Jump to content


Photo

Atheism 101

Atheist indoctrination

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:20 PM

Just sharing something that happened

This semester I have an elective topic, I chose to do Philosophy of Religion since as you guys know I enjoy discussing design and God, plus I thought that it would help my processes of logic, (plus I thought that if I get stuck I have a great database of knowledge to go to).

However it seems that the topic is vastly different to what is claimed in the topic information. Essentially the topic was indoctrination into atheism, all what occurred was that the lecturer would poke holes into the arguments for God and attempt to bolster the arguments against God.



One such thing was his claim that the universe is infinite in the past therefore doesn't require a beginning. Straight away I mentioned that the scientific arguments (The Big Bang, evidence from Alexander Vilenkin and another from thermodynamics) demonstrates that there can be no past-eternal universe. His response was that the scientific arguments are not what we are talking about. Ironically he went into claiming that evolution debunks God... Which he claimed was scientific evidence.. Hence there were double standards here, he didn't like discussing science when it his worldview contradicts it.

The problem with infinity is that the parts are equal to the whole hence if you take all the odd number of sheep from an infinite amount of sheep there is still the same number of sheep left.... To get around this problem he merely states that one of the "infinites" is inclusive with the other meaning you have a "small' infinite within a "large" infinite... Yet to claim such is absurd since

1- he is merely stating the problem again. An infinite as part of an infinite... yet he just merely claims it can
2- by making one smaller and one larger he is imposing limits on the infinite, therefore the "smaller" one is no longer infinite since it is restricted.
3- Due to the nature of the infinite who is to say that the "smaller" one is in fact smaller. Since there are any amount of numbers an infinite can take it can be conceived that the "smaller" is actually larger than the "larger" infinite meaning that his claim fails on the basis of logic.

Considering that the subject reader has no highlights / extra writings for the theist areas and that the atheist areas are all highlighted, and that he adds extra stuff for the atheist position, including his own critique, its very clear that this Philosopher is emotionally tangled within his worldview, (I can admit the same for myself).

However he didn't address what the atheist would claim for how the universe exists. Its one thing to poke holes in the argument for God its quite another to establish why this world exists from an atheist worldview. Essentially he has left it to nothing, (which contradicts part of the atheist writings in the reader, which I pointed out, but he said it must have been from the theist writings). If such a comparison was allowed I am quite certain that God would be the more logical choice, perhaps why no such comparison was allowed.


Pretty much straight after I signed up for a different topic, I am now doing something much more practical and applicable to my degree :D
  • Mike Summers likes this

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:41 PM

One such thing was his claim that the universe is infinite in the past therefore doesn't require a beginning. Straight away I mentioned that the scientific arguments (The Big Bang, evidence from Alexander Vilenkin and another from thermodynamics) demonstrates that there can be no past-eternal universe. His response was that the scientific arguments are not what we are talking about. Ironically he went into claiming that evolution debunks God... Which he claimed was scientific evidence.. Hence there were double standards here, he didn't like discussing science when it his worldview contradicts it.


Posted Image Now that is what we call willfully ignorant...

#3 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:48 PM

Even if the teacher was a christian he/she would have to teach the children what the state school wants....

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:48 PM

Posted Image Now that is what we call willfully ignorant...



Classic Posted Image Yes I was thinking that, though I am more concerned about the students he teaches this stuff to.




True Rico, though if he was a Christian then I am sure he'd have been more border-line / agnostic / open-minded rather than full on atheist. Considering that the topic was claimed to 'produce a greater appreciation for the arguments for God' I am sure that not teaching atheism would be allowed.

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 02 August 2012 - 04:04 AM

Gilbo, do you want to discuss how atheism is advanced via the present institutional settings.

#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 August 2012 - 10:25 AM

Just sharing something that happened This semester I have an elective topic, I chose to do Philosophy of Religion since as you guys know I enjoy discussing design and God, plus I thought that it would help my processes of logic, (plus I thought that if I get stuck I have a great database of knowledge to go to). However it seems that the topic is vastly different to what is claimed in the topic information. Essentially the topic was indoctrination into atheism, all what occurred was that the lecturer would poke holes into the arguments for God and attempt to bolster the arguments against God. One such thing was his claim that the universe is infinite in the past therefore doesn't require a beginning. Straight away I mentioned that the scientific arguments (The Big Bang, evidence from Alexander Vilenkin and another from thermodynamics) demonstrates that there can be no past-eternal universe. His response was that the scientific arguments are not what we are talking about. Ironically he went into claiming that evolution debunks God... Which he claimed was scientific evidence.. Hence there were double standards here, he didn't like discussing science when it his worldview contradicts it. The problem with infinity is that the parts are equal to the whole hence if you take all the odd number of sheep from an infinite amount of sheep there is still the same number of sheep left.... To get around this problem he merely states that one of the "infinites" is inclusive with the other meaning you have a "small' infinite within a "large" infinite... Yet to claim such is absurd since 1- he is merely stating the problem again. An infinite as part of an infinite... yet he just merely claims it can 2- by making one smaller and one larger he is imposing limits on the infinite, therefore the "smaller" one is no longer infinite since it is restricted. 3- Due to the nature of the infinite who is to say that the "smaller" one is in fact smaller. Since there are any amount of numbers an infinite can take it can be conceived that the "smaller" is actually larger than the "larger" infinite meaning that his claim fails on the basis of logic. Considering that the subject reader has no highlights / extra writings for the theist areas and that the atheist areas are all highlighted, and that he adds extra stuff for the atheist position, including his own critique, its very clear that this Philosopher is emotionally tangled within his worldview, (I can admit the same for myself). However he didn't address what the atheist would claim for how the universe exists. Its one thing to poke holes in the argument for God its quite another to establish why this world exists from an atheist worldview. Essentially he has left it to nothing, (which contradicts part of the atheist writings in the reader, which I pointed out, but he said it must have been from the theist writings). If such a comparison was allowed I am quite certain that God would be the more logical choice, perhaps why no such comparison was allowed. Pretty much straight after I signed up for a different topic, I am now doing something much more practical and applicable to my degree :D



One thing I like to point out about the infinite universe thing or whatever, is that if we started counting at an infinite point in the past we would never get to the present.

Your teacher is obviously anti-supernaturalisticaly biasec! lol




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users