Obama hostilie towards christians?

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm an atheist, not a satanist. But I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

Many Satanists are atheists.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; good.

Now, which of those 4 choices are consistent with the theory of evolution?

All of them.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; well I was going to say a,c and d and not sure about b; but fine, let's say all of them.

So, when teaching evolution, which does not exclude the possibility of deism or God existing, what would be so terrible about telling the children one theory exists that God created the Universe and caused evolution? Don't we present alternative interpretations of historical events in school curricula all the time?

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that some people believe a God or other supernatural power was behind it all.

Originally posted by rwingett
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of time and the origin of the universe.

Except that it assumes the Earth is of a certain age and went through certain states (no oxygen first, etc).

Originally posted by sh76
So, do you have a problem if I, as biology teacher, get up on front of my 10th grade biology class, and say:

"Okay, ladies and gentlemen, today we're going to learn about evolution and the origin of life. We're going to focus on what the investigations conducted on the basis of the scientific method that humans have developed has indicated. We will learn abo ...[text shortened]... Either way, we will be focusing on what can be verified by scientific investigation."

?

As an atheist science teacher - I think that would be an excellent start for a lecture.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Except that it assumes the Earth is of a certain age and went through certain states (no oxygen first, etc).

No. Evolution describes how species change over time, nothing else.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that some people believe a God or other supernatural power was behind it all.

In history or sociology or psychology -- nothing.

In earth science there is everything wrong with it. Nothing about God and His relation to earth is observable or verifiable. There are no 'facts' about God -- nothing to check, and no way to check it.

Science should not say anything about God. And people should not, in God's name, say anything about science.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay. We're getting closer to agreement.

Let's see if we can crystalize this.

1) Is the origin of the Universe a scientific issue?

2) Is there a completely reliable scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe?

3) Is action by some sort of God one hypothesis?

4) Can some sort God be consistent with the Big Bang theory?

5) Is there any ...[text shortened]... resenting this as one alternative hypothesis?

My answers:

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

1) Yes - "origin" needs defining though. Before the Big Bang the universe was a singularity. Are we interested in the Big Bang or in the origin of the singularity?

2) See 1)...but no. There are no completely reliable scientific explanations for anything to get philosophical about it.

3) If it can be tested and disproven, then yes. If it cannot be disproven, no. A hypothesis needs to be clearly testable. The possible existence and actions of God are generally not thought to be testable.

4) Sure! However it would not be consistent with the Occam's Razor principle. As my Philosophy 101 teacher put it - why explain a clock's mechanism with invisible leprechauns if we already know how it works via mechanics and electricity?

5) See 4)...but no.

6) Unlikely. See 3) However, assuming the religious explanation can be tested and potentially disproven, then sure...but most people who believe in God aren't comfortable with this. Faith is belief without or even despite evidence, right?

7) See 6). I don't know, but remember...a hypothesis must be able to be disproven to be a hypothesis. Since you answered yes I'd like to hear what hypothesis you had in mind and what hole it fills in.

Originally posted by sh76

I postulate:

- Teaching the Big Bang theory without mentioning the possibility of God is akin to teaching atheism (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that). You're saying that the World came into existence through natural processes and are not mentioning the possibility of a deity.

Everything everyone has said against that has been along t ...[text shortened]... ying Spaghetti Monster. This truly is one of the more mature groups of posters on the net.

You are biased. It is not teaching atheism to not mention God in a scientific explanation. It would be teaching atheism to tell the children that there is no God and that no God had anything to do with the creation of matter, energy and the laws of physics.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Many Satanists are atheists.

Don't talk such hogwash.
you can't be a satanist (satan being the fallen angel Lucifer) and atheist at the same time.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay.

You're a science teacher. You're explaining the Big Bang.

14 year old Tommy raises his hand and asks, "But didn't God create the Universe?"

What do you answer?

"First of all - what do you mean by create? You might mean either the creation of matter, energy and the laws of physics...or the Big Bang - which is a different event. However, in either case, nobody knows. Maybe! The thing is, very few believers in God are willing to offer up a hypothesis that might disprove God. Nobody has a blessing sniffing dog that I know of, or a miracle detector. God is not science. However many people who believe in God, such as Catholics and Deists, have great respect for science. You might want to chat with them about the issue. Since this is not a religion class, and God is not a scientific concept (because it's not testable), we won't spend any more time on this."

Originally posted by shavixmir
Don't talk such hogwash.
you can't be a satanist (satan being the fallen angel Lucifer) and atheist at the same time.

Satanists are often atheists who embrace their passions, including "dark" passions like jealousy, rage and hatred.

Unlike Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism does not focus on literally worshiping Satan, but, rather uses "Satan" as a symbol of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

The quote used as a reference in Wiki does not seem to support the statement I quoted. Let me see if I can find a better reference.

EDIT - Here:

"Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!' ”
—High Priest Peter H. Gilmore,

^ Interview with Peter H. Gilmore, David Shankbone, Wikinews', November 5, 2007.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Satanists are often atheists who embrace their passions, including "dark" passions like jealousy, rage and hatred.

[i]Unlike Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism does not focus on literally worshiping Satan, but, rather uses "Satan" as a symbol of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Sat ...[text shortened]... s not seem to support the statement I quoted. Let me see if I can find a better reference.

Don't be ridiculous!
An atheist who embraces their dark passions is not a Satanist. It's just an atheist who embraces his/her dark passions. Or me when I'm drunk.

To be a Satanist, you have to actually believe in gods and fairies and leprechauns.

Or, it's the term the Catholic church used to refer to people who believed in "the old faith". And they weren't atheist either. They believed in the old faith (like druids, witches and what-not).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Satanists are often atheists who embrace their passions, including "dark" passions like jealousy, rage and hatred.

Unlike Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism does not focus on literally worshiping Satan, but, rather uses "Satan" as a symbol of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Sat ...[text shortened]...
^ Interview with Peter H. Gilmore, David Shankbone, Wikinews', November 5, 2007.

Yeah. I think anyone who refers to themselves as "High priest" is not really the sound base for an argument.

In fact, his full title is: Magus Peter H. Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You are biased. It is not teaching atheism to not mention God in a scientific explanation. It would be teaching atheism to tell the children that there is no God and that no God had anything to do with the creation of matter, energy and the laws of physics.

Science does not demand that reasonable alternatives to the liturgy be taught, for example, that Mary was far from a virgin -- that she slept around and got knocked up so had to be married off quick. Nor does science demand teaching the possibility that Jesus was, "just an itinerant preacher."

Hence there is no need to mention unscientific hypotheses like God in science class.