Florida school system lifts restrictions on distribution

[BoilersRock]

of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/sa

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

Um, the school already said that Atheists are allowed to distribute materials . . . . there are no deistic Satanists (who aren't teenagers with anger issues). I always thought it was interesting that Satanists don't just lump themselves in with Pastafarians, etc. Well, I guess Satanists actually recognize that Atheism is a belief system just as any other religion. Whatever. I'm going to stop, because this is turning into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, Satanists are funny.

 

[qazplm]

I don't really care, but never understood the fascination with getting religion into schools. There's other places for religion, church, the home, what have you. And you can always send your child to a religious school, there's plenty of them.

For public schools, I'd think we'd want to spend the time focused on the three Rs, history, and whatnot.

But whatever, I don't have a strong opinion on it so long as it isn't preferring one religion over another, if folks want to proselytize kids feel free, just know it ain't just going to be Christianity your kid is exposed to (or your preferred version of same either).

 

[BoilerTom90]

You know, it would be great if the public schools would focus on the three Rs, and even history. It's all the "whatnot" that you refer to that really is no different than preaching any particular religion -- especially when the "whatnot" has become the religion of some schools and districts.

 

[qazplm]

ah you mean evolution

yes? The thing that is about as rock solid as a general theory in science as gravity and relativity?

It's no different? No, it's plain old vanilla science. It just has implications (and actually it really doesn't) some religious folk don't like. It says nothing about God, or why we are here, or anything else anymore than the Big Bang Theory answers any of those questions. But some religious folk are threatened so it becomes "religion" because you can't fight science very well, but you can fight a competing "religion."

 

[BoilersRock]

What's important is that the school system decided that it would be the right thing to do if they freely allowed all such groups to offer their beliefs in a public school and not censor some of them.

Are Pastafarians followers of FSM?


This post was edited on 9/16 5:05 PM by BoilersRock

 

[ecouch]

You are a young earth creationist, correct? I remember there being one that popped into a conversation about evolution a while back.

 

[ecouch]

Do you have a source other than the Moonie Times? They aren't journalists.

That said, this never works. See the religious school voucher program in Louisiana. That was put to an abrupt halt once the southerners realized that kids could use vouchers to attend a madrasa. Separation works both ways, and in favor of both. A point lost on many.


This post was edited on 9/16 7:31 PM by ecouch

 

[kescwi]

+1
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

Um, the school already said that Atheists are allowed to distribute materials . . . . there are no deistic Satanists (who aren't teenagers with anger issues). I always thought it was interesting that Satanists don't just lump themselves in with Pastafarians, etc. Well, I guess Satanists actually recognize that Atheism is a belief system just as any other religion. Whatever. I'm going to stop, because this is turning into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, Satanists are funny.

We're getting into semantics, but I don't consider atheism a belief system. As an atheist, I don't believe in anything. I try to make everything I do based firmly in the available evidence, and until there is sufficient evidence for a deity (or gluten being toxic, GMOs being deleterious, etc.), then there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

 

[kescwi]

I enjoy your posts, but ohhhh to have faith and act without proof, that's one of the beauties being human.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ecouch]

You aren't getting into semantics. It is a simple definition.

I will agree that Satanism is funny. Who would have thought Ayn Rand would bring Paul Ryan and Anton Lavey, the founder of Satanism, together.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

Um, the school already said that Atheists are allowed to distribute materials . . . . there are no deistic Satanists (who aren't teenagers with anger issues). I always thought it was interesting that Satanists don't just lump themselves in with Pastafarians, etc. Well, I guess Satanists actually recognize that Atheism is a belief system just as any other religion. Whatever. I'm going to stop, because this is turning into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, Satanists are funny.

We're getting into semantics, but I don't consider atheism a belief system. As an atheist, I don't believe in anything. I try to make everything I do based firmly in the available evidence, and until there is sufficient evidence for a deity (or gluten being toxic, GMOs being deleterious, etc.), then there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Atheists have a firm belief that there is no God (which is pretty arrogant, IMO). Agnostics take a much more reasonable approach of not knowing and just not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Satanists . . well, they just believe in people and enjoying your time on earth . . . along with some nutty rituals for kicks.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

Um, the school already said that Atheists are allowed to distribute materials . . . . there are no deistic Satanists (who aren't teenagers with anger issues). I always thought it was interesting that Satanists don't just lump themselves in with Pastafarians, etc. Well, I guess Satanists actually recognize that Atheism is a belief system just as any other religion. Whatever. I'm going to stop, because this is turning into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, Satanists are funny.

We're getting into semantics, but I don't consider atheism a belief system. As an atheist, I don't believe in anything. I try to make everything I do based firmly in the available evidence, and until there is sufficient evidence for a deity (or gluten being toxic, GMOs being deleterious, etc.), then there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Atheists have a firm belief that there is no God (which is pretty arrogant, IMO). Agnostics take a much more reasonable approach of not knowing and just not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Satanists . . well, they just believe in people and enjoying your time on earth . . . along with some nutty rituals for kicks.

Would it be reasonable to take an agnostic approach toward leprechauns, mermaids, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus? By the same rationale you refer to in regard to a deity, I can't know that such things do not exist, therefore I must not take a stance on their reality. Due to the overwhelming likelihood that the aforementioned do not exist, I find it far more reasonable (and lest arrogant) to take the stance that they are not a part of reality. Is it possible that some new piece of evidence in the future will support the existence of leprechauns? Sure, but the odds are astronomically unlikely.

The burden of proof lies with the person or group making the claim. Until supporting evidence is provided, I see no reason to "believe" in anything. The universe makes far better sense without the influence of some all-powerful force.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
of religious materials, thus opening the door for Satanists, Atheists and whomever else to offer up their material as well.







This post was edited on 9/16 11:03 AM by BoilersRock

Um, the school already said that Atheists are allowed to distribute materials . . . . there are no deistic Satanists (who aren't teenagers with anger issues). I always thought it was interesting that Satanists don't just lump themselves in with Pastafarians, etc. Well, I guess Satanists actually recognize that Atheism is a belief system just as any other religion. Whatever. I'm going to stop, because this is turning into a stream of consciousness. Anyway, Satanists are funny.

We're getting into semantics, but I don't consider atheism a belief system. As an atheist, I don't believe in anything. I try to make everything I do based firmly in the available evidence, and until there is sufficient evidence for a deity (or gluten being toxic, GMOs being deleterious, etc.), then there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Atheists have a firm belief that there is no God (which is pretty arrogant, IMO). Agnostics take a much more reasonable approach of not knowing and just not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Satanists . . well, they just believe in people and enjoying your time on earth . . . along with some nutty rituals for kicks.

Would it be reasonable to take an agnostic approach toward leprechauns, mermaids, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus? By the same rationale you refer to in regard to a deity, I can't know that such things do not exist, therefore I must not take a stance on their reality. Due to the overwhelming likelihood that the aforementioned do not exist, I find it far more reasonable (and lest arrogant) to take the stance that they are not a part of reality. Is it possible that some new piece of evidence in the future will support the existence of leprechauns? Sure, but the odds are astronomically unlikely.

The burden of proof lies with the person or group making the claim. Until supporting evidence is provided, I see no reason to "believe" in anything. The universe makes far better sense without the influence of some all-powerful force.

But you aren't actually describing atheism. You're describing agnosticism. Atheism denies even the possibility of a deity. Saying that there is no God is an affirmative statement. It is a true negation of God. Saying that you don't believe until there is proof is not the same thing at all.

As for the analogies to fairy tales, those are non-starters. While the existence of a God is a potential explanation for some of the great unknowns of our universe (of which there are too many to actually know), the characters you listed have always been meant as children's stories used by parents (and there is proof of that). There isn't proof of the origins of God. There never will be. That's where faith comes in. Using Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny for arguments is nearly as stupid as the guy who said the banana is proof that God exists.

And to lighten this up (unless somebody is crazy enough to buy the argument) . .the atheists' nightmare (the banana video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

This post was edited on 9/17 4:52 PM by beardownboiler

 

[BoilerTom90]

Re: ah you mean evolution

Actually I wasn't even thinking about evolution. But, go ahead and assume that.

I was referring to things like a story I saw today where kids were asked to write a paper that compares Bush to Hitler. Surely, that teacher doesn't have an agenda, or does he/she?

 

[ecouch]

No, atheism, a-theism, simply states that there hasn't been any evidence put forward to hold a theistic point of view. Theism is a belief. Agnosticism, doesn't deal with belief, rather knowledge. The root of the word being gnostic is Greek for knowledge. This debate isn't new and can be traced back to Huxley first using the term agnostic about a century ago - many would argue others posited this view centuries before that, but that was the first application of the word. Conflating knowledge and belief does tend to muddy the water. Bub's position, allowing for an assumption, would best be described as agnostic atheism. You can't group all of a-theism into the gnostic atheism position. Personally, I have never met a gnostic atheist - your definition. Off the top of my head, I can think of one gnostic atheist, Victor Stenger. Agnostic atheism, on the other hand, represents 99.9% of atheism positions. This is largely due to the fact that most atheists assume a skeptic, evidence based view.

While not the best representation, a lot of arguments can be made about this chart - particularly from theists, I think it is a good representation of the discussion that is occurring. Agnosticism dominates both the theistic and a-theistic positions.

This post was edited on 9/17 11:53 PM by ecouch

This post was edited on 9/17 11:53 PM by ecouch

 

[qazplm]

yes

we should view an entire education system because of what one teacher did.

Somewhere, there's a teacher who replaces Bush with Obama. I'm sure there's one in the past who replaced either with Clinton, or Reagan.