Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Besides, y'all can't really deny that some of you want to remove all mention of religion from schools.

Yes, at this point in this thread (and it has moved around, if you followed the thread from the start) the argument is over the finer point of whether religion should be taught in science class. But I have seen the argument in this thread and elsewhere that religion doesn't belong in schools - period.

Besides, y'all can't really deny that some of you want to remove all mention of religion from schools.

snood wrote:

Points taken. But your replies to mine demonstrate the hubris to which I referred.

I'm sorry. Where did you infer Hubris in anything we wrote?

(hu·bris n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance)

As far as I know, we're just trying to make our point clearly. It's not hubris to try hard to clarify a point of discussion.

I will actually grant what he says. I have a lot of contempt for his point of view, but as long as I stick to a linear, logical argument, my personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I will actually grant what he says. I have a lot of contempt for his point of view, but as long as I stick to a linear, logical argument, my personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Interesting. What part of his view do you have comtempt for?

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I will actually grant what he says. I have a lot of contempt for his point of view, but as long as I stick to a linear, logical argument, my personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Interesting. What part of his view do you have comtempt for?

Not just him, but the type of thinking he represents. Belief that the universe is ruled by magic. Inability to accept the reality of death as nothing more than a machine failing. Attempting to counter science with voodoo. Inability to accept the idea that scientific reasoning is superior to wishful thinking. Lack of rigor in analysis. The list is extensive.

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I will actually grant what he says. I have a lot of contempt for his point of view, but as long as I stick to a linear, logical argument, my personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Interesting. What part of his view do you have comtempt for?

Not just him, but the type of thinking he represents. Belief that the universe is ruled by magic. Inability to accept the reality of death as nothing more than a machine failing. Attempting to counter science with voodoo. Inability to accept the idea that scientific reasoning is superior to wishful thinking. Lack of rigor in analysis. The list is extensive.

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I will actually grant what he says. I have a lot of contempt for his point of view, but as long as I stick to a linear, logical argument, my personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Interesting. What part of his view do you have comtempt for?

Not just him, but the type of thinking he represents. Belief that the universe is ruled by magic. Inability to accept the reality of death as nothing more than a machine failing. Attempting to counter science with voodoo. Inability to accept the idea that scientific reasoning is superior to wishful thinking. Lack of rigor in analysis. The list is extensive.

Belief that the universe is limited to what he can perceive from that fleshy brain. Inability to accept the possibility of the existence of any sentient being higher than himself. Attempting to counter wonder with pompousity. Inability to accept the idea that his is just another opinion, not intrinsically "superior" to anything. Lack of rigor in faith. The list is extensive.

Snood does have a point about hubris. I am suspicious of scientists who claim to have made religion obsolete. Even though I want my children to be taught science as science, I don't want them to think that science is all there is.

I have no problem stipulating that one or another's mental prowess is superior to mine. To say that their beliefs or ideas are superior is frankly just arrogance on their part. I believe there is life and significant energies beyond what we perceive with our 5 senses. You don't. But you can't leave it at that, you have to go the extra bit and proclaim yours is the superior mindset. Your attitude is counterproductive to any meaningful exchange, and forces every philosophical discussion into the ditch of self absorbed competition. And you can have the last word - I'm sure your ego will insist on it.

snood wrote:

I have no problem stipulating that one or another's mental prowess is superior to mine. To say that their beliefs or ideas are superior is frankly just arrogance on their part. I believe there is life and significant energies beyond what we perceive with our 5 senses. You don't. But you can't leave it at that, you have to go the extra bit and proclaim yours is the superior mindset. Your attitude is counterproductive to any meaningful exchange, and forces every philosophical discussion into the ditch of self absorbed competition. And you can have the last word - I'm sure your ego will insist on it.

Your post is a mish mash of unrelated exclamations.

I am saying only that I believe it is better to do an expermint a number of times, generalize the results into a theory, make a prediction, test the prediction with more experiment etc., than to say, "I know that there is a God because I saw a beautiful flower this morning and I was so moved that I knew it had to have been made by a divine being."

What you are doing is actually clever. Unable to counter any of my logic directly, as a distraction you simply claim that I am arrogant. Whether I am or am not arrogant is irrelevant to whether or not I am right. If you are the one who is right, then you should be willing to debate my ideas directly and not comment on my personal qualities.

Brandon9000 wrote:

snood wrote:

I have no problem stipulating that one or another's mental prowess is superior to mine. To say that their beliefs or ideas are superior is frankly just arrogance on their part. I believe there is life and significant energies beyond what we perceive with our 5 senses. You don't. But you can't leave it at that, you have to go the extra bit and proclaim yours is the superior mindset. Your attitude is counterproductive to any meaningful exchange, and forces every philosophical discussion into the ditch of self absorbed competition. And you can have the last word - I'm sure your ego will insist on it.

Your post is a mish mash of unrelated exclamations.

I am saying only that I believe it is better to do an expermint a number of times, generalize the results into a theory, make a prediction, test the prediction with more experiment etc., than to say, "I know that there is a God because I saw a beautiful flower this morning and I was so moved that I knew it had to have been made by a divine being."

What you are doing is actually clever. Unable to counter any of my logic directly, as a distraction you simply claim that I am arrogant. Whether I am or am not arrogant is irrelevant to whether or not I am right. If you are the one who is right, then you should be willing to debate my ideas directly and not comment on my personal qualities.

Surely someone as brilliant as you can see that faith is not debatable.

Quote, "Snood does have a point about hubris. I am suspicious of scientists who claim to have made religion obsolete." Clearly understood; without religion, many people's lives have been for naught believing in the bible. The only problem is the fact that scientists do not make the claim that religion is obsolete. Only the religious make that claim - in addition to making the claim that evolution does not exist.

Snood does have a point about hubris. I am suspicious of scientists who claim to have made religion obsolete.

Eugenie C. Scott who daily promotes the teaching of evolution has stated: "Vocal proponents of evolutionary materialism such as William Provine at Cornell, Paul Kurtz at SUNY Buffalo, and Daniel Dennett at Tufts vigorously argue that Darwinism makes religion obsolete, and encourage their colleagues to do likewise. Although I share a similar metaphysical position, I suggest that it is unwise for several reasons to promote this view as a scientific one."