In God We Teach - documentary excerpt

[Guest Guest]

Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

You're either too stupid to know how to post a link or you're lying. Of course, it could be both; knowing you, it probably is both.

[Guest Guest]

And you expect us to take your word for it? You must think we were on the OJ jury.

look it up, fool.

[Guest Guest]

look it up, fool.

I did look it up. It doesn't exist.

We don't know what you read but we do know that we cannot trust you to understand what you're reading. If you had the brains and the honesty to supply your sources, we could check you. But since you don't have the brains and aren't honest enough to do that, we can only guess what Wiki article you've misinterpreted.

If you Google "40 million life forms," you get 2 hits, neither of which is at all reliable. If you Google "forty million life forms," you can link to a book called George Bush on the Planet Xul, for whatever you think that's worth. Also a link to an Osho article and a book entitled Vedanta: Seven Steps to Samadhi.

If you Google "40 billion life forms" or "forty billion life forms," you get zero hits but Google pulls a Wiki article on the timeline of evolution but it doesn't contain the phrase "life forms."

If you Google "40 trillion life forms," you get zero hits but Google pulls a Wiki article on Hindu cosmology. It doesn't contain the phrase "life forms" either. If you Google "forty trillion life forms," you get no hits and no pulls.

"40,000,000,000,000 life forms," "40,000,000,000 life forms" and "40,000,000 life forms" also produce no hits.

Someday maybe you'll stop lying.

[Guest Guest]

These Kearny atheists could have been on the OJ jury, they're that stupid. Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

Come to think of it, I don't think the OJ jury would have bought it.

You’re funny. Wikipedia has a “List of Life Forms.” Maybe you didn’t notice that it includes fictional life forms, such as extraterrestrials, UFOs and cyborgs; hypothetical life forms, with proposed hypothetical types of biochemistry that are not known to exist; and artificial life forms, which would not have been generated by evolution.

Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about 40 trillion life forms on Earth, even if you include the imaginary ones. But if you’re willing to make stuff up, anything is possible – in your mind.

And you still haven't answered what you mean by a life form. That is not a definition that scientists would use, especially when referring to evolution. It's a common term that refers to "a form that is characteristic of a particular organism at maturity" (a definition that is as clear as mud), or merely to "any living thing," according to the dictionary definitions linked from the Wikepedia article on life forms (see footnotes 1 and 2). Scientists don't take their definitions from standard dictionaries, which tells you something about how reliable the Wikipedia article is (not).

You keep making stuff up and you keep getting caught at it. The ability to change one's mind is a sign of intelligence, not weakness. Show us, and show yourself, that you have the ability to change your mind when confronted with new information.

[Guest Guest]

While Mr. P. or any other teacher should not be teaching their religious beliefs in the Kearny Public Schools, the Big Bang theory could not have existed with the elements to make the Big Bang happen. Like where did the matter come from? Whether you like it or not everything has to have come from somewhere.

Now, when it comes to teaching the youth of America, the Big Bang theory seems to be the scientific thought of choice. I think educators should explore the theory of: "How could there be a Big Bang just like that?" Science does not have the answer to where the matter came from for the Big Bang. If you are going to preach the Big Bang theory, why not preach the other non-scientific beliefs as well? As no human was around when the supposed the Big Bang happened, why could that be just what it is said to be, just a possibility.

Because that's not what science is, or education either for that matter. Educators don't preach science. They teach it. The difference is that science isn't just a collection of dogmatic statements independent of facts. Science proceeds according to scientific method.

By contrast, people preach about a god or gods. That's because there's no evidence to back it up, so all anyone has is a belief, or a wish. Good educators understand that mere beliefs or wishes are not grounds for teaching.

Therefore, we don't teach non-scientific beliefs in opposition to science because they aren't founded on anything except wishes. To do it would be to dumb down the science curriculum and completely distort what science and education are about.

[Guest Guest]

Because that's not what science is, or education either for that matter. Educators don't preach science. They teach it. The difference is that science isn't just a collection of dogmatic statements independent of facts. Science proceeds according to scientific method.

By contrast, people preach about a god or gods. That's because there's no evidence to back it up, so all anyone has is a belief, or a wish. Good educators understand that mere beliefs or wishes are not grounds for teaching.

Therefore, we don't teach non-scientific beliefs in opposition to science because they aren't founded on anything except wishes. To do it would be to dumb down the science curriculum and completely distort what science and education are about.

AND . . .

there is a fundamental difference between forming conclusions based on facts and forming conclusions based on an appealing story. Much of religion is the narrative, or story. If you challenge people on their religious beliefs, many of them will try to defend their beliefs at first but when they get caught they'll say "that's where faith comes in." In other words, they give themselves an all-purpose excuse to believe whatever they want even though, and especially when it doesn't make sense.

For thousands of years, people have trained their children to think that this is a good way to think, and that believing things because they were part of a story is good. But it's not good. It's irresponsible, lazy and self-indulgent.

This came to be called "faith" but it is not productive faith. Productive faith is when people use their skills, including their intelligence, to do things even though they have no guarantee of the result. An example is starting a new business or going to college - you don't know that you will succeed but without that kind of action, we would still be living in caves.

If you really think about it, you realize that much of what is wrong in the world is a product of self-indulgence within the religions as they actually are. If religion was fact-based instead of story-based, it could become a greater force for good. Maybe someday we'll get there but we'll have to work on it.

[Guest Guest]

AND . . .

there is a fundamental difference between forming conclusions based on facts and forming conclusions based on an appealing story. Much of religion is the narrative, or story. If you challenge people on their religious beliefs, many of them will try to defend their beliefs at first but when they get caught they'll say "that's where faith comes in." In other words, they give themselves an all-purpose excuse to believe whatever they want even though, and especially when it doesn't make sense.

For thousands of years, people have trained their children to think that this is a good way to think, and that believing things because they were part of a story is good. But it's not good. It's irresponsible, lazy and self-indulgent.

This came to be called "faith" but it is not productive faith. Productive faith is when people use their skills, including their intelligence, to do things even though they have no guarantee of the result. An example is starting a new business or going to college - you don't know that you will succeed but without that kind of action, we would still be living in caves.

If you really think about it, you realize that much of what is wrong in the world is a product of self-indulgence within the religions as they actually are. If religion was fact-based instead of story-based, it could become a greater force for good. Maybe someday we'll get there but we'll have to work on it.

Yes, and that is because all the religions are man-made. Instead of using them to promote high ideals, many people used them to take the easy way out of their responsibilities. That's not the whole story but it is a big part of it: the part that has people believing things just because they wish they were true.