(May 25, 2016 at 9:55 am)Kingpin Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 9:38 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Would you say that your understanding of the information is based on scientific and historical foundations, or on faith?  Because "to each his own" is a fine way to live, until the people who believe as you do try to start pushing these beliefs into public schools, because they claim that their beliefs are not only true, but validated by science and history (see creationism in the US public school system).  The problem is that we want to teach our children what is true, but people obviously disagree about what is true.  Would you cordon off these religious beliefs of yours into an area completely separate from scholastic history and science education and keep them as a matter of the church and of faith?

Great question.  Even though I am a creationist, I am NOT a proponent of creationism in schools as it's wanting to be presented.  Personally, things such as creationism should be left in the elective courses such as World Religions.  There are numerous theories on origins such that one cannot be presented as fact, but there are facts that we can use to deduce our own conclusions.  

When it comes to the World Religions courses, I'm in total agreement with you there, and I might even go a step further than you.  I don't think comparative religion courses should even be electives; I think their relevance and importance in the modern world is so great that they should be required courses (but that's just my personal hobby horse  )  So just to clarify, you want the creationist viewpoint to be presented in schools, but not in a science or history class as a fact, but in a more theology/philosophy area, along with other religious viewpoints?  That's something I can totally get behind.

Quote:As far as myself, my understanding is more of a culmination of all three, but the word faith not as we define it today, but more from it's Greek origins (pistis).  Most people on here know this is my stance and that I am an advocate for freedom of speech and religion.  I believe that if the government allows Christians to hold prayer vigils, setup booths, etc, then at the same token ANY belief system should be afforded that same right.  I have no business forcing my beliefs on anyone.  However when I am asked what I believe I will not shy away from what I hold true.  Nor should anyone.  I am no different than any other person and as such have no right to judge anyone.  

 Well, apart from the faith thing (obviously), I'm in complete agreement with you here.

(May 25, 2016 at 9:59 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 9:55 am)Kingpin Wrote: Great question.  Even though I am a creationist, I am NOT a proponent of creationism in schools as it's wanting to be presented.  Personally, things such as creationism should be left in the elective courses such as World Religions.  There are numerous theories on origins such that one cannot be presented as fact, but there are facts that we can use to deduce our own conclusions.  

When it comes to the World Religions courses, I'm in total agreement with you there, and I might even go a step further than you.  I don't think comparative religion courses should even be electives; I think their relevance and importance in the modern world is so great that they should be required courses (but that's just my personal hobby horse  )  So just to clarify, you want the creationist viewpoint to be presented in schools, but not in a science or history class as a fact, but in a more theology/philosophy area, along with other religious viewpoints?  That's something I can totally get behind.

Quote:As far as myself, my understanding is more of a culmination of all three, but the word faith not as we define it today, but more from it's Greek origins (pistis).  Most people on here know this is my stance and that I am an advocate for freedom of speech and religion.  I believe that if the government allows Christians to hold prayer vigils, setup booths, etc, then at the same token ANY belief system should be afforded that same right.  I have no business forcing my beliefs on anyone.  However when I am asked what I believe I will not shy away from what I hold true.  Nor should anyone.  I am no different than any other person and as such have no right to judge anyone.  

 Well, apart from the faith thing (obviously), I'm in complete agreement with you here.

Yes creationism should be taught in the religions/philosophy classes.  So should the concept of moksha.  People know more about the origins/stories of Zeus/Ares/Athena than they do the religions that shape cultures around the world.  It is important for people to understand the varied religions/prevailing thoughts that inspired and continue to shape cultures and even laws around the world.

I think that's a damn fine viewpoint to have.

Sure, I would expect disagreements, but the difference between "everywhere" and "nowhere" couldn't really be any bigger.

If two people described anything else to me in such diametrically opposite terms, I would suspect at least one of them is not actually familiar with the subject at all.

(May 25, 2016 at 9:58 am)Kingpin Wrote: I understand that, but one statement I've learned to be irrevocably true is:  "intent is prior to content".

Of course. But intent can be directed toward intrinsic ends as easily as it can toward extrinsic ends.

---

(May 25, 2016 at 10:03 am)Kingpin Wrote: Yes creationism should be taught in the religions/philosophy classes.  So should the concept of moksha.  People know more about the origins/stories of Zeus/Ares/Athena than they do the religions that shape cultures around the world.  It is important for people to understand the varied religions/prevailing thoughts that inspired and continue to shape cultures and even laws around the world.

And education in philosophy should start in high school, if not before (my high school didn't even offer a philosophy class). 

I'm honestly at a loss as to why creationists keep trying to foist their doctrine into science classes where it doesn't belong when they could incorporate theism into educational curriculum as part of a philosophy course.

Could not agree with you more Gemini!

(May 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: This a.m. I was thinking about how some theists and agnostics challenge atheists to prove that god does not exist.  Many, myself included, content ourselves with the knowledge that the burden of proof is on the positive statement.  But I was thinking about it further and hit upon the obvious proof that god, as the bible and the Church presents him, does not exist and cannot exist.

How? I’ve never been off this continent, much less in every place in the universe. So how do I know that god does not exist in a place I’ve never been?

Simple.

God, we are told, is omnipresent. But if there’s a place where god does not exist, then he is not omnipresent.  I don’t have to go everywhere in the universe. All I have to do is find one place where god does not exist to prove that an omnipresent god does not exist anywhere.

 Would you run that title by us again, I'm at a loss to see any proof from you or anyone else. You haven't the slightest idea what omnipresence means do you.

GC

(May 25, 2016 at 9:16 am)Kingpin Wrote:

(May 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: This a.m. I was thinking about how some theists and agnostics challenge atheists to prove that god does not exist.  Many, myself included, content ourselves with the knowledge that the burden of proof is on the positive statement.  But I was thinking about it further and hit upon the obvious proof that god, as the bible and the Church presents him, does not exist and cannot exist.

How? I’ve never been off this continent, much less in every place in the universe. So how do I know that god does not exist in a place I’ve never been?

Simple.

God, we are told, is omnipresent. But if there’s a place where god does not exist, then he is not omnipresent.  I don’t have to go everywhere in the universe. All I have to do is find one place where god does not exist to prove that an omnipresent god does not exist anywhere.

1.  You are presupposing omnipresence to be factual.
2.  By your test you did not prove God does not/cannot exist, only that "God" is not physically omnipresent.
3.  I agree with Minimalist actually.  I always wonder why some of those who do not believe work so hard to convince others of their unbelief.

1. Oh, it's not factual? Well, if none of the stuff the bible says about god is factual (and disproving one thing does disprove it all) then what's left?

2. If god is going to hold us responsible for believing he exists, it is only right that he make his existence something we can perceive. But he has not and that is why there is so much religious confusion, sects and denominations.

3. As long as Christians are out there twisting the truth so that their lies are not always readily apparent, atheists will be out there challenging these lies and unmasking the illogic and hideous bible verses that Christians will never show people. Claiming that you don't understand this is not going to change that.

(May 25, 2016 at 9:55 am)Kingpin Wrote: Great question.  Even though I am a creationist, I am NOT a proponent of creationism in schools as it's wanting to be presented.  Personally, things such as creationism should be left in the elective courses such as World Religions.  There are numerous theories on origins such that one cannot be presented as fact, but there are facts that we can use to deduce our own conclusions.  

As far as myself, my understanding is more of a culmination of all three, but the word faith not as we define it today, but more from it's Greek origins (pistis).  Most people on here know this is my stance and that I am an advocate for freedom of speech and religion.  I believe that if the government allows Christians to hold prayer vigils, setup booths, etc, then at the same token ANY belief system should be afforded that same right.  I have no business forcing my beliefs on anyone.  However when I am asked what I believe I will not shy away from what I hold true.  Nor should anyone.  I am no different than any other person and as such have no right to judge anyone.

Christianity is a religion that teaches that all who don't believe in Jesus (although there is marked disagreement about exactly what we are to believe about Jesus) will spend eternity in hell.  If you hold to such a belief, then why the cavalier attitude about teaching children?

(May 24, 2016 at 8:54 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Don't forget mh, god may be a slug? The jury is still out pending more evidence.

I didn't find Rob under there either. That was a little disturbing.