50 Non-believers

Do you often find Albert Einstein quotes funny?

No, its funny seeing you attempt to hijack an Einstein quote to push your fundamentalist agenda. Einstein and you have exactly nothing in common. He did not believe in a personal god, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

By the way, you didn't finish the quote: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I dont know why you are laughing Einstein was a brilliant man who is revered by scientists everywhere, yet even he, arguably the pinnacle of human intelligence, believed and had faith in religion. Your narrow simplistic mind can only equate religion with "christianity/islam etc" but there is so much more about religious faith and belief in higher entities that you do not understand.

Considering science contains a plethora of provable facts, if science were to be a religion (which it isn't), it would be the most truthful religion ever known to human civilization. (That is, if people like worshipping facts.)

You misunderstand, I am not laughing at Einstein I am laughing at you.

You also misrepresent Einsteins religious views.

On the Bible: In his autobiographical notes (written at age 67) he says, "Thus I came--despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

On the Power of Prayer: "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."

On Morality and Ethics: "I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

Einstein didn't believe in god, he believed in the laws of nature. He had zero belief in a personal god which is something you have professed to believe.

We could trade Einstein quotes all day but you are boring me Splum. Einstein would have spat in your hateful face. That much is a certainty. :1orglaugh

Everything contains a plethora of selective provable facts. There are many "facts" that science cannot prove. Who says people dont worship science? There are many who worship science as "fact". :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Einstein(the worlds greatest scientist) WAS religious and DID believe in a "God".
http://www.hal-pc.org/~wtb/einstein'sreligiousviews.html

You owe me an apology for lying. :)

In the end my point is that religion should be taught in public schools.

I was just saying, since science has many facts (like all known facts), it has the 1-up on religion, because religion can't even get basic facts (such as weather, mental illness, etc) correct.

And that "Everything" that you mentioned that contains a plethora of facts, is in fact, science... Whether it be social science, biological science, political science, history, or anything else...

You owe me an apology for being an idiot and wasting my time.

Please define what god you claim Einstein believed in.

So Einstein believed in nature and the laws of nature... not "god".

You are playing a game of semantics here, Einstein believed in a "God". If your small brain cant make the connection between the God of Abraham and the literal meaning of a "God" there is nothing more I can say to make you understand.

Spoken like a true worshipper of science. :)

I meant distinction, was responding to another post and edit time ran out. :)

You are playing a game of semantics here, Einstein believed in a "God". If your small brain cant make the DISTINCTION between the God of Abraham and the literal meaning of a "God" there is nothing more I can say to make you understand.

Science is a religion by definition. It's a series of beliefs and practices held by individuals. The scientific community adheres to practices and common beliefs in their work. Religion is a vague term. I can create a religion by believing that everyone should eat Spaghettios on Thursdays.

Science is not a religion. Science is just a collection of facts, and a means by obtaining facts and finding unknowns.

Not really, are you a "worshipper" of science since you accept that fact that humans need oxygen to survive? By your logic, if you believe in any fact, you are a "worshipper" of science.

It depends on your definition of religion. Most people look at it from a spiritual sense, but the word can mean many different things. Here is one of the definitions:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Semantics... I'm using the definition of religion that refers to mystical experiences and faith (the one you think of when you think 'religion').

Oh certainly I am a "worshiper" of science(but not exclusive to it). For instance when scientists report something(in their biblical-like white papers) as "fact" I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Thats where the "faith" comes in.

that's where you're wrong. scientific theories are proven and disproven all the time. there was a time when it was a fact that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. oh how wrong science was. just because we have atom smashers and hubble telescopes doesn't mean we know everything. 90% of the matter in the universe is something we can't even detect. leaves alot of possabilities out there. don't be a sheep please.

I would say no, mainly because of the reality of the implementation.
In an ideal world you'd have an impartial history & literature teacher going over the historical relevance and influence of both the bible and the koran (as the global culture war of this century is looking like being framed this way.)
However anyone with experience of religion classes in public schools would know that they simply bring in a few guys from the local church group to "teach the bible" and it ends up being nothing more than a slightly more advanced sunday school. It would take a great deal of organisation and will for this not to be the case and I don't really see it happening.

I also believe that this is far down the list of educational needs. There are FAR more important things for kids to learn than the titles of gospels. And simply put, I think only a minority of students would really get anything out of even an ideal comparative religion class. Most kids in highscool just aren't that interested in how these books have defined and shaped humanity. they're more worried about what happened on the OC.

Scientic theories are never proven. They can only be falsified.

If by "god" you mean nature and natural law then we agree. But I prefer to call it nature. Einstein certainly believed there was no intelligence or consciousness involved.

Tell me, is the god you believe in nature?

Actually that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth was a biblical conceit.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

You remember Galileo right? What the church did to him when he tried to prove the movement of the earth?

I wouldn't blame science that much for this one. And even if you could, there wasn't a seperation science and religion until at least the enlightenment.. and even then you had Isaac Newton saying that god interfered with the alignment of the planets every now and then to keep them on course.

But in essence you are mostly sound in that science "learns from it's mistakes" but it's facts AND theories... not just theories. It takes a lot to become a fact and a scientific theory isn't the same as a common theory.. Gravity is "only" a theory.

There would be bias in the course, but that's true for most courses. Compare a US history textbook with a European history textbook about the same events and you'll find some differences. Bias comes with the territory but the hope is that a person is presented with enough facts that they can derive their own conclusions or research further.

Teaching religion in historical context is fine, but a dedicated religion course in highschool is waste of time, especially at a time when 1/3 of American kids are illiterate. It has no immediate practical use - the same reasons we don't learn about ancient history in public school. People can take up these topics on their own or in post secondary school disciplines. There are more pressing subjects - like the basics - that need to be taught.

The word "nature" is not sufficient enough to explain the "higher power" that is obviously evident within our "realities and experiences" but if you insist on dumbing it down as so I suppose the you could call it "nature".

I am sorry I disagree. Our kids must understand religion in all of its contexts. Religion affects our world in incredibly drastic and profound ways, to have greater knowledge of all religion and its meanings is to have greater tolerance and understanding of other peoples beliefs. Surely that is one of the most important lessons in life that our schools currently do not teach effectively.

What do you mean by "higher power"? Nature is a higher power for sure but it is obvious you are referring to something with consciousness and intelligence.

Am I correct?

Do you think nature isnt "conscious" or "intelligent"?

I never said humans know everything, I am saying that there are certain things that can be tested, and are KNOWN. Just because there are facts, doesn't mean people worship them... It isn't, "Oh, I have faith that humans need oxygen to survive", it is just known - can be tested, put your head in a plastic bag.

No I don't. Nature "acts" accoring to natural laws.

Do you believe nature to be intelligent or have consciousness? Do you believe that this consciousness deliberately starts tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis?

Hard sciences (biology, physics, etc) and religion are not the same thing, if only by degree. We can equate just about anything if we play enough semantics. But it's also true that some people treat science as if it was a religion - accepting scientific data as facts that cannot be questioned, treating scientists like faultless Gods who know everything, etc. And there are some "sciences" that are arguably just religions - specifically social sciences.

Traditional science attempts to observe and understand the underlying principles of the physical world by experimentation. It doesn't make moral or ethical judgements about those principles, nor does it give any metaphysical purpose for it. If a principle is found to be valid and allows us to make predictions, we assume them to be true unless there are alternative testable explanations. In this way, science is quite limited but it's the best tool we have for understanding the physical world.

yeah i know, but at the time it was a common belief by the majority of people that the world was flat and the sun did revolve around the Earth. based on what was known and the tools available, this is what made most sense to them. obviously gallileo was correct and the church eventually acknowledged his findings. it was too late though, he was already burning in hell :).

anyway it's a perfect example of why you should keep an open mind. just because something appears to work one way now, doesn't mean we won't determine it works a different way in the future. it's foolish to think we won't learn more about our universe and how it all works in the future.

we're barely able to leave the planet, but we've proven 100% there is no God? lol get real. that's just wishful thinking. everyone wants to feel secure. they want to know they're right. it doesn't matter if you're a bible thumper or an atheist, buying into a belief system 100% does nothing more than provide you with some sort of comfort.

life is a mystery. it always has been. it probably always will be.

If a significant proportion of kids can't read well enough to understand what they're being taught, making them study religion is a futile exercise. Basics need to be taught first, everything else second.

horrible arguments. do you deliberately cry when you're sad? do you deliberately shoot cum when you orgasm? do you deliberately pump blood through your body? no, there is a physical mechanism behind it that can be explained. BUT that doesn't mean i'm not conscious of it all. i don't consciouslly control the flow of blood through my body, but i'm aware of it because i'd be fucking dead if it wasn't.

where is that theory of everything? oh yeah, no one has figured it out yet.

So quite simply in your opinion nature just "is" and always "has been" and it has "laws" that are constant. There IS something we cant even comprehend guiding those "laws". Prove me wrong.

They weren't arguments slappy they were questions. You noticed the question marks at the end of each of them, yes?

I am trying to figure out what Splum is saying because he isn't doing too good a job of it himself.

I'm not interested in proving you wrong. That there is something guiding those laws is something you choose to believe, in spite of the fact nobody knows and probably will never know.

I choose to be honest and say I don't know. You choose to believe something someone else told you.

Answer me this one question Splum and be honest. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God and that he died on the cross for your sins? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You wouldnt call that "God"?

No I do not.

The word god has an unpleasant stigma attached to it and as I do not subscribe to any theistic belief I reject the word. I do not believe in a personal god. I do not believe there is any consciousness or intelligent force behind it all. However I believe there may be a higher power, but I prefer to refer to it as nature and natural laws. How they came to be I do not know and will probably never know. I do not believe in an afterlife.

That about sums up what I believe.

nice
regarding "a higher power, but i prefer to refer to it as nature and natural laws" is totally cool. for a higher power did create existence. it had to. the higher power is the force that made this.

now it's up to a person to call that higher power what they want.

hawkings recently make the analogy that our reality/universe is a bubble that expanded from a pot of boiling water and did not burst, but kept expanding. he said that was pure chance. so, the higher power is the hot water the bubble came from. hot water is a thing. however, because we are human, we see the hot water as a human (human god) as well, for we cannot understand the hot waters true nature.

Splum: Science changes all the time because new evidence is brought forth, new testing techniques are developed, new discoveries are found, etc.

Science evolves. Religion changes very little, is not dependant on evidence, is impossible to test, and relies on its followers to be just that...followers, people who believe in a story that has no evidence. Judaism is about the only mainstream religion I can think of that's made any major changes for the better over the centuries. Most people in the US believe in God because it's what's fashionable to do, and it's what has been drilled into the heads of all US citizens from birth. When this viewpoint if forced upon you from an early age, then it becomes the truth for you. When you look at most mainstream religions (and this is especially true for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) from a logical perspective, religion begins to fall apart. The best question you can ask a Christian, for example, is this: "Can God make a rock so big that he cannot move it?".

Another point about US Christians is this...we, the people of the USA, are about the most arrogant, egocentric motherfuckers on the face of the planet. We are so egotistical that we believe that we will live forever. Religion fuels this egocentricity; concepts of an afterlife that will allow us to live forever after we leave this world in a wonderful world of peace and happiness with an almighty loving God. Shit, even as a kid I disputed the teachings of Christianity, and when I became an adult, I outright dismissed it because it's so full of holes (holy? hehe) that it simply cannot be trusted. And you also have the people who pick and choose what they want from the Bible and ignore the rest. You really think you're a Christian? Then cut off your arm if you ever steal something, poke out your own eye if you look at someone else's wife, and throw the babies of your enemies against rocks. Stone your own children to death in the town square. Why? Because the Bible says so. Do we really want to be teaching this stuff in public school? Oh wait...they get to conveniently skip this stuff.

I could go on for hours and hours but I'll spare you all the misery. And what I've said isn't hate, it's disdain for the hypocrisy of modern "Christians" who aren't even remotely Christ-like (Christian = Christ-like, and I've yet to see one single person being Christ-like).

I agree with much of what you say here bhutocracy. The problem with biblical studies is that those that generally do the teaching do so from a biased perspective and often carry their own subtle agenda's into the classroom. However I would say that because religion plays such an important role in everyone's lives whether they realise it or not, it should be covered as part of a cirriculum but from a more neutraly academic perspective more factualy focused than dogmatic so a student would be given a more rounded insight into the so often bizzare world of religion from the outset.

Sadly with religious groups still weilding quite scary amounts of influence within the educational system as a whole I can't see it happening anytime soon :Oh crap

I think Richard Dawkins has done a great job dealing with this issue in his latest book, the God Delusion. Anyone that is convinced that moderate religion is good for society, should read it and be shocked, the arguments are water-tight.

The subject of the thread is should religion be taught in K12 not a debate about the virtues and pitfalls of religion. :)
While I respect your analysis of religion itself, religion is more prevalent in this world than many subject K12 students are taught. To learn to comprehend and have basic knowledge of religion is an important skill every young person needs.

Thread title "TIME Mag Cover: Should the Bible be Taught in Public Schools?"
My answer is yes, but not because I condone one religion over another and want to spread a gospel but religion has an incredible influence(good and bad) on this planet. So I would appreciate it if YOU stop spreading YOUR gospel in a thread that isnt trying to spread any gospel. Your comment is as pathetic as a christian defending the bible in this thread.

This is such bullshit. The damned question was "do you believe in a higher power?" That could be anything from a Buddhist "prime mover" to Donald Duck. The original question (the one this news story never mentions) wasn't "Do you believe in a bible-based god?"

*I* believe in some kind of "higher power" (I'm from Southern California - it's required). *I* think evolution as a working theorem may not be the last word (the fossil record is sketchy so, being scientists, we have to reserve the possibility of error). And I'm an agnostic. I HATE the idea of the Bible being taught as a requirement in school -- I don't want my kid being taught fairy tales with my tax dollars. If I wanted to send my kids to a Christian school like I escaped from at an early age, I'd do so.

"God" doesn't mean a christian god by default. Everyone means something different by that word. This news story was minted by the Robertson clowns then peddled by the extremists in the EU media as an excuse for dissing Americans. It's bullshit.

Richard Dawkins is just another village atheist in sheep's clothing. I recommend Robert Anton Wilson's books. Unfortunately, Bob died not long ago, but his books live on. It helps people see through everybody's bullshit -- mine, yours, God's, Richard Dawkins', etc, etc.

Why do you assume anyone thinks it means christian based God? You people and your anti-christian hatred are just as bad as the bible thumpers. 90% of America believe in God, that is the outcome of the poll period.
You want your kids to be confused and ignorant of religion which will affect their world every day? To not teach them the basics about what religion means and how it affect their lives is handicapping their ability to cope with religious influence.

To defend the use of the bible in classrooms with some poll saying 90% of Americans believe in "god" is ludicrous. That was my point. Christianity is a comparatively tiny, new religion -- notions of "god" pre-exist Christianity by thousands of years.

The bible is a piece of Christian religious literature. It's not about "god", it's about the Christian religion's peculiar notions of "god".

You want YOUR kids taught the bible? Fine -- send them to a Christian school. Public schools should teach reading, writing and arithmetic. To sneak the bible in the back door in a "literature" context is, imho, disingenuous. I'd feel the same way about the Koran, or Dawkins' views of atheism, or anything else not grounded in function and fact.

When Christians allow Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, gay people, and everyone else (including porn webmasters) to have their own groups in school without constantly trying to bully them into submission, then I have no problem with school-based Christian groups. Until such time, if there has to be one religion, it must be a secular one.