOULD be discussed rather than dismissed by skeptics. To say there is NO arguments for God is simply poisoning the well.

Let's discuss then... How could you be certain life can't exist in a different set of constants? Or perhaps you are limiting life to life as you know it currently..

Which would be scientifically correct to do. Conjecture has its place, to be certain, but to use conjecture to dismiss observation isn't scientific in the least, and leads to plausible charges of bias.

Cool! so you come bearing actual evidence! Science has been waiting almost 3000 years for this moment...

Imagine, I actually gave you a compliment on another thread. Teach me to be nice...

The day you can refute the evidence in this book is the day I take this line of sarcasm seriously.

Oh, and science isn't 3000 years old. And it wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for Christians applying Aristotle's techniques of observation to their call to look at their world and contemplate and understand God's work. Or haven't you read Rodney Stark?

oooh and using a greek to help define! This means we can assume you will be using the greek standards for this evidence?

Naw; we'll use this one, if that's o.k.? I have an older copy you can borrow if you can't afford to buy this one.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
How? Which stat proves a god is involved anywhere? what are the chances that I will type ajkbgiadfhajnkmalkdfbhiabdfaer? But I just did, didn't I? Amazing, the chances against that happening are so astronomical that it must have been divine intervention and not me just typing.

Seriously, you can say "hey look, the chances are soooo slim that..." but then you cannot say it proves anything about any god. Please provide the part of your work where god is brought into the equation aside from your conjecture at the end.

Excuse me? Are you dense? You have two propositions: Created by God. Created by chance. You examine the data and look at their statistical probabilities for each proposition in light of that data. Please learn how to argue using data.

Ok, then which part of god is factual and proven exactly?

We can START with the historical reliability of the Bible and move on from there. You got a few years?

I knew there was an agenda behind this post, but you're just pathetic.

(Shakes head and walks away. Laughing.)

Originally posted by papabryant


Excuse me? Are you dense?

Not sure yet, you dellusional?

You think there are two options, god or no god. I think there may be infinite answers, flying spaghetti moster included. So you tell me where any of what you showed us proves anything in relation to any specific god.

...as for the rest of your arrogant stupidity

Originally posted by papabryant
You examine the data and look at their statistical probabilities for each proposition in light of that data. Please learn how to argue using data.

I am looking and I still do not see any data that supports a god to introduce into your little equation to begin with. You cannot just assume variables and then cancel one and say it is proof of the other. Why would a god be the only other choice again? I do not see it in the data.

Ok, then which part of god is factual and proven exactly?

We can START with the historical reliability of the Bible and move on from there. You got a few years?

Oh ho ho ho ho ho - that is a big ol' belly laugh. Now I know you are a nutter. One of them creationist website readin' kind ain't ya? I got as long as you have if you are going to prove historical reliability of the bible.

But....... even then, that still would not prove god. It would prove the specific instances. I have already played this game. "the bible says there was a place called babel and it turns out that in blah blah blah blah blah blah." and....? How will that prove god?

Like this..."Weaveworld" mentions locations from GB that are real and factual. That must add to the factual historical reliability of that book. It mentions places and things that we know have really happend. So it is true right? Even the 700 pages about the magical land hidden inside a carpet? I guess Clive Barker is a prophet.

Your standard of proof is not only flawed to begin with but it will not stand up to any real scrutiny so I must guess you are just going to pretend you made a good point and walk away having said really nothing.

I knew there was an agenda behind this post, but you're just pathetic.

(Shakes head and walks away. Laughing.)

And exactly what agenda was behind my post?

Your really asked all 50 and they answered you honestly? Was it a controlled test to prevent people from answering dishonestly for fear of repurcussion. Did you write down names so you did not ask one person twice and another person no times by accident? Did you publish your study? Can you name the 5?

No, I did not ask all 50, and I can not be sure they answered honestly...you can NEVER be sure people are answering such a question honestly.

This is just due to R.S lessons in an offhand question where we were asked if we believed in God. There were only 2 classes for the year group so it wasn't hard to find out roughly how many believed in the other class. (This was a year ago, I may well fumble the numbers slightly)

As I said, the teacher is an Agnostic, so there was no fear of repurcussion from her...as from the other students...I don't think so. Most people were grown up enough to not care what anyone else thought, though if anything there may have been a few more who believed in God.

My R.E class was made up of people from three different schools, so there were also beleievers and non-believers from other schools. Though atheists and agnostics greatly outweighed believers.

You do not have to trust what I say, I have no proof to back it up.

Originally posted by papabryant
But then we're engaging in conjecture, rather than interpreting observation, right?

Cool, let's observe god then. We can right?

reply to post by WatchNLearn


There was nothing. Then, there was a Big Bang, and a universe, complete with everything needed for everything that is, came into existence.
How? Why? Who?

Originally posted by Dulcimer
The whole thing is stupid. Religion should be out of the schools period. Not even discussed.

YES! Religion and Government/Education Should be as separate as Humanly possible! We need to keep them separate in every School in the world! I'm not saying to make everyone an atheist but to let them choose their own religion and not be taught one.