High schools say they are finding Bible classes an increasingly popular student option.Eight local schools offer them, at least two more in Columbia County could join the list next year, and Richmond County is considering adding more.Creation of new classes is based on several factors, educators say.”It depends on student interest and it depends on whether or not schools can fit it into their schedules,” said Jene Kinnitt, the curriculum coordinator for language arts in Richmond County. “Sometimes, study skills courses may take precedence over other electives.”Columbia County maintains an 18-student minimum enrollment before any elective course is added, said Rose Carroway, the director of high school student learning.Both Dr. Kinnitt and Dr. Carroway said they hope more students consider the Bible classes because they often boost a student’s academic performance in other areas.“Based on research, it seems that (Advanced Placement) exams use a lot of biblical allusions,” Dr. Kinnitt said. “Students who don’t have prior knowledge of the Bible don’t do as well on those standardized tests that require critical thinking and analogies to biblical references.”Beyond improved test scores, Dr. Carroway said Bible studies also promote higher-level thinking skills.”When you read the Bible, and it’s a tough read, and try to interpret and understand it, your critical-analysis skills are heightened exponentially,” she said. “That’s the value of the course.”
1) What research? I looked, and can’t find any such research to support the claim that reading the bible promotes critical thinking, or has a positive correlation on AP tests. Critical-thinking skills are “heightened exponentially” when you read the Bible? Truly a laughable LIE so they can LEGITIMIZE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACHING RELIGION. Isn’t there a commandment about lying?2) Let’s put this to the test and compare religious and nonreligious test scores. Maybe we should also correlate religion with crime. Oh wait — it’s already been donehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg&eurl=http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/05/atheist-statistics-2008/&feature=player_embedded3) Check out this article from on the Philly Bible Wars. http://www.atheists.org/The_Battle_of_PhiladelphiaHow long will it be before they start complaining about which Bible version is used? Then what?4) And on that line, isn’t this blatant discrimination against minorities (of any ilk)? If you have to have 18 kids to have a class, what about the 15 Muslims that want to read the Koran as literature? Pretty conveniently high minimum, don’t ya think?
JCC
Atheism isn’t a “worldview” and I have never seen or heard Atheists “promote despair”. You must be thinking of the rapture loving evangelicals and their Supreme Leader G.W. Bush.
You obviously didn’t read the whole discussion, JCC – you cherry-picked your data…AGAIN.
Your ad hominem fallacy is cataloged, & duly noted.
I provided a load of evidence in the other thread, broke it down, & showed how the entire accusation was puerile @ best.
Really? So I need to believe in something supernatural, or I’m going to plunge into the abyss of nihilistic angst?
Can I just believe in werewolves, or vampires? Fairies? Howzabout the Greek gods?
Yet somehow your bankrupt epistemology is less retarded than any of these.
Honkey, please.
Jcc,
How exactly can atheism be a “worldview”? Is not believing in unicorns a “worldview”? You’ve been on this blog for years now and you still don’t understand what atheism is? I suppose that has a lot to do with a religious mind and maybe not you personally. How can a mind hardwired to think in supernatural terms understand one that doesn’t? As I understand it, religion is a worldview because every decision you make is filtered through your belief in a supernatural man-god in the sky. You believe your religion is an instruction manual for living and describes for you the realities of the world through a religious lens — hence it’s a worldview. Atheism can’t be a worldview just as not believing in invisible, flying jellyfish can’t be a worldview. To put it in terms you can understand; it just means I don’t believe YOU and your fairy tales.
Atheism promotes despair? Maybe for you, but I (and I imagine most atheists) don’t require the promise of a better life after we die by some magic man-god to obtain happiness and contentment while we are living. I suppose it’s a little sad you’ll never understand that.
Jcc,
Ironic coming from someone who picks and chooses which disciplines of science he believes in. It seems extraordinarily convenient to only give credit to those sciences that agree with your “worldview”.
jcc –
What utter nonsense, undeserving of a response.
jcc,
What you fail to grasp is that atheism is the life affirming position which truly embraces and loves the short time that we are given whereas religion is the life denying cult of death which looks forward to the end of life. You obviously dont know many atheists personally if you think we are dark nihlist mired in despair.
JCC
When I die I will acquire powers beyond any god ever worshiped. What? You don’t believe me? How can you be so callous as to deny me hope?
What -
I believe in you and your afterlife. I’m joining your religion!
Pixel
If I can generate enough interest I will set up a P.O. Box where you can send your tithe.
Phreedumb said:
“Neo…you’re obviously a very angry individual and replying to any of your posts is simply a waste of time…
It is if you fail to bring you facts and your logic. And 1940′s court cases barely qualify, that was when we were stringing up black guys for talking to white girls and the murderers walked away, blameless. Those decisions aren’t myths they are just meaningless. But, they do represent the core of your argument which makes it meaningless as well.
I said the founding fathers weren’t Christian, they were Free Masons. Where’s your answer? Where’s your logic? The Free Masons caved into the Fundamentalist Christians in the wording of the preamble, and the Constitution, and the result was hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Civil War. The nematod Christians had to have the notion of white superiority whipped out of them with rifles, grape shot, and bayonettes. And yet you still don’t get the point about what you are defending. Big surprise.
That having been said, your post about the boy scouts was excellent. Just bring that kind of kind of logic and facts, and I will answer it on it’s merits. The idea that I can’t be reached is foolish. I came here to be reached.
NeoWolfe
dfled said:
On another note, I don’t regard casting pearls before swine as a waste of my time. If they’re really pearls then even if the swine ignore them, I can pick them up, dust them off, and use them profitably elsewhere.
Just check some of the responses to what on some of the older threads. There’s a king’s ransom in pearls. Having been trampled into the pen they’re coated in pigshit, but if you have the patience, wash em up, spray some french whoarhouse on em, they’ll be fine.
NeoWolfe
JCC – 1 last shot & shout:
Did you miss where I carefully cataloged the countries w/the highest suicide rates, & examined the religious populations? Oh, you skipped that part? No surprise.
It sucks, being the majority, I suppose.
So, let’s deconstruct:
worldview:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
So, from my perspective, definition #1 is my worldview. Not so much #2, because my ‘belief’ is based on reality, on facts, on evidence.
My heart weeps for you, my friend. A 21st century man enslaved by Iron Age anachronisms. Who holds his shackled wrists to the world, & cries “Here lies freedom!” Who flails about the free men, cajoling them to join him in slavery. Who revels in his serfdom, & tithes to the non-existent.
“That you do bend your eye on vacancy And with the incorporal air do hold discourse?”
I hope you find your freedom someday, JCC.
Cheers.
Krys:
Oh I read the entire discussion all right — including your convenient dismissal of suicide data from other countries as not being detailed enough and your stats on religious affiliations of those countries which, interestingly enough, are of little value when trying to determine the functional behaviors (i.e. atheist vs. theist) of individuals — what are you so fond of quoting? — oh yeah: 1st law of statistics: correlation doesn’t prove causation.
Actually, all you showed was the need for better data concerning other countries. You did nothing to refute the findings of the study in question.
Tsk, tsk. Noted as indicated. Also indicated, and corroborated by you with:
is the need for better data from those countries.
So, what do we have? The one study that was based on accurate data clearly indicates atheism as a risk factor for suicide, but you have failed to show how such a worldview can not just mitigate that risk, but more importantly, not be a contributing influence on it.
Belief is cheap; it doesn’t have to act. And since yours is based on shaky facts and incomplete evidence (regarding other countries) it’s dangerously close to being a blind faith.
Really? You “weep” for me because you think of me as a, “yutz,”, “yahoo,” and “moron?” Your genuine pathos is most endearing.
More honesty from the heart? Tell me Krys, how is true freedom to be found in knowing you can realize but a tiny fraction of your dreams and desires in your short life? How is true freedom to be found in the inescapable reality that your existence ultimately amounts to the vanity of vanities ? How is true freedom to be found in the deluded rationalization that love, the most powerful force in the universe, is just a by-product of socialization? How is true freedom to be found in the deluded notion that you’re really ok in the knowledge of your impending nonexistence?
How sad that the virtuous fruits of your worldview are a bottomless well of antipathy, a seething rage and a tidal wave of intolerance for anyone who dares to draw different conclusions from the reality we all share. Pat yourself on your back and feign as many crocodile tears as you can with your published rancor for me here, but in the end, my heart will be unfettered in the knowledge that I truly did pray for your emancipation from the inevitabilities of your beliefs.
dw:
Hence, that response…
As an English teacher and atheist, I think David’s original post was a little juvenile, and would actually encourage the teaching of the Bible in a World Literature course. It can be delicate and should not be put in the wrong hands, but handled correctly, can benefit students’ literary analysis skills. In my experience, a lot of students are mature enough and intelligent enough to read it as literature and discuss the structures and themes of a lot of the stories. The Book of Job is a very teachable story in an English class, no different than the Myth of Sisyphus or Greek mythological stories. As long as it is clear why you are reading it, there shouldn’t be a problem teaching it in a World Literature class, for instance. Along with that then, you are also teaching stories from Greek, Roman, Pagan, and Eastern religions, but for someone who believes strongly in a seperation of church and state, I think think particular issue is a paper tiger.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
“I think *this* particular issue is a paper tiger”
DVanWechel:
See Krys’ first definition above.
I understand it better than you think.
That seems to contradict your premise — do you not believe mine is a “religious” mind?
Because, by definition, “natural” is a subset of “supernatural.”
And as demonstrated by your response, every decision you make is filtered through your belief that there cannot be such a thing as the supernatural.
Ditto for atheism.
Non sequitur — and a direct contradiction of Krys’ concession above.
If it offers no permanent hope, how can it not?
How can that be since I’m not an atheist?
How can I not understand that if the natural is contained within the supernatural?
Huh? Which disciplines of science do I not “believe in?”
Jcc,
“1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.” How does my not believing in fairies qualify as my overall perspective from which I see and interpret the world? I just simply don’t believe fairies exist. Should I call your not believing in the tooth fairy a worldview? Is that how you see and interpret the world; by filtering everything through your non-belief in the tooth fairy? Is your non-belief in the tooth fairy your overall perspective on the world?
You believe atheism is a worldview, that seems like a gross misunderstanding to me.
It doesn’t contradict my premise. You have difficulty understanding how atheism can NOT be a worldview because you are unable to see a world without the influence of YOUR particular flavor of your God. The reality is, I just simply don’t believe your fantasy. If you understand how your not believing in Amen Ra influences how you see the world, then you’ll understand why Atheism isn’t a worldview.
Are you saying you believe the world is made of magic, therefore natural is supernatural? If so, thanks for proving my point.
See my above statement regarding the tooth fairy. And just to point out, it’s your fantasy that carries a set of recorded rules/dogma about how to live one’s life — my dismissal of your fantasy doesn’t.
Please show me the Atheist’s Bible.
Non sequitur? Did I miss something? I thought that’s what our discussion was about; whether atheism is a worldview or not?
“Permanent hope”? I didn’t realize there was such a thing. Regardless, one doesn’t follow the other. Just because you can’t see how it offers hope, doesn’t mean it offers only despair. That’s where you take it, not me. Where and how we draw hope, is by definition, subjective.
Yes you are. You’re atheist when it comes to all other Gods but your own. Besides, you’re the one claiming atheism offers only despair. Was I suppose to believe that as an alternative to your God-belief, it doesn’t offer only despair for you?
Oh, it’s easy. Here’s a tip; supernatural and natural are two different words with different definitions. That’s the funny thing about language; words can be conjoined to create completely different meanings. Check ‘em out.
Ha! That’s a good one! Maybe…I don’t know…let me think…maybe Evolutionary Sciences?
Man I hate how my apostrophes show up as funny characters. Worst part is, sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.
Curiosity, has anyone other than me noticed that jcc has never answered one single post I’ve make, even those addressed directly to him? Do you suppose he might have realized he would be talking to Satan himself and fear to do so. Maybe he doubts his faith, sad, because as Jesus wandered those forty days in the desert being tempted, at least he answered the questions Satan posed him.
NeoWolfe
DVanWechel:
Sorry, a little clarification is needed; when I refer to the “supernatural,” I’m referring to the omnipotent Creator of the universe, not fairies – makes a big semantic difference.
Loosely speaking, yes — because it is derived from, and part of, my worldview.
No, it’s one lever above that. I consciously view the world with the premise that God exists and is therefore the ultimate moral authority. You view the world with the premise that there is no God which results in you placing yourself in the position of ultimate moral authority.
That’s rather presumptuous of you as well as illogical. Why do you assume that only those who’ve never contemplated the concept of God could possibly understand the concept of an existence without God?
And that’s fine. But the reality is that every aspect of our behavior is at some level affected by what we believe to be true about God — if he exists then our behavior reflects accountability to him; if he doesn’t then it reflects a narcissistic accountability to only ourselves.
No. You completely missed the point. If a creator exists, then there is nothing illogical in asserting that that creator exists independently of and separately from his creation — but both must exist within the same realm as the creator.
Whoa, you’re saying there’re no “rules” in atheism? If so, then by convention, you must acknowledge the possibility that God exists and tolerate those who hold that point of view.
What is your answer to the question, “do absolutes exist?”
If you acknowledge that all your behaviors are ultimately influenced by what you assume to be true regarding the existence of God, then atheism is a worldview.
I rest my case.
But unless the second law of thermodynamics is repealed, how can atheism offer optimism in any form? If all is ultimately for naught and atheism can only confirm that, how is despair ever not possible?
Oh dear.
Yes.
Ah! And let’s not forget that other rigidly scientific endeavor called political science — after all, both are firmly grounded in good, solid, repeatable, verifiable evidence!
Jcc
No clarification needed. I understood that you were talking about your God. My point being that I see no distinction between the existence of your God and the existence of fairies. I suppose I should have been more clear.
I see that as a bit of a stretch. If a non-beleif plays such an insignificant role in one’s life (like not believing in fairies) I’m not sure it can be considered a part of one’s worldview.
That’s one way to look at it. Though the last portion of your assertion is incorrect. I do not place myself in the position of moral authority. I place society as a whole in that position. I am only a part of society and therefore only a part of the moral authority.
I don’t. I’m a perfect example of someone who has contemplated the existence of a God or Gods and has seen no reason to conclude any exist. My statement was only directed at you, but it may have been presumptuous.
I disagree. Regardless of what one believes, there is no way to show anyone is held accountable by a God or Gods, and therefore we can only demonstrate that we are accountable to ourselves. Also, one could make the same statement about anything supernatural – not just a God or Gods.
Not true. You first have to reconcile what we know it means to exist with your definition of your creator. If you can provide me a definition of your creator that can be shown to fit within the definition of exist, then you have a point. Until then, your god will be considered supernatural which means something very different than ‘natural’.
Yes, I am. Just as there are no rules in not believing in unicorns. Why is that difficult to accept?
Regarding acknowledging the possibility of a God’s existence, I don’t simply because no one has ever been able to reconcile their definition of their god with what I know it means to exist. Therefore, the concept that a God might exist is irrelevant and doesn’t make sense to me.
I tolerate ALL who hold a God-belief, why would you think I don’t? Is debating the subject of God considered being intolerant? I do have a few exceptions though… As long as people of faith don’t try to make laws based on their God-belief, don’t try to get into my wallet via the government to support their God-belief and don’t start wars based on their God-belief, I have no problems with believers at all.
I don’t. I acknowledge that a person’s worldview is based on deeply held beliefs that have practical application in one’s life. For me, my not believing in your God is no more deeply held than my not believing in the tooth fairy. And just like my not believing in the tooth fairy, my not believing in your God has no practical application in my life. My world view is largely based on what I believe about people and their beliefs, my personal experiences and how I interpret my reality.
Despair is ALWAYS possible — even with a God-belief. The reality is, life is what you make it. A positive outlook on life doesn’t require a belief in your God. And a positive outlook on life ultimately is the best antidote for despair.
Last I checked, political studies can’t be put through the scientific method.
DVan,
You made some valid points but arguing with him is like arguing with The Black Night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE
JCC
No I don’t. I realize that the question which divides us, “Do gods exist?”, is without meaning and therefore can not be meaningfully responded to with the elicited “Yes” or “No”. This particular meaningless question doesn’t shape my “world view” anymore than the meaningless question “So 456 is knbv?” shapes yours.
Obeah,
‘Ol right. We’ll call it a draw.
DVan,
You MUST be bored. I understand it happens to me too. And I know you are a smart guy, but some of the infantile debates you allow JCC to draw you into is kind of comical. Me, not innocent, I’ve tossed my string of pearls over the fense into the pig shit as well. I usually just pick out his most pathetic absurdity, but, dude, you went line by line, that’s dedication!!! While it’s wasted time, so is playing Xbox, if you had fun, that’s what counts.
Let me sign off with a passing shot, If an intelligence created the universe, or just sparked it’s beginning, that would make him part of nature. Therefore, the existence of supernature, or the supernatural is self contradictory. I would just guess that his god cant exist outside his own creation, except Wednesdays when he goes to the gym.
NeoWolfe
I find it unbelievable that someone who can say this:
And then says this:
Can contradict himself 1 sentence after another, & not see the aberration in interpretation.
Oh, why, jcc, can you not understand, that suicide is a misfire of chemical components, that it isn’t a result of ideology, but of chemistry only?
It doesn’t matter: jcc will always tout himself as being right, & any who respond to him are always wrong, based on the premise that the atheist is always wrong. No matter what.
I can float as much rhetoric as I like, no matter how well-crafted, he will always lift his leg & piss on it, marking his mas_turbatory territory in this sandbox,
neowolfe,
PLEASE tone it down a bit.
Neo,
Actually, I am a little bored–but, I wouldn’t say JCC draws me into infantile debates. Fact is, JCC is one of very few religious extremists on this blog that will even engage in debate. From my perspective, one should at least take that opportunity once in a (great) while.
I fully realize he will likely never so much as concede any point, and will perform any feat of mental ma$turbation to formulate and defend any premise based on his God-belief. Regardless, I do learn something by debating with him, and I can take that new understanding with me to better communicate with other fundamentalists.
Back to the whole AP classes and bible referrences bit, that bit is mildly relevant isnt it?
In Dawkins TGD he lists off 2 or 3 pages of references from the bible that are found in literature or in language in general. Those are the kinds of things I remember from my AP classes a few years ago.
I don’t agree with teaching any exclusive course, but a passing familiarity with christianity makes shakespear less confusing at times.
Obeah requested:
“neowolfe,
PLEASE tone it down a bit.
Please be more specific.
Dvan said,
“Fact is, JCC is one of very few religious extremists on this blog that will even engage in debate.”
No he doesn’t. He just comes on occasionally and cherry picks comments out of context followed by some absurd remark. Then if you respond he does not respond to your answer. That is not a debate by any definition I ever heard.
DVan continued:
“I do learn something by debating with him, and I can take that new understanding with me to better communicate with other fundamentalists.”
I respect that. That’s a very pacifist and mature attitude. But, I use a different approach, but, not necessarily a better one. As a result of the fact that as a child, the Bible was drummed into my brain, when a JW or a Mormon shows up at the door, they soon realize I know their Bible better than they do, and by the time they leave, I have them questioning the sanity of their beliefs. Sometimes they go home and study, then come back, but eventually they realize that if they want to preserve whats left of their blind faith, the relationship has to end. It’s fun, kinda like Xbox!!
NeoWolfe