Striving to make others disbelieve in God — a question of ethics/morality

[Daisy]

I believe that God judges all based on their behavior, whether they acknowledge Him or not. So yes, good people go somewhere good, Heaven, paradise, etc. Christians however, must ask forgiveness because that is part of the covenant they joined with God.Do you believe that good people that are atheists, etc. dont go to paradise? If not, where do they go?

That is not what the Bible states...perhaps you should study it sometime...you could begin with the basics...John 3:16, 36; John 17:3...

 

[Ginger Ale]

Your ignorance is showing.

The little monuments were gifted by the movie studio that produced the movie with Charleton Heston.

When I see a picture of the Pantheon in Rome i don't feel compelled to worship Jupiter.

You do realize, right now, that the Evangelicals are trying to remove an amendment to the law that says they can't be involved in politics, and Trump backs them on that don't you?

Evangelicals have reshaped the Republican party, there is truly involvement and persuasion going on from this specific religious group more than others.

There are still laws on books stating that non-believers cant hold office. Those are never enforced, but, they are there and at any time could be. If religious groups pushed their agenda they could easily pull from that law so as a nonbeliever, that limits my freedom and I would like to see them removed to prevent any future abuse of my freedom. Why wouldn't I?

Otherwise, we all ignore the call to a God to protect our country from government officials and the trusting of some God on our money as silly as it is to those of us who don't worship a Christian God, or no God at all.
Just like you do not feel compelled to worship idols displayed on objects in Athens, or the like, or statements projected by government officials, neither do I.

 

[blarg]

Articles

www.jhm.org

some believers are not content to have their faith only control their own lives

 

[gboisjo]

I think it's funny how some interpret the separation of Church and State.

The Constitutional protections set up were to protect church from state, not the other way around.

I can tour the Parthenon in Athens and fell no obligation whatever to worship Athena.

BS, protect the church from the state. The founding fathers weren't far removed from Europe, they were well aware of the damage the intrusion the of church
had on the state thus the separation of church and state.

Many early immigrants traveled to North America to avoid religious persecution in their homelands, whether based on a different denomination, religion or sect. Some immigrants came from England after the English Civil War and the rise of Protestant dissenting sects in England. Others fled Protestant Catholic religious conflicts in France and Germany.

These early settlers were the the beginning of the end of Religious intrusion into government.

All one has to do is look at theocracies like Iran to know what it is that we don't want.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gboisjo]

some believers are not content to have their faith only control their own lives

That's absolutely true, half of my TV broadcast channels in Southwest Florida are Christian channels with Bible Thumper's telling one how to live. Every once in awhile
I stop and listen for a bit. I leave shaking my head, saying to myself, WOW!!

 

[gboisjo]

Well that doesn't make me "wrong" Lursa, because I did not say a teacher could not "elicit questions on the science of evolution" you know very well what I actually did say.

Student's should ideally be encouraged to make up their own minds, this is why philosophy really should be added to the school curriculum as it is in France for example. A suitably equipped student, understanding the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason can then make up their own mind rather than being indoctrinated, if they want to believe in evolution let them, if they want to believe in alternatives let them, what's it to you?

All this fuss over evolution is quite ridiculous and fanatical, hardly sets a good example for what science is all about which is to always strive to retain an open mind.

Here we go again, attacking science in favor of superstition. You will never win your argument, your out numbered a million to one.

 

[weaver2]

I think it's funny how some interpret the separation of Church and State. The Constitutional protections set up were to protect church from state, not the other way around. I can tour the Parthenon in Athens and fell no obligation whatever to worship Athena.

Your ignorance is showing.The little monuments were gifted by the movie studio that produced the movie with Charleton Heston.When I see a picture of the Pantheon in Rome i don't feel compelled to worship Jupiter.

Even funnier is how you interpret the separation of church and state. The 1st Amendment was set up to protect me and other citizens from power hungry sects that want mark government institutions as their property with "little monuments". Go back to your church. Give praises to God that even your tacky religion is protected by the Constitution. There are a lot of us that think conservative Christianity should be disbanded for trying to establish a theocracy.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here we go again, attacking science in favor of superstition. You will never win your argument, your out numbered a million to one.

I've never "attacked science" not in my previous post or in any post, so you're quite wrong to accuse me of that.

 

[weaver2]

Well that doesn't make me "wrong" Lursa, because I did not say a teacher could not "elicit questions on the science of evolution" you know very well what I actually did say. Student's should ideally be encouraged to make up their own minds, this is why philosophy really should be added to the school curriculum as it is in France for example. A suitably equipped student, understanding the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason can then make up their own mind rather than being indoctrinated, if they want to believe in evolution let them, if they want to believe in alternatives let them, what's it to you?
All this fuss over evolution is quite ridiculous and fanatical, hardly sets a good example for what science is all about which is to always strive to retain an open mind.

There is no fuss over evolution every informed and intelligent person in the US understands what happened on the HMS Beagle. The conservative Christians(and I use that term loosely) are the ones making the 'fuss' by trying to force schools to teach their religious ideology.

A philosophy course allowing students to decide issues for themselves is an excellent idea. It's a lousy idea for science. Teaching students that religious dogma is just as true as scientific fact is deceitful, unethical, and unConstitutional. Science is not about open minds and religion. Science is about proof and facts.

 

[Valery]

Here we go again, attacking science in favor of superstition. You will never win your argument, your out numbered a million to one.

Winning an argument doesn't happen through voting.

 

[zyzygy]

BS, protect the church from the state. The founding fathers weren't far removed from Europe, they were well aware of the damage the intrusion the of church
had on the state thus the separation of church and state.

Many early immigrants traveled to North America to avoid religious persecution in their homelands, whether based on a different denomination, religion or sect. Some immigrants came from England after the English Civil War and the rise of Protestant dissenting sects in England. Others fled Protestant Catholic religious conflicts in France and Germany.

These early settlers were the the beginning of the end of Religious intrusion into government.

All one has to do is look at theocracies like Iran to know what it is that we don't want.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wrong, they wanted to establish their own form of religious intolerance. The Puritans were not pure enough for them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no fuss over evolution every informed and intelligent person in the US understands what happened on the HMS Beagle. The conservative Christians(and I use that term loosely) are the ones making the 'fuss' by trying to force schools to teach their religious ideology.

There is a "fuss" when laws must be passed preventing teachers from expressing skepticism about evolution, when a teacher might lose his/her job for deviating from the evolution dogma.

So what if a teacher said "Well Johnny, yes there are some who doubt the feasibility of random mutations to lead to what we see" or "Yes Linda, there some professors of biochemistry who openly suspect that chirality means abiogenesis could not occur naturally".

So what?

The fact is if evolution were as undeniably supported by facts and evidence and was as undeniable as many claim, there'd be no need to defend it so much, it is only evolution that is protected this way, no other endeavor in the sciences get this kind of special, kid gloves, namby pamby treatment.

A philosophy course allowing students to decide issues for themselves is an excellent idea. It's a lousy idea for science.

That itself is a philosophical statement, how can you prove that encouraging students to rationally and logically reach their own conclusions is bad for scientific inquiry? what's wrong with teaching children how to think?

Teaching students that religious dogma is just as true as scientific fact is deceitful, unethical, and unConstitutional. Science is not about open minds and religion. Science is about proof and facts.

I don't think I advocated teaching "religious dogma" in which post did I say that?

Are you saying that having an open mind (i.e. being free from prejudices) is undesirable? you'd discourage it if you were a teacher?

Science is not about "proof" (mathematics is) or "facts", it is about striving to rationally understand the structure and behavior of the universe.

 

[Court Jester]

Christians are only to proclaim the gospel as directed to do so. Belief or unbelief is not something that is in the hands of mortal men; that is work that is mysteriously handled by God for his own purposes and by his own will.

 

[zyzygy]

Winning an argument doesn't happen through voting.

Science wins the arguments by using proof.

 

[zyzygy]

Christians are only to proclaim the gospel as directed to do so. Belief or unbelief is not something that is in the hands of mortal men; that is work that is mysteriously handled by God for his own purposes and by his own will.

Unsupported assertion.

 

[Visbek]

In what sense is it supposedly moral or ethical to strive to make others disbelieve in God?

It is certainly acceptable to discuss religion with the intent of convincing someone to abandon false beliefs.

I'm not sure it is virtuous to run around convincing people to abandon their religious beliefs. But it isn't unethical.

It is not moral to use force to alter their religious beliefs.

 

[Lursa]

Well there are restrictions, a teacher for example is not permitted to cast doubt on aspects of evolution for example.

Wrong. Teachers can elicit questions on the science of evolution. To assume that we know everything about anything is arrogant and also unscientific. Science questions and examines always.

What teachers should professionally, ethically, and thru policy be forbidden is to introduce other 'theories' or questions regarding evolution that are not based in science. (And Intelligent Design is not science, it's an end-run using pseudo-science to still attribute man's creation to a higher authority.)

Well that doesn't make me "wrong" Lursa, because I did not say a teacher could not "elicit questions on the science of evolution" you know very well what I actually did say.

Wiggling about over semantics wont work....I was clear that teachers AND scientists encourage questioning (cast doubt).

Student's should ideally be encouraged to make up their own minds,

On science? Not really. They should be and are taught how to ask the right questions to find out the facts, truth, data, etc. Then they are taught how to evaluate that information. They can base their opinions on the facts, etc...but they are not encouraged to just make up their own minds.

this is why philosophy really should be added to the school curriculum as it is in France for example. A suitably equipped student, understanding the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason can then make up their own mind rather than being indoctrinated, if they want to believe in evolution let them, if they want to believe in alternatives let them, what's it to you?

I've only seen evidence here that you are not capable of the bold...nor several others. So I see little value in your comments on this. In early grades, definitely not. In high school, sure some foundation for science 'history' is useful, as is discussion on scientific theory and methodology.

If they dont want to provide the correct answers about evolution on science tests...they should be failed. They can believe what their parents or religion teaches them but they cant substitute it in a science class.

All this fuss over evolution is quite ridiculous and fanatical, hardly sets a good example for what science is all about which is to always strive to retain an open mind.

Yes it is. It's clearly a scientific principle and should be taught in science classes. Myths like creationism with no proof, and BS pseudo-science like ID belong...NOT in science classes. (Once again, Intelligent Design is not science, it's an end-run using pseudo-science to still attribute man's creation to a higher authority.)

If religious people had stronger faith, they wouldnt feel the need to force their *beliefs* on others.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wiggling about over semantics wont work....I was clear that teachers AND scientists encourage questioning (cast doubt).

Yes you were indeed very clear, about something I never said, but as you wish.

On science? Not really. They should be and are taught how to ask the right questions to find out the facts, truth, data, etc. Then they are taught how to evaluate that information. They can base their opinions on the facts, etc...but they are not encouraged to just make up their own minds.

On everything ideally, and again you misquote me I never said "just (as in only) to make up their own minds" as you imply. Make up one's own mind means developing the skills to distinguish between true and false based on all sorts of criteria, developing a willingness to reach conclusions through reasoning rather than rote learning, developing skills to think laterally, developing skills to apply critical thinking as opposed to obediently trusting in authority.

Almost all non-trivial discoveries and breakthroughs in the sciences were by people with these kinds of skills.

I've only seen evidence here that you are not capable of the bold...nor several others. So I see little value in your comments on this. In early grades, definitely not. In high school, sure some foundation for science 'history' is useful, as is discussion on scientific theory and methodology.

So you disagree? it is not constructive to develop an ability to understand the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason?

If they dont want to provide the correct answers about evolution on science tests...they should be failed. They can believe what their parents or religion teaches them but they cant substitute it in a science class.

I never said (you are making a habit of this) they should rely on parents, nor did I mention "religion" so you're starting to respond to me by posting strawman arguments.

Nor did I suggest at any point that students should not fail tests if they give incorrect answers, again strawman arguments.

Yes it is. It's clearly a scientific principle and should be taught in science classes.

Myths like creationism with no proof, and BS pseudo-science like ID belong...NOT in science classes.

Oh I see what you mean, so expressing skepticism about the veracity of this or that purported process is the same thing as "creationism" or "pseudo-science" and so we can simply disregard such people and whatever it is they may have to say? But what if they happen to be right?

If you actually teach that it is wrong to question authority, to question prevailing beliefs and opinions you will set science back centuries, surely this is obvious?

(Once again, Intelligent Design is not science, it's an end-run using pseudo-science to still attribute man's creation to a higher authority.)

Once again (another strawman) I did not say "Intelligent Design" was science, I will say that what it is the exploration of how to develop an answer to a question: How can we tell if some thing we see in nature was or was not designed? did or did not require intelligence in order for it to exist?

You do not get nor have any special right to tell others what questions they may or may not ask, this is why some of what the atheists say here is very much the same mindset as the Catholic church when confronting Galileo.

If religious people had stronger faith, they wouldnt feel the need to force their *beliefs* on others.

For the second or perhaps third time I am not interested in nor have I mentioned "religion", our exchanges would be far better if you commented on what I actually say rather than what you wished I had said. (aka strawman argument - a form of fallacy)

You might find this instructive, I think it conveys the merits of some of what I say:

 

[Lursa]

Yes you were indeed very clear, about something I never said, but as you wish.



On everything ideally, and again you misquote me I never said "just to make up their own minds" as you imply. Make up one's own mind means developing the skills to distinguish between true and false based on all sorts of criteria, developing a willingness to reach conclusions through reasoning rather than rote learning, developing skills to think laterally, developing skills apply critical thinking as opposed to trusting in authority.

Almost all non-trivial discoveries and breakthroughs in the sciences were by people with these kinds of skills.



So you disagree? it is not constructive to develop an ability to understand the difference between proof and evidence between true and false between dogma and reason?



I never said (you are making a habit of this) they should rely on parents, nor did I mention "religion" so you're starting to respond to me by posting strawman arguments.

Nor did I suggest at any point that students should not fail tests if they give incorrect answers, again strawman arguments.


Oh I see what you mean, so expressing skepticism about the veracity of this or that purported process is the same thing as "creationism" or "pseudo-science" and so we can simply disregard such people and whatever it is they may have to say? But what if they happen to be right?

If you actually teach that it is wrong to question authority, to question prevailing beliefs and opinions you will set science back centuries, surely this is obvious?

Once again I did not say "Intelligent Design" was science, I will say that what it is the exploration of how to develop an answer to a question: How can we tell if some thing we see in nature was or was designed? did or did not require intelligence in order for it to exist?

You do not get or have any right to tell others what questions they may or may not ask, this is why some of what the atheists say here is very mush the same mindset as the Catholic church when confronting Galileo.

For the second or perhaps third time I am not interested in nor have I mentioned "religion", our exchanges would be far better if you commented on what I actually say rather than what you wished I had said.

Just a load of diversion. Each of my comments was a refutation or question addressing your comments. You chose to pretend you dont understand how they address them...or just plain wish to ignore the fact that they do address them.

Cool. I'm satisfied with my previous post...anyone can read it and consider it. Anything I'd respond to here would be an exercise in rewording...not changing the actual content.

 

[watsup]

It is quite clear that Sherlock would like to see scientific quackery taught in in schools. Maybe we should teach intelligent design in medical schools instead of anatomy, eh?

 

[Valery]

Science wins the arguments by using proof.

If it's proof, why doesn't everyone accept it?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just a load of diversion. Each of my comments was a refutation or question addressing your comments. You chose to pretend you dont understand how they address them...or just plain wish to ignore the fact that they do address them.

Cool. I'm satisfied with my previous post...anyone can read it and consider it. Anything I'd respond to here would be an exercise in rewording...not changing the actual content.

You presented several strawman arguments, rebutted (not refuted) me on some things that I raised in my reply, you accuse me now of "pretense" which is an ad-hominem attack and even "ignoring" facts.

Finally you dismiss my entire post ("just a load of diversion") and with it the questions that I asked you, questions that arose naturally as I was reading your post.

You do not set a very good example for your own lofty claims about education, reasoning and so on - your entire approach puzzles me, perhaps I expected too much.

 

[weaver2]

So what if a teacher said "Well Johnny, yes there are some who doubt the feasibility of random mutations to lead to what we see" or "Yes Linda, there some professors of biochemistry who openly suspect that chirality means abiogenesis could not occur naturally".

. Oh please, stop tossing around your memorized scientific words to give a flavor of knowledge to your statements. You haven't a clue how to explain either "random mutations" or "chirality cancels abiogenesis"

The fact is if evolution were as undeniably supported by facts and evidence and was as undeniable as many claim, there'd be no need to defend it so much, it is only evolution that is protected this way, no other endeavor in the sciences get this kind of special, kid gloves, namby pamby treatment.

It gets defended so often because so many conservative Christians want science teachers to stop telling kids about evolution and tell them God did it. Here's how you tell which is right: find the average IQ of creationists and compare it to the average IQ of evolutionary biologists.

I don't think I advocated teaching "religious dogma" in which post did I say that?

Creationism is dogma

 

[Lursa]

You presented several strawman arguments, rebutted (not refuted) me on some things that I raised in my reply, you accuse me now of "pretense" which is an ad-hominem attack and even "ignoring" facts.

Finally you dismiss my entire post ("just a load of diversion") and with it the questions that I asked you, questions that arose naturally as I was reading your post.

You do not set a very good example for your own lofty claims about education, reasoning and so on - your entire approach puzzles me, perhaps I expected too much.

Just a load of diversion. Each of my comments was a refutation or question addressing your comments. You chose to pretend you dont understand how they address them...or just plain wish to ignore the fact that they do address them.

Cool. I'm satisfied with my previous post...anyone can read it and consider it. Anything I'd respond to here would be an exercise in rewording...not changing the actual content.

Post 267 for reference

 

[weaver2]

If it's proof, why doesn't everyone accept it?

Apply the same reasoning to belief in God