Students to be taught there isn't a God

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by audas
There is no need to ever ever disprove God - no one has ever proposed that gods exists with any remotely serious scientific rigour. One does not need to disprove what has never even been proposed.

You do realize that there are very rich Christians that have built their carreers out of going around presenting junk science to prove God exsists don't you? You have read the posts on here that insist there is a god right? I am not sure what wonderful place you live in where religion is a secret smile and known myth among friends. Out here in the real world, people try to use the "fact" of God all the time to move an agenda of some type. The next time you see a photo of a soldeirs funeral being protested by CHILDREN

with signs and shirts claiming "GOD HATES FAGS!" Ask yourself if they would be there, being obnoxious and hateful, if they knew there really was no god that told them "bein gay is bad mkaaaaaay."


[edit on 15-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Fred Phelps, who runs the Westboro Baptist church that owns "godhatesfags.com" is pretty much not a Christian, and has been denounced by almost every church. I agree there are religious fanatics, but teaching people God doesn't exist won't solve anything, it will just polarize our society even more between secular and religious. Oh, and just so you know, everyone who goes to Fred Phelp's church is in his own family...yeah, so that's not exactly a great example, mmk. Since I'm guessing you're making a south park reference, you could watch the episode in which there is no religion, but wars don't stop. Basically, what I think I'm trying to say, is that people will find a reason to hate, or to go to war, it's human nature. At least religion offers some people comfort, and keeps some people's morals grounded. There are fanatics in everything, including atheism, science, religion, politics. It's human nature, it's not the fault of religion, it's the fault of the fundamental flaws oh humanity, and trying to kill religion off won't solve it, it would probably make it worse.

reply to post by fatdad


hmmmmmmm........when do we, you, me? begin teaching kids about morals, values, right and wrong, respecting others, not judging others, not being angry, etc., etc., etc.? Sounds to me that some here believe we should delay, or prohibit, such teaching as well......perhaps it is because some of us here can't display these ourselves.

Religion - like it our not - is engrained in nearly every grain of history that we teach or spout toward students these days. As much as the latest King, war, famine, etc., affected peoples lives "then," so did religion, and to suggest that not including religion in subjects where it belongs - history, culture, social studies, and forbid, even science - is short changing those being taught.........oh....my bad...isn't that what we're doing now???

Victorian state primary school students will soon be able to take religious education classes which teach there is no evidence God exists.

I had to stop reading the responses as people go straight to arguing instead of reading what is stated. I think the title of the article also has something to do with this. It is misleading. As stated above the class will teach that there is no 'evidence' that God exists. Not that God does not exist.

Then I kept trying to read on and we end up on the GodHatesFags.com idiot.

I'll still believe in God but it's not the one that I was taught is a jealous one AND a vengeful one. However, other than my own 'BELIEFS' or personal opinion, there truly is NO evidence that God exists.

this should have been done eons ago.and hopefully will spread out.religions, gods, they've done more harm than good. there is so much misery ,killings and abuses just because of religion.christians and muslims and hindus annihilating one another because of their belief...what a sorry sight.but it is going on and on and on.fanaticism, lack of understanding,zealotry,faith, hopes of resurrecting only spills more blood. time to stop.there isn't a god at all.we humans can manage.we owe it to ourselves to give peace a chance and raise ourselves to a higher level of awareness and responsibility between us and them.

Originally posted by dariousg

However, other than my own 'BELIEFS' or personal opinion, there truly is NO evidence that God exists.

To be honest, that is all anyone should require. Their own.

When people start looking for objective evidence of an objective diety they miss the whole point.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Actually this is a huge step back. One, it interferes with parental rights, and the right of each parent to teach their children what they consider is correct. Who is a child suppose to believe when the parents are teaching one thing, and the school something totally different? That would create a major conflict in the child. That is not good, unless the goal is to destroy the family.

Second, they are becoming just like "those Christians" and others who believe in God who like to "convince/Bible thump" others into believing in God.

Third, will the child fail if they still believe in God, after it is supposedly proven that God doesn't exist?
. . . .

This does not interfere with any parent's rights because it's optional.

In Victorian secondary schools, which cater to years 7 to 12, some time, and hour or a half hour, is set aside each week for religious studies, if a suitable person wants to volunteer their time to teach.

When I was a student there were two R.I. (Religious Instruction,) options offered, Catholic and Protestant. Each parent was sent a form to state which they wanted their child to attend, or whether they wanted their children to opt out, in which case a supervised private study class was available.

Since then R.I. options have been widened, depending on who is prepared to volunteer to teach. Whatever options are made available, no child will go to any of these classes without parental consent, and no child is discriminated against for not attending any. Some schools have offered a class in world religions, and now we have humanism being offered. I think it's great because more people are going to have a class available that suits them.

R.I. classes have no exams, so even if a kid behaves obnoxiously, disagrees with everything and learns nothing, they don't fail, any more than they fail at "lunchtime".

This can make it pretty tough on the volunteer teacher, but if they can't cope with the situation and get the kids' interest, they shouldn't be there.

signed
a Victorian

Shouldn't it be mandatory that the point that there is no 'divine' evidence that proves any God(s) exist. The whole point of most religions is 'faith' which is by definition a leap of trust, so it shouldn't be that big a deal that there is no proof. You wouldn't need 'faith' otherwise.

Here the problem with teaching their is no proof of God. People will see this and think there is not God. Well for one there are people who believe there are proofs of God. Two we are to follow God by Faith, so you will never see God or actual proof. But that still doesn't mean there is no God.

And three PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST SOMEONE HERE PROVE IT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CANT. So again you just don't know if there is a God or if there is not, so why teach class which is more based on the fact that they believe God doesn't exist. Which in fact they just don't know

God bless

Originally posted by slymattb
Here the problem with teaching their is no proof of God. People will see this and think there is not God.

What on Earth would make them leap to that conclusion?

Well for one there are people who believe there are proofs of God. Two we are to follow God by Faith, so you will never see God or actual proof. But that still doesn't mean there is no God.

True, but the possibility that there isn't needs to be covered too, and as we agree, there is no proof.

And three PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST SOMEONE HERE PROVE IT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CANT. So again you just don't know if there is a God or if there is not, so why teach class which is more based on the fact that they believe God doesn't exist. Which in fact they just don't know

So we have to teach the possibility that there may be God(s), it's just that there is no reliable evidence for it.

No I think you must teach all sides of the story. Maybe one from a athesis and another from a believer!!!!!!

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
reply to post by WatchNLearn

 

Actually this is a huge step back. One, it interferes with parental rights, and the right of each parent to teach their children what they consider is correct. Who is a child suppose to believe when the parents are teaching one thing, and the school something totally different? That would create a major conflict in the child. That is not good, unless the goal is to destroy the family.

Second, they are becoming just like "those Christians" and others who believe in God who like to "convince/Bible thump" others into believing in God.

Third, will the child fail if they still believe in God, after it is supposedly proven that God doesn't exist?

Honestly, no one can prove or disprove beyond a doubt that God's existence. For me proof of God is in the intricate designs of nature that could not happen with evolution alone. I can easily believe in micro evolution, there is evidence of it everywhere. I can't believe in macro evolution. There is no evidence for it. No one has been able to prove a bird has come from a reptile, a man came from ape, or even a fish becoming a land animal.

Parents can still teach their children anything they want. Please just don't expect the state to promote your individual religious viewpoint. As for the actual post that indicates there is no evidence for God - of course there isn't. That's why they call it FAITH! A savvy, intelligent Christian will point that out, and they have. The newer kind of "evangelical" (fundamentalist) Christian wants to "prove" everything because they were raised in a culture that values proof, both scientific and intellectual. That there is NO PROOF is the whole point, not the problem. If religion, any religion, was akin to a physics problem, you could prove it or not and everyone would go home.
I am an agnostic, for lack of a better description, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for religious people who understand their own faith. There are millions of all religions who know little, but are in it for the "feel goodism". They can't be helped.

Originally posted by dave420
No, atheism, as its name suggests, is not having a belief in god. It's not theistic egotism, it's atheism. I have no idea where you got that rubbish from.

The US Supreme Court says Atheism is a religion, and it fits the definition of a religion. In fact, Atheists are among the most religious people around, rarely missing an opportunity to proselitize and promote. In contrast to Atheists in our ATS Community, many atheists proudly reference this fact. Are Atheist at ATS ashamed?


In 2003 an award winning article by Sam weaver and another By Dr. Gregory S. Neal, explains why Dave420 is talking non sense and as I have seen him do for many years using his form letter cookie cutter posts where he condescendingly pontificates his belief he is an authority on what religion is and what it isn't. Many times he has cited the separation powers to support his claim as is our obligation by the rule of law. Yet that high court in the land of milk and honey, the same one Dave420 and liberals supporting the NWO and Darwinian dimwittedeness too dumbfounded by the ever lying illusion of evolution, object to that same rule of law that has decided, Dave420 is wrong. Atheism most ceratainly IS a religion and THAT is undeniable.


The word theism or the study of religions uses the word "Theism" or "Theist is a person not having a religion per-se but one who believes in God. Theology is the study of Religion and the religionist who is of a religion that has a God is called a Theist. Of theism we have, Pantheism or a "pan Religion" encompassing many and then their is monothiesm which of course is "one" God and then we have "Atheism" or the theism having no Gods such as taoists and Buddhist etc,

The Meaning of Atheism
- Dr. Gregory S. Neal

On the Internet it has become very common for self-professed Atheists to define their position as being a simple lack of a god-belief and not as a denial of the existence of God. By claiming to affirm only a passive lack of a god-postulate, and by denying that they actively assert the nonexistence of deity, such Atheists conveniently absolve themselves from having to defend their position. In other words, they claim that there is a big difference between asserting: "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." The difference is supposed to be one of an active as opposed to a passive postulate: are they asserting that God does not exist, or are they claiming that they simply don't make a god-postulate? While this is obviously a major splitting of tiny little hairs, it is nevertheless the kind of argument that many Christians are encountering from Atheists on the Internet. Unfortunately, it is also an argument to which most simply do not have an adequate response. This article will offer a response based upon the etymological and contextual meaning of the word "Atheism." The focus will not be upon English definitions, but on the original word in its original language.

One usually finds the idea of "passive Atheism" articulated as if it were based upon the linguistic roots of the word "atheism." It is sometimes broken down like this:


"a" = no/not/without

"theism" = god-belief

therefore:"atheism" = without god-belief



This kind of linguistic argument is certainly one possible way of arriving at a definition for a word which has been derived from another language. One sees this kind of thing, from time to time, regarding lots of derived words (like "theology" and "archeology" and "anthropology.") Sometimes such derivations are accurate, but other times they are quite erroneous and reflect an unfortunate misunderstanding of the source-language. In this case those who have made the above argument regarding the meaning of "atheism" are, in effect, misunderstanding the use of such a process and, as a result, are producing an argument which is neither linguistically sound nor historically accurate.

It should be noted that the above method of determining a word's meaning works rather well when that word has been created by using roots and/or particles from another language (usually Latin or Greek). When and where there are no direct cognates in the primary language, the meaning of the new word in the secondary language is open to interpretation based upon this kind of morphological analysis. However, when the word has a direct cognate in, or is a pure transliteration from, the primary language it is that primary language's usage which always takes precedence in determining its meaning in the secondary language. As matter of lexicography, that is the case here.



The word "atheism" is a direct cognate -- in fact, it is a transliteration -- of the Classical Greek word atheos (here, written with English letters). Its meaning, as demonstrated in the writings of Aeschylus and Diogenese Laertius, is best expressed as: "one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws." (See Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.20).


In Greek the particle "a" can certainly mean "without" or "lacking" in the passive sense and when related to passive verbs, but in the case of the Greek noun atheos "a" conveys the active sense of "reversal of essence" or "opposite of condition" or "inversion of meaning." Hence, in this case, it means the bipolar opposite of its root-word theos. If "theism" is the belief that deities exist, then "atheism" is the belief that no-deities exist. Please note the place of the negation particle: when applied to nouns it should always be linked with the object, not an implied predicate; that which is believed IN is being negated, not the act of believing which is implied in the noun. In other words, and as a matter of simple Greek grammar, an atheos is one who denies the existence of a specific deity or of deities in general. Since "atheism" and "atheist" are derived from this noun, their meaning in English should follow suit. It is, hence, a misunderstanding of Greek morphology for the act of believing to be negated by the linguistic particle "a."



This analysis is supported by the word's usage in Greek literature. Essentially, it is rarely (if ever) used of a simple failure to acknowledge deities; rather, it is almost always found in the active sense of direct opposition to such beliefs, or (most often) a particular expression of such beliefs. For example, when used of Christians by Roman authorities and other Greek writers (and it was) it generally referenced their active denial of the deities of other religions ... a practice for which early Christians were labeled "atheists" by their political and religious opponents. It didn't matter that such Christians held theistic beliefs regarding their own deity, what mattered was their refusal to be ecumenical and at least passively accept the existence of other deities. Their refusal to do this -- their active denial of the existence of other gods and, particularly, their refusal to at least offer the nominal sacrifice to the deity of the Roman Emperor -- got them branded as "atheists." As a penalty for such a serious breach of cultural and political etiquette, these early Christians were sometimes severely persecuted.



While atheists will assert their identity however they wish, their analysis of the construction of the word "atheism" as being simply a passive "without god-belief" is linguistically invalid. True, the sense of passive negation is, indeed, one which the particle "a" can convey; however, that particular sense is foreign to the grammar and historical usage of the noun atheos. In summary,



The particle "a" must be applied to the Greek word theos, not to the English word "theism," thus reflecting the negation of the object, not the predicate.


The passive negation of the theistic precept isn't attested to in the historic usage of the Greek word atheos.


Active negation of the theistic precept (either in general or in particular) is exceedingly common throughout Greek literature, thus reflecting the morphological formation of the word atheos.



As a result, it is inadvisable to use the word "atheism" to reflect a passive position. This observation need not govern how such atheists understand themselves: if they wish to affirm that they do not deny God's existence but, rather, simply make no assertion on the subject, that is all well and good. However, their continued use and re-interpretation of a word which linguistically means "active denial of the theistic postulate" is confusing. They should change the term which they use for their position, rather than attempt to change the lexical meaning of an ancient, long-established word.

I have researched the phenomena of those actively disbeleiving in God for many years and some of the clever idioms and axiomatic syllogisms they claim as logical rational and full of reason exclaiming that theirs is the Science Arena and they by their profound Atheism have some sort of genetic predispostion of having a better grasp of such things as Science and critial thinking than say your average "Fundie" "xtian". Using such clever inside out then reversed semantics where the syllogism is given in sound bytes or talking points memorized off a Atheist website and given to the chatrooms where Christians engaged in sharing the word of God are summarily challenged with more sound butes and discontextual meanings of scripture, they again have taken from such anti religion activists headings and titles such as 101 Bible contradictions and How to argue with Christians using commonly seen tactics of rasing questions about whether God approves of Homosexuality or some claiming Jesus never existed.


The Christian duped into their intention to clarify the Bible and its meaning are then ridiculed for using such bigotry and hatred when the fact is they weren't talking about their own opinions but what is clearly given as the word of God according to their own understanding of Scripture. Such comparisons that a sex sin is a sex sin no matter who commits it whether it is gay or straight Pedophile or Homosexual, the gays then berate the Christian even further by posturing a position of indignant objection, asking "Are you comparing gays to pedophiles! ? then hitting the alert key to the threads moderators in the hope of getting one more Christian Post Banned or at least be given some venomous u2u by a mod instructing them to compromise their beliefs and walk on eggshells or you are out of here banned forever!.

Light Lightangelo, expressed his utter contempt for the religious using trhe extreme fringe of those claiming to be Christians in spite of there obviously un Christian behavior and we see this kind of attitude in both philosophies






Another is to use semantics, again the same way in clever response to this argument ie; "If Atheism is a religion then Not Collecting stamps is a hobby."







The fact is if colletcing stamps was a religion, then Atheists would be actively engaged in attacking those who collect stamps so much and so often it WOULD be their damn hobby.

Their claim is that there is a big difference between asserting "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." Fundamentally, this argument is nothing but semantic nonsense. It is not just the splitting of thin hairs, it is the splitting of thin air. To demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion "I believe a deity exists" any different from the assertion "I believe a deity does exist"? Clearly, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero ... and such is also the case for the Atheistic postulate. That they make their claim in order to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof for their anti-theistic position is understandable: they desire to deny that God exists while, at the same time, denying that they have a burden of proof. They want Christians to prove their belief in God, but they don't want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while severely criticizing Theists for failing to do the same.

This is usually called "hypocrisy."
www.errantskeptics.org...

I have offered some compelling external information which dispells the dis information Atheists and many Religious have about this argument and also gives the sound reason why Atheism is a religion and one the Supreme court has used in its findings.



The anticipated argument that this was about a prison blah blah blah is atheist sophistry for they have a very good reason they for not wanting such a definition and that is that Christians are starting to find out that separation of church and state works for them to remove evolution from schools the same way the ACLU, Atheists and gays have used it to advance their political agendas.

March 4, 2003

The following comes from www.renewamerica.us...
The modern liberal worldview

By Sam Weaver

NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of columns designed to proffer my peculiar views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.

A worldview is a person’s comprehensive philosophy of life. Every worldview consists of four fundamental building blocks. These building blocks are 1) Religion, 2) Politics, 3) Economics, and 4) Science.

This entry in my series will examine the modern Western liberal worldview. It will address all four elements of intellectual thought as they relate to today’s liberal worldview philosophy.

Religion

The religion of the modern liberal is atheism (a.k.a., secularism, humanism, or “secular humanism”). One might think that atheism is not a religion. Rather, one might argue, atheism is the complete absence of any and all religious ideology. To the contrary, even the U.S. Supreme Court all but declared secular humanism a religion in the case of Torcaso vs. Watkins in 1961. Many atheists proudly reference this case.


(NOTE: The obiter dictum, stated by Justice Black in the case of Torcaso vs. Watkins, is an essential component of this case. Whether or not it was a “footnote,” or merely “said in passing,” it is not only relevant, it is quite important: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” [Emphasis added] Shouldn’t the following statement by Justice Black also have been an obiter dictum?: “We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”)


But, please, don’t just take the orbiter dictum of Justice Black or, God forbid!, the word of the Supreme Court of the 1960’s! Consider, if you will, the very nature of every religion. Every religion contains two postulates: 1) an explanation of origins, and 2) an ethic. An atheist (or a secularist), by definition, rejects any notion of a Supernatural Creator. This rejection leads to the atheistic (or secular) ethic.


The modern liberal (or secular) explanation of origins hinges upon an acceptance of some variation of the “Big Bang ‘Theory’” and the “’Theory’ of Evolution.” (A bit more on that below, under the heading of Science.) Secularism rejects any belief in a Supernatural Creator and assumes that the universe and all life on earth came about through purely random, natural circumstance. There is no Creator, and there is no Divine Author of all law.


This random, natural explanation of the origin of life leads to the modern liberal ethic, which is often expressed in the phrase, “If it feels good, do it!” (It could be better stated, perhaps, in the phrase, “If it seems right, then go ahead and do it!”) The ethic of secularism is relativism. Law, and the “rightful” force of law, is developed through ever-evolving “mores.” Because “mores” change, law must evolve and adapt to fit both the time and the circumstances. There are no natural rights (rights that are endowed by a Creator); there are only legal rights (rights that are subject to change according to the will of the majority, the ruler [or ruling powers], or by judicial decision, for example).


The true, modern Western liberal believes in the inherent goodness of the nature of man. It is not the nature of man; rather the inequalities and prejudices of his environment make a person do bad things. If only such things as religious discord, political strife (e.g., “nationalism” and racism), and economic disparities (e.g., wealth vs. poverty) could be eradicated, then the whole world would live in harmony and peace. The really sad fact is that many Western liberals actually believe that it is within the power and the scope of world government to achieve this level of human “equality” and “security.” Die-hard liberals actually believe in this utopian pipe dream!


I am in no way claiming that all modern liberals are atheists! Religion is only one part (albeit the essential component!) of any worldview. I believe former President Carter when he says that he is a born-again Christian! (Who am I to judge President Carter’s relationship with the Omnipotent Creator? I would dare not, lest I myself be judged!) However, it is very obvious to me that the doctrines of relativism and the inherent goodness of man play a vital role in every aspect of modern liberal philosophy. My own understanding of Scripture coupled with hard-learned life experiences show me without any doubt whatsoever that these doctrines run counter to the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity.


Politics



Politics is the art and science of human government. Modern Western liberals believe that the primary role of government is to ensure the political (and economic) equality and security of every citizen. It could be argued that this idea of the role of government goes as far back in history as the world’s first king. As a beloved, respected, charismatic, and seemingly “benevolent” man, the earth’s very first king became the monarch over his subjects by convincing them that he would give them peace, security, and equality.

In modern Western society, however, the “enlightened” variant of this political idea has its roots in Rousseau and Hegel. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “liberated” the Christian world from the idea of the inherently evil nature of man. Rousseau “showed,” via specious argument, that “man is good by nature.” To his credit, however, Rousseau argued eloquently against monarchy. (And just so you’ll know that I know; John Locke, whose words echo throughout America’s Declaration of Independence, also believed in the inherent goodness of man. America’s Founders, thankfully, rejected this aspect of Locke!)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel spoke of “God” as “the Absolute.” As I understand Hegel, “the Absolute” is a relativistic term that represents the general will of the people. I am not a brilliant person, and Hegel’s writings go beyond my I. Q. level; but from what I can gather through Hegel’s writings on God and “the Absolute,” he viewed national government as a sort of demigod. The ultimate charge of national government was to ensure the security and the equality of every citizen. In Hegel’s mind, a world-wide (global) government with the power, authority, and ability to provide (impose) complete safety and equality for (upon) every human being would be the ultimate embodiment of “the Absolute.” In other words, according to Hegel, a global government would be God.

Every modern Western liberal is willing to cede some degree of individual liberty to society (i.e., to government) in exchange for some degree of perceived happiness, equality, or safety. Benjamin Franklin said it best in two ways. First, he is credited with saying: "A man who is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither." Second, Old Ben stated,

“[I]…believe farther that this (new government under the Constitution) is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” (For the full text of this written speech, click here.)

Modern liberals seek to empower the federal government and its vast bureaucracies for the sake of “justice,” “security,” and/or “equality.” Individual citizens should not necessarily be held accountable for their own actions; rather, government is responsible for the happiness and the well-being of every citizen. The modern liberal concept of politics is totalitarian (or BUREAUCRATIC) CONTROL of the masses. National guidelines (i.e., controls from the highest level, and encompassing the greatest authority of government) are the only way to ensure the relative justice, equality and safety of every citizen.

Again, this idea arose with the world’s first king. The modern version of this idea rightfully rejects absolute monarchy and the false doctrine of “the divine right of kings.” However, this modern (liberal) version merely replaces monarchy with bureaucracy. This modern Western political philosophy has its roots in the philosophies of Rousseau, Hegel, et. al. The ultimate modern liberal wants to empower a world government for the purpose of securing “justice,” “security,” and “equality” for all of the world’s people. In the mind of the ultimate modern liberal, government (esp., world government) is the Absolute. There is no god but human government!


Economics



A modern Western liberal believes that it is the responsibility of society (i.e., government) to ensure economic equality for all people. “Capitalism” (Stalin’s epithet—via Karl Marx—for free-enterprise) is inherently evil, it is surmised, because “capitalism” leads to unequal distribution of wealth. Modern liberals believe, as did Rousseau, that inequalities necessarily breed evil. A person is inherently good until something “foreign to him corrupts him,” according to Rousseau. In other words, it is man’s environment, not his nature, that compels him to make bad decisions and bad choices. Therefore, “reasons” the liberal, man is not responsible, nor should he even be held accountable for his poor decisions and his misguided choices. As long as great rifts in religious ideology, political power, economic class, or social status/levels of education exist in this world, man is simply a product of these divisions and inequalities. He cannot and must not be held responsible as long as these divisions and inequalities exist.

It is the job of government to provide a good economic environment for every member of society so that no one makes bad economic decisions or choices. What’s more, “bad” economic decisions and choices versus “good” ones are purely relative. No Supreme Creator and Author of Law has established what is bad and what is good. There is no clear standard of right and wrong or good and evil, except that which is established by human government. It is the duty of government, saith the liberal, to ensure the economic equality of every person—regardless of poor choices or lack of ambition, commitment to excellence, degree of talent, etc.

The modern Western liberal concept of economics is socialism. Socialism comes in many shapes and sizes, but its goal is always some form or some degree of shared communal wealth. The upshot of every socialistic scheme is the arbitrary confiscation of one man’s property or wealth for the arbitrary blessing of another.

James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, rejected just such a scheme more than two centuries ago. He wrote:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government, . . . nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." (See, for example, "Private Property: Right from God, Friend of Republics," by Steve Farrell.)

The economic idea of socialism flows from the secular humanist religious doctrines of the inherent goodness of man and relativism. It follows the modern liberal political idea of strong governmental (bureaucratic, or totalitarian) control.


Science



Science is the most extensive of the four worldview/cultural institutions. From a worldview perspective, science can be defined as a search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe and all of its systems. In terms of culture, science includes language, art, architecture, entertainment, customs, traditions, and technologies. From both the worldview and the culture viewpoint, however, the most important aspect of science is the method of discovery. How does an individual approach his quest for knowledge and understanding? By what process does a society advance its technologies?



The modern liberal method of “’scientific’ discovery” is the dialectic method. Simply stated, a group of scholars and experts convenes to discuss and debate the latest peer-reviewed hypothesis of a certain field of study. After a period of discussion, debate and compromise, the hypothesis is either rejected, accepted, or accepted with modifications. An accepted hypothesis—even one that has been modified by the symposium—becomes the working “theory” of the day.


(Please note two important characteristics of this method: 1) It is primarily applied to such discoveries that are beyond the capability of science to fully prove or to comprehend; and, 2) it cedes power and liberty of individual scientists to certain panels of “scholars” and “experts.”)



The “Big Bang ‘Theory’” and the “’Theory’ of Evolution (as it is currently “accepted”) are both products of this method. It is completely beyond the scope of science at this time to prove—and it is beyond the capability of man to fully comprehend—exactly how the universe and life on earth came to be. Ultimately, this is absolutely a matter of faith! If truth be told, science simply cannot honestly answer the questions of how the universe began and how life on earth came to be! Bear in mind that the “scholars” and “experts” who accepted these so-called “theories” have all been heavily influenced by the naturalistic philosophies of men like Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. At the risk of sounding like some whacko conspiracy theorist, I would even venture to state that these “scholars” and “experts” were indoctrinated in today’s secular, socialistic institutions of “higher learning” with mega-doses of the philosophies of these and many other men!



Objectivity is not a major part of the dialectic method of today’s secular “scientific” community. Empirical evidence is often discarded or totally ignored when it fails to meet the standards of “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced that you would be shocked by the amount of empirical evidence that is routinely overlooked by today’s scientists. I am both shocked and deeply saddened! Conventional wisdom demands that all things came about naturally. “Conventional ‘wisdom’” says, “There is no god.” Evidence to the contrary is “conveniently” swept under the proverbial rug.


Three types of modern Western liberals


There are basically three types of modern liberals: 1) Elitists, 2) Activists, and 3) Automatons. Elitists, for the most part, cling to the modern liberal worldview because they crave the degree of power and control that it offers them. Activist liberals are the “useful idiots” of the elitists. Activists by and large fight the emotionally-charged “good” fight for liberal causes with no clue of the damage that this “’good’ fight” is doing to American liberty and the American Ideal. Automatons vote for liberal candidates because they have been programmed by public schools, by the “media” and popular culture, by liberal politicians and pundits, and/or even by their parents or guardians to believe that the liberal worldview philosophy truly offers them peace, equality, and/or security with little or no requirement for responsibility or accountability on their part.


In the end, every modern liberal wants to fundamentally alter one or more of the four cultural institutions upon which this great nation was founded.



A liberal is one who wants to change one or more of the four institutions upon which his society (i.e., culture, or nation) is established. NOTE: (The word change is used often by President Elect and advocate of Democratic Socialism Barack Hussein Obama) A conservative is one who wants to fundamentally conserve all four institutions as they were founded. The ideas summarized above represent the four worldview/cultural institutions that the archetypical modern liberal wants to impose upon American society (not to mention all of Western civilization and—eventually—the world entirely!). If these impositions represent fundamental change in American society and American culture, then what are the institutions that conservatives want to preserve and maintain? Are these changes necessary for progress in the modern world? These questions will be addressed in my next column.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I wonder how long until this tactic will be used to manipulate the youth's minds in public schools in the States. Either way, I think this humanist society is way, way out of line. Especially with what the article says: the target is primary school children. Way too impressionable of an age, in my opinion, on a serious and personal subject for the state to decide and teach.

Ashie!

Thing is, though, if australia is anything like the UK in its religious education at school, all the kids get some throughout school if their parents allow it. Primary schools in the UK have long had daily religious services and education. This continues into high school, with a specific lesson on RE. Although, unlike OZ, in the UK it is a proper subject with exams and coursework.

It has changed since my days a bit. It is more ethics/moral focused in some schools due to the more culturally diverse nature of some pupil populations. But RE remains.

You'd need to get the info from an Aussie (and I think one did provide some earlier), but it appears the parents have a choice of which strand of education they receive (catlick vs proddy vs others [vs none?]). So this would just add another choice to the parents. In the UK, parents can send their kids to faith schools, where the religious instruction is more focused, but RE still gets taught.

So, in sum, the minds of the UK and Aussie youth have been 'manipulated' by religious education for donkey's. Amazingly, in the UK it hasn't helped in any way with maintaining religion as a popular force - although here the religious leaders do (sadly) have power through representatives in the House of Lords.

The move in this area of Oz is just providing more choice. In the UK, people are trying to get humanism into the RE syllabus - as it isn't meant to be 'indoctrination' or 'manipulation' - really a comparative lesson in religious belief and introduction to moral issues, and I think humanistic non-belief can sit happily alongside.

My boy, he's clearly an atheist, loves RE. Even his teacher (a Xian) recognises he has more knowledge on religion and morality than most the class. He also noted that one kid was excused from biology the other week - they were studying evolution

So, the state doesn't really decide. The parent has the overall choice in both cases. Even during my own schooldays, Jehovie witnesses (and others) were excused from anything their parents thought might pollute their delicate kid's minds.

ABE: haha, aermacchi?



[edit on 15-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by WatchNLearn

I think this is a huge step forward. I for one am not an Atheist, however I do believe we are responsible for our own destiny. Half the problem with people is that they sit back and expect some supernatural force to do everything for them - especially the thinking.

This type of course (which is not mandatory) will give kids a balanced and scientific theory that is just as valid as any religion.

What I found particularly funny was that in the USA, the religious fundamentalist "Creationist" were trying to infiltrate science classes in Dover, but here it is science infiltrating religious studies! Much more subtle I think lol.



news.ninemsn.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13/12/08 by WatchNLearn]

Maybe this will clear some things up on what True Christianity is about...

Video

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Methuselah
the one America was founded on... One nation under God... In God we trust. Jesus Christ.

I am not sure how to get any more ignorance into these posts. What church was this country founded on? "one Nation Under God" is not a church. "In God We Trust" is not a church. What are you going on about? What church do you think the U.S. was founded on? Please show the docs that explain how that church was always supposed to be a part of the country's policy.

I don't think he was talking about a church was he? No I think he was talking about what Religion and that God would be the Christian God but i don't expect anyone using a satanic name and so many satanic avatars as you have displayed to understand that. As I know you have an agenda of your own as you many vitriolic posts against Christianity have established. My advice to methuselah is to not feed any trolls and to you to be nice.

Proof and supported by the SCOTUS Exhibit A


Exhibit B



[edit on 15-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Your title is very misleading...it's not going to teach there is no God, it will teach there is no evidence which is completely different. I believe they should make religion class mandatory in all schools but the class would teach the people/kids about all religions without bias hopefully...this way they can make up their own mind about which they trully want to believe in, if they want to believe in any at all...

Originally posted by yellowcard
Fred Phelps, who runs the Westboro Baptist church that owns "godhatesfags.com" is pretty much not a Christian, and has been denounced by almost every church.

So is there a list where I can check which Christian preachers are approved by the official Christian preacher council? Is it my job to determine which Christians are good and which ones are bad? I would think that would be Christianity's problem to deal with and not mine to determine.

Sorry if you do not feel that Phelps represents Christians but he feels he does. More importantly, my point is that he is representative of the extremes people can be driven to by their belief in there god. It does not have to be Christian, just belief in a god and a religion. And if you think Phelps is alone, I need to mention that those are not his kids, he did not make the t-shirts, and he is not in the picture.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I don't think he was talking about a church was he?

Hmmm, you tell me
-originally posted by Methuselah

"its not in the constitution and it was meant to be one dimensional, keeping the government out of the church... thats it!
the church was always meant to be a part of the government.
which church? the one America was founded on"

I keep falling into this trap of reading what people write and thinking that is what they mean to say.

Now, please...do go on...

No I think he was talking about what Religion and that God would be the Christian God but i don't expect anyone using a satanic name and so many satanic avatars as you have displayed to understand that.

Why not? Satanists are not capable of understanding things like Christians are? You mean like Unicorns, Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, etc.... Well you got me there. Satanists have a very very hard time understanding that. So sorry to offend you with my ignorance.

As I know you have an agenda of your own as you many vitriolic posts against Christianity have established.

My agenda? I must have lost it. Could you post it or U2U it to me? Please.

Because there is no proof, right.

But Good and Evil must have proof of existence.

The next step up from Good is God, so some need walking shoes.

Its not like going from static electricity to AC and magnetic fields
and radio, but more the 90 percent of the world population could
poop on what they know about electricity and those people
don't know from poop about God.



[edit on 12/15/2008 by TeslaandLyne]