RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

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

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 10:01:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And the Hebrews at their inception believed god had a wife. Really?? I didn't know that. One learns something new every day [8D] So, not being particularly au-fait with that religion, wasn't it Moses that lead the Hebrew people from their abject slavery with their Egyptian masters? Or have I been brainwashed by that 4-hour epic made by Hollywood! lol. If so, when did they 'convert' from their original scriptures where god had a wife to one where god was alone and all-encompassing? And what happened to those that didn't like the new-fangled teachings of the 'one god' scenario? Did they form their own religion or did it just die out? Just some musings.

mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 10:04:33 AM)
http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html Their original stuff was mostly stolen from ancient babylonian stories and whatnot. It hasn't been properly attributed to the original authors.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 12:42:21 PM)
There are some who believe that they may not have been slaves, leaving Egypt, either. In a documentary on the History Channel called Bible Battles, Dr. Richard Gabriel gives an interesting account. The first mention of the Habiru is at about 6:15. I regret that I don't have the time to go through it all and find where Dr. Gabriel discusses the Exodus but it is an interesting take. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 12:46:38 PM)
Yeah there was a Nova program once, too, and it was Israeli scholars, archeologists, and scientists showing all sorts of proofs that the original 'hebrews' were native caananites, never in egypt. In fact I don't remember egyptian history ever making mention of hebrew slaves as a nation, removed from Israel. Whatever slaves there were, they were tossed in with the rest of em.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:09:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady No, they haven't completely come to terms with each other. I like to think of them as being engaged and working towards a marriage. That's kind of cute, really. Two blokes, one in a white coat, the other in a priest's frock, skipping hand-in-hand into the sunset . . . . [:)]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:55:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady If you would actually stop stomping your feet like a two year old, you might learn that the majority of modern day Christians believe that God and science can compliment each other. No, they haven't completely come to terms with each other. I like to think of them as being engaged and working towards a marriage. You seem to espouse the concept that all Christians think that prayer is the answer to everything, and that simply couldn't be further from the truth. Those who do think God has all the answers don't use any medical intervention, so there is no need for you to keep insisting on it. They also don't interfere with science making any progress of any kind. They aren't arguing what is taught in public schools, because those types of Christians tend to home school their children, so they have no interest in what public schools teach. It baffles me why you are so angry and against the concept that people who believe in one "omnipotent deity" can use medicine AND prayer. It certainly doesn't affect your life in any way. Oh really? You are incorrect. This type of crap is going on TODAY. It irks me that people like you are actually trying to pretend that this crap is not going on. Teaching creationism as science is complete and utter ridiculousness. The earth is NOT 6000 years old - it is 4.5 billion years old. Teaching science from the Bible just makes no sense and no one, religious or otherwise, should support it. But look at what goes on: For example: There are several states, for example Alabama, where evolution is not taught in high schools and universities. There are states who teach Creationism along with evolution, including Kentucky. And look at the constant battles that go on over the issues of how science is taught in public schools: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/default.aspx?id=319 http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/05/27/alabama-creationism-bill-dies/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-nominee-for-alabama-governor-forced-to-renounce-belief-in-evolution/ http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-21/nature/evolution.enn_1_science-standards-teaching-evolution-science-textbooks?_s=PM:NATURE And as for the notion that it doesn't affect my life in anyway. Again, ridiculous. It affects ALL of us when we have fewer American trained scientists and medical professionals. In many places in this country, science is being taught in such a way that affects people's ability to pursue true scientific careers. You really want to sit there and argue that this does not affect all Americans? I use science and medicine, so it affects me. Maybe you just pray, so you feel it doesn't affect you. [&:]

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language. That concepts precede language has been pretty much settled since Piaget. Not all concepts, of course. The development of language rather quickly allows us to expand our cognitive life immeasurably. But far from requiring language, some concepts remain beyond the capability of both our languages and our reason. It's not concepts of divinity, sacredness, or deity that require language, it's highly particular, narrow, doctrinaire characterizations of them. Nor am I saying that out of some personal bias toward theism: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Now as it happens, there are innumerable threads in the P&R area about topics of which I know little or nothing, and which I therefore have the decency not to pollute with facts of my own invention. It is possible that your enjoyment of the forum might be enhanced by adopting a similar policy. K. You failed to explain what was requested. Your wordy detour into related topics does not address the issue. It still stands that humans cannot explain the properties of a deity to each other without the use of language. The fact that a human individually possibly could comprehend the existence of a deity without language is of no value in this context that required SHARING of that information between several individuals. And I wasn't questioning or criticizing your knowledge or your diligent references. I was making a proposal that you treat other people with due respect for their person. You can attack their opinions all you want - but keep it clean and free of personal attacks, please. "Go for the ball, not the man". Although well hidden in rhetoric, your last statement is extremely venomous in its insinuations about me, and my response to it is that I will take care of that myself. I take your response as a declaration of ignorance on your part.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language. That concepts precede language has been pretty much settled since Piaget. Not all concepts, of course. The development of language rather quickly allows us to expand our cognitive life immeasurably. But far from requiring language, some concepts remain beyond the capability of both our languages and our reason. It's not concepts of divinity, sacredness, or deity that require language, it's highly particular, narrow, doctrinaire characterizations of them. Nor am I saying that out of some personal bias toward theism: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Now as it happens, there are innumerable threads in the P&R area about topics of which I know little or nothing, and which I therefore have the decency not to pollute with facts of my own invention. It is possible that your enjoyment of the forum might be enhanced by adopting a similar policy. K. You failed to explain what was requested. Your wordy detour into related topics does not address the issue. It still stands that humans cannot explain the properties of a deity to each other without the use of language. The fact that a human individually possibly could comprehend the existence of a deity without language is of no value in this context that required SHARING of that information between several individuals. And I wasn't questioning or criticizing your knowledge or your diligent references. I was making a proposal that you treat other people with due respect for their person. You can attack their opinions all you want - but keep it clean and free of personal attacks, please. "Go for the ball, not the man". Although well hidden in rhetoric, your last statement is extremely venomous in its insinuations about me, and my response to it is that I will take care of that myself. I take your response as a declaration of ignorance on your part. You can't change the question and then claim it wasn't answered. You asked for the concept of a deity. That's been effectively dis-proven. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:24:37 PM)
FR_ I can do it wordlessly, by leading you to a tree and having you hug it. Me, I will laugh like woody woodpecker, cuz I know it is bullshit.

thompsonx -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 4:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ~Fast Reply~ What is truly amazing to me is that whenever these "discussions" arise, the atheists always seem to need to fall back on the concept that people who believe in God are ignorant and without the ability to understand reality. If you believe that the earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago then that belief is truly ignorant quote: The "believers" never resort to such means to "prove" their point. What does that say about each side? The"believers" typically resort to "the bible says so" that says a lot about level of ignorance of the believers quote: As for those who rant and bitch about their schooling and how God and religion was banged into their head. To point out the reality of a situation is hardly a rant quote: As is quite clear from the more intelligent "believers," the arguments put forth by most atheists don't hold water in the long run. Which arguement does not hold water? The one that says the sun and not the earth is the center of our solar system? quote: Stupidity of saying that a deity can't exist without language No...stupidity is someone insisting that a diety exist because they believe it does and that I have to believe this insipid nonsense or be forever consigned to burn in hell quote: or that the concept of one God didn't exist until some people made it up Are you really saying that a concept, any concept, can exist without some sentient being thinking of it?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 4:48:38 PM)
FR The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance, pathogen virulence and pathogen subversion of the immune system. In other words, Darwinian evolution is the foundation for the scientific understanding of some very fundamental medical issues. Again, anyone (I mean generally) who thinks god has all the answers should just not go to the doctor. Large parts of medicine today are based on DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, something that the Church rejects. We destroy science in this country by continuing these types of idiotic debates about whether evolution should be taught, and whether creationism and/or intelligent design should be taught. The answer is, in a SCIENCE class, it is DARWINIAN EVOLUTION that is important for students to understand. Creationism and even intelligent design do not speak to the type of process that has helped researchers understand bacterial and viral infection and their relation to the human immune system. The Bible tells us NOTHING that is helpful with regards to these specific medical issues. And again, for people who think this is not a current debate in public schools: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/default.aspx?id=319

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language. That concepts precede language has been pretty much settled since Piaget. Not all concepts, of course. The development of language rather quickly allows us to expand our cognitive life immeasurably. But far from requiring language, some concepts remain beyond the capability of both our languages and our reason. It's not concepts of divinity, sacredness, or deity that require language, it's highly particular, narrow, doctrinaire characterizations of them. Nor am I saying that out of some personal bias toward theism: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Now as it happens, there are innumerable threads in the P&R area about topics of which I know little or nothing, and which I therefore have the decency not to pollute with facts of my own invention. It is possible that your enjoyment of the forum might be enhanced by adopting a similar policy. K. You failed to explain what was requested. Your wordy detour into related topics does not address the issue. It still stands that humans cannot explain the properties of a deity to each other without the use of language. The fact that a human individually possibly could comprehend the existence of a deity without language is of no value in this context that required SHARING of that information between several individuals. And I wasn't questioning or criticizing your knowledge or your diligent references. I was making a proposal that you treat other people with due respect for their person. You can attack their opinions all you want - but keep it clean and free of personal attacks, please. "Go for the ball, not the man". Although well hidden in rhetoric, your last statement is extremely venomous in its insinuations about me, and my response to it is that I will take care of that myself. I take your response as a declaration of ignorance on your part. You can't change the question and then claim it wasn't answered. You asked for the concept of a deity. That's been effectively dis-proven. Peace and comfort, Michael I am not changing the question. I am just offering some additional ways of possibly answering it. And so far, NO part oo version of it has been answered, and NO ONE has explained to me how the concept OR the properties of a deity can be communicated between humans without use of language. I will accept ANY approach that makes sense and uses logic and verifiable observation to demonstrate that the existence, the properties of, or some other intrinsic features of a deity can indeed be communicated between humans without the use of language. It would be interesting to know how two humans, without the use of language, can communicate that they are actually worshiping the same god... And UNTIL somebody can provide that explanation, in plain words that are understandable to people in this forum, then tweakabelle's original thesis stands unchallenged.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Large parts of medicine today are based on DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, something that the Church rejects. "The Church" eh? This statement alone provides sufficient basis to indict both your motives and your erudition. Vatican official, professor dismayed by Christian groups that reject evolution A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible. Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church... Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century United Methodist Church on Science and Technology We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.. The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum. Try again when you know what you're talking about. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:50:36 PM)
From the article you yourself cited: "Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design." Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class. Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories." The article you cite is talking about intelligent design. And that is NOT the same thing as Darwinian Evolution. And this is partly why what is happening is so very wrong. People get too easily confused, as you did The Church still wants creationism/intelligent design taught in science courses. The Church does not endorse Darwin's theories. I will repeat. In a science course in the U.S., it is Darwinian Evolution that needs to be taught; not creationism and/or intelligent design. I stand by what I've said. If you want to go to "doctors" who have only studied intelligent design feel free to do so. The rest of us will stick with science, thanks, though.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess The article you cite is talking about intelligent design. Bullshit. Read with your eyes open. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess The article you cite is talking about intelligent design. Bullshit. Read with your eyes open. K. The following is quoted from the article YOU cited. I didn't write this. And I didn't cite this. You cited it. If you don't like what it says, then don't cite it. You can't criticize me for what is in this article. quote: "Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design." Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class. Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories."

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess The article you cite is talking about intelligent design. And that is NOT the same thing as Darwinian Evolution The problem you face is that other people can read too, people intelligent enough to read the whole article and judge for themselves the accuracy of your characterization instead of just taking your word for it. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess You can't criticize me for what is in this article. I'm criticizing you for something else. See if you can figure out what that is. Let me know if you need a hint. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:43:00 PM)
You want to only focus on the part of the article that says evolution is not incompatible with faith. The article then goes on to explain that the evolution they are talking about is intelligent design. Intelligent design is NOT Darwinian Evolution. The article does not endorse teaching only Darwinian Evolution in schools. It does not say that. It supports the teaching of intelligent design. And throughout this thread I have been endorsing teaching Darwinian Evolution in Science and NOT teaching creationism and/or intelligent design.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess You want to only focus on the part of the article that says evolution is not incompatible with faith. The article then goes on to explain that the evolution they are talking about is intelligent design. Keep digging yourself in deeper. VATICAN CITY — A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible. Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith. Both men spoke at a press conference ahead of a March event aimed at fostering dialogue between religion and science, and appraising evolution 150 years after Charles Darwin's landmark On the Origin of Species... Popes going back to the mid-20th century have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution," Gennaro Auletta, who teaches philosophy of science at the Gregorian, told reporters. "Greater understanding and assimilation of such subject matter by clergy and faithful has been hoped for..." [Pope] Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design." Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms. K.

dcnovice -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 7:05:54 PM)
quote: The Church still wants creationism/intelligent design taught in science courses. The Church does not endorse Darwin's theories. By "the Church," do we mean Roman Catholicism or all of Christianity, which can be quite varied and even contradictory? Fwiw, I learned evolution twice in my Catholic high school: in sophomore biology and then again in A.P. bio senior year. My teacher for the latter course was a priest. Are you familiar with geneticist Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome project and now directs NIH? He may interest you.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625