1 edit
Originally posted by Omnislashthe letters to the education boards have already been written. the question i wonder about is the following: how many Pastafarians will it take before the arbitrary belief in the flying spaghetti monster will merit as much classroom time as the arbitrary beliefs comprising ID?
.........speaking of extremists.
If I am unaware of the influence of "flying spaghetti monsterism" in history, theology, world culture and sociology (to name a few) it must be because a proponent of some conflicting theorum had it removed from my cirriculum.
This is terrible! This mandates that I am handicapped in my social skills and comprehensio ...[text shortened]... ion officials as soon as you educate me in the subject.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
p.s. 😛
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
ps. i do know exactly where you are coming from with your posts, though. my beef is not with level-headed persons like yourself.
2 edits
Originally posted by OmnislashI'm not a fund of knowledge on the subject but the basic idea is that the image of God is the mathematical ratios coded into nature. The Golden Mean is first and foremost a mathematical ratio. Accepting the premises of sacred geometry would put ID in the field of philosophy rather than science.
My understanding of the history and/or concept of sacred geometry is insufficient for me to answer your question definitively. I suppose one could correlate them (if it is not historically apparent). I would certainly be interested in learning about such a correlation (and just plain more about sacred geometry for that matter 😀 ). Again, my knowledge on the subject is small. Perhaps it would make an interesting thread....😉
http://www.halexandria.org/dward095.htm
http://www.intent.com/sg/
"According to Robert Lawlor [1], “Ancient geometry rests on no a priori axioms or assumptions. Unlike Euclidian and the more recent geometries, the starting point of ancient geometric thought is not a network of intellectual definitions or abstractions, but instead a meditation upon a metaphysical Unity, followed by an attempt to symbolize visually and to contemplate the pure, formal order which springs forth from this incomprehensible Oneness. It is the approach to the starting point of the geometric activity which radically separates what we may call the sacred from the mundane or secular geometries. Ancient geometry begins with One, while modern mathematics and geometry being with Zero.”"
" Michael S. Schneider [3]: “The body’s structure is a mirror of our psyche, a denser expression of the energetic patterns of our soul. Body and soul somehow partake of the same design. But in what way can a mathematical ratio permeate our souls? Through beauty. A deep part of ourselves recognizes in flowers and dancers the beauty of the mathematical infinite and sees in it the endlessness of our own depths. Natural beauty resonates with the archetypal nature within us.” "
(excuse the c & p, just trying to pique your curiosity)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHave you seen the film 'Pi'?
I'm not a fund of knowledge on the subject but the basic idea is that the image of God is the mathematical ratios coded into nature. The Golden Mean is first and foremost a mathematical ratio. Accepting the premises of sacred geometry would put ID in the field of philosophy rather than science.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward095.htm
http://ww ...[text shortened]... the archetypal nature within us.” "
(excuse the c & p, just trying to pique your curiosity)
Originally posted by OmnislashID, just like any other religious belief, has no place in public schools. You can't just take every occurance of God, replace it with Designer and call it not religious.
As I have stated before in other threads of this topic, the teaching of ID is relative. I think it is fine and well to teach it in proper context. It is asinine to consider teaching it in a science class, as ID by its very nature is devoid of empirical evidence. I think it is good to teach the ID theory, but in the context of a class which relates to theol ...[text shortened]... rference of special interests attempting to filter their education.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by LemonJelloI understand your position as well (though sarcastic exhange is rather fun). I think your question is a good one. One that no one man can really answer. The best answer I can fathom is:
the letters to the education boards have already been written. the question i wonder about is the following: how many Pastafarians will it take before the arbitrary belief in the flying spaghetti monster will merit as much classroom time as the arbitrary beliefs comprising ID?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
ps. i do know exa ...[text shortened]... re coming from with your posts, though. my beef is not with level-headed persons like yourself.
When there is a significant portion of the world/local populace that has a vested interest in the theory, and/or the theory has influenced a significant portion of history/culture/etc.
Quite frankly, I think the FSM would be an interesting portion of a class teaching ID.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOk, you've got me interested. I'll research the matter and post later.
I'm not a fund of knowledge on the subject but the basic idea is that the image of God is the mathematical ratios coded into nature. The Golden Mean is first and foremost a mathematical ratio. Accepting the premises of sacred geometry would put ID in the field of philosophy rather than science.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward095.htm
http://ww ...[text shortened]... the archetypal nature within us.” "
(excuse the c & p, just trying to pique your curiosity)
Originally posted by XanthosNZI never stated anything of the sort. Try reading my post again. Then we can discuss the permissibility of religion in public schools, in their proper context, as I have suggested.
ID, just like any other religious belief, has no place in public schools. You can't just take every occurance of God, replace it with Designer and call it not religious.
Originally posted by OmnislashYou want to teach Intelligent Design in world culture classes or something.
I never stated anything of the sort. Try reading my post again. Then we can discuss the permissibility of religion in public schools, in their proper context, as I have suggested.
Teaching about Intelligent Design alongside other religions I could understand.
Teach != Teaching about
Originally posted by XanthosNZI have no problem with the teaching of other theistic beliefs. I did not say otherwise. Quite to the contrary, I think that is the way it should be done.
You want to teach Intelligent Design in world culture classes or something.
Teaching about Intelligent Design alongside other religions I could understand.
Teach != Teaching about
So let me get this straight here. As far as I can tell, your points have been:
1) Religion has no place in public schools.
2) Teaching ID alonside other religions seems acceptable to you.
I don't follow friend. Can you explain? I am a bit confused. What exactly are you trying to say?
Originally posted by OmnislashWhat I'm saying is that teaching about religions in a balanced manner when it is needed for the class (Can you teach the History of Europe without mentioning Religion?) is fine. However you seem to be advocating teaching that Intelligent Design is a valid option over Evolution, despite doing so in World History class (WTF kind of class is that? World History and American History, what an introverted, egotistical way to divide things up). Which it isn't.
I have no problem with the teaching of other theistic beliefs. I did not say otherwise. Quite to the contrary, I think that is the way it should be done.
So let me get this straight here. As far as I can tell, your points have been:
1) Religion has no place in public schools.
2) Teaching ID alonside other religions seems acceptable to you.
I don't follow friend. Can you explain? I am a bit confused. What exactly are you trying to say?
Once again, teaching about a religion is not the same as teaching that religion. The first is fine, the second is not.
If I misinterpreted your first post then feel free to set me straight.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI am happy to tell you that you did indeed misinterpret my post. I advocate teaching all theory the same, in their proper context, without bias. One should not be taught "over" the other. The idea should simply be presented, perhaps pros/cons of the theory as well. There is a signicant difference between teaching and preaching. If validity is to be discussed, it must be done in a balanced manner.
What I'm saying is that teaching about religions in a balanced manner when it is needed for the class (Can you teach the History of Europe without mentioning Religion?) is fine. However you seem to be advocating teaching that Intelligent Design is a valid option over Evolution, despite doing so in World History class (WTF kind of class is that? World Hist ...[text shortened]... ne, the second is not.
If I misinterpreted your first post then feel free to set me straight.
Again, persuasion is bad practice. The kids should be able to come to their own conclusions.
Originally posted by OmnislashThat is because the one true religion of Spaghetti and Pulsar Activating Meatballs (SPAM) has kept the flying spaghetti monster sect out of schools. The holy trinity of spaghetti, meatballs, and the omnipresent sauce will prevail. If you aren't aware, ID is passed off as a new idea, it isn't specifically about the christian god. It has had no more influence on history than the FSM. Religion should not ever be taught in public schools. I have no problem with talking about the concept of religion and it's effect on history, but the specific beliefs should be largely left alone. The whole problem with ID is that it is trying to teach that we are to complicated to have arisin without the help of a god. This may be someone's opinion, but it is not backed up with facts and is just trying to teach kids that science is no good for explaining things. I have no problem with taking your kids to church or whatever, but lets not try to discredit science in general in the science classroom. Science should always be looked at and theories discarded if they no longer fit the evidence suffciently, but this is not yet the case with evolution, and until it is disproved it should be taught as the long standing and widely accepted scientific theory that it is.
.........speaking of extremists.
If I am unaware of the influence of "flying spaghetti monsterism" in history, theology, world culture and sociology (to name a few) it must be because a proponent of some conflicting theorum had it removed from my cirriculum.
This is terrible! This mandates that I am handicapped in my social skills and comprehensio ...[text shortened]... ion officials as soon as you educate me in the subject.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
p.s. 😛
Age old debate, but nothing new here, as usual. Whether ID or the Theory of Evolution, neither can explain how it started by studying rocks or assuming we are the ancestors of apes. Both take faith in it's foundation, or starting point, so both should be taught as faith based and neither should be accepted as science. If you don't want one taught in the classroom, neither should the other.
Originally posted by The FoxIntelligent Design - A religious belief based upon an intelligent designer.
Age old debate, but nothing new here, as usual. Whether ID or the Theory of Evolution, neither can explain how it started by studying rocks or assuming we are the ancestors of apes. Both take faith in it's foundation, or starting point, so both should be taught as faith based and neither should be accepted as science. If you don't want one taught in the classroom, neither should the other.
Theory of Evolution - A scientific theory that fits all evidence discovered to this point.
They are not the same!