[Silver]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html

The cover story is written David Van Biema, Time's "Senior Religion Writer".

It's called, "Why we should teach the Bible in public school".

While I am sympathetic to the story's theme, I couldn't help but notice that a sidebar about "The Bible in Pop Culture" that references Jules' speech in Pulp Fiction without mentioning that he references a non-existant bible verse, and then goes on to mention that "The Matrix" needs a Bible to understand, before you start in on the nearly as important secular sources (when the whole premise of the movie is based on Plato's allegory of the cave).

Maybe they should take a class?

 

[$tinkle]

lord of the flies, beowulf, shakespeare, chaucer, dante...

had all that in public schools.

 

[Crack Monkey]

In theory, I don't see the harm in a religious survey course, if it's taught by a qualified instructor. I'd prefer a true survey of major religions, not a Bible-specific course.

But, I fear some mouth-breathing fanatic will volunteer to teach the course in order to push his own warped version of Christianity. And I can't think of a good way to avoid this.

 

[valve bouncer]

In theory, I don't see the harm in a religious survey course, if it's taught by a qualified instructor. I'd prefer a true survey of major religions, not a Bible-specific course.

But, I fear some mouth-breathing fanatic will volunteer to teach the course in order to push his own warped version of Christianity. And I can't think of a good way to avoid this.

Yep, as long as it's taught academically I don't have too many problems. Hopefully the proselytising will be absent.

 

[ohio]

Yep, as long as it's taught academically I don't have too many problems. Hopefully the proselytising will be absent.

Even with a neutral instructor this course would be doomed in the Midwest I remember (and I think it's safe to assume the South, as well). Every super-Christian in the school would sign up for the course, and an instructor that DIDN'T treat Christian texts differently would be labelled a heretic and be driven out by students and parents alike. These are communities where parents don't even like their Lutheran children to hear the words of a Baptist preacher, lest it pollute their fragile minds. Students are allowed to "opt out" of Freshman biology when Evolution is covered. That is, they still take the course and get full credit, but can go sit in study hall rather than even hear the scientifically accepted explanation. There is no "hearing the other side" when the other side isn't what you want to hear.

 

[JohnE]

Ditto, keep the crackpots out...

 

[jimmydean]

Yep, as long as it's taught academically I don't have too many problems. Hopefully the proselytising will be absent.

I had the same feelings going into my POL410 class only to be taught by a total whack job. I thought it would be an open discussion only to have it turn out as a Fox News week in review.

My guess is the very same would happen with these sort of classes in 75% of the schools. "Here is my religion and this is why everything else sucks..."

 

[$tinkle]

Ditto, keep the crackpots out...

define crackpot.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

define crackpot.

I'll go with jimmydean's "definition" on this one...

"Here is my religion and this is why everything else sucks..."

 

[$tinkle]

if other religions are dismissed so blithely, perhaps this can be a proper definition for "crackpot". but also consider, once someone has comfortable arrived at what they believe to be "truth", what real point is there in further investigation of others' beliefs as candidate for self-embrace?

don't see silver reading the JW's pamphlets, do you?

 

[Silver]

don't see silver reading the JW's pamphlets, do you?

Are you kidding? I love those things...I insist on exchanging literature, however, and that usually doesn't end well.

 

[jimmydean]

if other religions are dismissed so blithely, perhaps this can be a proper definition for "crackpot". but also consider, once someone has comfortable arrived at what they believe to be "truth", what real point is there in further investigation of others' beliefs as candidate for self-embrace?

don't see silver reading the JW's pamphlets, do you?

I don't think the point of religion in schools is for "self embrace". What about the idea of learning "how the other half lives"?

Do you take a foreign language class in hopes to replace English as your daily spoken language?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

if other religions are dismissed so blithely, perhaps this can be a proper definition for "crackpot".

I am an equal-opportunity-blithe-dismisser, so it works. irate2:

but also consider, once someone has comfortable arrived at what they believe to be "truth", what real point is there in further investigation of others' beliefs as candidate for self-embrace?

And there lies the inherent issue (I'm apt to say "problem"...but I digress...) with belief systems.

Anecdote: So I'm playing a game online and through one route or another I get into this game with a group of Christians (didn't know it at the time). I stay because no one's preaching and they're not a bunch of 10 year olds who scream c*nt all the time, so I figure no harm, no foul. Another guy joins the game and starts asking if everyone's Christian. Finally they get to me (I've been talking with the guys' casually just cause it's fun) and I say that, no, I'm not Christian, I'm atheist. The kid asks what's that? Another one pipes up and says that it's crap, it means that I don't believe in anything, and that that's not possible. He says it's a cop-out. At which point I said (just for sheer comedic value, which, for obvious reasons, was lost on this group) that being Christian was a true cop-out and that they should be ashamed. I then proceeded to leave and have a perfectly normal evening. [/anecdote]

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Do you take a foreign language class in hopes to replace English as your daily spoken language?

I took Japanese in hopes that I could swear out loud in class, at work, at home, etc. with the knowledge that I'd never be caught.

My only downfall, was when my family started hosting exchange students from Japan...it was all downhill from there...

 

[jimmydean]

Anecdote:<snip>[/anecdote]

On another board, there was talk about the issues with tunning a Barry Grant "Road Demon" carb. This one guy pipes in with "i would never buy anything which has an ungodly name attached to it but I,am a CHRISTIAN and that is what i base my life on." (actual quote as posted)

I fell out of my chair.

 

[JRogers]

I think that balanced, academic religious education would be a wonderful idea, but that there would be severe problems with actually carrying it out. As others have said, I severely doubt the ability of many high school level teachers without specific and accredited training in religious studies to be fair in their teaching. Irrespective of one's own religious beliefs, serious criticism of the Bible (and other religious books) can be very exciting and surprising. When you look closely, you often do not find what you expected to. I'm not sure I trust a national cross-section of high school teachers to bring that out while eliminating their own bias.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I think that balanced, academic religious education would be a wonderful idea, but that there would be severe problems with actually carrying it out. As others have said, I severely doubt the ability of many high school level teachers without specific and accredited training in religious studies to be fair in their teaching. Irrespective of one's own religious beliefs, serious criticism of the Bible (and other religious books) can be very exciting and surprising. When you look closely, you often do not find what you expected to. I'm not sure I trust a national cross-section of high school teachers to bring that out while eliminating their own bias.

Bingo.

On another board, there was talk about the issues with tunning a Barry Grant "Road Demon" carb. This one guy pipes in with "i would never buy anything which has an ungodly name attached to it but I,am a CHRISTIAN and that is what i base my life on." (actual quote as posted)

I fell out of my chair.

Ha...I suppose his beliefs are all he needs in the 1/4 mile...

 

[jimmydean]

I think that balanced, academic religious education would be a wonderful idea, but that there would be severe problems with actually carrying it out. As others have said, I severely doubt the ability of many high school level teachers without specific and accredited training in religious studies to be fair in their teaching. Irrespective of one's own religious beliefs, serious criticism of the Bible (and other religious books) can be very exciting and surprising. When you look closely, you often do not find what you expected to. I'm not sure I trust a national cross-section of high school teachers to bring that out while eliminating their own bias.

I agree 100%.

My sister is an associate professor of PolySci at UCONN. After my horrid POL class, I spoke to her about her approach in class. She said that it's tough at any level to remove your personal opinion in class when it comes to politics/religion. Students often have just as hard a time as well.

 

[jimmydean]

Ha...I suppose his beliefs are all he needs in the 1/4 mile...

"if I win, it's God's will..."

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html

The cover story is written David Van Biema, Time's "Senior Religion Writer".

It's called, "Why we should teach the Bible in public school".

While I am sympathetic to the story's theme, I couldn't help but notice that a sidebar about "The Bible in Pop Culture" that references Jules' speech in Pulp Fiction without mentioning that he references a non-existant bible verse, and then goes on to mention that "The Matrix" needs a Bible to understand, before you start in on the nearly as important secular sources (when the whole premise of the movie is based on Plato's allegory of the cave).

Maybe they should take a class?

found someone else similarly edukated:

(washpo):

Qwest senior vice president Diana Gowen conceded that the Denver-based company has its work cut out for it going up against AT&T and Verizon, but said Qwest's smaller size would make it more agile. "If you want to make it the David and Goliath story, we'll be the David and slay the dragon," she said.

 

[Kihaji]

We already teach religion in schools, it's called Math and Science. Those take as large a leap of faith as any diety based religion.

 

[reflux]

We already teach religion in schools, it's called Math and Science. Those take as large a leap of faith as any diety based religion.

What is 2 + 2? Jello.

Yes, I see the light!

 

[$tinkle]

What is 2 + 2? Jello.

if you had your miracle on, i think you would mean 'fish'.

 

[Silver]

We already teach religion in schools, it's called Math and Science. Those take as large a leap of faith as any diety based religion.

Atkins is a diety based religion. Math and science, not so much. When I say not so much, I mean not at all.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

We already teach religion in schools, it's called Math and Science. Those take as large a leap of faith as any diety based religion.

I believe in myself. I do not believe in you. That is all.

 

[Kihaji]

What is 2 + 2? Jello.

Yes, I see the light!

Considering 2, +, and Jello are merely symbols that you have to BELIEVE mean what they do, yes, 2 + 2 could be jello.

The very basis of science is faith, faith that our assumptions are correct and that our assumptions adequately represent the universe.

2, God, and Jello are all in the same realm of things which some people just "know" are real, but cannot prove.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Considering 2, +, and Jello are merely symbols that you have to BELIEVE mean what they do, yes, 2 + 2 could be jello.

The very basis of science is faith, faith that our assumptions are correct and that our assumptions adequately represent the universe.

2, God, and Jello are all in the same realm of things which some people just "know" are real, but cannot prove.

Obviously you have no faith in humanity.


Btw....Jello is not merely a symbol. It's a way of life...because there is ALWAYS room for it.

 

[ohio]

Considering 2, +, and Jello are merely symbols that you have to BELIEVE mean what they do, yes, 2 + 2 could be jello.

The very basis of science is faith, faith that our assumptions are correct and that our assumptions adequately represent the universe.

2, God, and Jello are all in the same realm of things which some people just "know" are real, but cannot prove.

Don't strain yourself too hard; that kind of pseudo-logic could cause an aneurysm in an unprepared subject.

 

[binary visions]

Considering 2, +, and Jello are merely symbols that you have to BELIEVE mean what they do, yes, 2 + 2 could be jello.

The very basis of science is faith, faith that our assumptions are correct and that our assumptions adequately represent the universe.

2, God, and Jello are all in the same realm of things which some people just "know" are real, but cannot prove.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe the crap you type or if you just say whatever silliness comes to mind as long as it represents a contrary opinion.

You know "Devil's Advocate" should be based on sound logic not just anything contrary, don't you?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe the crap you type or if you just say whatever silliness comes to mind as long as it represents a contrary opinion.

You know "Devil's Advocate" should be based on sound logic not just anything contrary, don't you?

I smell custom title territory...

"Contrary Devil's Advocate"
"Pseudo-Science Devil's Advocate"
"Devil's Advocate-esque"
"Devil's Esquire"

 

[reflux]

Considering 2, +, and Jello are merely symbols that you have to BELIEVE mean what they do, yes, 2 + 2 could be jello.

The very basis of science is faith, faith that our assumptions are correct and that our assumptions adequately represent the universe.

2, God, and Jello are all in the same realm of things which some people just "know" are real, but cannot prove.

Dude, there is no spoon.

 

[Changleen]

We already teach religion in schools, it's called Math and Science. Those take as large a leap of faith as any diety based religion.

 

[binary visions]

I tried to explain to my boss this morning that I believe I was underpaid and she shouldn't mind giving me a raise since it was all just symbols. Hell, she's a Jesus-freak so she should understand better than most.

I even offered her Jello, but she wasn't having it

 

[valve bouncer]

I took Japanese in hopes that I could swear out loud in class, at work, at home, etc. with the knowledge that I'd never be caught.

My only downfall, was when my family started hosting exchange students from Japan...it was all downhill from there...

Boy did you pick the wrong language. Telling someone their "mother's belly button sticks out" is the height of abuse here.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Boy did you pick the wrong language. Telling someone their "mother's belly button sticks out" is the height of abuse here.

Ahh, but in a drunken slurring of the speech, I bet it sounds hilarious.

 

[Kihaji]

I tried to explain to my boss this morning that I believe I was underpaid and she shouldn't mind giving me a raise since it was all just symbols. Hell, she's a Jesus-freak so she should understand better than most.

I even offered her Jello, but she wasn't having it

They are just symbols, but those symbols have meaning. Whether that meaning is correct is another thing.


There is no difference between the Bible and a random textbook about say physics. Both are observations of the world, both are reasoned off of assumptions that you must just believe are true.

If you think that science is based upon nothing but pure hard facts, try this little excercise. Prove true, without using any other assumptions. Or prove time(which doesn't actually exist), hell prove 1. Now, tell me how any of those are any different than trying to "prove God". (And if you want to get really deep, look up Godel's ontologicl proof, it's a mathematical proof of gods existance.)

 

[binary visions]

Pass the doob on over this way, man.

Look, the number "1" may be an arbitrarily assigned symbol to represent a single quantity, but there is nothing arbitrary about the quantity itself. If you take two quantities and put them next to each other, "2" is again an arbitrary symbol but it nonetheless represents a real, concrete thing.

Just because we use language to describe something doesn't make it less real. When someone is stating that 1+1 = 2, they aren't arguing that a straight line symbol is an appropriate way of representing the number. They're stating that if you take one thingie, and place it with another thingie, you have double the physical quantity of thingies. Yes? You see how this works? Now, we say gravity is a concept in physics. It can be demonstrated, repeatedly, with reliability. You drop a ball, and it hits the ground. You drop a ball in space and it doesn't. If you'd like to call it Jell-o instead of gravity, that's fine and dandy with me, but it doesn't make it less real or less demonstrable. The key here is being able to reliably and repeatedly demonstrate something. I can demonstrate the concept we (arbitrarily) refer to as gravity, please demonstrate the concept you are referring to as God.

I am only vaguely familiar with Gödel's proof so I will not enter into that discussion with you, but it does not make your arguments any less absurd.

 

[ohio]

They are just symbols, but those symbols have meaning. Whether that meaning is correct is another thing.


There is no difference between the Bible and a random textbook about say physics. Both are observations of the world, both are reasoned off of assumptions that you must just believe are true.

If you think that science is based upon nothing but pure hard facts, try this little excercise. Prove true, without using any other assumptions. Or prove time(which doesn't actually exist), hell prove 1. Now, tell me how any of those are any different than trying to "prove God". (And if you want to get really deep, look up Godel's ontologicl proof, it's a mathematical proof of gods existance.)

Countdown to aneurysm in 5...4...3...

 

[Kihaji]

Pass the doob on over this way, man.

Look, the number "1" may be an arbitrarily assigned symbol to represent a single quantity, but there is nothing arbitrary about the quantity itself. If you take two quantities and put them next to each other, "2" is again an arbitrary symbol but it nonetheless represents a real, concrete thing.

Just because we use language to describe something doesn't make it less real. When someone is stating that 1+1 = 2, they aren't arguing that a straight line symbol is an appropriate way of representing the number. They're stating that if you take one thingie, and place it with another thingie, you have double the physical quantity of thingies. Yes? You see how this works? Now, we say gravity is a concept in physics. It can be demonstrated, repeatedly, with reliability. You drop a ball, and it hits the ground. You drop a ball in space and it doesn't. If you'd like to call it Jell-o instead of gravity, that's fine and dandy with me, but it doesn't make it less real or less demonstrable. The key here is being able to reliably and repeatedly demonstrate something. I can demonstrate the concept we (arbitrarily) refer to as gravity, please demonstrate the concept you are referring to as God.

I am only vaguely familiar with Gödel's proof so I will not enter into that discussion with you, but it does not make your arguments any less absurd.

Gravity is God pulling us towards the ground.

There, I demonstrated God, and it can be repeated. You cannot prove the existance of gravity, merely the effects it possibly is having upon matter. So, what you say is gravity, I could equally as legitimately say is God.

And before you think I'm an idiot, I have a degree in Math and Computer Science, so I am very much aware of science and it's methodolgies and assumptions. I'm not an ignorant bible thumper.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Gravity is God pulling us towards the ground.

There, I demonstrated God, and it can be repeated. You cannot prove the existance of gravity, merely the effects it possibly is having upon matter. So, what you say is gravity, I could equally as legitimately say is God.

And before you think I'm an idiot, I have a degree in Math and Computer Science, so I am very much aware of science and it's methodolgies and assumptions. I'm not an ignorant bible thumper.

No. You didn't demonstrate anything. You're mixing and matching to suit your view. When you assume...well...you know the rest...