191 replies to this topic

[Uncle Ben]

Ok so im sure you guys might have seen this circling around the internet the past few days:



This is what i saw with it on the page "I F***ing Love Science" page on Facebook

This photograph of a fourth grade "science quiz" went viral last week. I refused to post it until now, because I just couldn't believe it was real.

Unfortunately, it seems as though it is. Snopes has managed to track down a parent whose daughter was given this quiz, who said:

"I didn’t know that this was being taught to her until we heard a radio commercial together about the Discover the Dinosaurs exhibit was coming to the TD Convention Center [in Greenville, South Carolina].

The Commercial starts out, “After 65 million years, the dinosaurs have returned …” She commented immediately that it was only four thousand years ago. When I corrected her, she snapped back, “Were you there?”"

I for one believe you can worship what you want (i for one choose to be Agnostic-Atheist) but when you try to say something didnt happen when it has been proven that it HAS happen, its justed messed up. But giving a child this is just not right. Its screwed up. Like what if the child goes to a different school and says these answers, they are probably gonna get laughed at. This is a reason why i would like to see total seperation of Church and State, and Church and Education. I have nothing against religion but this is just not cool.

(This happened in the South)

[DotNetDemon]

Ha! My girlfriend and I thought about going to that convention (we live near Greenville). Anyway, this is truly messed up--faith and philosophy should be kept separate from science and mathematics.

[Uncle Ben]

You should of.

But seriously look at that. It saddens me

Also look in the past 250 years. Nearly every major war had to do with religion in some way/shape/form

[ILOVEVHS]

Ugh.

[RedAuthar]

I for one believe you can worship what you want (i for one choose to be Agnostic-Atheist) but when you try to say something didnt happen when it has been proven that it HAS happen, its justed messed up. But giving a child this is just not right.

Is it not the child's choice to pick what they want to believe?

Also what Evidence do you have about the Earth's age? Radiometric Dating's accuracy itself is up for debate so there is no absolute evidence. In fact there are many alternative and less popular non-religious beliefs about the origin and age of the Earth. Also the origin does effect the age too. Example: If the Earth was formed by being a piece of the Sun that broke off, the substance that makes up the Earth could be older then the Earth itself. There is no 'proof' of the Earth's age one way or another. There is evidence that support one side or another, but that is hardly proof.

This is a reason why i would like to see total seperation of Church and State, and Church and Education. I have nothing against religion but this is just not cool.

Since Religious freedom is one of the basis of this Country's origin (don't argue that. Many people came here for religious freedoms), it is impossible to completely separate Church and State. Also since many sciences are just theories not facts, there are only two fair options with the Education and Religion debate. Either require science teachers to teach ALL the possible origins and theories which is impossible because the sheer numbers, or denying all sciences because they are not provable. Science is just as controversy as Religion.

Also look in the past 250 years. Nearly every major war had to do with religion in some way/shape/form

The US Civil War was not based on Religious belief but rather what individual rights one person has.
World War 1 was a chain reaction based on two countries dislike for one another that dragged in the major players. Britain, France, Russia, America, Italy, and Germany all had practically nothing to do with the War other then allying themselves with one side or another BEFORE the whole issue.
World War 2 was based on politics and racism. While Jews were one of Hitler's main targets he also target Gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies, people who were left handed, black people, and more. Also the other countries weren't brought into the war due to the holocaust but rather when Germany attacked them in order to bring Germany back to power.
The Cold War was also based on Political belief not religion.

Arguably most of the MAJOR wars have little to nothing to do with Religion.

[Uncle Ben]

Also look in the past 250 years. Nearly every major war had to do with religion in some way/shape/form

The US Civil War was not based on Religious belief but rather what individual rights one person has.
World War 1 was a chain reaction based on two countries dislike for one another that dragged in the major players. Britain, France, Russia, America, Italy, and Germany all had practically nothing to do with the War other then allying themselves with one side or another BEFORE the whole issue.
World War 2 was based on politics and racism. While Jews were one of Hitler's main targets he also target Gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies, people who were left handed, black people, and more. Also the other countries weren't brought into the war due to the holocaust but rather when Germany attacked them in order to bring Germany back to power.
The Cold War was also based on Political belief not religion.

Arguably most of the MAJOR wars have little to nothing to do with Religion.

Civil War was more or less States Rights vs. Federal Rights.
WW1 was caused by the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinad, the group responible were a few Serbian Nationalists, some with Religious motovations
WW2 was caused by Hitler's rampage of World Domination and the "eradication of the Jewish religion." That was two of Hitler's main goals of the war.
One of the "reasons" in us battling communism was to defeat "God-less Communism"

The keyword was Way/shape/form

This is a reason why i would like to see total seperation of Church and State, and Church and Education. I have nothing against religion but this is just not cool.

Since Religious freedom is one of the basis of this Country's origin (don't argue that. Many people came here for religious freedoms), it is impossible to completely separate Church and State. Also since many sciences are just theories not facts, there are only two fair options with the Education and Religion debate. Either require science teachers to teach ALL the possible origins and theories which is impossible because the sheer numbers, or denying all sciences because they are not provable. Science is just as controversy as Religion.

Dont get me wrong i support Freedom of Religion and thats why some come here BUT it is entirely possible to at least have some sort of seperation of Church and State. Most theories of Science cant be proven because its either impossible to observe over a long period of time (i.e. Evolution) or we dont have the equipment/manpower/whatever it is to fully prove it once and for all. At least Science doesnt force people to believe in something like some relgions do (you can argue that we are forced to learn science in school but you can easily abstain from learning some things)

I for one believe you can worship what you want (i for one choose to be Agnostic-Atheist) but when you try to say something didnt happen when it has been proven that it HAS happen, its justed messed up. But giving a child this is just not right.

Is it not the child's choice to pick what they want to believe?

Also what Evidence do you have about the Earth's age? Radiometric Dating's accuracy itself is up for debate so there is no absolute evidence. In fact there are many alternative and less popular non-religious beliefs about the origin and age of the Earth. Also the origin does effect the age too. Example: If the Earth was formed by being a piece of the Sun that broke off, the substance that makes up the Earth could be older then the Earth itself. There is no 'proof' of the Earth's age one way or another. There is evidence that support one side or another, but that is hardly proof.

A child can believe anything but there are adults out there who FORCE a child to believe one thing or another (my mom wasnt one of those and told me i can believe what i wanna believe). Carbon-dating has for the most part proved the Earth is Billions of years old. Now your right in the fact that there may be other theories like the one you describe but back to what i said earlier, its difficult for a "Theory" to become "Law" due to practicaility or time-constrants

[RedAuthar]

Also look in the past 250 years. Nearly every major war had to do with religion in some way/shape/form

The US Civil War was not based on Religious belief but rather what individual rights one person has.
World War 1 was a chain reaction based on two countries dislike for one another that dragged in the major players. Britain, France, Russia, America, Italy, and Germany all had practically nothing to do with the War other then allying themselves with one side or another BEFORE the whole issue.
World War 2 was based on politics and racism. While Jews were one of Hitler's main targets he also target Gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies, people who were left handed, black people, and more. Also the other countries weren't brought into the war due to the holocaust but rather when Germany attacked them in order to bring Germany back to power.
The Cold War was also based on Political belief not religion.

Arguably most of the MAJOR wars have little to nothing to do with Religion.

Civil War was more or less States Rights vs. Federal Rights.
WW1 was caused by the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinad, the group responible were a few Serbian Nationalists, some with Religious motovations
WW2 was caused by Hitler's rampage of World Domination and the "eradication of the Jewish religion." That was two of Hitler's main goals of the war.
One of the "reasons" in us battling communism was to defeat "God-less Communism"

The keyword was Way/shape/form

But that is an unfair claim as you can argue any point of anything has anything to do with something. Sure Religion is involved in all war, so is science, politics, and technology. But Religion wasn't the main focus of these wars.

Also the reason for a war is based on both sides of an issue. World War 1 Was based on allegiances. People were going to war to protect their allies.
World War 2 was the same reason. While Hitler's goals may have been to eliminate the Jews, The US, nor Britain nor France, Entered the war to stop that. The War, unfortunately, had actually practically nothing to do with that. It wasn't until Allied forces found the concentration camps did anyone even realize what was going on. Also the Communist Russians basically were doing the same thing and they were part of the Allies.
Also the "Godless-Communist" was less on the note they were "Godless" and more on the note that there was not Religious freedom. Which is a Political Debate. We hated the Communists more on the note of the Government then their Religious beliefs.

[Uncle Ben]

But one thing that i hate is when Religion tries to prove that they are absolutely 100% right even though they arent. Now you can argue that Science isnt 100% right either but Science is more correct than religion

[RedAuthar]

....Uh no it isn't. They're about equal.

[Uncle Ben]

Well what seems more likely: Some Supernatural being creating the world/universe or the world being created over billions of years.

[RedAuthar]

I believe being created sounds more logical then just randomly being there.

[Uncle Ben]

Then if we were created there would be evidence.

[RedAuthar]

There is, however you'd have to believe that the evidence is valid and since you're atheist you already don't.

[Captain Sorzo]

Also look in the past 250 years. Nearly every major war had to do with religion in some way/shape/form

Not true. The American Revolution and ensuing War of 1812 were responses to Imperialism, as were many conflicts in other parts of the world in the 19th Century. The American Civil War was based on state rights and the institution of slavery. World War I was a result of complex political alliances, while World War II stemmed from the ensuing economic crises and feelings of nationalism. The Cold War and the smaller conflicts it encompassed were a product of clashing secular political ideologies.

Did religion play some role in those conflicts? Yes, but a tangential one at best. Full-scale wars shape and are shaped by all aspects of society. While religion plays a larger role in the frequent conflicts of regions such as the Middle-East, those aren't on the order of what we're discussing.

At any rate, the views enforced by the quiz in question are by no means representative of the views held by an entire religion. I'm a Christian, but lean toward the idea of the Six Days being distinct phases, each lasting enormous amounts of time, rather than literal 24 hour days. The Biblical account is focused on the why, not the how, anyway.

When it comes down to the details of such things, nobody know for sure, not with absolute certainty. The teacher should have acknowledged this.

Now you can argue that Science isnt 100% right either but Science is more correct than religion

Is it? We laugh at many of the scientific "facts" of the past, such as that the Sun revolves around the Earth. To people living 500 years from now, many of our own scientific views will seem just as laughable. Science is an inherently imperfect institution because it is based off of the limited, physical observations of inherently imperfect people. It's important, of course, and has greatly improved human society through medicine, technology, and the like. But to treat it as infallible, to trust it above all else, is something else entirely.

Consider the question of whether humans have souls. Regardless of whether or not we do, science is incapable of providing a conclusive answer, as it is limited to observations of the physical, a jurisdiction that does not encompass anything spiritual.

Much of modern culture attempts to understand everything by relying on science. The institution is too limited in scope to fulfill such a function. Faith, however, isn't about understanding. It's about trust. I realize that I don't have all the answers, that I am incapable of discovering them on my own. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try to discover what I can, but it means that I should never trust in my own ability above all else.

Well what seems more likely: Some Supernatural being creating the world/universe or the world being created over billions of years.

I'm currently waving my hand in front of my face. There are countless incredibly complex systems working in tandem with one another to make that happen. I'm not terribly inclined to believe that those systems just happened by accident over time.

Far, far more wondrous still is my ability to consciously perceive my hand, to reflect on it and its significance. Tied though it is to the matter sitting within my skull, my consciousness is so much more, something words have ever fallen short of truly describing. To say that who I am is only an illusion, that there is only what I am, nothing more than a pile of cells and some electrical impulses, is wholly and utterly contrary to what my entire life, my entire being, testifies. I'm all the evidence I need.

[Uncle Ben]

There is, however you'd have to believe that the evidence is valid and since you're atheist you already don't.

Im not 100% atheist. I'm more Agnostic than anything but i'm always reffered as Agnostic-Atheist because thats what everyone thinks Agnostics are

[RedAuthar]

I'm currently waving my hand in front of my face. There are countless incredibly complex systems working in tandem with one another to make that happen. I'm not terribly inclined to believe that those systems just happened by accident over time.

Far, far more wondrous still is my ability to consciously perceive my hand, to reflect on it and its significance. Tied though it is to the matter sitting within my skull, my consciousness is so much more, something words have ever fallen short of truly describing. To say that who I am is only an illusion, that there is only what I am, nothing more than a pile of cells and some electrical impulses, is wholly and utterly contrary to what my entire life, my entire being, testifies. I'm all the evidence I need.

....that's probably better then I could ever describe it.

[furrykef]

....Uh no it isn't. They're about equal.

Science can explain things better than religion can. It's long been observed that God tends to be an explanation for things we don't understand. The Greeks, Romans, Norse, and many others attributed thunder and lightning to the power of the gods. Christians likewise assumed that God must be behind them. But then we learned about electricity and electrons. Aha! Lightning happens because the clouds become electrically charged, and they need to shed the excess electrons, and those electrons take the path of least resistance. It also makes a hell of a bang -- thunder -- because the electrons move faster than the speed of sound. What about the clouds themselves? They're there in the first place because water evaporates and condenses through various chemical processes. So now God is unnecessary to explain thunder, lightning, and clouds.

Or why does the moon orbit the earth? Again, some people thought it was the work of God. But then Newton worked out the theory of gravitation and we realized that massive bodies attract less massive bodies, and the moon's orbit essentially amounts to the moon continuously falling toward the earth and missing. God is again rendered unnecessary. Well, almost -- we know why the moon moves now, but we have a less than complete picture of where gravity comes from in the first place. Perhaps one day we'll understand that too.

Science also has a solid system of verification. You don't get some bigwig scientist putting out an idea and everybody just nods and goes with it. Oh no, scientists are never so accommodating! A true scientist insists upon applying the scientific method whenever possible. (This is, by the way, something that could be taught better in schools, at least in my experience. We covered the "what" of the scientific method numerous times, but not so much of the "why".) That means that many scientists' first instinct will be to try to refute your idea. A lot of people seem to think that a bunch of evolutionists got together and started a club and you were only a cool scientist if you joined the club, so now all scientists believe in evolution. It doesn't work like that. Evolution was viciously attacked! People checked every aspect of it up, down, and backwards, trying to find holes. Did they find any? Of course they did. No significant theory, certainly not one as grand as evolution, is going to come out perfectly on the first try. But they also found that the holes did not invalidate the theory, any more than the theory of relativity invalidated Newtonian physics. Evolution is considered scientific fact today because time and time again it has survived the intense scrutiny of the greatest minds in the world. An unsound idea simply does not survive that process.

Religion doesn't have anything even remotely like the scientific method. How do religious ideas spread? You get preachers who preach them, and who condemn (and often actively suppress) ideas that contradict them. The preachers who present their arguments most convincingly win -- even if they were convincing through rhetoric and not through facts. (Rhetoric gets you nowhere in science. Scientists only care about results.) The actual merit of the idea often has nothing to do with its success -- if only correct religious ideas were successful, we wouldn't have so many different religions.

Did you know that "pastor" is Latin for "shepherd"? That makes his congregation the sheep. I've heard of many religious people who are afraid to listen to science (or anything they feel contradicts their beliefs) for fear they may stray from the path. I've yet to hear of any scientists who are afraid of opening a Bible for fear they may become Christian.

I realize my criticism of religion may seem overly harsh, but I just can't see it any other way.

I believe being created sounds more logical then just randomly being there.

Who created the creator? If one can believe in a creator who was "always there", I don't see why one can't believe in a universe that was "always there". Removing God removes a variable.

I'm not going to say there is 100% definitely no God, mind -- just that I don't see any particular reason for him to exist.

[Janus]

I think I'll weigh on this topic now if you don't mind. I'll keep my views to myself for now, but I think it's pointless to argue about whether religion or science is more correct. Which is more correct to explain the beginning of life? 1. A spiritual being creates all life, or it slowly evolves over a lengthy period. Or to use the pointless Occam's Razor, where the simplest explanation works: a spiritual being that is incomprehensible created all life in a way that is too complicated to explain. Or it evolved in an incredibly complex way, etc. Personally, I think arguing about is pointless. All of you are being reasonable though. However, since none of us were then when things came into existence, we really can't say what the answer is. As far as fossils proving an exact time, new fossils are discovered every few years that set further back the evolutionary history of humanity and so on. I just prefer to not worry about it.

[furrykef]

I'm currently waving my hand in front of my face. There are countless incredibly complex systems working in tandem with one another to make that happen. I'm not terribly inclined to believe that those systems just happened by accident over time.

Far, far more wondrous still is my ability to consciously perceive my hand, to reflect on it and its significance. Tied though it is to the matter sitting within my skull, my consciousness is so much more, something words have ever fallen short of truly describing. To say that who I am is only an illusion, that there is only what I am, nothing more than a pile of cells and some electrical impulses, is wholly and utterly contrary to what my entire life, my entire being, testifies. I'm all the evidence I need.

But suppose it's 2500 AD and somebody builds an android, just like a human. It has some kind of digital neural net that mimics a human's, but is nonetheless artificial. The android could wave its hand in front of its face, having exactly the same thoughts. It would perceive itself as a conscious being. And yet, its maker would know it is only a machine, because he built it, he knows all the parts that went into it, he knows how its program works, etc. The android's consciousness would not be evidence of God, because God had nothing to do with it; it's all man-made.

So, too, it is with us. We are organic machines. We may not have been deliberately designed in the same way a human designs an android, but our consciousness is no more meaningful.

[Captain Sorzo]

"Suppose" being the key word. While the notion of truly sentient artificial intelligence is a fascinating concept, one I enjoy seeing in fiction, there's no proof that such a thing is actually possible. Speculation, perhaps, but until humanity produces a Data or Cortana or whatever, that's all it will ever be. What little reading I've done on the matter indicates many scientists actually consider it impossible.

Our bodies are organic machines, yes, but I believe that the consciousness, the soul, is distinct from the body, a thing not on the physical level of existence. It is tied to the physical, of course, bound in extremely complex ways that I won't pretend to understand to the brain, but that doesn't make it part of the body, a thing that can be divided up into so many atoms. You couldn't just grab however much of various elements and arrange them together in a certain way to get my mind.