6
   

The New State Religion: Atheism

 
 
Expert2
 
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:51 am
It is obvious that an attempt to censor the teaching of "the other side of atheism" in the college classroom is nothing more than a blatant attempt to insure that only one side of the controversy is presented. Those professors whom the nontheistic naturalistic evolutionists believe will influence the students in a positive direction toward theism are often fired, censored, or "reassigned."

Dawkins is very open about his views—all theism is to be condemned, including theistic evolution. How effective has been what now amounts to a relentless campaign to banish any support of the theistic worldview in our public schools and colleges?

While some allege that there is no conflict between theism and Darwinism, the fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best nontheists for whom God is irrelevant to their daily lives and their views about the natural world and the universe.

Article by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:07 am
@Expert2,
Having an irrelevant god is more accurate than assigning some "cabal" of science teachers conspiring to kill off a worldview that includes some kind of worship of this being.
SCience is reserved for science classes where there is a fairly high standard (or at least there should be) of evidence, repeatability and experimental verification. Religions or theistic anything has no such requirements. the ICR is , in its very title, and organization that requires its science to be, first and foremost, based upon a worldview that is dity centered. That is NOT the science Im part of.

If you feel that theres such a cabal being formed , you should write the regional accreditation board wherein that college exists.That WOULD be an example of religion being snuck into the science class.



Otherwise, its just wishful thinking.
rosborne979
 
  6  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:31 am
@Expert2,
Atheism is neither a religion nor is it state sanctioned.

Critical thinking however is something which is recommended for all students. If you find yourself or your beliefs on the wrong end of that, then tough luck. The world has had its fill of ignorance and barbarism, it's time for humanity to move on.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:44 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
SCience is reserved for science classes where there is a fairly high standard (or at least there should be) of evidence, repeatability and experimental verification

I'm not criticizing it for this but the frontiers of modern science are increasingly unable to meet the criteria you mentioned. Physicists are often admitting lately that we may be at the point where experimental verification is impossible. More an more often they must rely on indirect and circumstantial evidence and math proofs where many of the constants are arbitrarily assigned.
Tes yeux noirs
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 10:36 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Physicists are often admitting lately that we may be at the point where experimental verification is impossible. More an more often they must rely on indirect and circumstantial evidence and math proofs where many of the constants are arbitrarily assigned.

References please.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 11:39 am
@Expert2,
...on your parallel thread, I wrote....
Quote:
I suggest you give simplistic accusations about 'censorship' a rest! You blatantly use words like 'fact' and 'false' in such a naive philosophical manner that 'debate' with you would be a waste of time. It's not a question of 'free speech' at all . It's a question of growing up on your part so that you can move beyond the high school debating club. Try googling 'theories of truth' if you want to know what level might be required on this forum.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 12:38 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Physicists are often admitting lately that we may be at the point where experimental verification is impossible. More an more often they must rely on indirect and circumstantial evidence and math proofs where many of the constants are arbitrarily assigned.
Many thories in physics, chemistry and biology grew out of an inability to "prove" a basic observation. The start of the "hunt" is AL:WAYS based on recognizing our ignorance.
SOmethimes the hunt must, by necessity, first try toapply the Holmsian philosophy where
"We first remove the impossible, and the improbable. What remains contains the answers"

Now dont tell me that we must include a "god did it" within our matrices of possibilities??

1tell me ho wed then arrive at an answer to our hunt?

2How could qe prove it?

See you just dont get it. As I said over and fduckin over. to Feel secure with your god, just dont waste my time with possibilities (in your mind) that have no way to bear provable facts.

SCience is the world of assumed methodological naturalism. How else could we proceed?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 01:11 pm
@farmerman,
The point is that even scientific 'believers' (e.g. Polkinghorne ..quantum theorist turned Anglican priest) have dumped ridiculously old fashioned religious arguments about science, and base their belief on 'the origins of morality'. In short, religion no longer has any applicability to scientific questions irrespective of superficial appearances to the contrary like Einstein's 'God of Spinoza'. Obviously the ironically named 'Expert2' needs to do a bit more reading beyond the parochialism of 'Creationism' which is treated as something of a joke in Europe.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 04:25 pm
@Tes yeux noirs,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
" are often admitting lately that we may be at the point where experimental verification is impossible. More an more often they must rely on indirect and circumstantial evidence and math proofs where many of the constants are arbitrarily assigned."

References please.

Tes, if you need verification of something as basic as that the conversation could drag on for decades. There is no one proposing to verify the Big Bang for example. See farmerman's reply to that same quote if you want details of why thatrue.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 06:04 am
@Leadfoot,
seems that you only cherry pick. The basic thesis of method naturalism is a way to proceed in investigations. EVIDENCE (like Big Bangs own) is derived from observation and testing of these observations. Evidence Sometimes comes much later as it piles on with facts that have no other way to be adequately explained. (That is with a relatively world view-free base of knowledge). osmic background radiation and the shape of the universe seem to best fit the inflation model.

I get a kick from how the ICR will take some piece of field data , (Like several overlapping layers of water deposited sediments through the cross section of the Grand CAnyon. Then theyll say "See, here is proof positive that there was indeed a great flood"

They then go no further when they make their assertions.

Thats a simle but routine occurence , that kids carry into a science classroom fresh from some "vacation Bible SChool" that taches the SCIENTIFIC FACT of a great flood and the creation of past organisms as a single event.
Expert2
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2016 07:14 pm
@farmerman,
Naturalism is a code word that Atheists use to try to hide and confuse the minds they aim to indoctrinate. It's called Brainwashing Bubba.
NSFW (view)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2016 07:28 pm
@Expert2,
Quote:
Naturalism is a code word that Atheists use to try to hide and confuse the minds they aim to indoctrinate
You are basically clueless as to what it means. When you get off your shift at Starbucks try reading a book that doiesnt have cartoon pictures
0 Replies
 
Expert2
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2016 07:31 pm
@farmerman,
The New State Religion should be struck from the curriculum. Science and Atheism mix just as good as oil and water heh?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2016 03:10 am
@Expert2,

I dont think I will waste any more time with you. I have lotsa common ground with many of my colleagues who are religious.(they put their religions aside when in the lab or the field) I also have nothing in common with Bible thumping folks like you, since you are basically clueless in the ways of research.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2016 03:14 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:


I dont think I will waste any more time with you.


Good. Don't.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2016 08:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
seems that you only cherry pick. The basic thesis of method naturalism is a way to proceed in investigations. EVIDENCE (like Big Bangs own) is derived from observation and testing of these observations. Evidence Sometimes comes much later as it piles on with facts that have no other way to be adequately explained. (That is with a relatively world view-free base of knowledge). osmic background radiation and the shape of the universe seem to best fit the inflation model.
Another case where you miss my point. I was agreeing that indirect evidence is indeed a legitimate tool of research, one that atheists often deny to the theist.

My point was that we don't have to re-create the Big Bang to verify that it happened.
0 Replies
 
momoends
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:48 pm
@Expert2,
"they aim to indoctrinate"... how dare they.... wait, isn´t exactly that what God Believers had been doing for ages?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 07:39 pm
@momoends,
From wiki:
Quote:
Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine) by coercion.

While some off the wall cults have done that, God believers do not forcibly inculcate anything.

There will be no draftees in the kingdom of God.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2016 08:04 pm
@Expert2,
Expert,

I will agree with you that there is a new state religion. And I share your dislike of Dawkins.... his views have logical contradictions that he brushes aside.

But I think you are completely wrong about science and evolution. Science is objectively testable.

If you are willing to drop the attack on objective science, then we can agree on the fact that modern atheist society is religious in the same way earlier societies were.

If, instead of looking at objective science, you simply choose your old religion over the new religious beliefs... then what good have you accomplished.

This argument over Darwinism is silly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The New State Religion: Atheism
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2017 at 03:25:25