Very thoughtful. Yes indeed and those thoughts need to be expressed. But you could also put into " nephew’s " hands some good solid books refuting the kind of propaganda he will face or some good CDs or DVDs. The kind available at the Magis Center ( see link in my O.P.) Linus2nd
Why should one consider an atheist’s sincere belief about religion as superstition to be subject to censorship any more than a Christian’s sincere belief that atheist’s brand of science is gibberish?
No way to send P.M. to you. Why? Linus2nd
What your opening post describes as “gibberish”, I view more as filtration or censorship of ideas and findings. The Magis Center seems to be geared towards filling in the “missing links” of science. No question that this form of education is an essential element towards keeping & evangelizing the faith.
For the sake of discussion, would you be so kind as to elaborate? It really is a nice courtesy in discussion to provide your own sources
Yes, but I would think that mentioning it in passing would be okay. I’m not asking to start one of those debates. I’m only interested in knowing where he stands and nothing more. I wasn’t aware that even mentioning the word evolution was prohibited
It’d be one thing to call it a different philosophy or belief, but superstition has a more provocative tone
I think I have made it clear enough. I did mention the experiences my Nephew has had at his secular university. He has been repeatedly challenged by " off the cuff " remarks by an instructor. These remarks were not directed at him personally but to the entire class. He of course is quite mature and was able to confront the instructor but not without fear that his marks might be put at risk. I have heard of similar situations on talk shows, which I can’t document but which are nontheless true and illustrative of the problem. And I have pointed you to U-Tube debates in college and university settings which could be problematical and to " google " sources.
Actually, no it wasn’t an emotional attack. That is just a way to dismiss an argument. Accuse the person of being emotional, and you have won. the fact is that science has proven that it isn’t a lie through the technological advances that have occurred over the last 300 years.
Well, you just can’t stop some people from " drinking the cool aid. " I just happen to recall the great thinker, writer, intellectual, conversationalist, and loyal Catholic, William F. Buckley and his ground breaking book " God and Man at Yale. " This is an early alert to everyone, including parents, of liberal indoctrination taking place at Yale and per force at all institutions, Catholic and Secular.
And in addition to what I have said above there is the work of Dr. Ben Wiker and his current book, " Worshiping the State. " His web site, benjaminwiker.com/ , says :
I’m not 100% sure this thread was intended to attack ‘science’ as much as junk science and assumption that ‘science’ disproves God. A good example is a conversation I had not long ago with an individual who claimed you can use the scientific method to study ‘anything’ and when I say ‘anything’ I mean literally just that, in the absolute. If it can be studied, ‘science’ can study it. Since theology and God can be studied then the scientific method applies and the scientific method says there’s no God, end of story.
This right here is exactly why so many youth today lose faith. They are taught by their parents from a young age to question global warming and evolution and such. It is drilled into their heads that there is no evidence for it. Or that the evidence disproves it. And then they go off to college and they take a biology course or something similar, feeling well informed due to their loving parents that taught them the “truth”, and they discover rather quickly that there is astronomical amounts of evidence - quite the opposite of none. (I got more than enough evidence in my very first day of college classes) And then they have to conclude that their parents lied to them or that their parents didn’t know, and it forces them to question what ELSE their parents lied about, and very suddenly, they’re questioning their very belief in God.
What you are talking about here is filtration and censorship of evidence by parents.
Nothing on this board is “necessary,” but I was asking you to elaborate on your comments. It’s kind of hard to have a real discussion when the only accusations you’ve made are vague and seemingly baseless.
It is necessary not to be drawn into A&E banned topic entertainment which is certainly what would happen if one were required to get into the particulars of the scientific gibberish. Those are the necessary constraints of remaining on the board.
How? Evolution and atheism are banned topics - science education and curricula are not.
If you spend time on the Magis Center web site, you will have to conclude that much of it deals with “the existence of God”. The contention that there is “scientific gibberish” is based on the claim that science curriculum ignores scientific evidence that supports the existence of God. Discussions of atheism & evolution will necessarily be invited if explored in depth when the purpose of the thread is not to invite discussion at that level. The purpose is to say “What’s a mother to do when their kids aren’t getting the whole story?”. That is, how to augment their education for the education systems deficiencies. It would be no different than asking how do parents educate their children in the faith if their kids have to go to public school. It would not be a thread about “Is faith education necessary to augment public education?”. It’s not about changing the public school system to meet our requirements? (At least, that’s how I understand the thread’s purpose. Correct me if I’m wrong, Linus.)
Sex education actually does serve a purpose other than indoctrination. It also explains puberty
I agree that this thread should not delve so deep into banned topics for it to get banned. I disagree, however, that passing mentions would get it shut down, and I can ask mods even if I am right. Also, I agree with seakelp that elaborating would not necessarily move into banned topics.
Pretty much this. It is difficult to have real discussion when one side refuses to elaborate its claims. And saying your nephew has experienced it is not elaboration
Now we are getting into sex ed, not science class. To me these are two different topics. Schools should not, in my opinion be in the sex ed business. The problem is that too many parents are also not in that business so someone has to do it.
