Like with Harry Potter, someone is posting spoilers on the web
I want to see the mathematical proofs that God exists. It sounds from reading these course descriptions that there are ones. Or perhaps those are left as exercises for the students.
PRE-CALCULUS
Students will examine the nature of God as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation. Students who have successfully completed Geometry and Algebra 2 will develop skills in advanced algebra, analytic geometry, and trigonometry. The students will focus on the mathematics concepts that connect the thoughts of the mind with the realities of the universe, experiencing the creative power and order of God.
But it’s the econ class (bottom of page) that sounds the most interesting. I didn’t realize the concepts of capitalism and socialism and communism were known at the time the Bible was written. The things you can learn…
ECONOMICS/FREE ENTERPRISE
TWELFTH GRADEStudents will evaluate the past and learn from its lessons (I Corinthians 10:11), and become effectual Christians who understand “the times” (I Chronicles 12:32). Students will gain an understanding of the workings of economic systems, being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses inherent in capitalism (Deuteronomy 8, 15, 28, Leviticus 25), and the reasons for its superiority to the models of communism and socialism (Ezekiel 46:18).
Now where are those classes that teach critical thinking? I can’t seem to find them.
Oh, and Mister Mustard, If you have any examples of people infringing on your freedom of religion, please post them.
Mister Scottie: No I have not instances of people infringing on my freedom of religion. They have tried, but I’m enough of a fucking asshole that I’ve been able to dissuade them from pursuing that goal.
As to the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creationism or Anti-Darwinism, don’t lump me in with those assholes. They should keep that shit in their “Calculus for Jesus” high schools.
What offends me is adherents of the Atheist Religion (and yeah, it’s a fucking religion, dude, make NO MISTAKE about it) trying to shut me down or disrespect me for worshipping whoever the fuck I want to worship behind closed doors or in my place of worship.
You are free to worship at the altar of the Church of Atheism; just leave me the fuck alone.
Is that so hard to understand?
#34 – MM,
OK. I’ll bite. How about a few real examples of people that tried to infringe on your freedom of religion?
>>OK. I’ll bite. How about a few real examples of people that tried to
>>infringe on your freedom of religion?
OK, M. Scott, bite on. I live an a town where my home is considered a “historic landmark” (whatever the fuck that means). I tried to put up some Christmas decorations outside, and somebody had the police sent over to tell me I could not.
My house, my Christmas decorations, and my religion.
I told the cops to go fuck themselves up the ass with the rough end of the pineapple, and they never bothered me again. Maybe it has something to do with my law degree? Or maybe not. Maybe Aunt Jemima would have gotten the same treatment.
Fucking Atheist Holly Roller dick wads. May they rot in hell with Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and all the rest of those religious fanatics!
Atheism is ever bit as dangerious as the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid of Jamestown.
Thanks in advance.
#36,
I can one up you on that. When I was a teenager I was kidnapped by christianists and they attempted to perform an exorcism on me. It was a quite terrifying experience, and I know for a fact that I am not the only person this has happened to.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_real.htm#chri
Additionally, recently we had a lock in exorcism event here in rural michigan, where apparently the local christianist group recruited a bunch of high school students to come to their church for a “magical demonstration” then when the kids arrived they were locked in while the church ritually performed exorcisms on them and physically prevented them from leaving. Apparently this is part of a national trend, but it receives no coverage from the media because christianists are harmless.
I think the difference between your story and my story, is that the events I wrote about HAPPENED, while your story is made up bull shit.
#36 – MM,
That’s bad. I admit it. The neighbor that called the cops should not have. The police should have told them to get fucked.
Without minimizing this incident however, I must point out that this is hardly the concerted efforts to legislate belief on others of say the anti-abortionists, anti-evolutionists, school prayers, faith based initiatives, godvertisements on money and in the pledge, etc.
What you experienced is definitely wrong and abhorrent. I don’t want to discount that. I just wanted to point out the concerted efforts of the movements with which you are comparing the incident.
I am, however, very glad to see that you also do not support the efforts of the horrific movements I cited. So, I think we’re mostly in agreement and are just having a minor quibble about magnitude.
And, of course, I do not agree that atheism qualifies as a religion. But, I’ll leave that for another thread. You may be thinking of antitheism, which is at least an ideology, one to which I subscribe.
Ive got some math shit for ya’ll (buddy of mine sent it my way a while back):
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?
We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathe matical certainty that While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, andAttitude will get you there, it’s the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.
It’s not necessary to be a believer in God, an atheist nor a rocket scientist to acknowledge the fact that it takes as much faith ( small ‘ f’ ‘ ) to believe in God as it does NOT to believe in God since neither belief can be empirically proven.
Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®
#17, Peter,
#17, Peter, ( I was a little too quick on the send button)
As Jesus hung on the cross, he looked out over the gathered crowd. His lips parted and in a parched voice he called out. But there was no word on his dry breath. Feebly, so barely anyone heard. Then slightly louder. Finally, his voice rose to the vary edge of the crowd.
“Peter” he called. Then louder, “Peter”.
From the very back of the crows Peter pushed forward. The crowd, some weeping for the Son of God, some laughing at his plight hemmed in around the cross.
“Peter”.
Peter continued pushing his way through the crowd that didn’t want to move. Begging, pleading for those blocking his path to allow him passage.
“Peter”
Peter used his elbows to squeeze in between a couple of corn fed cows. “I’m coming Lord, I’m coming for you”.
Peter, come here”.
Push, shove, elbow, push, squeeze, elbow, shove. “I’m coming Lord”.
“Peter”
Finally, Peter made his way to the feet of his Lord and Savior, Jesus H. Christ. “I’m here oh Lord. I’m here”. Peter wept the words from his bruised lips and scratched cheeks. He prostrated himself at the bottom of the cross, not daring to look upon his Lord in his shame. His sides heaving from his exertion. Sweat, dirt, and blood giving his body a strange, metallic sheen.
“Hey Peter, I can see your house from up here”.
The End.
#40 – Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®,
Common misconception. The problem is that by that logic, you must give equal credence to all of the following:
god,
flying spaghetti monster,
faeries,
elves,
gnomes,
the tooth fairy,
the great pumpkin,
zeus,
odin,
thor,
baal,
ra
and a number of other mythical creatures. In fact, I have an invisible cold fire breathing dragon living in my closet. You can’t disprove any of the above.
So, if you are truly thoragnostic, fsmagnostic, ragnostic, and all the rest, then you are self-consistent. If not, and you give even a smidgen more credence to god, you are missing a crucial point about atheism. It is merely the stance that the one making the extraordinary claim, such as an invisible man in the sky, has the burden of proof, and, as yet, not a single shred of evidence has been offered.
#40,
You are assuming all atheists are “strong” atheists. However the vast majority are “weak” atheists. There is a significant difference between the two. A strong atheist knows there is no God, while the weak atheist simply doesn’t give a crap.
Also, lets add your proposition to the long list of theist minor insults and oppressions in assuming that I care, and telling me that I should, in that particular philosophical debate.
I don’t see what the status of the existence of God has to do with a debate about dogma anyhow. In the Catholic religion (my origins which is why I know) in particular, I know plenty of (weak) atheists who will get all bent out of shape about this or that bit of dogma because of temporal concerns. The spiritual has nothing to do with this argument.
Or were you trying to make so other point?
#42,
If Jesus was executed today, do you think his symbol would the the electric chair or the hypodermic needle?
All the more reason we must have standards and standardized tests set at the Federal level but allow the States to implement those standards. If a school wants to teach that God, the Easter Bunny or lephrachauns invented integrals, that is their business and frankly I could care less. Granted, I think that sort of thinking is complete nonsense but so what. What matters is whether the students know how calculus really works and can solve problems using it. Similarly, if a school wants to teach that the Tooth Fairy created humans 10 years ago, so be it. However, those students will fail when they take the standardized tests that require them to know real biological science.
#40
WRONG. The onus is on the people making the claim to establish it veracity. Thus, atheists are not obligated to prove anything. They are not making any claim. The onus is on the theist to establish that their god thing exists. To date, that evidence is lacking.
Good one, Fusion ma man… 🙂
#46,
I kinda agree with him more than you on issues of belief. It is obvious (to me anyhow) an area where logic and science has nothing to do with it. Spiritual and emotional issues dominate the temporal concerns. So inconsistent statements are allowed…
Anecdotally…
I have a neighbor, she is a great lady, we get along great. She also happens to be fundamentalist. I think people should be able to believe what they need to, to get through their life. She works in hospice so her spiritual needs are significantly different from mine.
I have allowed my son to believe in Santa Claus. Although I personally have not partaken in the hoax. One day she was talking to my son about prayer, she was being defensive about it, as she thought I would be offended. She said to my son, “You pray to God, and sometimes God will answer your prayers” or something along those lines. To which my son replied with the innocence of a 5 year old “Sort of like Santa Claus?”
Then I realized, nothing special or incidental happened there at all. To the believer, life is a constant challenge of faith. It is not that they do believe, it is that they want to believe. To the believer it is better than accepting a very grim truth. We are all alone in the universe, and there is no hope at all. At the end of the day, we all die, and then nothingness forever. Not that we will care at that point.
As a worker in a hospice center, she is doing what anyone would do faced with a hopeless situation, formulate and escape plan.
At times I admire the believer. It would be nice to know those sorts of things for certain. For whatever reason, and not for lack of trying, I am incapable of that type of hope.
Which brings me to a different topic, which is the dogma of religion, and the common ground. Most of the deeply spiritual people I know feel exactly the way I do about religion and dogma. Which is, religion and dogma are at least somewhat responsible for many of the very stupid things we all see go on in the world every day. Be it the dumb ass neighbor who called the cops on Mr Mustard for making a blight, or the terrorist who got on a subway with a bomb in his backpack, to the fratricidal Colonel who murdered Pat Tilman for his opposition to the Iraq war, and Christian Calculus as well.
#48, Scott,
Thank you for sharing. I think Carlin’s bit has probably made more normal* people come out of the closet then any other anti-theist argument.
Another very witty effort is Bill Cosby’s Noah.
“Ya right, What’s a cubit”?
I no longer get in a tizzy about the religious crowd. I play Santa every year and so many children do believe in me. That experience has convinced me that some minds just never grow up. They need something to believe in. Something that justifies why they must do this or do that in order to be a good person.
*= I hate the words atheist and anti-theist. I much prefer to think the acceptance that we are on this rock completely by chance is normal and need not have some fancy description, determined by those who insist you are wrong, attached to it.
#50 – Mr. Fusion,
I too hate the term atheist as it defines me by a non-belief. I’m also a non-race-car-driver, a non-skydiver (if at first you don’t succeed, skydiving is not for you), a non-football player, etc., etc., etc.
I do like the term antitheist because it defines me by a belief I do actually hold. I believe that religion has had a huge deleterious effect on humanity, as evidenced by the large number of deleted humans. So, if you are not actively opposed to religion, it would not define you. I am, so it does.
For the religious out there, please note, I am opposed to religion, mythology, and all other delusional beliefs. This does not mean that I am opposed to religious individuals. I just oppose a specific subset of their beliefs, which is not the same as opposing or hating the individual.
#51, Scott, deluxe as usual. But my invisible fire-breathing dragon (comment # 43) has misplaced my darned keys again, and that fire is raising my airconditioning bill. Either that, or my wife’s driving my car and the power company is greedy.
I’ll go with #2. 🙂
>>And, of course, I do not agree that atheism qualifies as a religion.
Oh, of course it does. “A deeply held belief, adhered to in the absence of any objective evidence to support its tenets”.
As you may or may not be aware, the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
So atheists, in spite of a total lack of any evidence to support their religion, persist in believing the canons of their church. And that’s just fine with me. Until Genital Warts Bush and Ted Haggard get their way, this is still a free country.
Perhaps you are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
In any case, I believe you are right; we agree more than we disagree. Rodney King’s dream comes true again – we CAN all just get along!
#43, Scott,
After reviewing your list I noticed you forgot to mention the Boogie Man.
For a fact, I know that as a child I heard him under my bed and in the closet. I never saw him, but I know he existed. He would also go into my laundry pile and steal half the socks too. Sometimes he would hide my homework assignment. Occasionally he would draw on the walls with crayon and my mom would blame me.
But the rest of that post was right on.
#51, I’m really trying to be an antijerk too. I’ll settle for non-jerk though.
#53
I see that Mr. Mustard is again dining on the shoe leather of ignorant. No, atheism is not a religion even by your definition. Atheism DOES have objective evidence to evaluate their beliefs and support their tenets. The atheist claim is simply that there is lack of scientific evidence to establish the existence of a supernatural being. That means there is objective evidence to support their belief and its tenets.
> As you may or may not be aware, the
> absence of evidence does not constitute
> evidence of absence.
Correctly so. That is exactly why the burden of proof is ALWAYS ON THE CLAIMANT. It is why you cannot logically prove that something does not exist. Just as we do not accept the existence of leprechauns because of absence of evidence, we withhold credence to a claim until it can be proven. Theoretically, it is possible that theists will one day provide scientific proof that their god thing exists but until that day, atheists do not accept its claimed existence as valid.
>>The atheist claim is simply that there is lack of scientific
>>evidence to establish the existence of a supernatural being.
Tommie, Tommie, Tommie. If you could understand what the fuck you’re talking about BEFORE you talk, that would be great.
The “lack of scientific evidence” thing is agnosticism. THAT is not a religion. However, atheism does not proclaim a lack of scientific evidence, it flat out states THERE IS NO GOD. To wit from wordnet.princeton.edu:
“(the doctrine or belief that there is no God)”
Got it? Doctrine? Belief? Not the “lack of a belief” in God, rather a BELIEF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
I realize that agnosticism and atheism are big words, and they sound a little bit alike (OK, they both start with “A”), but get a clue, dude. Real atheists (not confused agnostics) belong to a RELIGION. I might agree to downgrading the classification to “cult”, but whatever. They have a belief system, a doctrine, that they have no proof to support.
#53 – Mister Mustard,
By your own definition “A deeply held belief, adhered to in the absence of any objective evidence to support its tenets”.
As an atheist, I can tell you that it is not a deeply held belief. If there is a deeply held belief to atheism it is simply that extraordinary claims may be discounted until evidence of said claim is presented. So, just as you, presumably, give no credence to the hypothesis of The Great Pumpkin, I give no credence to the hypothesis of an invisible creature in the sky.
If evidence is shown, I will change my mind. However, at present, I have not been shown enough evidence to even make me consider the plausibility of the god hypothesis. Therefore, I am an atheist. I have not even seen a single shred of evidence that would give me the level of doubt to call my self agnostic.
Wow, Mr Mustard, will you quit oppressing me?
Please stop telling me how I experience my atheism, because you obviously have no clue how I experience it.
Or do you want me to start accusing you of experiencing your religions as a whacked out nut job who always wears white robes, and falls onto the ground in convulsions when you pray while handling poisonous snakes? Because from your fanaticism on this debate that is beiginning to appear to be the case.
In my case, I have tried to believe in God, and simply failed. That is not agnosticism. That is athiesm. It is also far different than how someone like Dawkins experiences athiesm.
The fervor and fanaticism you bring to this debate, suggest to me that you struggle with your belief the same way I once did. I think that you are probably also an athiest, you simply havent accepted it.
#56
It is truly fascinating that you still do not understand. I would expect that drugged monkeys in a lab would have grasped this concept by now. What is worse is that you *think* you understand. You really do not understand the meaning of the words agnostic, atheist and religion (or are using them to mean something entirely contrary to that of world’s understanding). To wit:
To the first definition, an atheist would state that is not possible to *prove* (as opposed to “know”, whatever that means) that something does not exist and thus state to the agnostic that it is equally likely that invisible purple dragons exist as a god thing. To the second definition, the atheist would state that without proof I do not accept claims as true whereas an agnostic leaves the door open to acceptance without proof. To the last definition, the atheist is adamant about scientific proof whereas the agnostic is a bit more wishy-washy.
An agnostic accepts that such a thing might exist; an atheist states its claimed existence isn’t valid until you prove otherwise. Since this stance wholly based on objective analysis, it does not qualify as a religion by your original definition (a point you conveniently ignored).
You seem to want to remain in your little world where everything is a religion (collecting stamps, following sports, jogging, not believing in things, believing in things…). Whether you understand what an atheist is or not (you don’t) is completely off topic to the original post.
@Thomas,
It is even less complex than that. It is a simple statement of belief. There is one of three answers: yes, no, and I don’t know. Obviously, you could do a much more involved sociological analysis. However for this side debate, just one of those answers will do. He seems to take it to the next step, that unless you give an affirmative answer, there is something “wrong” with you.
Also, I think it is incorrect to try and put the question and answer into a logical normal form. It is a statement of belief, nothing more. If we were trying to get at some deeper truth about the universe then then we might try. However, history tells us that would be an act of futility.
I also think the spiritual question here is separate from the religious question. There are certainly people who experience atheism as religion. I think the vast majority of atheists experience as you and I seem to, which is… We simply don’t care that much about it, there are better tools (like science) to get at the underlying truths of the universe. While a profound belief in God might make you feel better about your place in the universe, it is certainly not useful at knowing and understanding temporal world.
Which brings us back to christian calculus… Which seems not designed to reveal the truth, or possibilities, but seems designed to prevent people from feeling the way I do.
If theism is so easy an correct, I wonder why they have to go to such great lengths to get people to answer correctly on a true false question.
>>If evidence is shown, I will change my mind. However, at present,
>>I have not been shown enough evidence to even make me
>>consider the plausibility of the god hypothesis. Therefore,
>>I am an atheist.
No, Scott. You are an agnostic. Look it up.
#61,
I looked it up. According to the wiki article on the topic he is technically an apathist, which is a sub category of atheist.
>>Please stop telling me how I experience my atheism, because
>>you obviously have no clue how I experience it.
You’re right. It’s entirely possible that you “experience” your “atheism” by worshipping the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Or by praying to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Or to Ron Jeremy.
However, if that’s what you do, it ain’t atheism.
Christianity is a religion that believes in Jesus Christ.
Atheism is a religion that believes there never was a Jesus Christ, a God, or any other higher power.
Please note I said “BELIEVES”. Not “insufficient evidence has been shown to date”. Atheists BELIEVE something they have no proof to support.
And that, m’hijito, is a religion.