Australian Schools To Teach There Is No God

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]

Sauce

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Edit: And before theists start ranting and flaming, this is an elective subject and parents can choose not to have their children in the clas s

matthayter700

I don't think religion or atheism should be taught in schools.DrSponge

I disagree. Religious studies classes are extremely interesting, and so long as A.) the classes are electives and B.) the classes are not preaching and favoring one religion over anothber, I think it would be great.

If they really want to be fair, they shouldn't teach either way... and let the person decide for themselves what to believe.Cube_of_MooN

Religion nor Atheist classes should be taught in Public schools. And this is coming from an atheist.trix5817

The topic is misinforming.. They are simply saying there is no evidence for the existence of god.sSubZerOo

God or not, I wonder how these teachers really know what they're teaching.

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Red-XIII

Yes, finally, schools are no longer forced to teach religion as fact. 2008 will forever be remembered as the year humankind cast off the cruel yoke of theism

How can they possibly prove the non-existence of God :|

How about they don't teach anything about god? Wouldn't that be more in line with separation of church and state?

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Cherokee_Jack

Yes, finally, schools are no longer forced to teach religion as fact. 2008 will forever be remembered as the year humankind cast off the cruel yoke of theism

How can they possibly prove the non-existence of God :|

123625

How about they don't teach anything about god? Wouldn't that be more in line with separation of church and state?

sonicare

I don't think religion or atheism should be taught in schools.DrSponge

Sauce

I think this is an interesting move. For centuries we've been told from the day we're born that there's a God but finally Humanism is been given some time and consideration.

Edit: And before theists start ranting and flaming, this is an elective subject and parents can choose not to have their children in the clas s

Then I'd like to hear your response to the Kalam Cosmological argument danwallacefan

How can they possibly prove the non-existence of God :|

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="matthayter700"] Teaching that there's no evidence for the existance of god isn't the same as teaching that there's no god; the former is a solid claim and the latter is an unprovable claim. dsmccracken

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Then I'd like to hear your response to the Kalam Cosmological argument dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Then I'd like to hear your response to the Kalam Cosmological argument danwallacefan

So; God never existed?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Then I'd like to hear your response to the Kalam Cosmological argument danwallacefan

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Then I'd like to hear your response to the Kalam Cosmological argument or the Leibnizian cosmological argument or the Moral argument or the myriad of evidence for the resurrection of Jesusdanwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Here's one response: if the cosmological argument states that the universe needs a "first cause", then so does God. Why do you accept that the Universe requires a creator, but not God?Murj

So; God never existed?

very simple, God never began to exist. The universe on the other hand did begin to exist ~13.7 billion years ago. danwallacefan

So; God never existed?

How do you know God never began to exist? The cosmological argument depends on the understanding that ALL things need a first cause. dsmccracken

You really seem to be mistaking the Kalam Cosmological argument(which is the cosmological argument that I am using) with the Thomist Cosmological argument. This is what the Kalam argument says:
1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2: THe universe began to exist
Therefore: THe universe has a cause.

If God is exempt from that demand, then why not the universe?dsmccracken

I'm really going to try not to snap halfway through this discussion of ours because there is a serious ignorance of the subject conveyed in this post.

That's not evidence, those are claims from the Bible, the same Bible that (kinda) claims Jesus is devine in the first place. dsmccracken

I'm going to have to explain to you how we got the New Testament. The New Testament documents were written separately from eachother from 45 AD to 90 AD starting with either Mark or James, and ending with Revelation. Starting in the very early 2nd century, Marcion created a canon of books which he heavily edited. This caused the orthodox Christian church to assemble authoritative books into a canon of the New Testament. This process ended in 367 AD with Athanasius. Just because the later christians believed that the New Testament was scripture does not mean that they are not to be trusted. Secondly, the fact that the New Testament claims Jesus to be divine is in no way relavent to the discussion. That's like saying that because Julius Caesar believed that he was a great general, his testimony is therefore untrustworthy when reconstructing the Siege of Alesia.

That is like trying to use Gandalf's deeds in the Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.dsmccracken

This is a completely irrelevant comparison. First off, the Gospels clearly are intended to be historical works of the Bios Genre. Secondly they are extensively rooted in the testimony of hte original eyewitnesses.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] How do you know God never began to exist? The cosmological argument depends on the understanding that ALL things need a first cause. danwallacefan

You really seem to be mistaking the Kalam Cosmological argument(which is the cosmological argument that I am using) with the Thomist Cosmological argument. This is what the Kalam argument says:
1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2: THe universe began to exist
Therefore: THe universe has a cause.

If God is exempt from that demand, then why not the universe?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="DrSponge"]I don't think religion or atheism should be taught in schools.dsmccracken

it doesn't try to

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]it could just as easily apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. dsmccracken

Did you really think that one through? The Kalam argument tries to prove that a conscious mind caused the universe. the FSM is just an abstraction of the natural world.

So what if one stated that the universe existed atemporally prior to the big bang? dsmccracken

So lemme get this straight, before temporal existence itself came into existence, temporal existence existed? :lol::lol::lol: this does nothing to escape the vicious infinite regress which occurs when one posits a beginningless temporal existence.

What proof is there of God's atemporalness?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="DrSponge"]I don't think religion or atheism should be taught in schools.sSubZerOo

I'm really going to try not to snap halfway through this discussion of ours because there is a serious ignorance of the subject conveyed in this post.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] That's not evidence, those are claims from the Bible, the same Bible that (kinda) claims Jesus is devine in the first place. danwallacefan

I'm going to have to explain to you how we got the New Testament. The New Testament documents were written separately from eachother from 45 AD to 90 AD starting with either Mark or James, and ending with Revelation. Starting in the very early 2nd century, Marcion created a canon of books which he heavily edited. This caused the orthodox Christian church to assemble authoritative books into a canon of the New Testament. This process ended in 367 AD with Athanasius. Just because the later christians believed that the New Testament was scripture does not mean that they are not to be trusted. Secondly, the fact that the New Testament claims Jesus to be divine is in no way relavent to the discussion. That's like saying that because Julius Caesar believed that he was a great general, his testimony is therefore untrustworthy when reconstructing the Siege of Alesia.

That is like trying to use Gandalf's deeds in the Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo.dsmccracken

This is a completely irrelevant comparison. First off, the Gospels clearly are intended to be historical works of the Bios Genre. Secondly they are extensively rooted in the testimony of hte original eyewitnesses.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Agreed. I don't believe in God, but I don't think it's right to teach children Atheism.123625

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] How does one teach atheism? They are merely stating that there is no evidence of god, this should be a given in the science class.. sSubZerOo

What I'm saying is that there is no point to teaching that :| Science should stick to teaching facts, otherwise it would have to go over everything that has no evidence for it.

Unfortunately gamespot is acting kind of retarded today and is only allowing me to post half of my response to your "response" to the Kalam cosmological argument. Perhaps gamespot would be wise to stop running their servers on the pentium III processors.

Your comparison between the NT and LOTR is still moot

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]The writings about Mohammad weren't exactly written as a fairytale, dsmccracken

They of course were written later and aren't rooted in eyewitness testimony. and the fact that Uthman could have changed the manuscripts before he delivered them should give us caution as to the textual state of them.

mind. Bringing up their authorship is odd, since there is much debate about who the actual authors were, dsmccracken

The debate of course is undue. There is a rather wide abundance of evidence that they were written by the traditional authors and that they are extensively in eyewitness testimony.

and some are left out (which is suspicious)... turning mud into birds, anyone?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

it doesn't try to

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

Did you really think that one through? Did YOU? Apparently I'm not the first to think of it. The Kalam argument tries to prove that a conscious mind caused the universe. the FSM is just an abstraction of the natural world. A conscious mind, yes, but in whose tradition?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]So what if one stated that the universe existed atemporally prior to the big bang? danwallacefan

So lemme get this straight, before temporal existence itself came into existence, temporal existence existed? :lol::lol::lol: this does nothing to escape the vicious infinite regress which occurs when one posits a beginningless temporal existence. Yet it's fine to assume that a creator being existed outside of time? That's convenient... and absurd.

What proof is there of God's atemporalness?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="123625"] Science should just teach the proven science, what point is there in teaching things with no evidence? 123625

What I'm saying is that there is no point to teaching that :| Science should stick to teaching facts, otherwise it would have to go over everything that has no evidence for it.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] How is it a teaching as so much a statement? It can be summed up in one sentence.. You guys make it sound like it will be as indepth as a scientific theory when it isn't.. Honestly who cares one way or the other.sSubZerOo

What I'm saying is that there is no point to teaching that :| Science should stick to teaching facts, otherwise it would have to go over everything that has no evidence for it.

Yes I have, I'm saying such a thing shouldn't be taught in science class as pinned out from the beggining of this situation.

Did YOU? Apparently I'm not the first to think of it. dsmccracken

oh good lord :lol: I can't believe there are other people who take that objection seriously. and I woulden't link to wikipedia articles. It's statement that "zeno's paradoxes show the existence of actual infinites" is deliciously absurd.

A conscious mind, yes, but in whose tradition?dsmccracken

it doesn't try to prove a specific God, just a God.

Yet it's fine to assume that a creator being existed outside of time? That's convenient... and absurd.dsmccracken

How is it absurd? if the cause of temporal existence is atemporal (and it has to be atemporal since something which exists outside of temporal existence cannot be temporal) it must be a God.

That's a pretty big "IF." dsmccracken

if there is a cause for temporal existence, it MUST be non-temporal. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you if you can't comprehend that simple fact.

What evidence is there besides wishful thinking? dsmccracken

*insert above statement*

BTW, pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes is pretty low, especially on a casual e-forum, dsmccracken

so is bringing up red herring fallacies.

and is made worse by the fact that I'm not exactly butchering the language every second sentence. What, should I point out your punctuation now? You've missed a couple of periods...

dsmccracken

Unfortunately gamespot is acting kind of retarded today and is only allowing me to post half of my response to your "response" to the Kalam cosmological argument. Perhaps gamespot would be wise to stop running their servers on the pentium III processors.

Your comparison between the NT and LOTR is still moot

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

They of course were written later and aren't rooted in eyewitness testimony. and the fact that Uthman could have changed the manuscripts before he delivered them should give us caution as to the textual state of them. The first copies of the NT weren't handed from the authors directly, were they? And here I thought that they were originally anonymous, only to be (magically) attributed to MML&John around 180... And what of the OT?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]mind. Bringing up their authorship is odd, since there is much debate about who the actual authors were, danwallacefan

The debate of course is undue. Of course! There is a rather wide abundance of evidence that they were written by the traditional authors and that they are extensively in eyewitness testimony. Evidence? Such as?

and some are left out (which is suspicious)... turning mud into birds, anyone?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

*insert above statement* Same, but even more so, with a side of even more serious wishful thinking.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]BTW, pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes is pretty low, especially on a casual e-forum, danwallacefan

so is bringing up red herring fallacies. Such as?

and is made worse by the fact that I'm not exactly butchering the language every second sentence. What, should I point out your punctuation now? You've missed a couple of periods...

dsmccracken