The Wiz Board Religion and Philosophy conversation.

[Wizards2Lottery]

You are seriously grasping for straws. You've built up this idea of Dawkins which flat out does not reflect his entire body of work, which is much more diverse than simply bashing religion.

This thread is about religion. The rest of his entire body of work does not matter to this discussion. I don't respect Dawkins zealotry in his promotion of his religious views. In the video, around the 1:50 mark, the professor says Dawkins moves from science to philosophy without realizing he is straying into philosophy.

If Dawkins were as respectful to all non violent religious people as he is to this scientist, I would have more respect for Dawkins. But alas, Dawkins does not. He considers them to be:

Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests."

A lot of justification Dawkins uses to come to atheism comes from his scientific understanding of life and nature.

I consider his anti-theism to be separate from his atheism. At least on the matters of atheism in context with scientific belief, he has written some fascinating material and there is perhaps not a better author for layman Biology/Evolution books than him.

I wouldn't disagree with you if were discussing say, Christopher Hitchins, but I think Dawkins does have a lot of relevant material for not only speaking about atheism, but also supporting it with good evidence.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Funny, but a couple weeks ago, my 11-yr old came to me with the question, "Dad, who was Siddhartha Gautama?" Seems it came up as part of the content in his 6th grade social studies curriculum.

Like any tired single parent would do, I said to him, "Go away, kid, I'm busy fixing dinner! Haven't you ever heard of Google?" J/K

Seriously, I'm familiar with the name and knew that Guatama was a founder of Buddhism. My internal dialog that took place before I attempted to answer my son was "I bet they aren't teaching about Jesus in this school!" That, and "Lots of folks would be angry if their kid came home and said they learned about Jesus in school, but it is okay to learn about Buddha." All of that took about 10 seconds to process. Then I thought about it. Religions of the world can be taught from a historical perspective. I think all I said to him was that Guatama founded Buddhism. I think he was more concerned about the pork chops I let him help me season.

Any how, my take on teaching creation or not is people are going to really get emotional about it, one way or another. I think values come from home as should exposure to faith-based teaching. I don't particularly appreciate that it is not okay to pray in public school but it is okay for a school board to slip things into the curriculum and teach children that the parents would rather they not get exposed to, but that is the world we live in today.

What really needs to be taught are universals like ethics, the golden rule, citizenship, government, The Constitution, etc.

If they want to teach creationism, I say spend equal time on the Ten Commandments. Then tell the kids to ask their parents/legal guardians to help them decide what to believe.

[Zonkerbl]

There's no way to teach religion in school without making some kid feel like his/her religion isn't real because they don't teach it. Or making some kid of atheist parents feel REALLY uncomfortable. You just can't do it.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

There's no way to teach religion in school without making some kid feel like his/her religion isn't real because they don't teach it. Or making some kid of atheist parents feel REALLY uncomfortable. You just can't do it.

Might teaching JUST creation make other parents uncomfortable?

Why teach creation if you can't teach alternative or even mainstream disparate views?

[hands11]

Funny, but a couple weeks ago, my 11-yr old came to me with the question, "Dad, who was Siddhartha Gautama?" Seems it came up as part of the content in his 6th grade social studies curriculum.

Like any tired single parent would do, I said to him, "Go away, kid, I'm busy fixing dinner! Haven't you ever heard of Google?" J/K

Seriously, I'm familiar with the name and knew that Guatama was a founder of Buddhism. My internal dialog that took place before I attempted to answer my son was "I bet they aren't teaching about Jesus in this school!" That, and "Lots of folks would be angry if their kid came home and said they learned about Jesus in school, but it is okay to learn about Buddha." All of that took about 10 seconds to process. Then I thought about it. Religions of the world can be taught from a historical perspective. I think all I said to him was that Guatama founded Buddhism. I think he was more concerned about the pork chops I let him help me season.

Any how, my take on teaching creation or not is people are going to really get emotional about it, one way or another. I think values come from home as should exposure to faith-based teaching. I don't particularly appreciate that it is not okay to pray in public school but it is okay for a school board to slip things into the curriculum and teach children that the parents would rather they not get exposed to, but that is the world we live in today.

What really needs to be taught are universals like ethics, the golden rule, citizenship, government, The Constitution, etc.

If they want to teach creationism, I say spend equal time on the Ten Commandments. Then tell the kids to ask their parents/legal guardians to help them decide what to believe.

I prayed at school. I don't ever remember the thought police invading my mind to stop me.

Why do people say you can't pray at school ?

[hands11]

There's no way to teach religion in school without making some kid feel like his/her religion isn't real because they don't teach it. Or making some kid of atheist parents feel REALLY uncomfortable. You just can't do it.

That is why you would teach those things in some kind of history of religions class, philosophy or sociology class.

Creationism is not a science it is a belief and the story is told in a metaphor, so you don't teach it in a science class.

Maybe one day we can scientifically test for God presence. Personally, I think we already do. We call it things like physics, and chemistry.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, there was an article in the post about the God particle...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

[hands11]

Well, there was an article in the post about the God particle...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Thanks

"The Higgs is the most sought-after particle in physics, but no one’s ever seen one, even indirectly."

Per my belief. They are all God particles. This is like studying God's anatomy and work bench. What they are not going to find is God conscience or God brain. I think we can experience that. We are the piece of equipment that is calibrated to pick up on that signal but only in a limited way. Well, some people do it better then others. In order to truly do that at a higher level, you could have to be a similar essence to God.

Think of it this way. We are all humans but even given that, we can't completely experience each other. Then take a women and a man. Both human but now there is a larger gap. Well the gap from us to God conscience is much wider. That doesn't mean we can't communicate at all though.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Ugh the 'God particle' is just a name given to the particle which we think is responsible for bringing about mass in the universe. It doesn't have any theological context to it.

I like this thread. I'd like to respond to CCJ but I'm swarmed with finals. I think I'll be spending a lot of time here during winter break.

[pancakes3]

yeah, the guy who coined "god" particle wanted to call it the "goddamn" particle bc it's so elusive to find. editors got to it and changed it to "god" particle. it's really not meant to be the key to unlocking unfathomable truths or anything.

[Zonkerbl]

Jon Stewart's take on the purpose of education:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-d ... abulvision

"Isn't it the purpose of education to REPLACE your belief structure -- with FACTS?"

[dobrojim]

^ I saw a GREAT bumper sticker a couple months ago, strangely enough
way out in the sticks near Woodstock VA. Anyway the bumper sticker
said, I watch Fox News for comedy and Comedy Central for news.

Jon Stewart rocks and last night's show was a perfect example.
Heck, just about every night is another good example like a couple
nights ago when he had Ed Gillepsi (sp?) on and he set him up
perfectly on the health care question and vet health care.

Jon Stewart should be the host of Meet The Press. He would
be much better than a 'real' journalist.

as an aside, I'm almost sorry I mentioned Harris. I was tempted to
followup on him (and/or Dawkins) but decided to leave it alone
knowing that minds probably would not be changed.

[hands11]

Jon Stewart's take on the purpose of education:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-d ... abulvision

"Isn't it the purpose of education to REPLACE your belief structure -- with FACTS?"

John has been on a roll lately putting out some really good stuff.

The one about Mitt and the 10K bet was hilarious. John Oliver worked the piece with him telling Mitt to embrace the rich inner dough that he is. If you haven't seen it, go to his site and watch it. Way funny.