Nialler

Haven't I read somewhere that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence?

Jamie_L

I'd like to add something that may have already been covered. I feel its important though, so if you've read it already, read it again.

It's not right to teach that evolution is "only a theory," unless you are going to teach all science in this fashion. And that would be silly.

Is the theory of electro-magnetism only a thoery? Is the germ theory of disease "only a theory"? Etc., etc. Evolution has every bit as much supporting evidence as other scientific theories that everyone accepts as fact (more than many "factual" theories, actually). Does it get a qualifier just because it clashes with a particular religion. Or more accurately, because it clashes with some people's interpretation of a particular religion?

When it comes to science, schools should only teach "the facts". And, emperically speaking, evolution is a much a fact as the existence of sub-atomic particles.

Religious beliefs, or anti-religions beliefs, shouldn't be involved. It's just: "this is how things work, and this is how we came to that conclusion." There's no need to say "this is WHY it works".

Jamie

tgamble

AIG finally got around to responding to such points by claiming that evolution doesn't qualify as a theory. It's just an unsupported hypothothes.

AIG are a bunch of idiots.

seanie

Starboy

I think you have a very individual relationship with the English language. To most English speakers those sentences are the same.

I think your example obscures what the real difference here is in defining atheism, in reality the definition that relate to 'weak' and 'strong' atheism.

Using the scentences above;

"Atheists are people who don't believe that God or supernatural beings exist."

Is a 'weak' atheist definition. The strong version would be;

"Atheists are people who believe that God or supernatural beings do not exist."

Or alternatively;

"Atheists are people who don't have a belief that God or supernatural beings exist." ('weak' atheism.)

"Atheists are people have a belief that God or supernatural beings do not exist." ('strong' atheism.)

I'm an atheist in the strong sense because that's what I happen to believe. I'm also agnostic since I recognice that I don't 'know' about the existence or otherwise of God.

If you choose to use atheism in the 'weak' sense I have no objection at all. But I wish you wouldn't ascribe 'antitheism' to us 'strong' atheists: it's not a word in common usage: as Tabula_rasa correctly says the most obvious interpretation of the word is 'opposed to those that believe in god': the dictionary you cited to me for a definition of 'antitheism' gave a virtually identical definition for 'atheism'.

Starboy

Seanie,

Boy am I glad I have found an expert on the English language. Would you say that the two sentences listed mean the same thing? Do you think that in the last sentence he is indicating that he also thinks the two sentences have the same meaning? Thanks for reaffirming my understanding of weak vs. strong atheism.

I’m just checking on my individual relationship to English.

Starboy

AtlanticCitySlave

Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because it's not true. End of discussion.

Albion

Yes but, yes BUT

It may not be true, but that doesn't stop it being The Truth. Depends on which dimension you're in.

Denshuu

I guess Creation could be taught in one specialized class (Origin Myth 101 maybe). They could teach about the means of creation according to various religions around the world, just to make it fair. As long as it remains out of the science classes everything's fine.

Doubting Didymus

What about a small unit on creation science in biology classes, with the purpose of demonstrating bad science, and refuting all of the main claims? I think that would be a helpful addition, and it shouldn't be too difficult to teach if the biology teacher was worth their salt.

Using the AiG 'Arguments creationists shouldn't use' sheets, there are only a few things that need proving, such as: that natural selection can increase the information in the geonome, and that macroevolution happens all the time (pointing out things like the change that we humans have achieved in dogs over just a few thousand years).

Oh, and why radiometric dating is not based on an assumtion. This would have really helped me in my biology class, as I just couldn't work out why the rate of decay should be constant. It took me a bit of my own research to work it out.

seanie

Starboy

You ask whether I think the following sentences mean the same thing.

No I don't.

But my post wasn't commenting on those sentences.

I was commenting on the following:

That doesn't make it clearer at all; "believe" and "have a belief" do mean the same thing. Try the following;

"Theists are people who believe that God or supernatural beings exist."

"Theists are people who have a belief that God or supernatural beings exist."

Are you really telling me there is a semantic difference in those two sentences? I don't see it.

All of which isn't particularly enlightening or interesting. We could spend months arguing over the precise definition of words and this isn't the best forum for it. If you want to use atheism in the a-theist, non-theist , 'weak' sense I have no problem at all. I'd just ask you to refrain from chastising us 'strong' atheists from using the term also.

Because when I use atheism to mean 'someone who believes God or Gods do not exist' I'm using it in a well accepted way that conforms to most dictionary definitions. That's a common understanding of the term in present day English usage.

Yes the English language sucks and yes you are stuck with it.