Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

I'm glad you agree with me, despite the fact that you felt the need to repeat my point as if I didn't make it clear enough. Neverthless, I think it's a bit strange that the entire Texas legislature felt the need to involve itself into what you believe is a literary "elective," since the class is mandated by the state - and not just as literature, but also as "history." Can JD Salinger be far behind?

One of the desires of the legislature is that the class be taught in an "objective" manner. That's very clever, (especially for our state yahoos), since anyone who has studied literature knows that the only way to teach such a class is by "textual evidence." In other, words for literature to not be subjective, it must be taught mostly by a literal reading of the work in question.

Objectivity in literature is elusive, but there are some guidelines in literary theory if one wishes to be "objective:"

So, how is the objective of the state mandate to be taught? I guess we will find out.

 

From your previous statements, you have demonstrated that you don't take the word of the bible literally. Granted, you don't believe that it's in any way metaphorical, but you allow for many possibilities. Golems aren't mentioned or implied in the bible, you don't take the story of the first humans literal, and I remember you were even open to the possibility that the Big Bang and aeons of evolution are real. Perhaps it´s not too obnoctious of me to say, that exposure to new information on the internet, made it impossible for you to take the bible absolutely literally?

 

Actually an analysis of the video discredited it. You could have taken a critical look at it prior to cheering it on, or even taken a step back from it after other people pointed out the rather large flaws in its argument but you did neither.

Fundamentalists are often willing to try to edit reality rather than let it challenge their beliefs/ideology.

Thereby you are arguably one because you refuse to examine your own/dodge the issue. There are Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Hindus, Fundamentalist Muslims, and, it appears, Fundamentalist Atheists.

Also I doubt it is bigotry on the part of the questioner when he/she questions/criticizes someone who makes a broad based & biased comment.

For example: Someone says all black people are thieves and should be treated as such. A black person says no (especially if he or she speaks from personal experience), points out why, and gives examples of black people who aren't. It would be illogical for the first person who originally made the comment to claim the black person is the one who is prejudiced.

Yet you seem to be doing something similar (by suggesting dogma or prejudice rather than the holes in the logic of Fundamentalist Atheism & what it preaches).


I addressed the video (which was something you brought up).

I may not have been overly kind (but still within the realm of being civil-no swearing at others) in my descriptions of it (which I feel were pretty accurate) in part because the video was annoying and meant to be a broad attack on many religions.

And (maybe still being annoyed influencing how I did this) I added to the discussion (in addition to responding to what you brought to it) with the pointedly asking you if you are follower of Fundamentalist Atheism (as you seem to be) and mentioning some of the flaws in it (that one doesn't have to be a religious person to notice) and seeing how you would responded to them. At this point (maybe I could have brought them up in a more gentle manner, but I still stayed relatively civil) it looks like your response is to try to dodge them.

 

Your words indicated that, but putting it as an apparent response to my claim that those who want to teach Creationism in school, even alongside evolution, were a minority cast that in a little doubt. You seemed to be presenting it as evidence that I was mistaken.

Actually, everything I've seen on it says it is an elective. The only mandate is that schools offer it. Actually, the bill itself seems rather sparse on details of application.

An "objective teaching" of the Bible is indeed a rather grey area, but even a literal reading only needs to teach what the Bible says, and it's impacts on modern society. The idea that it's right is something else entirely. That's probably what was meant by the "objective" part.

Coin, you seem to be confused about the term "literal". I don't believe the Bible is the be-all-and-end-all-font-of-all-truth-and-knowledge, but I do believe that what it says is true (within literary limitations, the Psalms are not meant to be taken literally). I do believe in the Genesis 1 account of creation, completely and whole-heartedly. I just don't believe in a simplistic analysis of it. It says six days, and I believe six days. Modern science, however, recognizes that "six days", even if talking about consecutive 24-hour periods, is not a fixed amount of time. I also believe the account of Adam and Eve, but it never says they were the only homosapiens in existence. The Bible never mentions pumpkins, either, but I still believe in them. A literal reading of the Bible means believing that what it says is true, not believing that it is the only truth. If I say I ate dinner, you can take that literally, and believe I consumed food at a time in the evening. You can even assume it was typical 'dinner' food, as opposed to Cheerios or such. You can even make guesses and believe it was steak and potatoes, or that I ate out at a Sushi restaurant. It's not spelled out in my statement, but it's 100% consistent with a literal reading of what I said.

You seem to be thinking that your prototypical Fundamentalist Interpretation of the Bible equates to a literal reading. It doesn't. That's just one interpretation (which may or may not be consistent with a literal reading, depending on the details).

 

This is a thread about Darwin, and his theory of evolution. I didn't want it to degenerate into a discussion of our different world views, because that's a road that leads to nowhere.

Apparently our world views made us see very different things. The video made it very clear that Darwin didn't present any evidence that disproved the existance of a God. Darwin only established that here could be no first humans like adam and Eve, from which we all originated. This isn't a broad, deliberate attack on religion. But the side effect of Darwin's theory, is that it brings far-reaching ramifications for the story of Genesis, on which many of the major religions are based. The video also points out that it's only problematic if you take the bible literally.
The end bit about stop worrying, and starting to smell the roses, is definitely a personal opinion. But the narrator is no Bill o'Reilly: she never claimed to be impartial, she even admitted to being a former christian. IMO, you take offense to these statements too quickly. How can any debate be possible, if you won't even allow her to make her case? If anyone attempts to describe evolution, and its consequences to certain religions, will you just see it as an attack? It's not the 'attacker' that stings, but the evidence.

NOG, I guess I take the meaning of literal literal. As for the accusations of being an atheist fundamentalist... I don't know what to say. We went into this before in another thread, about how atheism is a collective term, and how the lack of a belief doesn't constitute a belief. I definitely don't fit the description of an atheist 'believer', since there are NO principals or moral guidelines which I would hold above the scrutiny of rational thought. If I were shown to do so, then I would readily admit that I'm in error, and a poor rationalist to boot. Without these 'fundamentals' to characterize me as a believer, how can I be fundamentalist?

 

No, actually they didn't. My words were "Welcome to Texas." Which would mean a specific situation in one state out of 50. Which part of my words sounded like "you are mistaken?" However, if you lived inside Texas you could be mistaken....

What do you know about classes that are "electives" in a broader sense? For instance, is it possible that a class for me may be a "requirement" at a particular school in a particular program, that may be only an "elective" for someone else. As an example, if I was a literature major, would a class in Shakespeare be a "requirement" for a degree, but still be listed officially as an "elective" for someone else?

So say one, or both my girls, are language arts majors in high school: Is it an elective or a requirement for a degree?

That would be a strange experience for a literature class -- It "only needs to teach what the Bible says?" That would be a "literal" reading of the Bible, which I'm sure some may be comfortable with, but others certainly won't be.

Besides, since you stepped into this comment, explain to us how you would "objectively" explain the "impact of the Bible on modern society." I don't mean a full-blown lesson plan, just one or two comments of a strategy for teaching how the Bible is influential in modern society - from an objective veiwpoint. Like, for instance, why it is mandated by the state as an elective in a public school system, while the Koran is not a mandated Holy book that should be taught -- a purely objective question, since they are both Holy books that have been influential on modern society.

 

The point is, Darwin's theory didn't even do that. If you define 'human' in the scientific sense of Homo Sapien Sapien, then maybe, but that's not how the Bible's original authors defined 'human' (obviously, considering the references to golems in their lore). There may well have been an 'Adam' and an 'Eve', they just couldn't have been the only humans.

Here is another indication that you may be something of a 'fundamentalist'. You generalize problems with subsets to the whole. It isn't 'certain religions' that have a problem with evolution. It's certain individuals and interpretations.

Literal:

Now, those aren't the only definitions, but I don't think you're talking about a mathematical term or a type of computer variable.

What I mean is that it sounded to me (and again does with that last sentence) like you believed your link proved that, at least in Texas, there was a significant movement to teach Creationism alongside Evolution in public schools. If that's not what you meant, then I have no idea why you linked to the article. It was interesting, though. If that was what you meant, though, then I wanted to point out that the article actually has nothing to do with teaching Creationism.

There's a huge difference between College electives and High School electives. In High School, you don't have a 'major'. There's (at least every case I've heard of) a set collection of mandatory classes (English, various histories, various sciences, various maths, etc.) and then a large collection of electives (like band, chorus, shop, art, and computer). The mandatory classes may have some optional variation (whether you take German or French, for example), but usually not much.

Are you actually saying you do have majors in High School in Texas? Wierd. Well, then, I say your children's majors are optional, their choice, and anyone who wants to major in language arts (at any point) had better understand the significance of the Bible on modern culture and literature. If they don't, they'll likely fail significantly.

I'm confused here. Who do you think would (legitimately, we're not talking about nuts here) be offended that their child learned the basic claims and social/historical impacts of a major religion? Would you be similarly offended if the class covered several major world religions and their impacts?

Well, there's the well-established Judeo-Christian basis for our concept of ethics. There's the wide variety of imagery in literature. There's the tens of millions of images of angels all over the place, as well as the imagery of God as an old man in white robes with a long white beard glowing in the sky. Maybe cover the social/historical impacts Christianity had on Rome, Europe, the Middle East. Analyze the (Jewish claim of, at least) origins of the current climate around Israel. You could do quite a study (probably too advanced for this) on Christianity as a medium for Greek thought and how it injected said thought into the forming European super-powers. That's just off the top of my head.

Islam, on the other hand, hasn't had so much influence. In part, this is because it came about much later, while in other part it's because the great Muslim empires all fell, while the great Christian empires spread and seeded. Islam's influence didn't really reach far out of the Middle East and North Africa for a long, long time, and even now it's not too strong outside of those areas. Christianity, on the other hand, laid the foundations for all of the major players in the last several centuries except for China and Japan. The future may change some of those factors, but that's the future, not the past.

 

Or somewhere you may have a harder time defending, especially after you dumped a (propaganda) video (that offended people) right into this discussion that may show something of your world view. In addition to that the thread invites discussion of why the movie may or may not cause a stir. The opinions & world views of both those making the movie and potentially reacting to it are quite valid topics of discussion.

Actually the video decried the Abrahamic religions (I added the bit about not everyone taking the Bible literally). While she admitted not being able to disprove God she did try to launch "a broad, deliberate attack on religion".

Also I notice she used the words "superstition" and "hateful" to refer to Abrahamic religions-implying that is basically what they are (both insulting and misleading to many people's POV but made none the less).

I suspect many people here don't feel Bill O'Reilly is impartial. Also her not claiming to be impartial doesn't somehow void the possibility this video is inaccurate, propaganda, or both.

And she wasn't attempting to describe evolution so much as use it as a tool to attack religions, the evidence she provided was also rather lacking and I (and other people) provided an argument (with some evidence) that showed holes in her logic.

Also she left the impression that there choice between either Abrahamic religions or the Theory of Evolution. This is a false choice as many people (including according to the poll show earlier in this thread) choose both.

Actually in that thread I pointed out how atheism in a number of ways can fit the definition of a belief/idea and is also accepted as such by serious and professional people who try to define terms used in the English language today.

I also may have said that among some (but not all) atheists it is part of their dogma that they never accept the possibility atheism can be an idea or belief. I also don't think I got much of a response when I asked why all the fuss about it.

You appear to be following at least some of the dogma of the atheists I referred to before and you also refused to talk about some of your beliefs (and how well they match of a certain group of people). That isn't admitting error upon scrutiny via rational thought, that is trying to avoid such scrutiny.





About call yourself a "rationalist". I'm guessing most people in their daily lives and in their discussions here try to do that (be rational). One of the things about propaganda is how often a label is the opposite of the real world results. I vaguely recall some environmentalists taking issue with George W. Bush supporting laws that (according to their label when passed through the US Congress) implied they fought pollution but had a real world effect of the opposite when put into practice. I also recall his campaign labeling him a "Reformer with Results" when he was first trying to get into the White House. Chandos (as someone in Texas) may be able to speak to this better than I but I know a number of people felt W's time as a governor showed something other than reform.

Anyway, that is a thought on labels & propaganda. The last paragraph (prior to this) of this comment may be straying off topic but the comment as a whole is a response to things that were brought up in the thread. I have no problem talking further about the movie & if it comes to the USA. Though world views have already been brought up as appropriately fitting into that discussion.

 

Teaching the Bible "literally" is not teaching creationsim? That's odd.

Yes, I had a major in HS, complete with electives. In HS, I majored in business and minored in band. Required classes for me were, economics, business accounting, business law, merchandising and General Business,. and a few others I've forgotten. All of which I needed to complete my degree and graduate.

Not really, depending on the instructor and the class. For instance, in my college classes, it was required reading for the first couple days in a survey class on World Lit. The only book we looked at was Genesis, particularly the creation myth. Then it was looked at again in a Classical lit class, which dealt with three major civilizations of literary traditions: Hebrew, Greek and Roman. Again, we only spent the first week on the Bible, which, I think was Genesis and Job, iirc. But spent a little more time on the actual history of the Hebrews. Then moved on to Greek lit, which was really the centerpiece of the class, and finished with some Roman lit (Virgil, Ovid, etc).

In college, it depends on where you want to go with literature. For instance, if you want to look at closely at Steinbeck, and _East of Eden_, then you may want to be familar with the Gensis story:

Same thing for Melville and _Moby Dick_. In fact, in American lit, it's wothwhile to be familar with some portions of the Bible.

Nevertheless, Darwin has had a profound influence on literature as well. Should he be required for literary studies in Texas as well? Darwinism and Naturalism have a large place in literature: Jack London, HG Wells, TH Huxley and Thomas Hardy, just to name a few....

Where did I say anyone would be offended? Least of all me. I'm just wondering why a work of literature should be taught "objectively." No other work of literature, at least I know of, gets such an honor. You just read it and learn it? "literally," without a subjective point of view? Wow! Maybe the Canterbury Tales and the Odyssey should get the same odd and special kind of treatment. Don't question its point of view, just take it all at face value....

I believe I asked that question about the Koran.

Just as there is a Greek and a Roman one....

Sounds sorta like Zeus as well....

That's entirely subjective. Even if one wishes to teach the Crusades, there are all different points of view regarding them. How about the 30 years' war? or the inquisition? or how about the US: the Salem Witch Trials? Slavery? Remember you are not teaching a history class in the larger sense, but only within the context of the influence of the Bible on these events. How objective or subjective can you make it with those kinds of historical topics?

Wow! THAT'S an objective point of view? I think a lot of history profs may have an issue with that statement. In fact, one could argue that because of the profound influence of Islam, the Crusades were necessary for both the Lords and Popes of Europe.

I think you have been successful in showing a particularly Christian-centric point of view for why you (and some others), believe that the Bible is an important work of literature, and that's valid in a Christian-centric society (like America, and even that's a value judgment on my part). But you've failed terribly on the objective side of all these points.

 

you do know most of southern Spain was Islamic up until the end of the 15th century right? and that Islamic art and thought inspired christian artists through the medieval times and up until, well today actually. the very concept of an arabesque, is Islamic (which the word might betray).

The Osmanic empire which held large parts of Europe and ended up actually threatening the Austria and thereby the Italian states (including the papal state), lasted up until the end of world war I and had a huge influence, not just in the near east and africa, but in the entire world, although Eurocentric (and probably USAcentric) historians tends to ignore this.

 

It still wouldn't fit the definition of fundamentalist. You could get away with calling me biased, unobjective, extreme or radical, since they are more difficult terms to (dis)prove. But a 'fundamentalist' without fundamentals simply won't float. If you believe my upholding a rational scientific approach to things counts as 'fundamentals', then you are implying that there can be NO objectivity atall. If that's the case, rationalists like myself are going to need therapy.

I had a professor who also put a heavy emphasis on the term Judeo-Christian. It seems to me more of an attempt to exclude Islam, Greek and Roman influence, tribal european customs, and many others. If you look into the specifics, then a lot of the features of the 'Judeo-Christian basis' in fact have a different origin. A lot of the bible's festivals were tailored to fit astrological events that were celebrated by earlier cultures, Chandos pointed out the analogy with the bearded overlord Zeus, etc. Islam was most definitely present for a lot of the defining moments of Christianity: From the Crusades, the Moors in Spain, to the Turkish siege of Vienna, Islam played a great role in transforming Christianity into an aggressive, colonising force.
A hotly disputed, but valid hypothesis, is that the authors of the bible were roman. They wrote a book that was heavily political, in order to unify roman religions, and consolidate power to a single worship of a God. If this is the case, then there is no validity to the term Judeo-Christian, since the two religions originated in different places, from different people, for different reasons.

It's uncanny. I'm trying to stick to the subject, but you claim that I'm biased for not allowing you to change the subject. Maybe I was too blunt in exposing your debating technique, but this claim is just ridiculous. If staying on-topic is evasive, then what isn't?
I saw no holes in her logic, although she did make some leaps when talking about religions. Leaps that you obviously find incorrect, and demand to be analysed in detail. That's what happens when a person with an opinion (whether biased or valid, belief or rational conclusion) makes a case. This was only a video of a few minutes length, not enough to debunk the entire 'Judeo-Christo-Islamic' school of religion.

I didn't deny that there are unquestioning, faithful atheists. I'm sure many ex-christians in the States have this approach, since they haven't been educated in the techniques of proper critical thinking. But worldwide, this constitutes a small minority of the atheists out there. It was you who made a 'fuss' about them being everywhere, and 'taking over'.
If you read the thread, you'll see that it's only individuals on the Boards claiming that this is not their personal approach to atheism. I don't find it dogmatic to deny you are something that another person claims you are.

Reversal is a very frustrating phenomenon, it's a debating technique that not only distorts the truth, but attempts to taunt those who know better. For example, claiming that the Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler killed people in the name of atheism. Sound familiar? It takes patience and calm to correctly address such infuriating claims.

 

Having fundamentals and admitting to them are two different things. A "born again" Christian doesn't have to explain what makes him/her "born again" to be so. However they often are open enough to say. You're trying not to be.

Last I checked "a rational scientific approach to things" doesn't encourage dodging issues or refusing to discuss challenges to theories.

I'm not sure you need therapy, just that "rationalists" aren't actually being rational and likely use the word in an Orwellian manner.

It isn't uncanny, its just you trying to duck further analysis (going back to how you aren't actually using "a rational scientific approach to things"-science, via scientific method, is very open to debating things while you are not being so).

The video claimed the Theory of Evolution was enough "to debunk the entire 'Judeo-Christo-Islamic' school of religion." And made that claim more than once. As a piece of propaganda it doesn't have to be correct in making a claim (much propaganda isn't) but it definitely puts it forward.

Did I say they were "everywhere" or "taking over"? I do recall repeatedly saying they don't represent all atheists. I did make a fuss that they promoted intolerance and were as honest and positive a force for society (and honesty therein) as right-wing radio talk show hosts.

Or maybe you have issues putting your own beliefs to the scrutiny you'd like to put others' beliefs to. Pointing out a double standard may result in reversal, but it is hardly unreasonable.

It seems you are the one bring discussion of Hitler to this thread (and that you actually are more than willing to go off topic). One of the things people on the other website brought up was this issue (of Hitler). That leads me to suspect you and they both have read some of the same authors and likely go along with the same ideology the writings of these authors promote-as evidenced by comments each of you have made and that you appear to be using what I suspect are the same "talking points" these authors lay out.

When discussing Hitler people pointed out how he would be quite two-faced when talking about Christianity (praising it in one place and the reverse in another, the difference at these times reflecting who was his audience)-leading to a debate over if he was really that Catholic. In addition, I know that when I have talked about what atheists have done in various nations in a different thread the nations I referred to were France (long before it was under Hitler's temporary rule), Russia, China, and Cambodia.



Discussion of ideology and world views has already been given a place in this thread because of arguments over if and how they may supposedly be influencing the movie distributers. The ideology of Fundamentalist Atheism would be readily agreeable to the notion that promotion of the Theory of Evolution harms religion and therefore religious people (who want to protect their world view from question) could be trying to suppress the showing of this film or are so powerful that distributors who have been more than willing to offend the religious in the past are afraid to now. It is fair to address if your world view matches that of Fundamentalist Atheism. Discussion of world views related to this discussion isn't necessarily off topic (though even if it was you don't seem to mind straying from the topic and have already opened a door to criticizing world views with your comments & the video contained within one).

 

You're so determined to change the subject, that you even accuse me of closedmindedness. I've never encountered such unabashed stubbornness before. You don't even deny that it's you who want to change the subject. I'm flabbergasted!
I explained my motivation quite clearly: If this becomes a discussion about *my* views, then the likely result is that the thread will get heavily sidetracked by religious and political bickering. It will not reflect Darwin atall, since he was a scientist from a previous age, who happened to stumble upon one of life's mechanisms. One that caused great religious upheaval later on. My connection to this is very limited actually: I'm not a representative spokesperson for evolutionary biologists.
But you're relentless, and you'll claim victory unless I engage you in the topic of my views. So here it is:
The term fundamentalist doesn't apply to me, as I explained before (maybe a fundamental rationalist?). Yes I'm an atheist. I could also be labeled an anarchist, since I oppose political demagoguery, and I don't believe any political system can work without objective analysis, or at least safeguards.
I'm opposed to anything that distorts reality by fallaciously appealing to basic emotions, like pride, fear, hate, and desire.
For this reason, religion is simply a facet of the myriad of manipulations used to control people. A number of the problems society faces, off the top of my head:
- Religion
- Monetary-ism (economic slavery, consumerism)
- Drug abuse
- Nationalism
- Extreme pride (in profession, family values, lots of things)
- Gang culture
- Discrimination
- Warfare
- Fear-mongering, demagoguery and other stuff
- let's not forget conspiracies. the real ones, as well as the distracting stories.
They all constitute forms of system abuse, and are harmful to society.

For example, when a japanese person makes a claim on YouTube: "True Japanese people never bow down to any God." Not only do they ignore 'true' religious Japanese in the past, but it's also provocative and nationalistic. Most importantly, such a person has merely ignored their own pitfalls (extreme pride, possibly racism), which have replaced the role of religion, in distorting their reality.

What I'm trying to say, is that objectivity is extremely difficult to achieve. My opinion, is that religion is simply one of many problems that should be tackled. You think that I'm a member of the 'atheists', but in reality everyone has their own pitfalls, which they must climb out of. There are very few 'fundamentalist rationalists', I certainly don't know anyone who would fit the description. I don't view you as an opponent, or an ally, or even someone that needs to be 'fixed'. I only try to identify fallacies, of any kind, and try to have an open debate about them. Stayingon the path of rationality is difficult enough, without someone claiming that the lack of a pitfall, is a pitfall ('atheist fundamentalist').
So, after discussing my world views, do you agree that it has very little atall to do with Darwin, or evolution?

You're forgetting that one must take the Bible literally, for it to even be a problem. As for NOG's version of literalism, he allows for some very imaginitive possibilities, not confirmed in the Bible:
- 6 days meaning 15 billion years, due to time's relativity.
- Adam and Eve not being the only human(oid)s first created.
- Golems. I can't wait for more D&D monsters to colour the Bible; i might even go to church to enjoy the adventures!

 

If you teach the Bible as fact, it is. If you teach it as literature, like A Tale of Two Cities, it isn't. Creationism is the idea that God actually created the universe.

Wow. I've never heard of that. Do colleges pay attention to your HS major when you apply?

I think Darwin's impact on literature is suitably covered through the study of his theory. You could probably dedicate a whole class to a specific analysis of his literary impacts, but that would be graduate level in specialization if nothing else.

Well, the comment that some may be uncomfortable with it made me think they'd be offended. As for the nature of the teaching, I think it entirely depends on what you mean by 'objecctively'. Remember, these weren't writers and publishers, or literary critics or experts, that wrote this. These were lawyers and law makers. Their definition may differ somewhat from yours. Even for me, an 'objective' reading would be one that didn't try to teach any one particular interpretation, much less that it's fact. It may cover things like Long Day Theory and Short Day Theory when talking about Genesis 1, but would present each of them as possible interpretations.

Actually, you asked why the Bible in specific should be legislated. The response is that it's had a substantial impact on western culture. The Koran hasn't. I would have no problem with the Koran being taught alongside it, but honestly, it hasn't had the impact to be enshrined in law yet.

And whadya know, we study Greece and Rome in school! Actually, honestly, I think we need a more in-depth study of each of these as what I got, at least, was little more than the most basic history.

Oh, I wasn't saying that Islam hasn't had any impact, just that it's much more limited. I mean, aside from the Crusades, what major portion of history has had Islam as a major player? Or even nations founded on Islam?

Chandos, no one claimed there was an objective reason for teaching the Bible, just an objective method. Vast parts of education are subjective value judgements. Why do we study Greece and Rome and Europe so much, and all but ignore Egypt and Babylon and India and Mongolia? Why is the fall of Rome such a major subject, but the Great White Pyramid is lucky to even be mentioned as a footnote?

Again, I never meant to say that there was no influence, or that Islam shouldn't be studied, just that the scale of influence between it and Christianity is so vastly different.

Coin, many of your approaches have been far from 'rational' or 'scientific'. You have a history of taking one interpretation and sticking to it, and if that one interpretation is wrong, the whole idea must be. As for your 'fundamentals', I think the idea that religions are all wrong and have caused the majority of the problems in the world works pretty well. I seem to remember you arguing that more than once.

If he taught Judeo-Christian in exclusian, then I'd agree. Most experts I've heard from merely use it to differentiate different sources. There's the Judeo-Christian element, the Greco-Roman element, I honestly don't know how influential the tribal european element has been on our morals, but it made it into holidays at least.

That's not a 'valid hypothesis' because it directly contradicts the evidence. We have copies of many books of the Bible that pre-date Roman influence in the area, and the accurately described history predates Rome itself by centuries. Now, if you meant the New Testament, that's a different matter, but still wildly speculative and unsubstantiated. I could claim that Darwin was actually a satanist and wrote On the Origin of Species in an attempt to overthrow the Church and it'd have as much support.

Coin, worldviews have been on-topic from word one. You may be attempting to re-define the topic, but pplr isn't changing it.

Coin, those 'leaps' were holes in her logic. And, while I'll agree that the video was nowhere close to enough to debunk whole religions, it does seem to have been the specific intent of the video. We're just pointing out that it failed badly.

... And again with the blind bias. Aside from your own unsubstantiated opinions, what makes you think that Christians as a whole 'haven't been educated in the techniques of proper critical thinking'? It would seem pplr and I, at least, are contradicting that idea.

Just wanted to note this one. You've kinda got it backwards there. It's the Bible (or, rather, Jewish mythology commenting on it) that colored D&D.

 

Thank you for actually talking about what you believe and perhaps alluding to why you feel the video you added to the discussion has value.

I may have been stubborn, but it was because you didn't seem to be willing to address a relevant issue.

You did drop in a video that invited bickering about views and one of the themes in this thread was how and if peoples views are affecting the potential distribution of a movie.

The theme of the video didn't actually seem to be one of evolutionary biology so I don't assume you or the woman speaking in it represent evolutionary biology.

Moreover the woman in it didn't seem to be reflecting on its effects (which did cause stir in many circles relating to the discussion of religion). Rather she tried to use the Theory of Evolution as a tool to undo all of the Abrahamic religions with no recognition (not mentioned once in the clip shown) to the many groups within those religions who don't always take the Bible literally.

And

If I only suspected you were an atheist it appears I would be correct. But the question I raised was if you belonged to the Fundamentalist variety.

I think most people can agree with you to a point here (not sure we are staying on topic). Though one of things I wonder about people I would suspect promote Fundamentalist Atheism is that they engage in a type of demagoguery themselves.

If you put the word "demagoguery" into wikipedia you may see a list of methods provided. The woman in the video seemed to use "False dilemma" by suggesting that you had to be either for the Theory of Evolution or the Abrahamic religions (ignoring the often repeated-by people here-point that many go along with both).

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

Many of the advocates of Fundamentalist Atheism seem to use the emotions of.:

pride-Through claiming they are rational and perhaps the only ones who are.

fear-Through claims that religion is only a force of harm throughout human history, thus people who want a peaceful society should fear it.

hate-As with fear people are encouraged to only see religion in a negative light and act to get rid of it.

There is no reason Fundamentalist Atheism (not simple atheism, as I stress that not all atheists even come close to joining this particular group) cannot coexist with or even embrace many of the things on this list. From what I have seen it already embraced, at least partly, "Discrimination", "Fear-mongering, demagoguery and other stuff", and "Extreme pride".

And there is no intrinsic aspect of it that opposes "Warfare", "Gang culture", "Monetary-ism" (I think Ayn Rand have been all for this and still have been part of what I've been describing as Fundamentalist Atheism, though I haven't been thinking about her when I've used the term so the latter point may be debatable), "Drug abuse", and "conspiracies".

I would agree with you in this example except with the point I disagree with the notion that religion is a bad thing in itself. I think it can be bad when it encourages people to do terrible things or think run of the mill leader cannot be wrong in any way (see mind control organizations). But atheism can be the same. There may be an argument here for safeguards but that is different from getting rid of the whole thing.

I can appreciate that you try to identify fallacies, in this case I think I may have identified some that were hard for you to discern.

I'll agree that they may not have much to do with Darwin. But I do wonder a bit if they have an impact on why you may think the movie at hand doesn't have a distributor and I think they likely had an impact on why you were eager to accept that video as accurate and add it to the discussion about this movie.

I didn't forget that. But the video seemed to and this is why I said it suffered from the "False dilemma" fallacy.

 

Formally, literature can be ethier fiction or nonfiction works. For instance, relgious works are often taught as literature. The writings of St. Thomas is a good example, or Jonathan Edwards, for that matter. It would be interesting to teach the Bible as a work of fiction, but I don't think any teacher in the PS system would have the stones for that. I can already see the angry parents storming the school. Besides, I don't think that's what the Texas legislature had in mind.

You've certainly touched on the problem of trying to teach literature objectively. There is a theory of literature which allows for that (I posted it earlier) but that is a strict close reading of the text. It doesn't allow for interpretation of a text.

I asked why the Bible and not the Koran. You response proves the point that the view of Isalm is Christian-centric. If you asked a Muslim, you would get a much different answer. And there are a few Muslims in the Texas public school system.

And the Greek and Roman Gods are taught as mythology. Should we do the same for our Christian God? I don't think so. But as far as I know, it was the Renaissance artists who first painted God in the manner you describe, and they were using classical (Greek and Roman) models in their depictions. God creating Adam by Michelanglo comes to mind. Personally, I believe the Burning Tree is a much more powerful image of God.

Right. But you failed to conjure up an objective method for teaching the Bible, which was my point.

But I'm more curious about what it should be taught as in your opinion. Fiction or nonfiction? I assumed it would be taught as nonfiction, since it is the Bible. This really gets to the heart of the matter for me (and I feel the Texas legislature's):

 

It hasn't had as much of an impact in the US, but on a world scale, it certainly has. I mean, just in sheer populations, the number of Christians and Muslims world wide are both approximately 1.6 billion. While Islam may have not become an organized religion until around 600 AD, it traces it roots through the same history shared by all the Abrahamic religions.

If you wish to know a few things about how Islam has had an impact on history outside of the Crusades, here's a few good topics for your Googling pleasure:

• Fatimid Empire
• Umayyads and the Berber dynasties (those were the ones in modern-day Spain)
• Ayyubid dynasty (and specifically Saladin)
• Mamluk Dynasty
• Ottoman Empire (and the caliphates)
• Safavid Empire
• Mughul Empire

The history of Muslims, and Islam in general is quite rich.

I have had several ancient history classes in both high school and college. Babylon is typically "Chapter 1" and Egypt "Chapter 2".

 

Hmm, I'm already getting negative rep, and I hadn't even posted *this* yet... Oh well. Time to go on the offensive. You want to see evidence that disproves the Bible? Why don't you open Pandora's box?

Spoiler

The egyptian deity Horus (3000BC) was born on dec. 25th, born of a virgin (impregnated by a holy ghost), announced by a star in the east, adored by 3 kings, was a prodigal teacher at 12, was baptized at 30 which began his ministry, he travelled around with 12 disciples, performed miracles such as walking on water and healing the sick, was known by gestural names such as "the truth, the light, God's anointed son, the good shepherd, the lamb of God, etc.", was betrayed by Typhon and crucified, died at the cross, was buried for 3 days, and resurrected.
Attis of Phrygia (1200BC) was born on dec.25th of a virgin, crucified, dead for 3 days, then resurrected.
Krishna of India (900BC) was born of a virgin, with a star in the east signaling his arrival, he performed miracles with his disciples, and was resurrected upon his death.
Dionysus of Greece (500BC) was born of a virgin on dec.25th, was a travelling teacher who performed miracles such as healing the sick & turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of kings, God's only begotten son, the Alpha and Omega, etc.", and was resurrected upon his death.
Mithra of Persia (1200BC) was born of a virgin on dec.25th, he had 12 disciples who performed miracles, was buried for 3 days upon his death, and subsequently resurrected. He was also referred to as the truth, the light, and many others. Mithra's sacred day of worship was sunday.
The biblical myth of Joseph was a prototype for Jesus: The miracle birth, 12 brothers instead of 12 disciples, 20 pieces of silver vs. 30 pieces, Judah suggests selling Joseph, Judas suggests selling Jesus. Both started their work at the age of 30. There are more parallels.

There are numerous saviours from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics: Krishna of Hindustan, Budha Sakia of India, Salivahana of Bermuda, Zulis/Zhule, Osiris and Horus of Egypt, Odin of the Scandinavians, Crite of Chaldea, Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia, Baal and Taut of Phoenicia, Indra of Tibet, Bali of Afghanistan, Jao of Nepal, Wittoba of the Bilingonese, Thammuz of Syria, Attis/Atys of Phrygia, Xamolxis of Thrace, Zoar of the Bonzes, Adad of Assyria, Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam, Alcides of Thebes, Mikado of the Sintoos, Beddru of Japan, Hesus/Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids, Thor son of Odin of the Gauls, Cadmus of Greece, Hil and Feta of the Mandaites, Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico, Universal Monarch of the Sybils, Ischy of the island of Formosa, Divine Teacher of Plato, Holy One of Xaca, Fohi and Tien of China, Adonis son of the virgin Io of Greece, Ixion and Quirinus of Rome, Prometheus of the Caucasus...

Justin Martyr (100-165AD) claimed that the devil had the craftiness to anticipate the saviour's arrival, and spread these false prophets around the world in order to confuse people. Hmmm... maybe the devil created dinosaur fossils too!

There were numerous historians living in or near Isreal during the assumed life of Jesus: Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mela, Rufus Curtius, Quintilian, Quintus Curtius, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus and Valerius Maximus. None of them document this Jesus figure.
Pliny the Younger, Setonius and Tacitus are referenced to, to prove Jesus' existence through non-biblical literature. They make short references to "Christ", "Chrestus" and "Christus", which is merely a title, meaning 'the anointed one'. No mention of the name Jesus is made. A fourth reference, to Josephus, has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Christians still quote it as truth, though.

The birth sequence is entirely astrological: The star in the East is Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, which on dec.24th aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt, the "Three Kings". They all point to the place of the sunrise on dec.25th. So the 3 kings 'follow' the star in the east in order to locate the sunrise (birth of the sun). The virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as the 'house of bread', since she is often depicted holding a sheaf of wheat (this represents august/september, the time of harvest). House of Bread literally translates to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is thus a place in the sky, not on earth.
A phenomenon occurs around dec.25th (the winter solstice): Before then, the sun visibly moves south in the sky, smaller and more scarce, meaning shorter colder days. This symbolizes the process of death to the ancients, the death of the sun. On dec.25th, the sun has reached its lowest point in the sky, and then it seems to stop. Its position in the sky stays the same for 3 days, dec.22-24. In those days, it resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (Crux) constellation, as if the sun were crucified. On dec.25th it moves 1 degree north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and spring (salvation from winter).
"The sun died on the cross, was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again."
The true resurrection of the sun wasn't celebrated until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is when the days become longer than the nights, and spring conditions emerge.
The 12 disciples are simply the 12 constellations of the zodiac, which Jesus (the sun) travels about with.
The christian cross is actually derived from the zodiac, a pagan astrological symbolism. Jesus in ancient art is always depicted with his head on the cross, because Jesus is the sun:
- The light of the world [John 9:5]
- He is risen [Matt 28:6]
- Will come again [John 14:3]
- The glory of God [2 Cor 4:6]
- Cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armour of light [13:12]
- Born again [John 3:3]
- Coming in the clouds [Mark 13:26]
- The son which is in heaven [John 3:13]
- Wearing a crown or thorns [John 19:5]
Can you guess what the crown of thorns means?

Sunrays of course.

On to the 'ages': The early civilizations recognized that every 2150 years, the procession of the equinox would occur within a different sign of the zodiac. This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the earth maintains on its axis. Every 25,760 years, the procession will pass through all 12 constellations. this is known as the 'great year'. Every 'great month' is referred to as an aeon or age:
Age of Taurus was 4300-2150BC
Age or Ares was 2150BC-1AD (the jews worshipped the Ram, remember how upses Moses was to see his people worshipping a golden bull-calf)
Age of Pisces is 1-2150AD (the 'jesus fish'):
- feeding people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish
- befriending 2 fishermen upon his resurrection.
The age of Aquarius will be in 2150-4300AD:
- There shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water, follow him [Luke 22:10]

The similarities between the christian religion, and the Egyptian religion, are so staggeringly vast, I couldn't type it over if I had days to spare... The sun has simply been replaced by a fictional character Jesus.

The great flood was plagiarised from the Epic of Gilgamesh (2600BC)
The story of Moses was plagiarised from the myth of Sargon of Akkad (2250BC).
Other prophetic lawgivers who who climbed a mountain to receive commandments, were Manou of India, Minos of Crete, Mises of Egypt.

The 10 commandments are almost literally translatedfrom the Egyptian Book of the Dead: I have not stolen = Thou shalt not steal,
I have not killed = Thou shalt not kill,
I have not told lies= Thou shalt not bear false witness,
etcetc.
What else did we get from the Egyptians? Baptism, Afterlife, Judgement, Virgin Birth, Death & Resurrection, Ark of the Covenant, Circumcision, Saviors, Communion, Great Flood, Easter, Christmas, and many more.

Once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as jesus, never even existed.
"The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." - Thomas Paine

The Holy Bible is one of many Astrotheological Literary Hybrids.

 

Coin - I hate to break this to you, but December 25th is not really the birthday of Jesus. This date was added long after the actual birth of Chirst, more than likely for the reasons you cite, because it was an important pagan celebration. No one knows which day Christ was really born, so the documentation is meaningless. What you have proven though, are the reasons for why it is an important pagan celebration, which are very interesting.

This is still disputed.

 

October 25, 1979.

Holla wit' ya frankincense.