Students to be taught there isn't a God

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#61
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.
I know science and religion dont mix.. whats your point? What am I misunderstanding? Ive said for a long time the concept of God is beyond the limitations of science.

You told a forumite I was misunderstanding the article.:confused: Or were you just making stuff up again to fit your reality?
 
Last edited:

cocococo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
2,927
#63
I say foook that and let the kids themselves choose, maybe the kid would have gone a religious way but now you screwed it up for him/her, same goes for kids that might have never wanted to learn about any religion, dont force them.
This seems to be the point here. Also if no one taught any kids about religion none of them would know about god and this would not be necessary. So your point is mute as the children wouldn't have a choice (unless of course if mohammed or jesus made a personal appearance to every single kid)
 

cocococo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
2,927
#65
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.
Yes and no one was using this particle to convert the heathen masses from their hellish ways.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,141
#66
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?
That's certainly comprehensible, but I doubt Kant's position is the norm in this debate.

Unless you consider that the religion is merely a cynical tool of control.
 
Top