TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Lets discuss beliefs
- Thread starter Treaqum
- Start date
well..like I said, there is more to it than the little excerpt I posted..
I cant post the entire book in this thread!
if you still disagree after reading the book, then fine..
but you cant really discard the theory if you havent heard the WHOLE theory..
sorry..I guess I probably shouldnt have tried to explain it, because im not able to explain it fully without posting 3 or 4 entire chapters..it would be far better to simply say "read the book"!
Scot
I cant post the entire book in this thread!
if you still disagree after reading the book, then fine..
but you cant really discard the theory if you havent heard the WHOLE theory..
sorry..I guess I probably shouldnt have tried to explain it, because im not able to explain it fully without posting 3 or 4 entire chapters..it would be far better to simply say "read the book"!
Scot
Wesley
God must have an interesting sense of humor
so you'd rather it bow to something that offends millions of people and has absolutely NO basis in real life? something you can't see, test, etc? What religion would that be anyway? what makes you think YOU can dominate over the rest of the country? and what sect of that religion would that be?[b said:
If you do want that... then go to private schools. Don't mess with public schools.
[b said:
I'm only saying that you can't be complaining about being bombarded with Christian ideas, when we have to spend the first 18 years of our life being bombarded with atheism.
Maybe Christianity offends people, but these are the same people who are all for tolerance.
And as for basis in real life, God has more basis in real life than anything or anyone else I know.
Peter
The notion that there might not be a supreme being never even occurred to me until high school maybe... and it wasn't inspired by anything I learned there.[b said:
Maybe this is that christian-atheist polarity I mentioned surfacing again... if they aren't teaching christianity it must be concluded that they're teaching atheism?
Should we conclude that church is anti-education because they don't spend their time teaching math, science, etc? Wouldn't that be absurd?
How quickly would the average Christian start demanding separation of church and state if teachers started subtly inserting Hindu beliefs into all their lessons? "One nation, under Brahma" maybe?[b said:
[b said:
If that was the case, it was probably because you never though about it. Wether you thought about it conciously or not, what you learned, you learned from an atheist viewpoint.
[b said:
That would be absurd. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.
[b said:
I don't know about the average Christian, but I certainly am all for separation of church and state.
Peter
with out reading the book, just form that passage you posted i can tell what his point is, that there is a universal set of morals that all humans posses, which is inherently flawed. No offense to Mr. Lewis but he is an expert of literature and as much as i enjoyed his books as a child i think he is working outside of his area of expertise. I would agree that what he said is true for all western cultures, i just think he has too narrow of a background of differnt cultures to say something is truely based in human nature and not created by culture.[b said:Quote[/b] (scottychaos @ Mar. 29 2005,1:58)]well..like I said, there is more to it than the little excerpt I posted..
I cant post the entire book in this thread!
if you still disagree after reading the book, then fine..
but you cant really discard the theory if you havent heard the WHOLE theory..
sorry..I guess I probably shouldnt have tried to explain it, because im not able to explain it fully without posting 3 or 4 entire chapters..it would be far better to simply say "read the book"!
Scot
And if part of a theory is shown to be false that means the theory is no longer valid, although it may be revised, if it is still in its orginal form with the flaw it is false. If things didnt work this way we would still think that heat was a substance, which we know is false.
This atheist propaganda that's apparently floating around must not have made it to my school, because I certainly was never taught it. What I learned about it I had to seek out, just like the other non-christian religious stances. The general assumption in my school/family/life environment was that God was a given, and it was most likely the christian God.[b said:
There's a huge difference between not having a religious stance and being atheist. I don't get why school must be an atheist environment by not having a religious stance. It's a completely flawed conclusion.
One of the huge complaints school teachers have (my sister is one) is that they just don't have the time to teach all the material they're required to teach for each grade. Comparitive religion was taught in history sometimes (I don't know if it still is), but public school barely has time to teach you about the physical world, let alone the spiritual. There are other places you're free to go to learn about the spiritual... they don't disuade you from doing so in the slightest.[b said:
I don't imagine the church has time for teaching the non-religious topics anymore than public school has for teaching the religious ones. Nobody expects the church to do so.
nobody's been bombarded with atheism. when have you been bombarded by "there is no god" in school or anywhere else? one thing is having NO religion in publich schools (how it should be) and another is schools DENYING religion.[b said:
obviously not if you want to push your religion into public schools.[b said:
examples?[b said:
exactly.[b said:
that it's absurd to think that because schools don't teach one religion that they are bombarding you with atheism.[b said:
(in the example, the church isn't teaching something. that doesn't mean they're against it. in real life, the school isn't teaching religion. that doesn't mean they're against it)
Wesley
God must have an interesting sense of humor
[b said:
I'd quite enjoy it actually, I wouldn't accept it but it would be a chance to learn about another religion. Same goes for evo/atheism, I'd take it an opportunity to better prepare myself to be able to explain God/creationism.
[b said:
I don't want to push it into school systems... unconstitutional. As for evo/creation, I do think they need to teach them both. I say that because you do not have to teach a religion but a science. Give students a choice. If we are talking about being open minded, then I'd say the public schools only teaching one half of science because the other half could possibly result in different beliefs than what is politically correct. I'm just thinking aloud of course, but when you can tell my why it is open-minded to only teach half-science I'll believe you.
As for the church teaching other things.... well that's pointless, just like schools teaching religion. Neither is qualified to teach the other. A church(pastors, elders and such) are teachers of spiritual matters not PHD's or MD's. Schools are not qualified to teach on spirtual matters(they are'nt pastors and the such), they teach PHD's and MD's. That doesn't say that pastors or school teachers aren't part of a church or school but schools aren't ALL pastors and churches aren't ALL school teachers.
I don't mind learning about religion and stuff, since it's a huge part of history. What I don't like is people assuming that I even have a religion, let alone believe what they believe, or a government supporting one religion over another. I don't care if the phrase is "under god", "under allah", "under brahma", the ten amendments, the five pillars, etc.[b said:
that was meant as a general statement about the people who do but sorry for making it sound like it was YOU as in Wesley.[b said:
how is creationism a science? it has no more of a basis in modern science than the flat earth society (which is an extreme form of creationism... should we teach both theories too? one saying the world is round and the other that it is flat?)[b said:
I can't tell you that because I don't believe teaching half-science is open minded... but creationism isn't a science so you're not teaching half-science.[b said:
Wesley
God must have an interesting sense of humor
[b said:
Science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.(dictionary.com)
It is just as much a science as evo, a different theoretical explamation of phenomena though. But since it says theoretical .... it would definately be a science. Unless of course we want to scratch a LOT of scientific theories that were tested by creationists. We definately can't say that evo is the only science considering that before evo, most all(most not ALL) science was based on the Word of God and the such. Why the heck would they want to teach flat earth?!! We've seen pictures so that would be pointless, but you can have creationism without the flat earth...
I think I'm getting off the topic so if you wanna talk about this particular thing anymore you'll have to pm me. Later dudes and dudets.
Edit: After reading that definition... the flat-earth stuff would be considered to be science... just having flaws in hypothesis.
Also, we could teach them... heck we there is also neo-darwinism, darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium. They are all three about the same thing and not all people agree on all three, so we might as well add flat-earth in there even it is just mentioned as another form of creationism.
