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?
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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 sciencesubject to scientific scrutiny.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
(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,)
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.
(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,)
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).
(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
(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,)
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).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
