IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th May 2022, 10:59 PM   #281
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But the argument that if we allow an examination of Genesis then we need to examine every creation myth in every other major religion, that is a perfectly cromulent argument. One that you studiously ignore, even as you go on fixating on Genesis alone, for some reason.
I think examining only the biblical creation myth would be deeply offensive for the parents of Hindu, and Muslim kids. I'm an Atheist, and I find the idea both offensive and abhorrent.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2022, 11:09 PM   #282
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But the argument that if we allow an examination of Genesis then we need to examine every creation myth in every other major religion, that is a perfectly cromulent argument. One that you studiously ignore, even as you go on fixating on Genesis alone, for some reason.
In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 13th May 2022 at 11:35 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:24 AM   #283
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.
It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

Last edited by jimbob; 14th May 2022 at 12:27 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:30 AM   #284
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.

Lovely. So that --- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman, I've given you more than ample chance to state your position re. others' myths in your words, fully --- in your view, the creation myths of other religions are "silly" in a way your Genesis isn't; and/or (note the "slash or") the proposal of discussion of creation myths from other religions in science class is " silly" in a way it isn't for Abrahamic myths, specifically Genesis.

Thank you for removing all reasonable doubt about where you're coming from. Cheers.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:37 AM   #285
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,737
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.
Are you unfamiliar with the Genesis myth?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:38 AM   #286
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.
I didn't make any argument about Genesis vs other myths based on its relative silliness. You are free to do so but it does not rebut anything I have posted.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:56 AM   #287
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,483
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I think examining only the biblical creation myth would be deeply offensive for the parents of Hindu, and Muslim kids. I'm an Atheist, and I find the idea both offensive and abhorrent.
It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 12:59 AM   #288
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Lovely. So that --- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman, I've given you more than ample chance to state your position re. others' myths in your words, fully --- in your view, the creation myths of other religions are "silly" in a way your Genesis isn't; and/or (note the "slash or") the proposal of discussion of creation myths from other religions in science class is " silly" in a way it isn't for Abrahamic myths, specifically Genesis.

Thank you for removing all reasonable doubt about where you're coming from. Cheers.
Yeah it is, its psionl0's own personal, unique definition... pStrawman -
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:01 AM   #289
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.
Even a cursory glance at 1960s to 1990's Northern Ireland should set him straight!!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:07 AM   #290
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.
If your argument is that most believers consider Genesis to be allegorical then that is a good reason to keep it out of science classes since it could mean anything.

Of course, you would have to be able to demonstrate that very few people take Genesis literally.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:09 AM   #291
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
--- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman,
You are claiming that if somebody argues for a reduction in welfare then it is no strawman to argue against NO welfare.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:11 AM   #292
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.

Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Are you unfamiliar with the Genesis myth?

Fair point.

No doubt that's exactly what jimbob meant, but it might be good to make it fully clear, in so many words: It isn't as if familiarity with some cock-eyed myth necessarily makes it seem less silly. It is familiarity, coupled with bigotry, and/or a mind utterly brainwashed by religious indoctrination, and/or an incapacity to think straight (in this particular case), that makes one (particular) religious creation myth appear less silly than (others).
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:11 AM   #293
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If your argument is that most believers consider Genesis to be allegorical then that is a good reason to keep it out of science classes since it could mean anything.

Of course, you would have to be able to demonstrate that very few people take Genesis literally.
No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

Hundreds of millions of people believe that a lotus flower grew from Lord Vishnu’s navel with Brahma sitting on it. Brahma separated the flower into three parts - the heavens, the Earth and the sky and also that out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female. From this male and female all beings were created.


For example
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:13 AM   #294
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,600
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I suspect that some confirmation bias is coming up.


That is simply not true. I have consistently maintained the position that students should understand the "why" and not just the "what" in science (even if the words are not exactly the same). I have not limited that stance to just religion.

The problem is that every response to what I have posted is all about religion (hardly surprising considering the titles given to this thread).

Students in science probably understand the "why" far better than students in any other subject or any school lessons. That's the fundemental nature of science ... it's a subject where you have to think logically & objectively about everything.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:14 AM   #295
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).
No I don't. I am entitled to consider Genesis solely on whether it is widely believed or not.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 14th May 2022 at 01:15 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:15 AM   #296
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yeah it is, its psionl0's own personal, unique definition... pStrawman -

I've found the guy being piled on in thread after thread after thread; and I've tried myself, for the longest possible time, as you'll find if you read our exchanges in this thread, to keep extending the benefit of the doubt. After that latest exchange, and like I said, all reasonable doubt is now removed.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:24 AM   #297
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are claiming that if somebody argues for a reduction in welfare then it is no strawman to argue against NO welfare.

And that is what a strawman actually looks like.



eta: The kind of sparring you revel in, I've no appetite for. I've asked you maybe twenty times (hyperbole --- in actual fact probably three or four or five times) about, or at least introduced the argument concerning, other religious creation myths. You refuse to engage with that line of argument, either by ignoring it altogether, or else by dismissing it, as here, without actually discussing why; and then go on soon after to repeating your one-point focus about discussing Genesis in science class. No, it isn't whataboutery to introduce other religious myths into the argument, because it is part and parcel of the argument (or at least, one important argument) about why or why not, as far as your specific proposal. You are welcome, even now, to clarify your position in your own words; and obviously you are perfectly free not to, if that is what you wish. But no, after having given you every possible chance to explain yourself, no, it is perfectly reasonable to make this inference --- it's actually inference, not even an "extension" really --- about where it is you're coming from.

That's fine. You have the right to hold whatever opinions you want. No matter how utterly silly, and/or closed-minded, and/or bigoted it appears to me, and no matter how disingenuous your refusal to own up to it appears in my mind. There is no reason why that should be of concern to you, at least not necessarily. (And if it is, then you're welcome to try to clarify yourself, even now. Again, you don't actually have to.)

Last edited by Chanakya; 14th May 2022 at 01:34 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:47 AM   #298
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
And that is what a strawman actually looks like.
You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I've asked you maybe twenty times (hyperbole --- in actual fact probably three or four or five times) about, or at least introduced the argument concerning, other religious creation myths.
And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:53 AM   #299
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.


And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).
What about the Hindu myth which I mentioned? It's quite possible that more people believe that is literally true than Christians believe Genesis is literally true.

What is the threshold? And what has that to do with science?

Yes I think the major myths should be taught in school as part of the religious studies curriculum so people can learn what many of their fellow citizens believe, but it's nothing to do with science.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

Last edited by jimbob; 14th May 2022 at 01:55 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 01:58 AM   #300
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).
No I don't. I am entitled to consider Genesis solely on whether it is widely believed or not.
You missed out the second paragraph

Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

Hundreds of millions of people believe that a lotus flower grew from Lord Vishnu’s navel with Brahma sitting on it. Brahma separated the flower into three parts - the heavens, the Earth and the sky and also that out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female. From this male and female all beings were created.


For example
Teach the controversy

Were humans made from clay, or were they made from Lord Brahma splitting himself in twain out of loneliness?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:01 AM   #301
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.


And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).

You haven't. You haven't once spelled out, in response to my asking (and/or raising that issue), why proposing to discuss creation myths of other religions is silly, as you've said to me, while making that same proposal for Genesis isn't.

Like I said I've no appetite for your brand of silly sparring. If you wish to explain yourself, as far as this specific point, just do so already, without getting into these silly arguments over semantics. And if you don't want to, then don't. Why complicate this and draw this out unnecessarily?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:24 AM   #302
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You haven't.
Have it your way. I'm not about to explain it to you yet again.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:27 AM   #303
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
You missed out the second paragraph
I'm pretty sure that schools in the US don't have to contend with "hundreds of millions" of students believing in Lord Vishnu’s navel.

If there are countries where such a belief is widespread then let them deal with it.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:43 AM   #304
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I'm pretty sure that schools in the US don't have to contend with "hundreds of millions" of students believing in Lord Vishnu’s navel.

If there are countries where such a belief is widespread then let them deal with it.

There are not hundreds of millions of people who believe any creation myth in the US

What is the threshold?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...indu-countries

2.5-million people is still significant.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:49 AM   #305
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I've found the guy being piled on in thread after thread after thread; and I've tried myself, for the longest possible time, as you'll find if you read our exchanges in this thread, to keep extending the benefit of the doubt. After that latest exchange, and like I said, all reasonable doubt is now removed.
All I can say to that is that I admire your patience. Mine ran out about two years ago!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 02:56 AM   #306
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,829
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

Hundreds of millions of people believe that a lotus flower grew from Lord Vishnu’s navel with Brahma sitting on it. Brahma separated the flower into three parts - the heavens, the Earth and the sky and also that out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female. From this male and female all beings were created.


For example
Apart from King Monkey, he hatched from an egg on a mountain top!
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 03:10 AM   #307
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Apart from King Monkey, he hatched from an egg on a mountain top!
It was very hard to not reference that.

My son tells me that Journey to the West has more internal consistency and literary merit in his mind than the first few books of the Old Testament.

He gave up on that somewhere with a lot of "begats"
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 03:22 AM   #308
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,607
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
9th grade science class, first day in about 1981 I experienced creationism being taught in public school.

The teacher introduced herself, a bit about her style and began.

She stated it was state law that she cover creation theory. Then she said the bible said the world was created in six days by a diety.
There was nothing more on this, the entire concept was covered.

Then she started on the science teaching and it took weeks to cover some subjects. There was data, variables and facts to cover.

Some was easy to grasp, other things took more effort but in the end was clear and ran far deeper than goddidit.

There was only one gal in my entire group trapped into a serious christian mindset and she wasn't in my science class. Her rants on pop music of the day being crass and evil while christian music was pure didn't seem to affect her ability to pass science classes . But her parents had her believing she was better somehow than others.

Creationism should be taught in school, preferably in biology classes by regular biology teachers. Otherwise, it is much too easy for creationists to spread their ideas.

In Denmark, creationists are few and far between. I have never met one, but I have seen a few on TV.

About 15 years ago, one of my high-school classes chose Creationism in the USA as their theme for six weeks of English classes.

I knew that they all believed in Darwinian evolution, but I wasn't sure if they actually knew enough to see through the arguments of creationists. To me, their actual knowledge of evolution seemed to be at the level of the evolution clip from The Simpsons (1 min):
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

So I started out playing the Devil's advocate, presenting the creationist arguments against eyes as a result of evolution:

'We have all heard the story about how fish in shallow waters evolved proto-limbs, which were an evolutionary advantage for them because they were then able to crawl through the mud and thus escape predators and/or catch prey living in the mud. They then crawled up on land, the legs got longer and longer until one or those early amphibians had turned into giraffes.
So half a leg would be an evolutionary advantage.
But how could half an eye be of any use? The eye is a very complicated organ, so how could natural evolution ever result in some as complicated as that?' (In principle, the 'blind watchmaker' argument).

And I managed to convince them: There had to be something else, more than mere evolution, to create the eye. It was scary to see how easy it was to make them doubt evolution.

I already had several texts and videos about eye evolution ready, so it wasn't difficult at all to 'disenchant' them again, but in my experience many people are easy prey for a skilled creationist. Believing in evolution is now enough. You have to know enough about it to be able to debate creationists.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 14th May 2022 at 03:23 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 03:26 AM   #309
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
2.5-million people is still significant.
I don't know how that number compares to biblical literalists in the US but I give you credit for not demanding equal time for Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 03:35 AM   #310
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't know how that number compares to biblical literalists in the US but I give you credit for not demanding equal time for Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
You're the one making the argument that whatever stupid belief is locally common* should be given equal weight to science.

*On what scale? State? County? School district? And at what level?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 04:16 AM   #311
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
You're the one making the argument that whatever stupid belief is locally common* should be given equal weight to science subject to scientific scrutiny.
ftfy.

Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
*On what scale? State? County? School district? And at what level?
The hindu population is about 3/4 of a % of the US population. If my judgement means anything then I would say it falls below a (debatable) threshold. If a local public school is overrepresented by hindus then there may be a case for subjecting their belief to scientific scrutiny.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 04:39 AM   #312
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,681
If a school has a large number of Hindus that would be a reason to not use those beliefs as an example of how to apply critical thinking.

The best examples to use are those in which the students and their parents do not have an emotional investment. Then encourage the students to use those same skills and techniques to scrutinise all claims, without even mentioning religion. That strategy is far more likely to be effective in the long term, without causing problems in the short term.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 04:48 AM   #313
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If a school has a large number of Hindus that would be a reason to not use those beliefs as an example of how to apply critical thinking.

The best examples to use are those in which the students and their parents do not have an emotional investment. Then encourage the students to use those same skills and techniques to scrutinise all claims, without even mentioning religion. That strategy is far more likely to be effective in the long term, without causing problems in the short term.
I don't disagree.

You have shown that you don't have to invoke Santa Claus to argue against any sort of examination of religious beliefs in a science class room.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 05:30 AM   #314
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You haven't. You haven't once spelled out, in response to my asking (and/or raising that issue), why proposing to discuss creation myths of other religions is silly, as you've said to me, while making that same proposal for Genesis isn't.

Like I said I've no appetite for your brand of silly sparring. If you wish to explain yourself, as far as this specific point, just do so already, without getting into these silly arguments over semantics. And if you don't want to, then don't. Why complicate this and draw this out unnecessarily?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Have it your way. I'm not about to explain it to you yet again.

Ha ha ha, amazing. Maybe for the first time, I'm getting a taste of it myself, being subjected to what I referred to as "your brand of sparring".

Good thing I withdrew from this discussion back when I did, to re-enter it now with a fresh perspective. If I hadn't done that, I doubt I'd have been able to appreciate this novel experience a fraction as much as I'm doing now.

Truly, truly amazing.

Last edited by Chanakya; 14th May 2022 at 05:48 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 05:32 AM   #315
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But the argument that if we allow an examination of Genesis then we need to examine every creation myth in every other major religion, that is a perfectly cromulent argument. One that you studiously ignore, even as you go on fixating on Genesis alone, for some reason.
If we allow X, we are required to do Y.

Doesn't seem very cromulent to me.

(Aside. I'm travelling and somewhat time limited. I thought there were a couple of interesting replies yesterday that I would like to say something about, but I might not get to right away,)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 05:33 AM   #316
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,028
Give me a few hours with the pupils. I will disprove every god, schedule psych evaluations for the existential angst, and hire some lawyers for the inevitable lawsuits.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 05:41 AM   #317
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,507
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If we allow X, we are required to do Y.

Doesn't seem very cromulent to me.

(Aside. I'm travelling and somewhat time limited. I thought there were a couple of interesting replies yesterday that I would like to say something about, but I might not get to right away,)

Depends what X and Y are.

Seriously, Meadmaker?

If you're debating whether you're going to allow in chocolate cookies for kids to eat in school, then to make the argument allowing jam cookies for kids ought also be part of what's on offer, does not in the least sound like whataboutery to me.

Let's not play games here. Let's directly talk about what this is about. psion10 wants to debate the proposal for introducing Christian supersitions in school science class discussions. I cannot imagine how a proposal for also introducing Daoist and Buddhist and Hindu and Shinto and Jain creation myths cannot but be very much a part of the same debate. We may yet end up with different conclusions for X and Y, I grant you that, depending on how the debate goes; but that both form equaivalent proposals, not necessarily in terms of what we accept, but certainly in terms of what we discuss, and discuss in as much earnest as we discuss the original proposal, I cannot see how that can possibly be in doubt. Chocolate cookies, jam cookies, I mean to say; neither very good for you, both kind of sort of attractive, depending on your palate, especially if you're of a superstitious bent (if I may mix metaphors here).
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 05:42 AM   #318
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,082
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If we allow X, we are required to do Y.

Doesn't seem very cromulent to me.

(Aside. I'm travelling and somewhat time limited. I thought there were a couple of interesting replies yesterday that I would like to say something about, but I might not get to right away,)
Well you need to explain how, in a secular nation with separation of Church and state, one provides preference to a particular religious belief beyond that which other citizens profess. Presumably there would have to be a logical argument why this should get preferential treatment.

So far all I have seen is that it's somehow different to
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
every made up religion under the sun
Which is something to do with it being more popular in parts of the US, but I am unsure how that leads to thinking it merits special treatment.


Creation myths belong in the religious studies class, where they can be compared with other creation myths.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 06:28 AM   #319
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,483
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If we allow X, we are required to do Y.

Doesn't seem very cromulent to me.

(Aside. I'm travelling and somewhat time limited. I thought there were a couple of interesting replies yesterday that I would like to say something about, but I might not get to right away,)
Apart from that wasn't what was "argued" to set it in your terms it would be "If we allow X, we are required to also allow X. "
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2022, 06:29 AM   #320
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,483
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Depends what X and Y are.

Seriously, Meadmaker?

If you're debating whether you're going to allow in chocolate cookies for kids to eat in school, then to make the argument allowing jam cookies for kids ought also be part of what's on offer, does not in the least sound like whataboutery to me.

Let's not play games here. Let's directly talk about what this is about. psion10 wants to debate the proposal for introducing a subset of Christian supersitions in school science class discussions. I cannot imagine how a proposal for also introducing Daoist and Buddhist and Hindu and Shinto and Jain creation myths cannot but be very much a part of the same debate. We may yet end up with different conclusions for X and Y, I grant you that, depending on how the debate goes; but that both form equaivalent proposals, not necessarily in terms of what we accept, but certainly in terms of what we discuss, and discuss in as much earnest as we discuss the original proposal, I cannot see how that can possibly be in doubt. Chocolate cookies, jam cookies, I mean to say; neither very good for you, both kind of sort of attractive, depending on your palate, especially if you're of a superstitious bent (if I may mix metaphors here).
Tightened that up for you.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.