The Catholic Church Recognizes that Parts of the Bible are not to be Taken Literally

Quote:

---

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html
Saw this up on MacHall.
Seriously, as a Catholic, I'm VERY pleased to be reading this. Please, Church, continue to separate us from the Bible Belt. I appreciate it.
...and, I hope that this isn't just the British section of the Church.

I don't know how anyone could take it literial. The day's have a more symbolic meaning than anything else.

The only thing people should take from the bible, IMO, is the morals.

All the events, dates, names and "history" in general should be taken with a grain of salt.

The official catholic church hasn't taken the bible literally in hundreds of years. This is not new a development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormy

The official catholic church hasn't taken the bible literally in hundreds of years. This is not new a development.

---

So, maybe this decree was just for Britain. Maybe the limeys are behind the Catholic times.

Now that you mention it, I did learn it this way in high school...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormy

The official catholic church hasn't taken the bible literally in hundreds of years. This is not new a development.

---

Stole my reply.

This (combined with the heavy reliance on tradition and dogma) is one of the reasons Catholics are heavily disliked in parts of the US. They aren't fundie enough.

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word.

I'm sorry thats funny.

If parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, then why follow something of which it's very patriarchs agree is untrue or false, in any part?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaoofNee

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html
Saw this up on MacHall.
Seriously, as a Catholic, I'm VERY pleased to be reading this.

---

Not to single you out, Chao, but why? Do you just ignore the entire basis behind what this statement is saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy

If parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, then why follow something of which it's very patriarchs agree is untrue or false, in any part?

---

They did specify.
It's really mainly geared towards the Old Testament, in which most of the earliest books are kinda... campfire tales. If I know the history as to why these elements are treated as such, I can believe. Each book was written by a different person at a different time. Hell, a good deal of Genesis was oral tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy

If parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, then why follow something of which it's very patriarchs agree is untrue or false, in any part?

---

They contain spiritual truths (which are supposed to be more important) rather than literal truths, blah blah blah.

old news.

When did anyone start caring what the catholics say?

Since their women were easy?

John Paul II said that hell wasnt necessarily a real place, but it could be a mental state, and people could be 'in hell' when they are on earth.

I always thought that was kind of far our for the church. PJP2 4 LYFE

The day religion is taught in public schools is the day I burn every school I see to the fucking ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

When did anyone start caring what the catholics say?

---

Sadly, lots of people. How do you think Bush got re-elected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

The day religion is taught in public schools is the day I burn every school I see to the fucking ground.

---

Better get to burning then. Creationism/Intelligent Design is being taught in some school districts.

Its FUCKING INSANE.

P.S. I'll help, You drive to MD then we'll take my car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Sadly, lots of people. How do you think Bush got re-elected?

---

teh Illuminati!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

When did anyone start caring what the catholics say?

---

<2004 election>VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS ABORTION IS A SIN! BLAH! BLAH! TRUTH IS LIES! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!</2004 election>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

Better get to burning then. Creationism/Intelligent Design is being taught in some school districts.

Its FUCKING INSANE.

P.S. I'll help, You drive to MD then we'll take my car.

---

Holy shit, the world is coming to an end. And I love how they try to dress it up with as a logical, factual subject with the name, "Intelligent Design." We used to have something similar in Kindergarden, but back then we called it "Story Time."

Anyway, I'll be by around eight. Have 40 gallons of kerosene and a few propane tanks ready.

Quote:

---

teh Illuminati!

---

Seriously, the Religious Right are a bigger threat to this nation than the fucking Taliban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Anyway, I'll be by around eight. Have 40 gallons of kerosene and a few propane tanks ready.

---

I can't tonight. Lost is on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I can't tonight. Lost is on.

---

Tape it, bitch, the fate of our children hangs in the balance.

We could just leave after 10:00.

edit: and a fantastic post 18,000 it was.

If I'm not in bed by 12 on a work night I get the nastiest dark circles under my eyes and my mood just goes all phooey. Let's just do it on a weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Since their women were easy?

---

Yeah, because you can get them drunk, unlike the Baptists.

i saw a bus run over a bible the other day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

The day religion is taught in public schools is the day I burn every school I see to the fucking ground.

Sadly, lots of people. How do you think Bush got re-elected?

---

Whats wrong with teaching religion in school? it could be an optional course or maybe the history of that certain religion.

Evoltion and religion should both be taught in school. Anyone who has a problem with either of these is a hypocrite.

State funded institutions, such as schools, should not teach religion generally speaking

However, in order to accurately portray Historic events, or events that there is no theoretical record for (ie. creation of life), Religious history should be included. (ie. Crusades were wars fought for religion, the driving force behind the ideas was Christianity)

With a country/world built on religious background, that is a huge section of history to just discard.

In the case of no factual record existing, schools should not teach bias towards one theory, but should present multiple "general" theories, including religious ones. If this cannot be done, then these subjects should not be presented at all.

I just think teaching religion in state funded instutitions along side other courses leads to people who base their judgements on, or factor into those judgements, religious beliefs and emotion instead of logic and facts. Those kind of decisions are problematic because they are ripe with bias.

Sunday school. Church from state (funded institutions).

This is why Miers as the next Supreme Court justice worries me. Bush said he picked her because of her heavily religious background. So instead of getting fair, fact-laden decisions that rely solely on the Constitution and our laws, the Bible gets a heavy hand in monumental decisions. Too much emotion to be thinking straight.

I think we should start taxing religious groups, since they're having so much fucking say in government matters lately. Until then they should really STFU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avatar

Whats wrong with teaching religion in school? it could be an optional course or maybe the history of that certain religion.

---

Why not the history of Santa or the Easter Bunny while we're at it?

Quote:

---

Evoltion and religion should both be taught in school. Anyone who has a problem with either of these is a hypocrite.

---

Science vs. a made-up man who lives in the sky? How would being against teaching religion in public schools make one a hypocrite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portnoyd

leads to people who base their judgements on, or factor into those judgements, religious beliefs and emotion instead of logic and facts.

---

People are going to do that anyway. Humans hate thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Error

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word.

---

God: For the last time, my last name is not DAMMIT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Why not the history of Santa or the Easter Bunny while we're at it?

---

I wouldn't mind a class about that. Myths and the subconscience meaning of them, is an interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

I think we should start taxing religious groups, since they're having so much fucking say in government matters lately. Until then they should really STFU.

Why not the history of Santa or the Easter Bunny while we're at it?

Science vs. a made-up man who lives in the sky? How would being against teaching religion in public schools make one a hypocrite?

---

The bible is one of the most accurate history books in the world. That alone makes it qualified to be taught in a history class. Same goes for a class on Arabic history or asian history. ignoring their religion when teaching someone their history is retarded.

Also Evolution and genesis teach the same thing. Teaching someone one and not the other seems lazy. Truth of the matter is no one knows whether or not genesis is true and if thier is a god. Refusing to teach someone about something that you don't like or believe in is biased and unfair. Personally I believe in Evolution, but that said I would still want my son/daughter to know what genesis is all about.

Oh I forgot. it's okay to be biased against religion as long as it helps you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avatar

The bible is one of the most accurate history books in the world.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Also Evolution and genesis teach the same thing.

---

Do they, now? Let's consult Wikipedia and see…

Evolution: In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

Genesis: Genesis contains both the narrative of Creation and a traditional history of the Israelites. Beginning with the Creation (by God) of the world, it recounts the primal history of humanity and the early history of the people of Israel as exemplified in the lives of its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their families. It contains the historical presupposition and basis of the national religious ideas and institutions of Israel, and serves as an introduction to its history, laws, customs and legends.

Yeah. Same thing.

But let's say they DID decide to teach Genesis in schools…what about the Jewish and Buddhist and Muslum students? Guess we better teach their shit in school as well, huh? See how this view opens up all sorts of problems?

Quote:

---

Teaching someone one and not the other seems lazy.

---

Evolution is based on actual scientific fact. Genesis is just a chapter from a best-selling book. Should The Divinci Code be taught in schools too?

Quote:

---

Truth of the matter is no one knows whether or not genesis is true and if their is a god. Refusing to teach someone about something that you don't like or believe in is biased and unfair. Personally I believe in Evolution, but that said I would still want my son/daughter to know what genesis is all about.

---

Refusing to teach something that has not a bit of proof to support it is unfair?

I love how religion is based solely on faith, which requires not one shred of proof. Hell, "God's" motto is, "Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." There ya go.

Quote:

---

Oh I forgot. it's okay to be biased against religion as long as it helps you.

---

How does not being religious help me? I don't get to have all the answers spelled out for me.

Avatar that was the most retarded thing you've ever said.

On that note, since know one has the original bible that was created, taking any of it literally would be retarded and I always assumed it was common sense. I mean, how many revisions under different kings etc has the bible undergone? It's a game of Telephone :P (Not really)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avatar

Also Evolution and genesis teach the same thing. Teaching someone one and not the other seems lazy. Truth of the matter is no one knows whether or not genesis is true and if thier is a god. Refusing to teach someone about something that you don't like or believe in is biased and unfair. Personally I believe in Evolution, but that said I would still want my son/daughter to know what genesis is all about.

---

HAY GUYZ WHY DON'T WE LEARN MORE ABOUT MATH IN ENGLISH CLASS BECAUSE MATH IS USEFUL

We don't learn about non-science in science class because science class teaches currect scientific theories. If you want to be fair to religion in science class for some reason, it's only fair to teach every possible creation story there is (did mankind grow from the armpit of a sleeping giant? Norse mythology thinks so!), but even that ignores one thing: Genesis, and other creation stories, are not science. They're not not even kinda like science. They might have a place in a philosophy class, but there's no reason to teach them in science class. If you want them to be taught in science class, they need to first meet a certain burden of proof, which thus far, they haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

LOL

---

it is more factual than say, "Homer" or "the odessy(sp?)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

But let's say they DID decide to teach Genesis in schools…what about the Jewish and Buddhist and Muslum students? Guess we better teach their shit in school as well, huh? See how this view opens up all sorts of problems?

---

Can we teach druidic and nordic creation stories too? White (in origin) religions have really gotten the shaft in the past few thousand years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

LOL


Evolution is based on actual scientific fact. Genesis is just a chapter from a best-selling book. Should The Divinci Code be taught in schools too?

---

Science still hasn't found the missing evolutionary fossil, that links man to apes though.

You should learn about Genises at church and the bible, why the fuck would we want it taught in schools as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

it is more factual than say, "Homer" or "the odessy(sp?)"

---

True, but for every one thing Genesis may get right, it's mixed in with countless made-up fantasies. Besides, Homer was a just a poet. People don't claim The Odyssey was a history book and demand changes to governments and schools based on Odysseus' adventures during his ten year-long voyage home from the Trojan War.

Quote:

---

Can we teach druidic and nordic creation stories too? White (in origin) religions have really gotten the shaft in the past few thousand years.

---

Sure, I could see all of this stuff being combined and covered in some sort of "Mythology" class. That would be cool. But to pass it all off as fact would be insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Science still hasn't found the missing evolutionary fossil, that links man to apes though.

---

That's still better than religion has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

On that note, since know one has the original bible that was created, taking any of it literally would be retarded and I always assumed it was common sense. I mean, how many revisions under different kings etc has the bible undergone? It's a game of Telephone :P (Not really)

---

No, you're probably right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

You should learn about Genises at church and the bible, why the fuck would we want it taught in schools as well.

---

Yeah, they already have their forum. Stay where you fucking belong.

I went to a Catholic elementary and high school. Personally I think the best way to kill religion would be to teach everyone about it, show just how retarded it is. So I say yes, let them succeed in forcing teachers to teach. And then show teachers how to mock it while they teach it.

Hey, I'm not knocking religion…if that's your thing, whatever. But it should be voluntary and it should be taught in the right time and place- church. It shouldn't be REQUIRED BY THE STATE and shoved down the throats of impressionable kids along with math and social studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

it is more factual than say, "Homer" or "the odessy(sp?)"

---

Not really. Not really at all. Both primarily use mythological elements to describe historical events. They are both locked in what Comte called the supernaturalist era of human knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Science still hasn't found the missing evolutionary fossil, that links man to apes though.

---

That doesn't change that evolution is a fact.

Dadgum you, Error, you stole my idea for an avatar. ;)

The thing about science is that it only tells a portion of the story of anything ever. We won't be far along enough in things by the time our clock batteries are dead to really make an educated decision. Right now it's all about what sounds best.

The free masons control everything anyway. Science and religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The free masons control everything anyway. Science and religion.

---

Don't you mean the lizard people? Or Bohemian Grove? Or was it those gosh darn Shadow People?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Don't you mean the lizard people? Or Bohemian Grove? Or was it those gosh darn Shadow People?

---

The Agency? The Patriots? Section 31?
Or, could it be COBRA?!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...volution&go=Go

Science is as faith based as religion. Observed "facts" loosely strung together are as valid as "feelings" used to describe existance in my opinion. I think historical record is more valid than scientific theory, because at least the keepers of historical record are willing to admit there is subjective slant to there observations, scientists usually are not so forthcoming. Science has had to change it's "facts" plenty of times throughout history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...volution&go=Go

---

"No page with that title exists.."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Science is as faith based as religion.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Observed "facts" loosely strung together are as valid as "feelings" used to describe existance in my opinion.

---

That can certainly be your opinion, but don't try to pass that off as truth, because it won't hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

I think historical record is more valid than scientific theory, because at least the keepers of historical record are willing to admit there is subjective slant to there observations, scientists usually are not so forthcoming. Science has had to change it's "facts" plenty of times throughout history.

---

This is horseshit. Science is designed NOT to be subjective. Just because it changes doesn't mean the entire concept of science is somehow invalid. It doesn't work like that. The point of science is to observe, test, and then retest and refine.

Also, the historical record is nowhere near more valid than the scientific method (which I'm assuming you meant as opposed to 'scientific theory').

Scientific method is to ignore the natural world because there are too many variables that cannot be controlled and to bring something into a laboratory to control the variables into creating a desirable reproducible result. It's principles contradict themselves as much as historical innacuracies and the Bible.
You can say Horeshit and pass off your relative truth as much as you want, but you're just as full of shit as any religious person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Scientific method is to ignore the natural world because there are too many variables that cannot be controlled and to bring something into a laboratory to control the variables into creating a desirable reproducible result.

---

You clearly have a warped understanding of what the scientific method is, if you have any understanding of it at all. Science in no way ignores the natural world, in fact the very concept of science is to understand the natural world. You can say there are too many variables, but that hasn't stopped science yet. That's the purpose of the scientific method; to contiunally retest to assure results are constant and eliminate these unseen variables you're somehow trying to say invalidates ALL science. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Scientific method is to ignore the natural world because there are too many variables that cannot be controlled and to bring something into a laboratory to control the variables into creating a desirable reproducible result. It's principles contradict themselves as much as historical innacuracies and the Bible.
You can say Horeshit and pass off your relative truth as much as you want, but you're just as full of shit as any religious person.

---

Science relies on giving us the best possible explanation of various phenomena that we can find right now. If we find a better explanation, the old one is discarded. Why some people think "staying the course" in the face of new evidence is better than admitting we're wrong and updating what we know is absolutely beyond me. "Hey, I may have nothing to back up what I claim and things I've said have since been disproven over and over, but I'm consistent!" is not valid.

And yeah, like Gozen said, you seem to have a pretty weak understanding of science at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Hey, I'm not knocking religion…if that's your thing, whatever. But it should be voluntary and it should be taught in the right time and place- church. It shouldn't be REQUIRED BY THE STATE and shoved down the throats of impressionable kids along with math and social studies.

---

no , you are just taking about burning down schools if they teach it, thats kind of fucked up if you ask me. we had this discussion long ago, and back then we realized we were at an agree to disagree situation, and back then you seemed cool about it. now you are going on like this. gozen i expect it of, not you.

look religion is not your thing but it is very important to a lot of people, and making it the one topic that is taboo in schools(not science courses, at all) is basicly a govenment sponsered censorship of one area of human though because it bothers less than 5 % of the country. look i dont support teching intelligent design science class because its not a theory that uses the scientific method, period, however, to make the statement like that is massively irresponsable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

gozen i expect it of, not you.

---

LOL, nice try. Unlike religious zealots and fascists I OPPOSE burning people or their works that disagree with your religion / politics, etc.

Can you say the same?

Religion is taught in schools already. Many religious schools exist, and I'm sure there are some in your neighborhood. And if you want to learn even more about religion, there are churches, mosques, etc. all over the place.

The majority of home-schooled children are done so for religious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

LOL, nice try. Unlike religious zealots and fascists I OPPOSE burning people or their works that disagree with your religion / politics, etc.

Can you say the same?

---

yeah easily, quotes showing that i support burning people please?

come on gozey, you made the accusation, back it up please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

yeah easily, quotes showing that i support burning people please?

come on gozey, you made the accusation, back it up please

---

The only one who made an accusation here was you, all I did was ask a question. So why don't YOU back up YOUR accusation, frosty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The only one who made an accusation here was you, all I did was ask a question. So why don't YOU back up YOUR accusation, frosty.

---

a question that carried an implication, that i supported the destruction of ideas or individuals, now back up the implication with quotes please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

a question that carried an implication, that i supported the destruction of ideas or individuals, now back up the implication with quotes please.

---

You're trying to turn this around on me, but the fact of the matter is it was YOU who made the clear implication that it was I who somehow advocated burning people. So, unless you have some evidence in the form of quotes or pictures or eyewitness testimony or whatever I suggest you drop it before we both get banned.

what i was talking about was over the top hyperbole, dole obviously does not actualy support burining down schools for differing viewpoints, and you ahev yet to actually state that you do,but you are guilty of over the top hyperbole, you were in this thread where you went on the vote for bush freedom is slavery nonsense. its making a foolish strawman of people with strong religious beleifs and its more than patronizing, its downright ignorant. now you are well known for being partonizing of people of religious faith, and i can get quotes for you there if you like, but it is below dole who usually is more levelheaded and less hate filled.

how exactly are we goign to get banned for arguing exactly? if that was the case we would have been banned for the how to deal with christians thread over a week ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

LOL, nice try. Unlike religious zealots and fascists I OPPOSE burning people or their works that disagree with your religion / politics, etc.

Can you say the same?

---

Oh, yeah? Well, I don't oppose of burning YOUR FACE!
Oh shits.

MY COCK IS BIGGER THAN EITHER OF YOURS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

MY COCK IS BIGGER THAN EITHER OF YOURS

---

ill be right over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

you were in this thread where you went on the vote for bush freedom is slavery nonsense.

---

The first part of that was a quote from many Catholic clergy who outright said that voting for anyone who supported, or even was just not adamently opposed, to abortion was a sin. The rest was taken from Orwell, granted, but I thought it adaquately reflected the kind of thinking involved there.

My criticisms are not nearly a strawman argument, nor as condescending as some of my opposition here, namely you and Mo7s, likewise I can get quotes that illustrate this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

MY COCK IS BIGGER THAN EITHER OF YOURS

---

Do you stretch it like those guys in Napal? Because if you do, I'll gladly concede any argument to you for the rest of my life. Anyone willing to go through that sort of pain for a longer dick deserves something, anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaoofNee

Oh, yeah? Well, I don't oppose of burning YOUR FACE!
Oh shits.

---

That's not what your mom said.

OH SHIT COMBO BREAKER!

I don't see anything wrong with teaching Christian mythology in schools as long as it is presented as such.
Its cultural and historical significance cannot be denied, so it makes sense to include it in the curriculum of a history, philosophy, anthropology, or literature course.
It should never be taught as history, though.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no business being taught at all.
The very fact that the Bible nuts are taking it to the courts only exposes it as baseless and flawed theory.
If it could actually withstand the scrutiny of science, then it would already be accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory, and I doubt anyone would oppose it being taught in public school science classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The first part of that was a quote from many Catholic clergy who outright said that voting for anyone who supported, or even was just not adamently opposed, to abortion was a sin. The rest was taken from Orwell, granted, but I thought it adaquately reflected the kind of thinking involved there.

My criticisms are not nearly a strawman argument, nor as condescending as some of my opposition here, namely you and Mo7s, likewise I can get quotes that illustrate this point.


]

---

hah bringing mo7 too, now you really are desperate to pretend that you are innocent of creating strawman arguments. go for it, find where i am condescending, and then quote the post of yours that preceeds the comment, and lets see who goes low first, but the thing is, its past the point. dole, i expect greater things of, and he dissapointed me, ill wait for him to comment and discuss the matter with one who stays civil.

I'm seeing something of a contradiction by Christians about this issue. They say thay religion should be taught in school and dismiss the argument that all religions would then have to be taught, but then they refuse to allow same-sex marriage because all sorts of alternative lifestyles would have to be permitted marriage (according to them). In reality, both are nasty cans of worms with serious implications, and most of the Christians I've heard think that there would be nothing wrong with religion in school...so long as it's their religion.

I went to Sunday school, did all the sacraments up to marriage, taught for 5 years in a Catholic school, and have taught the last 4 years at a Catholic university. I firmly believe that religion has no place in public schools at all. Taxpayer's dollars should not be used to install dogma and to indoctrinate youth. You're perfectly welcome to start your own school for that.

Something no one's mentioned about science is that it's the same for everyone, and doesn't put a single belief above others. I've never had a science teacher tell me that if I didn't accept that water was two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, my soul would burn in torment forever. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I'm seeing something of a contradiction by Christians about this issue. They say thay religion should be taught in school and dismiss the argument that all religions would then have to be taught, but then they refuse to allow same-sex marriage because all sorts of alternative lifestyles would have to be permitted marriage (according to them). In reality, both are nasty cans of worms with serious implications, and most of the Christians I've heard think that there would be nothing wrong with religion in school...so long as it's their religion.

I went to Sunday school, did all the sacraments up to marriage, taught for 5 years in a Catholic school, and have taught the last 4 years at a Catholic university. I firmly believe that religion has no place in public schools at all. Taxpayer's dollars should not be used to install dogma and to indoctrinate youth. You're perfectly welcome to start your own school for that.

Something no one's mentioned about science is that it's the same for everyone, and doesn't put a single belief above others. I've never had a science teacher tell me that if I didn't accept that water was two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, my soul would burn in torment forever. Go figure.

---

well i agree to a point with what you say,i think all currently practiced religions could easliy be taught in a "history of religion" class, i have no problem at all with islam, waicca, judaeism,and others beign taught alongside the main varieties of christianity in that class, i hope i was not one that you were including in that statement. theres a difference between presenting something in a historical, judgement free, way and indoctrinating people in its tenets, i have studied islam form a scholastic perspective but i dont beleive its religious tenets, i think its important to make that distinction.


and heres the thing about science being the same for everyone that i think you are overlooking, science in itself is the same for everyone, e will be mc squared for a mormon and an atheist alike, but the conclusions drawn from it and applied by those who study it are not. there are those who study biology and come away from it with just what they learned about biology, and then there are those who infer theories from actual tested sceince that are not directly supported by it. those who say that evolutionary biology disproves the existance of god, for instance, make the mistake of taking what is proven by the actual science and then adding additional inferences based on their opinions, thats where the scientific divide occours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

And yeah, like Gozen said, you seem to have a pretty weak understanding of science at best.

---

OH wow me am must be sooo stoopid to not agree with yoo.
I fucking obliterated every science class I've ever taken. I just don't believe everything I'm taught in them blindly. The universe is cylindrical, riiiight!

Energy can't be destroyed only change forms, Big bang then entropy. Shit is just too fantastic to be real.

Some science is good, some is crap, but people who subscribe to it as being infallible are just as zealous as any fundamentalist. Physics, chemistry and a few other natural sciences are generally spot on. A lot of Sociology, most astronomy, some quantum physics, and some biology are just commonly purported myths.

This essay by Michael Chrichton, http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html , begins to describe my feelings on science. But I would go further to say that too much of science is built off facts that are accepted rather then proven and despite what "scientific method" is supposed to be, in real life it rarely is.

So, the theory of scientific method, and scientific method in practice are two different things, and science IS flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Don't you mean the lizard people? Or Bohemian Grove? Or was it those gosh darn Shadow People?

---

no...

Drawing tenuous conclusions from proven facts is, quite simply, bad science, and such conclusions are therefore not considered scientific knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Some science is good, some is crap, but people who subscribe to it as being infallible are just as zealous as any fundamentalist.

---

You're describing someone who obviously isn't a scientist.
The very basis of science is that you never accept anything on faith, even if it's a long held belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jester

Some science is good, some is crap, but people who subscribe to it as being infallible are just as zealous as any fundamentalist.

---

The falliability of science is one of its cornerstones. Taking a scientific theory and proving it wrong, or providing a better alternative (and backing it up), is what the whole damn thing is about. Without accepting that everything currently believed could be incorrect, modern science wouldn't exist.

This thread needs to provide more entertainment, or have some relation to something remotely entertaining and not quite as serious.

http://pawell13.by.ru/tlz/grabs/4acv18/418-44.jpg

And I've never met anyone dedicated to science who thinks it is Infallible so your argument is kind of pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Wrong.

---

Actually, yes. You have to have faith that everything around you is real before you can accept science. Ultimately everything comes down to faith because you can't really "prove" anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

The falliability of science is one of its cornerstones. Taking a scientific theory and proving it wrong, or providing a better alternative (and backing it up), is what the whole damn thing is about. Without accepting that everything currently believed could be incorrect, modern science wouldn't exist.

---

True, because they have no way of proving the Big Bang theory.

There are a lot of things you can't really prove, so the whole idea is to come up with theories, test them out, try to disprove them, and see which one is left when all others have been refuted.
Then you have a theory that is probably true, but you keep trying to refute it and come up with alternatives anyway, because that's how science works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Actually, yes. You have to have faith that everything around you is real before you can accept science. Ultimately everything comes down to faith because you can't really "prove" anything.

---

The possibility that everything around us is not real does not mean that someone's belief in its existence is based on faith. We have our tools and we make use of them to test our environment and form conclusions about it while being aware of the limitations on our understanding. That isn't faith.

If something can't be absolutely proven, then you simply don't believe it is absolutely true. At the same time, if everything you understand suggests that it is true, it'd be stupid to act as if it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kedawa

There are a lot of things you can't really prove, so the whole idea is to come up with hypotheses, test them out, try to disprove them, and see which one is left when all others have been refuted.

---

Fixed.

And gamevet, the Big Bang theory is based on observance of red shift, radio waves, etc. It is not based on pure conjecture. Furthermore, science doesn't "prove" things. Rather, it comes up with the best possible solution to a problem, and the solution has to meet a certain standard (ie, can it be used to predict things accurately?). The Big Bang theory didn't just come out of some scientist's ass and then everyone else accepted it, and just because it's the current theory that's widely believed doesn't mean there aren't scientists attempting to clarify it, or hell, even disprove it. There's a Nobel prize in store for anyone who does

And before this goes on any further: theory does not mean the same thing in science that it does in layman's terms. It does not mean "a guess." The closest approximation of that would be "hypothesis." Please do not say "it's only a theory" because in scientific terms, that means "it's only a conclusion that has stood up to plenty of testing and provides accurate predictions" which I'm pretty sure isn't the point you're trying to make. Thank you in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

MY COCK IS BIGGER THAN EITHER OF YOURS

---

Unless you are hung like Mandingo, IDBTN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

My criticisms are not nearly a strawman argument, nor as condescending as some of my opposition here, namely you and Mo7s, likewise I can get quotes that illustrate this point.

---

Just couldn't resist dragging me into this could you?

For this I will burn your village and tape your women.

For you it shall be the day that Master of 7s graced your existence for me it will be Thursday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Fixed.

And gamevet, the Big Bang theory is based on observance of red shift, radio waves, etc. It is not based on pure conjecture. Furthermore, science doesn't "prove" things. Rather, it comes up with the best possible solution to a problem, and the solution has to meet a certain standard (ie, can it be used to predict things accurately?). The Big Bang theory didn't just come out of some scientist's ass and then everyone else accepted it, and just because it's the current theory that's widely believed doesn't mean there aren't scientists attempting to clarify it, or hell, even disprove it. There's a Nobel prize in store for anyone who does[/b]

---

Well those may prove that the universe is expanding, but how can they make a whole universe out of a couple of atoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

no , you are just taking about burning down schools if they teach it, thats kind of fucked up if you ask me.

---

Oh, fucking stop. Dude, you're not stupid, how can you not realize that I'm not literally going to walk around burning down schools if they teach official religion classes?

You've never gotten so mad at someone that you've said you wanted to "kill" them? But did you? Of course not.

Quote:

---

look religion is not your thing but it is very important to a lot of people, and making it the one topic that is taboo in schools(not science courses, at all) is basicly a govenment sponsered censorship of one area

---

Teaching fairy tales in school is stupid. Especially if they insist on teaching just one religious viewpoint- Catholicism. What about Judaism? The Muslim faith? If you cover one, you have to cover every fake, made-up religion, or you exclude people and offend others. It's bullshit. These people have CHURCHES to learn about their pretend deity. Why drag their spiritual crap into institutions based on factual studies that are funded by state and local governments that said churches don't have to pay any taxes to?

Besides, High School classes usually aren't voluntary- what are Atheists and Agnostics supposed to do when they have to take an "Intelligent Design" class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

what i was talking about was over the top hyperbole, dole obviously does not actualy support burining down schools for differing viewpoints

---

Okay, now your post above makes no sense. Why bother to complain if you know I'm not serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master of 7s

For you it shall be the day that Master of 7s graced your existence for me it will be Thursday.

---

Your worst crime, though, is your complete butchering of the best line in the entire Street Fighter movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Your worst crime, though, is your complete butchering of the best line in the entire Street Fighter movie.

---

QUICK! CHANGE DA CHANNEL!

I see no mentioning of Levitation in his sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

I see no mentioning of Levitation in his sentence.

---

They should teach a class devoted to the scripture of the Black Messiah, Jedah. I'd be okay with that.

I was thinking M. Bison, but that works too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

I was thinking M. Bison, but that works too.

---

I know you were thinking M. Bison...but Jedah is cooler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

The possibility that everything around us is not real does not mean that someone's belief in its existence is based on faith.

---

Yes it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

We have our tools and we make use of them to test our environment and form conclusions about it while being aware of the limitations on our understanding. That isn't faith.

---

Those tools are part of an environment that you can't prove is real. You have to have faith in reality being "real" for the data collected by said tools to have any importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

If something can't be absolutely proven, then you simply don't believe it is absolutely true. At the same time, if everything you understand suggests that it is true, it'd be stupid to act as if it wasn't.

---

I take it you didn't enjoy the first matrix movie much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I take it you didn't enjoy the first matrix movie much?

---

Why didn't they just use cows for batteries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Why didn't they just use cows for batteries?

---

Why not use windmills, or nuclear power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

well i agree to a point with what you say,i think all currently practiced religions could easliy be taught in a "history of religion" class, i have no problem at all with islam, waicca, judaeism,and others beign taught alongside the main varieties of christianity in that class, i hope i was not one that you were including in that statement. theres a difference between presenting something in a historical, judgement free, way and indoctrinating people in its tenets, i have studied islam form a scholastic perspective but i dont beleive its religious tenets, i think its important to make that distinction.

---

Oh, I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone here, just talking about what I've in general at work, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing a general religion course, like I had at the university. A Presbiterian minister (the univ. is Presb. too) gave it, and it was very objective and covered all the major religions without putting emphasis on any one in particular. Very refreshing and highly enlightening.

Quote:

---

and heres the thing about science being the same for everyone that i think you are overlooking, science in itself is the same for everyone, e will be mc squared for a mormon and an atheist alike, but the conclusions drawn from it and applied by those who study it are not.

there are those who study biology and come away from it with just what they learned about biology, and then there are those who infer theories from actual tested sceince that are not directly supported by it. those who say that evolutionary biology disproves the existance of god, for instance, make the mistake of taking what is proven by the actual science and then adding additional inferences based on their opinions, thats where the scientific divide occours.

---

That's the difference. If you read that H20 is hydrogen, there's no room for interpretation there, no subjectivity. It is what it is, and that's it. The bible isn't as black and white as that. In science, you have to infer a theory and try to apply it before you enter the realm of subjectivity. The basic facts are universal though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

If you read that H20 is hydrogen, there's no room for interpretation there, no subjectivity. It is what it is, and that's it.

---

So what you're saying is that when science tells you something incorrectly, you just have to believe it... because it's science...

Wow for some reason I just remembered that last night I had a dream that my grandparents found out I'm agnostic, and they put a note on my door saying "Go Die"...

lol wow, I blame this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scourge

So what you're saying is that when science tells you something incorrectly, you just have to believe it... because it's science...

---

No, I'm saying that when you perceive something in your environment, there is no need for interpretation. No on needs to debate whether or not the sky is blue, water is wet, etc. The debate comes when you consider why and how those things have come to be that way, not the fact that they are. Religion isn't as cut and dry as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Yes it does.

---

It totally doesn't! Faith is the absolute belief in something based on nothing, to put it simply. People can form beliefs that are neither absolute nor based on nothing- they may be wrong, but that possibility isn't synonymous with "their beliefs are based on faith".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Teaching fairy tales in school is stupid. Especially if they insist on teaching just one religious viewpoint- Catholicism. What about Judaism? The Muslim faith? If you cover one, you have to cover every fake, made-up religion, or you exclude people and offend others. It's bullshit. These people have CHURCHES to learn about their pretend deity. Why drag their spiritual crap into institutions based on factual studies that are funded by state and local governments that said churches don't have to pay any taxes to?

---

Who the fuck said they couldn't be taught as well? In a world like ours having a class that explains something like Islam is a lot more valuable than "Ceramics."

Oh and not everyone goes to church. Not everyone has that said religions church nearby. I don't have a mosque or temple in my county. Were am I going to learn about the religion? Watching CNN,Listening to some random guy on the internet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Besides, High School classes usually aren't voluntary- what are Atheists and Agnostics supposed to do when they have to take an "Intelligent Design" class?

---

They could easily be optional courses. You know this and I know this.

Yes, because right now we have the funding, the teacher, the time of day, the ability to have the OPTION of having 30+ religions that i'm sure exist worldwide, taught in every school. Use your head a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Those tools are part of an environment that you can't prove is real. You have to have faith in reality being "real" for the data collected by said tools to have any importance.

---

In typical IronPlant fashion you're completely missing the point. If reality wasn't real then it wouldn't be reality. You don't 'have faith' that reality is real, you know it is because of experience and evidence of that it is real.

You show me evidence that suggests that reality isn't real, we'll match that up against my evidence that reality is real and we'll see who comes out on top. That's how science works, not philosophy, not religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avatar

Oh and not everyone goes to church. Not everyone has that said religions church nearby. I don't have a mosque or temple in my county. Were am I going to learn about the religion? Watching CNN,Listening to some random guy on the internet?

---

There are more resources on the internet than just 'random guys.'
Anyway, doesn't your county have a library?

Nono, religion has to be given for you to justify caring didn't you know that?