RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools

RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marc2b -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/25/2012 11:51:13 AM)
quote: Well for one, in the bible it speaks about how foods were to be prepared and how people were to be clean. Science tells us that preparing foods and ourselves in certain ways keeps us from getting infections from viruses and germs. Not exactly. While the whole video is relevant to the notion of the Bible's scientific "accuracy," the part about cleanliness and infections starts around the six minute mark.

GotSteel -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/25/2012 3:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel The back slide into flat earth theory was Bible based. Apparently this belief that those in the Days of Yore assumed the world to be flat is relatively modern. That's not entirely accurate: quote: ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Circumnavigation_of_the_globe Late Antiquity Knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early Christianity. Theological doubt informed by the flat Earth model implied in the Hebrew Bible inspired some early Christian scholars such as Lactantius, John Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, but this remained an eccentric current and learned Christian authors like Basil of Caesarea, Aurelius Ambrosius and Augustine of Hippo were clearly aware of the sphericity of the Earth. "Flat Earthism" lingered longest in Syriac Christianity, which tradition laid greater importance on a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament, and authors from that tradition such as Cosmas Indicopleustes presented the Earth as flat as late as in the 6th century. This last remnant of the ancient model of the cosmos disappeared during the 7th century, and from the 8th century and the beginning medieval period, "no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth."[25] It is however the case that flat earth theory was not a point of contention when Chris was seeking funding. The famous dispute was over the circumference of the earth, Chris thought it was smaller and was wrong.

GotSteel -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/25/2012 7:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder It wasn't so much a dietary law but based on ethics. The pagan community had a ritual for rain where they boiled a baby goat in its mother's milk. The Jews were separating themselves from such people. Another reason for it was to respect the mother and child just as they also had a law where you do not gather eggs while the mother watches. Am I the only one who thinks that's not a reasonable topic for a science class?

littlewonder -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/25/2012 7:55:53 PM)
I didn't say the bible was only included in science. Ethics was part of my social history class and yes we used the bible and the koran and the bhagavad gita in our studies.

GotSteel -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/26/2012 7:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I didn't say the bible was only included in science. Ethics was part of my social history class and yes we used the bible and the koran and the bhagavad gita in our studies. It would depend on how it was done but I'm probably in favor of that. However we were talking about your science class or at least when I asked about your science class I got this response. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel How pray tell does the Bible tie into science? quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Well for one, in the bible it speaks about how foods were to be prepared and how people were to be clean. Science tells us that preparing foods and ourselves in certain ways keeps us from getting infections from viruses and germs. Also the bible speaks about relationships where in science we know such as being close to your partner through touch and intimacy creates oxytocin that secretes dopamine that makes us happy. There is a line in the bible that states the world is a circle, whereas up until the renaissance, others thought the world was flat. There are also parts in the bible that speak of creation being made up of the "invisible"...atoms that we cannot see. From which I'm left with the conclusion that time was spent teaching you bullshit apologetics that should have been spent teaching you science.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/26/2012 10:27:24 AM)
Not true. It also gives some a justication for their hate and bigotry. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The Bible teaches that women are inferior to men. People who have been conned into believing that shit have been "hurt". quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Some of my friends turned out atheists, some turned out religious, some turned out agnostics. The bible never hurt anyone other than to give them information on what they wished to choose in their lives.

Aswad -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/27/2012 9:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel There are several of prominent westerns atheists who will respond to the question of how does one become an atheist with the answer by reading the Bible. That's actually also a favored response to the question of how to become a satanist, as well. [:D] The Bible was much loved by the black metal crowd of my generation up here. IWYW, √\sωað.

Aswad -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/27/2012 10:04:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel The Gnostic works comes to mind. Arguably, those have had less of a formative impact on the culture, and belong in a discussion of persecution in the Middle Ages instead (being one of the major targets of such persecution). The time would be better spent on the major formative influences of other parts of the world. Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth (I'm not comfortable suggesting something from Africa, for instance, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with its history myself). Heck, most of the islamophobes around these parts have no idea what Ramadan is, and seem to regard it as "that time of year when you can't get a cab", for instance. quote: Censorship just doesn't sit well with me. But the Bible in the public classroom shouldn't be taught in a religious sense, but in a historical and literary one. One shouldn't teach anything in a religious (or antireligious) sense in the classroom. People can do that in specific schools for their own stuff if they want to mix roles that way. It might be useful to have an exposition of the various theologies of the various religions out there (and, of course, atheism), though, with an emphasis on the right to choose what to believe (or not to), so as to counteract conformity pressures and the like, while fostering tolerance. And, obviously, the roles of these various beliefs and associated groups and organizations in history and culture is a must (and difficult to convey without a grasp of their substance). IWYW, √\swað.

tweakabelle -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/27/2012 11:50:36 PM)
I found t interesting that a prominent atheist (with whom I personally have many disagreements) approves the teaching of the Bible in schools. I've racked by brains but was unable to recall a prominent religious person advocating teaching notable atheist tracts in a school. It might be me, but most of the statements I've heard from people of the cloth in this regard tend to advocate censorship of atheistic ideas, rather than promoting open discussion. Can anyone nominate an occasion when a prominent cleric has advocated teaching say, 'The God Delusion" in schools? While there likely to be exceptions on both sides, my overall impression is that the churches (both fringe and mainstream) are generally pro-censorship of opposing ideas, while atheists/agnostics are far more likely to promote intelligent discussion of the relevant ideas

Aswad -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 6:12:14 AM)
In all fairness, the guy is thinking strategy, not open-mindedness. And it's a sound one, at that. There's some nasty stuff in there. I would advocate touching on anything that is relevant to a subject that has a place in schools. It would seem lacking to fail to touch on atheism in an area where it is relevant, such as a treatment of modern western culture with its firm grounding in secular humanism. One shouldn't omit the impact of Abrahamic faiths on western culture (e.g. its prominent role in shaping the highly repressive mores around sexuality). Or to fail to touch on the Catholics and Albigensians in a treatment of the Inquisition. How much to include is determined by what conveys the best understanding of the most relevant parts of a subject in the available time. Religion as a subject in and of itself has no place in a public school, regardless of its beliefs, unbeliefs or non-beliefs, except to make a brief survey of key points about all of them in some social science class (it's probably not a bad idea to have some notion of what distinguishes a Hindu from a Shintoist, depending on what one defines as the purpose of a public education). There are other places for that. A scholarly study of it as an elective (is that the word?) would be on par with how one of the local high schools here offer Latin as an elective. Like with Latin, if confined to the domain of the scholarly, it falls under the province of education, but not necessary educaction. As such, that question depends on what the take is on electives. One shouldn't step outside the bounds of the strictly scholarly in a public school in any case. That's my view of it. IWYW, — Aswad. Edited cuz I bungled something.

GotSteel -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 9:14:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I found t interesting that a prominent atheist (with whom I personally have many disagreements) approves the teaching of the Bible in schools. I don't think atheists generally have an issue with children being taught about religions in school, it's the whole indoctrinating children thing that we don't like. As for having a copy of the Bible in school libraries like the original article is talking about, yeah of course I'm in favor of that. The amusing part is that the religious right book banning groups in my country with their horror about sexual content should be firmly against Bibles in school libraries.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 5:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I found t interesting that a prominent atheist (with whom I personally have many disagreements) approves the teaching of the Bible in schools. I've racked by brains but was unable to recall a prominent religious person advocating teaching notable atheist tracts in a school. It might be me, but most of the statements I've heard from people of the cloth in this regard tend to advocate censorship of atheistic ideas, rather than promoting open discussion. Can anyone nominate an occasion when a prominent cleric has advocated teaching say, 'The God Delusion" in schools? While there likely to be exceptions on both sides, my overall impression is that the churches (both fringe and mainstream) are generally pro-censorship of opposing ideas, while atheists/agnostics are far more likely to promote intelligent discussion of the relevant ideas I am hard pressed to find an example of a prominent religious person advocating an intelligent open discussion. Such an approach is generally not to their advantage. I think atheists promote intelligent discussion because, ultimately, we have nothing to fear. [sm=2cents.gif]

dcnovice -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 6:05:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I found t interesting that a prominent atheist (with whom I personally have many disagreements) approves the teaching of the Bible in schools. I've racked by brains but was unable to recall a prominent religious person advocating teaching notable atheist tracts in a school. It might be me, but most of the statements I've heard from people of the cloth in this regard tend to advocate censorship of atheistic ideas, rather than promoting open discussion. Can anyone nominate an occasion when a prominent cleric has advocated teaching say, 'The God Delusion" in schools? While there likely to be exceptions on both sides, my overall impression is that the churches (both fringe and mainstream) are generally pro-censorship of opposing ideas, while atheists/agnostics are far more likely to promote intelligent discussion of the relevant ideas I am hard pressed to find an example of a prominent religious person advocating an intelligent open discussion. Such an approach is generally not to their advantage. I think atheists promote intelligent discussion because, ultimately, we have nothing to fear. [sm=2cents.gif] Fwiw, one of the most popular classes during my Georgetown days was "The Problem of God," which looked at the question of divine non/existence from a variety of perspectives, including that of Betrand Russell--the Dawkins of his day and author of Why I Am Not a Christian. I just checked the online catalogues for the libraries at Georgetown and Notre Dame, arguably the two best-known Catholic colleges in the nation. Both collections include Dawkins's God Delusion and Hitchens's God Is Not Great.

AngelOfSilence -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 6:21:24 PM)
I think all primitive mythologies should be studied, I would support providing schools with copies of the Bible as long as they are also provided with copies of Bullfinch as well.

dcnovice -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 6:27:07 PM)
FR In the flurry of atheism threads we've had recently, it's intrigued me that some of our posters manifest a certainty, edging at times into smugness, that I honestly haven't encountered among the churchgoers I know.

Kirata -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 6:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I think atheists promote intelligent discussion because, ultimately, we have nothing to fear. [sm=2cents.gif] Atheists have the same thing to fear as anybody else, namely, that they might be wrong. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 9:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I think atheists promote intelligent discussion because, ultimately, we have nothing to fear. [sm=2cents.gif] Atheists have the same thing to fear as anybody else, namely, that they might be wrong. K. ..... so it all boils down to ..... mere ego???? I don't believe this to be the case. Which is not to deny that an awful lot of people have an awful lot of ego invested in this particular issue. But I do feel that there's a lot more at stake here than some individual's self image and ideas of their self worth. Mind you, if belief/disbelief in a deity boils down to a matter of ego, this has profound, devastating implications, especially for those who have chosen to invest their ego in a deity. It is said that Pride is one of the seven deadly sins ......

Kirata -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 9:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Atheists have the same thing to fear as anybody else, namely, that they might be wrong. ..... so it all boils down to ..... mere ego???? If that's how you see it, I guess it does for you. [:)] K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/28/2012 11:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Atheists have the same thing to fear as anybody else, namely, that they might be wrong. ..... so it all boils down to ..... mere ego???? If that's how you see it, I guess it does for you. [:)] K. Such a shame you didn't read (or didn't heed) the next sentence - it reads: "I don't believe this to be the case". Could it be your ego wouldn't let you .......? [:D]

GotSteel -> RE: Dawkins says Yes to Bibles in schools (5/29/2012 5:36:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice In the flurry of atheism threads we've had recently, it's intrigued me that some of our posters manifest a certainty, edging at times into smugness, that I honestly haven't encountered among the churchgoers I know. How much of that was in response to really dumb positions? To reference one of those recent threads, I for instance am certain that a human being is different than a single celled organism. The difference is quite pronounced and people looking to conflate the two shouldn't manifest the certainty of their position that I have of mine because they don't actually have a leg to stand on.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875