Arguing with people isn’t “suppressing religious freedom”. Nor is trying to prevent them from killing you in the name of their religion.
And the people in danger of being suppressed here aren’t the religious; it’s the scientists and skeptics. I don’t see why religious freedom is a virtue, but the freedom to not be religious isn’t.
No one is suppressing religious freedom. That implies some government sanctioned punishment. Mockery is not suppressing it. It certainly isn’t if its the truth
Just to be clear, science does not deal with issues of “truth”. Science deals with facts. Those are not the same thing.
The American cult of individualism is bizarre. Of course any citizen is constitutionally protected in practicing whatever faith they desire. However we live in a society, important decisions are made in this country democratically, so damn your eyes I have a stake in the very personal beliefs of my fellow countrymen.
But saying that is ‘unAmerican’.
I was – and I actually still am – unclear how energetically you would wish to fight religion. You say you don’t want to suppress it, but you say that showing respect for it is “dangerous.” I apologize for mischaracterizing your intent, but I really don’t know what your intent is.
In private life, mockery is fine. In a public school, not so much.
As above, I was unclear what, exactly, Der Trihs wants as far as a response to religion. Mockery is perfectly acceptable under Free Speech. But when he refers to tolerance of religion as “very dangerous” and mentions the spread of disease, he leaves me unclear on what he proposes.
Here, too, I can’t figure what, exactly, you want to do about it.
Opine? Sound off? Say your say? Even mock, call names, get nasty? Use logic and reason? Argue?
Hooray for all of those. Wonderful examples of free speech, and I certainly intend to do the same. All of that is about as “American” as anyone could hope for.
I can imagine several different ways a person might draw a distinction between the two terms. How do you draw the distinction?
An old Astronomy prof of mine taught that scientists do not believe in their theories, but they do believe in the evidence.
Massive objects might – or might not – bend space-time, but if you drop an apple, it will fall.
ETA: more to the point, “I dropped an apple 500 times, and each time, it fell.”
You’ve never heard of the concepts of criticism and education? Or for that matter freedom?
Religion is by nature both factually wrong and tyrannical, so “respecting” it requires both the suppression of facts and oppression. If the religious are forced to leave me alone, they will regard that as disrespectful and oppressive on my part. And they’re* right* - “respecting” religion means being a victim of it.
Except the believers tend to define “mockery” and “oppression” as not submitting to their every whim while singing their praises. These are people who think you are oppressing them when you prevent them from oppressing other people.
x-ray vision has already given a great response to your flat-out incorrect statements but just to comment on this…
This comes up quite a lot and it always seems to me that those who want to paint atheism as a belief system have an ulterior motive. If you can paint those who claim to be atheists as “unequivocally rejecting the concept of any god” and therefore somewhat aggressive then you can have yourself looking considerate, benevolent and benign in comparison. Good for you, however.
I am an atheist
I have no belief in god
I do not claim that god/gods don’t exist
Do you have any problem with the above? Do you think my defining myself as an atheist is wrong?
As for you being “more or less an agnostic” what do you mean by that? If you have no belief in god then you are an atheist whether you like it or not, your position on knowledge of gods may be an extension of that.
I see a lot of references to potential lawsuits in this thread. Is that seriously being contemplated by anyone involved and if so, on what basis?
Describing atheism as a belief system stretches the meaning of the word “system” past the point of functionality.
I used to think that all religious people were crooks, because every time I got involved with one it turned out to be a scam, but then I realized that it was really people who thought of religion as a marketing tool who were crooks. I don’t care how religious you are, but when you put bible verses on your sign because you think it will increase business, you’re probably a crook.
Sadly, my experience has been that the more someone waves a Bible in your face, the tighter one needs to hold on to both their wallet and their panties.
Here is a major difference between religion and science, as proven by the OP’s news story: Science invites discussion. Religion seeks to squelch it. The professor opened a debate. The religionists are attempting to stop it.
If instead of Smilin’ Jesus, the “magic”-using creator had been rendered as, say, God from The Creation of Adam would it still be insulting/inappropriate?
I don’t think it would have been insulting, but it still would have been inappropriate… unless the prof had a reason for bringing it up in the first place. If, for instance, he had repeatedly been hit with questions or assertions by Creationists semester after semester, he might have felt he needed to nip in the bud on the fist day and set the ground rules-- science only, not religion in the classroom. But other wise, why bring it up? No science teacher or professor I have ever had brought up religion in science class.
This is a state university, and so one should be doubly cautious about broaching the subject of religious belief in a science class. This is not a class on comparative religion or anything. Stick to science and make sure the students do as well.
Once again(and for the umpteenth time), What is being brought up is Creationism, not religion in general. Creationism is a fake science that is being pushed by religious groups, certain lawmakers and others, and just because this particular fake science is backed by religion doesn’t mean teachers have to be afraid of discussing why it has no place in our modern world.
The professor is a twit. That slide he shows pits evolution against “creationism”. Creationism, for most people, does not negate evolution, natural selection, etc. And evolution and everything else on the left side of the slide shared in the OP has NOTHING to do with the origins of the universe or our planet. If he’s going to have “magic” on the right side, the left side should have “we have no fucking idea”.
I don’t see a problem with the science side recognizing gaps in current theory. The creationist side being “magic” remains succinctly accurate.
Science is the THE side that admits “we have no fucking idea”, religions create myth to explain the gaps. It is VERY VERY clear that the slide is referencing young Earth creationists. Involving a claim of biblical literalism in the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.