148564 Views
477 Comments

When you have 3.6 Billion adherents

Published November 27th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

When you have 3.6 Billion adherents to your faith, we can start talking about teaching your ideas in school. When you think you’re right or not the decision on whether or not to teach creationism in school should come from the majority and the fact is 82.3% of Americans are christian and therefore believe that the earth was created by God and only 11.6 are unaffiliated with a religion, of which only a fraction are atheist or agnostic. Take out the agnostics because if they’re really agnostic they won’t care what’s being taught in school, and we’re talking about a small number of really loud people that are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the country. How messed up is that. I’m not going to force my beliefs on you. I think that’s why they did the whole separation of church and state thing, so that a certain belief system, Evolution included, would not be forced upon the population. So teach evolution, go ahead, I know for a fact that Brigham Young University and Brigham Young University Idaho, two christian schools teach evolution in their required classes, but if you’re going to teach one THEORY, and I emphasize theory not fact, then give credence to other theories that bare any social impact on our society. Like how about a theory that more than 50% of the world subscribes to? Anyway, peace be the journey, I give you credit for some funny stuff, like pirates and global warming, but don’t pretend to take nothing seriously if you actually do have very serious agenda.
–Jordan

All religions go through a phase of perceived fakeness. Funny you bring up BYU.  Mormonism got a lot of criticism for years because Joseph Smith used seer stones to find the location of their original scriptures and translate them from unknown languages.  Some might say that sounds like BS.  But with time and pressure it becomes a religion.  Not unlike the formation of rocks.  I am a scientist first, remember.



477 Responses to “When you have 3.6 Billion adherents”

1 2 3 19
  1. Malcolm PF says:

    “When you think you’re right or not the decision on whether or not to teach creationism in school should come from the majority.”

    Did science become a democracy when I wasn’t looking?

    http://i.imgur.com/uQKF1.jpg

  2. DarthFennec says:

    It’s not about social impact, but scientific alignment. No matter how many people believe in creationism, it’s still not a science. It has absolutely no impact on modern technology or medicine, it has absolutely no scientific support. Therefore, creationism is not a science, and if it has any place being taught in a science class, pastafarianism sure as hell does too. And I love how apparently agnostics don’t care what schools teach. Really bad choice of words there.

    • Agnostipastafarian says:

      Jordan needs to do a little research into what it means to be agnostic. Agnostic doesn’t mean apathetic, Jordan.

  3. piratesmee says:

    Once again a creationist confuses scientific theory with one nonscientific usage of the word “theory.” It does not mean “a guess.” Among other distinctions, a scientific theory requires that hypotheses be testable. There is no test which can prove or disprove creationism (or Pastafarianism), which is precisely why Pastafarianism would deserve equal status in the classroom if we were ever foolish enough to suggest that creationism is science. Jordan: Please look at any number of scientific treatises describing the scientific method, and what qualifies as a scientific “theory.”

  4. B. says:

    Its nice when he/she can speak for 3,6 billion people. I mean, how often do you find 3,6 billion people that ALL BELIEVE THE SAME EXACT THING? Amazing.

    I get pissed at people like this. I know I should be peaceful and all that. But no, I get angry. Creationism is pseudo science that creates pseudo scientists that have no idea what they are talking about. Hey, its called THEORY so it can’t be FACT!

  5. StJason says:

    Oh, boy! A new hatemailer. It’s been a while…

    [quote]When you have 3.6 Billion adherents to your faith, we can start talking about teaching your ideas in school. When you think you’re right or not the decision on whether or not to teach creationism in school should come from the majority[/quote]
    Oh really? We should fall into the tyranny of the majority? I’m willing to bet that the majority of the posters here (yourself included) would agree that you should take a long walk off a short pier.

    [quote]Take out the agnostics because if they’re really agnostic they won’t care what’s being taught in school, and we’re talking about a small number of really loud people that are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the country.[/quote]
    And while we are at it, tell them Fags and Blacks to shut up, eh? Nice.

    [quote]I’m not going to force my beliefs on you. I think that’s why they did the whole separation of church and state thing,[/quote]
    …so you are for the separation of Church and State save for where the state-run schools try and teach church-endorsed viewpoints…? Do you also believe in taxing everyone for a better country except for yourself? Mandatory conscription save for yourself? Stopping at red lights unless you, Jordan, are in a hurry?

    [quote]So teach evolution, go ahead, I know for a fact that Brigham Young University and Brigham Young University Idaho, two christian schools teach evolution in their required classes, but if you’re going to teach one THEORY, and I emphasize theory not fact, then give credence to other theories that bare any social impact on our society.[/quote]
    Oh, Jordan! And here I thought you were an imbecilic parasite whose sole purpose in life was to convert food into excrement! You got it! You figured it out! That is exactly the basic tenant of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We want our THEORY of creation taught as well! I could kiss you… save you’d probably go all mental on me if I did, what with your beliefs on conforming only to the majority and all that.

  6. Michael L. says:

    When I was in High School we had a class called “You in Nature” as a science elective. The basic premise of the class was to teach students some of the basic skills they would need to spend time in the wilderness (such as reading a map and using a compass). One thing, more than any other, that our instructor strived to teach us was this:

    A fact is nothing more than a theory which has yet to be proven wrong.

    Religion can never move out of the realm of theory because it’s based on faith which has no basis for being proven right or wrong.

    Scientific theory is “an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.” The very definition of scientific theory rules out the possibility of religious beliefs being taught in a science class because, as previously mentioned, religious beliefs are based on faith.

    Instead of fighting back and forth about creationism as a science and citing statistics why don’t we push to have a class in public schools calls “Religious Theory” which is an elective, must be approved by a child’s parents prior to enrollment, and offers information on a wide variety of religious theory? Wouldn’t this work to everyone’s benefit?

    • B. says:

      Here we have “Religion” as a mandatory class. I think that works well. The big religions are all taught equally without bias and no religious theory ever entrench on science. Tho that might be because this is generally a secular society.

      • Cheese says:

        ‘Here we have “Religion” as a mandatory class. I think that works well.’
        I disagree. As a student in a school, I’m busy enough with everything else, like essays and lab reports, to remember when some guy in the Bible chopped up his prostitute and threw her into a river. Granted, that’s an extreme example, but it might scare small children.
        ‘The big religions are all taught equally without bias and no religious theory ever entrench on science.’
        Please clarify.
        ‘Tho that might be because this is generally a secular society.’
        I hate to break it to you, but the USA is alarmingly religious. As a minor nitpick, it should be spelled ‘Though’.

        • B. says:

          Dear Cheese, there is a world beyond the United States of America. I’m talking about Sweden, which is my home land and where I reside. Your comments on my spelling falls under the same category, since my native language is Swedish. I think I’m entitled to some grammatical leeway.

          I will explain my previous post:

          Swedish children are taught about all religions. Christianity gets no special favors, tho (Yes, I will continue this spelling since its a short form I’ve grown accustomed to and you will understand me just as well) it has been the official religion for roughly 800 years. I’m an atheist myself, but I do see the benefit of being taught to understand religion so that one can have a scientific view of it. Just like sex education, ignoring a subject doesn’t mean that it goes away.

          Religion is taught in “Religion class” and has nothing to do with science. The reason I mentioned my countries secularity is because we have no mayor conflict between science and religion (since religion always looses). Therefore, our model might not work in America. But I still wanted to mention it, to further a discussion.

          I hope that clarified things for you.

          R’Amen

        • Theo says:

          I see you use the “R’Amen” thing… do you mean you’re a Pastafarian? In your post you mention that you’re an atheis, but if you believe in a Flyinng Spaghetti Monster, you’re not an atheis.
          Ramen

        • tekhedd says:

          I’ve always felt that comparative religion should be taught in US schools. That opinion can be a real conversation stopper.

          Mom: I think they should teach Christianity in schools. Then kids would be exposed to it.

          Me: I agree, comparative religion should be a required course.

          Mom: Look how nice the weather is today.

          Nothing annoys religious people as much as having their religion put on equal footing with all other religions. That’s why the FSM is so special… The more religions you compare FSM to, the better it looks!

        • Walt says:

          I would caution my fellow Pastafarians against lobbying for the complete removal of religious texts (save ours) from the classroom. The Bible is a perfectly legitimate text for a literature class. Much of English literature is incomprehensible without an understanding of the Bible. As long as it stays out of science class, I’m happy.

        • Tom Atosos says:

          Regarding the climate in the US, for our brethren in other parts of the world, please keep in mind, we were not always so polarized. Comparative religion classes were commonplace in the seventies, yet it would have been considered bad taste and offensive in the public school system to proselytize in the classroom. There ARE a few locales around the US, where this seems to be taking hold, but it is still not the norm. I certainly hope we do not devolve so far that ID becomes equivalent to evolution in the school system and have to hope this is only a phase, which will right itself with time.

      • tim says:

        My wife grew up in Upper Austria, and had a similar class (“religion”) within her curriculum, but it seems that was more of a recruiting tool for the Protestants — the students were required to attend church, unless their parents explicitly objected (this was a private school, so I can’t attest to what’s representative of the norm in this regard for Austrian public education). Additionally, I recall having taken an elective class on world mythologies when I was a kid (I’m a US citizen, and grew up in Colorado, in the public school system), which mostly involved comparing defunct religions to Christianity; the end result was a “class” that essentially revolved around, “these people were silly, but modern Christianity isn’t silly, because ….”

        I’m not entirely opposed to the idea, but it’s incredibly easy for someone with an agenda to subvert the curriculum. Given the present religious climate within the US, I’d reckon that any class dealing with religion more than peripherally is a risky proposition, if one hopes to get an objective, unbiased perspective.

        • B. says:

          Yes, it might be hard to implement in the US. It is a model to consider tho. For me it was just another step in looking at religion with a scientific eye, tho I guess that one needs to have some of that perspective to begin with for it to work.

    • tekhedd says:

      The circulation of blood is just a theory!

  7. lilwench says:

    Ooohhh, fresh hate mail! Hmmm, we have straw man arguments, logical fallacies, unfounded assumptions, mediocre grammar, lack of understanding of the scientific process, and a dollop of condescension. I like my hatemail with a sauce of frothing profanity, though.

  8. Atsap Revol says:

    Oh, Jordan,

    If subjects taught in schools were based on majority approval, we would still be teaching that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around it daily. And who told you that agnostics don’t care what is taught in schools? How lucky I am to live in America where the constitution protects me from being burned at the stake by fools like you.

    RAmen
    AR

    • Jordan says:

      I’m surprised to learn that apparently the majority of people now a days still believe that the earth is flat. The reason we teach other wise is because it became such a popular idea that people studied it further and found it to be true. If we took a majority vote right now, I’m pretty sure we would not be teaching that the earth is flat.

      Anyway, I’m not saying that Truth is determined by a majority vote, but rather what subjects students should learn about should be. I never said that Religion should be taught in school as an absolute truth. If a religion believes that they can go ahead and teach all they want about it in church. However the ideas that religions believe should be taught to people. We wouldn’t want to limit our children’s points of view to only one perspective. That would just breed a closed minded generation that lacks the ability to think outside of whatever perceived box we give them.

      -Jordan

      • Np237 says:

        Teaching children what religious people think is certainly valuable knowledge for them.

        Teaching them creationism as a theory and putting it on the same grounds as valid, scientific theories is not.

        As for your fallacious stance on closed-mindedness, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI which explains it in much better words than those I could utter.

      • tekhedd says:

        “I’m not saying that Truth is determined by a majority vote, but rather what subjects students should learn about should be.”

        OK, to be specific, you are saying that the majority should be able to determine what is science, and not the scientific method, thus negating the whole point of the scientific method. In other words, you are using exactly the same logic as each and every ID proponent. “The substitute teacher is covering material we learned last month!”

        • tekhedd says:

          (The substitute teacher comment means that we’ve already responded to these arguments, so it’s way too easy to ridicule… I guess it makes more sense when I explain what I was thinking when I wrote it! Where’s the edit button?)

      • Barkingspyder says:

        What we teach in school is supposed to be that which gives students an understanding of the world they live in and how it evolved into its present form. Not only in terms of science but history and so forth. It is not about majority opinion, it is about what is useful and true. While one might take issue with certain historical viewpoints the fact that the things taught in a history class actually happened is not a viewpoint but a recounting of facts. The bible on the other hand has several things in it for which there is no evidence of them ever happening. Take the exodus out of Egypt, there is no evidence that there were ever any Jews held as slaves or that they made a mass exodus from there. None. If religious ideas are to be taught in school it should be done comparatively so that they can be looked at equally. That way we can create more atheists and agnostics, since the students would see that they are equally ridiculous. Dogma is dogma and should always be questioned. It turns out that Christianity and its root Judaism are not even very unique or original. They have very many similarities to other beliefs from the region they came from. In short they are derivative.

    • dannythedemocrat says:

      You mean the earth is not flat and the sun doesn’t rotate around us?
      (Man, I wish my parents would have sent me to a private school.)
      Maybe Leno will discover me for “Jaywalks”
      After all, I was stupid enough to vote for Obama and a bunch of other Democrats,
      now I sit here writing this since I can’t find a job.
      Maybe The Church of The FSM can send a pack of pirates to Washington.

1 2 3 19

Leave a Reply