Stubenville course, crime, homosexual deviant

[Regular_Atheist]

I think you’ll find as your life goes on that science is a poor replacement for religious beliefs. I’m an engineer, so I’m rather familiar with how great a tool science is for answering “what, where, when, how” questions. But if provides only the flimsiest excuse of answers for questions involving “who and why” questions. Funny thing is that those questions and answers matter a LOT more in the long run than the questions science is good at answering.

So, you’re claiming I should believe things on faith? Make things up? Claim to know what I cannot possibly know? Why? That’s just being dishonest, to both myself and the world. It is also dangerous, especially if I try to make beliefs that I cannot justify into law, or force them upon other people.

DO look into what modern secular history experts are recently publishing about the medieval period and middle ages. Most of what was in our history books as kids was a gross perversion of objective history.

I’ll take your word for it. And I’ll look into it. Of course, I’m a little worried about taking information from a fundamentalist Catholic, so I’m not entirely convinced. I’ll see what I can find.

Trust what?

Your source that you seemed to want to prove that atheism is immoral. Besides, Theodore Dalrymple is an atheist. I rather doubt he was advocating a Christian theocracy. I think he was trying to promote more Conservative views.

You seem to think that because you know some nice atheists/non-religious that atheism/non-religious must be good.

No, I’m stating that atheism doesn’t have much of an effect on someone’s morality. It only affects their belief in gods. Atheism isn’t good or bad. It’s morally neutral. I never implied that those people I mentioned were good. I simply stated what their political/social views were.

Why don’t the ideas of good atheists ever translate into good government? Why is it always the bad ones? We have at least one data point [the U.S.] where religious ideas translated into government recognition of God-given individual rights, rights I might add that atheists only too quickly claimed.

Don’t they? Now, you must know that I am not advocating an atheist state. You’re probably thinking of the Soviet Union or something like that. I support Democracy, and I don’t believe it’s fair to prevent people from having religious beliefs, or to ban organised religion. I’m not quite sure what you mean by the “ideas of good atheists”. American voters have admitted they wouldn’t elect someone who wasn’t an open Christian, so lots of the time atheists aren’t given a chance, and Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is an atheist and he doesn’t appear to be any more evil than most other politicians. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t believe a nation should base its law system off the Bible, but that’s not to say I believe religion should be banned.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Your source that you seemed to want to prove that atheism is immoral. Besides, Theodore Dalrymple is an atheist. I rather doubt he was advocating a Christian theocracy. I think he was trying to promote more Conservative views. …

That may be true, but I posted his observations as an example of what an anarcho-tyranny is like. “Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value.” This is a rejection of God. What could be more atheistic? Christians call this Original Sin: man trying to be God so he can make up the rules for himself.

No, I’m stating that atheism doesn’t have much of an effect on someone’s morality. It only affects their belief in gods. Atheism isn’t good or bad. It’s morally neutral. I never implied that those people I mentioned were good. I simply stated what their political/social views were.

Moral neutrality doesn’t exist. Evil would see it as an opportunity and immediately fill it like air fills a vacuum.

Don’t they?

No. Just look at the French Revolution; the Bolshevik Revolution, the Nazi regime, the Italian Fascist regime.

Now, you must know that I am not advocating an atheist state. You’re probably thinking of the Soviet Union or something like that. I support Democracy, and I don’t believe it’s fair to prevent people from having religious beliefs, or to ban organised religion.

I’m not talking about you; I’m talking about atheist movements that always seem to turn into oppressive regimes.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the “ideas of good atheists”.

You mentioned some atheist friends who are good. So, why don’t their ideas get implemented instead of oppression?

… I don’t believe a nation should base its law system off the Bible, …

But it already is. We would not have a concept of equality of all before the law if it weren’t for the Judeo-Christian concept of equality before God.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please return to the topic of this thread. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

-snip-

The moderators have stepped in, so I guess we should end this. But I don’t agree with lots of stuff you said. I know for a fact there are things that are neither good nor bad. We also wouldn’t have religious freedom without secularism.

So, on topic, I’ve said that I don’t really see what the issue is with a Catholic school teaching Catholic stuff.

EDIT: I’ll PM my reply.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

So basically the issue is accreditation - some form of certification that if you hire graduates of this program in social work, they have been trained according to standard practices and principles used in the field. Like it or not the language in the course description seems to go against what the accreditation board expects to see.

Now personally social work isn’t my field, so I can’t comment on the relevance of accreditation there. But in other fields accreditation is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I wouldn’t want to drive on a bridge that was designed by an engineer whose undergraduate program wasn’t accredited because they taught some bogus theory of mechanics. However, my undergraduate program in chemical engineering at a well-known prestigious university was supposedly in danger of losing accreditation because they had dropped process control from the list of required courses… but it would have had no impact, because the university had a well known name, and from a practical point of view, that class is worthless anyway and employers know it.

 

[Faithdancer]

The University of Steubenville is a private institution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscan_University_of_Steubenville and can teach the flat earth as truth if it so chooses. Those who get offended can just lump it.

I felt compelled to re-post sedonaman’s post again- because I totally agree and (mainly) because it’s hilarious!
RIGHT ON SEDONAMAN!