oohchild, what is ,"the truth of the past", do you mean your truth?, or your opinion?

Did you read the article, Starbucks1? The teacher was leading a class on European History, which occurred in the past..

robertcarter also made a reference to evolution, which is also something that has occurred in the past & which many Christians accept as truth. From the way robertcarter referred to "this teacher" being "sued" for teaching evolution, it sounded as if he does not.

[spam code: SICKU]

 

Schools are payed by taxpayer money and should not be used to promote any religion including the atheist one.
Schools are designed (or should be), to teach facts and how to analyze them. Private opinions are fine, but they cannot be systematically presented ex cathedra by any teacher. Many students confuse private opinions of this biased fanatic for objective truth.  Worse, many are intimidated and do not dare to stand up against private opinions expressed by teachers. There are many other "wrongs" with public schools. Some biased organizations, such as planned parenthood try to impose abortion and contraception ideology on 12-year old students, without parental consent. Unlike religious organizations, they have unlimited access to public schools. When I protested, the answer was "we don't teach values." May be here was the problem of those Columbine murderers who "didn't believe in anything" and thought nothing of human life. It is time to stop opinionated teachers from pursuing their private agenda at taxpayer's expense. We need school vouchers and let them start atheistic indoctrination schools for those who want them.

Yes, oohchild, I read the article, and I was trying to decipher what you meant by Truth of the past, I know you would like to see more atheist agenda taught in schools, but I agree with almost everyone else on this blog, and believe it should not be taught in the classroom, along with any other religious view, George has it right, "many (students) are intimidated and do not dare to stand up against private opinions expressed by teachers", they are a captive audience and the teachers know it, my kids have had many psycho teachers, believe me, they are out there, they need to leave their own atheist or religious views at home.

Sounds like people are just trying to get an easy way out of school and trying to earn an extra little bucks doing it.  I am in my twenties and personally volunteered in a second grade class in Tehachapi.  I sat in the back while the teacher read a book about Candy Canes.  The book explains that the red stripe stands for Jesus' blood that was shed when he was crucified.  The white stripe stands for the purity of his soul.  And the cane is shaped like a Shepard's staff because of the three Sheppard's that found him on the night he was born.  And when you turn it upside down it is in the shape of a "J" for "Jesus".  Now imagine if a child who grew up in a houshold where the parents talked about scientific studies and evolution, and never mentioned Jesus.  Isn't that offensive to that child because the teacher was teaching about Jesus and our Lord in heaven?  I was actually very shocked that this particular teacher was willing to read such a book for her young students.  She also made it very well known how often she goes to church and where and when it is.  But no law suits.  We all just ignored her and got on with our own pleasant lives.  No problem.  Maybe this student shouldn't worry about others peoples "jesus glasses" and get on with his life.  Just because you are taught something doesn't mean you are forced to believe it.

freedom of speech.  so get over it.

I'm sorry to hear about your childrens' experiences with "psycho" teachers, Starbucks1. Were they able to "overcome" these teachings, or are they still atheists? As I said, anyone who loses their "god belief" over what a teacher said in school doesn't have a solid foundation of faith to begin with.

So, do you deny the influence of Jesus belief on European History, or do you just want the "good" stuff discussed & not the bad that goes along with it?

George, despite your misleading statements about atheists, a lack of belief in god(s) doesn't equate with religion. You can jump up & down & declare it to be so all you want, but atheism isn't a religion & it has bugger-all to do with yours. We don't really care what god(s) you believe in. As much as you would love to be able to group us in with you & yours, atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.

oohchild, again you twist what i say to align with your view. I never said psycho teachers that I dealt with were atheist, maybe I should have been clearer on that, so, none were atheist, that I know of,  but they were very strange indeed, if you ever raised children and put them through any school system, you would know what I mean, its something you have to experience to understand. And on European history, I think it should deal with just that, historical facts, not personal opinion from the teacher., let the parents handle religous views, or lack thereof. I still agree with 95% of everyone else on this blog. And my children are quite happily Christian, and very successful.

"The book explains that the red stripe stands for Jesus' blood that was shed when he was crucified.  The white stripe stands for the purity of his soul. "

The book correctly describes Christian symbols. This is fact, not an opinion.

As a scientist I can see no problem.  When I say that there is life after death, then this is an opinion. The opposite is ALSO an opinion. Therefore theistic and atheistic opinions are just that! I see atheism as a subjective judgment of the kind "there is no God". Science has nothing to tell about God's existence or non-existence.

About evolution: the problem with evolution was well phrased by Carl Popper. "Evolution can tell everything about past and nothing about future."  The statement may be exaggerated but underscores the fact that the value of science is in PREDICTION. Predictive value of evolutionary theory is limited. Many evolutionary events are so unlikely that they may not repeat themselves twice during the lifetime of the Universe. Jacques Monod considered the origin of life as such an unique event.

I don't like any patronizing to religious people from the "scientific" point of view. This is an example of nonsensical abuse of science.

See, there's your problem, George: "I see atheism as a subjective judgment of the kind "there is no God".

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). The strong atheist will declare there is no god(s), but I've met very few of those. Most of us are weak atheists, FYI.

So there's the definition of "atheist." Good thing to know, true?

Evolution does have predictive powers, too. Otherwise we'd never be able to develop new antibiotics, or provide flu shots every year for those folks who need them. Again, I think you'd better provide me with your working definition of "evolution." I believe you may be mistaken there, too.

I may agree that atheism is a negative religion and Christianity is a positive religion.

Evolution has a LIMITED predictive power. This is very clear when it comes to complex events such as the origin of species. What you call "evolution" is a statement that selection including natural selection is possible. But survival of the fittest does not predict what the fittest is. It is about survival of survivor (tautology).

Ahhh, I see your next problem, George. "Survival of the fittest" isn't the whole argument, now is it? Here's something written just for you (and a few million others who think this is a good argument):

http://www.talkorigins.org/...

*note the correct spelling of Karl Popper's name*

'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma.

Again, you misunderstand evolution as both theory & fact.

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

Lots of predictions there, George. And what about the predictability of fossils? It's truly amazing how all these scientific disciplines all mesh together.

Is atheism a religion?

Atheism a belief but not a religion.  Here's some definitions of religion that make it more clear:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader

Yeah, being Austrian I should have known better.  Karl!. I apologize for anglicizing his name.

As far  as the predictive value of evolution goes, it is limited, I repeat LIMITED!. The longer the time period, the less prediction. This is not physics. Those who study complex systems know that. This is not the arrogant XIXth century when everything was predictable "scientifically". This mentality of overstepping boundaries of science persists among followers of Dawkins et al., who is not original either. Marxists used to treat atheism as a state religion and believed in "historical determinism"  guiding not only history but also evolution. They went to religious over-extension of Darwinism to the origin and evolution of the Universe. Perhaps they were not as vulgar as fascist atheists who believed not in class struggle but race struggle. These exchanges are too short to address the issue.

What I am trying to say is that scientific approach is limited, and certainly science has nothing to say about reality which cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. This does not prove that other reality doesn't exist and atheists who claim otherwise cannot support themselves with science. Likewise, this arrogant teacher has nothing to say about God. He doesn't even believe that human life is sacred because from the scientific point of view burning human alive is just another series of chemical reactions. He is not even consistent as he follows the feminist/atheistic superstition that human life starts after six weeks and abortion is fine. Science is irrelevant for such a superstition.  Embryology defines mammalian/vertebrate life from the moment of conception,
not at 6 weeks, 5 minutes and 10 seconds.  I put those seconds on purpose.

>This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It >rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is >theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and >adaptive steps (see Dawkins). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

I agree with this. It has great explanatory power but LIMITED predictive power. And only Dawkins can predict that religion is a result of brain virus or something equally "scientifically primitive".