Students to be taught there isn't a God

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
However, while one might be able to say that God can't be disproven, one could disprove specific claims of phenomena that intrude on the real world. For example, one can disprove a claim that the earth is only 6000 years old.
True. However, you find most believers aren't people who believe in such phenomena literally. Hence the arguments many atheists use are too simplistic. They lump all people of belief into one basket case. Even those who believe the Earth is 6000years old believe it on a spiritual level and can accept that it is also 4 billion years old. Yeah difficult to grasp, I know, but that is the human mind.
When you work with people, you have to adjust to that sort of thinking.

In this instance however my argument was more semantic. The school teaches there is no scientific proof for God.
That's all it teaches. To conclude that they are saying that God does not exist and that is what they are teaching
is a fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
35,342
Thanks for the insult. Since you can't argue logically you choose to insult,
how mature of you.
Seriously, I am the king of weak comebacks, but that - you should have rather just let it slide...

What he did was to prove that you are wrong and the least you could do was to say, OK fine, you got me there.

Shame on you Pete - I expected more from you.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
Seriously, I am the king of weak comebacks, but that - you should have rather just let it slide...

What he did was to prove that you are wrong and the least you could do was to say, OK fine, you got me there.

Shame on you Pete - I expected more from you.
He said that I'm a moron. I should let that slide?
I don't need witty comebacks. I don't want to insult Wiz.
I made a joke about him reading Slash Comics based on his
reference to penises but really Christianity isn't about memorising the
Bible off by heart. Please learn my faith before attacking me or it.

LOL.

Wiz is seriously misunderstanding that article. He sounds like a Fundamentalist Christian Bible-Thumper.
School is saying belief in God is not based on Science therefore school is saying God does not
exist - therefore I feel insulted and hurt and will cry and attack the said school - except he
has opposing views - however he has emotionally undestood the meaning incorrectly.

No offence to Fundamentalists :).
 
Last edited:

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
35,342
OK - that’s better. I have no problem with you being a Christian; I was one too by force of proxy. As I repeat many times over, I am all for choice so long as you do not force your choice on others. You do not seem like such a person so that’s kewl with me.

What schools should teach is that humans have the desire to 1) believe in something and 2) live for ever. From the Khoi-San praying to the moon and stars and forefathers to Christians praying to a god that will resurrect them, all religions satisfy those two primary psychological needs of humans.

I do not think they should teach there is no god, rather the basics behind why humans believe in certain religions.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,466
True. However, you find most believers aren't people who believe in such phenomena literally. Hence the arguments many atheists use are too simplistic. They lump all people of belief into one basket case. Even those who believe the Earth is 6000years old believe it on a spiritual level and can accept that it is also 4 billion years old. Yeah difficult to grasp, I know, but that is the human mind.
When you work with people, you have to adjust to that sort of thinking.
Fair enough; I'd agree with that.

In this instance however my argument was more semantic. The school teaches there is no scientific proof for God.
That's all it teaches. To conclude that they are saying that God does not exist and that is what they are teaching
is a fallacy.
Absolutely.
 

BinaryJack

Spam
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
27,564
Google Definitions.

Philosophy:
  • doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
  • the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
  • any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

Proof:
  • a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it

I dont see how Philosphical Proofs can be used as proof that God exists.
As the philosophies cant be proven.

Isn't this like quoting to Bible to prove the Bible?
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Wiz is seriously misunderstanding that article.
Explain. Where am I misunderstanding the article Peter?

"They will simply say God does not exist" <- should have being "there is no evidence God exists."
 
Last edited:

Surv0

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
5,446
"Atheistical parents will be pleased to hear that humanistic courses of ethics will soon be available in some state schools," Victorian Humanist Society president Stephen Stuart said.
Love it - this is needed world wide, i hope other states follow suit...
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Well, it seems the title of the article is somewhat of a misrepresentation of what is actually going to be taught. Seems there are still going to be non-compulsory philosophy and perhaps religious classes. Should be interesting, can't say there is fundamentally wrong with it.

It should probably also be mentioned that humans are apparently predisposed to believe in other minds and develop a theory of mind. Why bother meddling with mindless metaphysics and then pretend it is rational anyway?

Looking at life, emergence, the teleological nature of science, biased evolution to a few endpionts, biomolecular machines and the universe, it is not difficult to see it all to be the result of mind and not just mindless chatter...
 
Last edited:

grayston

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,733
You're not as well read as you think you are...

http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol3/v3doc1.html
Has no reference to the Bible.
Philosophy is a big subject my friend, don't confuse it with
theology.

Secondly, don't judge people. You know nothing about me. I'm not from your social circle.

And you are confused at least your post shows you to be so.
No direct reference to the Bible perhaps, plenty of reference to the god mentioned in the Bible however, and the proof of god requires one to believe that morality can only come from a god. This falls down as there are many evolutional reasons for morality to exist, without the input of a supreme being. It also falls down because Kant says that god - or rather, "God" - is the "Ideal of Reason" when the one thing that theists and nontheists alike can agree on is that God is ineffable.

Obviously that doesn't disprove a god who developed evolution as a solution to developing morality, hid all traces of its involvement, and then got ineffably angry when people questioned its existence due to lack of physical proof -- so at the end of the day we're still in the realm of: we don't know either way. Exactly the same answer we get from science.

The only way you can "prove" God is through faith. And if someone doesn't have faith, it's his bad (or good) luck, and you have no right to impose anything else on him.

Also, I will judge you as I see you, which at the moment is what you write on this forum. I also fully understand that many people will only be able to judge me by what they see me write in this forum. I recognise and accept this inherent limitation of net-based communication, and trust that you will too.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
Also, I will judge you as I see you, which at the moment is what you write on this forum. I also fully understand that many people will only be able to judge me by what they see me write in this forum. I recognise and accept this inherent limitation of net-based communication, and trust that you will too.
So you can judge people better in person then? Don't answer, let's not derail the thread further.

Rather than judge you I want to say that I don't want to derail this thread.
There are philosophical proofs for and against God or an omipresent or ominpotent being. The point of this thread however is not philosophical and the point of my posting a reply here was not to argue for the existence of God since everyone here has made up their mind and any questions asked are rhetorical - my aim was to state that the title doesn't fit what has been pasted below it - and I'm not blaming anyone for that, just saying that it's not at all what's being said in the article.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
Explain. Where am I misunderstanding the article Peter?

"They will simply say God does not exist" <- should have being "there is no evidence God exists."
They are not drawing a conclusion from the statement. They are saying what many sane people have been saying for centuries, science and religion do not mix. It's like saying that a university is saying "God does not exist" because
it teaches NO theology in any of it's science related courses. In the same light the particular sub-atomic particle mentioned by me earlier on, is also not being mentioned or has not been mentioned by universities prior to 2008.
They did not however say that it does not exist. They just don't have data about it and frankly have no proof of its existence. I don't mean this in a literal way - think a bit laterally here - conceptually - the primary school is merely affirming what has been taught in schools including Catholic schools,
that is that God has not been taught in science class. The existence of God cannot be confirmed by the secular education system. Science also does not teach other things such as law, morality, art, ethics, etc. God is for belief - you believe or you don't. Either way there is no proof for or against, because
an atheist may argue, Christians have made God to be such that He cannot be proven - you prove
evolution, Christians say God works via evolution, you find that evolution is spontanous - Christians say
well God made it so or God works on some plane here and that's how He functions - so can't be proven or disproven because God does not lie in the realm of rational science. Believers may say: God doesn't show Himself and has His own reasons, or He can only show himself through the Holy Spirit or through kind acts you perform or have done upon you or the gleam in the eyes of an innocent child etc etc.
As said science has given up and said - look we didn't find God on the moon and not in space and the stars are not windows to His house etc - and we didn't find Him in the subatomic milieu etc.
So we can't prove He exists but a person with common sense may argue - because we argued other things this way - that God therefore does not exist. All the article is saying is that the school is re-affirming the point that God and religious beliefs are not scientific principles - that kids won't find that answer in a test tube - science isn't there to judge that - it's there to OBJECTIVELY REPORT
on what it finds and if it can't find something it doesn't automatically mean it's not there unless we
change scientific conventions to mean that. Anyway the school isn't drawing a conclusion on that.

Anywa Phronesis has gotten it right.

You've said already that no science can prove or disprove God. Well they're saying that - LOL. I can't explain it any more clear terms.
 
Last edited:

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
wishful thinking?
That would imply that the person who was reasoning FOR God wanted God to exist. With Kant it wasn't the case. The guy was proving the opposite philosophically and came to the conclusion that God must exist. He didn't want it that way - Kant wasn't even a believer.

Can you comprehend that?
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
Google Definitions.

Philosophy:
  • doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
  • the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
  • any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

Proof:
  • a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it

I dont see how Philosphical Proofs can be used as proof that God exists.
As the philosophies cant be proven.

Isn't this like quoting to Bible to prove the Bible?
No. You're confusing philosophy with Theology. The two can overlap but they don't have to. There are many schools of philisophy, Greek, Roman (Western),
Eastern and various more modern forms based on various things, including atheist philosophy. Philosophy is interesting albeit a very complicated subject and I'm not an expert at it so I'm not going to do the research for you but suffice to say in philosophical circles there are conceptual proofs for and against the existence of God and they aren't merely quotes from the Bible,
in fact they usually arent'. They may be existential instead and most philosphers did not reference the Bible. Philosophy is taught at universities
and is seen as a respected science - you can even apply and do a course or buy some books on this science. Remember philosophy gives rise to law, morals, ethics, abstract concepts - in fact philosophy is abstract.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
No direct reference to the Bible perhaps, plenty of reference to the god mentioned in the Bible however, and the proof of god requires one to believe that morality can only come from a god.
This isn't as simple as that. Do yourself a favour and read a more detailed source. This discussion isn't about that.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,376
Torture the Bible long enough and you can get it to say anything.
Torture something for it's own sake. The Bible is a morality manual and not a historical book. Everything in it has to be contextualised to it's current age. Back in the days of Stone Age or Bronze Age if you want to be pedantic, I won't source this as I don't care, laws were of a particular harshness. As people settled down and became more tolerant they changed their understanding of various things in the Bible. However, certain core messages remained the same in understanding. You ask HOW DO PEOPLE KNOW?
Well they know because they are continously divinely inspired. Religion or Christianity is not a dead religion - if you believe in IT, you believe that God guides it - guides the Church - sometimes people err, however they return to
their course. The Bible must not be seen as an idol however.


Since proto-Hebrews originate from the Egyptian Haribu tribe (during the bronze age).. I dont think Israel or the Jewish religion existed in the stone age. Most of the OT is a mixture of Egyptian and Summerian laws and practices.
Which are also common to all men. Hence the Church has said that God made all men moral, even disbelievers. However not everyone was 100% moral and not 100% of the time. The Mayans slaughtered thousands of captives in human sacrifices for example. However on a simple level, they may have meant well. It was a nasty way to show it - I agree.


From theology to a police state in one sentence. I live Christian analogies and metaphors :D
Well an extreme harsh form of life - in the desert with limited resources with
enemy tribes nearby - I gave you a similar example. It also has nothing to do with 'police states'. Whenever a serious emergency occurs - eg a natural disaster - the Army is called in to protect, assist and guard. Civilian laws are suspended for the greater good of the nation. It's the same in a war situation,
a soldier who falls asleep on guard duty while the country is at peace may end up spending a week at the stockade while the same soldier who falls asleep while on active duty in a war zone may be summarily courty martialled and executed - all depending on the operating procedures of the military force involved. Your attempt to draw some sort of police state analogy and therefore taint me as being some sort of police state sympathiser is ridiculous.
I actually lived under a police state, did you? Well maybe if you're Black,
if you're white sorry, doesn't count - so don't lecture me about Police States. :)



If you attended Catechism as you should have done you'd have said Amen,
a long time ago. LOL.

And he has written none since then? Whats the complete list of criteria to be identified as "Gods word"? How can I accept the authority on whats in the Bible?

How do you A) Identify something is divinely inspired and B) Why did God stop writing?
Some Christians, eg Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit, the 3rd part of the Trinity of God - guides mankind and the Church. Elements of the scriptures which come more to prominence by - call it even osmosis (lol) are considered such. Yes I know its difficult for some to understand this. That's why Christians believe in a 'Living God' - you know - having a personal relationship with God. Some churches attach more formality to this, others less.

John 16:13:
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”



We should change the name of this forum to Theology : For and Against as there is not a lot of Philosophy in this section.
 
Last edited:

grayston

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,733
This isn't as simple as that. Do yourself a favour and read a more detailed source. This discussion isn't about that.
This discussion is about you being taken in by a media person's attempt to kickstart debate through misrepresentation. The only person saying that there isn't a "God" in this discussion is the journalist who wrote the original headline.

On the other hand, if the headline had read "Students to be taught that God's existence cannot be proven by accepted scientific means", the article wouldn't have fit in the newspaper, so you appreciate the guy's dilemma.

The only way you can prove god exists is through faith. Philosophy - interesting as it is - can't change that.
 
Top