The atheist humanists were quite happy to accept religious values in the first Humanist Manifesto


http://www.americanhumanist.org/Huma...st_Manifesto_I

Note that they describe it as Religious Humanism.

To...stop those monsters 1,2,3
Here's a fresh new rhyme that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee
Guarantee void in Tenessee
Just don't look! Just don't look!
Just don't look! Just don't look!

You atheists are so rational !

Not a big fan of The Simpsons, I see.

Dammit, I looked.

Of course you do. Because you are wrong about everything.

Of course, it's immoral.

How many months, weeks, days or hours were taken up studying "evolution" at your school ? From memory I got most of my knowledge of it from the television.

Biology in 9th grade was pretty much only on evolution as far as I remember. I also learned about it in 7th or 8th grade, iirc. And of course it comes up now and then in my medical studies.

Blimey you did a whole year on evolution ? That can't be typical. In the UK we were told about it but it wasn't a subject in its own right.

Same here, although I think only our second semester (half of the year) was strictly spent on evolution.

What if you lived in a society where ministers of theistic religion are often found to teach theological issues (creation, life) not just as being aspects of their religion, but as if they were scientific truths?

The ToE is a vast collection of information, no-one is suggesting that young children are taught detailed scientific theories, but a simple overview (couple of weeks) that can be revisited again in more detail at later stages of education.


Overall, what is the message that you are trying to represent here? It seems to be that atheists are terrible people, despite you claiming to be an atheist and also claiming to be a good person. But your own contradiction to the proposition doesn't register with you that being an atheist and being a good person are unrelated characteristics. As I asked you earlier:
"Can you name anything that you think is good that can only come from religion or because a person is religious?"

Well I said all I remembered was evolution. So just now I looked up my curriculum: "biochemistry, genetics, cellular dynamics, ecology, evolution, and structure/function of living organisms" (http://www.frhsd.com/district/index....erings/science). I have to say, even though evolution is but one of 6 topics there, it occupied more than 1/6th of the time by itself, and it was certainly woven into at least 3 of the others.

I learned about Dinasours in school. Bunch of lies, Dinasours are not real

I don't recall, but it wasn't enough. I had to learn a lot of the details later in life, ironically because of creationists spouting nonsense on the internet, knowing that it was nonsense but unable to explain exactly why. So yeah, way to fuel the fire, creationists.

+1

Dinosaurs are real. Adam rode them before the flood. They were also herbivores. /religiouseducation
Or maybe it's all a metaphor for something.

There can be no "end of atheism" because answers to questions regarding the existence of things for which there is lacking evidence, will always be "no, until evidence otherwise". It is the default, logical position that will remain for many similar questions in the future, regardless of whether they're religiously-driven or scientifically-driven.

The reason it is the default logical position is that the answer it supports is the same answer one would support if given the question of: "is there a flying unicorn in your bathroom currently?" Your logical answer would be "no, until evidence otherwise".

How much do you need to know ? Creationists believe God made living things and evolutionists think we all came from primeval soup. It looks like your reason for gaining evolution knowledge was only so you could have a pop at the creationists. Why do you put so much effort into this purely negative exercise ?

http://creationmuseum.org/

cwocwoc much too obvious even for you

I just don't think evolution represents progress eg if the world flooded according to evolutionists we'd all become fish but is that really progress ?

Ha ha ha oh wow.

Wut?

Troll-enabling ITT

You have to be on zumby's list of approved proseletysing atheists to be allowed any sense of humour on here.

If evolution is progressive then how come there isn't anyone around today who is cleverer than Isaac Newton or Shakespeare or Einstein ?