I am responding to Tiles' accusation that religion is not knowledge, because it is not science. There are other types of knowledge, which we accept as valid, which are not science. The logical result of his argument, is that we should do away with these as well.

It's plain ridiculous what dirty psycho tricks you use here. Mentioning the word Accusation to make me the bad guy? Tsts. What comes next?

Funny by the way to hear the word logic from a believer. You ignore any logic since you have entered the discussion, and accusates me to be the one without logic? (Ah, now i did mention the evil word )

It is no accusation that religion is not knowledge. It is fact. Religion is fairy tales. What religion teaches about how the world is made gots disproven. All religions books have this big logic gaps, big as the mount everest. And you still tell us that this nonsense should be teached instead proven scientic knowledge. And you still tell us that two and two is five. That this disproven stuff is the only truth. Constantly, after every posting. Just to repeat it as often as possible. To repeat it so often that the others give up and you have the last word.

Even you had to admit that there is something not this correct here and there. Which stopped you exactly one second before you went on as before.

No it is not. The world is not made in 7 days nor in any way that is described in any religion. Two and two is four, not five. No matter to what god you cry to change that. No matter how often you try to twist words.

You want to defeat your religion. That's all you are interested in. And no matter what arguments gets mentioned, you will always bow to your god and defeat it with all possible weapons. Ignoring all logic.

And you want to tell ME about logic? Comeon

Like what? Examples please of such 'other' types of knowledge we apparently agree on. I don't think there are other types of knowledge.

Cheers

I am only just joining the conversation, forgive me if I miss something



Actually, when I had a general science class (when we were discussing how the universe may have come to be) - we were learning about other religions views, albeit only briefly. Our teacher stated that 'one possible explanation was...' and from then on we studied the big bang.

Science should be taught stating that there may be other explanations or reasoning, and that this is the best explanation that science has to offer. But teaching that the red shift effect does not exists might be a bit far - or our 'science' books will be full of self-contradicting sentences. "if the red shift did exist, you would use this formula... If not, then ignore this chapter".

But fully teaching ID/Creationism with science I think is not right. They often contradict, as as I said above, it will make the subject very convoluted. And less factual/experimental.

Other types of knowledge:

1. Morality - right from wrong.
2. Relationships - do you love your mother? Prove it.
3. Religion - i.e. how did the universe come into existence, and what happens when we die.

None of these things can be proven or disproved by science. Yet we use them every day. Science has been trying to eliminate religion, ever since the religious people had tried to suppress science.

I would suggest a more holistic approach, which allows science to proceed, but without completely ignoring religion.

I never suggested stopping science, or ignoring scientific data.

Also, just because one religion has scientific errors associated with it (Christianity) it does not mean all religions are wrong. I would recommend teaching the latest scientific theories, but also, why not teach that a lot of great scientists in the past also believed in God as the creator of the universe.

Since science class teaches the history of science, and about scientists, you can't ignore the role religion has played in the evolution of science (whether good or bad).

I would not recommend ignoring scientific data like red shift, in order to try and support a religious view. I would rather re-interpret religious texts, to see if they can be reconciled with well established scientific data. From what I have seen this is easy to do in the case of the Quran, but not so easy with the Bible. This is why, as I've explained in the past, the Christian world had a negative reaction to science, and why the Muslim world did not.

And for Tiles, I only said that you accused religion of not being knowledge, which you did. It is a type of knowledge. Now you accuse me of being illogical. Please tell me what I have said which is illogical.

My argument has been that if you say religion is not knowledge, then you must admit that morality is not knowledge either. Relationships must also be discarded, because we cannot 'prove' that we love someone.

Science has never tried to eliminate religion. However, since there is no scientific evidence supporting religion, science is forced to ignore it. Science simply does not acknowledge religion.

If new evidence crops up, then science will take a look at it.


I could see this being an elective college course, but not a basic high school science class, and most certaintly not a mandatory class. Science doesn't need to waste its time interpreting scripture, in classes where it needs to teach fundamentals of biology, physics and chemistry. There isn't enough time for it.

Morality is part of the science called sociology. That is science and knowledge. I said that a few times before. That for saying I did say that Morality is no science. You start to lie again

Relationships is part of the science called sociology. That is science and knowledge.

Religion though is no knowledge. Religion is fairy tales. May be that this tales are of interest from a historical point of view. But they contain nevertheless fairy tales. And please stop to connect your fairytales with scientic points. How the universe came into existence tells you science correct, not religion. Religion tales gots disproven here.

Two and two is four, and not five. You cannot say Religion is knowledge when exactly this "knowledge" religion wants to teach gots disproven one by one by science. Or is this fantastic that it is not proveable. Means it is not real. Unreal things thoug doesn't have relevance.

When we talk about Creationism or intelligent design we talk about the CHRISTIAN view of the world by the way, the Genesis. And as far as i know even Islam borrows by this disproven Genesis too. It's the same lies everywhere.

Two and two is four, not five.

All are wrong except YOURS, right? Your so called logic is very wicked

Attention, there is a ghost driver at the highway. Drive at the right side ....
"One? Hundrets ... "

You do. That is exactly what Intelligent design teaches. NO redshift

Science looks for relevant data. And for facts. And it searches everywhere where a search is possible. That religion has no relevance in science anymore has one big reason: Religion doesn't provide relevant data and facts.

What you want is a scientic approach that goes back into the medieval: Religion controls science, controls knowledge. And controls what is fact, and allowed to think. That my friend is "evil", to borrow a religious word ...