Would you have been satisfied with the slide (or, at least, considered the prof. not a twit) if the slide had been evolution vs. intelligent design?
Jesus Fucking Christ… No, he’s not bringing up “religion in general”. That would be less of a proem. He’s bringing up Christianity in particular and mocking it.
No, he’s not. He is bringing up a program involving a fake science that Christianity is pushing that directly involves what he teaches, and he has every right to do so. There will be no successful lawsuits. In fact, I this “lawsuit” crap is nothing more than rabble-rousing at its worst.
Nothing illustrates Christian privilege in the West as much as attempts to paint any argument with Christianity as some kind of unnecessary provocation…
No, fundamentalist Christianity, most sects do not teach a literal creationism these days.
If the facts call for it, then yes.
To be fair, I’m totally up for a scientifically plausible explanation for the Christian side of how man came into being. If not magic, then perhaps someone would like to submit the exact chemical processes by which clay was turned into flesh, and how, maybe through stem cells, a rib was made into a woman. Failing that, “magic” seems appropriate
Is that really necessary for Biology 100, though? Is there a reason that just teaching the science of biology is insufficient, and non-scientific theories must also be addressed?
Was it Biology 100? Do we know what class he was teaching at the time?
It’s a first-year intro course. For many of them it’s probably mandatory.
I would consider that to be closer to a definition of an agnostic, but just to close this off once and for all… (I’ve added the numbering above for clarity)
My main point continues to be missed or ignored. But first, I’ll say that some representations of atheism seem to suffer from the peculiar wording and odd juxtapositions like the above statements (2) and (3) – much like the convoluted wording of x-ray vision when he states that “atheism is being without belief in gods”. Say what? Some of you seem to be willing to do verbal headstands to avoid giving the more narrow and more practical definition of atheism, which is categorically denying the existence of any kind of god, without even defining what that might even mean.
Why that’s important gets back to my central point. Which is the self-evident fact that atheism is capable of being proselytized, as evidenced by the plain and simple fact that some atheists do so. I mentioned a few examples in post #135. Atheism may be a neutral absence of belief to some, but to many it’s an issue worthy of activism. This places it in a qualitatively different category than, say, absence of belief in the tooth fairy, which has yet to spawn any strident billboards or activist associations seeking its suppression. Moreover, atheism is often (even if not always) associated with related beliefs such as the idea that all reality can ultimately be explained by science, and that (as Lawrence Krauss believes) neither religion nor philosophy serve any purpose. These are some of the things that make it a belief system, even if such beliefs aren’t universal because atheism, like religion, has many variants.
All of this is correct. The problem is precisely that “the professor opened a debate” in a domain where no factual debate exists. He thus managed to elevate creationism to the status of a subject worth “debating” in a biology class while simultaneously insulting its proponents. Almost every field of science has a gang of idiots somewhere who deny its veracity. Along with creationists there are flat-earthers, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine lunatics, objectors to blood transfusions, even relativity deniers. There’s a long article in “Conservapedia” seeking to prove that the theory of relativity is a conspiracy of liberal moral relativists! Many have religious undertones; one of the memes of climate change denial is that it’s blasphemous to suggest that God isn’t totally in charge of the climate that he created for us. If university courses took time out to explicitly address and refute these lunatics, we’d never get any actual teaching done.
The slide, underneath the Darwin/Buddy Christ cartoons, reads: BIO100: What About Creationism?
if it makes you feel better then consider me an atheist/agnostic but that suggests I’m making a claim on whether knowledge of the existence of god is possible or not. I make no such claim. I’ll stick with my chosen (and more accurate) definition of atheist.
it isn’t peculiar or odd at all. Let me help you by inserting a less traditionally sensitive subject.
- I have no belief that aliens have visited the earth
- I do not claim that aliens have not visited the earth.
Do you see now why I use the wording and definitions that I do?
- I have no belief in the yeti
- I do not claim that the yeti does not exist
Clearer still? It may be a subtle distinction but it is a very important one.
Yes! for many people that is exactly what it is and that is all that it is. No claims on our part, no alternative hypothesis, just nothing there. I was born that way and no convincing evidence has been presented to me to persuade me otherwise. Whether a god exists or not is of no real interest to me until such time as any evidence comes forward or any claim is made. Until then I’ll carry on without any need of that particular hypothesis as the world seems to work well enough without it.
I really don’t know why you can’t just accept our very straightforward definition. The problem with you defining it for me in your way is that I do not deny the existence of any kind of god, I don’t make that claim and I don’t say that I know for certain. Now I still have no belief in a god and I’m still an atheist and that is a very useful definition of “atheist” for me because it is accurate. Agnostic doesn’t cut it.
ITA. Like I said earlier in this thread, it has no place unless the business is religion-oriented.
Because your definition is incomplete, and seems to go out of its way (via the verbal headstands I was referring to) to omit the key part that I’m talking about when I refer to atheist crusaders. To wit, from the Oxford Dictionary:
atheist: A person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: e.g. “he is a committed atheist”
And even more clearly, from Wikipedia:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
It is that narrow sense that is relevant when one talks about atheist activism, which is precisely what I was talking about in #135, citing people like Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins, atheist organizations, and atheist advocacy ads. And these people piss me off because they’re not much better than evangelicals, they’re just more intelligent. And they do have associated belief systems, like belief in the supremacy of science as the ultimate arbiter of reality, and the alleged uselessness of philosophy.
Personally, while I share some of your beliefs, I would consider myself distinctly an agnostic in the formal sense of believing that the existence of god is not knowable, and indeed not even definable in any meaningful sense except in terms of what it’s not, namely, that it’s that aspect of reality that is and will always remain outside the purview of science.
Anyway, my bottom line to all this is that university education should transcend puerile attempts to ridicule the inevitable gang of idiots that seem to attack just about every branch of science that happens to inconvenience lunatic beliefs and superstitions, and should retain sufficient dignity to just get on with the business of teaching.
It is actually very, very unlike you to play this particular rhetorical game. I have admired you for years because you don’t play games like this.
You didn’t make it clear how you intended to oppose the “very dangerous” principle of respecting religion.
If all you want is to criticize and educate, you know I’m wholly in favor of that.
I just couldn’t tell, in context, that this was all you were proposing. Thank you for clarifying your stance.
Aye, and doctors who actually oppose healing by laying-of-hands are an embarrassment as well.
:rolleyes:
This isn’t quite right either. Lemme try:
He is bringing up a program involving fake science that some Christians are pushing that directly involves what he teaches.
From that same dictionary:
disbelief:
Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
You’re actually proving that the definition Novelty Bobble and I provided is correct. An atheist is one that has no belief in the existence of any gods which is the same as the “or” part that says “lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.” How does that back up your claim that atheism is “it unequivocally rejects the concept of any god” and later “categorically denying the existence of any kind of god, without even defining what that might even mean”? Your preferred dictionary definition is much more in line then what we said and not at all like yours.
You proved us right again. Thanks.
When are you going to provide a cite that it “it unequivocally rejects the concept of any god”? You realize that rejecting a concept is not the same as not having a belief in something or even saying that something doesn’t exist, right?
Nothing you cited defines atheism as a “belief system.”
Of course they’re better. They don’t tell anyone they need to be saved by believing something based on faith or ask for money so good deeds can be done with it and use it to live lavish lifestyles. They don’t pretend to heal people. I can go on if you’re really unaware.
You’re moving the goal post. You said that atheism was a belief system (several times). That different people have “belief systems” that their atheism may be a part of is a different claim.
You share that view with both some atheists and some theists. It says nothing about your belief or disbelief in the existence of God or gods. If you have believe in the existence of any gods, you are a theist. If you don’t, you’re an atheist. Period.
I’m an atheism because theism is useless to me.
I’m also an akardashian, and a-lots-of-other-useless-stuff that some people find fascinating for reasons that escape me.
One thing that bothers me about this story is that I can’t find any objective reporting about it. Every google cite I can find is either a right-wing advocacy site against the prof or a left-wing advocacy site against the Christian students. That tells me that 1) this ain’t much of a story and 2) we almost certainly don’t have all the facts.
Has anyone been able to dig up an actual mainstream media report on this “scandal in academia”? Because I always hate to be arguing something based solely on biased reporting.
When I first joined the Dope I started a thread asking atheists if they were more overt with their atheism online than IRL. Man, was that a stupid move on my part. “Oh, so you think atheists are dicks to religious people? Well, those idiots DESERVE IT!!! Blah blah blah evolution blah blah blah Crusades blah blah blah Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!”
But yeah, I think many of these assholish internet atheists are males under 25 who either tone it way down IRL, or they don’t yet have careers that could be fucked up by being dickish to coworkers.
One of the things that annoys me about militant atheists is that they seem to view religion as a sort of alternative scientific system, so all they have to do is point to a fossil and BOOM they’ve won the argument. I’m a confirmed agnostic, but I’ve spent a lot of time in various churches in my life and I have NEVER EVER heard a priest, minister, or pastor talk about science or evolution in a sermon. Not even once. I’m aware that it happens, but it’s far less common than atheists seem to think. 99 percent of what you hear in a church is how to live your life and treat other people–topics about which science doesn’t have much to say.