Anyone have a religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

I really wish that public schools might offer a brief class on at least an over view of religions. Not to spiritually enlighten people, but just for the fact that there is a loth of people whom see other religions as completley different, and just rediculous. I think it would be worth it (especially in the us) to create more of an understanding of other people. (almost on the same lines as cultural studies and social studies)

---

Excellent point, and a useful idea. It actually happens, too - in Geography class at high school, we were taught about the basics of many major religions, and the societies they're prominent in: Christianity and Islam, in particular. There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved.

As for its "importance" as far as teaching goes... Religion's always gonna be a touchy subject. If schools even teach students about religions, some parents will start crapping bricks about it. Then there's the issue of ensuring that students get told an accurate account of each religion. With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith - which is perhaps why some people would say it's best left to parents, churches and personal choice. Although a truly balanced, objective overview of other religions would do wonders for countering prejudice and intolerance...

Quote:

---

Yes Big D, I agree. What I am saying, is that it is much easier to belive science than religion. Somthing that you can clearly see, over somthing you have to belive.

---

Yup, that's exactly it. If I see something, I'll believe it... but, there's always the arguement of Air. :p
If someone says something completely unbelievable to me, I'd want to see whatever they're talking about, before I'd even think of believing them. :D

Quote:

---

Science has shown that same track record with the Earth is flat nonsence, as well as many other scientific discovereies, which are clearly depicted in the bible.... hmmm.

---

Are you saying, that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right? :D
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved. ... With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith

---

Actually, as per Evolutionism, there are many different versions to go by. Which one should be taught? Evolutionism is not a concrete theory, and certainly not quantifiable in any sense, and does involve "a lot of personal interpretation and faith" -- but that's still taught, and taught as fact usually. Where do we draw the line? Why is it alright to teach one religion as fact, but we can't mention any other religions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuna_elena

Are you saying, that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right?
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind.

---

Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.

i dont call myself anything. But i belive in jesus. does that make me a bad person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

There was never any promotion or encouragement, rather just a description of the core beliefs, and how the cultures evolved. ... With science, the theories are concrete and often quantifiable (on paper, at least) whereas religion involves a lot of personal interpretation and faith

---

Actually, as per Evolutionism, there are many different versions to go by. Which one should be taught? Evolutionism is not a concrete theory, and certainly not quantifiable in any sense, and does involve "a lot of personal interpretation and faith" -- but that's still taught, and taught as fact usually. Where do we draw the line? Why is it alright to teach one religion as fact, but we can't mention any other religions?

---

Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuna_elena

Are you saying that science once followed the whole 'Earth is Flat' thing? If you aren't... ignore what I'm gonna say. No need to make any more arguements, right?
Wasn't that because the early scientists were Christians? And they believed in what the Bible said? If not... I'm being a silly 14 year old and making stuff up in my mind.

---

Actually, you're right and wrong. Yes, scientists once followed the idea that the earth is flat. So did nearly everybody at the time, because they didn't know any better. No -- again, NO -- the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.

---

Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Um, because evolution has a bunch of support for it? You just don't get it. Seriously, you have just about the worst understanding of evolutionary theory, and the definition of "theory" in general, that I've ever heard of, but what's more, you have to go and try to add an air of intellectual legitimacy to your thoughts. There aren't any gaps in the theory. There are gaps in the evidence because (zomg!) there are still fossils left to be dug up. Like I said, if you've got a better, natural theory, let's hear it.

---

Actually, I've studied Evolutionism for six or eight years now. And whereas I've debated my side since the topic came up in this thread, you came in the other day and have presented absolute dick, then have the gall to hurl insults towards me. By the way, this might help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
...
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

---

Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.
Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.
I hope I don't have to explain assumption, limited information or knowledge, or conjecture.

Looks like you've got some researching to do. Come back when you have something to add to the debate instead of insults, after you figure out what "Evolution" and "theory" mean.

Quote:

---

Revelation references the nations in "the four corners of the Earth." A sphere doesn't exactly have corners, now does it?

---

Actually it's an elipse, not a sphere. And it doesn't matter, because "the four corners of the Earth" is obviously a figurative saying. Like "the ends of the Earth". There are four Cardinal Directions -- c'mon, we learned this stuff in Elementary School -- East, West, North, and South. "The four corners of the Earth" refer to the farthest extents of each direction. If you can't figure that out, that doesn't mean it's something wrong with the Bible, it's just yet another thing YOU can't figure out. There seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?

Yep, "four corners of the Earth" is simply a figure of speech, one that's widely used even today.

Some old scientific beliefs were indeed encouraged by religious belief, such as the idea that Earth is at the center of the solar system, and the center of the universe itself. However, I think this had more to do with the belief that humans were the focal point of creation and the greatest of God's work.

Anyway. As for teaching evolution in schools... sure, it's fine in science class, because it's a widely accepted scientific theory. It's taught as such - the theory is explained, along with the evidence for it. Just the same as how they teach atomic structure in chemistry class, or Newton's laws in physics.

Quote:

---

Tested: No. Obviously, can't test Evolutionism.

---

However, evidence can be obtained from such sources as the fossil record, and from the observation of processes such as point mutation and intraspecific variation, in the real world. "Theory that fits the facts", basically...

Quote:

---

Widely accepted: Somewhat. Most Americans believe that some form of Higher Power had something to do with our creation, and highly doubt Evolutionism.

---

Whether or not it's got popular acceptance has little to do with its favourability among the scientific community. To say that "it's not good science unless laypeople believe it" would be, I believe, like saying that the legal process isn't a valid method of dispute resolution if people don't understand or agree with it. As a scientific theory explaining observed phenomena, it's got validity and support.

*snip*

Edit by D: No need for that.

this thread is over now.