Neo-Atheists

Parent Cafe
41

<p>People should understand that the cause of hate is not belief itself, but the excessive pride in one’s group. We could blame Islam for recent terrorism, as we could blame Christianity for the inquisition and Communism for other genocides. But are these based on hate? No, people just blindly utilize them to pursue their own interests; their ethnic or social group’s sake. </p>

<p>Creeds should be something personal nowadays. They were once useful to establish social rules; but now that we live in a heterogeneous civilization, the search for a universal truth becomes a hindrance for understanding. When only a general well-being is sought, our belief about who created the world or not is irrelevant; only a “currently suitable truth”, which is convenient for everybody, should be considered… We can keep discussing the real truth in safe academic environments anyway. Well, it’s just my opinion of course ;)</p>

42

<p>qwilde:</p>

<p>I agree with your statement of religious tyranny (although I don’t limit it to Christianity) but I don’t see how you conclude that Atheists have often been on the receiving end. The target of most of the tyranny has been other religions and peoples. What specific tyranny targeted at Atheists are you referring to?</p>

43

<p>to me, a “tyranny” against atheist was the fear placed on scientists, artists, etc throughout history</p>

<p>if you REALLY look at some of them, you will see that religion was a way to get by</p>

<p>when you have scientists threatened with death for espousing beliefs that didn’t match a religious tome, that is tyranny</p>

<p>we will really never know what so many wonderful minds from centuries past really thought because of fear of speaking out anything that didn’t match church doctrine</p>

<p>and gee, the witch hunts in Europe are just one example of tyranny…our witch trials were a smigden compared to what happened in Europe</p>

<p>and what about the Inquesition…guess some forget about that</p>

44

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad,</p>

<p>Remember that not all forms of tyranny are physically violent. One thing that Enlightenment and 18th century political philosophers feared was tyranny of thought-- the crushing power of majority opinion to stifle the minority. de Toqueville was incredibly on the mark when he commented that minority opinion in the US is often muted by the power of the “democratic mob.” Look at how vast swaths of so-called “concerned Christian parents” are trying to drown out science in the classroom in favor of pseudoscience (Creationism). </p>

<p>And in a lot of cases, they win.</p>

<p>That’s a form of tyranny, if not violent.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>Simple substitution, but this version makes just as much sense as the original. As a matter of fact, I think it makes MORE sense. And it shows how little real information was conveyed by the original article.</p>

<p>I’ve been flamed beyond belief before by doing one of these “turning the tables,” so I guess I will be again.</p>

46

<p>^I tend to do the same thing when someone makes an encompassing statement. This world is made of a lot of colors and intensities including areas in the light and in the dark. </p>

<p>disclosure statement:
<a href=“http://www.workingclassclothes.com/FRgarments.htm[/url]”>http://www.workingclassclothes.com/FRgarments.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

47

<p>lol - I’d better order the “cover-alls.”</p>

48

<h1>44. And what of those who do not wish to learn about evolution? Why must this group of believers suffer and have children endoctrinated in thought that is contrary to the Book.</h1>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Then don’t take a biology class. Enroll in a parochial school. You are not forced to attend public schools. However, you are forced to learn SCIENCE in science classes. The same people who decry the teaching of evolution in biology classes probably wouldn’t be too happy if they taught alchemy in chemistry classes, so why the double standard?</p>

50

<p>“And what of those who do not wish to learn about evolution? Why must this group of believers suffer and have children endoctrinated in thought that is contrary to the Book”</p>

<p>Yes, I wholeheartedly concur. Schools should be forced to teach their students that the world is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs co-inhabited earth with man only a few thousand years ago; that the earth is the center of the universe; that the world is flat; and that the big bang was started by a fairy in the sky, with a white beard, whom created earth so that it could decide who enters the ever so exclusive heaven and who perishes eternally in hell. Why would we want to teach a subject supported by scientific fact as opposed to mythical tales? Seems nonsensical to me.</p>

<p>Religion is the worst and only form of indoctrination.</p>

51

<p>itstoomuch, explain to me the Book…who wrote it…how do we know it is the word of God, because men said so?</p>

<p>and why would parents not want their children to learn science? guess leeches would be best, eh?</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>That you list your location as “In ignorant bliss” is just too incredibly appropriate. I don’t know everything, but I do know that the Earth has a core of irony.</p>

53

<p>As a believer in God but not religion, I offer the following observation:</p>

<p>I’ve had dozens of born-agains try to get me to convert to their religion. Some were very pushy. I’ve met a fair number of atheists, but have never encountered a single one who tried to get me to convert to atheism.</p>

54

<p>“Then don’t take a biology class. Enroll in a parochial school. You are not forced to attend public schools. However, you are forced to learn SCIENCE in science classes. The same people who decry the teaching of evolution in biology classes probably wouldn’t be too happy if they taught alchemy in chemistry classes, so why the double standard?”</p>

<p>I agree. Hey, why not have an optional religion class, that offered teachings from all the world’s major religions, in scholarly but not religious way? This would be separate from the science class and ne’er the twain shall meet. But, somehow I don’t think that would fly (except in colleges where they are already doing that.) They wouldn’t like it if the schools taught from the Bhagavad Gita alongside the Bible, so what right do they have to demand that the Bible be taught?</p>

55

<p>^Many schools offer a World Religions class.</p>

56

<p>High schools? I didn’t know that but I’m glad to hear it. Then why aren’t the religious folks satisfied with that?</p>

57

<p>That you list your location as “In ignorant bliss” is just too incredibly appropriate.</p>

<p>It is because I live in a religiously dominated area.</p>

58

<p>ummmm parochials schools have science classes…to assume they don’t is ignorant</p>

<p>my kids jesuit HS has an amazing bio department</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not arguing that they don’t. However, it’s much easier to find a parochial school that doesn’t teach evolution in biology class than it is to find a public high school that doesn’t teach evolution in biology class.</p>

60

<p>“I agree. Hey, why not have an optional religion class, that offered teachings from all the world’s major religions, in scholarly but not religious way?”</p>

<p>Yes, I don’t mind studying religion and actually find the subject rather interesting. What I detest, however, is religion dominating all forms of thought. Religion should be studied with a distant perspect: a scholary perspective. It should be subject to the same scrutiny as every other aspect of learning. If a scientist declared that the sun will actually begin the process of becoming a red dwarf in a few years, as opposed to a few billion, then they would be compelled to garnish proof to support their assertion. They wouldn’t be able to remark “you just have to have faith” without being laughed at. That should be true of religion. Relgious indoctrination is extremely detrimental to learning because of prior knowledge, or in religoius cases pseudo prior knowledge. When prior knowledge conflicts with presented material, learners will distort the information to conform to their own beliefs. Creative Design is an evident example: adopting facets of science that ostensibly support “the god theory” whilst discarding all else that does not. Yes, I definitely agree that religion should be taught in a fashion that involves rationalization and facts: not gut feelings. If pious individuals want students to be taught more effusively, then they should attend a church not a place of higher learning.</p>

<p>“They wouldn’t like it if the schools taught from the Bhagavad Gita alongside the Bible, so what right do they have to demand that the Bible be taught?”</p>

<p>That is because Christian evangelicals in America are too fanatical and narrow-minded to even consider other religions because ultimately it would undermine their own. One has to be right- well according to them.</p>