Atheism is not even something that can be taught, it is purely descriptive of a state of thought that does not rely on supernatural assumptions.

Supernatural beliefs or not, miracles do not happen in science class.

Agreed. Also, I love your last post devilesk, I'm glad I'm not the only one who seems to think all PwnPirate's arguements are just shoving words into peoples mouths that were never uttered. Although he does make some good points sometimes...

I didn't entirely agree with felagund's post either, but I knew what he was getting at and didn't object any small details in it.


I think my school has some type of bible study club...

Because his first statement (#1) clearly shows that he believes evidence supports the big bang opposed to creationism, so there is good evidence that he supports atheism.
That was really just an assumption on my behalf, I think he's advocating atheism and so I posted that, and if not, then he can tell me so.
What you are doing is you are isolating parts of his post to suggest things. He posted a topic about creationism and that's significant to what he means, for example: I can easily take phrases from your sentences and make it sound like you are a racist.
First quote refers to this.
That's not my argument. I'm saying that if he is to speak against creationism with the logic he is using, the same logic could be turned the other way anyways. Even if he is not talking about Atheism, this still applies because he's not arguing against it either, he's only attack creationism.

I have already explained to you how siding with people without providing your own argument is bad posting.

I just wanted to reply to what MA said in his first post.

People smoke and drink because they think it's cool and they're stupid. It's not like they think nothing bad will ever happen to them, they just don't care or don't plan to live that long anyway. They still know it's true, they're just stupid.

Also DARE is a stupid program which is why it was shut down.

Creationism is absurd, the big bang hypotheses is pretty useless, but the theory of evolution has huge practical implications in medicine and biology.

Who is to say what's right or wrong? Creationist believe that we are blasphemous to think we could have evolved from monkeys or chimps since the Bible states we were created in His image. But, evolutionists think the creationists aren't scinece based. So, we have science and we have belief... two totally different ideals.

"Creationism is absurd, the big bang hypotheses is pretty useless, but the theory of evolution has huge practical implications in medicine and biology."

How can you just say: Creationism is absurd? Blah. blah, blah science. Science this science that. Sometimes you must go with your beliefs. How can you distinctly know that you love someone? That is not a measurable feeling. That cannot be proved or disproved by science. The same goes for religion, or the lack there of.

I heartly support the idea of providing both sides of the story -- creationism and religion -- in classrooms so that students are well informed about both and that their education about past, present, and future dilemmas is hieghtened.

'Love' deals with either the existance of a soul or suchlike, or with the myriad of various connections and actions going on in our brain, in which case it's a difficult-to-measure phenomenon going on in something that we don't fully understand.
Thinking that one part of an image looks like something it doesn't before testing it lends uncertainty to whether or not it is as we think it looks or not. But once you test it, 'feelings' don't mean much, do they? While you can argue that there is still a level of uncertainty after testing it, as we have no concrete means of being absolutely certain that our test was accurate... there's not really much point. When we load up an image of an optical illusion on our computers, I doubt that our far-more imperfect, biased sense and interpretation of vision is going to be more likely to accurately tell us if Tile A really is darker than Tile B than when we check what the color values for the pixels are.

So... what you are telling me is that what humans observe is always that way and that our observations do not affect the outcome? Strange, I thought the complete opposite was true. And, are you saying that something a human creates -- a human, by which, you said was imperfect -- can create something that is perfect in its most natural form? Strange, I thought the complete opposite was true.

So you are telling me that love CAN be measured? That it can be pointed out? Therefore, we can be able to CHANGE who we love, who we admire, who we respect. I sir, do not want to live in such a world.

Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom. On the other hand, I don't want to reiterate all of my points, so you can always go back and reread my first post yourself.

How can you teach religion and be marked aetheist? And, you put "For #1..." withour putting a "For #2..."

No, refer to...
...in which case it's a difficult-to-measure...
While you can argue that there is still a level of uncertainty after testing it...

No, refer to...
...as we have no concrete means of being absolutely certain that our test was accurate...
I doubt [that we're superior]...

In a particular possible case, yes.
Of course, being able to 'change' who we love would, so far as I imagine, something that would come far after our self-control abilities are beyond the point where it's necesary or possibly even applicable.
Good for you. I don't particularily care at the moment.

[edit]
Easy. By being an atheist that's teaching religion. Teaching != believing.
Well, he did give a second comment of note.

Measurement does change the result.

The reason people assume science cannot explain love and emotions, is because they want to remain ignorant, out of fear that they will not be able to love someone if they know how it works.

Also, nothing in science is absolute truth. A hypothesis is an idea, a hypothesis must make implications and predictions to be useful, If the hypothesis has many predictions, some of which are tested and confirmed, it becomes a theory. Scientific theories are held on a tentative basis until they are replaced(by a theory that explains everything the old one does, in addition to new stuff) or falsified(one of the predictions was tested and was not verified). Science has heroes, not prophets.

Creationism on the other hand is assumed to be true, and all contradicting evidence is ignored. I have no problem with creation myths being taught, but they should be taught in a religious studies class, with no assumption of veracity.

How can you teach religion and be marked aetheist? And, you put "For #1..." withour putting a "For #2..."

Also, the people who say they believe in creation as stated in the Bible should not just assume that everything said about it in the Bible happened exactly as stated, word for word. Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally; some is open for a bit of interpretation. The only part about this that really conflicts (if taken literally) is about the time it took. When it says it took 6 days, it may not have even meant Earth days; it could have been by the length of a day wherever God is, for example, which could be millions or billions of Earth years.

That senence is so hypocritical...What evidence is there of the big bang theory? its so ridiculous its not even funy. Were the scientists there when it happened? No, you have no evidence of the big bang theory, so stop screwing with ppl's minds by saying theres no proof of God, but a bunch of proof of the big bang. I think if scientists want to be able to share their idea about how the universe startes, then so should the christians. Little kids are influenced easily, and ppl are filling their little minds with the belief that there was a big bang, yet they don't have any proof. Ether they should just be taught at home, and not at school, or they should hear other ideas about how the universe was started.

I hope you're talking about a private school.

No proof? Feel free to read: link

Hubble's observations, the expanding universe, etc. etc. Although it is just a theory, it is the most scientifically sound theory we have.

If anything Creationism isnt a science subject. Im also against a public school supporting any one religious teaching. If we are to promote the equality of all religions in America we shouldnt be preaching anyones beliefs in our public school system. If private schools want to do it, let them. Infact most private schools in my area are some christian branch. (Theres so very many and i dont care enough to keep track.)

You only need to click submit once, and apparently lots of people posted at the same time too...


I can say, without a doubt, you know next to nothing about the big bang theory. Just from that comment. And, we can't just teach "the christians version of how the universe started", we'd have to teach all religions. And in turn from there, even assuming the improbable, that we could teach all religions in schools, it is not viable. Every religion can make contradicting arguements while both having equal grounds to stand on, it is inherently something that cannot be taught in school (if keeping the intentions of school honest). It is something to be kept as a personal decision, because that is all it can be, teaching it in schools would send all the wrong messages, in many, many ways. I can't believe I even have to make this arguement.


Yeah, umm, I don't know why people think that a belief in any modern accepted religion holds more weight than Greek and Roman mythology. (couldn't find a better thing to quote for this one, close enough)



I side with Felagund. He is obviously superior to PwnPirate (no arguement needed).

It provides more and more evidence and makes the argument stronger and stronger. However, it does not definitely "PROVE" it. That's what an inductive argument is.