The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage > Comments

SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage : Comments

By Rob Ward, published 4/5/2011

Not content with their choice to remove their kids from SRI, militant atheists seem hell-bent on ensuring everyone else’s kids are blocked from exposure to Christianity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 60
  7. 61
  8. 62
  9. All
Teaching children about talking snakes and pregnant virgins has no place in the modern school curriculum.
There should no provision for prayer in schools
Just as there should be no provision for thinking in churces.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob,

Christianity (as opposed the Christ's own example) has, and continues, to walk hand in hand with consumerism - they're partners in the Western world.

You talk of telling a few Bible stories and instilling a few values....but the whole schooling paradigm is one of collective indoctrination into consumer society. It's covert role (aside from the tree R's) is to train up children to unthinkingly obey the dictates of a society obsessed with material gain.

Ever since the Protestant work ethic took hold, we've been rolling ever forward in our quest away from cooperative enterprise toward a competitive, individualistic and centralised paradigm - but this is aided and abetted by all pertinent institutions in our society including the church - it's a partnership which keeps the cash registers ringing.

The Golden Rule is a universal tenet - as you should know, Christianity is not the sole font of wisdom in this world - and it might also be construed as a call to respect "human rights" - something I believe Christ would have supported wholeheartedly.

It's interesting that you preceded every mention of atheist or secular with the word "militant".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing you can guarantee is that any member of the Christian lobby will reflexively link "militant" with any criticism, whether secularist, humanist, atheist, or other religionist.

The alternative to SRE/SRI being offered through such programs as the NSW Ethics seminars are attacked, as are alternative SRE provisions. As a retired teacher and school principal, I remember the fuss when the Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to minister to their particular flock. Resistance to any alteration to the special privilege that mainstream Christian denominations have had regarding access to public school students - it is a form of marketing after all, has always been common.

The resistance to the AOGs coming into the schools was another example I had direct experience of back in the 1980s.

However, it must be said, my deepest criticism of Ward's position is reserved for demanding that the only alternative should be "self-directed learning, under the watchful eye of a school teacher." I'd rather see a productive seminar on Ethics thanks.

There there Mr Ward; neither of us believe in Zeus or Odin, it's just that some people believe in one less god than you. Morality predates religion - not the other way around.
Posted by jimoctec, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:29:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" ... the truth that one cannot understand Western literature without understanding the Bible."

That is a lie for several reasons:
1. It is possible to understand western literature without reference to the bible,
2. understanding the Bible is extremely difficult even for Christian theologians - they frequently admit they take decades to try to do so,
3. the Bible stories are unverified by contemporary writings,
4. the Bible stories are often contradictory e.g the 2 versions of creation, the contradictions about resurrection witnesses, etc.
.........................

"Only the most churlish deny that Jesus was a good man whose teachings offer us much. No credible historian doubts his historicity."

No credible historian has produced extra-Biblical literary evidence or archaeological evidence to verify his historicity.

As for being a universally "good man" - he was charged, convicted and punished for sedition. Much of his writing are about favouring him or his teachings, and denigrating those who do not follow them.
.................................

"It is a simple fact that culture derives from who or what a society values most."

Culture and Society are not universals in any country. Their variability, diversity and intermittent cross-over means there is not a single "who" or even an oligarchy of them.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In NSW the primary school curriculum includes "comparative religion" (though I'm not sure about the curriculum in Victoria). In NSW, this gives children in Years 5 and 6 exposure to religions and their texts including the bible, without having the beliefs pushed onto them. Why should children be proselytized at a public school during school hours, especially if their parents don't want this to happen? Why are religions so afraid of alternatives to SRI for children? Is it because they feel that if people are only proselytized as adults that many more of them won't choose religion?
As for Gillard, she has just been pandering to right-wing Christians from Qld in search of their votes (hence her election promise to increase funding for school chaplains). She shouldn't bother: they didn't vote for her anyway. If the High Court case to be heard this month rules that Federal funding for school chaplains is unconstitutional, she should thank the proponents of the case for saving the Govt a lot of money which was promised in search of votes the ALP didn't get.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:42:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Just three parents and a few militant secularists " - a lobby group, Rob?

"the Golden Rule" is universal, and pre-dated Christianity, Rob.

The reference to *intolerance* is so hypocritical ...

Exposing kids to values which post-date Christianity and its tribe-obsessed idolatry of a persecuted figure can’t be all bad
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:42:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For someone who is opposed to toxic rhetoric this article was full of it.

Militant atheists are not people who seek a secular approach to schooling. Young children need to make up their own minds about their spirituality and should not have it foisted apon them by taxpayers who won't all be Christians.

A militant atheist might be defined as one who wishes to ban religion altogether. The parents mentioned in the article only seek for children to be protected against proselytising agendas. They are not as I see it arguing that children from Christian families be denied access to Christian teachings in their private lives. There is more than enough out-of-school programs such as Church, Sunday School, Bible classes and youth groups administered by the Christian Churches.

I found this article to be quite hostile in its attack on atheists and secularism. Try living in places like Iran where Christians are persecuted and you might in your ivory tower understand why secularism is the only civilised way to go.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:44:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are at least 8 hours in every primary student's day when parents could impart religious beliefs and teaching, if it matters to them. The SRI time could more usefully be spent teaching comparative religion and belief systems, such as atheism and ethics, or better still, just teaching the crowded curriculum.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:45:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob we 'militant atheists' are not, in fact, asking for religion to be expunged from schools. Almost all of those opposing the current delivery of SRE agree that a knowledge of religion's role in history, art, literature, etc. is an essential part of a liberal education. To that end, we absolutely support a course in comparative religion taught by trained, secular teachers without a religious agenda to evangelise and indoctrinate. (See, for instancehttp://www.reena.net.au/ )

Children should receive religious education - but not the religious instruction which is the current method of delivery. And, if you don't understand the difference, consider whether you would prefer your teenager to receive sex education or sex instruction at school.

What we don't want is children exposed to your particular hateful brand of Christian indoctrination. You know, the kind that makes the leader of your organisation tweet on ANZAC Day that our diggers didn't fight for gay marriage and Muslims - and then try to get himself out of trouble by placing the blame on others, and saying he'd only been on Twitter for a week - when, in fact, he'd been on Twitter for 14 months. These are not the 'values' most decent Australians want passed on to their children. Further, I would respectfully suggest that the name of the ACL is now so compromised that you're hindering rather than helping the cause of SRE by supporting it. You only highlight SRE's association with your organisations extremist, fundamentalist views. (I note that one of the few Christian organisations that stepped up to defend the ACL over the ANZAC affair was Catch the Fire Ministries - fine bedfellows indeed!)

(continued ....)
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:45:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... Of course, ACCESS also does a great job at exposing its fundamentalism. According to ACCESS it's no use kids going to their teachers about bullying - teachers are lazy, rude to the children, and not in the least concerned about bullying. The only thing that will get a teacher to respond to a child's complaints, apparently, is the intervention of God through prayer. http://mike-stuchbery.com/2011/05/03/831/

And then, of course, there's the Illawarra SRE teacher who entertains 14 year olds with a graphic account of 'an atheist's experience in hell' - all wailing and gnashing of teeth. Or the non-Scripture kid who is made to sit in a broom closet while the other kids 'enjoy' Scripture.

No, Rob, SRE must go. You and your ilk have taken advantage of the privilege offered to you and your great leader has shown clearly in the last week why fundamentalist, religious extremists with divisive beliefs which are offensive to the majority of rational, reasonable Australians shouldn't be let anywhere near impressionable children.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:46:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's so simple to fix this situation. Just make the SRI "opt in", not "opt out", then parents who actually want their children exposed to this stuff can make a conscious decision to have their kids so exposed. "Opt out" is problematic as it exposes parents to the problem of having their kids singled out from their peers even though many of their peer's parents probably also see no point in having their kids exposed - they just don't want their kid ostracised from their peers.

If the religious see a problem with "opt in" perhaps they should stick to exposing their kids to this stuff in their own time - like Sundays?

If the religious are so confident in their product they should embrace "opt in" and get selling!!
Posted by bitey, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The option of opt in and opt out is out of the question.
All educations systems are not providing the standards required by industry and commerce.
There are far better things that should be taught to chilren than SRI.
If Parents want to opt in their children then send them to sunday school and bible study.
I object to my tax money that is being grudgingly given to education in pitiful amounts wasted on SRI.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:12:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrys Stevenson suggests considering “whether you would prefer your teenager to receive sex education or sex instruction at school”.

Neither thanks; the “sex education” so many children, and not just teenagers, receive, is, IMO, far more of a concern than any SRE or SRI.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have seen the argument repeatedly that Christians are, or training children to be, "unthinking". Now I certainly recognise that some Christians are not of a high IQ, but let us just pause for a second and recognise the range of undeniably intelligent Christians in our country:

Glenn Stevens - Governor of the reserve bank
Kevin Rudd - Foreign Minister
Simon McKeon - Australian of the Year
Tim Costello - World Vision CEO

Let us have this debate for sure, but to deny all Christians as unthinking and therefore teaching Scripture as something that will make children unthinking is simply not helpful. I must say that I think some of the aggression on this forum is certainly proving some of Rob's concerns. Militant may be a bit strong, but there is clearly a very hostile reaction.
Posted by Nick_, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:42:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some athiest parents fear that their own godless lives will be exposed if children are taught the truth. They are happy for the fairytale evolution story to be told along with gw hysteria but are panicked by the thought that their children might learn some values that they themselves have rejected. Thankfully the Christian schools continue to fill up as the fruits of godless education and immorality is rejected by many.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:46:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick
You don't see any aggression on the part of anti-secularists?

What is militant about banning religious instruction in public schools? It is a militant stance that insists on RI in schools.

I would bet most Christians be concerned should an Imam offer to provide Chaplaincy services or RI in their school.

It is not about denying choice just don't use the school system as a marketing tool. I don't think that POV is a militant one but a very fair and reasonable one.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:48:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponde: You said, “Teaching children about talking snakes and pregnant virgins has no place in the modern school curriculum.”

I don’t attend church but your ignorance and arrogance is laughable. Even the atheist Christopher Hitchens acknowledges the beauty of the Bible and reminds illiterates that they can’t read Shakespeare without it.

So does the atheist intellectual Camille Paglia.

In truth, the Bible is full of literal and poetic references. There are genealogies and parables (life lessons). But like it or not they have inspired generations of scientists and artists (information you’d love to censor, my guess).
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelican,

I do certainly see some agression on the part of "anti-secularists", but that does not make it right either way.

I specifically avoided the term "militant", but no I don't believe it is militant to offer voluntary courses in schools.

I myself do have a Christian faith, and would have no problem if a school decided an Imam was chaplain or offering classes on the Quran. In fact I would prefer it to a school that avoids value and worldview discussions altogether.

In terms of this as "marketing" I might agree if they were putting billboards around the school, but presenting a viewpoint in a discussion setting I think is quite different from "marketing".

Thank you for responding though, and I do think your arguments are fair and reasonable, and worth discussing.
Posted by Nick_, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:58:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican: “I found this article to be quite hostile in its attack on atheists and secularism.”

I’m sure you’ll recover. By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious.
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:02:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Victorian director is conflating "awareness of" with "indoctrination in", and using that as his lever to impose 'militant Christianity' on everybody else. So sad.
Posted by philhart, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:02:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick: You said, “I must say that I think some of the aggression on this forum is certainly proving some of Rob's concerns. Militant may be a bit strong, but there is clearly a very hostile reaction.”

Yes, it’s funny how some atheist seems to manifest when Christians make a strong case. Trust me I live in the real world and they are a very loud leftwing minority (most Australians are not Christophobes).
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Some atheist parents fear that their own godless lives will be exposed if children are taught the truth.”

You have a point runner. If the schools taught that militant atheist regimes have killed more of their citizens than all religions combined last century they’d manifest for sure. They want this part of their “rational faith” tradition hidden.

And let’s face it, as the failed socialist experiment testifies, radical atheism in schools just leads to cultic state worship.
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:13:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Opting out" is central to the successful implementation of SRI in schools.

Schools are designed to instill in children a collective psychological perspective.
They wear uniforms, they are uniformly seated. They all arrive at the same time and study the same curriculum which is poured into them curbing their penchant for independent investigation. They are arranged into age peer groups...the whole construct is for them to get the gist that when they enter the institution they immediately lose their individuality and become clones of each other.

Under these circumstances, why would a child prefer to "opt out"- to be separated from the mass?
No....a child would not choose to be isolated or to be seen as "different"....particularly in an institutional setting where individuality is not encouraged.

The choice (if any) should be one of opting "in"...but, of course, this would not serve ACL's cause at all.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:14:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BPT,
I suggest you read your precious bible.
This time do not gloss over the countless attrocities.
There is no moral lesson in the bible that a normal intelligent person would not know through a caring upbringing.
Yes there are nice stories in the bible but there are also nice stories in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings but making moral judgements based in either of these books as well the bible makes for a very sick person.
I did a bit of Shakespeare in high school and did not need an understanding of the bible to understand the beauty.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:15:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Someone can be naively religious when young, and then, quite rightly, as part of the process of growing up, the naive basis for their religiosity, will be ripped away if they are at all intelligent, or have not had their inherent curiosity, and latent intelligence, crushed by their "education" whether so called religious, or secular.

Because it was all based on the essentially childish mythological assumptions of those "adults" who taught the young person the religious ideas and stories.

These myths are kinds of nursery-room stories, given by adults to children who were incapable of inspecting the veracity of these naive myths. Children are of course incapable of profoundly considering anything.

These childish stories are like the stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Rabbit and the Tooth Fairy. Like the nursery rhymes and mind-cartoons that are told to children, or to immature minds, and that are unconsciously absorbed as part of the the unconscious process of one lives and grows (as a child).

Perhaps it makes some kind of sense in childhood, but when the child becomes an adult, he or she must put these childish things away and discover what is REALLY happening here. A truly mature adult cannot depend of these myths. They provide no real basis for a truly mature adult life.

At some point, a mature adult person MUST accept that there is no Santa Claus, or Jesus, or the parental mommy-daddy "Creator"-God.

The "God" of childhood is not real. To discover the Truth about God and Reality altogether requires much much more than what the ding-bat proponents of this ding-bat SRI program advocate.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a funny article;

Atheists are "forcing" Christianity out of schools by stop the practice of FORCING students to actually attend it, and giving them a choice (which no less, requires parents to actually endorse this choice, suggesting that the parents are not Christian either).

As for "our heritage", lets see;
English language, British tradition, most of the inventions we use, tea, Athenian democracy, Roman Senates, most of our legal and cultural practices, Yuletide, Plato, Julius Caesar, Archimedes, most of our architectural forms, fashion styles, hierarchical arrangements, most of our stories and legends, etc
ALL derive from NON-CHRISTIAN- mostly PAGAN cultures (Norse, Roman, Greek and Celtic cultures within Europe, and outside cultures from India and China, and a small extent, Egypt).
In fact, many of these cultural norms were invented before the world allegedly began according to the Bible- and virtually all of them DID exist long before Christianity did.

And that only applies to people of British descent;
French, German, Slavic, Italian, Scandinavian, Russian are similar stories of their own- and that's not even including people from presently non-Christian societies.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:41:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick the view the absence of a a relgious chaplain (Christian or Muslim) would lead to "a school that avoids value and worldview discussions altogether" is the fallacy of excluded middle - a type of false dichotomy.

Values are not specific to religions and, considering the denial of many truths and avoidance of inclusive values by many proponents of religion, are more likely outside them.

Your first post sets up a strawman red herring in talking about "denying all Chrisitans as unthinking". that is not the point - the point of the main article and argument is Access Ministries approach to SRI, criticism of it, SRI, and spurious claims about western literature.

Complaining about the tone of arguemtn or criticism is also a red herring.

Nobody has dened teaching general religious education in the curriculum.

runner - you keep conflating evolution with gw. I presume "the fruits of godless education and immorality" exclude apples.

BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:13:11 AM -
whether atheist regimes existed, or killed more of their citizens than all the religions combined, is a moot point as the world has moved on considerably in the last 60 years. We are unlikely to see the likes of those experiments again and, if the revolutions continue in the Middle East and North Africa, we are unlikely to see theocracies again, either.

If religious civil entities can allow true inclusive secularity for all beliefs, as the Queen pointed out to the Anglican Synod last year*, then we will see the militancy on All sides diminish.

* "It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/23/queen-synod-virtue?INTCMP=SRCH
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:43:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again of course in my usual pedantic fashion: the truth about applied christian-ISM 101 via:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

Christian-ISM because it is set of ideas about Reality created by people who were mostly quite mediocre. The purposes of whom were invariably about consolidating and justify THEIR worldly power.

And like all ideas or isms the ideas of Christian-ISM are about power and control - not love.

The contents of the above website provide irrefutable evidence of this power and control motive or drive. Which of course is still happening. General Boykin and his: my "god" (penis) is bigger than your "god" (penis).

Plus why not check out the work of Tony Bushby, especially his most recent book re the origins of Christian doctrine and dogma: The Crucifixion of Truth
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:47:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need more discussions on the big questions on life if we are to culturally grow. Free will implies at least reviewing the issues rather than intolerantly ignoring issues such as the following:

Why are we here?

What is our purpose in life?

Why is there male and female?

Why do we wear clothes?

Why do people like the Salvation Army set up benevolent assistance to their fellow humans while others only talk about it?

Why are children sometimes a 'miracle' and sometimes 'naughty'.

Culture is more than enjoying the benefits and freedoms inherited from the past.

It is understanding and thinking not just criticising our cultural origins. Anyone can attempt to ignore the benefits of our Judeo Christian heritage but to deny it allows us to repeats some of the world's cultural mistakes of the past.

Comparatively there is a reasons we do not have a good life in Australia eg a caste system and human life is so protected by our laws and the health system. My many travels have exposed me to the alternatives so I am appreciative of our heritage and do not wish the young to be ignorant of it.

SRI helps develop theological awareness so bring it on. We should educate our children not deny them a broadened education. Let them make informed choices.
Posted by Muse2, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:55:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Muse2,
"SRI helps develop theological awareness so bring it on. We should educate our children not deny them a broadened education. Let them make informed choices."
Educating children in SRI tends to narrow a child's education.
They are too young to make an informed decision at this age SRI is nothing but brain washing.
If parents want their children brainwashed they can send them to sunday school.
SRI in school tends to assist Headmasters in their own agenda. Children opting out of SRI are usually ostracised.
Ethics classes can teach your broader education without reference to stone age myths and books.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:09:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear McReal,

I apologise for exclusion of the red herrings made of straw lying in the middle of the fallacious dichotomy. I will try not to do it again.

I take your point though about side issues, even though relevant, are not what the article is focusing on. I was just going with the flow really. I choose...spurious claims about Western literature.

A history lesson: As the UK was being bombed by the Germans there was a telegraph sent from the front line with 3 words "But if not". Everyone knew what it meant. If no one can tell me what they were referring to (it'll even be a challenge with Lord Google) then I feel my case connecting the importance of the Bible and western history will have been proved, as well as the need for more Scripture classes available through online opinion.
Posted by Nick_, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:12:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion is falling into the trap of arguing against what opponents of SRE have specifically *not* said.

Let me reiterate so that any future posts which misrepresent the opponents' position can be seen for what they are - rank dishonesty of the type we have seen too often from people and organisations which purport to be the last bastion of Australian 'values'.

Opponents of SRE do not advocate that schools should be religion free zones. We do not advocate that children should never be exposed to religious beliefs, or to the role of religion (both good and bad) in world history, art, literature, politics, culture etc. No one is trying to deny our children their 'cultural heritage'.

But, to suggest that what is being taught in SRE classes by volunteer teachers amounts to 'theology' or 'cultural history' is just laughable. Reading scripture to kids, getting them to colour in pictures of Jesus on the cross, or telling them that they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus as their personal saviour is not teaching cultural history - it's proselytising, fear-mongering and taking advantage of impressionable young people behind their parents' backs. We know what is going on in SRE classes because teachers, students and their parents are speaking out - and they're not happy.

By all means, let's teach kids about religions - all religions. Let's also teach them about the pagan cultures from which so much of our culture derives. And let their education include an appreciation of humanism, atheism, agnosticism, rationalism and secularism - not to indoctrinate them but to let them understand that there is a broad range of ways in which Australians make sense of their world and work to make it a better place.

I repeat. We are not suggesting censorship on religion in Australian schools. We are just trying to keep fundamentalist extremists away from vulnerable kids. If that makes us 'militant' then so be it.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:20:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article, Rob. The voice of a vocal few should not drown out the good that teaching about Jesus in classrooms has had over the years, and continues to have, for our society.

Much more often these days, people want society to be like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story - they want the freedoms that come from living in a society based on Christian values, but apparently don't want those Christian values to be taught. This, I believe, is a slippery road to moral decay within our society and a path for which I believe future generations will regret.
Posted by Doctor Scott, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:29:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage?
What cultural heritage exactly are we denying our kids ?
The one that show disrespect to teachers and authority ?
The one that feels it is OK to improve our standing by putting others down ?

This is a cartoon/ comic from Access Ministries it is part of the teaching kit that they give out to students in our schools.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5685211631_1bfa4f384f_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5021/5685210551_93eee38797_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5685778014_101e37260f_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5685212685_09d33a2d92_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5266/5685208521_93ea1877fa_z.jpg

It is had to imagine that it is complimentary to teachers or that it shows due respect for the difficult job they do.

It does not even teach children the proper channels to use if they are being bullied at school or the proper way for teachers to be dealing with bullies.

This is the kind of fundamentalist rubbish that SRI teachers are pushing on our kids and it is not good enough.
Posted by Dug, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity is a part of our cultural heritage, but then so is Roman and Greek history, and yet I don't see anyone calling for this being called into the SRI curriculum. Secondly, "Christian Values" are not in any way exclusive to the Christian faith, and are echoed in almost every other faith, and non faith based communities.

The opponents of SRI don't object children of faith getting their education, but that it is compulsory, with the only alternative being a non educational baby sitting time waster.

If SRI were an extra curriculum activity, the objections would fall away.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:58:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These articles are repetitive and remind me of little more than a child whining about not being allowed to have any candy. They always beg the question -

If religious education/indoctrination is that crucial to your child, why aren't they getting it at home?

If anything, it is an admission of parents too lazy to do any parenting. They're *your* children, not *ours*. Do whatever you please in your own home or church, but leave *our* kids in peace.
Posted by franc hoggle, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Comic "The Punishment" Again not really showing teachers as profesionals.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150235826907323.366532.701512322

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5685510619_71b870fcde_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5685510987_ceef2ed847_z.jpg

Are we seeing a theme here ?
Posted by Dug, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 1:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The monumental arrogance of Christians never ceases to amaze me. To accuse secularists of being "militant atheists" is the height of hypocrisy. Since the birth of Chistianity its followers have believed that they have a god-given right and duty to convert every other human on the planet to their own religion, and they have been, and still are, prepared to use any means to achieve that goal. That's what I call militancy. Secularists don't care what other people believe or what they teach their own children. All we want is the right to choose what we believe, and what should be taught to our children. That does not seem like an unreasonable request to me.
Posted by Neil of Ipswich, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 1:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Onward Christian Soldiers"
"The Salvation Army"
"Soldiers of the Cross"
"Defender of the Faith "

II Timothy - 2:3-4
"You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier."

And they complain atheists are militant ??
Posted by Dug, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 1:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear, dear the omniscient atheists, humanists, nihilists, freethinkers?, black hole philosophers...whatever, are up in arms again. Unfortunately the sad fact is that if you want to ban religious thought from public schools you will have to do it indiscriminately. Considering that certain other religions (one in particular will remain nameless) aren't the soft target that Christianity is, you haven’t got a hope in Hell of succeeding lest you run the risk of offending a potential suicide bomber. So put up or shut up. And on the issue of imposing a world view on others, your hypocrisy reeks. Most Christians don’t accept evolution but do you see them trying to impose a ban on it being taught? No. As usual the Left is showing itself the enemy of freedom of thought and personal belief.
Posted by Anthm1, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 1:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hahaha I misread that SRI.

I always thought it was SRE, as in Special Religious Education. When I saw SRI, I read Special Religious Indoctrination.

So honest! I thought.

Easy solution. Open churches on Sunday so those that are so inclined can get their children some of that there indoctrination.

Cant believe nobody thought of that before.

BTW: I don't see that the children who sit out of SRE are wasting their time. Time is never wasted. That argument rubbish. Most of the school day kids sit there doing very little and supervised by a disinterested adult. They can get a head start on the current trend of 4 hours homework.

But, in saying that, in a secular system, if there is any religious education being taught, it should be about all religions (Including Pastafarianism). Anything else is just an unfair monopoly.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 1:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to echo some other comments here - this article is either deliberately or ignorantly disingenuous. There are no official, front-line opponents of SRE that want to see the history and cultural significance Christianity or any other religion surgically removed from the lives of students. Opponents seek education ABOUT religion, not instruction on how to adhere to any given religion. These classes should be available to all students regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents (or lack thereof). The child of Catholic Parents sitting in the same room as the child of Muslim parents and the child of Atheist parents all learning about each other fairly. Surely THAT is the way to understanding, not to give one religion preferential status and excluding all the other kids from the lesson.

None of us want it gone - we want it to be fair and valuable, equally so for every child. How is it that this is viewed as a bad thing?

And a quick word for Anthm1 - Opponents DO want all religious instruction gone indiscriminately, Islamic religious instruction included. No matter how ubiquitous its majority, Christianity has never really gotten over it's persecution complex, has it?
Posted by Mitch S, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthm1

Exaggeration of atheism? Much.

And complete generalisation and fabrication of claims regarding "most Christians" and "the Left".

>> Most Christians don’t accept evolution but do you see them trying to impose a ban on it being taught? No. As usual the Left is showing itself the enemy of freedom of thought and personal belief. <<

Ever heard of turning the other cheek? Guess you must be constipated.

>> In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities.

But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s.

Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution.

In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" <<

From:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-teach_x.htm
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthm1, there have been enough misleading apologist tapeloops for one day. You are letting your persecution complex show (again). This really is an unhealthy fetish and only shows how much you have in common with islam - this martyr fixation that underscores you are both just another death cult.

No one wants to ban religion. *Comparitive* religious studies are a damn fine idea - show absurdity without any sophist dirty tricks, threats of hell or promises of heavenly glory. It's *indoctrinational" religious studies we object to. No, I don't have any hope you will ever understand why it is an issue.

Leave our kids alone you bloodsuckers.
Posted by franc hoggle, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:22:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BPT
"I’m sure you’ll recover. By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious."

Is that sort of emotive and irrational response the best you can do?

Religion was banned in Russia. We are talking about RI in public secular schools not the banning of Christianity. Are you reading the same article or have decided to throw up an irrelevancy in the hope that it might stick?

But speaking of Russia, it does provide a mindful example of how a government can decide the religion or non-religion of anybody and push that line in schools to children.

Children who will eventually forge their own spiritual path on their own with the influence of their family, their experiences and their Church if that is applicable.

Please explain why you think Imams, priests, pastors and the like should be able to access the school system to preach their religion. School is not the place in my humble opinion other than in a holistic sense and RI is freely available within the Church community. By all means have Rabbis, Imans, priests etal come and give a talk as part of a history or social science curriculum but schools are not appropriate as recruitment centres.

Nick
Thanks for you reasoned thoughts. These discussions are best had without terms like 'militant' being tossed around - you are quite right. Exposing kids to a variety of worldviews is worthy and valuable but not as a regular 'preaching' tool is my only argument. For me anyway, that is for the home other than in the context in attempting to reason with BPT above.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:22:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article. Congratulations.

Offering voluntary lessons in schools in the difference between good and evil can only be beneficial, given that some of the "lessons" provided in the home environment may not always be conducive to good behaviour and respect for others (persons or belongings).

Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world.

Given the range of religious practice within our multicultural society, some introduction in schools to a range of belief and practice should help to engender understanding, reduce intolerance, misunderstanding and bigotry, and provide a better world view.

Education is meant to be well rounded. It can not achieve this without some introduction to religious teachings and the role that such teachings can play in maintaining harmony and respect within cultures and society in general.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre

>> Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world. <<

Nor is using the philosophical musings of Socrates, Buddha, Ghandi, A C Grayling - the text does NOT have to be from the Christian bible.

Capiche?
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so full of hate is that what they teach in SRI? seems to be the Author has demostraighted all the things that us moderates say is happening.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 2:56:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob, IMHO the teaching of values to children is a parental domain, not religion. As such it should be a decision by parents to opt in or out. There are currently over 34,000 registered religions on this planet, many exhibit growing militancy and many thousands of these are of christianic origins.

If what you are saying is correct and even atheists are becoming militant, it is time that all children were removed from exposure to such conflict. If christianic religions cannot agree and have diversified so much, it’s all over rover. It’s time to remove religion from the curriculum unless opted in by parental decision.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 3:09:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed, Ammonite. The broader the better. Someone also mentioned ethics. Great! Go get it!

I'm just sorry some would throw out the baby with the bath water.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 3:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This page is a clear and unequivocal statement of the evangelical agenda of Evonne Paddison and ACCESS Ministries:
http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/mission/theologicaleducation/network128/Pages/Chaplaincy-testimonials.aspx
Posted by Neil of Ipswich, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 4:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People cannot be both "anti religion" and "secularist" since secularists are at the least religion neutral and most often are concerned with freedom of religion.

Unfortunately Rob, and others who have commented, think that freedom of religion is about the freedom to push their religion forcefully or deceptively onto everyone else. That is the opposite of freedom of religion, that is religious oppression.

The SRI taught in schools is indoctrination, and one eyed about christianity. The opt-out instead of opt-in is just a shifty old hard sell technique. If the proponents of opt-out really thought it didn't make a difference they wouldn't be so against opt-in. As it is, here in Queensland it is legally opt-in but hardly any state schools follow the law on this, and some administrations tell outright lies to parents about it. Here are the actual Qld rules for RI and chaplains: http://australiansecularlobby.com/PDFs/Education_Queensland_Religious_Instruction.pdf

Schools should teach cultural history, which would include the history of religions and a brief overview of what each major religious tradition embodies. They should also teach children to think about values and how to consider what is necessary to lead a virtuous life. This would mean teaching two fields known as ethics and philosophy respectively, not indoctrinating them in a particular religion. That is the secular way forward.
Posted by Dan Dare, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 4:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's see what has happened to this thread:
-A vast majority supporting religion not being part of the compulsory curriculum
-A couple of loonies who feel that forcing a religious scripture educator to get a parent's permission before being allowed to indoctrinate their kids while they are at work is jackbooted fascism
-Saltpetre actually making an interesting point, though it raises some interesting questions and problems;

In a country like Australia, how DO you define a religious representative, and what context would you put it under? The majority of each religious demographic in Australia are non-practicing- and in some cases (Catholic and Islamic) are specifically alienated by their orthodox counterparts (who are often rather extreme and outspoken).

Getting a religious representative of the first category would probably make a good integrative anti-prejudice effort- though would make an incredibly off-topic lesson with not much religious instruction at all- especially if you are aiming for a global context where large portions in some countries of the practitioners are illiterate, superstitious and rather extreme and insular in their outlook of the world- then there are the interrelations between different sects (Sufi Islam persecution) by Sunni governments).

There is also a matter of the roughly 200-400 Aboriginal religions, minority religions, pre-Christian pagan religions (and contemporary equivalents), to consider.

Then cults like Scientology, and whether you should mention the scandals around it, or for that matter, the religion's origins.

To get a religious teacher/instructor would require a person that is respectful to all religions, but very mindful of various social and political problems and is not afraid (or prevented by the school) to say them.
Anything less (more a glossy promotional class) would not be educational and I think, socially counter-productive to actually understanding different demographics.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 5:24:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious!

Mr Ward is in love with the word "militant" but it's obvious he doesn't know what it means!

At the very least, Mr Ward, please buy yourself a thesaurus so that you might expand your arsenal of emotive insults and slurs. Or, ask your programmers at the ACL to give you a list; "militant atheist" is so overused these days by religious activists that you give yourself away too easily, and where's the fun in that?

--

Mr Ward says "militant atheists seem hell-bent on ensuring everyone else’s kids are blocked from exposure to Christianity"

Oh dear... Lying for Jeebus, Mr Ward??

Is the atheist militia...
- blockading the entrances to Sunday Schools with their tanks?
- bursting through the doors of Christians' homes, threatening at gunpoint parents who want to say grace before tea time?
- assassinating your preachers and burning your bibles?

Of course not! Mr Ward is merely invoking his hysterical hyperbole in lieu of a cogent and reasoned argument.

If you want to force your kids to be Christian, then take 'em to Sunday School. Nobody at all is preventing you!

--

Finally, the suggestion that indoctrination at primary school is necessary to understand western culture/literature is purely a smokescreen.

The REAL reason the Mr Wards of this country want SRI is simply because they are insular, pathetic, narrow-minded, nasty little pieces or work, and can't stand the thought of anyone that doesn't think exactly like they do.

That they drape themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness is merely hypocrisy of the highest order, and it's a disguise that doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.

Mr Ward, if you _really_ want Australia to be a theocracy, then go pray to your God for it to happen. In the meantime, please stop wasting everyone's education on your antediluvian fairy-tales!
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones I have no idea who you are but I'm giving you a standing ovation. Brilliant comment. Thank you.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And people wonder why the author uses the term "militant".

Within seconds of the article being published there's dozens of bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, flippant knee-jerk broken record comments from the usual trolls.

How can any subject that's *voluntary* be oppressive or abusive?
If parents are allowing their children into these classes, they probably get the same thing at home.

"But why *in* school?", demand the trolls.
Why not?
Religion is a part of life.

The militants don't ask why sport or sex information or cooking classes or music are taught in schools.

Surely these are life skills or pastimes that could also just as easily be taught at home (and often are).

Is teaching Roman or Greek history "proselytizing"?
Is this any less practical in real life?
We learn about them because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge.

My parents opted out because they were Jehovah's Witnesses.
I got more than my share of home instruction in their doctrines.
I wish I'd actually been allowed to attend, as I may have seen Christianity from another perspective.

And my class time wasn't "wasted".
I caught up on homework.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:34:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sir/Madam,

Dr Cannold's assault on chaplaincy and his call to "kick religious education volunteers and chaplains out of public schools" (The Age)is nothing but cheap opportunism born out of his moment in the spotlight – Australian Humanist for 2011.

He wants religious volunteers and chaplains, who bring hope and purpose to the challenges that many students face, to be silenced while those whose faith is in the secular - the material world - remain free to pedal their faith in 'the human spirit', reason, chance and social contracts.

The high priests of 'secularism' in schools, academia, entertainment, media and politics preach and advocate a 'religion' - a hybrid of humanism, naturalism, rationalism, pluralism, etc. Whether by intention or blindness to their own incoherence, they are the 'chaplains' and 'volunteers' of a worldview that stands in the place of other religions.

As the 'evangelist' of this religion, the (Ir)Rev Cannold, would have us believe that his faith, that offers only chance and reason as bases for hope, is somehow reassuring for children in the face of contemporary challenges.

Leslie would do well to apply his reason to an overwhelming statistic - 98% of principals in public schools declare chaplaincy worth retaining.

Bojanco
Posted by Bojanco, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:52:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God Almighty ! Ten pages on the subject on the first day ? That borders on insane ! It clearly shows that superstition is far more prevalent than we'd like to believe.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic "And people wonder why the author uses the term "militant". Within seconds of the article being published there's dozens of bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, flippant knee-jerk broken record comments from the usual trolls."

Are you so naive to believe that Mr Ward's original article (not least his continued and inappropriate use of the word "militant") is anything but bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, and flippant and troll-like? Or do you have such blinkered vision and bias that you genuinely can't even see that?

I even gave an example in my previous post of the outright LIES that the author of this article espouses, regarding his "militant atheists" who are "hell-bent" on controlling others children. Do you not see this disingenuity in the article, or are you just pretending not to notice??

Sure the responses have been sharp, but completely warranted given the egregious attacks leveled by the author of his pile of invective and spittle.

--

@Shockadelic "How can any subject that's *voluntary* be oppressive or abusive?
If parents are allowing their children into these classes, they probably get the same thing at home."

If they're getting the same thing at home, then why waste school time with it?

Anyway, you will find plenty of reasons why "opt-out" religious indoctrination is oppressive, ESPECIALLY for impressionable children. For example...
1. Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs, and there is a fair amount of coercion going on to "fit in", no matter what.
2. Despite Mr Wards lies about children who opt out being given directed learning, this is NOT THE CASE. Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING.
3. The ACL and other religious activist groups have even gone out of their way to ensure that substitute classes in ethics are not available to children who don't receive religious instruction during valuable school time.
4. Ask me if you want more examples

--

@Shockadelic "But why *in* school?", demand the trolls."

The "Trolls"? Tsk tsk. Who's doing the trolling now, troll?
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic: More sophist tape-loopery. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, not only repeating the same trite, ad nauseam nonsense arguments, but adding "troll" to the accusation of militancy.

One thing that is apparent is that your voice and the voices of those in your camp are unlikely to actually require their children to be taught "christian values" officially in school hours. Your children almost certainly are already being tortured and deprived of their childhoods by being subjected to church and sunday school.

There isn't a single honest drop of blood in any of you. The real reason you are so desperate to push this indoctrination agenda is because it is one of the few remaining windows left for you to poison young and vulnerable minds that are otherwise beyond your reach. This is as disgusting as it is evil.

Stop manipulating our children for the sake of your own grubby, selfish, political interests.
Posted by franc hoggle, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:05:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:34:30 PM

SRI/E is not entirely voluntary, though. There are many situations where kids disadvantaged or are made to feel bad for 'opting out' or 'being opted out'.

Yes, many "parents allowing their children into these classes .. probably [give] the same thing at home."

There are probably many non-religious parents "allowing their children into these classes" because
* they see them as potentially innocuous expeditions in "values"
* they don't want their kids be seen to be different
* they don't get round to opting out

"We learn about [Roman & Greek history] because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"utterly indecipherable"?? You protest too much.
.................

"Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour ... places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world."
@ Saltpetre

You reckon?

"Offering voluntary lessons in schools in the difference between good and evil can only be beneficial" = a false dichotomy; a black & white mis-representation of the often greyness of situations. Christian focus on evil is over-the-top. The crucifix is evil.
....................
"But if not" ... connecting the importance of the Bible and western history will have been proved.
@ Nick_, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:12:56 AM

Nope. Not a satisfactory argument.
.....................

Doctor Scott, Wed 4 May 11:29:40 AM - Tradition is not a good reason for teaching ill-defined so-called "Christian values". Just teach the values: honesty, integrity, lawfulness (something Jesus didn't always do), logic, science, truth & its nuances (such as why the Bible might not be)
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd...

@shockadelic "Why not? Religion is a part of life."

1. I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion, not the indoctrination in one sect or another that the zealots such as ACCESS, ACL, et al are pursuing.

2. There is more than one religion that is part of "life" (in general). I doubt you're in favour of any religion other than your own being taught. Am I wrong?? Or do you in fact want diferent groups of children to be taught to actually believe in CONTRADICTORY mythologies at school? How divisive and confusing is that!

3. We shouldn't be feeding young children's minds with ables at school, and telling them they're true. Seriously. Prayers and miracles and resurrection and talking shrubberies and magical fish and creating Eve from a rib!? Oh just grow up you people!!

--

@shockadelic "The militants don't ask why sport or sex information or cooking classes or music are taught in schools. Surely these are life skills or pastimes that could also just as easily be taught at home (and often are)."

I don't know any militants. Perhaps you could point one out to me and we'll ask them, eh?

--

@shockadelic "Is teaching Roman or Greek history "proselytizing"?
No. Teaching children that the Christian god is real and they will go to Hell unless they follow him is proselytizing, though. And that is what is occurring in SRI classes in this country.

--

@shockadelic "We learn about them because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"Utterly indecipherable"?? Oh please! Give me a break hahhaa.

What a complete bunch of crap! For example, I was not indoctrinated into any religious cult, but somehow I seem to be doing just fine understanding my culture and its history, thanks very much. Probably better than you, in fact, since I wasn't taught to _really believe_ one particular fairy tale over another.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion, not the indoctrination in one sect or another that the zealots such as ACCESS, ACL, et al are pursuing.

I am an atheist and I firmly believe religion should be a compulsory core subject in ALL schools state and private.

Every school and every school child should be taught the basic beliefs and practices of both major religions and belief systems.

they should be given access to leaders and teachers from each and every group so they can openly question and discuss comparative religions, their benefits and their problems.

There should be exams set so we as parents are sure every school and every teacher is teaching this subject openly and honestly.

I would be delighted to see such a religious education introduced into schools and would happily support it being federally funded.

I do not want to support a narrow biased religious point of view being preached at kids as some kind of ultimate truth of the universe.
Posted by Dug, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If people feel so strong about superstition then well, bring up the subject in school. But, to accept a particular faith a person should be 21 or grown up to make that decision. Don't try & brainwash some poor kids who have no concept of it.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 7:42:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bojanco, your knowledge of what Dr. Cannold wants and believes is suspect because you don't even know she is not male.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can only add my voice to those above. I don't know any "militant" atheists, or any atheists who object to studying religion objectively. State Schools are no place for religious instruction, but should be a sanctuary from their often rabid parents. It is scandalous that the people's government is sectarian. As for Christianity per se; Jesus was a radical. Christianity today is a commodity, the paunch of politics. Jesus would disavow any association.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:27:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an appropriate day for the publication of this rubbish article.

May the 4th be with you.
Posted by morganzola, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 8:31:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Bojanco re. "The high priests of 'secularism' in schools, academia, entertainment, media and politics preach and advocate a 'religion'" etc. etc.

It's a funny old argument that Bojanco uses here; attempting to tar secularism by imbuing it with the trappings of... religion! Priests are bad now are they? Bit of an own goal there, I'd say.

Fine. So if you want religion taught at school, and you think the religion of secularism is being taught there, then what's your problem? Go away. You've got nothing to contribute here then.

Oh, but I see you've put 'secularism' and 'religion' in those little quotation marks, haven't you? So you really think there's no such thing as secularism, and if there were it wouldn't REALLY a religion anyway? But it's expedient for you to call it a religion just while you put up your little 'argument' here (such as it is). I see what you've done there.

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a counter-productive article. Its just a stream of name-calling, straw men and mis-representation. It makes no attempt to persuade or engage with other points of view. What is the point of it? People who already agree with the sentiments expressed might get a brief thrill, like a Gold Coast supporter when Ablett lays a good tackle. But everyone else will just think Rob is loopy.

"It is a simple fact that culture derives from who or what a society values most." Indeed. That would be freedom. And the attendant responsibility of freedom is tolerance.

This is a really simple issue. Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes. If humanists want to provide an SRI class for their kids who are currently made to twiddle their thumbs, then let them! Our taxes are being spent to prevent kids learning in schools. Totally daft!
Posted by sauropod, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Notice a theist needs to fly a plane into a building or blow

themselves up to be regarded as “militant” and yet all an

atheist need to do is speak their mind.

I’m sorry, but until the author - or anyone here who has posted

a comment sympathetic to the article - can demonstrate, in any

way, the truth of ANY religious claim, your arguments are all

irrelevant.

Yep, null and void - every one of them.

That you can’t understand this simple fact speaks volumes about

your rational thought processes, or lack thereof.

It all comes back to reason and evidence, people.

So until any of the theists here can do us the courtesy of

presenting enough evidence and reasoned argument to justify

their slagging-off at people with legitimate concerns about

people and establishments who haven’t yet presented any evidence

or reasoned argument, I’ll look forward to some more asinine

irrelevancies and total inability to differentiate between

political beliefs and religious beliefs like this:

“By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious.”

(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11980#2056

88)

Now that is some A-class stupidity!
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 9:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just been reading this thread and it is one of the nastiest and most abusive that I have seen for a while. I will start deleting comments if you can't express yourselves more civilly.

Graham Moderator
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author of the article set the tone.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:02:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
despite some notable blemishes!
- nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
Posted by Shalmaneser, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:16:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed Squeers. Along with some short and sharp rapid-fire responses on this thread that only seem to have been posted for the sake of getting up others' noses or provoking an emotional response.

And how did all those line breaks get into my post when it was perfectly fine last night.?!
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a former christain and former Scripture Union supporter I'm absolutely certain that RE and chaplaincy in schools is considered an evangelistic program by most involved. The spin that it's about understanding the Bibles place in western values is spin, not what really motivates. Maybe just enough truth in it to let some christains feel that they are not lying but it's the sort of truth that resembles a politicians non-core promise.

"With Christianity all but written out of the new national curriculum, what’s wrong with accredited volunteers teaching kids a few Bible stories and telling them about Jesus?"

"With Islam all but written out of the new national curriculum, what’s wrong with accredited volunteers teaching kids a few Koran stories and telling them about Mohammed?"

"Despite some notable blemishes, Christianity has been an overwhelming force for good." there has been some good stuff but the blemishes may seem a lot smaller from inside than out. Christain guilt and shame based teaching about sexuality continues to do massive harm to peoples lives. Christains are the leading lights in the fight for intollerance of homosexuals. Teaching on sin and man's nature as sinfull and fallen does a fundamental harm that I don't think we have begun to understand yet let alone unwind from our society.

I chose to have my son attend RE when he was in primary school because the way it was structured would have had him singled out if he'd not attended.

I didn't choose the lunch time programs run by christains at the school which were offering lollies and other treats to entice primary age kid's into their club. Nor was I informed that they were operating until my son had already been taking part - nothing like a few treats to get a kid's attention.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:44:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not going to buy into this one. It seems most posts are of the opinion type rather than actually looking for discussion (not a judgement, just an observation).

Another observation, and one which intrigues me, is the amount of responses this post has received. If you check back over months of this forum, you will find that the topics with the most responses (by a long shot) are almost always religion based ones.

What's that about?

Oh, and I can't let Houellebecq's comment pass without thanking him for his generous words about the entire teaching profession (of which I am a member).

"BTW: I don't see that the children who sit out of SRE are wasting their time. Time is never wasted. That argument rubbish. Most of the school day kids sit there doing very little and supervised by a disinterested adult. They can get a head start on the current trend of 4 hours homework."
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:58:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps shockadelic and Mr Ward can explain why RI has to take place in schools and not as part of the religious community to which people are involved.

We opted out for my daughter in Primary School and instead of giving the non-attendees meaningful work they were sat outside on a desk and given some crayons and pictures to colour in. Now it was a nice quiet time for my child but she could hear every word being said through the open door to the classroom.

Religion is only 'part of life' to those who choose it, religion should not be foisted on others other than in comparative education.

In communist countries and under Hitler, children were indoctrinated and forced into adopting certain political dogmas. Political and religious dogma are the domain of the home. In formal institutions like schooks, where there is no room for discussion and debate this is nothing more than fascism and history reveals it to be so.

While I don't liken voluntary RI in schools to fascism introducing any type of dogma as part of the school curriculum is a slippery slope.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank-you Rob for defending the teaching of Christian values in schools. Every Australian child must understand the teachings of Christianity, which underpin our history, culture, and democratic freedoms.
Posted by Tempe Harvey, Thursday, 5 May 2011 11:29:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Thank-you Rob for defending the teaching of Christian values in schools. Every Australian child must understand the teachings of Christianity, which underpin our history, culture, and democratic freedoms." Tempe Harvey
=+ =+= =+=

Except Tempe that it is not JUST Christian Values and History that is being taught in schools. It is the religion and religious beliefs of a very narrow brand of religion that is being taught to students.

Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism.

Or do you think they should ONLY be taught the religion you happen to believe in and all other beliefs should be ignored ?
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 5 May 2011 11:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert:"I didn't choose the lunch time programs run by christains at the school which were offering lollies and other treats to entice primary age kid's into their club. Nor was I informed that they were operating until my son had already been taking part - nothing like a few treats to get a kid's attention."

I swear I replied to this already. Weird... must have posted it somewhere. Is this religous stuff in schools compulsory here?
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 5 May 2011 11:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
What cultural heritage.
It is about time stone age books and mythical creatures were removed from the school yard. If you wish, the bible could be used in the study of literature along with Shakespeare's As you Like it or Harry Potter.
Do not pray in our schools and do not think in your churches is very true.
Posted by ponde, Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Is this religous stuff in schools compulsory here?"

Not compulsary but life can be made awkward for kid's who's parents opt them out of the formal RE components.

The part of my post you quoted was a lunchtime club being run in the school by christains that used gifts and prizes to entice kid's to take part.

The activities appear to have been a mix of games and christain propaganda (do the best at remembering the bible verse and you get a lolly type of stuff).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SRI opponents are not denying kids their cultural heritage, they are simply saying it should not be within the confines of a liberal and secular school system.

That is the simplest way to explain the position of the SRI opponents in combatting some of these extremist comments from SRI proponents.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:22:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it weird the sudden objections to SRI.

Now, the Christians have had a cosy little free advertising possy in schools for how many years? Now all of a sudden they are very unwelcome. It has to be more than people suddenly realising they want a totally secular education.

What was the tipping point? How did this become an issue. Hitchens must be in there somewhere. Maybe it's the more multicultural landscape but when did these guests in our schools start to smell?

I find many issues that come about are actually trend driven. People really don't care as much as you might think. Like soccer in Australia before a world cup.

Suddenly, Humanism and such has become trendy, and the trend followers are picking on the Christians. It HAS some malice in it! There's no denying it. How else could the situation have been dealt with no fuss for the last 20 years and then suddenly be an uproar. I think private school envy (funding debate) is mixed in there somewhere too.

I can see why the god botherers are up in arms. Imagine making out like a bandit, and getting a free 2 page advertisement in the paper for 40 years, then the paper suddenly decides you cant do it any more or wants to bring out a new free liftout that everyone will want to read instead. Or you have to share the 2 pages with 5 other companies.

Any monopoly fights to the death once conditions change. Look at the Record and Movie Industry and their CDs and DVDs.

I remember the Commonwealth bank used to supply the school bank books and other paraphernalia to grab kids when they were young. It did encourage kids to save:-)
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 5 May 2011 3:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq et al,

Many 'secularists' are happy to have general religious education (GRE) given in structured *Humans in Society* courses (or similar) and many even want that.

Many 'secularists' are happy for SRI/SRE to continue as long as they can have alternative program/courses, such as Humanism; Philosophy & its components - principally Ethics & Logic; GRE; Anthroplogy; etc. as electives.

Many 'secularists' are frustrated by these being thwarted. By manipulation and control by religious politicians (eg Martin Dixon), and religious lobbying, by entities like the ACL, and the powerful churches, with their staff & $$$ resources.

Many parents are frustrated by the way their kids are thwarted by opt-out, by seeing kids frequently manipulated by lollies and sweets, by the control that one religion has.

Society is reaching a tipping point with this, in terms of more people losing faith; by the advent of electronic media, like blogs like this, providing a vehicle; and the increasing desire for more democracy in sub-societal entities like educational institutes such as public education departments; and increasing desire for freedom of belief, which ironically encompasses freedom of religion.

A key point is the religious do not realise they are "poisoning the well' for themselves by not giving space - freedom - to people of other belief systems. The situation will move so far past 'the tipping point' that they will, figuratively, eventually have a huge cannon ball running down a ramp at them.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Houellebecq

Sudden? It's only in the last decade that folks have begun realising they can reject supernatural nonsense without repercussion. They have always been there - but ran real risks of persecution should they dare state the Emperor has no clothes.

The current objections, now that we can speak up without fear, are twofold -

1) the christian lobby is making a last stand and digging itself into trenches to maintain their self-proclaimed god given right to poison the minds of ALL children, not just their own. The Jesuits know the importance of this to protect their racket full well - "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Now just imagine the Labor Party doing that with their party manifesto? I see no difference.

2) The vast sum of money being squandered on unqualified lay preachers. It is in the hundreds of millions. And these folks are predominantly from the charismatic churches - those who's fringes still handle snakes and want Old Testament law and punishment restored.

Everyone is blaming this on the secularists - when it is clearly a power grab by the christian lobby. People are trying to halt this coup before its too late. Stop blaming the ordinary mums and dads that don't want their children coming home terrified of imaginary hells.
Posted by franc hoggle, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:17:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, four things have changed.

Firstly, Australia continues to become far more secular. Most people, regardless of identifying 'nominally' with a religious organization in the Census, are not religious and don't want their children exposed to doctrines which don't accord with their own secular, modern, liberal values.

Secondly, the people teaching religion in schools are are not the relatively harmless, moderate Christians of our youth. These people come primarily from the fundamentalist, pentecostal, conservative Baptist or conservative Catholic churches. They

Thirdly, the amount of money being poured into the chaplaincy program is astronomical - and tax-payers are sitting up and taking notice. Currently, the ratio of trained counsellors to kids is around 1:1500 at best and far worse in some states and territories. It is clear that one has been sacrificed to supply the other.

Finally, the aggressive political intrusion of fundamentalist groups like the Australian Christian Lobby is becoming more widely known. Australians aren't stupid. They can see that a divisive group which stands for values antithetical to those of most Australians is not only having an undue influence on our government, they are instrumental in foisting those same divisive, intolerant 'values' upon our kids - and finding ways to circumvent parents' efforts to keep them opt their kids out.

We know that kids are being bribed with lollies and presents, and enticed with other activities into having contact with the religious functionaries at their schools. We know they're encouraged to nag their parents into letting them go on camps - at which the restrictions on proselytising do not apply.

We know that kids (and parents) are fooled into trojan-horse Christian programmes like Shine and Strength. We have the evidence these programmes are set up to bring unchurched kids to Jesus. We know that 'opted out' children are put in scripture classes - or made to feel so ostracized that their parents finally relent. We also know that young children are often put in SRE without their parents' knowledge.

We know this because parents, teachers, students and even former RI teachers are speaking out.

That is what has changed.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The hysteria of many surrounding CRE and chaplaincy seems to resemble a prejudice toward religion that is based upon its worst excesses, without regard for the fact that the worst of human nature is found in all walks of life, anyway. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater may mean that, in this disconnected generation so often devoid of mentors, we end up needlessly discarding the good that is done on account of the harm that is feared. Chaplains holding a personal religious persuasion are required to avoid any proselytising, and CRE instructors are similarly accountable for operating within authorised guidelines. Where specific religious instruction is conducted, the delivery is surely no more offensive than the presentation of the subject matter routinely delivered in English classes (often with greater bias and more deliberate values inculcation). When our census reveals that 2/3 of the population still purports to believe in the God of Australia's Christian heritage, it is a little hard to see sufficient justification for rejecting any objective presentation of the foundations of that faith.
Posted by Maranatha, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting question Houlley.

Further to the response by Chrys Stevenson perhaps it also comes from ever growing demands on the public purse.

Many people watch as essential services are reduced while funds are directed to fluffy projects that don't really offer a broader service.

When school-based Chaplaincy was offered and religious groups continue to enjoy tax benefits even for profit making enterprises the pressure builds.

It is not about restricting choice only asking that one's personal choices are just that, schools are not recruiting grounds.

It is never just one thing.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:50:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marantha, enough with the sophistry. See Chrys's post above. You are reciting the apologist "how to" cheat sheet - what you are saying has no basis in what is actually accuring and is, YET AGAIN, accusing the secular of hysteria. You are regurgitating propaganda from behind a mask of reasonable egalitarianism. Please stop. You sound like a professional shill.

Also stop recycling this - 2/3 *may* have checked xtain on their census forms out of sheer laziness, but more than 9/10 never set foot in church outside of christmas, weddings and funerals. Time for a reality check.
Posted by franc hoggle, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it is a little hard to see sufficient justification for rejecting any objective presentation of the foundations of that faith. Maranatha,

It is just that we are NOT objecting to any " objective presentation of the foundations of that faith"

What we are rejecting and objecting to is federal and state funds being spent on teaching children in state schools a narrow and often very selective version of one particular faith.

Why are Christians not out calling for religious education that incorporates all religions and all belief systems ? Why do they insist theirs is the only possible option ?

Australia is and always has been multicultural and multi faith why are these classes not reflecting that ?
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 5 May 2011 5:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is instructive that the original article here, and many of those supporting it, continue to voice the lie that those who oppose SRE are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' or want to 'deprive children of their cultural heritage'. How many times do we have to say it?

Opponents of SRE and chaplaincy don't want less religion in schools - we want more! We don't want children to know less about religion. We want them to know more. We don't want children's choices restricted. We want them to have more choices as a result of having more knowledge.

Not one of us is campaigning to 'preach' atheism in schools. We find the idea of indoctrinating children into atheism as offensive as indoctrinating them into any belief system, philosophical position or political allegiance. What we should be giving our kids is information and the skills to process that information critically so that, when they are sufficiently mature, they can make their own decisions.

Only those who are not confident that their particular agenda cannot survive a new generation of informed, well-educated, critical thinkers would object to what we suggest - an academically-oriented course in comparative religions & philosophies.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 5 May 2011 6:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can I repete what Chrys has said in capitol letters while yelling YES YES YES at the top of my voice?

WE WAnT RELIGION TAUGHT IN ALL SCHOOLS STATE AND PRIVATE, WE WANT ALL RELIGIONS AND ALL BELIEFS TAUGHT TO ALL CHILDREN. WE WANT THE BIBLE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS WE WANT IT DISCUSSED AND DEBATED OPENLY AND HONESTLY ALONGSIDE ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS BOOKS AND PHILOSOPHIES.

How do we explain this to Christians ?

Is there a bible verse that says "There are none so blind as they who will not see " ?

+=+=+ =+
It is instructive that the original article here, and many of those supporting it, continue to voice the lie that those who oppose SRE are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' or want to 'deprive children of their cultural heritage'. How many times do we have to say it?

Opponents of SRE and chaplaincy don't want less religion in schools - we want more! We don't want children to know less about religion. We want them to know more. We don't want children's choices restricted. We want them to have more choices as a result of having more knowledge.

Not one of us is campaigning to 'preach' atheism in schools. We find the idea of indoctrinating children into atheism as offensive as indoctrinating them into any belief system, philosophical position or political allegiance. What we should be giving our kids is information and the skills to process that information critically so that, when they are sufficiently mature, they can make their own decisions.

Only those who are not confident that their particular agenda cannot survive a new generation of informed, well-educated, critical thinkers would object to what we suggest - an academically-oriented course in comparative religions & philosophies.
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones "If they're getting the same thing at home, then why waste school time with it?"

You could use that argument about almost *any* subject, as I already pointed out (music, sport, sex education, cooking, foreign languages, carpentry, etc).

"Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs,"

So are boys who don't like cricket and like piano.
Deal with it.

"and there is a fair amount of coercion going on to "fit in""

"Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."

I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

"substitute classes in ethics are not available"

If these are so essential they should be part of the general curriculum.

franc hoggle "Your children [presumption: I have children] almost certainly are already being tortured and deprived of their childhoods by being subjected to church and sunday school [presumption: I am Christian]."

Troll.

"Stop manipulating our children for the sake of your own grubby, selfish, political interests."

Ditto. Leave your progressive utopian agenda, taught compulsorily to *all* students, out of the school curriculum.
*Your* children don't have to attend.

McReal "There are many situations where kids disadvantaged or are made to feel bad for 'opting out' or 'being opted out'."

Deal with it.
Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?

"There are probably many non-religious parents "allowing their children into these classes""

Obviously not militant atheists.
Parents making poor decisions is their own problem, not a reason to change the system.

"our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"utterly indecipherable"?? You protest too much."
Jimmy Jones "Utterly indecipherable"?? Oh please! Give me a break hahhaa."

Okay, please explain our civilisation's history *without* mentioning Christianity.
Explain Joan of Arc.
Explain the Sistine Chapel.
Explain the Teutonic Knights.
Explain Utah.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones. "I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion"

I sincerely doubt that, given what I read here.

individual "to accept a particular faith a person should be 21 or grown up to make that decision. Don't try & brainwash some poor kids who have no concept of it."

I doubt schoolchildren are in a position to question *anything* they are taught. Should we teach them anything at all?

sauropod "Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes."

And never happens.
They go outside.

pelican "Perhaps shockadelic and Mr Ward can explain why RI has to take place in schools and not as part of the religious community to which people are involved."

See above.

"In communist countries and under Hitler, children were indoctrinated and forced into adopting certain political dogmas."

And now it's your turn.
Recycle. Tolerate. Celebrate Diversity. Or Else.

Dug "Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism."

Why? What significant role has Islam (other than as violent invaders) or Eastern religion had on our civilisation?

Squeers "State Schools are no place for religious instruction"
Chrys Stevenson "the amount of money being poured into the chaplaincy program is astronomical - and tax-payers are sitting up and taking notice."

Why should the state *pay* millions for the soccer balls, pianos, maintenance of sports fields, carpentry tools, cooking utensils and ovens, etc?

Why is it the *state's* responsibility to teach a child to speak French, play the tuba, hammer nails, hit a tennis ball or cook pasta?
Shouldn't their parents be doing this?

"They can see that a divisive group which stands for values antithetical to those of most Australians is not only having an undue influence on our government, they are instrumental in foisting those same divisive, intolerant 'values' upon our kids"

Yes, those man-hating, white-blaming, Christophobic fascists-in-liberal-clothing have got to go!
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic, your posts show how poorly informed you are on this subject. I'm not going to bore everyone by refuting every one of your points. The extent of your ignorance of the subject can be shown with just one point:

"sauropod "Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes."

Shockadelic: And never happens. They go outside.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/forced-to-listen-to-word-of-god/story-fn6b3v4f-1225998981589

And from the website of the chaplain and SRE teacher at the school:

“Pray for year 8 & 9 classes today, especially for the students who have not attended SRE before and who will be bringing their own work to do in class. Pray that they will be quiet and that they will hear God’s message as Bernie teaches the other students. Pray for Holy Spirit annointing, power and authority on Bernie.”

For the screen shot of this now deleted post, see my blog:

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/religious-conversion-by-stealth-in-nsw-schools/

And, anticipating the next obfuscation - no, it's not an isolated incident.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

"Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?"

Congratulations! That is exactly what Western society wants - you have just given a spectacularly accurate definition of the objectives of educational institutionalisation in consumer society.

What's it got to do with instilling a narrow ideological paradigm in the minds of young children - more of the same?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JJ: "Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs,"

Shockadelic: So are boys who don't like cricket and like piano. Deal with it.

But it IS being dealt with, dear Shockadelic... That's precisely why the ACL's got a major case of butthurt over the legal challenge going on at the moment, didn't you know?

---

JJ: "Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."

shockadelic: I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

Bully for you. Do you want a prize?

Anyway, if you think sitting around in the library or playground is so fantastic, then why are we wasting money on teachers at all? You must surely agree that kids ought to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs for 8 hours a day in the library every day if it's beneficial. Are you really suggesting that?? Oh dear.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?"
Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:19:18 PM

Isn't that what religious inculcation does?
....................................

"Parents making poor decisions is their own problem, not a reason to change the system."
They make poor decisions *because* of the system.
....................................

"please explain our civilisation's history *without* mentioning Christianity."
That's what many want, as part of SRE.
.................................

"Explain Joan of Arc.
"Explain the Sistine Chapel.
"Explain the Teutonic Knights.
"Explain Utah."

None of these have any bearing in explaining civilisation today. "Deal with it."
.................................

soccer balls .... cook pasta?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:21:40 PM

Irrelevant 'red herring' fallacy.

You exhibit a lack of empathy and a desire to belittle:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2011/may/05/science-weekly-podcast-simon-baron-cohen

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780713997910
.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Dug, Chrys and others, I realise that many do want religion taught objectively, but I am also acknowledging that many don't want it taught at all, and this is often because they perceive that a proponent of one view will do more harm than an impartial surveyor of mere knowledge. Yet dispassionate presentation of data is no fair advertisement for the value of religion which is an essential component of any teaching of it. For example, I wouldn't ideally want my kids to learn 'art' or 'science' theoretically without a trained practitioner being able to show them from their first-hand experience how and why to appreciate these subjects. I think we can all relate to boring history teachers who do little to inspire kids regarding the value of their subject, yet a passionate teacher of history will inevitably risk conveying a particular viewpoint or slant and with little real harm done - I know which I'd value more!
Posted by Maranatha, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic, playing the "troll" card is an admission of a lost cause. You have lost all coherence with the rest. The one bit I could decipher -

"Ditto. Leave your progressive utopian agenda, taught compulsorily to *all* students, out of the school curriculum... *Your* children don't have to attend."

Uhuh. And what agenda would that be that I am calling for? The only thing I asked for was "comparitive" (as opposed to "indoctrinational") religious studies, if religion is to be taught at all.

You are so easily reduced to gibberish through inability to address actual argument. We're I of the tar-n-feathering kind of guy, I would say that is so theist...

I have given up on counting your individual instances of "militant atheist" and it's variants on the other hand (I would love to meet one by the way) to which you now add troll. All you are spouting is ad hominem, strawmen and a close to complete checklist of other rhetorical dirty tricks that would leave Schopenhauer speechless. To use a rugby analogy, you are too slow to play the ball so you play the man. And this, from the word go, from all concerned on your side of the fence, is all you have to play with and the only way you know how to play.

That alone is reason enough to keep you as far away from young impressionable minds as possible.
Posted by franc hoggle, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Shockadelic,

I've rethought my glib response to you before. It'd be better to use one of ACL's ridiculous "arguments" right back at you and see how inconsistent you are. Here...

JJ said: "Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."
shockadelic said: I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

Given that you think library and playground time to study is beneficial, surely you must agree that offering playground study time to only some students disadvantages those children who choose to attent SRI?

After all, the ACL opposes Ethics classes on the grounds that it would disadvantage children who attend SRI (presumably because they won't be learning any ethics - haha!)
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug "Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism."

Why? What significant role has Islam (other than as violent invaders) or Eastern religion had on our civilisation?

+=+=+=+

What indeed has Islam given us Well the first thing that comes to mind is "Zero"
The concept of Zero that we base modern maths on was developed by Muslim scholars, We use an Arabic Numeral system rather than a Roman one Imagine trying to work a modern society using XVii numerals ?

During the dark ages in Europe Muslims kept alive the philosophy of the Greeks they developed advanced geometry, algebra, maths, medicine, astronomy, and other sciences.

It is BECAUSE this is not taught in schools that most people ( LIKE YOU ) are ignorant of how much of our modern society is built on discoveries made by Muslims.

May I suggest you read a copy of The House of Wisdom by Jonathan Lyons that goes into detail on this very subject.

Christianity is based on Judaism how can you understand Christianity without an understanding of Jewish law and custom ?

Many of the teachings of Jesus were predated by similar ideas written in Eastern philosophy and religions like Buddhism and Hindu mysticism.

Zoroastrians was the first of the monotheist faiths how can you discuss modern religious beliefs without a working knowledge of how this developed ?

Our children live in a world of variety they will travel to different countries and encounter different religions and cultures.

How irresponsible would it be if we let our children leave a modern education system as ignorant and ill equipped as you obviously are to deal with these cultures.

Just imagine if they left school and thought the 1.6 billion muslims were all "violent invaders" and nothing else

Imagine if they left school and like you not only did not grasp the concept of but could not even spell "Civilization" A Civil society of people living together.

Would you have our kids grow up as ignorant as you are ?
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Marantha, by all means let's contrast the kind of class a trained, professional teacher might give with the scintillating excitement of an SRE class taught by a volunteer. Here's an excerpt from a transcript of an SRE class taken by a supervising teacher:

“The classroom teacher remarked that while these kids were normally quite well behaved, they were almost a polar opposite during the scripture class.” Control and interest was only maintained by the Scripture teacher handing out chocolates and lollies to the children – the reason, the teacher speculates, that most of the children chose to attend the class.

Transcript begins:

Handed out chocolates first.
Handed out scrap paper, kids to write nickname and class.
Then started setting up computer.
Questions on board to copy down
* nickname – explain
* what do your friends think of you?
* what does your family think of you?
* how would you describe yourself

Showed slideshow of famous people, kids to write a single word describing what they think of each person.

Very poor control of the class – kids screaming out constantly.
Then asking kids to consider “what we say about others, compared to what god says about us”.

Started playing ‘celebrity head’ ...

Then said no matter how else others think of us and describe us ‘the only thing that doesn’t change is what god thinks of us’.

Wrote down numbered list of possible sources of her own opinion of herself – god first, then husband and kids, family, friends, sport. Says she’d be up and down if she relied on other people, so “that’s why I rely on god for my opinion about myself”.

... Pushed the “whole new way of living” Jesus brought, that it’s important to not worry about what others think, but “to care about what the Creator thinks”.

Showed a video of a guy rapping about “how great god is” and that all the problems in his life are solved by the presence of god in his life.

... Finished with choice of watching remainder of movie [Napoleon Dynamite] or playing marshmallow game."
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""I realise that many do want religion taught objectively, but I am also acknowledging that many don't want it taught at all, and this is often because they perceive that a proponent of one view will do more harm than an impartial surveyor of mere knowledge."

Posted by Maranatha, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:22:03 PM

You are just 'muddying the waters', or 'poisoning the well'
.....................................

"Yet dispassionate presentation of data is no fair advertisement for the value of religion which is an essential component of any teaching of it."

You are just 'special pleading' for indoctrinating.

..............................
"I wouldn't ideally want my kids to learn 'art' or 'science' theoretically without a trained practitioner being able to show them from their first-hand experience how and why to appreciate these subjects."

Nobody can *make* anybody appreciate anything. *You* make that point when you then say

"I think we can all relate to boring history teachers who do little to inspire kids regarding the value of their subject, yet a passionate teacher of history will inevitably risk conveying a particular viewpoint or slant ... "

We don't want 'slants".

" ... and with little real harm done - I know which I'd value more!"

But it's not all about you. This highlights a key issue with those pushing the narrow one-religion SRI agenda - self-centredness; a lack of consideration for others; a lack of empathy.

Education has gone from imparting knowledge and superficial understanding to higher ordered thinking including evaluation, appraisal, etc as components of a deep-approach to learning to deal with reality, such as the reality the Bible may be fiction.

Check out Marton & Saljo's "Concepts of Learning", or the "SOLO Taxonomy", or "Bloom's Taxonomy".

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/index.htm
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 5 May 2011 9:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe, Chrys, the CRE teacher in question could have been better treated, being a guest speaker, and offered more support precisely because they were not trained. Not many other visiting speakers would be expected to offer their services without such assistance. Herein lies a real, though understandable, bias. However, it would be hoped that most CRE teachers come not to impose, but to add value to the all-round education of students. I suspect that you could have cited a more successful example. I can think of many trained teachers who are poor classroom managers, too, and many non-trained teachers who are gifted communicators. I, myself, am an experienced teacher, qualified in many subjects, yet found that when visiting a school as a CRE teacher, the job was much harder. Many kids were predisposed against my class because of negative parental influence and their own predetermination that my material was nonsensical. Although I don't begrudge this, these kids would not even try to wrestle responsibly with what I adamantly believe to have been creatively, objectively and sensitively presented material about faith and religion, its reasoned defence, and its practical application to everyday life.
Posted by Maranatha, Thursday, 5 May 2011 9:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am just going to leave this here.

http://www.godless.biz/2011/05/04/warding-off-christianity/
Posted by askegg, Thursday, 5 May 2011 9:45:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wow, what an interesting Article to stumble upon on my way to bed.. plenty to think about. There's so many good comments on here and then there's some that are..well - without education.
Someone said Ethic classes would be good, well I agree - but who's ethics - they're all different.
What do I think, I don't really know. I do think that school should be about the mental, physical, social and spiritual education of our young people, and after all, havn't most Australians been bought up with RE? Have they all decided to follow it? I don't think so.I have had my fair share of abusive teachers for my children, but how are RE teachers doing harm? Maybe they should at least have some educational training, perhaps the same as teacher aids?
Chaplains are great, they listen, and if you have never needed to lend the ear of a friend then you would not understand. I have been a youth leader in the last few years and these poor kids are under unbelievable pressure, teachers are too busy to spend an hour listening a child cry. RE says you are special because you were created and are loved. The kids ask lots of questions.If you were bought up in a secure family and knew you had a place then that is great, but not all kids have that protection, I have seen some awful things and had to report some. Unless you get to the heart of the child you miss the message they quietly impart. Who will catch them when they fall certainly not their parents or the government? Kids with decent parents sleep well at night, but those with no blankets or food..who is going to tell them it's not ok? Do you judge reckless kids in the streets or do you get beside them? Just leave it alone, They will decide soon enough for themselves what they believe - you can disagree but I am out there and morals in their parents would change their lives. Choose for your own children but not for the country.
Posted by Rebecca6, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:33:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrys,

Your post indicates the poor sort of example those children must have received in their home environments. If anything they require more education in acceptable behaviour, rather than less.

I agree with Maranatha, one poor example does not a trend make, but rather a bias in some schools against anything outside their rigid syllabus. Your example is also indicative of an attitude of total self-interest which is becoming so prevalent in our "modernised" society, and which unfortunately is being passed on to the new generation.

Religious education must certainly be less exciting and interesting than playing video games, but what is the preferred example for opening up young minds to the real world and to the complex interpersonal relationships with which they will be faced in adult life?
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 6 May 2011 2:34:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
askegg...yes, Nice article, thats typically drenched in the facts of forcing Supernatural on impressionable minds. Religions will use law or any means possible to keep the game going.

And these are the evolved and enlightened one,s...lol

The world see's them for that they really are, however the power they have to intimidate others in thinking their way, is no real surprise, it is:)

Leap
Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 6 May 2011 8:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic
"And now it's your turn."

How so?
How is the argument for SRI as a personal matter for the home/Church environment 'forcing' people to deny their religious beliefs?

You are the one advocating the forcing of SRI into the public school system, even with opt in-opt out arrangements. Do we have Islamic lunchtime classes, Bhuddist retreats for the weekends, Jewish teachings of the Talmud at recess. Maybe cake making on Wednesday lunch and origami Thursday.

There is already criticism of the failure of schools to raise the standards of literacy and numeracy, lets let educators concentrate on education. Pushing one particular religious philosophy without discussion other alternatives is dictatorial.

The resentment in this article stems from nothing more than a fear of losing power and influence over young and impressionable students. I would be arguing the same if there were any 'actual' militant atheists pushing for anti-religion classes or Atheist classes.

Real freedom comes from allowing personal values and belief systems to co-exist within the law, it is not about using the education system as a marketing tool.

"Explain Joan of Arc.
Explain the Sistine Chapel.
Explain the Teutonic Knights.
Explain Utah.Posted by Shockadelic"

Many of these topics can be discussed in history or social science as part of Comparative Religion and most importantly in the Church community.

Christians disagree about many aspects of the Bible and interpretations otherwise there would not be 1000s of different sects. Whose Christianity do we teach? Christians are not a homogenous bunch and each sect quite willing to criticise the other as in a recent article critical of the Uniting Church.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:03:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the note of what makes religious education different from sex education, metal work, PE and science:

All the other subjects are life skills and expand a childs' knolwedge base- particularly about how things in society actually work, directly correspond to workplace considerations, are relevant to absolutely everyone regardless of faith;
These things make children smarter and less susceptible to being drawn into ridiculous cults or other dodgy social movements because they actually know better about how the world works.

The other is brushing up on theological stories relevant only to Christians, world history that most Christians don't even believe really happened, and moral guide such as hating gays regardless if they don't even do anything to you, perceiving Jews as villains and regarding safe sex contraceptives and abortions as evil (ensuring that those who do give into their sinful urges, do so without protection, increasing the possibility of disease transmission, orphans and wellfare recipients).
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:53:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza....that deserves a stand ovation.

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 6 May 2011 10:24:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much fuss over a bit of kumbayah and colouring in pictures of a very white looking Jesus. Maybe he stayed inside a lot.

Some old guy who looks like Obi Wan tells a few fables about being nice to people and weird stuff about snakes and magic tricks and it's going to result in a bunch of homophobic paedophiles? Come on man!

Man I did all that, and I'm no believer. Mustn't work very well.

Nothing to fear here people.

Man, people love the hyperbowl!

Speaking of which, a few trend-driven humanists with a fresh book from Dawkins under their arm, gather together a few people pissed off they cant afford the catholic school down the road create a petition to make a little humanist ethics program to run in competition against the Obi Wans and you'd think the Worlds falling in.

Get a grip people.

I'd sum up the whole SRI with 'Mostly Harmless'.

The most effective stance is to forget the whole thing. No ethics, no comparative religion, no SRI, and just ALL children sit there glued to the TV watching Better Homes and Gardens.

We need Comsumers!

Better still, lets realise the fears of both parties as punishment. I want all the atheist parented kids to endure The Passion of the Christ, and all Christian kids to watch Al Jazeera videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages in Iraq.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 May 2011 11:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: "So much fuss over a bit of kumbayah and colouring in pictures of a very white looking Jesus. Maybe he stayed inside a lot."

H., I'd like you to go through this list and check off what you have *not* used thus far -

http://www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

What you have also *not* used is any actual valid, reasoned argument. I now have no doubt in my mind whatsoever. You are a trained, card carrying ACL shill - you and countless others like you spend vast amounts of time doing little more than poisoning and derailing debate on this subject on any forum that gives you the chance to do so.

You do not listen. You do not contribute. You just derail with nonsense.

Let me ask you a question - what would baby jesus think of your behaviour?
Posted by franc hoggle, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And A here comes the judge..lol...[ picture a angry fat woman with army boots on, walking very fast in your direction:) Watch out Mr Dawkins.

"homophobic paedophiles..you'll have to see a Catholic priest about that one Houellebecq. lol. and what are those truuue Australian values again?

If your problems are with questions beyond your understanding....its alright....we understand:)

The most effective stance is to forget the whole thing. No ethics, no comparative religion, no SRI, and just ALL children sit there glued to the TV watching Better Homes and Gardens.

A posed to Adam & EVE and the snake..lol

Sorry! I have to run to the toilet....lol....

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houel is realistic about what affects children in different ways is all. I’ve not ever viewed any poison in his contributions and opinions to discussions. Houel has certainly derailed me before with his sense of humour and some very clever insights on various topics.

I want religion out of schools and back in churches (mosques wateva) where religious parents can choose to take their young ones. I don’t want tax dollars going to specific religions for any reason in any public sector. I do want children to be taught generally about religions.

I think I just said shuddup about our Houel but yes I agree about the other stuff Franc but I’ll go off and learn more about winning arguments now.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, Franc - I can't think of anyone on this forum less likely to be a card-carrying ACL member than Houellie...he's probably sitting at his desk right now unable to type because of laughter.

He likes to give an alternative take on things is all.

But, yeah, Houellie, if it's that harmless (useless) why spend money on it that could be targeted toward a more relevant purpose?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:48:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Reading through all of this and there have been multiple accusations of "troll" aimed at, and only at, the posters that have an issue with these indoctrination programs. One would assume that's only because the accusers have already said "militant" 5 times and want variety.

There is a huge difference between "devil's advocacy" and "derailing", which is more akin to actual "trolling" - the generation of noise through statements that a person doesn't necessarily mean, but make with the knowledge that they will inflame and distract. If what you say about Houellebecq is indeed correct, then the only person in this discussion guilty of "trolling" is him. Playing a devil's advocate enhances and broadens discussion, and does require a modicum of intellect to carry off. Houlle falls flat on all acounts.
Posted by Beelzebubba, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Praise the lord!

Kumbaya m'lord, kumbaya!

Any posters who try to discredit my pastafarianism will all go to hell where the beer is stale and the strippers have VD.

His Noodly Goodness is watching you.

I think I've just proved it's impossible to have a rational conversation with LEAP (Well, we all knew that already) and this new franc hoggle character.

Tell me fran, how did you miss the bits mocking the white Jesus, churches behaving like record companies and kumbaya, and with quotes like this... 'What you have also *not* used is any actual valid, reasoned argument.' you may become my perfect straight man. You remind me of examinator.

Yes Poirot, that guy owes me a new keyboard.

Hey Poirot, am I speaking a different language? Or do people just pick out the bits of each post they don't like and go nuts, neglecting to read the bits where I also slam everyone on the other side of the argument?

I reckon I mocked both the religious and the Humanists in equal measure. It's so much fun to be attacked by the Nut Job Christians AND the loony left at the same time.

'But, yeah, Houellie, if it's that harmless (useless) why spend money on it that could be targeted toward a more relevant purpose?'

What's relevant? It's primary school. Colouring in and times tables. I never said I wanted to keep it, I just want to highlight the REAL motives of both sides. I'm not bovvered either way. I think really they should just send the kids home early so they can have sex before mum and dad get home.

PS: LEAP. It was well commented what Joooolia was talking about, and how many times do I have to say I support Gay marriage to not be labelled a homophobe by you and Ammonite? I hear by declare you immune to parody. I would have answered you on the other thread if I could decipher what you were talking about. Picture me on a bus next to a loony nodding and moving sideways.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't share Chrys's faith in the void of secularism. In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison).

Nature hates a vaccuum, so as we become more and more secular and religious people face increasing persecution, Chrys and his fellow secularists deserve to be reminded of the practical unjustness of their belief system constantly.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In secular countries like England, the US"

N0w I n33d a n3w k3yb0ar4.

Aw3s0m3 stuff

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is polite, TRUTHNOW78, to provide some form of reference - such an a URL, or a quote from an article, that sort of thing - when making outrageously false statements.

>> In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)<<

That enables anyone who cares, to find out where you dredged up such a bizarre interpretation of events.

Care to enlighten us?

Thought not.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison).

OH COME ON PLEASE !!

Telling lies makes the baby Jesus cry :-(

The countries you state all have freedom of religion enshrined in their laws and it s unthinkable that anyone would be fined or placed in jail for their beliefs ( unless they instigated violence or hate )

I am guessing you are referring to so called Christians who used illegal hateful or discriminatory language or actions against others and who were found guilty of such actions in a court of law or legal tribunal.

Many Christians feel they are being persecuted when the law prevents them from persecuting others.

Please let me know if I am wrong I know thousands of atheists who would be willing to protest for the freedom of a christian who is persecuted for their beliefs.

Sadly I cannot say the same for christians they seem pretty unwilling to stand up for the rights freedoms and beliefs of anyone but themselves.
Posted by Dug, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:57:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beelzebubba,

Houellie is perhaps the most hilariously perceptive of the articulate posters on this forum - he adds another dimension and adores nothing more than puncturing the three p's - pretension, pomposity and piousness.

Added to that he he was on topic and made comments relevant to the discussion - what's yer beef?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 May 2011 2:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,

"Sadly I cannot say the same for christians they seem pretty unwilling to stand up for the rights freedoms and beliefs of anyone but themselves."

I don't know where you "Dug"-up this bit of bile. Can only imagine you just woke up in a bright new world with no idea of how this idyllic setting came into being. Bit of history ol' son, your present freedoms didn't magically materialise without quite a bit of coaxing from a lot of honest decent people, and, guess what, they weren't Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, OR Securlarists! Your secular freedoms are a natural progression from a sound foundational past, Not in spite of it.

Next your going to blame the Greeks I suppose for not bringing democracy, philosophy and ethics to the West so much sooner, and thereby saving the old UK from having to go through the "dark ages" before having an "enlightened" age thrust upon them. Or are you going to blame Islam for inventing algebra, because it just complicates you otherwise blissful state.

Ingrate just doesn't really cover it adequately.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 6 May 2011 2:42:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do unto others as you would would have others do unto you" AKA "The Golden Rule":

"Overview:

The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. It is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

Many religions, eons before Jesus preached, held to the ethic of reciprocity, along with many humane values that assist people to get along with each other, Christianity simply repeated values that have been held by many different cultures.

Claiming Christianity as the font for all good and decency is quite simply a lie.

Back on topic the issue of SRI is another attempt by the Christian Faith to put its ideology ahead of the beliefs of others:

"Is SRI Representative of our Multicultural Community?

Quite clearly, the answer is no. In a 23 page legal opinion commissioned by the Victorian Humanist Society in 2010, Holding Redlich has concluded that “there appears to be a reasonable argument that the SRI being provided for in Government schools infringes both the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006&#8243;."

http://religionsinschool.com/sri-the-facts/

I invite all who are interested in open and fair debate to read the links from which I have provided quotes.

Thank you.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 6 May 2011 3:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, my "beef" is that your perception of "hilarious" is markedly similar to my perception of September in the US in the early '90s when the freshest batch of college kids first got access to this new fangled internet thingy. Funnily enough, those kids also liked defending stupidity from sock puppet accounts, or tag teaming each other, under the impression they were fresh, clever and new. It was *very* exciting, more so with every repetition. It is threads like these that Australia really does stand up and earn its moniker of being the "arse end of the planet" - that 2 decades later you can still find it amusing.

As for TRUTHNOW78, mythology requires no evidence. Both islam and xtianity are cults of the victim. They lose substance without a victim to persecute, be it the stoning/burning of heretics or immodest women, or when they have no victims, to transorm themselves into the victim role and support it with fables of imaginary persecution or the vainglory of a stupid martyrs death.

These persecution fantasies are essential in this fight to infiltrate and poison schools. It is the petrol in the tank. Without it, they would have bugger all to work with.
Posted by Beelzebubba, Friday, 6 May 2011 3:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that really is hyperbowl to call the Crusades and The Inquisition 'general coaxing'.

Thanks for the kind words Poirot.

'adores nothing more than puncturing the three p's - pretension, pomposity and piousness.'

I always thought PPPs were the public private partnerships I despise so:-)

I think I'm being socially excluded:-) Where's Tristan Ewins! So much violence. So much violence.

All this talking about freedom of religion makes me want freedom *from* religion...
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 May 2011 3:13:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)."

Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:41:54 PM

The few cases in England have been where they have broken discrimination laws, or done things like worn dangerous jewellery (chains) with crucifixes on them, but falsely claimed they were being persecuted for the crucifix when they were really ewaring a dangerous chain.

"Nature hates a vacuum" - nature doesn't hate.

Secularism allows for equal space for all belief systems, so none dominate, unlike the SRI and ohter special pleading scenarios.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 6 May 2011 3:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beezlebubba,

Sorry about that. I should have realised how transparent were our antics.
Houellebecq and I are notorious tag-teaming sock-puppet college types and it's time we grew up. (It's not easy living at the "arse end of the planet"- so perhaps, you'll cut us a bit of slack)

Btw, i agree with the sentiments you expressed to TRUTHNOW78 - I have an issue with indoctrination programs.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 May 2011 4:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'These persecution fantasies are essential in this fight to infiltrate and poison schools. It is the petrol in the tank. Without it, they would have bugger all to work with.'

Sounds a lot like humanism. Where would they be without their persecution fantasies at the hands of those poor old 70 yo Christian volunteers that they beat up on and demonise.

I'm wondering if this guy is a Paul Keating sock puppet but he's probably too busy with Lend Lease.

I like your 'Niceness is overrated' blog. Good work! My cup of tea. It's funny how a guy who has posted 2 posts to my 'established user' 9 million, decides I am a troll and a sock puppet, when he has an agenda (atheist site) and I have none (besides amusing myself at others expense. But as I say, it's not too expensive for them because they always come back for more.)

I think mr Beelzebubba, it is you that lacks sophistication, in that you assume two posters who have vast posting histories you could easily look at are one and the same just because they have a sense of humour.

'Btw, i agree with the sentiments you expressed to TRUTHNOW78 - I have an issue with indoctrination programs.'
Yeah same poirot, if the guy bothered to listen he would know that already. I'm happy for the monopoly to be disbanded. But he's like that Monty Python skit where the guy's looking for an argument. Lucky I'm happy to oblige.

Surely the SRI teachers believe in sky fairies, but their message ain't exactly 'poison'. Comedy and light entertainment perhaps, but why are people so threatened. Maybe they're secretly scared His Noodly Goodness really exists.

PS Beez, it's so 1980s to think you're clever outing 'trolls'. We're all trolls these days. You're the only straight man left. I think you need a shag is all.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 6 May 2011 5:44:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, Yes your quite right, I suffer from foot in mouth from time to time. Now! Just some news in, The ABC has just announced gay couples now have the same rights as heterosexuals. Well its about time.

Jewely, with this all concerned attention that anyone can read easily, I feel the wind has changed for a new course, and its great to see equal-opportunity stretch its wings and fly to new boundaries.

I understand the many great commitments one must cover in order to save face when the need arises. SRI in its wisdom has its points to which I don't fully agree, but who can have it all they own way. Well, and part of the many Jewely is a compliment to any intelligent mind with full respects.

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrys Stevenson "I'm not going to bore everyone [already done] by refuting every one of your points."

No, please refute them, smartypants.
Or don't bother us with your presence.

The fact that a story made the newspaper indicates just how *unusual* that scenario was.
Note the only reason any child sat in was the lack of available staff.
So your real gripe shouldn't be the SRI classes themselves, but the lack of staff.

Jimmy Jones "You must surely agree that kids ought to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs for 8 hours a day in the library every day if it's beneficial. Are you really suggesting that??"

This is *one* class, smartypants #2.
One class.

McReal responding to: "Explain Joan of Arc.
"Explain the Sistine Chapel.
"Explain the Teutonic Knights.
"Explain Utah."

"None of these have any bearing in explaining civilisation today. "Deal with it.""

The question was explaining *history* without mentioning Christianity, smartypants #3 (why do all think you're so clever?)

"soccer balls .... cook pasta?"

"Irrelevant 'red herring' fallacy."

No it's not smartypants #3.
You guys firstly assert that certain matters are the responsibility of parents *only*, and complain about the *money* spent on religious education, yet find no problem with the government spending millions to teach children how to play musical instruments, do carpentry, cook food, play sports, learn foreign languages.

How on Earth are these subjects any less the responsibility of parents and how do you justify the public cost of these lessons and the equipment needed?

Jimmy Jones (still thinking he's clever):
"Joan of Arc is... what? What does that even mean?? I don't understand who or what this "Joan of Arc" is... the words are complete gibberish to me!"

Open an encyclopedia.
Then EXPLAIN "Joan of Arc" without any reference to, or knowledge of, Christianity.
Do the same for the Sistine Chapel, the Teutonic Knights and Utah.
Remember, explain *without* the C-word.

"Jesus would vomit on you."

Hate to see his response to you then.
I don't have to turn the other cheek or anything else written in the Bible.
I'm not a Christian.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 6 May 2011 10:21:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
franc hoggle "The one bit I could decipher.. reduced to gibberish through inability to address actual argument."

I express myself in perfectly clear English.
And you wonder why I call you a troll.

"To use a rugby analogy, you are too slow to play the ball so you play the man."

Look who's talking.

Jimmy Jones (still thinking he's smart)
"I've rethought my glib response to you before"

And propose another glib response.
"Given that you think library and playground time to study is beneficial, surely you must agree that offering playground study time to only some students disadvantages those children who choose to attent SRI?"

If they feel so, they can opt out too.

Dug (smartypants #4)
"What indeed has Islam given us Well the first thing that comes to mind is "Zero"'

And can you point me to the page of the Koran where any numeric system is proposed?
A hadith?
I asked what *Muslims* have done, not *Arabs*.
You understand the difference, right?

"Many of the teachings of Jesus were predated by similar ideas written in Eastern philosophy and religions like Buddhism and Hindu mysticism."

Irrelevant.
Jesus and his followers had no knowledge of this.
Nor does one need to today.
Christianity replaces Judaism, so only a perfunctory knowledge of that redundancy is necessary, and the Bible contains plenty of information about it.

Zoroastrians? What does it matter who invented monotheism first?
Each religion is a self-contained system.

"How irresponsible would it be if we let our children leave a modern education system as ignorant and ill equipped as you obviously are to deal with these cultures."

If people want to travel or interact with other cultures, it is *their* responsibility to learn what they need to know.
Our education system is supposed to prepare students for life HERE, in OUR society.
Our society is not Muslim, Buddhist or Zoroastrian.
It has been, and still is, very much Christian, whether you like it or not.

"Civilization"?
I didn't realize [sic] we were living in America.
No need to criticize [sic] my correct spelling.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 6 May 2011 10:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican "You are the one advocating the forcing of SRI into the public school system'

I'm not 'forcing' anything.
It's already been there for a century.

"Do we have Islamic lunchtime classes, Bhuddist retreats for the weekends, Jewish teachings of the Talmud at recess."

Students can do anything they want in their *free* time.

And you're conveniently forgetting: this class isn't just for Christians.
*Any* religious group can have a class.

"There is already criticism of the failure of schools to raise the standards of literacy and numeracy"

So let's cut the sports, carpentry, cooking, music...

"I would be arguing the same if there were any 'actual' militant atheists pushing for anti-religion classes or Atheist classes."

What do you do in Atheist class? Sit quietly and not believe stuff?
Oh, you can do that right now!
By opting out of SRI!

"Christians disagree about many aspects of the Bible and interpretations. Whose Christianity do we teach?"

The same can be said of any other religion. Or indeed of subjects like history, science, art, music.

King Hazza: "On the note of what makes religious education different from sex education, metal work, PE and science"

Nobody is questioning the value of these subjects.
The question was, why are these considered appropriate for the state school system, and *not* the parent's responsibility, and both time and money.

Jewely "I want religion out of schools... I don’t want tax dollars going to specific religions for any reason in any public sector. I do want children to be taught generally about religions."

It doesn't matter what you want.
You want personalised schooling, then homeschool your children.

You live in a *SOCIETY*.
You have to put up with lots of things you don't like or want, because other people do like and want those things.
The majority of Australians (who are Christian) PAY TAXES.
But I guess it doesn't matter what they want.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 6 May 2011 11:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic

JJ wrote: "Joan of Arc is... what? What does that even mean?? I don't understand who or what this "Joan of Arc" is... the words are complete gibberish to me!"

Shockadelic replied: "Open an encyclopedia. Then EXPLAIN "Joan of Arc" without any reference to, or knowledge of, Christianity."

Don't grasp sarcasm, do we sweetie? Anyway, your request is bizarre. Tell you what...

YOU EXPLAIN TO ME why you think children need to be groomed to praise God and fear Hell in order to refer to, have knowledge of or mention Christianity.

I don't think they do, but according to you it's essential! You're not a Christian though are you, so I guess Joan of Arc is "utterly indecipherable" to you too, huh?

"utterly indecipherable" my arse!! hahaha
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Saturday, 7 May 2011 9:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic cont'd...

JJ wrote: "you must agree that playground time for some students disadvantages those who attend SRI?"

Shockadelic replied: "If they feel so, they can opt out too."

But then they'll be disadvantaged by not attending SRI, silly!

And on that anti-Ethics "argument" of the ACL and others, if kids who want to attend SRI would be disadvantaged by missing out on Ethics classes, then surely the ones who are learning to be Christians are disadvantaged by missing out on the Muslim classes. And the one who are being taught to think Islam are missing out on Bahai instruction. And...

Oh dear! So many children being disadvantaged! I wonder why the ACL only think it's a problem when secular Ethics classes are proposed, but have no truck with letting the kiddies miss out on other religious instruction or that oh-so-valuable sitting-alone-in-the-playground time you put so much stock in, Shockadelic.

It's *almost* as if they fear a secular ethics class would undermine the propaganda that you can't be good without religion! If people found that out, then where would the ACL be!?

It's also funny how these diverse religions band together when it's expedient. ACL (at the moment) has no problem with other religions being taught at the same time as Christian scripture... after all, it's all religious innit? You've gotta have "faith"!

But then of course, we occasionally see their true colours emerge, such as the egregious Jim Wallace's recent ANZAC Day twitter gaffe in which he let slip the Christian lobby's utter contempt for muslims, and gays, and really anything that's changed in the last 95 years since Jim's old dad was a wee lad.

And THAT is the real reason why activist Christians are adamant the kiddies must be indoctrinated into their ways: The Christian lobbyists HATE CHANGE and want to ensure their own personalities are preserved in perpetuity, by promulgating their pathetic little prejudices & pecadilloes to the poor little primary people.

Nothing at all to do with Western culture being "utterly indecipherable" if you don't praise God in primary school as you LAUGHABLY suggest, Shockadelic.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Saturday, 7 May 2011 9:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If anyone reading Chrys Stevenson's last comment is wondering why a professional teacher was required to supervise a volunteer SRE teacher, this quote from the president of the Queensland Teachers Union explains:

"Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said teachers were sometimes compelled to supervise the instructors "because of all the fire and brimstone stuff".
Mr Ryan said Education Queensland had deemed RI a must-have, though teachers would prefer to spend the time on curriculum."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234#ixzz1LTWRSedd

http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 7 May 2011 11:24:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess as unbelievers we need to understand that these Christians are not opposing us in person it is just that they believe we represent SATAN the devil himself and the hordes of evil demons hell bent on the destruction of civilization as they know it.

it is not sufficient for them to actually believe their holy book that the simple power of prayer is enough to defeat us they need to take on our demonic horde in every debate and forum.

To me this shows (A) that they really do not believe their bible and (B) that believing in totally imaginary beings and ancient superstitions is dangerous in the extreme.

People who are closet creationists, those who are anti science, those who are willing to terrify young children with threats to gain their compliance, those who are willing to openly lie to spread their beliefs have no place in our schools.

Somewhere someone told me I was unreasonable and did not acknowledge the role of the church in creating our modern free and open democratic society.

I wonder if they have studied any history at all, Religion has had a far greater role in repression of new ideas and freedoms, in punishing those who disrupted the established order of the world as they knew it.

For centuries religions and feudal Monarchies ruled with the fear of torture in this world and hell in the next for anyone who spoke out and asked for change or freedom.

We are still seeing priests and ministers vilified for offering a different opinion on controversial issues. To say organized religion is a force for freedom, openness and the rights of individuals is just laughable, or it would be laughable if it was not so sad.

To all those theists who read this, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE WORDS OF YOUR BIBLE DO NOT REPLY, PRAY FOR MY SOUL AND
ONCE I SEE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS I WILL PUBLISH A RETRACTION.

You all powerful God will command me to and I will be powerless to disobey.
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 7 May 2011 11:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I just remembered something.

As a child, I once had occasion to be installed in a Christian mission for several moths (long story)...and was fairly well dipped like a sheep into Christian proselytising - and I remember that they had mini comic books extolling the virtues of following the Christian religion.

The "only" detail I can remember of these books is one page depicting the fires of hell and an unbeliever's accompanying anguish - most disturbing for a child to see a drawn depiction like that - and I can't remember anything else about the message in these books except the hellfire. It's my abiding image.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 7 May 2011 12:06:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
Your experience is not an isolated case.

Some teachings have very little to do with ethics, values, love or humanity and focus on sin, hate and revenge. I remember watching a documentary set in an evangelical youth camp in the US and the kids were subjected to nothing more than immense cruelty and humiliation around natural sin to the point where students were pushed to tears. It was nothing more than abuse. It is the negativity of SOME who practice religion and pushed by SOME of those involved in Chaplaincy and SRI, many often without any real qualification that is of real concern.

There appears to be little screening and while not all who teach RI are of this ilk, many being more secular and ethical in their approach, the problem lies with power. As soon as you give any group too much power and unaccountable authority there is room for abuse.

This is the only reason I oppose any dogma or agenda being pushed in schools. (Excluding natural open discussion and debate within the curriculum)
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 7 May 2011 1:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic
"What do you do in Atheist class? Sit quietly and not believe stuff?"

I am not advocating Atheist classes? According to the author of this article there is an assumption that those who do not share the Christian religon are 'militants' and atheists are baying at the door with armoured vehicles ready to ban and criminalise religion.

They are not. They are reasonably asking that religion be for the home and that schools not be exploited as recruitment for any manner of dogma whether it be Marxism or Chritianity or Islam. What ever happened to parents taking responsibility for the ethical development of their children. Ethics can be reinforced in schools via behavioural expectations and by modelling respectful behaviours but not served up as a dish.

Like Christians, Athiests are not a homogenous group, the only commonality being a disbelief in the supernatural without evidence. This is not the same as not having values, moral codes and an ability to show love and compassion. Religion does not always enhance morality or compassion in the way that you seem to think it does, look at the discrimination against gays. It always comes down to individual choices about how to treat people, religion has not changed that simple fact.

Atheists as a group certainly have not idolised false gods nor have they burnt people at the stake who disagree with their worldview - these are not values that people in the main would subject another human being other than via indoctrination. It is the same indoctrination that led to the persecution of Jews under Hitler's Germany, the persecution of Christians in the Middle East etc. This does not mean Atheists aren't flawed but no more flawed than those who choose a supernatural belief.

Now we know Christianity has evolved from some of those more barbaric practices, despite some of the remnant language in the Bible, so lets keep evolving and move away from State sanctioned indoctrination within schools. It is more than just about Opt In or Opt Out.

It is about cultural maturity and growing up.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 7 May 2011 1:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm wondering how many of the christains taking part in this debate keeping in mind the bible's teaching about letting your yes be yes and no be no (in the plainest sense of that) can say that they really believe that most of the christian adults involved in RE do so primarily because of the importance of the cultural heritage aspect rather than the outreach/evangelism aspects.

How many think that they could stand before christ and say that when they thought of RE in schools that cultural heritage was an important issue and that they didn't think evangalism was a big part of what it was about?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 7 May 2011 1:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As all 6 of my children attend a State school and we are Bible believing people, perhaps I should have been upset when teachers taught about the dream time and evolution - all of which are only theories (yes people, evolution is only a theory, so too is the Big Bang - falsely taught as fact - do your science before you try to tell me off as you will see that there is actually no evidence so far to prove either - only theories which change with each generation of scientists including Darwin who himself said that if you cannot find a missing link then my theory is null and void). Perhaps you would like no Bible teaching at school but I and many other Aussies do, hence the 'discussion' - which some of you can't handle by the looks of all your criticisms. Whether YOU believe it or not is irrelevant, It is an alternative that has been taught for thousands of years. The evidence of Jesus Christ's existence is undeniable, He was recorded in many ancient documents and acknowledged by ancient civilizations; you think you're smarter and want to say he didn't, then your foolishness speaks for itself.Archeologists vouch for the Bibles authenticity; Did you know that Noah's ark is found on Mt.Ararat exactly where the Bible said?
Be values universal or of the Bible, who is going to teach them to children if their parents don't? we all know there are negligent parents out there.Do they have to be caught stealing before they evolve in their realization? Is 'not knowing' about something an argument that will win in court?
Only a fool thinks that the teachers teach fire and brimstone,that is not even 1% of whats taught.If you only have bad memories then I would suggest you didn't listen. The virtues that are taught stay with people their whole lives, even non-believers. If Maths, English and Science are the most important things to teach kids then why do we have depression, suicide, Murder? The key lies in teaching the heart - teachers don't teach that.
Posted by Rebecca6, Saturday, 7 May 2011 2:02:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Rebecca,

the level of your ignorance and misunderstanding is very sad.

Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are, based on evidence and many attempts to show the understanding to be incorrect or not a unique fit to the facts". It does not mean "a sort of guess".

Evolution itself is just an observable fact. Populations of life forms change over time. The theory you are referring to is the theory of evolution by natural selection. We have shown, over thousands of years, that the form of animals and plants can be changed by artificial selection, by humans choosing the best seeds or the best mating pairs in domesticated animals and plants. The theory of natural selection proposes that nature also does such selecting by the circumstances of life, death and procreation in the wild. Huge amounts of evidence have been collected and studied that show the theory is correct.

The reason this apparent derail is important is that religious indoctrination teachers tend to hold dogmas, as you do, against the scientific facts because of various metaphorical stories in ancient texts. Those texts, such as the Bible and Koran, were written by people who were ignorant by todays standards and what they wrote in this respect would not be considered valid by anyone who was not defending a very outdated dogma. Fortunately most churches have accepted this and moved on, but the RI teachers from Catch the Fire Ministries, as just one example, are very narrow dogmatists.

Children that are instructed in such dogma have a difficult time with science education, because they must prevent themselves from following the logic of the scientific method, in order to avoid mentally disagreeing with the dogma they have been indoctrinated into.

Using the school's authority to push this on students, and making the students fear contradicting the dogmas presented via these classes, is very bad for them and for the society that they will eventually be contributors to.
Posted by Dan Dare, Saturday, 7 May 2011 2:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, Rebecca, as to your other comments. Christianity is one of a great many belief systems. As with the other religions christianity contains factual statements about the nature of the world that are simply wrong and it also contains instructions about behaviour known as morals. The morals bound up in christianity (and its countless variations) are simply not universally agreed by all parents, nor are those of buddhism, islam, taoism, and so on.

The process of working out what is right or wrong is known as ethics. The skill of ethical thought does not involve being given rules and proving them to be true no matter what. Instead ethics is about seeing how what you do effects your future, and other people, and deciding principles based on deep thinking about how to achieve the best for everyone concerned and to minimise harms from your own actions.

The dogmatic religious groups behind much religious instruction in schools hate ethics because it does not automatically agree with their deeply held moral opinions, and can lead to students developing other ideas. So, here is the question, why should we accept religious instruction in one narrow brand of religion rather than helping students to guide themselves and develop their own wisdom?
Posted by Dan Dare, Saturday, 7 May 2011 2:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear Rebecca you know telling lies for Jesus makes him cry.

No ark ship vessel or any evidence of such has ever been found on any mountain anywhere in the world. Regardless of repeated claims it is just not true.

If you can point me to a published thesis that has been reviewed and tested that support this THEORY then please post it here for out edification.

Unless sound science based evidence is produced to support your theory then it is even less valid than the big bang or evolution.

Regarding the teaching of evolution no decent science teacher would ever teach a theory as a fact. One of the basics of science is to properly explain what a theory is and how it can never be proved only ever disproved.

For over 150 years many have tried to disprove evolution as a theory and all have failed in every attempt, it remains the best explanation for how life developed on earth. the same for the Big Bang it is the best and most supported theory we have available.

If you are ignorant of these FACTS please take the effort to educate yourself before posting and displaying your ignorance here.

If any teacher is teaching Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution as a fact then please publish the evidence supporting your claim and we will back you 100% to get that changed to the correct wording.

If you have no facts to back your claims then please have the decency to do the right thing and admit you were wrong and apologize for spreading disinformation on a public forum.

cheers doug
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 7 May 2011 2:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebecca6,

welcome to OLO. I also have six kids, four so far currently going through the state education system.

I think most of us acknowledge the historical Jesus, but we have a hard time believing he was the son of God. Indeed Jesus makes no such claim himself, except on one dubious occasion in the Markan trial scene, where Mark has his own agenda. Jesus doesn't claim to be the Messiah either, except on two occasions, both historically dubious. Indeed the term Messiah was conceived more as a human rather than a divine figure, the dominant sense being Israel's political redeemer, along with some vague allusions to spiritual redemption. Curiously the, all the Gospels are disposed to incriminate the Jews and exculpate the Romans. Such textual revisionism surely bespeaks a degree of poetic cum political licence in the Holy book? The assumption supported by the fact that the Gospels are all decidedly post factum. And of course you know that translation effectively means cultural transmutation? and that historicism renders ancient texts obsolete in any case?
Since Jesus' divinity is not established, and that we've never seen the like, we are also sceptical that Jesus was exempt from the customary laws of physics and human mortality. Do you have any evidence to support these extraordinary phenomena?

We did know that the Ark has allegedly been pinpointed in various locations, but that there is no compelling evidence.
Did you know that thousands of dinosaur fossils, hundreds of millions of years old have been found and validated?
I'm sorry, but the utter paucity of evidence on your side and the overwhelming and uncontravertable evidence, including of evolution, on our side, points to the fact that humans are not the centre of the universe, bummer!
I would therefore rather my six children were taught religion as part of the rich history of human folly, but also as part of the grand history of human maturation and striving to understand.
I understand your wishful thinking (which should make you sceptical), but it doesn't make it so.
Much sounder ethics are available from other human sources.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
I think "evolution" has moved a bit beyond theory now, but, be that as it may, a pretty fair posting. The best I've seen of yours I think. Pity you have to bash Christians so much. You've proven yourself to be a pretty clear thinker, quite capable of reasoned, considered argument. In view of this, I think your expressed views of Christianity are somewhat out of character. Whereas there are those out there who are indeed, in my humble opinion, "beyond the pale", there are also many, many moderate, humble Christians who hold no ill-will toward any man, and who are just intent on leading the best lives they can, and without interfering in the lives of others, irrespective of belief. As with other belief systems, we're not all tarred with the same brush.

This is the longest, and perhaps most controversial thread I've encountered so far. In view of the broad range of opposing views expressed I have come to a conclusion that religion should Not indeed be taught in schools. "Pelican" and "Dan Dare" have offered reasoned arguments for religious studies as such to be a matter for families, outside school, and that schools should only provide some instruction, by appropriately qualified professional teachers, in ethics and introductory, comparative, studies of religion generally - just so students are aware of the many and varied belief systems out there, and their origins. I'm sure an appropriate course curriculum could be developed, with goodwill on all sides. With a sound foundation I feel students will have the best opportunity to develop their own views on what is now a rather vexed, though important area of our global society. At what age, and over what time-frame, I leave to those with appropriate expertise to determine.

As in all things, I certainly hope goodwill may prevail, through appropriate compromise for the common good.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is virtually no support for a historical Jesus outside the 4 canonical gospels - just scant reference to his followers or him in a few extra-biblical texts (Josephus and Tacitus). Some of Josephus's writings referring to Jesus are considered by a majority of scholars to have been later additions.

It is conceivable the stories are a compilations of characters given the popularity of the name Jesus in that messianic age (Josephus refers to at least one other).
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Salty ;-) You do actually make me laugh with your comments, let me assure you any christian bashing I do is purely verbal and in the spirit of a healthy discussion between adults who can choose to participate.

No where near the almost ritualistic punishments I and my school friends were forced to endure at the hands of "Good Christian" teachers. Beatings were a regular occurrence as were other punishments for any child who dared hold an opinion that was not church doctrine.

Any minor infraction was punished, failure was not tolerated ( being disabled this made me a particular target for their abuse)

So pardon me if my language occasionally offends your sensitivities, perhaps I am looking at this from a different viewpoint to you.

My view comes from that of an abused christian who regularly prayed to a person who he was told was a loving and caring God/ Jesus to either make him able to do what was required to stop the abuse or if that was not possible to make my teachers realize I was trying as hard as I could and to stop beating me.

6 years later when I was expelled from school for not being able to cope with my lessons my prayers still had not been answered.

45 years after the beatings finished I still have pain in my hands form them and I still have the scars physical and emotional from the abuse.

Care to explain just why you think your god allowed this to happen to me, especially when I was praying to him every night ?

( oh and before you tell me God never gives us more than we can bear, explain my 2 school friends, the one who left school and went into an asylum for most of his life and they other one who committed suicide because she could no longer stand the bullying) All in the name of your god and we used to pray together because your bible told us that if 2 or 3 gather together and pray their prayers would be answered.
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:04:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,

I never read all the contributions above and was not intending to contradict you. Since, however, Tacitus was a scrupulous historian, and that his references to Jesus are more in the nature of asides than focal points, I'm inclined to think there was an historical Jesus--though I'm not an expert and would gladly defer contrary evidence. However the crucial point is surely that Jesus as the son of God, or in any way extra-mundane, is biblical fundamentalism.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Evolution itself is just an observable fact" And you have observed mankind become what exactly?
Here's a 99.9% theory for you..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
Only 4 weeks ago miss grade 11 told me of her discussion with her ancient History teacher in regards to the age of the world and how it came about.a Big Bang - I need no more evidence of it being taught in school than my own children and their assignments. I take my kids to museums,we love science and of course dinosaurs exist!I love the questions,the fossils and the brilliant scientists who's curiosity is to be applauded. Creationism is widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible and should be an alternative presented. Sorry if you are offended by my lack of evidence, but I see the whole world as being evidence of Intelligent design, it ticks all the boxes, you need your piece of paper, i need only my eyes.
"Oh dear Rebecca you know telling lies for Jesus makes him cry"", this is your retort? :-(
If you want a Scientific debate http://creation.com/creation-answers
When I considered evolution it took more faith to believe that then to have a creator. As for RE, this thread -the ten commandments mixed with love thy neighbor are timeless and should be taught.(Dug, we pulled our children out of a Private Christian school(not Catholic) because of abuse and judgement, then a teacher in a state school physically abused my son for not doing homework - she was stood down. I am sorry that they got away with it with you, some people are just awful regardless of what banner they fly.
only two references to Christ in ancient texts? http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians/default.asp
think not.
freedom to believe what you want is the only way to go. Being presented with more than one side (including other beliefs) perhaps should be left til high school when argumentative teens can determine for themselves. I conclude that RE should be at home but values, morals and ethics - closely related should be taught to our young people, these are the socio-economics of our Australia.
Posted by Rebecca6, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Rebecca "Creationism is widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible and should be an alternative presented."

Oh Rebecca, what nonsense is that? Are we to infer that you want, for example, the Aboriginal creation account of the Dreamtime to be taught to the kiddies as FACT? As if you do!! haha.

Ah, but of course you really only mean YOUR particular creation myth ought to be taught, don't you? You know, the one that ISN'T "widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible", as you tried to imply.

--

@Rebecca "the ten commandments mixed with love thy neighbor are timeless and should be taught"

Timeless? Seriously? Let's see...

1. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

I don't remember being brought out of a house of bondage in Egpyt, do you Rebecca?

2. "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me."

Oh yes, definitely want the primary kids fearing God 'coz he kicks ass if you don't fawn all over him.

umm...
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey."

Yes slaves and oxen are hard not to covet aren't they, Rebecca?

Lucky for us God forsaw all the issues we'd still be having 2000 years later, so that he could make his little rules so "timeless", as you say.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:10:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Rebecca "I see the whole world as being evidence of Intelligent design, it ticks all the boxes"

Which box did Smallpox tick for you, out of interest?
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:16:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm, Jimmy Jones..lol.the Aboriginal dream time is already taught to my children in a state primary school, not as a fact but a belief held by the Aboriginal people so too the rainbow Serpent - to keep their traditions alive - I have no problem with that.get up with the times.
And are you suggesting that God created smallpox - is this where you ditch your science to blame God for everything? Variola Virus spread through human contact, lucky for us the brilliance of mankind fixed it.
And seriously you are so off topic - Buddhists, Purana Hindus, Sikhs, Jainism, Ancient Egyptions, Aztecs etc all believed in some sort of creation be it by one God, many Gods or Animals/Monsters. I said, creation should be an alternative taught, you accused me of 'my'version, no, creation in general.
As to the commandments, do not kill (later described by Jesus as even hating) do not commit adultery - including lust; do not steal; do not bear false witness/lie; and do not covet - or greedily desire what another has(btw 'Slave' means employee/worker and 'ox' means possessions)...These things are worth teaching. You totally missed the point, our socio-economics are made up of respect for all regardless of sex, age, skin; the 'love thy neighbor' is our mateship and is dwindling in our society. Ask a lawyer where our legal system originated.
Also, come on...by saying creation ticks all the boxes you go straight to disease.. really? It ticks all the boxes cause i can marvel at the universe and not have to ask - why and where but simply say thankyou. I don't need to ask the unanswerable - where did I come from and why am I here. Very thankful for science and very thankful for the Bible, just love archeological documents. Just don't think we should throw away something that has been a part of our nation since it's beginning. I will not go away just because you criticize me.
Posted by Rebecca6, Sunday, 8 May 2011 9:25:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebecca6,

If one believes that God is the "creator"- then it is reasonable to assume that they would believe that God also created bacteria and viruses.

It's not about "blaming God"- it's about accepting that humankind is only one of myriad lifeforms which compete for existence on this planet - including the Variola Virus.

As far as biological success goes, there is debate over whether it's more useful for a species to be smart or stupid.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 8 May 2011 9:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot:” As far as biological success goes, there is debate over whether it's more useful for a species to be smart or stupid.”

I can picture the teams - it would be a very short debate.

Last Minister I talked to was quite happy in their decision that God created the Big Bang. I think it’s the trademark of a successful religion being nice and flexible like that. It is a shame no Holy books warned us about bacteria a little earlier and why couldn’t the gods leave some kind of inventory list for us to check through every few years.

Trimmatom nanus CHECK!
Xanthorrhoeoideae CHECK!
Anthracite CHECK!
Cumulonimbus CHECK!
Prokaryote CHECK!
Imbecile CHECK!

Becca:” I will not go away just because you criticize me.”

OLO would be very empty if criticism sent everyone off tripping over their bottom lip.

R0bert that was really interesting, were you asking if the Christians will admit that this instruction in schools comes with the main intention of converting children to their particular faith? That’s not difficult for them to own though is it since it is done with the children’s best interests at heart – saving them from hell or purgatory and all that?
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 8 May 2011 10:51:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Tacitus on Jesus, Christ, and "Chrestians",

What Tacticus wrote is frequently qualified with "the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians. Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Tacitus
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 8 May 2011 11:36:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,

Sorry about you early life experience, and sorry for my sometimes insensitive comments. No-one should ever have to go through what you have. I can now appreciate how reserved your comments have been, given the circumstances. Good on you for hanging in there. You deserve much, much better.

Children of the world, how can we best serve them all? It's a pretty big ask. So many different stories out there, so many situations, so many aspirations. It is a difficult time in which we live. We probably wish we could all do more, but have our own lives, problems, concerns. Somebody, some voice. There are so many "Egypt's" now, a global "exodus" in our time.

Oz is perhaps the clearest thinking nation, free, democratic, relatively good education system, healthy, progressive, sound economy, sound values. Our troubles are small in the global context, yet we seem impotent, transfixed, clinging to an unsustainable equilibrium. Give our kids the best possible education? Yes. With values, but free from competing overlays" Yes. "Faith", belief, descriptive of so many explanations of the ascent of human-kind, and providing hope. The future of human-kind? Is this in our hands? Are we at a crossroads? To embrace "humanity", to bury differences, to accept an inevitable blurring of origins, of culture, of "self"?

I am so weak, I can't decide without consensus. I am after all constrained by my imperfections and innate desire to support my "tribe". How can I expect more, and better, of others?
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rebecca,

science is based on observing things and testing things. For example you can observe what happens if you stand up, hold a spoon out and let go. I predict that the spoon will move rapidly toward the ground and hit it. I don't need any faith to make that prediction and neither do you to test my prediction.

We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next. With shorter lived things like microbes, flies and lizards we have seen and recorded the development of novel abilities and the split into separate species. No more faith is required to accept the fact of evolution than to accept that things fall toward the ground.

Observing, recording, predicting and testing is a process called science. Science is not faith based, it is based on critical thinking and skepticism.
Posted by Dan Dare, Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for the "discovery" of Noah's ark, I'm sorry Rebecca but many people have discovered various Noah's arks and none of them are actually any such thing. The most recent one, the one you linked an article to, is about the discovery of a vaguely boat shaped formation of rocks with a not too old goat herders hovel at one end. The "discoverers" made a big deal about there being straw in the "cabin". Do you have any idea what 3 to 4 thousand year old straw should look like? The straw in the photos was less than a year old. And unless the ark was made out of granite the "discovery" is not the hull of the fabled ship.

Returning to science again, a global flood of the magnitude described in the bible, would leave a visible layer in the rock strata world wide with pretty specific properties. There is no such layer. Never mind the fact that there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level. Again, this is just observable, verifiable fact and not faith.

Your lack of understanding or ability to think these things through is an example of a very poor science education. Your lack of knowledge is taken advantage of by the web sites you linked to. Those sites contain out right lies that can be shown to be false, and the site owners know this. I would hope that you wished more for your children, or at least would have the decency not to wish such poor education onto other people's children.
Posted by Dan Dare, Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rebecca,

With respect, I don't think you see your own inconsistency...

1. "the Aboriginal dream time is already taught ... not as a fact"

But I asked if you had a problem with it being taught as fact, as your Christian creation myth is being taught. You've changed the terms of my question!

So you're ok with your mythology being taught as fact, but other CONTRADICTORY myths should not be. I may be preaching to the choir, since I re-read your post and it seems you agree that RE should be kept out of primary school, but to suggest creationism is "common" to all cultures when in fact you believe all the myths except yours are crap is a bit disingenuous!

2. "And are you suggesting that God created smallpox - is this where you ditch your science to blame God for everything? "

Are you serious? I don't believe in God, so why on Earth do you even suggest I'm blaming a fictitious character for anything at all?? That makes no sense.

It is in fact you who suggested God intelligently designed smallpox. You said all the evidence of the world points to it!

I'm merely enquiring what it was about Smallpox that led you to the conclusion that God intelligently designed it? That's all. If you don't want to answer that difficult question, I completely understand why. ;-)
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 8 May 2011 1:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Rebecca, cont'd...

3. "'Slave' means employee/worker and 'ox' means possessions"

Funny, I thought "slave" meant "slave" and "ox" meant "ox". Go figure!

Ah, but I see! When you said the 10 commandments were "timeless", you actually meant "timeless" in the sense that they need to ne constantly updated and re-written by people such as you in order not to go out of date.

That sort of "timeless", huh?

4. "You totally missed the point, our socio-economics are made up of respect for all regardless of sex, age, skin"

Ours, ideally, sure.

But I think you've missed the point of your Bible, Rebecca... If you'd have read it, you would know that it teaches that women are worth less than men, slavery is condoned, gays and fortune-tellers are to be killed, and non-believers smited. And the list goes on... do you want more counter-examples?

In fact, women are expressly forbidden from teaching, and are instructed not to hold any authority over men, so I don't know what you think you're even doing here offering your apparently worthless woman's opinion on any of these matters to a superior man such as myself!

You may, of course, CLAIM that your Bible teaches "respect for all" until you're blue in the face, but simply stating blatant falsehoods doesn't make them true, Rebecca!

5. "Ask a lawyer where our legal system originated."

I just did, and he told me that despite Christians trying to retro-fit their commandments into the development of our legal system, legal historians actually agree that the greatest influence on modern legal systems was Greek and Roman, and not biblical.

6. "get up with the times."

By Odin's beard, the irony is delicious!!

Being told to "get with the times" by a woman who thinks some ancient "best-guess" that mankind was created from dirt and a rib using magic is MORE accurate than facts revealed by nearly 3000 subsequent years of rigorous, unbiased scientific investigation into these questions!!

Good one, Rebecca!! You nearly made my head explode! haha.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 8 May 2011 1:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebecca Many many believe they have seen Alien Spaceships (UFOs ) many people believe they have met aliens and been kidnapped by them.

if you ask them they are 100% sure of what they have seen and experienced.

Does that mean that aliens and UFOs are real ?

Unless and untill they provide some credible form of proof their beliefs are not scientifically valid are they ?

Same with your Ark argument the person who was looking for an ark and found something he believes 99.9% is an ark does not make it a fact does it ?

Not untill he can provide some decent science based proof.

Most people believe Pharos ruled Egypt and that they built Pyramids and they have an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence.

Some people believe aliens in spaceships built the Pyramids but they can produce no evidence at all.

What theory should we believe ? The one that has supporting evidence or the one with no evidence ?

As for seeing and believing in creationism I see the same things as you I see the natural wonders of the earth and universe. I see evolution and physics at work.

I have scientific evidence to support my visions and beliefs. I am sorry but creationism fails to produce any evidence of any supernatural supreme being other than faith and belief.

If you can produce the same massive weight of science based evidence to support creationism then please post it and we will review it.

I have studied for some 30 years now and I cannot find any convincing arguments .
Posted by Dug, Sunday, 8 May 2011 1:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Rebecca, for mentioning the creation.com site. It's a good one for combatting false ideas, such as evolution being somehow demonstrated and beyond questioining.

Dan Dare,
Observing, recording, predicting and testing help make the process we call science. What we observe is that things like microbes, flies and lizards always remain things like microbes, flies and lizards. We don't observe them evolving into anything else. Record it, predict it, and test it as much as you like, but you'll always end up with microbes, flies and lizards.    

--

RI, which includes the gospel teachings, is currently in schools as a reflection of our spritual heritage and part of our cultural history, which many see as valuable for our society going forward.

It could be compared with other intrusions into the standard curriculum, such as Anzac Day memorials and AFL football clinics, which are also valued by many.

When the author describes the atheists as militant, that is rather emotional language. Yet in their fervent determination to expel from our institutions what they see as the foreign invaders, some atheists demonstrate their passion for their preferred creed; just as Joshua who cleared out the enemy from the promised land, or cleansed the temple of its foreign idols and gods. 

   
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 8 May 2011 9:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welcome, Dan S de Merengue.

Rebecca6 was beginning to run out of puff, what with all those devotees to the cult of reality closing in.

>>...the creation.com site. It's a good one for combatting false ideas, such as evolution<<

The problem is that - even ignoring for a moment its stance against science - it contains a whole load of "false ideas" itself.

Here's one:

"If there is no Creator-God who rules over us, then there is no ultimate basis for morality, meaning or purpose"

Taken out of context, it is just possible to see that the invention of a form of father-figure, complete with the power of judgment, punishment and indeed forgiveness (all highly admirable traits) would be one way in which to instil morality. A short-cut, in fact. Much like Rebecca6's confession earlier that... "when I considered evolution it took more faith to believe that then [sic] to have a creator"

Receptus ignavorum. The coward's retreat. The easy way out. I can't be bothered to exercise my mind any longer, so I'll believe that it all just happened the way the Bible tells me. End of discussion, end of curiosity.

To suggest, though, that this is the sole means to arrive at a code of civilized conduct that respects other people, is little more than arrogance. Unless, of course, you have already taken the decision to opt out of thinking, in which case it completes a nicely circular argument: I believe, therefore I believe. No need to think any further.

The other two legs of the argument, that the "Creator-God" provides meaning and purpose, are equally dubious. Mainly because of the assumption - again, a somewhat arrogant one - that there has to be some form of meaning and purpose in order for us to exist in the first place.

So the invention of such a purpose allows the position to be completely circular: only those who believe that there needs to be a meaning or a purpose, find it necessary to have one.

Which is mighty convenient for those peddling religion, but doesn't prove a thing.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 9 May 2011 10:40:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Pericles,

Better yet, here's a video of a Christian being handcuffed and taken off for re-education -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c (skip to 1:30 for the action)

The High Court in Britain also recently banned Christians from being foster parents -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html

Yet another persecuted Christian, this time about the cross -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7552145/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hits-out-at-cross-ban.html

And in Canada, a street pastor get thrown in the clink -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojDRStCCj4

This is becoming commonplace with no signs of it slowing down.

Just because persecution stories aren't on Today Tonight, ACA or Sunrise doesn't mean it's not happening :
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 11:37:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Pericles, run out of puff I did not, I realized that arguing with a fool will only lead to foolish arguments.
The Bible clearly States "men and women were created in Gods image and are equal in God's eyes" and a women is only to obey her husband not to " a superior man such as Jimmy Jones", I should not have expected more from you, in that I was wrong.
"Starting Law' by J.F.Corkery page 41 'English Law governed all the Colonies of Australia'. English law is made up of the Irish Brehon Laws and the Roman laws - the Roman laws were influenced by the Greek law and the Israel Laws..try taking the Bible out of that...Ignorance? I simply gave up combating your 'know it all' attitude.
If you were presented with every bit of evidence you'd still not believe and still hang Christ on a cross because you are simply smarter than the rest of us and know better. You will be confronted with your own futility one day and when that day comes, God will be there waiting to love you.
Criticize me as you will but you are not exempt from human condition, argue it til you feel strong and victorious, continue to breath and you will need help at some stage of your life. When you realize how very small you are like Christians do, your piece of paper won't matter.
I chose to not entertain your folly any longer. This thread is about RE, but you only take on a 'worthless woman' like me because it empowers you. Very very sad for you. I am sure your come back will involve a lot of petite comments toward me but You simply show your own ignorance. Go to Bible College before you take on the Bible,I chose small words because you obviously thrive on philosophy,but do not understand outside your own opinion, this tends to never solve a thing.
RE not RI is important, people in other countries die trying to get it under ground and here you are trying to remove it.
Posted by Rebecca6, Monday, 9 May 2011 11:39:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, if you wanna persecute, that's OK but atleast be honest about it because when Mc Real says things like "Secularism allows for equal space for all belief systems" - he just looks a little silly :)

Peace out,

The Gangster of Truth
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 11:46:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@rebecca,

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my sad attempt at sarcasm, but I don't actually believe women are worthless; I was merely parroting what YOUR Bible teaches.

As for your claim that the bible says "men and women are equals", I couldn't find the passage you refer to. Could you provide the reference for me?

In my search, however, I did stumble across this piece of advice from your god...

"The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the LORD by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, ... for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

So there you go... a woman's worth is about HALF that of a man. (according to your religion, NOT to me, mind!)

Of course there are innumerable other examples I could cite from the bible about how to deal with disobedient wives, or slutty daughters, but I get the feeling you would simply ignore them as if they didn't exist.

Are you sure you've actually read your own holy scripture?? Because you sound horribly misinformed about their contents to me.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, and Rebecca... "a women is only to obey her husband"

And you think that embodies equality, do you? Oh dear.

I hope you've got your husband's permission to post on this forum, because you KNOW what the bible says the punishment for disobedient wives is, don't you??
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unbeleivable that those still hanging on to the big bang theory still claim they have no faith. So irrational! Speak of the lenghts god haters will go to deny the obvious.
Posted by runner, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is all this trouble with the big bang theory.
Scientists know exactly how it happened.
It was caused by an alien by the name of Ted (translated into English)
who foolishly flew his spaceship into a black hole?
Sounds ridiculous - it is but it is just as ridiculous as your imaginary friend creating everything.
Your imaginary who can be as awesome as you wish,
but can do no more than your imagination is capable of.
In the last say 6,000 years since man's ability to worship there has never been one demonstrated example of his existence.
Please do not start quoting from your bible it is a book of fiction.
Posted by ponde, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponde, it's ridiculous to say the universe has always existed when you don't have proof. Especially when you know that, logically, a thing needs to have a beginning. But each to their own.

At the end of the day it's a choice, it's not about evidence or proof. Either you choose faith in God or you choose to live free from God. They will never be proof to make this decision for you. Atheists seem to have hope that scientists will come up with some answers before it's too late - but sadly, that will never happen.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:50:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TruthNow,
“a thing needs to have a beginning”
If everything had a beginning then when did your creator begin?
If your creator had a beginning then the universe had a beginning and vice versa.
Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic.
I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster (all praise the FSM) it does not mean he exists.
With blind faith you will be happy with “God creates rainbows” instead of making scientific investigations into the real cause of rainbows.
And that would either have left us in the Dark ages or drive us back into the dark ages.
It was only when man told the church it was wrong did we ever leave the Dark ages.
You might be happy dying from an infected broken arm but I would put my trust in antibiotics any day.
Posted by ponde, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponde, science may cure an infected arm but it won't stop us dying eventually.

"Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic"

But it's more logical to have a creator than to say it's always been there. So, it's really a choice between a logic-based faith and a secular nothingness.

Obviously, a creator doesn't need a beginning because it's in the spiritual realm and not subject to natural laws, etc. (this is where the faith comes in), whereas Earth is the material that logically must have a beginning.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Appreciate the response, TRUTHNOW78. But it doesn't make particularly impressive reading.

>>...here's a video of a Christian being handcuffed and taken off for re-education<<

He was arrested for an offence similar to "breaching the peace", by haranguing some folk waiting for a government office to open. Quite right too, that the law should wheel him away and give him a talking-to about common politeness.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

http://mayheincrease.com/2011/05/thoughts-on-the-arrest-of-calvary-chapel-hemet-pastors/

>>The High Court in Britain also recently banned Christians from being foster parents<<

Not because they were Christians, though. Did you read the judgment?

"It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be inimical to children."

Moving right along.

>>Yet another persecuted Christian, this time about the cross<<

Nothing to do with her Christianity. It was a health-and-safety issue, applicable to anything dangling from a nurse's neck. The fact that it was a cross was irrelevant to the ban.

>>And in Canada, a street pastor get thrown in the clink<<

C'mon, you can't be serious? This man isn't a Christian, he's just a one-man "lookit-me" agitator. His "church" has been de-registered, and his sole objective has been to make trouble, and get himself noticed.

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2010/01/25/calgary-church-loses-charitable-status-kings-glory-fellowship/

I seem to recall you stating:

>>In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)<<

The sum total of "persecutions" you could find between 2007 and now?

Four.

Fines? None at all for being Christian. $1 for "placing an electrical cord on a sidewalk".

Prison? None at all for being a Christian. But one night in the pokey for Pawlowski... for resisting arrest.

If you call that persecution, TRUTHNOW78, then what word, or words, would you use to describe this?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kneecapping-of-14yearold-causes-outcry-476312.html

Or for a more scholarly view on kneecapping, try this official report:

http://web.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/71-B/5/739.pdf

Whose opening lines are:

"For several hundred years, rival factions within the religious communities of Ireland have had their differences..."

Gruesome reading. Puts a couple of street-corner spruikers into perspective, persecution-wise.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 9 May 2011 2:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan S de Merengue said “What we observe is that things like microbes, flies and lizards always remain things like microbes, flies and lizards. We don't observe them evolving into anything else. Record it, predict it, and test it as much as you like, but you'll always end up with microbes, flies and lizards.”

Sorry Dan, you obviously don't understand simple taxonomy. Our common ancestor with chimpanzees was a small form of ape. Humans and Chimps are still apes. Whatever our species evolve into in the future will still be apes. We have a common ancestor with all mammals. Apes are mammals. All descendants of apes forever onward will also be mammals. Birds are descended from reptiles. They are reptiles. Their descendants will always be reptiles and birds.

If you don't understand science don't pretend that you do by quoting what some dumb twit said on a creationist website. Especially don't expect that silliness to be repeated to students in school as some form of truth. Its not, its rubbish.
Posted by Dan Dare, Monday, 9 May 2011 5:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Dare "Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are..."

So, it is not unquestionable, absolute Truth.

Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.
Since you can't teach *absolute* truth about anything, perhaps we shouldn't teach children anything.

Spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings".

And unlike science class, history class and art class (all subject to future revision) you can *opt out* of religious instruction.

"science is based on observing things and testing things"

That can be tested.

You cannot "test" how the Universe began (only whether a theory is possible).

You cannot "test" whether Men and apes evolved *from* a commmon ancestor.

Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint" (like some painters do a "series" of artworks on the same theme).

"We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next"

And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.

If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.
But maybe "God" designed it that way.

"there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level"

Were the polar icecaps always frozen?
Was the landmass always at the same height it is now?

Dug "no decent science teacher would ever teach a theory as a fact"

Yeah right.
I'm sure the students understand that when the teacher keeps saying "this happened, then that happened", he really means "this is the most *likely* thing that happened".

"it remains the best explanation for how life developed on earth"

How *species* developed.

Not the origin of life, or even *why* there are lifeforms at all (why is there "life"?, rather than just inanimate material forms).

Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes).
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 9 May 2011 5:52:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic, big Gish Gallop there mate. I'll break it down over several posts.
You said “Dan Dare "Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are..."

So, it is not unquestionable, absolute Truth.

Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.
Since you can't teach *absolute* truth about anything, perhaps we shouldn't teach children anything.”

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The discussion you quote mined has the context of “doesn't theory mean a guess?”. The answer is “no it isn't, it has been worked on to the point we are very confident in it, which is the best possible level of understanding science can reach”. Science does not, cannot deal in absolute truth and neither can you in any way. Nothing we teach in school is absolute truth. If we followed your suggestion we would teach nothing at all.

You also wrote “Spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings"”. No, they are not the best understandings possible for those people, they are just the adoption of points of view that they like.
Posted by Dan Dare, Monday, 9 May 2011 6:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic you said “And unlike science class, history class and art class (all subject to future revision) you can *opt out* of religious instruction.”

The “opt out” has already been discussed to death. Its an old sales trick that makes more sales then opt in. The desire for opt out is the desire to catch as many children in the spider web as possible.
Posted by Dan Dare, Monday, 9 May 2011 6:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic you said “"science is based on observing things and testing things"
That can be tested.
You cannot "test" how the Universe began (only whether a theory is possible).
You cannot "test" whether Men and apes evolved *from* a commmon ancestor.”

You can observe the current conditions of the universe. You can find out how it works and test your understanding. You can learn what evidence it leaves as it undergoes change. Given that then you can work out how the early universe was. You can observe life, how it changes and evolves. You can test your understanding of what you have observed. You can find evidence that shows how all these things are related.

You obviously would not accept forensic evidence at a murder trial by uttering some stupid comment like “You weren't there so you can't know that”.
Posted by Dan Dare, Monday, 9 May 2011 6:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a whole lotta wrigglin' there, Shockadelic.

>>Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.<<

Not at all. What we know today is far from "invalid", as it forms the foundation upon which we can evaluate new discoveries.

Our children will find out, as we have, the joy of discovering and learning about new things. We look, we find, we research, we ponder. It's all part of the wonder of humanity.

How tragic it must be to deny yourself this excitement, the sheer thrill of living in this world, still looking for elusive answers to impossible questions.

How even more tragic, if you try to deny it to your children.

>>spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings".<<

I beg leave to doubt that. One of the most common themes proffered by those with "spiritual beliefs" is that all that is, is known. Thanks to the convenient concept that "it woz god wot dunnit".

>>You cannot "test" how the Universe began<<

But if you approach the topic with an open mind, you find out some pretty amazing things. About time. About distance. About the sheer volume of galaxies that surround us, and which continue to change their form.

How sad to deny yourself an understanding, however slight, of how it has all grown over billions of years.

How much sadder, to deny it your children.

There is no real problem, to my way of thinking, in telling kids Bible stories. They are after all just stories. So long as they get a balanced view from home, there's not much harm in them.

The idea of religious Counsellors, on the other hand, is plain creepy. As Rebecca6 explains...

>>I have been a youth leader in the last few years and these poor kids are under unbelievable pressure, teachers are too busy to spend an hour listening a child cry<<

A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry. Apparently, the rule is to walk away, to avoid being compromised.

And Chaplains are allowed to?

Scary.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 9 May 2011 6:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic "Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes)."

Fascinating. So you're willing to speculate, as long as any speculation is predicated on the existence of the Christian god and a literal interpretation of an ancient myth.

That's the tail wagging the dog there, matey!

It's apparent you've picked what you personally WANT to be true (i.e. Christianity), and filter everything through the lens of your own desires. Why you WANT Christianity to be true is anyone's guess, but I'll have a go... Did your parents raise you to be Christian by any chance?

At any rate, you're welcome to your myths, legends and the best-guesses of those ancient tribesmen, honest! I wish you luck with it all.

But please don't fool yourself into thinking fairy tales and legends are as useful for understanding the real world as the scientific method is. That would be tragic.

By the way, did you know that Smallpox will be cured if you simply rub yourself with oil and call for the local church elder? Well that's what your stories say, anyway.

I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine rather than some hokey old ritual made up by some ancient witch doctors. (Actually, I lied before... I KNOW you would too, despite your affected disdain for science)

Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in the oiling up ritual described in your stories instead. What do you think? Good idea??
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Monday, 9 May 2011 9:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Dare,
You say that I shouldn't be quoting what some dumb twit said. Have a look. The only person I quoted (loosely) was you.

You were adamant that science was about observation. But you follow this with claims that 'birds are descended from reptiles', etc. This may form part of your belief system, but it's not an observation. No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but don't let your particular leanings cloud the line between beliefs and observations.    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:19:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evolution was validated by the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s when a few put together the concepts of

*genetics elucidated by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel
*the role of chromosomes, and
* Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution.

The subsequent discover of the nature of DNA and they way it works sealed the concept as fact.

It's all on the 'Net.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 7:32:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a bit thin, Dan S de Merengue. Even for you.

>>No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.<<

No-one has ever seen Jack the Ripper, either.

But Mary Nichols is still dead.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 8:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: "PS Beez, it's so 1980s to think you're clever outing 'trolls'. We're all trolls these days. You're the only straight man left. I think you need a shag is all."

Houe, the difference between 80's trolls and you is that they were amusing and/or brought something new to the table. You are very much a 21st century troll - shaking a paint can full of ball bearings because you know noise gets attention, and that is to compensate for lack of wit and depth of observation. But attention is what you crave, and if you lack subtlety and content, raw noise will have to do. You fail on attributes that made your troll ancestors artists by comparison.
Posted by Beelzebubba, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 1:41:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic You said “Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint" (like some painters do a "series" of artworks on the same theme).”

Ok, provide some evidence that leads to that conclusion. Explain the contrary evidence that shows all life on Earth is deeply genetically related. If you can do that then you have formed a hypothesis and work can proceed in producing a theory.

@Shockadelic You said “ (DanDare said)"We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next"
And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.”

And so what? Some things change and other things are at the top of their nieche with no pressure to change and no drift that is anything but detrimental. Whoop de doo.

@Shockadelic You said “If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.”

No there is enormous deviation. Its all over the map.

@Shockadelic You said “But maybe "God" designed it that way.”
There is no evidence to suggest that, and since your previous statement is just wrong its not likely you will find any.

I said "there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level"

@Shockadelic You said “Were the polar icecaps always frozen?
Was the landmass always at the same height it is now?”

If the antarctic and iceland melt that will raise water level by about 80 meters. Catastrophic but not enough for a global flood. The arctic melting makes no difference to sea level. And over 6,000 years there has been very little change in land mass position or height.
Posted by Dan Dare, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 10:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan S de Merengue The “dumb twit from a creationist web site” that you quoted was one of many that carry on with the “kinds” argument. It is not an argument against evolution and you have just regurgitated it without knowing its profoundly stupid.

Also, nice quote mine. Any one reading this conversation will see that I was not “ adamant that science was about observation”. That's a straw man. There is plenty of evidence that reasonably shows that birds are descended from reptiles.

That is not belief, its logical examination of the evidence. On the other hand your attempts to argue are based on belief rather than intellect. I hope readers that were unsure can see now why religious dogma should not be in our schools. It produces dumbed down students.
Posted by Dan Dare, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 10:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Dare,
Name calling is not highly intellectual and won't carry you very far.

I never (on this thread) quoted anyone (besides you). And I never spoke about 'kinds'. I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

However, you did talk quite adamantly about observation as important to science. I don't know why you're trying to wriggle out of it now.

"Observing, recording, predicting and testing is a process called science." - Dan Dare, above page 28.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 2:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK cool we have some real genuine Creationists here

can I sideline the argument/discussion and ask:

(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct. ( Horseshoe crabs are not trilobites as one creationist tried to tell me true trilobites had eye lenses made from calcium carbonate)

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not ( and please not rotting carcass or loch ness monster evidence the seas and oceans have been scoured trawled and studied for hundreds of years and there has not been one solid shred of evidence for surviving species of marine dinosaurs)

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water ( even slightly brackish water will kill it ) The coral spawn need perfect water and sunlight conditions to survive as well so they would have died. A massive world wide flood would have killed off all the worlds corals. If something supernatural happened to keep coral alive then why did trilobites not survive ?

Again to me it just does not make much sense, please explain it for me so I understand how this can happen.

Thanks Doug

I would seriously like to know how these things are explained as no creationist has ever come up with a decent explanation.
Posted by Dug, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 7:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,
Mendel's theories were ignored for decades after publication, possibly as they were thought to be out of step with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Later, when Mendel's work was rediscovered Darwinian evolution suffered a lull, for the two are not consistent.

Admittedly, the 1940s saw Darwinism rise in popularity when attemps were made to modify it to allign with Mendel's findings. Since then, evolution's triumph has wained, or at least has become increasingly controversial.

The problem in essence is that Mendel showed (from his experiments with flowering plants) that characteristcs are inherited from genes supplied by parent plants. Darwin's theory requires the acquisition of new characteristics not present in the parent population.  
 
Pericles,
Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless.  And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.
 
Dan Dare,
You might consider that it is reasonable that reptiles evolved into birds. Others may not. My point was that it is not an observation. No one observed any such thing.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Dare "If we followed your suggestion we would teach nothing at all."

That was *my* point!
Have you been following this debate?

The theophobes have turned it into an argument about whether religion is *true* or not, and since its supposed truth cannot be "proven" THEREFORE it should not be taught in schools.
My point is that this argument would apply to ANY subject.

"No, they are not the best understandings possible for those people"

Yes they are. Or they wouldn't believe them.

"The “opt out” has already been discussed to death"

No it's been trivialised, when its the MOST important aspect of the whole debate.

Are you not drowning in enough bureacracy already without having to deliberately "opt-in" to school classes?

Again, this argument could be applied to ANY subject.
Why don't you have to "opt-in" to art, music, history, woodwork, sports?

Maybe there are parents who *don't* want their children in these classes, or students that don't want to attend them.

By *your* logic, ALL classes should be opt-in, otherwise you might be imposing something draconian on non-consenting victims.

"You can observe the current conditions of the universe"

And such observations have led many people to conclude it was created by a God.
Snap!
You are not disproving my statement.

All your tests do is determine the *probability*, not certainty, that any hypothesis is an adequate explanation.

It does not prove the hypothesis *IS* the explanation, and the only explanation.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 1:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "That's a whole lotta wrigglin' there, Shockadelic."

You're the ones wriggling.

1. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend.

2. Wriggling out of multi-faith. Pretending this is all about Christianity.

3. Wriggling out of parental responsibility.
ALL education is really a parental responsibility.
If parents have abdicated this, and transferred it to the state, then there's NO argument against state school instruction in ANY subject.

4. Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty.

5. Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory.

6. Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential, yet no complaints about the cost to the taxpayer for soccer balls and tennis courts, French language instruction materials, pianos and drum kits, cooking utensils and woodwork tools.

7. Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious (whether you like it or not) and have NO PROBLEM with this class.

"What we know today is far from "invalid", as it forms the foundation upon which we can evaluate new discoveries."

New discoveries that can invalidate what you now teach children.

"How tragic it must be to deny yourself this excitement, the sheer thrill of living in this world, still looking for elusive answers to impossible questions.
How sad to deny yourself an understanding, however slight, of how it has all grown over billions of years."

That post should have come supplied with a vomit bag.

Cut the corny emotional blackmail.
Nobody is being "denied" anything by attending (if they want) an optional class once a week.

"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry"

And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
As usual.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 1:47:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shockadelic "Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes)."

Jimmy Jones "Fascinating. So you're willing to speculate, as long as any speculation is predicated on the existence of the Christian god and a literal interpretation of an ancient myth."

Did the phrase "I'm not a Christian" not compute?
Christians are not the only people with a Man-was-once-perfect-but-degenerated story.

"But please don't fool yourself into thinking fairy tales and legends are as useful for understanding the real world as the scientific method is. That would be tragic."

Is that a straw man or a red herring?
Nobody is proposing the cessation of science classes.

"I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to?

"Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in...."

how to "win" debates with pathetic sarcasm?

You still haven't explained how you could comprehend "Joan of Arc" without *any* knowledge of Christianity.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 2:03:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Dare "@Shockadelic You said “Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint""

"Ok, provide some evidence that leads to that conclusion."

It's the same evidence you use to "prove" evolution.

A series of fossils does not "prove" one evolved from the other.
The fossil record is haphazard.
You may see the "appearance" of a form in a certain "period" only because any prior fossils have not yet been found, or have been destroyed by time and the earth's changes.

"Explain the contrary evidence that shows all life on Earth is deeply genetically related."

Again, that proves the "blueprint" theory.
Common structures would be common, if an Intelligence (a.k.a. "God") was 'working out' his pet project.
He wouldn't start with the completed model, would he?

"@Shockadelic You said “And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.”

"And so what? Some things change and other things are at the top of their nieche with no pressure to change"

How could there be "no pressure to change" considering all the Earth changes that have occurred?
In a world where nothing stays the same forever, and one where evolution happens by *random* mutation, *no* animal should still be the same after millions of years. None!

"@Shockadelic You said “If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.”

No there is enormous deviation. Its all over the map."

Lifeforms are all over the map.
The deviation *within* related lifeforms is not.
There are no feathered dogs or flying starfish.

"@Shockadelic You said “But maybe "God" designed it that way.”

"There is no evidence to suggest that"

You are not REFUTING anything I've said.
You are just parroting "Standard Response #382".

"If the antarctic and iceland melt that will raise water level by about 80 meters. Catastrophic but not enough for a global flood."

Is the story truly "global"?
To most ancient peoples "the world" was the known region in which they lived.

"And over 6,000 years there has been very little change in land mass position or height."

Did I say 6000 years?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 2:28:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to? <<

Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 2:03:54 AM

Medicine is more than medicinal drugs, so you can't denigrate the whole [the medical discipline] by attacking a part [medical drugs].

Evolution was validated by the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s when a few put together the concepts of

*genetics elucidated by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel
*the role of chromosomes, and
* Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution.

The subsequent discover of the nature of DNA and they way it works sealed the concept as fact.

It's all on the 'Net.

Of course the fossil record is haphazard, particularly for the period before skeletons had developed and evolved. Look how much early European artifacts in Australia have been buried in 200 years.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 12 May 2011 7:55:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just trying to understand your position a little better, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless. And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.<<

The statement of yours that I queried was this one:

>>No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.<<

You seemed to be offering this as evidence that it could not, therefore, have happened. I simply pointed out that the absence of direct evidence of Jack the Ripper's involvement in the death of Mary Nichols did not invalidate the theory that he did, in fact, do the deed.

Your introduction of two fictional characters, Cain and Abel, is an irrelevance. Here's a picture of them, as imagined by a nineteenth-century illustrator.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Cain_and_Abel.jpg

I expect they were differently imagined by Islamic artists.

http://www.simplyislam.com/images/products/54273.jpg

There is no connection between the mythology of these two brothers from a Bible story, and the documentation available from the files of the City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police, Scotland Yard and the FBI.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/jack_the_ripper.html

Clearer now?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 12 May 2011 8:50:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug

That Noah's Ark story is a beauty isn't it?

I've always wondered about the plants. No mention of bags of seeds, cuttings, bulbs or nary a pot-plant. The average gardener knows what a flood does to terrestrial plants - especially dry climate ones such as olive trees. Where did that dove find that olive branch?

And diseases, pre-flood people got colds, post-flood we still do - guess old Noah kept petrie-dishes full of ebola, measles, influenza...

And fresh water fish - how did they manage when all the salty oceans flooded into one another? And tropical salt-water fish versus cold seas fish? I suppose Noah and his magic ark kept a tank full of goldfish - and one of the best equipped labs ever seen on this planet.

I find it easier to believe in the Tardis than Noah's Ark. And it would be hilarious, but the people who believe this nonsense want it taught in all seriousness to our children and our expense (tax).
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 12 May 2011 9:09:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You seem to be getting into a lather about nothing, Shockadelic.

>>Pericles... You're the ones wriggling. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend...<<

No problem with that.

>>Wriggling out of multi-faith...<<

No problem with that either.

>>Wriggling out of parental responsibility...<<

Definitely supportive of that. I even made that exact point myself.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty...<<

Oh, please, that's just silly. Are you a fully paid-up Existentialist, or what? Surely you must accept that there is a substantial difference between logical deduction and feel-good fairy stories.

>>Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory...<<

There has to be some baseline for general education, surely? All we are discussing here is whether religious evangelism forms part of that baseline.

>>Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential...<<

You present a fascinating set of examples of "hardly essential" subjects. Not sure how they compare, value-wise, with religious indoctrination, though.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious<<

That is their right, of course, and I would be the last person to suggest they should be prevented from being so. It is obviously a source of great comfort to them in helping them make sense of the world.

Nor, as I said before, do I see much harm in Bible stories. It only concerns me when the line is crossed into suggesting that these might be literally true. That can be confusing for a young mind that lacks the balance of sensible parental input.

>>"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry" And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.<<

Not really. The context was the suggestion that religious counsellors should be allowed to do so.

Given their "mission", I find that creepy.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 12 May 2011 9:18:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, ;-) There are so many problems with the flood myth
How do you construct a wooden boat of that size? Engineers have found there is a definite maximum size to the construction of wooden boats due to the structural integrity of wood. You just cannot build wooden boats of that size as they fall apart under their own weight. People have suggested the "Gopher wood" was stronger than normal wood but why then would it become extinct and never seen again when so many other plants and trees survived ?

Also if you remove land masses and cover the earth with water then the weather patterns have nothing to slow or stop storms or waves, they would sweep round the earth in increasing severity, even now rogue waves can build to enormous size and power threatening the largest of modern steel ships, how would a massive floating wooden barge survive such conditions ?

Several groups have built or are building replica arks ON DRY LAND not one has been game enough to try to build one that is capable of actually floating and seaworthy !!

I repete my questions

Posted a page ago

(
(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct.

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 12 May 2011 10:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug

The story of Noah's Ark, like so many bible stories, is a gift which keeps on giving.

The more you tease apart the claims made by these tales, the more questions, holes and outright fallacies are revealed.

No religious will ever answer the issues you raise because there are no rational answers. I thought the point you made about climate on a planet completely covered by water excellent, but one of many conundrums that both biblical testaments contain. At best the tales are analogy, at their basest they claim that following god's word will mean that their souls will live on forever in happiness - selfish? Much.

That the majority of non-christians, or even non-religious can live their lives helping and caring for others - continues to be ignored by many christians. And these same people demand that all children be taught their dogma at the expense of the tax-payer.

Appalling.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 12 May 2011 10:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The earth has plenty enough water. Most of the earth's surface is covered by water as it is. If you smoothed out all mountains and ocean valleys, the average depth of water over the earth would be many hundreds of metres. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 May 2011 7:26:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue

(1) if you believe in creationism and the flood story would you be so kind as to answer the questions I have posted.

(2) are you seriously suggesting that the surface of the earth was "Flattened" several thousand years ago and then "Re constituted" to it's present form without leaving a single piece of geological evidence ?

If this did happen where is the geological evidence to support your claim?

Such an occurrence would leave a single alluvial layer through all geological structures on earth. No such layer exists to my knowledge.

I await your reply and answers.
Posted by Dug, Thursday, 12 May 2011 8:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(1) Why did coral survive the flood where trilobites didn't?

I don't have the perfect answer. You would be better off asking a marine catastrophist or seismologist. Others have tried to model the events of the flood to seek detailed explanations for the world as we now evidence it.

I would say your question compares to this: when there is a tragic car accident, howcome one person survives when another involved does not? It's possible we could do exhaustive investigations without ever perfectly recreating the event to give a totally satisfactory answer. (That doesn't mean we don't try.)    

(2) I am saying the pre-flood earth was quite different to that of the post-flood. For geological evidence of the flood, I think you need to look at it from a different angle. I think you hold a uniformitarian view of geology where the rock layers represent different time epochs or sequences. This is why you're looking for one layer to represent one event. A flood theorist, however, might say that the flood was a world changing cataclysm. And much if not most of the sediment was laid down at the time of the flood.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2011 12:19:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry dan you fail

try again these were the questions
I have asked scientists and experts in these fields many many times and the answers they give make perfect sense. Evolution over a geological time span.

Now I am asking creationists to come up with decent logical rational answers to simple questions.

2 choices: Answers or admit you are wrong.

(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct.

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water
Posted by Dug, Friday, 13 May 2011 12:28:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you already know the answers to your questions, then they're just rhetoric, they're not real questions. (You also might like to work on your question numbering system).

And if you think life is about simple answers to simple questions, then I don't think you'll find much joy here at OLO.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2011 6:59:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,
I don't think you're saying more by posting the same thing twice.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2011 7:12:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice questions Dug and Ammo etc, wish I’d thought of them. Saw one recently about if God could do anything could he make an object too heavy for him to lift.

Do Christians and Muslims etc really believe the Noahs ark stuff? I had no idea it was taken literally. I’m too embarrassed to even ask my Christian friends, it seems bad form and if they say yes I may well start laughing. Which for me brings up an interesting thought about not challenging mates because sometimes you don’t want to be right.

Having listened to bible stories as a kid it didn’t occur to me that they were true and I don’t remember them being presented in that fashion, but in no way do I want children being taught this as a fact and I also don’t want govt money going towards trying to convince young minds that these are real historic accounts. I have no objections to Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc parents taking their little kiddies off to private religious lessons. I wonder what Scientologists teach their children.

Do these religious children side-step areas of science that are not compatible with what they have come to believe? It must be confusing at school for them, do we have a term for abuse of children where the information they’ve been given has messed with their minds?

Anyone watched the movie "Dogtooth"?
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 13 May 2011 7:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Jewely

As for Dug I did warn him he wouldn't get a straight answer from Dan - just further obfuscation and sophistry (I'm not a marine biologist).

I'm not a marine biologist either, but you don't have to have much more than secondary school science to tease apart the inconsistencies in the Noah's Ark tale.

I was taught R.I. at school - when very young I used the time to goof off, when I was older (age 12) I would write essays questioning these same bible stories and why were there so many religions all claiming to be the 'one truth'. I'm guessing that most kids work it out for themselves - kids are great at spotting fakes. Also my parents weren't very religious, we stopped going to church when I was about 10. Mum used to go just for the social side of things - she sang in choir, but the serious religious stuff was never a major part of my childhood.

As for cultural heritage, that comes from a variety sources including religions, my friends whose parents were immigrants from exotic places like China or Egypt (being Anglo-Celtic seemed rather tame and boring) and my own Celtic/Pagan heritage - I believed in fairies for longer than I believed in a big daddy god.

Seems to me that Christians want it all - well, all the good stuff, bring up questionable activities like the Crusades, witch burning, gay bashing, the KKK; the list goes on and the closest a fundy Christian to acknowledging the many atrocities is the sleight of hand answer "if they were doing wrong, they weren't true Christians". Yeah, right. To me that means there aren't any TRUE Christians on this planet.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 13 May 2011 9:13:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They've got that one covered too, Ammonite.

>>To me that means there aren't any TRUE Christians on this planet.<<

I'm sure you've heard the "we're all sinners" mantra. They've built a highly successful industry out of it, over hundreds of years.

Indulgences anyone? Buy one, get one free...
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 13 May 2011 9:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an interesting story related to proselytizing in Victorian schools...

"The religious organisation that provides chaplains to Victorian schools appears to have breached federal guidelines that forbid it from trying to convert children.

Access Ministries provides chaplains to 280 Victorian schools and 96 per cent of special religious classes."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/13/3215690.htm
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 13 May 2011 9:49:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They are not alone - see the "so that they may" section of the aim's and beliefs below.

Scripture Union Queensland http://www.suqld.org.au/home/index.php

"Welcome to SU QLD... We're the largest employer of school chaplains in Australia. What makes us tick is that we want to bring hope to a young generation. And we do this through our school chaplaincy service, camps, holiday programs and kids-at-risk programs. Please stick around to find out if we can help you or your family in any way.
Tim Mander - CEO, SU QLD"

http://www.suqld.org.au/about/index.php
"Aims & Beliefs

Working with the churches, Scripture Union aims:

a) to make God's Good News known to children, young
people and families

and

b) to encourage people of all ages to meet God daily through
the Bible and prayer

so that they may

come to personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,

grow in Christian maturity and

become both committed church members and servants of a world in need."
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 13 May 2011 10:07:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue

I have asked scientists and been given their answers, and to me they make sense.

What I was doing was giving creationists like yourself the opportunity to explain your side of the discussion. You have an opposing view your beliefs are not the same as the scientists, then here is your opportunity to logically and rationally explain what happened to these animals and possibly convert me to your beliefs.

yet instead you get angry with me and say they are rhetorical questions and I do not want to hear your answers.

If I did not want to hear your answers and the answers from any creationist I would not ask the question nor would I repeat it so many times.

I think unless you can come up with a good set of answers this time ( and face it you have had plenty of time to research this already ) that you have no answers, you and your theory cannot explain these things.

So please do the honest decent thing, answer the questions or admit that you have no answers and you cannot explain why these things happened other than some form of supernatural magic.

BTW I am an uneducated person who was beaten then thrown out of a church school for being "deliberately stupid" because I could not learn to read or write.
Sorry if my numbering of my questions offends you, I am alpha numeric dyslexic and severely disabled in that area.
Posted by Dug, Friday, 13 May 2011 11:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aren't you guys getting a bit carried away with this discussion? I mean, it's hardly constructive to be raking over a lot of historical "witch hunts" to find justification for bashing someone over the head. There's far too much "selective" recollection responsible for so many past and present conflicts, so we at least should try not to fall into that same trap. I also think the "bible" thing and the "evolution" thing have been "done" sufficiently, thanks all the same.

We live in a complex world, where distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, become somewhat blurred depending on what side of the fence you're living on, and we shouldn't forget that, while we live in our glass houses throwing stones.

In general, I see merit in there being some acceptable form of inter-faith and comparative religion studies being provided in our schools, together with discussion of ethics, integrity and honesty, and of the role these various value systems can play in social structure. Perhaps such study could form the basis of genuine "social studies", rather than the selective local Oz history served up in my day. History, in my opinion, should serve as both an explanation of past events and a mechanism for avoiding repetition of past foibles, as well as acting to displace prejudice and misconception by fully revealing and explaining context. To shed light, diminish barriers and dispel myth should be amongst the highest ideals we can aspire to for our education system - equally with inspiring creative thinking and preparation for a constructive career.

We in Oz can at least have the benefit of clarity, if we can negotiate the morass of real-time information available to us, and, if we can rise above our preconceptions and prejudices. Religion bashing is not going to get us to an effective medium for promoting social cohesion and understanding through our school system.

RObert has introduced some disturbing info regarding SU Qld - The most relevant posting I have seen in a while, and certainly deserves investigation and resolution.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 13 May 2011 1:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, I don't think there is anything particulary new in what I posted. The point has been made repeatedly that most of the churches treat RE and chaplaincy as outreach activities, I doubt any have "cultural heritage" listed in their material unless it's recent backfill.

The idea that RE is not primary about attempt's to win kid's to Christ is spin, treated as a justifiable deception because the end is seen as more important than the mean's.

Likewise when you read of these organisations being focussed on bringing hope to people remember that's in the context of a belief system that holds the idea that without Christ there is no hope, their god loves you so much that if you don't repent and become a christian he will burn you in hell for eternity. Not much hope there except by converting.

I've been wondering if the politicans just don't comprehend the idea that an organisation might actually mean what they say on their websites. Maybe it never occurs to any of our "secular" pollies that religious organisations with a stated goal of trying to convert people might actually mean it. The religious ones know it but hope nobody notices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 13 May 2011 4:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In discussing religion, I wonder if it's worthwhile going back to basics?

Eons past is it any wonder early man may have thought of a mystical being, super-human, or beyond-human entity as an explanation for the inexplicable? Why people get sick, what the sun is, if not something magical, and the moon, a dull form of the sun - a sleeping sun perhaps? Many questions, no way to find the answers. So, why not delve for an explanation - for the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes? For the profusion of life on which man depended, those to fear, and those simply to be admired? A "God" would appear a logical explanation, would it not? Or many gods - for health, food, children, and protection from other tribes or marauding animals. So many perils. Where to seek "an edge"?

We are perhaps not so different today - seeking "an edge". Some of the basics are still the same - health, wealth, superiority. But so much has also changed - a multiplicity of "religious movements" generated from early beginnings, evolving and competing for followers, security, "fulfillment". Whereas many early "principles" were aimed at the betterment of followers or society, there has been some unavoidable divergence, as, after all, the understanding or explanation of the "mystical" is not subject to "finite" bounds. None can, by definition, have the "real" answer, but neither this, nor all of modern understanding or science, can deny the question - is there a God?, or, Would humanity be better or worse off if the existence of God was generally accepted?

Many today say no, there's no God, we don't need a God, we may or may not believe in the "big bang", we are in the here and now and that's all that matters. Fair enough. Some others sit on the fence. Also ok. For my money the hazard in mythical and religious belief today is the divergence from those early constructs for the betterment of mankind and society, and the emergence of "special case" scenarios which threaten to act to the contrary.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 13 May 2011 4:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,

Thanks for your latest posting bringing me up to date on this issue. I don't doubt what you are saying, and agree it is disturbing. It looks as though some, or many schools, may have simply sidestepped providing broad-based instruction in this area, possibly because their teaching staff have so much on their plate, and have then delegated this responsibility to outside agencies - in this case to special interest religious groups - without proper consideration of qualifications, content, or potential consequences. This is clearly not in the best interests of students, or of our multicultural society, and needs to be corrected.

A review of current arrangements is certainly required, as clearly indicated by the volume of interest displayed here in OLO. I certainly hope some of our educational and political policy makers are tuned in, and it looks as though some emails are called for to various Federal and State Ministers for Education, to ensure that they are made aware of the extent of dissatisfaction with current arrangements in this sensitive area.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 13 May 2011 4:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A link to Access Ministry's Head, Evonne Paddison's, speech about discipleship.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55338278/ACCESS-Ministry-s-head-Evonne-Paddison-s-speech-to-Anglican-Evangelical-Fellowship

Scroll down - the controversial parts are highlighted in yellow.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 13 May 2011 4:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Evonne Paddison and her ilk were truly honest they would be telling governments that providing these services ( RE and Chaplains) and NOT seeking to convert young people to Christ and their church are incompatible with their core beliefs and that they cannot in all honesty provide a service as laid out in the government guidelines.

The sad thing is they believe it is justifiable to break the laws and their promise to our government in order to push their own agendas and beliefs onto young kids.

Any other group that goes into schools offering young children sweets and enticements would be very suspect.

= - = - = - =

to creationists who were here but seem to have disappeared I am still waiting for an answer to my questions :-)

Don;t be frightened

let's hear what you have to say. Perhaps if you pray god will tell you the secret ?
Posted by Dug, Friday, 13 May 2011 4:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ummm... thanks for sharing, Saltpetre.

>>Many today say no, there's no God, we don't need a God, we may or may not believe in the "big bang", we are in the here and now and that's all that matters. Fair enough. Some others sit on the fence. Also ok. For my money the hazard in mythical and religious belief today is the divergence from those early constructs for the betterment of mankind and society, and the emergence of "special case" scenarios which threaten to act to the contrary.<<

It is always good to hear other folks' opinion on the existence or otherwise of God.

Trouble is, I couldn't work out from this which side of the fence you are declaring yourself to have landed.

By the way, I agree completely with your summary of how Gods were invented. What puzzled me a little was your question...

>>Would humanity be better or worse off if the existence of God was generally accepted?<<

Do you mean the general acceptance of one single God? In other words, the conversion of the entire planet to a single religion?

That would be a somewhat tough ask, given the pitched battles that have been waged for thousands of years.*

Why not pose the question as: "Would humanity be better or worse off if the non-existence of God was generally accepted?"

I think we would all agree "better off" to that one, if only to rid the world of its constant - and frequently deadly - religious bickering. The only opponents to that concept, I suspect, would be the folk who, literally against the odds, believe theirs to be the only "true" version.

*Just a thought. Were there any religious wars prior to the introduction of Christianity?

Anyone?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 13 May 2011 7:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't really answer you Pericles, though I think a belief in God at least gives some hope. Why? Well, apart from the possibility that people may behave better if they think there may be an eventual reward, or the reverse - depending on how well they conduct their lives - there is also the hope that one may be able to get some support in one's worthwhile endeavours from the "beyond". Wishful thinking? Probably. But, where's the hurt?

The other coin? No God. Well, that's a bit of a desperate situation. No-one to seek help from, no friendly deity smiling down at man's foibles, no chance of any interceding if mankind goes that one step too far in meddling with the biosphere. Leaves us out in the cold, doesn't it? No question about how we came to be, or the universe, or what may lie ahead. We just exist. Alone in the void? Mere chance? Maybe the last is a step too far into a vast emptiness of self. No explicable rationale for our existence, save chance. A lucky stroke, nothing more. But still, a desperate alone-ness.

The point of my last post was really to question the virtue of the divergence of religious thought from the best interests of mankind as a whole into so many trains of "special case" category. The point being that there can be no real certainty, and it can only be destructive, or at best self-serving, for any group to lay claim to some special place in some divinical plan.

I'm not going to get into the holy war thing, there's just too much of that all round. One God, serving all faiths, that's my preference and my belief. Where things go badly wrong is when anyone or any group lays claim to special privilege. Humanity needs to learn to get along better - this is too small a world to harbour hatreds. A brighter future is what we need, with goodwill towards all men, and a wondrous renaissance of cultural sharing, exchange and tolerance.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 13 May 2011 11:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
For someone who claims to be dyslexic, you are more coherent than most here. 

Though I didn't answer all your questions, neither did you acknowledge the partial answers that I did give. 

Fair enough. If your question is sincere, I'll try and answer it. Yet I still don't claim the answer to be definitive, as I wasn't there at the time.

As bottom-dwellers, trilobites would have been one of the first creatures to be buried in the flood, possibly by the action of turbidity currents given the calamitous seismic events taking place, which explains why they are found so low in the fossil record. Indeed, the Flood could have been responsible for their extinction. 

Though they're low in the fossil record, there is nothing primitive about them—indeed, their eyes look like they were designed by a master physicist.

A question for you:  by your reckoning, if trilobites were so suited to their marine environment, why didn't they survive, or where are their decendents now?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 May 2011 6:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

I have to hand it to you, your disquisition on the fate of the trilobite is absolutely hilarious!
Why didn't they hop on board the Ark?
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 14 May 2011 6:40:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Squeers, glad to keep you amused. But I was responding to a quite specific question from someone else.

Genesis 7:22
Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 May 2011 7:08:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
D S M

>> Genesis 7:22
Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. <<

Well that explains all the plants - therefore no Olive Branch for dove to return. Doesn't explain how the fresh water fish coped with saltwater, nor the breeding season of salmon returning from the oceans to their fresh water spawning streams.

You never answered whether Noah kept samples of bacteria or viruses on petrie dishes, I guess the petrie dishes would been made out of pottery - not the best medium for keeping micro-organisms that would not survive the altered acidity/temperature of oceans. I guess seaweed must've been gigantic - maybe the dove brought back a great lump of seaweed.

Please note that seeds do not last long in water - particularly those of dry climes - like the olive, for an olive tree to take root when the oceans subsided - not possible. And where did the water go? Just evaporated I guess - temperatures must have been higher then. Must've been monster storms with all that water vapour forming clouds, but then the water would've returned as rain.

Going round in circles - that's the bible for you.

Saltpetre

I enjoy this beautiful world as it is and I don't need a celestial carrot to do the right thing by others - as a social being like other humans cooperation works best. Albeit not for everyone - we all are subject to differences in personality just as we in height, build, colouring. Some people are just plain nasty - probably a result of the randomness of natural selection. Oooops I referred to evolution.
Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 14 May 2011 9:17:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Apparently scientists have successfully named and classified over 1.5 million species - and that's only the ones that "have" been classified.

- I guess Noah had a really good filing system : )
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 14 May 2011 9:36:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan It is now believed the trilobites as a species succumbed to a global warming event like the one we are experiencing now, after living for millions of years and being very successful the increase in the acidity of the oceans dissolved their calcite shells ( especially their eyes that were made from calcite crystals.) There are a few theories going around but the latest studies on how an acidic ocean is affecting calcium shelled mollusks and corals is giving weight to this theory.

If as you suggest they were all buried why did so many other bottom dwelling species survive and the trilobite die ? ( again many species if trilobite were capable of free swimming and could have survived better than plants and animals that can only crawl across the sea floor or live attached to the sea floor.

Seriously think about what you are suggesting, it does not make sense does it?

As for your comments about my disability, you also display a massive amount of ignorance. most dyslexics have a higher than average IQ we only have problems communicating in written form. Without a computer spell check and grammar I have the writing ability of a 6 year old. Without wishing to seem like boasting repeated testing has rated my IQ in the 160 to 180 ranges. I have problems reading and writing not thinking.

Please think before you make insulting comments about others especially those who suffer disabilities, like me we have spent our lives dealing with ignorance and intolerance like you have shown here in your comments.
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 14 May 2011 10:34:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Mendel's theories were ignored for decades after publication, possibly as they were thought to be out of step with Darwin’s theory of evolution."

Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:46:48 AM

Mendel's work, and laws of inheritance based on that work, was ignored for years because it was published in German, not for the spurious reasons you assert.

Darwin's theory did not require the acquisition of new characteristics, just changes in the proportion those characteristics were present in subsequent generations in the population, as has been validated to occur.

"Dan Dare,
"ou might consider that it is reasonable that reptiles evolved into birds. Others may not. My point was that it is not an observation. No one observed any such thing."

Of course no one observed reptiles evolving into birds - it happened over millions of years. Subtle changes in populations over many, many generations is the hallmark of evolution.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 14 May 2011 1:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can however observe the gradual development of feather like scales on various dinosaurs and compare those to the feathers and scales on modern birds. Especially with the similarities between ancient flightless feathered dinosaurs and modern flightless birds like the Ostrich and Emu.

Recent fossil bed discoveries especially those in China show this development in great detail.

Many of the old claims of creationists like "the fossil record is incomplete" just do not hold true anymore.

We have excellent examples of many of the so called "Transitional Fossils" they have been asking for.

( Every fossil is a transitional fossil as the changes are constant and ongoing. )
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 14 May 2011 1:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@JJ said "I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

@Shockadelic said :"You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to?"

Ah yes, I see your point... Some viruses have developed resistance to antibiotics, therefore the practice of oil-rubbing and chanting is demonstrably efficacious at curing all diseases which is why you've never visited a doctor.

Well done clever clogs! I suppose can't really argue with logic such as yours... (for one reason or another).

--

@JJ Said: "Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in...."

@Shockadelic said "how to "win" debates with pathetic sarcasm?"

Yes, apparently. Depends on who you're debating with, I guess, but in your case it's certainly a viable option.

--

@Shockadelic said "You still haven't explained how you could comprehend "Joan of Arc" without *any* knowledge of Christianity."

Why do you keep asking me to explain something that you KNOW is "utterly indecipherable" to me?! That's just being cruel. ;-)

Or, did you not really mean what you originally said about the whole of western civilization being "utterly indecipherabe" if you don't attend SRI as a kiddy, and are now simply being obstinate instead of decently admitting your hyberbolic gaffe?

Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted, but you don't REALLY want me to do you, surely? That would disprove your point that religious instruction is necessary for children to understand history, since I didn't get any.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Saturday, 14 May 2011 3:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joan of Arc explained:

A young woman suffered a mental illness probably schizophrenia and saw delusional visions. Because of the superstitious nature of the times she was able to gather followers and inspire those who believed she had magical powers.

She led the army to several important victories during a long period of wars and battles.

She was captured and burned to death by her enemies, who were equally superstitious.

Later some people in another country all together said she had magical powers because it suited their political and financial needs at the time.

=-=-=-=-=-
Any other magic stories you need translated into understandable language ?
Posted by Dug, Saturday, 14 May 2011 3:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting angle, Saltpetre.

>>...there is also the hope that one may be able to get some support in one's worthwhile endeavours from the "beyond". Wishful thinking? Probably. But, where's the hurt?<<

That's the logic I hear from people who do Lotto every week.

And face it, to the poor it can be very hurtful indeed, when they get nothing in return except the warm feeling of participation.

>>No God... No-one to seek help from...<<

That also applies to booze. You can "seek help" from the bottle, but you won't actually find any. The journey can be kinda fun, though, which is probably why there are so many religious people as well as drinkers. It's the sensory/emotional hit that keeps them going back.

>>...no chance of any interceding if mankind goes that one step too far in meddling with the biosphere.<<

Interceding using... earthquakes, floods, tsunamis perhaps? That's comforting. We don't have to blame APG after all.

>>No question about how we came to be, or the universe, or what may lie ahead. We just exist. Alone in the void?... a desperate alone-ness<<

That's the nub, isn't it. The individual's fear of being alone, which is deeply rooted in our psyche.

Odd, when there are more than six billion of us on this planet, that anyone would feel it necessary to invent an imaginary friend as well.

>>...it can only be destructive, or at best self-serving, for any group to lay claim to some special place in some divinical plan<<

I'd go a step further, and propose that it is the very suggestion that there is some kind of "divinical plan" in the first place, that has caused the problem between religions.

None of this "divinical plan" business means squat to an atheist, by the way. I can't speak for others, but I sincerely think everyone would be better of, mentally and emotionally, if we could find a way to rely upon ourselves and each other, instead of an imaginary spirit in the sky.

It's a challenge at first, having to think for yourself. But you get used to it.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 14 May 2011 6:22:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There’s been some interesting points made about the ridiculousness of the Noah’s ark story here and having been someone who has had a lot of experience with creationists and even having been one myself once before, I’ll let you in on some of the explanations that I don’t think the creationists here will be willing to admit as even they know just how utterly insane they will sound to rational people.

In regards to harmful bacteria, creationists believe that it spontaneously appeared as the result of two naked adolescents eating the wrong fruit in a garden with a talking legged snake (snakes must’ve had legs before the eating of the forbidden fruit, otherwise what kind of a punishment would ‘ye shall crawl on your belly for the rest of your days’ be).

So, anyway, Noah wouldn’t have had to keep petri dishes with him - at least not for the harmful bacteria - as it simply would have spontaneously re-appeared after the waters subsided due our sin.

Think that’s crazy? It’s better!

Noah wouldn’t have needed a good filing system, not for bacteria or for the millions of multi-celled species that currently inhabit the Earth, because of a little thing they call “super-evolution”.

You see, Noah would have only needed two single-celled life forms just as he would have only needed two snakes, because these “two of each kind” (try getting a creationist to actually define “kind” too) super-evolved into all the different variations of the “kinds” we see today.

For example, all the species of snake we see today - over the space of hundreds of years (at a rate of thousands of times faster than the real evolution they think is impossible) - “super-evolved” into all the varieties you see today.

So there’s no point in bringing to their attention the lack of space on the ark - they think they already have it explained - you need to point out to them the impossibility of super-evolution.

By the way, if the flood was just a flattening of the land, then what was all the rain for?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 14 May 2011 10:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ugh!

I meant to say, “It gets better”.

But while I’m here, I may as well point out to any creationists reading that I realise that (regardless of how impossibly fast you may believe that “kinds” can “super-evolve” into variations of that “kind”) you don’t believe that “kinds” can evolve into other “kinds”. But try finding a mechanism that prevents this.

You can’t and that’s the crux of the matter.

Oh and Saltpetre, our beliefs inform our actions and so it is important that we all ensure that we have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 14 May 2011 10:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@AJ Philips,

Thanks for that. As you sound like an expert on the matter, could I press you for some answers to more questions about the the flood story...

1. God say's he's drowning nearly ALL the men, women, children, infants (and animals!) in the world because everyone except one man (Noah) is evil. So why did he also save Noah's EVIL sons and wives for the Earth reboot? Couldn't he have just killed everyone, and created another innocent man and women from dust and a rib, like last time?

3. Why does an omnimax god need a mnemonic device such as a rainbow to remind him not to commit genocide again by accident?
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 15 May 2011 2:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim AJ Is an EX Believer I believe :-)

It seems the creationists have gone quiet all of a sudden :-( Awwwww

you would think they would relish the chance to explain their beliefs to us godless heathens who are seeking the truth and asking questions.

It would seem to me their faith is very much based on faith and faith alone and that asking questions is not something they are keen on.
Posted by Dug, Sunday, 15 May 2011 3:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dug "Jim AJ Is an EX Believer I believe :-) "

Yeah I got that thanks :-) You don't think I'd be asking a Christian to provide an honest explanation of their beliefs do you?

If that Evonne Paddison woman who runs ACCESS ministries is any example, it's clear they'll tell you one thing to your face while really believing the complete opposite.

For example, in public denying that SRI is proselytazing (haha!), whilst *actually* believing SRI is a "God-given open door to children" to fulfill their "Need to go and make disciples."
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Sunday, 15 May 2011 7:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, you are way too droll. We may be doing ok, but there are many people for whom life is not all that grand, and it can be a comfort for these at least to believe there may be something better to hope for in the hereafter.

Of course, in earlier times this could have been "used" to keep the lower classes emptying the dunny cans, and accepting their "earthly" pain. This may also apply today, but it is now more likely to be states and administrators who do the repressing, rather than any church - and it is the church which provides the "balm".

To hold a belief, or trust, in any form of hereafter, I think it prerequisite to hold a belief in a God or supreme deity. May be wrong, but don't see how it can be otherwise.

As for atheists (and the fence-sitting agnostics) some may hold their a view as a worldly choice, of a "liberated" mind, for others it may be simply an exercise of "freedom" - so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught). The "not being caught" limitation on personal freedoms has of course not worked all that well - else we probably wouldn't have GFC's or Storm Financial's etc.

We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives. Still, for many people there is a need "to belong", to be part of a similarly minded group, for the assurance this provides.

Irrespective of means, the supreme objective must always be "universal adherence to a set of commonly held moral and ethical values". Achievement of this does Not require a common "faith", or any particular belief system, just a high set of standards.

I can only reiterate - when any belief system places itself above, or aside from, universal morality, on pretext of "special place", it can only be to the detriment of the common good.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 15 May 2011 8:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, Pericles, we are undone! Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 16 May 2011 7:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre

I am happy to know that there are sincerely religious people who do empathize with and are accepting of others - irrespective of what religious beliefs they may or may not hold.

Unfortunately, you are not among those people. Your comments that people become atheists "so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)", is one of the silliest and spurious of claims. I do not believe in an all watching all powerful deity - I manage to behave decently and fairly to all people - even to you after your highly insulting comments.

Your attempts to cast all non-religious as somehow less than religious is indicative of a closed mind - I suggest the the god in which you believe would not be very pleased by your behaviour.

Clearly a watchful deity is not keeping you from casting stones at others. Do you think you won't "get caught"?
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 16 May 2011 8:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Squeers, you can't really blame Saltpetre...

>>Oh dear, Pericles, we are undone! Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!<<

...no-one has actually seen us together in the same room, have they?

Saltpetre, we do agree on many aspects.

>>...it can be a comfort for these at least to believe there may be something better to hope for in the hereafter<<

Absolutely. I suspect this is the single most compelling reason why some people become "religious". They have, as we all do, a basic incomprehension of the "why" of our existence. Faced with this unsolvable mystery, they choose to go along with the idea that there is some form of father figure looking after them.

If it floats their boat, and they don't use it to oppress others, it's a relatively harmless process.

>>To hold a belief, or trust, in any form of hereafter, I think it prerequisite to hold a belief in a God or supreme deity.<<

Absolutely. Though it doesn't actually alter the reality that there is no such thing as a "hereafter". There is only a "here". And sometimes, you have to admit, a belief in a "hereafter" can cause people to do unspeakable things, here.

>>As for atheists... some may hold their a view as a worldly choice...<<

Absolutely. Although I did detect something of a sneer in all those quotation marks - a "liberated" mind, an exercise of "freedom" etc.

We have the right to choose not to believe. That means only that we reject the notion of a supernatural father figure. Personally, my choice revolved around the complete absence of a need for reassurance.

Being - unlike so many previous generations - at least cognizant of the immenseness of the universe, I feel privileged to be here at all. I don't need to search for a reason.

We agree on this, too: when religion is used as a stick to beat people with, it can only be bad.

Bad for religion, as well as bad for people.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:11:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I meant to mention that too, Ammonite, but ran out of space.

You addressed Saltpetre as follows:

>>Your comments that people become atheists "so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)", is one of the silliest and spurious of claims.<<

Very true.

But the sentence that caught my eye was this one:

>>The "not being caught" limitation on personal freedoms has of course not worked all that well - else we probably wouldn't have GFC's or Storm Financial's etc.<<

The strong suggestion from Saltpetre appears to be that these events were caused by atheists.

It makes a change from the usual claims - atheists kill more people than Christians ever have etc. - but is equally spurious.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:17:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

How does Saltpetre 'know' if s/he is dealing with an atheist, if they continue to behave like decent human beings? Must be a scary thought - there are atheists in SP's life s/he doesn't even know about.

Saltpetre

Do you assume that all the kindly compassionate decent folk you encounter in your daily life are Christians?

And, as Pericles has noted, that bad things like the GFC are only caused by non-religious?

I guess this is the time we ask for some evidence of such claims.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:25:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!....Oh dont stop there:) I just brought my super-sized POP-CORN and Large coke..
Absolutely. I suspect this is the single most compelling reason why some people become "religious". They have, as we all do, a basic incomprehension of the "why" of our existence. Faced with this unsolvable mystery, they choose to go along with the idea that there is some form of father figure looking after them.

Priceless:)

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
As AJ has crudely put it, Noah would not have needed to manage millions of species, as only a certain number would have been needed as a representation of each kind on the ark. 

Diversification or speciation can at times be quite rapid. These are processes that are observable (refer back to our defn of science) and in fact have been observed. We also observe that there are limits to diversification. For example, through special breeding programs over many decades farmers have managed to significantly increase the sugar content of certain crops, yet that sugar level eventually plateaus out at an upper limit, once all the sugar producing genes have been selected.

Not knowing the exact boundaries for a biblical 'kind' is not a sin. Knowing everything is the domain of God. Not knowing something gives reason for further research, which is healthy. (A biblical 'kind' often equates roughly in taxonomy to something near a genus or family level.)    

Ammonite,
The diversification of fish into salt and fresh water varieties can be explained by the processes of adaptation, especially in the new ecological niches and environments created by the post flood conditions. Yet as I said above, there are limits. We don't observe fish rearranging their essential structures. Fish remain fish, etc.

Where did the water go? Into the oceans (note the very deep ocean trenches, which probably opened up relating to the seismic activity of the flood, see Gen. 7:11, 'the underground waters erupted.') 

Olive trees I've heard are pretty hardy, and could possibly have sprouted from a cutting from drift debris without miraculous intervention after the Flood.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:15:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
Sorry for my insensitive comment. I was trying to give you a compliment. I noticed, even before you said anything about your background, that you have a definite clarity of thought, which i found appealing.  

What you said about trilobites does make sense. For even if most were killed in the flood, we might expect the numbers to recover from the small number that remained. 

A key phrase is found in what you said, 'There are a few theories going around.' Indeed there always are. You've put forward the idea of increased salinity of the sea. It's likely that post flood conditions for the earth became significantly different to preflood conditions, including increased salinity over time. Other changed conditions (desertification and deforestation) may explain the disappearance of the larger animals that you were asking about.

Why have creationists gone quiet? Maybe the're happy sitting back watching atheists discuss a 'fable' in such detail; at least half a dozen atheists willing to be sidetracked from a discussion about school education to defend their version of truth against a 'fable'.        

We could debate the ark much more, if we wanted. But others elsewhere have gone into far more detail than we ever will here. I just wanted to say that Christians are more than willing to explain and defend our beliefs. Not that we can ever prove our faith through science, but we can uphold it as reasonable and rational, and even increasingly so through these modern times. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:23:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Not that we can ever prove our faith through science, but we can uphold it as reasonable and rational, and even increasingly so through these modern times."

Sorry but you do realize just how ridiculous that comment is ?

The overwhelming weight of evidence, massive collections, thousands of universities and museums, hundreds of thousands of skilled researchers, millions of hours of research have gone in to the theory of evolution and the fossil record.

As yet not one single solitary piece of evidence has been discovered that supports a global flood theory. There just is no evidence of this myth being true yet people cling to it because it is written in an ancient book.

If the creationists here could answer my questions and shoot my hypothesis down in flames, if they could point to good scientific research that backed their theory do you really think they would be silent about it ?

it is not just trilobites it is my other questions and so many others that just make the story you are desperate to believe impossible.

Face the awful truth, the ark myth is just that, a pretty universal flood myth that has grown over time into a cultural memory.

Just for once take the blindfold of religion off and look honestly at the facts of the matter. Please.
Posted by Dug, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:53:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

"Maybe ther're happy sitting back watching atheists discuss a "fable"...."

If it's a fable, why have you taken the time to explain to me that Noah, biological scientist extraordinaire, needed only a certain number of species as "representation of kinds" on the ark?.... not to mention that these representations, being suited to to specific environments, must have thrived so well bobbing about in a wooden ship.

Did neanderthals come before or after the flood - or are they a fable too?
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:58:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How would any small family manage to build a wooden ship larger than any that has been able to be built since. Wood does not have the strength to support it's own weight at that size.

If it was made from a magic "Gopher wood" then don;t you think Noah would have take a few seeds with him on the ark rather than leave such a wonderful asset to become extinct.

So many impossibilities, so few answers !
Posted by Dug, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:08:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
I don’t think it is a fable. I would have thought that my comment would be interpreted as placing that word through the perspective of the atheist. To make it especially clear, I put the word between inverted commas to show that this was not my perspective.

I’m sorry if that was not clear, but I think others would have picked that up.

Dug,
In your second last post, you seem to be offering the argument that if most people agree with a position, then it is probably true. I hope you realise how easy that argument is to counter. And I’m surprised by now that you haven’t realised that I’m happy to defend a minority position.

And the argument is not really about who has the evidence. All have the same evidence available to them. We’re all looking at the same evidence, and it comes down to which position best incorporates the totality of the evidence.

When you speak of blindfolds, I think you’re getting nearer the mark. Everyone looks at the evidence through a certain perspective. How people view the evidence is driven by their worldview, perspective or presuppositions. For example, from an atheist perspective, some form of naturalistic evolution must be true. It is the only acceptable game in town. Philosophy drives the investigation.

For all your decades of investigating these issues, I think (similar to how you are accusing me) that you should take the blindfold off, or look at it through different glasses or different viewpoint.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DSdM

>> The diversification of fish into salt and fresh water varieties can be explained by the processes of adaptation, especially in the new ecological niches and environments created by the post flood conditions. <<

So close to evolution... and yet so far away....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEWVt6xyjLU&feature=relmfu

So before the flood, there was no diversification - because that would lead to evolution, but AFTER the flood (for which there is no evidence) creatures adapted to the new environments.

And where did all that water go?
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 16 May 2011 12:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan

look at the evidence

Nothing else just the overwhelming, massively overwhelming weight of evidence.

People used to believe in the flood story untill evidence showed it was impossible.

if you have evidence to show it was possible then I would consider it. I have looked at both sides and there is no comparison in the sheer overwhelming weight of evidence.

Any scientist or researcher that could publish sound reliable repeatable evidence for a world wide flood would be hailed and published world wide with lectures in every country and programs on every TV station.

This has not happened has it. A few people cling to an outdated belief because of faith not facts.
Posted by Dug, Monday, 16 May 2011 12:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones,

I don’t know that I’m comfortable with the “expert” label when talking about creationist knowledge. The word “creationism”, for me, tends to conjure-up thoughts of terms more along the lines of “delusional”, “comatose” or “lobotomised”.

Stepping back into my old Christian shoes, for your first question I would probably have given you the standard, lazy, “Things are happening in a fairly random way - just as they would without a God, but because I'm emotionally dependant on the comforting belief in a cosmic father figure and eternal life due to my death anxiety, then I'm just going to make-up any old crap to excuse that which doesn't rationally fit my beliefs” response and simply say:

God works in mysterious ways.

But it wasn’t just Noah’s sons who were bad people. Noah himself was a pretty rotten person too. Consider the curse of Ham. Ham spots his father lying in a tent drunk and naked with soiled scrunched-up tissues scattered around him and a stone tablet that had a carving of a naked woman on it in his left hand (okay, I made-up the part about the tissues and the tablet but I think it’s obvious what he was supposed to have been doing), then curses Ham’s son for what his father accidentally saw.

That’s even more irrational than Jesus’ behavior with the moneychangers.

For your second question, I probably would have reminded you that the rainbow served as a promise from god to us - not as a reminder to himself - that he would never behave quite so much like the irrational, genocidal, bloodthirsty, sadistic and downright evil god that he is.

Come to think of it, we always hear about “the problem of evil”, but considering the universe and everything in it was supposedly created by undoubtedly the most evil being in all existence, I think “the problem of good” should be a bigger concern for Christians.

Where does good come from if everything was made by something so evil?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 16 May 2011 12:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding Pastor Peter CURTIS,

... who speaks so militantly for the evangelising of ONLY christian values,
here is a sample of his deranged thinking as contributed to the Sarah PALIN
vice-presidential campaign in Y2008.
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2008/11/02/prophecy-for-sarah-palin/

We can note that our "Cultural Heritage"
DID NOT commence 2000 years ago, for there was before that era a great range of history: e.g.,
Mathematics - Greeks, Indians, Persians
Architecture - Romans, Egyptians and Minoans
Science - Greeks and Britons

... and a great many religions other than christianity, which had yet to be created !!

We owe more to these antecedents than to the anti-scientific christians.

If we are going to properly teach History and Culture, then this precedent should be taught,
not just the scripture from ONE book !
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 16 May 2011 1:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way Dan S

Nowhere in the bible does it discuss the diversification of fauna and flora that would've been required after such a catastrophic event, nor any mention of floating branches of olive trees.

Yours is a make it up to fit whatever is being questioned type religion and you would inflict this irrationality on our children?

Religion is but one of many ideologies that children need to learn. Given the many flaws in this world, the vengeance on innocents by your deity s/he it must be a minor deity, a child itself.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 16 May 2011 1:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow you guys, you can read anything you care to into anything at all, can't you. But that's not being clever, it's just being obtuse for the sake of it - or at best displays only a superficial approach to the issues at hand. Either way it earns you no credit.

In my post I offered some perfectly reasonable bases on which some may choose either to reject the idea of a deity, or to choose not to have an opinion either way. I did not accuse atheists or agnostics of anything. So, if you want to contest something I did say, ok, but if you insist on misrepresentation then forget it.

Ammonite, you are the one who is insulting, because of your purposeful misrepresentation or supercilious misreading of my post.
I had posted the following:
"We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives."

I also posted:
"Irrespective of means, the supreme objective must always be "universal adherence to a set of commonly held moral and ethical values". Achievement of this does Not require a common "faith", or any particular belief system, just a high set of standards."

Anyway, Ammonite, have a nice day.

Apologies Squeers, my post was meant to be a response to Pericles.

Anyhow, I always held a view that atheism or agnosticism did not equate to non-caring or ignorant. Now I have to start to review that "belief", unfortunately.

In closing my post I had offered the following:
"I can only reiterate - when any belief system places itself above, or aside from, universal morality, on pretext of "special place", it can only be to the detriment of the common good."

Are you guys trying to offer atheism and agnosticism such a "special place"? If so, your high-horses suddenly have rubber legs.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 16 May 2011 1:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whut?

People still defending Noah's Ark?

Creationism believes the ark size is: 450’ long, 75’ wide, 45’ high.
Assume rectangular in shape, giving 42.2 thousand long tons in total displacement, but real displacement assumes one third is above water, so becoming 28 thousand long tons.

Packing density inside the ark could not be as dense as water, for exercise, safety clearance between the carnivores etc; further, is the weight of the ark, this reduces real carrying capacity to about 20 thousand long tons.

To give a feel for this figure, compare it to the liner Queen Elizabeth I with 84 thousand long tons carrying capacity.

It is alleged that the Bible instructs Noah to take on board 2 pairs of each species of unclean animal, and 7 pairs of each species of clean animal. The largest dinosaur, the Brachiosaurus, weighed in at about 100 tons, did not have a split hoof, and chewed the cud, so 7 pairs of these were required. Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed about 40 tons, ate meat, so 2 pairs of these were required.

Adding up only the top 30 heavyweights out of 500 odd species of dinosaur, with sevens and twos as multipliers, we obtain a total weight of about 13 thousand long tons.

But, we have to include all the gorillas, orangutans, pandas, bears, bison, gnus, giraffes, elephants, camels, kangaroos, hippopotami, rhinoroceri, eagles, ducks, condors, etc.

This makes the total come to 30 thousand long tons, ie 150% of the capacity of the ark.

Now add the food.
Assuming all the herbivores, ate one tenth of their weight per day for 375 days.

This adds a further 1.2 million long tons, the total being 56 times the carrying capacity of the ark.

This is a science, to be taught at all schools, as the visiting creationists demand ?

Summary of calculations
Ark = 450’ X 75’ X 45’ = 1.52E6 cu ft
= 94.6E6 lb !water weighs 62.3 lb/cu ft
= 42.4 E3 long tons = 42.9 metric tonnes !1 ton =2240 lb
= 28.6 E3 tonnes displacement !1 long ton = 1.01605 tonnes
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 16 May 2011 3:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of the largest ships ever made and their problems:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships

100.4 m (329.5 ft) X 15.3 m (50 ft 1 in) Wyoming 1909-1924 sunk[19] This American ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle.[20] This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to be pumped out.[21] The over-all-length including jibboom was 450 feet (140 m).

102.1 m (335 ft) x [ 22] 16.2 m (53 ft) Great Republic 1853-1872 abandoned leaking[23] This American ship used iron bolts, and reinforced with steel, including 90 36 foot 4x1 inch cross braces, and metal keelsons.[24] The MIT Museum noted that: "With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."[25]. The over-all-length including jibboom was 400 ft (120 m).

102.1 m (335 ft) x 18.3 m (60 ft) HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey 1858-1871, 1875 resp. sold as scrap These British warships were pushing the limits of what was possible in wooden ship construction and suffered structural problems.[26][27]

103 m (338 ft) x 13.4 m (44 ft) Pretoria 1900-1905 sunk
An American barge built for use on the Great Lakes. To strengthen its wooden frame and hull, it included steel keelson plates, chords, arches, and also was diagonally strapped with steel. A donkey engine powered a pump to keep its interior dry.[28]

115.0 m (377.3 ft) X 22.2 m (72.8 ft) Rochambeau 1865-1874 scrapped This French ship was an iron-clad ship built in New York. About 50 feet (15 m) of her length was a ram. She was not particularly stable or seaworthy, even with her substantial metal components, and only made one voyage in the open ocean to reach her new owners.

These ships would have used steel none of them would have been 100% wood as the ark was described.

the ark as described in the bible had one window for ventilation. can you imagine the ventilation problems of such a massive animal carrier ?
Posted by Dug, Monday, 16 May 2011 3:53:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
You say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you.

“I have looked at both sides and there is no comparison … .” I might say something like this also.

Ammonite,
You say,
“Nowhere in the bible does it discuss the diversification of fauna and flora ...”

Well, the Bible says a few times that animals and plants were made to reproduce after their own kind. And that’s what they do. They reproduce something of their own kind, not a different kind, while not usually an exact replica of either parent.

And where did all that water go? I already said it went into the oceans, but I don’t think you were listening.

I have given answers to several questions showing how the Biblical data is consistent with the empirical evidence. We’ve been accused of not wanting to answer questions, and after giving answers we’re accused of making it up as we go. But you can’t expect to please all the people all the time.

---

Back on the topic of teaching RE, The Age newspaper in Melbourne was running a poll today, Monday May 16, 2011. (Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.)

Poll: Teaching the Word

Do you support religion in schools programs?
Yes - 59%
No- 41%

I was surprised at the result considering how Left leaning this newspaper is and how negative towards the issue the original associated article was.

"http://www.facebook.com/l/62622/www.theage.com.au/polls/victoria/teaching-the-word-20110513-1el3g.html#poll"
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Creationists, LOL
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:22:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You seem to be getting into a lather about nothing, Shockadelic.”

I think it's you guys doing that, actually.

“You present a fascinating set of examples of "hardly essential" subjects. Not sure how they compare, value-wise, with religious indoctrination, though.”

They cost a lot of money and are ultimately the parent's responsibility (many parents already spend money on these things). Yet no objections to this -waste-of-money-that's-really-parental-responsibility. You are hypocrites. The only time you object to anything is when it offends you *personal belief system.
There is music and sport and woodwork in school not just because they have “value”, but because parents *want this and are happy for public money to be spent on them.
They also have no problem with SRI. Only a tiny minority of self-obsessed whiners do.
Should we discard woodwork lessons or tennis if some loony minority kick up a fuss about it?

Jimmy Jones “Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted...”

No, you couldn't, unless you already had knowledge of Christianity.
The only reason you could discuss Joan of Arc is because you *do have that knowledge.

“Medicine is more than medicinal drugs, so you can't denigrate the whole [the medical discipline] by attacking a part [medical drugs].”

I didn't denigrate “the whole medical discipline”.
I pointed out a particular case where modern medicine has created rather than solved a problem, in response to your blind faith in it.

Dug “Joan of Arc explained”

No, you haven't.
That is your contemporary *interpretation* of Joan of Arc, based not only on today's alleged “knowledge” of the human mind, but also on a knowledge of CHRISTIANITY.

You cannot “explain” Joan of Arc if you have NO knowledge of Christianity, because that is an intrinsic element of who she was and why she did what she did.

You cannot prove Joan had delusions. In fact, you cannot prove that any person ever has had delusions, as nobody knows for absolute certain what “reality” is.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 6:44:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding creation/evolution, what is your explanation for the symmetry so common in lifeforms?

Why all this symmetry?

If symmetry were some practical evolutionary advantage, why are *some* things *not* symmetrical?
(non-symmertrical livers, hearts and intestines, but symmetrical lungs, kidneys, testes,
or symmetrical leaves and flowers on non-symmetrical trees)

And why are there deep sea fish with *coloured* scales?
At that depth, there's no light to reflect colour.
How could colour be an evolutionary advantage if nobody can see it?
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 6:55:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is always a good discipline to leave a discussion when your fellow-disputant comes up with an unanswerable point.

>>...nobody knows for absolute certain what “reality” is.<<

Thank you shockadelic, that gives me the perfect opportunity to back away, slowly.

Have a great day.

Assuming of course that you are able to work out for absolute certain what a "day" is.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre

Please make up your mind either atheists deliberately disown a god in order to behave badly:

"so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)".

Or

"We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives."

The afore-mentioned quote from you is a sweeping and insulting generalisation of atheists, the latter quote grudging acknowledgement that a some people may lead exemplary lives. Is this your "get out of jail free card"? Your attempt to defuse your insults?

I ask you to take note that I have not attacked you personally, simply drawn attention to your claims regarding non-christians. Please note that Buddhists do not believe in a singular deity either, not all religions are the same. However, 2 major religions from the Middle East have, throughout history, attempted to indoctrinate, proselytise and subsume others with their dogma. The SRI being the latest attempt to misinform, mislead and modify the thinking of children into a narrow, divisive and stultifying method of thought.

There are churches, mosques and other appropriate places for religious people to have their children taught whatever religion in which they believe.

Schools are for all children - not just those of christian parents.

Dan S D M.

"all the water went into the oceans" ROFL - according to you the entire planet was one big ocean - there is no geological evidence for this, whereas there is overwhelming proof of plate tectonics, a near complete fossil record and be aware we are one tiny little planet within just a single galaxy ..... I feel a Monty Python moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2JU4gX6rg8
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 9:23:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
On the SRI issue, you say schools are for all, not just for kids of Christian parents. That’s true. But going back to the year dot, there’s always been a lot of Christian parents sending their kids to state schools, and they still do. It would not be a positive move, nor educationally enriching, that atheists should suddenly rule the roost and expel all RI.

--

On the issue of life's origins and what the Bible says: there is always more than one way to look at the same evidence.

You [both you and Dug] say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you.

This includes all the evidence of plate tectonics, geological strata, fossil record, etc. etc. I would suggest that you are conditioned to looking at the evidence only one way.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 10:45:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@shockadelic "Jimmy Jones “Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted...” No, you couldn't, unless you already had knowledge of Christianity. The only reason you could discuss Joan of Arc is because you *do have that knowledge."

One more time for the dummies, ok? ...

1. Your premise was that without SRI in primary schools, western civilization would be "utterly indecipherable".

2. I did not receive religious instruction of any kind in my childhood, yet I find myself able to understand history just fine, INCLUDING St Joan.

3. Therefore, your premise is demonstrably WRONG.

I don't think I can pit it any simpler than that. Perhaps if you'd spent less time being subjected to fairy stories as truth when you were at school, you'd be able to grasp the irrefutable logic above.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amnesia'd Ammonite, my original posting said "May...." Do I have to go back and retrieve it to satisfy you?

How do you know why or how each individual atheist or agnostic has chosen their particular viewpoint? Is it not possible that some have chosen their viewpoint to be free of, or not bound by, adherence to a set of values that most of us would consider inviolable? Are psychopaths more likely in the main to be agnostic or atheist, or bound by adherence to a religious doctrine (other than "do it first" and "let the Devil take the hindmost")?

Anyhow, have you had a look at BPT's article "On Spiritual Atheism", just posted today? You may find it interesting.

On OLO, I look only out of interest, and to consider viewpoints which may vary from, or contest, my own. I post my considered opinions, in the interest of delving the possibilities, and I do not go purposely looking for an argument, as I've noticed some others appear to do.

You appear to make a differentiation between your referring to one of my comments as "insulting", and my response that you have been insulting by misrepresenting what I had posted. So I used a direct remark, whereas you put yours in an oblique manner - so, what's the real difference? Sorry if your sensitivities have been offended, but you should only expect to get as good as you give.

Anyhow, I think you miss the point that A's and A's tend to maintain a religiosity in their fevered maintenance of their viewpoint, in spite of fundamentally adhering to a spirituality in their belief of non-belief. In the end result, they appear little different to those who maintain an unsupported "faith" in any other viewpoint.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You [both you and Dug] say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you. This includes all the evidence of plate tectonics, geological strata, fossil record, etc. etc. I would suggest that you are conditioned to looking at the evidence only one way."

By evidence I did actually mean published and reputable science based data collected under repeatable controlled conditions and able to be verified by independent scientists and researchers.

Show me any published scientific evidence that has been throughly tested and independently verified that shows a flood layer on every land mass on earth that is of exactly the same date and depth in the geological strata.

Show us the evidence show us the research show us some proof and we will look at it. Tell us fables from long ago with no supporting evidence and you will have to pardon our skepticism.
Posted by Dug, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 2:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(other than "do it first" and "let the Devil take the hindmost")

Now cultural heritage by definitional's is part of what most reject. Notice the word findings in...."cultural" is the word CULT:)

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Thursday, 19 May 2011 6:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Salpetre

I will put this as clearly and concisely as I can.

You made a generalisation that atheists choose not to believe in god in order to "not be bound to do the right thing".

I am an atheist, therefore you are claiming I take this position in order to behave badly?

This is insulting to myself and other atheists. I don't believe in god because there is no evidence for his/hers/its existence and the very premise of a supreme watchful deity is the imaginings one would expect of less informed, educated peoples - like those of the bronze age.

If the only restraint on you behaving badly is a belief in god - I can only feel sorry for you.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
Keep your skepticism. A healthy skepticism is good.
 
Evidence itself is not a mystery. We all see the data. Yet evidence doesn't speak for itself. The key is in the interpretation; seeing the same evidence from a different viewpoint.

For example, a uniformitarian geologist might view rock layers as representing time epochs, while a catastrophist geologist would view the same rocks as representing something different. A creationist is not expecting to find a flood layer at particular dapth signifying a date.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:38:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Education Union (AEU) speaks out against SRI :

http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/972896.html
Posted by Ogg, Friday, 20 May 2011 2:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan

Evidence is something that can be supported by independent analysis.

it is something that experts can present in a court of law.

It is data that has been collected studied and reviewed.

It is not "Just looking at stuff"

Where is the world wide flood layer of debris laid down during a world wide flood ?

Geologists have found a similar layer in many areas round the world for the KT meteor impact and extinction event.

If you propose a theory you need evidence to back it up you ( creationist/ flood supporters ) have none. You have wild stories not evidence and not even a theory in scientific terms.
Posted by Dug, Friday, 20 May 2011 9:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dug,
I don’t know what you mean by ‘independent’. Most people work within some organisational framework, and all people carry their own biases or prejudices.

When you keep repeating ‘creationists have no evidence’ I know you are not properly following or comprehending what I’m saying. Perhaps you confuse evidence with conclusions.

Of course, evidence can be viewed, analysed, and presented. What I am saying is that we all have the same evidence. We all live in the same world. We are all looking at the same ‘stuff’. Creationists have all the same evidence available to them that you do. They may arrive at different conclusions to you. Creationists point to the sedimentary rock that is found all over the world as a likely result of the action of water.

And when you believe that animals and plants can morph into things of a totally different kind via a mysterious process that no one has ever seen ( i.e. “Of course no one observed reptiles evolving into birds” - says McReal, Saturday, 14 May 2011 1:38:19 PM) don’t accuse me of wild, fanciful stories.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 20 May 2011 11:40:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, Ammonite, you have made your point. I aplologise. I will be more careful in future in the way I compose my comments. No offence intended. I'm glad you're a good person, but would suggest you might take a little more care before rushing to condemn others. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip.

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". There are obviously better ways to introduce instruction in discipline, ethics, morals and acceptable behavioural norms and mores to our youth than through religious instruction, and such alternative approaches need to be examined more intensively. Various well-structured contemporary books and stories or plays may be utilised to serve the required purpose, and with far less controversy. I feel certain this approach would also be more acceptable to a majority of teachers, as well as fitting in more effectively within the overall curriculum. It is of course paramount that we ensure that our students demonstrate respect for others, irrespective of social or cultural differences, and show understanding for all with any disability.

The subjects of evolution and creationism should appropriately belong within the science curriculum.

As we are a multicultural society within an increasingly multicultural world it would be appropriate for all schools to include cultural studies as a formal part of the curriculum, starting in Primary and being developed further through subsequent years, including as a component of all language studies.

We have a responsibility to provide our youth not only with the best possible instruction in the sciences and humanities, but also to ensure they have a sound appreciation of the world's rich cultural heritage.

Though religious instruction may be appropriate as an option in various church schools, there appears to be no place for it in our state non-denominational schools, and the use of outside instructors and organisations to provide such instruction should therefore be phased out of these schools at an early date.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 20 May 2011 1:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Uh Oh - another Creationist is asserting that Evolution can't be true, because no human observed it happening in the past, nor can evolutionists observe it happening today.

On that basis, Noah's Flood never happened, because no modern man has observed the flood in the past, and the more recent scriptural reports are mere hearsay and myth.

But even worse is that the Creationists tell lies - as they so often do - that we cannot observe evolution today.

Bacteria reproduce very quickly, and natural selection can select new varieties of bacteria breeding anti-biotic resistance. What explanation can the "evolutionist denier" offer to account for the novel appearance of these resistant bacteria ?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a7ZPZQUfk
Posted by Ogg, Friday, 20 May 2011 1:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ogg,
You haven’t quite followed the logic of what I said. I never said that evolution never happened because no one has seen it happening. I’m simply challenging the notion that it has been seen. It hasn’t been.

You are correct in saying that both evolution (dinosaurs to birds, goo-to-you) and Noah’s flood have in common the fact that no present person has witnessed them. The difference is that some at some point did witness the latter sufficiently to record it in history (a grand deluge appears in various forms in the history of many cultures).

But generally, you are approaching an understanding of what I am saying. Like any possible explanation of history of how we got here: creation, evolution, or any other possible explanation – no one saw them. No one is going to repeat them. But I’m happy that you are willing to treat them both on the same level or compare them on a similar philosophical plane.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 21 May 2011 12:29:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones "One more time for the dummies, ok? ...
Your premise was that without SRI in primary schools, western civilization would be "utterly indecipherable"....Therefore, your premise is demonstrably WRONG."

I never stated any such premise.
I stated that without knowledge of Christianity you would not understand a lot of our history.

If you cannot understand the difference between that statement and yours, then it is you who is the dummy.

I note no atheist has bothered to answer my query about symmetry.

How do you explain this through random mutation and natural selection?
If symmetry was an evolutionary advantage (it makes movement easier, it saves on DNA coding), surely *everything* would have ended up symmetrical.
Even ancient fossils of the earliest lifeforms show symmetry.

Many things are symmetrical, but not everything (even within the same lifeform).

Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 21 May 2011 5:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Dan,

You clearly didn't bother to view the UTUBE link I posted,
actually showing in real time,
evolution taking place.

!
Posted by Ogg, Saturday, 21 May 2011 11:29:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre

Thanks for your apology - could have done without the accompanying lecture.

For the record. I don't think you are an extremist like Dan S or Runner but that doesn't mean I won't challenge you either.

Happy to agree with you about where it is appropriate to teach RI - keeping schools secular means that everyone gets a fair go - whether they be Hindu, atheist or Christian. Plus children are not potential 'fodder' for indoctrination, at least not during school hours.

Some Christian denominations must be feeling very desperate to go to the excess as is currently happening with groups like ACCESS. No single ideology should be presented as the only true path. There are many paths to wisdom and compassion - they don't have to come from formal religion with all its attendant limitations.
Posted by Ammonite, Sunday, 22 May 2011 3:43:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, alright then, Shockadelic. You got us.

<<I note no atheist has bothered to answer my query about symmetry.>>

It’s all a lie and the truth lays hidden in a church pamphlet. Time to collect your Nobel prize.

Did it ever occur to you to look for the answer yourself? I mean beyond a deliberately misleading Jehovah’s Witnesses pamphlet?

Or do you think you’re waving around a trump card that not one scientist has bothered to look at. Now that would be some oversight!

<<How do you explain this through random mutation and natural selection?>>

You already answered this in your very next sentence.

<<If symmetry was an evolutionary advantage (it makes movement easier, it saves on DNA coding), surely *everything* would have ended up symmetrical.>>

Not if it didn’t prove to be a hindrance to survival. How does your asymmetrical live hinder your existence?

<<Even ancient fossils of the earliest lifeforms show symmetry.>>

Of course. Most mobile organisms that weren’t, would have been at such an extreme disadvantage, they would soon have been completely overtaken by symmetrical creatures very, very early in the piece.

<<Many things are symmetrical, but not everything (even within the same lifeform).>>

And what law of nature renders that impossible?

<<Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?>>

Because we only need one of each; eliminating the need for a symmetrical mirror image on the other side. If we had two livers, they’d probably both be a mirror image of each other.

You even mentioned the saving of DNA coding - suggesting you understand that the same gene control both sides - so why do you find it so strange that there is no need for that saving of DNA coding when only one organ exists?

Placing a lone organ, like the heart, in the dead centre of a living organism’s body (if that’s what you’re getting at too - in a confused manner) wouldn’t save on DNA coding and so it would stay right where it was if it wasn’t detrimental to survival.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 22 May 2011 7:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Shockadelic, one other point I’ve just thought of after considering the interesting shape of the liver (ignoring for a moment your confusion between the symmetry of a lone organ as opposed to the symmetry of two that are like mirror images of each other - sharing the same function) is that our liver has probably taken on its shape in order to maximise its size, in the location it evolved in, while still leaving enough room for the other organs.

When you look at its shape, it’s as though someone slipped it in as the final organ to complete the entire set and cut it to fit every square inch of what room was left; baring in mind that with random mutations and natural selection, that “someone” didn’t have to be a being with a conscious mind.

With the above in mind, if our DNA followed a "one-size-fits-all" methodology (as you seem to think nature dictates it must) - requiring all organs to either have a symmetrical mirror image copy on the other side or be centered and symmetrical themselves - then that would be an even bigger hindrance to our evolution and we probably wouldn't have made it this far.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 22 May 2011 10:49:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ogg,
I usually don't bother clicking on YouTube links as most of YouTube is junk in my experience (a small percentage of it is great.) So if you especially ask me to click on a link, if you think it is exceptional, then I would be happy to. 

However, if you want engagement in some type of dialogue, you should refrain from calling people liars. That is just name calling and abusive. When you retract that word from your post, I'll be happy to reflect on your video.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 22 May 2011 1:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan: Saturday, 21 May 2011 12:29:03 AM
"I’m simply challenging the notion that it (i.e. Evolution") has been seen. It hasn’t been."

I said:
"But even worse is that the Creationists tell lies - as they so often do - that we cannot
observe evolution today.

...
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a7ZPZQUfk"

_____
This is NOT name calling (by me) of Creationists - it is statement of fact.

Evolution is provably observable in real-time, in the lab, today. The Creationist lies when they assert it cannot be observed (and have NEVER undertaken the experiment to check it for themselves).

One has to be careful about how Creationists mischievously misuse the word "Evolution" by their completely unsupportable phraseology of defining "Evolution as a change of kind".

"Kind" to them is a generic category based upon their use of gross phylogenetic visual characteristics, observable at the macro level of the human eye. They NEVER use sub-microscopic genetic markers.

To them, a cat and an elephant are of the "same kind" because they both have four legs. That is not at all scientific.

Whereas the scientific definition of "Evolution" is where a parent population yields two descendent populations which CANNOT BREED TOGETHER.

Because the antecedent generation, and the descendant bacterial generations "look" the same physical shape (under the microscope), the Creationist insists that both are "of the same kind".

The scientist proves that the two generations CANNOT interbreed, (where before they could) therefore the later generation is an "Evolved Species," and NOT AT ALL of the same kind.

The Creationists "lie" when they use false terminology having no credence in science, and claim something CANNOT be done, when evidence is tabled demonstrating that IT CAN BE DONE.
Posted by Ogg, Sunday, 22 May 2011 6:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ogg,
You demonstrate gross misunderstanding of the creationist position, and little willingness to listen or try to understand. 

When you're willing to speak with civility, drop me a line.

I stand by my comments made earlier. Have a good day.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 22 May 2011 8:26:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S

Here's a link which explains the science of evolution in very clear terms.

For example:

"Misconception:
"Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."

Response:
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes. "

and

" Misconception:
"Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.'"

Response:
Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. "

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

You appear doggedly determined NOT to understand, which primarily is an insult to your own intelligence. You can still be a Christian and understand science such as evolution. Without our understanding of genes, mutations, DNA and so on we would not have many of the medical and agricultural technologies that we rely on today.

You owe it to yourself to understand a broader view of life on earth.

I tend to believe you are more interested in winning a debate than you are in discovering truth.

Another link, this one to the doctrine of the Unitarian Church may be of interest to you:

http://www.all-souls.org/spirituality/beliefs.htm
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 23 May 2011 12:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ex-Creationist challenges YECism:

http://rachelheldevans.com/ham-young-earth-creationism-camping-end-of-world
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 23 May 2011 12:37:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(MORE) PROOF OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION TODAY:

http://www.livescience.com/7745-swine-flu-evolution-action.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhikMcg81wE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10574901/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/evolution-evidence-rated-top-breakthrough/

http://darwinaia.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/evolution-in-action-ceratopsians-and-the-paleontological-evidence-for-evolution/

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/skybreak/evolution_part2.htm

http://darwin.britishcouncil.org/themes/evidence-for-evolution-now

http://www.insight-press.com/site/epage/47697_664.htm

http://www.hhmi.org/news/122305.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/10/09/cichlid_fish_another_textbook_example_of

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/What_is_Evolution_Evolution_Defined_and_Explained.htm
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:34:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Title: D'oh! We should have known!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 22, 2011 7:14 AM,
by PZ Myers

The number one most common excuse I have been seeing for Harold Camping's failure, both before and after yesterday, is that he can't possibly forecast the time of the Rapture because Jesus said no one can know. You know what?

<That's the same stupid reliance on the authority> of the Bible that led to Camping's prophecy.

The average person needn't be too concerned.

This persistent lying, denying, weaseling, scamming, arrogance of the religiotards will only serve to obsolete them into the junk heap of history.

Where they truly belong !
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 23 May 2011 11:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ogg

The following video details how Christians explain away the failure of Harold Camping's prediction.

As in what Christ was claimed to have said or not:

Please note this video was made BEFORE May 21st.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mro-Q-D3qq0

I am hoping that people will take a look at the above video and have a good think. Then relate it to what groups like ACCESS are trying to indoctrinate our children with.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 23 May 2011 12:31:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
Thanks for your post. I am interested in promoting healthy discussion and understanding (rather than just 'winning' a debate.) To this end is my impatience for name calling. Good discussion is rarely served by calling another an 'extremist' or 'liar' for taking a contrary view.

So, I'm sorry if I'm curt at times. I'll admit to sometimes aiming to be provocative, but I try to provoke ideas rather than abuse.

Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued...

Ammonite.
You say evolution is primarily not about origins. 'Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin,' you claim. I suppose that Darwin's most famous book, Origin of Species, might have been poorly named or was only concerned with exceptional cases rather than central data.

But according to Richard Dawkins, it was impossible to be an ‘intellectually fulfilled atheist’ until they had an alternative to creation to explain the wonders of life, supposedly provided by evolutionary ideas.

In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth. This evolutionary view of origins is totally contrary to the planned, purposeful creation describe in Christian scripture.

So evolution has various meanings depending on context. Natural selection is an observable process that all see and agree with. It was a process being documented before Darwin wrote about it. If we were only talking about natural selection then there would be no controversy.

The foremost evolution controversy is whether the process of natural selection could possibly form a man or a melon from lower life forms.

This issue is not about defining a 'kind'. For example, we may all agree that bacteria, a banana, and a bartender are different kinds (though evolutionists believe they share common ancestors.)

It's the creationist claim, backed up by our knowledge of genes, mutations, DNA etc. that the processes of natural selection are not the types of process that will ever change a bacteria to a banana or bartender.

Natural selection is a conservative process. It helps to eliminate the weak, and preserve the favored genes, thus assisting the adaptation and survival of the organism. Yet it is not a creative process; it is without capacity to form new genes for new forms and functions not already present in the parent population.

But if you wish you can surprise me, in Ogg's long list of links, did he provide any observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thoroughly worthy ideal, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.<<

I for one am really looking forward to you doing so.

But to avoid confusion, will you be making a defence of the Bible read literally, or allegorically/metaphorically? That is, are we assuming the measurements are correctly recorded - cubits, days, years etc., and all the other trivial little details are to be taken as being factual?

It helps to know these things ahead of time, so we don't go blundering down the wrong path.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S

Thank you for saying you wish to discuss life's origins in civil terms.

However, I find that difficult to do given you don't have even a working knowledge of evolution. There are mountains of evidence for this, you have, over the years at OLO, been provided with many serviceable links that explain in lay terms the process of evolution.

Or are you asking about Abiogenesis? The Origins of life? There are many scientific theories, and each day as we study the universe and, closer to home, the chemistry of the planets and moons of our own solar system we are closer to an accurate definition.

You could start here:

http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm

If you wish to say that god started it all, then the onus is not only for you to prove the claims you make (saying it is in the bible is wholly inadequate), which then leaves YOU with the question where did god come from?

You benefit from science each and every day of your life, from your morning cuppa to sitting in front of your computer monitor. Your appearance is from the combinations of DNA passed on by your parents and their ancestors. Some humans are born with a vestigial tails - a remnant of our tree-dwelling ancestors.

http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html

Dan, your spiritual beliefs are as personal as they are valid - to you. As are mine. Deliberately trying to enforce your religion onto others because you believe that the bible is the only truth about the world is akin to locking children into dark rooms without human contact until they reach adulthood.

Your god gave you a brain to think for yourself. Why do you insult your creator by basing all your thinking around a single ancient text that has more holes than a termite mound and was written for its era, not the present?
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 8:42:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really warming to this idea.

>>Much of my motivation for joining this discussion was for your and other's criticism that Christians are not prepared or even willing to explain or defend their beliefs. This is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins.<<

To kick off your defence, Dan S de Merengue, I'd like to offer the following proposition:

"That because so many of the descriptions of the origins of life on this planet contradict everything we now know about physics, chemistry, biology and human physiology, the Bible cannot be read as factual reporting."

This would require, I think, an explanation from you of how to reconcile the Bible stories with the knowledge we have gathered together in the last two thousand years. It also avoids all the to-ing and fro-ing on evolution, and focuses on the core issues.

What exactly was built over those six days? Mankind created from earth? An ark 300 cubits long made of Gopher wood? Noah lived to be 950 years old?

All these stories contradict everything we now know. How do you reconcile them with your conviction that they are somehow factual?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 9:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
What exactly was built over those six days? Everything.
Mankind created from earth? A man could be described as an arrangement of earthen chemicals and elements.
An ark 300 cubits long made of Gopher wood? A cubit is a measure roughly from the elbow to the finger tip.
Noah lived to be 950 years old? That is what was recorded.

Apart from these four questions, may I ask one of my own concerning natural selection. Did you read Ogg's long list of links, and from within them did he provide any observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions?

Ammonite,
You say I don’t have any working of evolution. Presuming that you do, could I ask you to answer the same question that I put to Pericles (and previously put to you.) You seem to have dodged it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 9:45:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You misunderstood my question, Dan S de Merengue. My apologies for being so obscure.

The intent was to draw your attention to the vast discrepancy between our present-day understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and human physiology, and the description of the creation of the universe that is contained in Genesis.

Simply saying "it happened" doesn't really come close to meeting your claim that you will "defend the Biblical account of origins."

But if that is all you are prepared to offer on the matter, so be it.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 5:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S, I probably shouldn't be buying into the evolution discussion, and it is a pity that a zoologist or paleontologist hasn't tuned in. But I will throw in my tuppence worth, as best I can.

Natural Selection is an attempt to explain the process of the evolution of life, but it is not the whole of the theory of evolution.

Dan asks: "The foremost evolution controversy is whether the process of natural selection could possibly form a man or a melon from lower life forms." The theory of evolution does not put it this way, but it says yes, this is what has happened - through many millions of years of evolution.

The theory of evolution puts forward that, from a primordial "soup" around 4 billion (4 thousand million) years ago, and some 2 billion years after the formation of the Earth from the collision and subsequent adhesion of large cosmic masses (supposedly from the big bang, or similar), a chance collision of organic particles resulted in a spontaneous coalition to form a simple living organism. (The "soup" having been formed from methane and other gases present in Earth's atmosphere, residual from it's creation, dissolving in the Earth's newly acquired oceans of liquid water.) (An alternate theory suggests a meteor may have introduced this first simple life - but from where?) This first life had to have been similar to our current bacteria, and containing the simplest form of DNA. We can still see some of the simple life forms which have evolved from this beginning - single-celled organisms like amoeba or paramecium, through to colony organisms which are an interacting cluster of individual single-celled organisms, and thence to multi-celled organisms. Chance coalescence of single celled organisms, resulting in the joining of separate DNA strands, has then been the means by which early multi-celled organisms developed. Many accidents of DNA coalescence provided a profusion of different simple life-forms, some of which survived and thrived under the influence of natural selection, and in later development produced the cell specialisation which we see in higher multi-celled organisms today. TBC...
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 8:44:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S, Continued:

So as to abbreviate this explanation, proof of the process of evolution is demonstrated in the development of the human embryo, commencing with a single haploid cell (containing half the mitochondria which define a human organism), fertilised by another haploid cell, the sperm, thence by cell division (from the cell's own splitting of the full mitochondrial complement to form precise duplicates, which then separate and form individual new cells). The embryo then develops into a form similar to some reptile embryos, with a notochord, which later is covered by bone to become the spinal column. Study of the development of the human embryo shows marked similarity to the development of embryos in reptiles, amphibians and other mammals, each of whose DNA complement determines the resultant cell specialisation to form the various organs, and thence the complete living entity. This is held to demonstrate that all life has a common origin - hence, the origin of species.

Other proof is provided by the absence of any humanoid fossils earlier than some 4 million years ago, whereas there have been fossil remains found of simple mammals living before the extinction of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. It can be demonstrated that reptiles evolved to provide us with birds, commencing with flying reptiles which later evolved feathers, and early small mammals evolved to give us mammoths and elephants. Etc..

I hope this has been helpful.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 8:51:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Salty.

However, Dan has been given this information over and over again.

Do you think that because you are a Christian explaining evolution to him will make any difference? There are other Christians on OLO who have attempted to explain.

We all have our blind spots, however, the best we do is ensure our children do not grow up equally blinkered.
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 9:18:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Nixon on Facebook :
"Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon.
They knock over the pieces, defecate on the board, and then fly back to their nest claiming victory."
Posted by Ogg, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 1:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Salty,
You’ve put the evolutionary story quite elegantly, almost poetically. In that, you have been helpful. However, I’m wishing to try and describe an alternative view; the view from the other side, so to speak.
 
Ammonite,
Of course, these are not the first times these views have been put to me. I’ve done plenty of reading on the issue, enough to be quite acquainted with the intricacies of the controversy.
 
It’s not that I haven’t heard the evolutionary view. As a generation, we’ve been continually force fed it from primary school. I’m simply of the opinion that it is not the best theory to meet the facts. And I’m sure you’d want me to be discerning. You don’t swallow everything that’s put in front of you or believe all that you read in newspapers, do you? I would hope our children are taught skills of discernment, and not just told what to think.
 
In fact, that link that you asked me to read talked about the ‘evolution/creation controversy’. It used the word ‘controversy’ umpteen times on the first page on which I clicked. Controversy implies that there are at least two significant views that are being debated. So your insinuation that I’m little behind on my reading is off track. You know that there is a genuine controversy here. And as with any controversy, there are intelligent and educated people on both sides of the debate.
 
Thanks, Ogg,
I haven’t gone anywhere. I haven’t claimed victory. I do sometimes play chess.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:22:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I probably did guess that you were looking for more detail than what I offered. You were asking how I would reconcile the alleged discrepancies between our present-day understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and physiology, and the description of the universe’s creation contained in Genesis. Your question probably assumes these discrepancies are many. There are probably more discrepancies from your view than from mine.
 
For some specific questions, I wasn’t sure exactly what alleged discrepancies you were referring to.
 
What exactly was built in those six days? I said, ‘Everything’. Did God make the world, or did it make itself? Scientists and philosophers have discussed this for millennia. It’s a pretty big question. How much time (lifetimes) have you got to debate it?
 
Mankind created from earth? I know man is made up of earthly elements and chemicals. I believe that a person has a spiritual element also.
 
But I’ll tell you what we know from genetics (or what’s pretty clear to all). That the genetic sequence within all living things makes up coded information, capable of ordering that biology. And that information is not inherent within the properties of the elements themselves. Just as words on a scrabble board have been ordered by intelligence, order which has been imposed on the arranged letters rather than found naturally within the properties of the plastic or ink of the letters. The information is independent from the matter. Likewise, genetic information is independent of the physics or chemistry of its acids and molecules. Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.
 
An ark 300 cubits long made of Gopher wood? Again I don’t see the discrepancy. Ancient people were capable of building wonderful things. Look at the pyramids. All the ark was designed to do was float around for a year.
 
Noah lived to be 950 years old? This is the only obvious apparent discrepancy, as people currently don’t live nearly so long.
 
Though I’ve begun (perhaps just barely) answering your four questions, you haven’t attempted the one question I gave you?!?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Pericles,
Regarding the question that up until now both you and Ammonite have let through to the keeper, perhaps I’ll rephrase and try and clarify. For it is rather an important question, and helps to highlight the discrepency between evolution theory and the clear facts (even more so when evolutionists avoid it).

Is there anywhere observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions? 

For to get from the genetic make up of say, a bacterium, to that of a comparatively far more complex vertebrate, such as a horse, it (continually over time) would need to ADD the genetic information to make skin, bones, hoofs, eyes, brains, etc.

The text book examples of evolution don't show this. For instance, we're shown populations of moths which went darker when conditions became favorable for darker ones. But some dark ones, with their genes for dark colours, were already present in the parent population. No new genes were ADDED. Only favorable conditions meant the dark coloured were selected and their percentages increased.

Various windy islands have beetles which have lost the ability to make wings. These beetles are favoured in the conditions, as they never try to fly so they don't get blown into the sea. This is an example of genetic information (that appropriate for wings) being damaged or corrupted. Yet still no new genetic information was added in this so called example of evolution.
 
If we've never seen anyone live 950 years, (such as with Noah) we might think to question the story's veracity.

Similarly if experience tells that genetic information is not being added to the genome, ought we not stop to question the story's veracity?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I had already given you plenty of examples in the past of “information” (that deliberately ambiguous creationist term) being “added” (another deliberately ambiguous creationist term) to the genome, so what do you do?

You now shift the goal posts in a classic Kent-Honind-and-his$200,000-challenge style and demand that directly observed evidence (completely forgetting, of course, that direct observation has been proven in many situations - particularly in courts of law - to be incredibly less reliable than observing events through forensically collected evidence) be given of information being added to the genome that would completely form an entirely new function.

The problem is, though, that if we were to find such “additions” it would disprove evolution and turn science on its head - forcing us to find a new explanation for the diversity of life.

So this is nothing more than a classic example of creationists deliberately setting impossible standards with their ever-shifting goal posts to make creationism appear credible.

It may make you creationists feel better but it doesn’t fool the general population, I’m afraid.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 26 May 2011 12:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here Dan. Here’s a link I once gave you that explains it all. Perhaps you could read it this time?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 26 May 2011 6:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S,

Following some points you made to Pericles:

An open mind, a cursory glance at the universe - billions of galaxies, containing billions of solar systems, containing a sun/suns, planets/moons, asteroids/comets... All this from somewhere, elegant, beautiful, orderly - high speed perpetual juggling, bound by gravity. Can this be mere chance, from some amorphous mass of matter, and then "Bang", and here it is? Pretty long bow, possible, but still a stretch. And the Earth and life - just accidents? Maybe, maybe not.

There has to remain possibility that even the very first "accident" of life may have had a helping hand, and maybe some "tweaking" here or there? Who can be sure?

It is possible that "man" was either a most remarkable accident, or no accident at all. A witness? Sometimes, a coincidence may not be a coincidence.

As for evolution's possibilities, you asked -"Is there anywhere observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions?" Well, yes. As every human being is unique (excepting identical twins), each has a unique set of genes. Accidents happen quite regularly in human conception, with resultant still-births, deformities, etc, but also probably with some occasional undetectable "improvements".

A look at DNA on Wikipedia gives an idea of how complex are DNA, RNA, genes, etc, and in one part offers the following: "Recombination allows chromosomes to exchange genetic information and produces new combinations of genes, which increases the efficiency of natural selection and can be important in the rapid evolution of new proteins." Ok, Wiks is not proof positive, but reasonably trustworthy.

This G A T C simple gene set seems to spell out every life combination. Simple and elegant, and maybe designed that way to facilitate possibilities.

Throw some scrabble tiles in the air, and occasionally will fall a word. Do it enough times, with enough tiles, and you may spell out the Websters - just, a lot of tosses, over a long, long time.

For some, evolution has to explain everything, for others, maybe?
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 26 May 2011 8:02:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your answer, Dan S de Merengue, to everything that cannot be explained by science is "it was God wot dunnit". This doesn't actually illuminate anything, does it?

>>What exactly was built in those six days? I said, ‘Everything’. Did God make the world, or did it make itself?<<

My question was posed in the context of "how" you believe it came into being, against the backdrop of its sheer impossibility: six days, when current evidence points to a universe that is around fourteen billion years old.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

My question was, what evidence are you using to support your belief that "God made the universe in six days". Your answer is "because I believe that he did".

Your defence can be summarised as "because I believe the Biblical account of origins". Nothing more.

>>Mankind created from earth? I know man is made up of earthly elements and chemicals<<

Have you tried this at home? Any success?

Of course not.

>>Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.<<

You have decided this. Your decision does not constitute evidence.

>> Ancient people were capable of building wonderful things. Look at the pyramids.<<

Pyramids do not conflict with the laws of physics. A boat made of wood, of those dimensions, does.

It wasn't I who made the assertion "I can prove the origins of the universe". It was you who made the claim that you would "defend the Biblical account of origins."

So far, you have done nothing of the sort.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 May 2011 8:59:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S

It is one thing to read, another entirely to be able to APPLY that knowledge.

You claim to have read the many helpful links people have selected for you - yet are still unable to apply this knowledge to the world around you. It is precisely this brick wall that I do not wish to be set around the intellect and inquiring minds of children.

I don't expect that you will understand, unless a fact fits YOUR interpretation of the bible, you reject that fact completely. Scientists do not reject facts, they revise their interpretations - even though it may be that they are forced to go back and start again.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 26 May 2011 9:42:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DAN S de MERNGUE alleges :
"For to get from the genetic make up of say, a bacterium, to that of a comparatively far more complex vertebrate, such as a horse, it (continually over time) would need to ADD the genetic information to make skin, bones, hoofs, eyes, brains, etc."

But no NEW information needs to be added to any evolved genome, for all the information required is already there, in the huge database of chemicals and genes on this planet.

As an analogy, you are saying that once a book has been written, no other new books can be written, because all the words available have been used.

Not so. For there exists, outside the first book, large dictionaries, in many languages, together with many encyclopedias, etc.

From this rich background, many new books can be written. And thus is it so with new species of evolving life.

There already exist HUGE databases of inorganic and organic chemicals, the many, many proteins that have 'yet to be connected', are just awaiting some survival need for them to come into play.

Dan, you show obdurate resistance in reading any science evidence, instead burying your nose in just ONE book.

But anyway, here is a science source for the above explanation:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/hittinger_carroll.html

See the para where the author says :
('... said Carroll...'):
"His research has shown that the evolution of body parts more commonly occurs through changes in how development genes are regulated, than through the evolution of new genes."

So there's another answer as to why your claimed NEW GENES are not required for a new species to evolve.

Dan, your obvious ignorance in biology and genetics only serves to appal your readers.

If you want to become a convincing "evangelical", you will have to display much better education and knowledge that you have so far.

-
Posted by Ogg, Thursday, 26 May 2011 10:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan de MERENGUE,

Here's another "smack in the eye" for your Creationist nonsense:
http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27/irreducible-complexity-debunked-again/
Posted by Ogg, Thursday, 26 May 2011 11:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Dan, if you still refuse to read any "sciency posts", perhaps you might like to pay attention to this Bible focussed post:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/refuting-the-bible
Posted by Ogg, Thursday, 26 May 2011 6:35:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
Just to be clear, I am not claiming to have read all of those links. I read a few of them. I did claim to have done enough reading on the issue (elsewhere) to be quite acquainted with the intricacies of the controversy.
 
You claim that I reject facts. I would prefer you give an example of which ‘facts’ I have rejected. I would suggest that I haven’t rejected any facts. Rather, I am disputing various interpretations of the evidence that you and others would like to impose. (In other words, I’m offering an alternate opinion, which is what people like to do here at OLO.)
 
=
 
Pericles,
Now, Ammonite claims I’m ignoring facts (without listing any). You say I’m ignoring the fact that a wooden boat of the biblical ark’s dimensions conflicts with the laws of physics. How do you know this as fact? Are you an expert ship builder? Are there not plenty of ships floating around right now as we speak with similar and even larger dimensions? As I said, the ark only was designed to float for a year or so, not for distant voyage or long term durability. A scientific approach might lead us to test a boat or a model of such dimensions for its stability.
 
Also, I offered, ‘Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.’ I could give plenty of examples of coded information being sent originating from an intelligent source. You wish to deny it. Offer a counter example (just one will do).
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 May 2011 9:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
In your last post you’ve misquoted me several times, or are at least misreading what I’m saying.
 
1st misquote: << Your answer, Dan S de Merengue, to everything that cannot be explained by science is "it was God wot dunnit". This doesn't actually illuminate anything, does it?>>
 
I never said ‘it was God wot dunnit’ (even when you fix up the spelling). While, of course, I affirm the long held Christian doctrine of creation, I didn't say anything as simplistic as your comment. In my last several posts, I never even mentioned the word God except to directly answer (or try and clarify) a question that you asked me about God. I remember about five posts ago I mentioned the perception of God as seen from an evolutionist’s point of view: the evolutionist says “man’s brain created God” rather than it being the other way around. But these are the only times in numerous posts that I even mention the G word.
 
2nd misquote: << what evidence are you using to support your belief that "God made the universe in six days". Your answer is "because I believe that he did".>>
 
This was the first time you’ve asked this specific question. Without giving me a chance to answer, you supplied an answer for me, putting words in my mouth.
 
3rd misquote: <<It wasn't I who made the assertion "I can prove the origins of the universe".>>
 
Well, it certainly wasn’t I who said that. If I remember saying something close to this statement, it was, “Not that we can ever prove our faith through science …’.
 
You are making caricatures of what I am saying. Your imagination is running away with you. If you want to oppose what I am saying, then that is fine.  Oppose what I actually say. But you’re changing the nature of what I said.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 May 2011 9:49:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Salty,
Philosophically, you seem to be wanting to have a bet each way.
 
This is the why I see it. Either the properties of matter and energy are enough to account for what is in the universe, or they aren’t. Either, at the base of all things there is mind and personailty, or there is matter and physics alone. It’s one or the other. What I’ve just said is pretty simplistic, but I’m trying to boil it down to clear choices. I don’t have a lot of time for the position that wants to mix and match. Look at Paley’s watch, found washed up on a beach. Either someone made it, or nobody made it. But I don’t subscribe to the idea that it was a bit of both, both somebody and nobody made it.
 
And while I’m on this topic, Pericles,
This does relate somewhat to what you were saying. If natural processes cannot explain the origin of something, then it is evidence of the supernatural by the law of the excluded middle. So it’s not a god of the gaps type argument. If it’s either heads or tails, then what we know with increasing surety showing that it is not heads becomes  evidence for it being tails.
 
Salty,
With your example of the human children, each set of genes is unique to the individual, but they were given by a recombination of genes from those already present in the parents. Nothing new has come about. It’s not helpful to talk of “occasional undetectable improvements.” If they’re undetectable, then they’re undetectable. We start to guess, and must confess, we’ve entered the world of the purely theoretical.
 
I don't like your chances of spelling Webster's dictionary by throwing scrabble tiles in the air. To consider this possibility after more than a moment's reflection is to abandon all healthy skepticism or to invoke miracles without God.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 May 2011 9:57:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, AJ, for supplying the link.
 
It helps to confirm my point. For if the writers of that page were so confident about the amount of evidence they have for ‘upward’ evolution, why would they offer the Lenski experiment and place it on the top of that list? Using such an example is clutching at straws.
 
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 May 2011 10:01:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue:
"Either the properties of matter and energy are enough to account for what is in the universe, or they aren’t".

For what it's worth, Dan, I agree with you, "they aren't"! at least not according to what we currently know. Materialism fails utterly to account for consciousness, for instance.
This is a fascinating subject and hope to have time tomorrow to elaborate
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 28 May 2011 10:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S,

Two bob each way? Yes, and no. My propositions were not frivolous, but I believe worthy of consideration. I will try to clarify.

"Either the properties of matter and energy are enough to account for what is in the universe, or they aren’t."

Squeers says no, and uses "consciousness" as an example, "at least not according to what we currently know". Fair enough.

Difficult, since all science knows is not yet everything, and probably never can be, and since life is so complex - consciousness, reasoning, memory, eyesight,.. Amazing.

My understanding is that the physical universe may be adequately explained by the properties of matter and energy, and the known physical laws pertaining to these. The universe is comprised of matter and energy, it exists, it is in balance, and it is subject to understood scientific laws. Therefore, it is explainable both in fact, and in operation. Hence, I don't believe we need to know any more to accept that its composition and nature are satisfactorily explainable as not requiring any "outside" influence for its effective functioning. How it came to be this way is another question.

Life. Simple life has been "created" in a repeatable laboratory experiment from basic organic and inorganic components. Some stages were probably involved, a form of manipulation, but nonetheless basic G A T C genes formed from basic matter, and a combination formed which was alive. Hence, where the basic components and conditions are present, life can evolve of itself from otherwise inert matter.

Conscious life. It can be demonstrated that even the simplest lifeform reacts to its environment, and that the higher, or more complex the lifeform, the more complex and adaptive are its reactions. It proceeds logically that as all life reacts to its environment, then the highest reactions of the highest lifeforms will be dramatically more complex, up to and including conscious awareness - as a natural component of life itself, and not requiring any outside influence.

Therefore, the universe and all its contents, including life, may be explained satisfactorily, as natural and not requiring outside influence.
TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 28 May 2011 4:00:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Dan, the "can't see it, it don't exist" argument. Not so. Two ordinary parents, of average intelligence and only basic music capability conceive a musical genius. So?

More easily demonstrable - mankind has developed physical characteristics favourable to their environment, as Africans are black due to high concentration of skin pigment cells, whereas Nordics are pale skinned, due to a low concentration of skin pigment cells. Why? Because the skin colouring was most conducive to their individually different environments. How? Genetic evolution due to the influences of natural selection. What was the natural selection determinant? The body requires vitamin D, which is produced in the skin on exposure to sunlight, but in excess concentration vitamin D is harmful. The lighter Nordic skin allowed sufficient reaction from weaker normal exposure to sunlight, and the darker African skin prevented over-exposure which would have produced dangerous levels of vitamin D in the body. African babies are also lighter skin coloured to ensure they get sufficient vitamin D for effective bone formation, and progressively turn darker as only lesser levels of vitamin D are required for normal health to be maintained.

Study of the genetic makeup of Nordic and African peoples has identified a genetic variation responsible for the difference in skin colour. There is no evidence for parallel creation of different races, and there is evidence of genetic variation between peoples who migrated in different directions from a common origin.

As all genes may be mapped in identifiable strings comprised of the basic GATC components, evolutionary changes may be scientifically identified.

I still contend that the existence of the Earth and of life on Earth, only by virtue of the necessary components and conditions being available, within a virtually infinite and amazing universe, is a fluke of such magnitude as to allow the possibility of some outside influence of some kind, at some stage in time.

Websters? With enough throws probability dictates.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 28 May 2011 4:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A masterclass in "avoid answering the question, at all costs", Dan S de Merengue. Congratulations.

Your words were, exactly: "this is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins."

I am simply pointing out that so far, you have done nothing of the sort.

>>You are making caricatures of what I am saying.<<

What I understand by the phrase "the Biblical account of origins" is that the universe was created in six days by someone described in the Bible as "God".

If that is a "caricature" of what you are saying, then you need to be a lot clearer in stating your views. Because your protests that you are being misquoted or misunderstood are very, very thin.

>>I never said ‘it was God wot dunnit’<<

If you support the Biblical account as being factual, then indeed you must also believe that it was God who made it happen. Because that's what the Bible says.

>>2nd misquote: << what evidence are you using to support your belief that "God made the universe in six days". Your answer is "because I believe that he did". This was the first time you’ve asked this specific question. Without giving me a chance to answer, you supplied an answer for me, putting words in my mouth.<<

You have a different answer, perhaps? There is none apparent from any of your posts so far. But if you have one, let's hear it.

>>3rd misquote: <<It wasn't I who made the assertion "I can prove the origins of the universe".>> Well, it certainly wasn’t I who said that. If I remember saying something close to this statement, it was, “Not that we can ever prove our faith through science<<

Round we go.

Your words were, exactly: "this is why I am happy to defend the Biblical account of origins."

I am simply pointing out that so far, you have done nothing of the sort.

Incidentally...

>>Look at Paley’s watch, found washed up on a beach.<<

Paley's watch was found on a heath, not on a beach.

Even your red herring arguments lack precision.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 28 May 2011 5:28:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's amazing how this thread has evolved and mutated. While I'm in favour of purging State schools of RI and all religious affiliation, like many others I'm a strong advocate of philosophy (including, vitally, political philosophy, of which most people are ignorant and prejudice suffices).
However, while philosophy would be a marvellous antidote to religious closed-mindedness, it would also serve to counter fundamentalist materialism: put simply, the view that both consciousness and the world are entirely reducible to materialistic terms and origins.
The inconvenient truth is that despite the predominance of this view, not only is there no very compelling evidence for reductionist materialism, there are compelling objections to it, the enigma of consciousness leading. Functionalism of one kind or another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind) has been the most popular form of materialism, but it rests on the foregone conclusion that a materialist explanation of some kind “must” be out there, and it fails to account, for instance, for the problem of “qualia”, or qualitative discrimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room
Daniel Dennett is among those in the link who argue against “ineffable” qualia, but he illustrates the problem with dogmatic Materialism (or naturalism/physicalism, which are similar); they’re all negative, eliminative rather than positive or evidence-based arguments.
“…materialism seems to be one of those unfortunate intellectual bandwagons … on par with logical; behaviourism, phenomenalism, the insistence that all philosophical issues pertain to language, and so many other views that were once widely held and now seem merely foolish. Such a comparison is misleading in one important respect, however: it understates the fervency with which materialist views are held. In this respect, materialism often more closely resembles a religious conviction … defenses of materialism and especially replies to objections often have a distinctively scholastic or theological flavour” (Bonjour 2010).
The author goes on to argue that “intrinsic intentionality” is, so far, irreducible, and that “there is no reason at all to think that a merely material state could have this characteristic. But how intrinsic intentionality in particular can be explained and accounted for is something about which, if I am right, we know almost nothing”
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 29 May 2011 8:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan MERENGUE defends Noah's Ark, by challenging others about their expertise in marine engineering.

He didn't read previous marine engineering posted for him, so here it is again: (perhaps Dan can declare his engineering expertise, and offer his calculations, mmmm ?)

_____
Ogg, Monday, 16 May 2011 3:38:04 PM

Whut?

People still defending Noah's Ark?

Creationism believes the ark size is: 450’ long, 75’ wide, 45’ high.
Assume rectangular in shape, giving 42.2 thousand long tons in total displacement, but real displacement assumes one third is above water, so becoming 28 thousand long tons.

Packing density inside the ark could not be as dense as water, for safety clearance between the carnivores etc; further, the weight of the ark reduces real capacity to about 20 thousand long tons.

It is alleged that the Bible instructs Noah to take on board 2 pairs of each species of unclean animal, and 7 pairs of each species of clean animal. The largest dinosaur, the Brachiosaurus, weighed in at about 100 tons, did not have a split hoof, and chewed the cud, so 7 pairs of these were required. Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed about 40 tons, ate meat, so 2 pairs of these were required.

Adding up only the top 30 heavyweights out of 500 odd species of dinosaur, we obtain a total of about 13 thousand long tons.

But, including gorillas, orangutans, pandas, bears, bison, gnus, giraffes, elephants, camels, kangaroos, hippopotami, rhinoroceri, makes the total come to 30 thousand long tons, ie 150% of the capacity of the ark.

Now add the food.
Assume herbivores ate one tenth of their weight per day for 375 days. adding 1.2 million long tons, the total being 56 times the carrying capacity of the ark.

This is the 'kind' of illogic that creationists foolishly attempt to defend.

_____
Summary of calculations
Ark = 450’ X 75’ X 45’ = 1.52E6 cu ft
= 94.6E6 lb !water weighs 62.3 lb/cu ft
= 42.4 E3 long tons = 42.9 metric tonnes !1 ton =2240 lb
= 28.6 E3 tonnes displacement !1 long ton = 1.01605 tonnes
Posted by Ogg, Sunday, 29 May 2011 8:46:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

Wow, that's terrific, but clear as mud to me. Excuse my ignorance, but what does all that mean?
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 29 May 2011 8:54:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Salty,

for Squeers to allege that account 'X" is quite deficient in giving adequate account of "consciousness" ...

Squeers must have an evidential list of deficiencies in 'X' that s/he can supply for us to read, and perhaps may even be able to offer a superior account 'Y' of consciousness,

We all would be pleased if Squeers could oblige us in that interesting theoretical offering.

As a putative expert, a list of his/her refereed papers in this difficult area would be interesting too to purview too.
Posted by Ogg, Sunday, 29 May 2011 9:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ogg:

"As a putative expert, a list of his/her refereed papers in this difficult area would be interesting too to purview too".

Not an expert, just an enthusiast and "genuine" sceptic. My information for my post is derived from the first two essays in this book: http://tiny.cc/e82tx

Your supercilious tone (including the rude way you refer to me in the third person and transcribe what I've said into reductionist terms) implicitly illustrates the kind of dismissive dogmatism Bonjour talks about. Like it or not, materialist explanations are premised on scientistic prejudice rather than evidence. Of course I'm not saying we therefore should resort to supernaturalism, but that we should beware of "all" preconceptions.

Saltpetre,
As I've said, I'm not an expert on this, and since it is specialised I find it very difficult myself, i.e. it requires a lot of effort to understand. I tried to put the gist of what I wanted to communicate as simply as I could (including accessible links), for anyone who might be interested in testing their assumptions, on either side of the debate, or pursuing this specific topic.

My own view is that for practical social/worldly purposes we need a realist philosophy that's reflexively amenable to the idealistic dimension of our material lives and natures.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 29 May 2011 10:29:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I'm pleased that Squeers has now contributed more than just a one line dismissal of a whole philosophical movement.

No doubt, in that interests of rational comparison of both sides, of the debate, Squeers will eventually offer a critique of his beloved book from sources like:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/why-does-plobs-think-its-possible-that-c-is-in-all-matter-t10275-480.html
Posted by Ogg, Sunday, 29 May 2011 6:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These are categorically not opposites, Squeers, so you can't employ "rather than".

>>Like it or not, materialist explanations are premised on scientistic prejudice rather than evidence.<<

They are very much on the same side of the equation.

What you call "scientific prejudice" is of course a necessary precondition to the gathering of evidence.

The opposite of "scientific prejudice" is "religious prejudice" in this context. And "belief" is the opposite of "evidence".

Materialistic explanations are based upon evidence. Evidence is based upon the preference of scientific explanations over religious belief, which does not require evidence.

So I'm afraid that "materialist explanations are premised on scientistic prejudice rather than evidence" is certainly not a case of "like it or not".

It is either a misstatement or a misreading, because it definitely isn't true.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 29 May 2011 6:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
the link I gave above allows limited reading of the text, hopefully you can access pages 3-23, as this will make the position I've sketched clear.
But you don't need to go further than Descarte and Hume to fathom the sand that modern science is built on. Hume argued that only nature, as registered by the senses (empiricism), could be trusted, apparently forgetting that sense perception still relies on reason to make sense of it.
It's not that science isn't productive or hasn't achieved amazing things, and certainly not that it should be discarded, but that science begins with the unsubstantiated premise that everything in the universe is explicable in materialist terms. There is no good reason to make this assumption, we simply don't know and it is unwise to close our minds to extraordinary possibilities--that's all I'm really saying. The notion that phenomena is reducible to simple cause and effect, based on our superficial and prejudiced perception of it, buys into the Newtonian reduction that phenomena is nothing more than dead matter behaving respectively and predictably.
You say, "What you call "scienti[stic] prejudice" is of course a necessary precondition to the gathering of evidence".
But while it's certainly true that "objectivity" is prerequisite (and unattainable), deciding beforehand that the answer "must" be materialistic, is prejudice.
And I have to differ with you that <"The opposite of "scientific prejudice" is "religious prejudice">; I did say that "Of course I'm not saying we therefore should resort to supernaturalism".
I'm against all forms of prejudice or preconception. We simply don't know, and so far can't begin to explain human consciousness, or the "spontaneous" generation of "meaning" in the universe (we still don't even know what gravity is!). These could well be merely contingent, or there could be far more exotic explanations.
So to annotate your position, "Materialistic explanations are based upon [superficial and unreliable] evidence [processed via eccentric human brains]".
"Evidence is based upon the preference of scientific explanations over religious belief, which does not require evidence".
"Preference" is synonymous with prejudice.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 29 May 2011 7:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Squeers, Sunday, 29 May 2011 7:46:14 PM,
who asserts:

1. "We simply don't know, and so far can't begin to explain human consciousness ..."
Surely Squeers has fallen into a giant Epimenidean Paradox, by so emphatically asserting that: "WE KNOW ... THAT NO ONE KNOWS."
Well, I certainly reject being embraced by his presumptuous use of "we", for I would never utter such a self-contradiction.

2. In fact Squeers utters yet another self- contradiction when he asserts that :
(He KNOWS that) - "there could be far more exotic explanations", without justifying that these exotica even exist, let alone offering no support or reference for these exotica.

3. I also quite reject his (scientifically) unsupported assertion that:
"... we still don't know what gravity is ! ..."

That is committing the sin of the false binary divide, that we either "know all" or we "know nothing" (about gravity).

I could support a claim that we still don't know everything - about gravity, (perhaps that will ever be true), but I cannot support his claim that therefore we know nothing.
We certainly know more than Galileo, and much more than The Inquisitorial Church !

4. For a person who takes extreme (personal) umbrage at 3rd vs 1st person ungrammaticisms, it is surprising he doesn't exact his <passionate puerile pedanticism> upon his flagrant abuse of plurality with "phenomena vs phenomenon". This modality of argument by him is that of substituting "I am offended" for "What you say is unfactual." This modality is famous (and provably invalid) in the 'gender wars' arena.
Posted by Ogg, Monday, 30 May 2011 4:15:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ugg clearly has nothing of worth to offer in refutation of Squeers's modest appraisal of the situation, and so can only respond, it seems, with misquotation, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and heavy-handed emphasis on his false attributions.
So far as I can ascertain the gravest innuendo, hysterically asserted, against Squeers is <his flagrant abuse of plurality with "phenomena vs phenomenon">
A heinous crime indeed! Yet having scanned Squeers's usage of "phenomena", I find he quite correctly refers in each case to phenomenal plurality.
Squeers has conceded to me in private, however, that he is not above the odd grammatical sin, and begs the indulgence of his peers in advance for future indiscretions.
For my part, I can only urge the court to compare Squeers's comments with Ugg's perversions of them. Indeed, Ugg's shrill excoriations are reminiscent of a rabid preacher with nothing to prefer but maleloquent indignation.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 30 May 2011 7:43:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers

Enjoyed your links. Agreed science doesn't have all the answers and that it requires a more lateral approach. I do believe that scientists will achieve this - some types of research require the rigor needed to test and affirm evidence, others require a more intuitive responsive approach.

One thing we are all agreed on is teaching an ancient myth, in place of science, analysis and philosophy leads to mind-stagnation as the more extreme fundamentalist religionists have proved with their posts (yes, Dan that includes you - I am amazed you can use a PC). Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I am very passionate about children (and adults) abilities to learn about the world around them. Without science none of us would be here right now arguing about it.

Religion is a part of our cultural heritage and needs be taught as such. And that is its place, under anthropology - study of human culture and nature.

Religion has no place being taught as fact in place of science.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 30 May 2011 8:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, - Agree whole heartedly with you - "anthropology - study of human culture and nature", has definitely got to be the way to go - is much more comprehensive and inclusive than cultural studies per se.

Squeers, Ogg, Ammonite, et al,

One thing I am absolutely adamant about (even more so than Dan S about Creation, by a factor of 1,000,000) is that there is no way that Philosophy should be taught in any form below university level. (Unlike ethics, integrity, honesty, responsibility and behavioural law and norms, for example.)

Why? Because, having waded through Squeers' links, and masses of Wikipedia, and worn fingers to the bone with dictionary, I have concluded empirically and logically that Philosophy is such a web of confusion and hair-splitting as to be, for the most part, almost nothing more than self-serving "mind games" and examination and refutation of historical "schools" of thought which have no relevance to contemporary thought and understanding on/of the "questions" posed and addressed - so much of the historical verges almost on absolute "sophistry", being determined to confuse, nit-pick and mislead.
TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 30 May 2011 10:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, Ogg, Ammonite, et al (Cont'd),

I propose one absolute and irrefutable postulation - "Monism is correct, stating absolutely that mind and body are inseparable, and that consciousness is a function of both mind and body (maybe as a "dualism" - but who needs such debatable extra terms?); and Cosmology is correct, stating that all in the universe is subject to laws, and no element is absolutely inseparable from its (or the) environment."

Nit-pick as you like, Physicalism (in both reductive and non-reductive forms) is wrong, and even, in more recent "postulation", actually contradicts earlier-held positions; Functionalism is wrong - as all mental states are NOT "solely" constituted by their functional role (consider "enjoying" the sensation of consuming a favourite or a novel food or drink, or contemplating a sunset); Materialism has such a broad definition as to be totally useless (= a non-term); Behaviorism is just plain BS - as if behaviours of any sort, let alone complex behaviours (such as judging accuracy and intent of evidence, or proposition as to intent, as a member of a jury in a trial) could EVER be described scientifically.

I rest my case.

Sqeers, I think you meant, ".. nothing to proffer..", in your last post to Ogg.

Ogg, The "Epimenides Paradox", is not in fact a paradox - it only becomes a paradox by the interpretation of "liar" to mean "always lies" - as, we know what Epimenides meant (that Cretans were denying the immortality of Zeus, and nothing more than that!), we also would have to generally agree that all people at some time have lied or will lie (there's that "we" again); Paul was making a religious-based comment or observation, in attempting to confirm the view that some people (Cretans esp) were wrong in rejecting early Christian beliefs (resurrection). This exercise for me has also confirmed my observation and conclusion that so much of Philosophy is just a lot of silly people with a lot of time on their hands, and nothing constructive to offer.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 30 May 2011 10:47:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
I agree.

Salpetre,
I absolutely disagree. Philosophy should be taught alongside science as early as possible. Obviously it's horses for courses; we don't teach toddlers quantum mechanics and we wouldn't be teaching them abstruse philosophy. Philosophy is productive of great joy and discovery, but it's better acquired piecemeal from an early and can't be learned all at once or without effort any more than science can. On that basis your position is unreasonable.
I'm sorry that you find so much fault with philosophy, but it is no more difficult or nit-picking than science, or indeed theology. I have the greatest respect for scientists, indeed anyone who's open-mindedly devoted to learning, I'm just wary of exclusionary world-views.
I rest "my" case.

Oh and you said: "Sqeers, I think you meant, ".. nothing to proffer..", in your last post to Ogg.
Wrong, I meant "prefer", which, like most words, has more than one meaning.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 30 May 2011 12:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,
Call me an extremist. Call me a fundamentalist. Call me whatever name you like. It’s no skin off my nose. But such name calling or pigeon holing does not an argument make.

You claim that religion has no place being taught in place of science. Along with Squeers, I also agree. We all agree! (Though I don’t know of anyone, past or present, who has thought otherwise.)

Along with Ammonite, I’m also passionate about children! (Well, I have one, and would like him to be brought up properly.)

But your attempt to oppose science and religion is false opposition.

Good religion and good science go together like hand and glove. At least this is what the founders of modern Western science thought. Most of greatest names that come to mind in the history of the development of Western science were those of Christian commitment (space and word limit does not permit me to print all the most famous of household names.) For one example, Newton spent more time, ink, and paper writing about his theology than his science.

If those such as Pascal, Steno, Maxwell, Faraday, were around today they'd be credited as ‘biblical fundamentalists’ according to their spiritual beliefs. Yet it complimented, not hindered their science.

You say you’re surprised I can use a PC. I am surprised you don’t know your history (I’m not really, considering the efforts that have gone into bumping positive mention of Christianity out of the school classrooms). Don’t know about Charles Babbage? He is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex designs. In 1837 he published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 'On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation,' putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator.

Although some of these, such as Babbage and Newton, may not be regarded as biblical literalists (under today’s nomenclature), it is still instructive to note that modern science blossomed in an intellectual framework of belief in a six day Creation about 6,000 years ago.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2011 1:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite and Saltpetre,
I agree with Squeers that Philosophy can have a legitimate place in schools. In fact, I remember I learned something like that in my state school education as young as year 8 or year 9. Forming one small part of the English subject, it was called ‘clear thinking’. They tried to teach us some of the basic elements of a sound and valid argument.

Philosophy as a subject is something to do with the love of thinking and reasoning. We don’t have to use language as erudite or aloof as Squeers sometimes employs, even if he seems to enjoy it at times.

One doesn’t have to use big words, but that’s better than rudeness and insults. (‘This persistent lying, denying, weaseling, scamming, arrogance of the religiotards…’ Ogg, Monday, 23 May 2011) Why anyone here didn’t chastise Ogg for lowering the tone of the discussion, I don’t know.

The value in studying philosophy is not just the ability to evaluate arguments, but to open your mind to alternative thinking. Then maybe one might be a little more open to seeing something from the other person’s point of view. This may lead to a little less name calling and a bit more understanding.

While I know I bang on a bit too much about my pet subject, the creation/evolution debate, I do so because I know that the creationists have some good arguments, and these are capable of getting under the skin of the materials, and might just provoke them to look at the subject from another point of view. Too often in schools, students are railroaded into a belief that there is only one way to think about a subject. So I throw in an alternative, minority view. Maybe that kind of open thinking, rather than the current militant attitude which prefers banning certain discussions from classrooms, might lead to some lateral, outside the envelope, thinking.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2011 1:46:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> I'm just wary of exclusionary world-views. <<

Me too.

For example; science is only now realising that mammals, birds and now even fish have far greater mental capacity than previously thought. Studying behaviour must go beyond mere detached observation. Animals will only reveal and respond in ways if they trust and can relate to the observer. Like the old-style IQ tests which were based upon a particular definition of what constituted intelligence, these test failed to reveal many areas where humans have great abilities. My older cat is far wiser than many people I could name.

Salty.

Re: Philosophy.

One does not start studying neurosurgery without the basics of biology. Same goes for any subject. We start at the beginning, a very good place to start.

P)

For primary school children moral tales WITHOUT inclusion of supreme deity is a good start. No one is suggesting Kant or even AC Grayling for toddlers.

Although a few quotes can get one thinking:

Like this one from Voltaire

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 30 May 2011 1:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[spelling correction, last paragraph] - 'under the skin of the materialists.'
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2011 2:00:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, Folks, I concede - an introduction to clear and questioning thinking, set at a level appropriate to the age/development of the students does sound like a good idea.

I particularly like the way Dan S put the case - "The value in studying philosophy is not just the ability to evaluate arguments, but to open your mind to alternative thinking. Then maybe one might be a little more open to seeing something from the other person’s point of view. This may lead to a little less name calling and a bit more understanding."

I don't dispute that a study of philosophy can be beneficial to improving thought processes, particularly in critical thinking and critical analysis - when it is approached using actual examples and problems, and without going too deeply into the more esoteric, and so often questionable, delvings of the "higher orders" of "old" and "new" schools of thought involved in trying to analyse and define the intricate workings of the universe and of the mind and consciousness from an armchair with a nice cup of tea and a plate of cookies. Some of the schools of thought and related material I scanned in response to Squeers' earlier post on this subject, can best be described as theorising purely for the sake of it. Of course I only scratched the surface, and maybe they did undertake some scientific analysis in coming to their various postulations, but a lot of it looked like pure conjecture, and so much of it was just a lot of ridiculous hypothesizing and counter-hypothesizing.

Squeers, no more nit-picking than science? Hmmmm

Anyhow, it certainly got me thinking.

Ammonite, not real keen on your Voltaire quote - pretty tricky, and I see no solution - would prefer "Money is the root of all evil."

Dan S, The greatest deficiency in Creationism is the sticking to the 6,000 year timeframe.

Ogg, your Noah's Ark livestock could not have included dinosaurs, as they were long since extinct.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 30 May 2011 7:57:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips "You already answered this in your very next sentence."

No I didn't.
If symmetry posed an evolutionary advantage, then *everything* should be symmetrical.
Why would our bodies retain just a few asymmetrical elements?

"How does your asymmetrical liver hinder your existence?"

It doesn't, but that doesn't explain why our DNA has *not* made two of them, when it's made two of virtually everything else.

"And what law of nature renders that impossible?"

Who said "impossible"?
I just can't understand why a lifeform would discover the benefits of symmetry and use this in *almost* every part of the body, but not all of it.

<<Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?>>

"Because we only need one of each"

Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?
Your "explanation" is a back-formation.

"so why do you find it so strange that there is no need for that saving of DNA coding when only one organ exists?"

So why not reduce the coding even further and just have one of each organ? That would also require less energy consumption (food scarcity being a threat to survival).

"if our DNA followed a "one-size-fits-all" methodology (as you seem to think nature dictates it must) - requiring all organs to either have a symmetrical mirror image copy on the other side or be centered and symmetrical themselves"

I am commenting on what I observe in nature.
Most creatures are structurally symmetrical, yet for no apparent reason retain some asymmetrical elements.
You have not explained why.
You have given a convenient backformation cop-out of things-are-the-way-they-are-because-they-are-that-way.

Our bodies start as a single cell that splits into an exact duplicate.
Right from the start there is a process of "mirroring", copying, symmetry.
Yet this general process is contradicted for just a *few* body parts.
This seems highly inefficient and inherently contradictory.

If animals were designed by an intelligence no explanation is required.
The designer simply made them that way.
But you claim there is no intelligence, so the discrepancy of asymmetry-within-symmetry needs an explanation.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 4:50:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

"Theorising purely for the sake of it" is often the catalyst for the advancement of human understanding.

I'm curious (if you are in favour of RE in non-religious institutions) as to why you pose a requirement of scientific analysis for the presentation of philosophy, yet none for the presentation of religious narrative?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:16:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Delay much, Shockadelic?

One organ being symmetrical wouldn’t save DNA. The only reason two symmetrical organs save DNA is because one gene is controlling the both of them. What are you expecting? That a symmetrical organ be controlled by half a gene? That’s not the way it works.

But even if you had a point about why evolution didn’t do this or why it didn’t do that, it’s irrelevant, because evolution can only work with what it’s given anyway - like our backwards retinas - it doesn’t consciously decide what ‘s best and then do it.

<<Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?>>

I’m not sure. The explanation probably varies depending on the organ you’re referring to. For the lungs, I suspect it would have something to do with surface area and/or circulation.

But if you really want to know all this, why don’t you ask experts on those organs? Your local GP might even know. And hey, even if there weren’t answers, there's so much evidence for evolution in the fossil record, in DNA and in the distribution of species that it wouldn’t even matter. Evolution would still remain a fact regardless of what your Joho pamphlets claim.

Oh, and I have never once said that things are the way they are because they are that way. That’s something you’ve made up in typical creationist style.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 12:59:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

"Theorising purely for the sake of it" is often the catalyst for the advancement of human understanding."

I agree absolutely, and see a place for some contemplation of philosophical thought in the curriculum - just not the namby-pamby of archaic "schools" of thought.

I'm Not in favour of RE in non-religious institutions (that is Not as a discrete lesson), Nor its provision by "outside" volunteers from this denomination or that, and I'm Not even sure it's appropriate in denominational schools! My preference is, as Ammonite has suggested, that a broad-brush of world religion could be included in an "anthropology" subject - covering human nature and culture - provided by full-time professional teachers employed by the school as a formal component of their job description. I would also prefer if this was part of a standard national schools curriculum across Oz, and the subject should include topics of ethics, morality, honesty, responsibility, behavioural norms and mores, and even basic psychology and basic philosophy, etc - a well-rounded expose of the human condition. The only burning question is whether this subject would be best included in the curriculum as part of the "Humanities" or of the "Sciences". Either way, it would be a substantial, worthwhile, and possibly essential, revision of the schools' curriculum.

AJ, Shockadelic,

"Natural Selection" determines "Life-form Design", through trial and error seeking the simplest and most effective arrangement for survival and replication - operating essentially by random variations (through genetic mutation) and allowing the chips to fall where they may. "Advantageous" variations should normally result in successful replication, so as to become increasingly represented in the subject population - in the absence of cataclysm or exceptional, unforeseen and unpredictable variation in the host environment.

Symmetry (or system duplication) is a random facet, only holding sway where it is advantageous - such as in physical mobility and dexterity, stereoscopic vision, and the likes of system back-up to reduce the impacts of partial systems failure - eg kidneys, lungs.

There is no pure "formula". What works, works, and what succeeds best will generally become the norm.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 2:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, regarding part(s) of your posting on 29 May, 7.46pm:

1. ".. science begins with the unsubstantiated premise that everything in the universe is explicable in materialist terms. There is no good reason to make this assumption, we simply don't know and it is unwise to close our minds to extraordinary possibilities--"
2. "The notion that phenomena is reducible to simple cause and effect, based on our superficial and prejudiced perception of it, buys into the Newtonian reduction that phenomena is nothing more than dead matter behaving respectively and predictably."
3. ".. while it's certainly true that "objectivity" is prerequisite (and unattainable), deciding beforehand that the answer "must" be materialistic, is prejudice."

My response(s): 1. Science has to start somewhere, and has necessarily to make the assumption that everything is explainable in concrete "material" terms - until proven otherwise. Science can only build from the known (or reasonably proven), towards understanding of the, as yet, inexplicable. There is no closing to possibilities.
2. Everything IS cause and effect - there is no other possibility (Until Proven to be Otherwise), but it is far from "simple". Your use of Newton's view here is also a false and un-demonstrated conclusion, proving nothing.
3. Objectivity "unattainable"? All science is necessarily based on the purest form of objectivity, and to suggest otherwise beggars belief. Advances in science are subject to strict peer review, demand unerring proof replication, and any hypothesis can be demolished by one simple failure. It is thus, and must be - all else is chaos. (Or maybe, Purely Philosophical?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 2:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

Your 1,2,3 responses above are naive to say the least. Don't you think you ought to learn a little more about the respective problematics before you make resounding affirmations?

On the topic of this thread, I would ask "why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?

Speaking for philosophy in school, which for me would include the Greek concept of "paideia"; it would equip the child to critique her culture and herself and aspire to make them better.
According to the OED one S. Butcher said paideia "in its full sense involves the union of intellectual and moral qualities. It is on the one hand mental illumination, an enlarged outlook on life; but it also implies a refinement and delicacy of feeling, a deepening of the sympathetic emotions, a scorn of what is self-seeking, ignoble, dishonourable—a scorn bred of loving familiarity with poets and philosophers, with all that is fortifying in thought or elevating in imagination".
We'd have to be careful this did't reinvent the philistine, but I'm confident such sensibilities would reject the present world and its "culture" and build another, and that is my hope for a philosophical education.

Religion offers no such promise as this world is neglected in favour of the next. Religious instruction is the perfect way to divert human potential and aspiration and keep our democracies devoted to meagre, maudlin and materialistic preoccupations.

The institution of science, on the other hand, is even more distracted--like an idiot savant; capable of stupendous feats of discovery yet bereft of discrimination. Science treats our "society" ("culture" is irrational) as a given context, and is so infatuated with the "phenomenon" at hand that it can't be bothered with arcane matters of right and wrong. Science is thus even more conservative, in its indifference, than religion!

Both science and religion are puppets of the state.

Philosophy, on the other hand, at its best and down to earth, takes the best from religion and science.

I hope someone will defend religion and/or science from my criticism and try to answer my "why" above.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 5:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

Your latest post:
"The institution of science, on the other hand, is even more distracted--like an idiot savant; capable of stupendous feats of discovery yet bereft of discrimination. Science treats our "society" ("culture" is irrational) as a given context, and is so infatuated with the "phenomenon" at hand that it can't be bothered with arcane matters of right and wrong. Science is thus even more conservative, in its indifference, than religion!"

"Both science and religion are puppets of the state."

"Philosophy, on the other hand, at its best and down to earth, takes the best from religion and science."

And your request for response:
"On the topic of this thread, I would ask "why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?"

My response - for what it's worth - and on latest evidence that would not be much, it would seem:

In my previous post I was not addressing RE, or philosophy - these have been extensively covered earlier in this thread, and quite adequately as far as I'm concerned. So, I'm not going to buy into that any further.

I am at a loss that you would/could question the teaching of science in our schools. Certainly you appear to hold a very different view of science to myself. That has been made very clear in your response to my previous comments on your assertions regarding the inability of science to be objective. However, in this latest post you have reached into a realm of not only refuting the objectivity of science, but seemingly denying its fundamental or perceived relevance to society (or dare I add, to world progress?).

You appear to contend that Philosophy is the alpha and the omega, has all the answers, and that contemplation is all that is required to educate the next generation and achieve a "realisation", of what? Of the "real purpose" of mankind's existence? Is that it? For your assertions, proposition, or whatever you wish to call it, makes no sense to me whatever.

My only hope is that you are not an educator.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 7:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

It's a shame we don't have more educators that hold to Squeers' philosophy.

Paideia, as opposed to purely technical education, was the highest theoretical aim of education in Ancient Greece.
E.B. Castle wrote:
"In the midst of our gadget-cluttered world it is a good thing to reflect, slowly and imaginatively, on what was the essence of this Greek contribution to education....They approached their problem in a characteristically Greek way, examining the principles governing human life, asking what a man was, body, mind and spirit....It is on this main theme that we must concentrate - on the idea that education is the making of a man.....today we tend to ask, not how shall we make a child into a complete man, but what technique we shall teach him so that he will become a neat and uncomplaining cog in a world whose main concern is to produce material wealth....
We become educated by continuous searching. The personal culture thus attained is a man's "paideia", the thing for which he is born, the sum of his intellectual, moral and aesthetic qualities that make him a complete man."

Perhaps the Greek ideal is set a bit too high for a society obsessed with material gain. If you drop your bombastic attitude for a moment, Saltpetre, you might see the merit in Squeers' philosophical approach.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:38:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

Your innocent criticism makes me smile : )

Poirot,
great quote!

..And no takers from either side on Squeers's query as to <"why" people want religion or science taught in school? What are the benefits?>

Surely someone has a good reason to prefer one or the other? I assumed this had been thought-out...

Oh drear..
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 7:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips "Delay much, Shockadelic?"

Unlike some people, I have a life outside of OLO.

"One organ being symmetrical wouldn’t save DNA."

That wasn't the question.

"evolution can only work with what it’s given anyway - like our backwards retinas - it doesn’t consciously decide what ‘s best and then do it.'

Yet strangely symmetry "worked" for almost every part of every lifeform.
You have not answered why just a *few* things evaded this almost-universal tendency.

<<Why don't we only need one kidney, one lung?>>

"For the lungs, I suspect it would have something to do with surface area and/or circulation."

So why not one lung with greater surface area?
Why not one ear that can hear in all directions?

"why don’t you ask experts on those organs?"

They will, like you, describe what *now* exists, not why or how it came to be that way.
You are the ones advocating a non-intelligent process, not my local GP.

"Evolution would still remain a fact regardless of what your Joho pamphlets claim."

Newsflash, I'm not Joho or even Christian.

"Oh, and I have never once said that things are the way they are because they are that way."

Clever boy. I was summing up your attitude, not your exact words.
From your response it seems clear you have no answer.

Saltpetre "allowing the chips to fall where they may."

Yet the chips fell on "symmetry" over and over and over again, but not for this organ or that one. Why?

"Symmetry (or system duplication) is a random facet, only holding sway where it is advantageous - such as in physical mobility and dexterity, stereoscopic vision,"

You, like AJ, are stating an opinion about "advantage" based on a convenient back-formation of lifeforms as they exist *now*, not explaining why they got that way.

"and the likes of system back-up to reduce the impacts of partial systems failure - eg kidneys, lungs."

Don't people's livers fail? Their hearts?
Without a functioning heart, you're dust!

"What works, works"

i.e. things-are-they-way-they-are-because-they-are-that-way.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 8:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
What do you know about Mortimer Adler? A 1987 Time magazine article said he was the ‘last great Aristotelian’. He wrote a book on educational reform called The Paideia Proposal.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 9:06:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

I hadn't heard of Adler or his proposal but it certainly seems an improvement on what we have now.

But I prefer the ideas of Takis Fotopoulis, whose paideia includes a strong sense of ethical and civil responsibility; this coupled with what he calls "inclusive democracy" would quickly make our institutional masters accountable. I agree with what Adler says about modern education being little more than preparation for service.
Of course it suits our so-called democracies to keep their denizens "partially" educated and "self-centred". The church is a big help in this department with its doctrine of the soul, whereas all the evidence attests that our sensibilities are socially or exogenously derived. I'd argue that we do attain a level of independence, but that in our culture this rarely amounts to more than eccentricity.
Alasdaire MacIntyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre is another modern Aristotelian well worth reading.
Indeed, modern science would do well to reacquaint itself with Aristotle's metaphysics, which held sway until Hume, though much later for some notable others. The metaphysics of empiricism reigns supreme today, but as I've suggested above, it's both myopic and irresponsible.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 2 June 2011 7:50:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Whom: RI is yet alive and well.
On Paideia:
As Fred Smollett , amateur philosopher and part-time seer, part-time gardener of Kenosha, Wisconsin once mused:
“Truth is a perfect crystal, clear in every detail, beautiful of form, and revealing of all it has to offer;
Untruth is a fog, masking both truth and the path to its revelation; and,
Partial-truth is a chisel, chipping at and denying clarity, distorting the whole, and creating false paths and barriers to discovery.”

“And, you know”, he continued, ”truth is a bit like an onion, the more you peel away to get at the centre of the thing, the more you get to realise that the whole is a far greater thing than the sum of its parts. Life’s a bit like that too, don’t you think?”

On the pursuance of contemporary Paideian principles in the U.S. education system, Fred observed, “Paideian educational principles may broadly be expressed as a combination of three interacting elements - a small element of didactic “conventional” instruction, a far larger element of interactive, pro-active, and individual in-depth study, and another small element of reflection, in open forum style, reviewing and clarifying material covered, and with an added purpose of evaluating the principles and techniques demonstrated, and expanding understanding of ideas, concepts and values. The latter element incorporates some Socratic philosophical analysis, and nurtures both intellectual and social skills.”

“The overall program is intended to promote critical evaluation, development of logic and reasoning skills, and internalisation of personal development motivation. In Wisconsin all elements of the standard state school curriculum have to be covered, including maths, science, literature, music, art and so forth, and student progress is assessed through participation in the state’s standard testing processes. Paideian principles are broad, and application varies from one school to another, with varying degrees of student accomplishment, and of course the realization of motivational objectives is only subject to in-house evaluation.”
TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Paideia (continued):

“In most schools three overriding objectives are stressed, namely, preparation for earning a living, preparation for good citizenship, and preparation for self-development. However, methodology remains a combination of didactic teaching, coaching, and Socratic questioning. Of course, science, maths and literacy are always key components, but emphasis varies from one school to another.”

“Most of our Paideian schools rely on sources from outside of the state school system for up to two-thirds or more of their funding, which of course also makes successful outcomes and effective marketing essential components of every school’s program and administration. Some also have some fairly restrictive entry standards, with some insisting on grade 6 or earlier commencement to enable smooth passage through the program.”

The three elements may also be described as:
1. didactic instruction of factual information;
2. intellectual coaching of skills; and
3. seminar discussion of ideas, concepts, and values.

Extract from The Principles of the Paideia Program (as set out by the National Paideia Center, U.S.A.):
The results of these three types of teaching should be (a) the acquisition of organized knowledge, (b) the formation of habits of skill in the use of language and mathematics, and (c) the growth of the mind’s understanding of basic ideas and issues.

Britannica Online Encyclopaedia:
paideia, (Greek: “education,” or “learning”), system of education and training in classical Greek and Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) cultures that included such subjects as gymnastics, grammar, rhetoric, music, mathematics, geography, natural history, and philosophy. In the early Christian era the Greek paideia, called humanitas in Latin, served as a model for Christian institutions of higher learning, such as the Christian school of Alexandria in Egypt, which offered theology as the culminating science of their curricula.

Research Comment: It was interesting to note that the teaching of science, natural science, biology etc is standard across the board, though in some schools small provision is made for music, and in others art is emphasised. Though no theological study was evident, there did appear to be almost a religious element to the clear dedication to the Paideian educational philosophy.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 4 June 2011 4:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, a dejected Smollett will go to his grave with no confirmation or rebuttal of his potential bona fides as a luminary? Even Socrates must have had his detractors.

The children of the world certainly deserve more than closed minds and a one-size-fits-all philosophy, or a view that if they fail to achieve the highest possible level of enlightenment and sophistication that they are somehow less. It takes all kinds to make a functioning successful society, and there is an essential and valued role through which all may succeed and prosper, given the guidance and confidence to explore the possibilities.

Though western religion has been getting a lot of bad press, there is yet a place for it, if one is able to focus on the positive lessons. However, it is possible that the Analects of Confucius should be given greater attention for lessons in reciprocity and the pursuit of social harmony through the development of rites of conduct and a code of ethics for interpersonal interaction. Much is to be learned from the purpose behind the prescription.

Self improvement is only limited by the unnecessary constraints we place upon ourselves, or allow others to impose upon us, and educators would do well to school their students in avoiding both of these potential hazards to the realisation of their full potential.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 6 June 2011 6:28:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a problem with this.

Saltpetre reports Fred Smollett's words (I haven't checked them for accuracy, by the way) as follows:

"Truth is a perfect crystal, clear in every detail, beautiful of form, and revealing of all it has to offer"

and then...

”...truth is a bit like an onion, the more you peel away to get at the centre of the thing, the more you get to realise that the whole is a far greater thing than the sum of its parts"

These are bone-crunchingly inconsistent.

If the truth were indeed a perfect crystal, there would be no need to peel away the layers. Or if it were an onion requiring the removal of layers to reveal more layers, it could not possibly be crystalline.

Words, words, words. Simply strung together to form a kind of twee fashion statement.

People who abuse the English language in this fashion are a festering sore on the living flesh of human-to-human communication.

Ugh.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 June 2011 9:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is what happens when you give someone a thesaurus for Christmas.....
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 6 June 2011 9:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles and Poirot,

It's a pity you can't attempt to appreciate a meager effort to compare and contrast the manipulations people are prone to make, wittingly or no, or the looseness which may be applied, to Truth (in anything). Whether allegory or metaphor I thought the imagery had some truth to its exposition, and some possibilities. I was hoping for a philosophical evaluation of the "truth" of that small presentation, but it appears you are only concerned to leap on cracks to criticize.

You know Pericles, these were two different possible perspectives on unraveling the intricacies of truth. Sorry if you cannot appreciate the difference.

There is so much manipulation and denial of truth so evident on this forum, and so few really willing to consider evidence for a contrary view when it presents. A pity it seems people always have to have some axe to grind, or someone else's view to trash.

Thanks for your concern for my well being in any event. I'm big enough to take it on the chin.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 6 June 2011 10:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What is truth?" Pilate asked.

(Gospel of John, 18:38)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not about you, Saltpetre. Unless of course you are in fact Smollett's ghost, operating under a pseudonym.

>>Thanks for your concern for my well being in any event. I'm big enough to take it on the chin.<<

Sentences such as those you quoted, operate in diametric opposition to any attempt to get at the "Truth" (your capitalization). Which is why I described them as fashion accessories, designed for show, rather than function.

>>Whether allegory or metaphor I thought the imagery had some truth to its exposition, and some possibilities.<<

But which imagery? The crystal or the onion? Surely not both? But wait...

>>You know Pericles, these were two different possible perspectives on unraveling the intricacies of truth. Sorry if you cannot appreciate the difference.<<

It was precisely "the difference" that I was drawing your attention to.

The problem is that employing both is to fudge the question entirely.

Even if you wanted to accept the dichotomy, and tried to weave some sort of discussion from it, it would fall at the first fence.

You would have to say "truth is anything I want it to be, crystal or onion". Or "truth is so elusive, it can be crystal to one, and onion to another". Either way, you reach a dead end immediately.

>>There is so much manipulation and denial of truth so evident on this forum<<

It is a forum for opinions. Opinions themselves are not illustrative of any truth except the fact that they are only opinions.

Don't forget, Smollett was not a philosopher, but a novelist.

In G.G. Urwin's 'Humorists Of The Eighteenth Century', he is described as "interested only in telling a story, without regard for any lesson it might teach". Which might explain his inability to frame a philosophical thought with any conviction.

Urwin also points out that "in everything he did he was hasty, prone to anger, highly prejudiced, puffed with his own importance."

Why does that fail to surprise?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:53:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

I have to agree with Pericles' comments; those posts were definitely "ugh"--all verbiage and no content.
But don't take it to heart, we all waffle sometimes; I've posted plenty of stuff I wish I could retract.

I think "Truth" is a crock, dangerous too. Better to let God deal with "Truth"; the human perspective is much more limited and we should settle for relative truth and best course of action in the circumstances etc.--very close to pragmatism, but it can still be aspirational.

Just to clarify my criticism of science above; I absolutely think it should be taught in school, but in tandem with political/civil philosophy, ethics etc., and not merely as an end in itself. Indeed the Philosophy of Science is a discipline in itself and does consider these matters.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:09:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

Yep, truth is a hard one to pin down, don't you think?

As Squeers said, we all waffle sometimes....You're a good sort who is often willing to look at things from more than one angle. It is difficult not take it to heart when we get pulled up - but in the end, we're all here to learn something (hopefully).

Cheers
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 6 June 2011 3:31:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I just picked the name out of thin air, sounded sort of provincial, the words are mine. I have no idea who the real Fred Smollett is or was, I don't recall ever hearing the name. It just popped into my head. Coincidence. But I don't want to ruin his name with my ramblings. Twas an exercise in third person.

It's Squeers fault anyway, getting a person thinking about philosophy in the first place. I was just trying to see some beauty in the whole idea, and the crystal popped into my head - probably from that Keats Grecian Urn thing -"Truth is beauty, beauty is truth.." The onion came from that Shrek movie where he's speaking of getting to know someone - I just applied it differently.

Still, prone to anger; puffed with his own importance - I don't believe I'm highly prejudiced, though I have been accused of not being as tolerant as I thought I was, and also been accused of being arrogant; but, is the guy dead and has somehow snuck into my head? (I've never been good at seeing myself as I really am, or how others see me - very frustrating.)

I like the idea of the crystal anyway, many facets, transparent but fragmenting light into its spectral rainbow. But of course it's a lame attempt at trying to tie down truth. For where does that start or end? It gives me a headache thinking about it, so I just dabbled with a fair degree of poetic licence, to see where it might lead. Still, I like the piece all the same - and it's an original "salt".

Thanks for those thoughts Squeers and Poirot, much appreciated. I know I tend to be overly sensitive, but it is the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Always been that way, and it's not easy to change old habits. One thing is sure, this thread, and the scratching the surface searching for answers has been most absorbing. Guess I'm an uneducated sod, but the Paideian educational concept has been really quite intriguing.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 1:03:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My bad, Saltpetre, I didn't read the context sufficiently thoroughly.

>>Pericles, I just picked the name out of thin air, sounded sort of provincial, the words are mine<<

My apologies for getting so antsy - my only defence is that I love the language, and what it can accomplish when used properly. Forgive, please.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 8:46:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 60
  7. 61
  8. 62
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy