[_ Old Earth _] Wisconsin district to allow theories besides evolution

[reznwerks]

god

How can you teach that a God created man and the universe when you can't show that a god even exists let alone what his intentions were. The theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity in that we have enough evidence to show it is a realityand about 98% of REAL scientists accept it as such. We may not have all the answers but that does not mean it's bogus. There are some here that find their reading material in sites like the http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/index.html.
This site is so full of bogus and false material there should be a law about letting it on the internet. Much of this stuff found here has already been proven false.

 

[Featherbop]

No, evolution cannot reject God as a creator in a secular school system, since one cannot teach religious ideas in public schools. The curriculum can make no statement about God's role, at all. And that ban includes saying that God had no role.

First of all, God is not neccesarily connected to religion. Many people beleive in God, but not religion. I am somwhat this way.
Evolution cannot say anything as far as I know, about God either way. I've no issue with that "rejection", but I do have problems with secular schools, with atheistic teachers(college proffessors mostly, I think.), and not being able to teach that God possibly created the universe. Now, before I was homeschooled, I went to a school of pretty much 100% proclaimed christians. They taught evolution, but didn't pressure us to beleive it, they just let us decide, as it should be(No cramming). They were not "allowed" to mention God, or pray. But they did anyway. They just stuck their toungues out at the goverment, and no objections. They didn't press their opinions, force beleif, ridicule for disbeleif, basically, no cramming anything. And that is what I want.

 

[Barbarian]

First of all, God is not neccesarily connected to religion.

Religion is a belief in God or supernatural things. There cannot be belief in God apart from religion.

Evolution cannot say anything as far as I know, about God either way. I've no issue with that "rejection",

It's not a rejection. It's just a recognition that science is unable to say anything about God.

but I do have problems with secular schools, with atheistic teachers(college proffessors mostly, I think.), and not being able to teach that God possibly created the universe.

For two reasons, they can't. First, such a belief is a religious doctrine, not science, so it has no place in a science class. Second, in public schools, our freedom of religion forbids imposing such doctrines on students.

Now, before I was homeschooled, I went to a school of pretty much 100% proclaimed christians. They taught evolution, but didn't pressure us to beleive it, they just let us decide, as it should be(No cramming). They were not "allowed" to mention God, or pray. But they did anyway. They just stuck their toungues out at the goverment, and no objections. They didn't press their opinions, force beleif, ridicule for disbeleif, basically, no cramming anything. And that is what I want.

You can't teach disrespect for the law without encouraging lawbreaking of other kinds. How said that the moral code was so lax where you went to school. Those who didn't agree with the religious doctrines imposed by your school were just out of luck, I guess. That's why the founders forbid establishment of religion. Think about how you would have felt if the school said "we don't care about religious freedom, we're going to teach Judaism!" You'd have been pretty upset, no? Yet you seem to approve doing it to other people.

 

[Featherbop]

Religion is a belief in God or supernatural things.

Nope, religion usually involves those two things, but that is not religion itself. A connection does not imply that the beleif in God is religion.

There cannot be belief in God apart from religion.

Wrong again. There most certainly can. Deism, for instance.

It's not a rejection.

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

It's just a recognition that science is unable to say anything about God.

I disagree that science is silent about God. But lets not argue opinions. :

Now, about when I was in school. Nothing was ever forced on anyone. No "religious" doctrines were taught. No law was broken. Most people beleived the same way. There was no establishment of "religion". I suppose the way I said it, may have made the situation seem a lot more extreme than it was. Bottom line, no imposing anything. People got to think, rather than have only evolution crammed into their minds by the government and liberal teachers. That's is all I think I need to say about that.[/quote]

 

[Tiger]

There cannot be belief in God apart from religion.

Wrong again. There most certainly can. Deism, for instance.

Deism is a religion though...

deism
System of natural religion, first developed in England in the late 17th century. It affirmed belief in one God, but held that He detached himself from the universe after its creation and made no revelation. Reason was man's only guide. The deists opposed revealed religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Deist writings include John Toland's Christianity not Mysterious (1696) and Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730).

 

[Featherbop]

It doesn't seem very religious though.....god created the universe, and left it to its own devices......doesn't sound very religious, but I do take your point how it could be defined as a religion.

Here are some definitions of religion I found:

"beleif in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

"Expression of such a beleif in conduct and ritual."

Any specific system of beleif, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

"To become very conscientous or earnest about something."


Those definitions could support barbarian's beleif, but there are many people who beleive in God, just not any of the religions. So, religion cannot simply be "beleiving in God." Unless there are no people that beleive in God but not religions, but there most certainly are people like that.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's the popularity of deism during the enlightenment that prompted the sophisticated systems of ethics to be put into use as public policy over morality. That and the teachings of jesus don't offer a viable legal system, an advanced and humanitarian system maybe, though even this can be argued, but not a legal system by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Barbarian]

What's happened above, is a simple redefinition of "religion."

In Dark's new definition, Deism and many other religions are excluded.

To what purpose, I don't know, unless maybe to claim that Christianity isn't a religion, and to make a special place for it.

To just believe in God and have no other religious beliefs would certainly be a minimalist religion, but it would still be a religion.

But all the people I know who believe in God have a good number of religious doctrines as well. Does someone know an exception?

 

[mh13]

Re: god

How can you teach that a God created man and the universe when you can't show that a god even exists let alone what his intentions were. The theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity in that we have enough evidence to show it is a realityand about 98% of REAL scientists accept it as such. We may not have all the answers but that does not mean it's bogus. There are some here that find their reading material in sites like the http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/index.html.
This site is so full of bogus and false material there should be a law about letting it on the internet. Much of this stuff found here has already been proven false.

You gave us a bad link. Use this one
http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id17.html

 

[Diencephalon]

It's not that he gave you a bad URL, it's that he accidently chucked the period in with it.

 

[mh13]

It's not that he gave you a bad URL, it's that he accidently chucked the period in with it.

good eyes

 

[Guest]

8-) Hi'! I just came by to check on everyone.
How are all my babies doing?

 

[Highlander]

How condescending is that? :smt011

 

[Featherbop]

What's happened above, is a simple redefinition of "religion."

I gave several definitions. Even one or two definitions I gave implied that simple beleif in God can be a religion. I even said that it could support your beleif.

But because a definition is in the dictionary, or is accepted does not make it correct. I would like religion's definition to be slightly changed so that simply beleiving in God doesn't force someone to take real religion.

Think of it like this: Someone you know beleives in God, but says that they do not have religion, and that they do not beleive any of the religions are true. Are you going to force your beleifs on them? Or simply accept that they do not have relgion?


Deism was the only example of a not very religious "religion". The people who beleive in God without religion are simply that. No religious nametag attached.

To what purpose, I don't know, unless maybe to claim that Christianity isn't a religion, and to make a special place for it.

I wouldn't want christianity not be considered a "religion". I was simply trying to point out that not all beleivers in God have religion. Christinaity is not simply belieiving in God. I really don't see why you said what you said.

To just believe in God and have no other religious beliefs would certainly be a minimalist religion, but it would still be a religion.

Why does the definition(not that it neccisarily, is correct) must be that way then? Why can't people beleive without religion? Are you forcing some people to take religion, that don't want it.

Does someone know an exception?

Not personally. But here is food for thought: What about an agnostic that beleives in God, but does not beleive anything about God or his existance is humanly knowable? Is this person religious? Is this an example of anti-doctrine? What do you say?

 

[Barbarian]

An agnostic, if he believes only in God, and nothing else, has a religion with only one doctrine.

 

[Featherbop]

An agnostic, if he believes only in God, and nothing else, has a religion with only one doctrine.

So you force the agnostic to have religion. But I haven't heard any claim it. Religion doesn't need the definition of "Beleif in God". It is inadequate, and noone I know ever uses it like that. Bottom line: We need that definition done away with. Aw, whatever, we are just arguing over how words should be defined. I don't accept One definition of religion as accurate. No problem. No one really uses the word to mean simply beleif in God....unless they want to argue about it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
An agnostic, if he believes only in God, and nothing else, has a religion with only one doctrine.

So you force the agnostic to have religion.

In the same way I "force" the sky to be blue. I think your personal definition of "religion" is certainly novel, but unlikely to be very popular.

 

[Featherbop]

Barbarian observes:
An agnostic, if he believes only in God, and nothing else, has a religion with only one doctrine.

So you force the agnostic to have religion.

In the same way I "force" the sky to be blue. I think your personal definition of "religion" is certainly novel, but unlikely to be very popular.

And what purpose does it serve an agnostic that beleives in a unknowable God to have his beleif defined as a "religion". Pointless.

Find me an agnostic who says he has a "religion". That is, with the now accepted/used meanings, and implications of the word.....not for sheer pointless correctness.

Definitions change with what the people accept. Simply beleiving in God doesn't make the mark with me, and I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't be too happy with it, I hope so, at least.

But, religion and God are touchy words/concepts to define, I understand.
I also consider atheists to be religious sometimes. So, fine, let agnostics have religion too. All you atheists and agnostics, you may all practice your religion freely, I won't try to tell you that you don't have religion, anymore. :

 

[Barbarian]

But, religion and God are touchy words/concepts to define, I understand.

I also consider atheists to be religious sometimes.

Hmm... that would be like calling a man without legs, a "runner."

So, fine, let agnostics have religion too.

At least those who believe in God.

All you atheists and agnostics, you may all practice your religion freely, I won't try to tell you that you don't have religion, anymore.

:roll:

 

[Featherbop]

Hmm... that would be like calling a man without legs, a "runner."

Analogies don't substanciate anything.