Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 10, 2009, 11:44:03 pm
-
Or it would be if you took this class. (http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm)
AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).
-
KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS!
-
Gaaahhh
whhyyyyy are people so stupid?
-
The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?
Guh. Sounds distinctly like a Westboroan-infested sh!thole.
-
The have special programs for women, even.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/twitching.gif)
The Hell is wrong with people....
-
This is a problem with religious schools. There's nothing wrong with believing in something (I certainly do), but forced doctrine like that helps no one. Poor students... that sounds like a wretched class.
...someone's gonna get superflamed on 4chan...
-Thaeris
-
Hey. We're hostile. Bring it.
-
This is a problem with religious schools. There's nothing wrong with believing in something (I certainly do), but forced doctrine like that helps no one. Poor students... that sounds like a wretched class.
In case you missed it, these courses are being taught at a seminary. This isn't "poor kids;" it's adults who freely chose to attend this particular school and take the particular course.
Not that that doesn't make the entire situation any less pants-on-head retarded, though. I'd get into denominational facepalms, but this isn't the venue.
-
The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?
Guh. Sounds distinctly like a Westboroan-infested sh!thole.
Are they accredited?
-
I would doubt it. It's one rank up from a Bible college.
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is actually a wonderful, amusing, contradictory place. Most Baptist schools are harshly anti-intellectual and attending something like a Seminary is seen as dangerous for a priest, exposing them to all that secular learning. Southwestern exists, however, because despite their anti-intellectual tendancies many of its students are egotistical enough to want the appearance of some kind of intellectual standing. (Noted graduates include one of the authors of the Left Behind series.)
The paradox inherent in the school's existence is simply lovely.
-
Looking them up in Wikipedia:
It is one of the largest seminaries in the world[1] and is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada[2] and also by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award diploma, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees
EDIT: And it appears the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is recognized by the Department of Education, so I guess that means this seminary is accredited?
-
You realise of course that they've just gifted every single "hostile board" an excuse to simply close any ID thread with a simple "We're not going to help you get your degree retard" comment and a link to that page. :p
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the internet thanks you for automagically transforming every ID proponent on the internet into a potential troll until they prove otherwise. :p
-
Mwahaha, I'm SO going to do that :D
-
I dunno, I don't see this as that big of a deal. The point, as I gather, is to learn (through practice) how to defend your faith. I would hope that in order to get a good grade, you have to do so rationally and respectfully. What's so wrong with that?
Do you really think it could ever be a bad thing to let people have their beliefs challenged publicly, and force them to defend themselves? Sure, a traditional debate forum (or ANY face-to-face contact) is a more productive venue for this sort of thing than random internet forums, but I sure don't think it's without value. From the point of view of the student, it makes you seriously think about what you believe, why you believe it, and how to make it make sense to someone who sees the world differently. How could that be a bad thing?
I am, of course, giving the school the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this part of their coursework is monitored and graded not only for completion, but for quality.
Or is all of the brouhaha only because the people doing this are ID supporters? What if it was the other way around, and a decidedly antireligious biology or philosophy department was asking students to defend evolution on "hostile" websites?
I guess all I'm saying is to THINK about this for a bit. Is it really that big a deal?
-
Wouldn't be for anyone who posts on this forum. Pfsh, 2000 words in ten posts? That's nothing when you look at the arguments we had a few months ago.
Mwahaha, I'm SO going to do that :D
Please don't. It's hard enough to have a good discussion about this as it is.
What if it was the other way around, and a decidedly antireligious biology or philosophy department was asking students to defend evolution on "hostile" websites?
Not mutually exclusive, no problem. evolution != antireligion. Not as a prerequisite, anyway.
Hey. We're hostile. Bring it.
Yes. Yes, you are.
(Come on, let's get a good one going ;))
(And don't lock it until the flames really start going, not just a single stupid post here/there)
-
Or is all of the brouhaha only because the people doing this are ID supporters? What if it was the other way around, and a decidedly antireligious biology or philosophy department was asking students to defend evolution on "hostile" websites?
Actually I'd be (almost*) as pissed off with it the other way round. Kosh was right, it is basically trolling. It's encouraging people to go onto forums and start arguments to further their own ends with no thought as to the effects it may have on the community that these people are going to invade in order to cause trouble.
*I say almost cause I know ID is complete and utter bollocks and I severely doubt that most of the people on this course even understand ID let alone the reasons why it is in no way scientific or why it's been proved to be nothing more than a set of baseless assertions.
But anyway, this isn't a creation vs evolution debate. It's about the stupidity of getting people to go onto an internet forum and argue for course credits. And Flipside is right, I'm just so tempted to simply assume someone is from this place next time Mr No Posts turns up in one of those debates. :p
-
ERm...are we talking about ID as in "evolution doesn't exist" or ID as in "God created evolution, so design is intelligent".
I assume it's the former.
-
ID = creationism but the creator isn't named god so they can try to teach the crap in science classes
-
Intelligent Design is simply a re-branded assault on human intellectual integrity. There is, however, no reason why God and science can't co-exist... so long as neither is stepping on the toes of the other. Religion acting as a substitute for science or science supplanting religion is what seems to cause problems. Each ...erm, shall we say, concept has a different sphere of influence- religion should deal with morality and spirituality, and science should concern itself with how the world works, and why.
Really, though, it's closed-mindedness that gets people in trouble. Which is why it would be amusing reading a thread where some of these guys try to hold their own. ;7
Edit: grammar...
-
Even if there is a god, he definitely isn't the one in the bible. Or the Qur'an. Or the Torah... Religion =/= god. Religion is a power tool used by people who've been taught to be like that by people who've been...
There is no god, but if there was, why would he have all of these silly rules? Why make Jews jump through different hoops than Christians? Or Muslims?
-
The thing to do would be double-troll. Just pretend to go along with whatever they say. That way if it isn't a 'hostile environment' then they get no credit. :D
-
Even if there is a god, he definitely isn't the one in the bible. Or the Qur'an. Or the Torah... Religion =/= god. Religion is a power tool used by people who've been taught to be like that by people who've been...
There is no god, but if there was, why would he have all of these silly rules? Why make Jews jump through different hoops than Christians? Or Muslims?
I agree with the power thing, but I also believe that religion is a way to instill values. Not that anyone believes stuff anymore. Look at me, I'm a catholic raised athiest.
-
Religion was a way to instill values dear to the guy in power, things like masturbation, adultery and the like were banned simply because some pope was against them, not out of importance.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, colecampbell666, expert in comparative religious history and theological underpinnings. :p
-
Wouldn't be for anyone who posts on this forum. Pfsh, 2000 words in ten posts? That's nothing when you look at the arguments we had a few months ago.
Mwahaha, I'm SO going to do that :D
Please don't. It's hard enough to have a good discussion about this as it is.
Don't worry, I wouldn't unless the argument got personal. ;)
-
Ladies and gentlemen, colecampbell666, expert in comparative religious history and theological underpinnings. :p
I pride myself.
-
My name is BloodEagle and I approve of the direction that this thread is heading in. :yes:
No, wait. What's the opposite of approve? :doubt:
-
The important thing to remember about Religion is this:
One man worshipping a beard in the sky is a nutcase.
3 million people worshipping a beard in the sky is an institution.
... ;)
-
ERm...are we talking about ID as in "evolution doesn't exist" or ID as in "God created evolution, so design is intelligent".
I assume it's the former.
ID as in "There are things evolution can't explain about how life could evolve from single celled organisms to the life we see now. So God must have stepped in and helped/done it all"
Religion acting as a substitute for science or science supplanting religion is what seems to cause problems.
You know, I really ****ing hate it when people say that. When has science ever tried to supplant religion?
I've seen people use logic to point out the stupidity of religions. I've seen people use moral arguments to try to disprove it but both of those are philosophical arguments which have nothing to do with science itself beyond simply taking scientific fact as a starting point (and only an idiot wouldn't in any other debate so why shouldn't it be true here too?).
I'll agree that people who do that tend to be scientific but when it actually comes down to it, when have you ever seen anyone actually try to use science to disprove the existence of God or any other religion? What experiments can you say have been performed? What peer-reviewed journals have you seen papers published in?
Sorry to pick on you but that comment attempts to stick science on a par with religions endless campaign of dirty tricks against science. And it's complete and utter bollocks cause I can't think of any serious attempt to discredit religion using science.
-
Putting it another way, science really can't disprove the basic tenets of religion, or at least the world's major religions, because such attempts would lie completely outside the purview of science. The basic scientific method is founded on proposing hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and then creating experiments to test said hypotheses. When dealing with concepts such as the human soul, the existence of an afterlife, or nature of God himself, there are no observations to be made, no experiments to design. Even just limiting things to the age-old question, "Does God exist?", you're talking about a being that, at least by Judeo-Christian tradition, exists and operates outside the bounds of space-time itself. We as limited beings within the framework of our own universe have no frame of reference to observe that which exists outside of said universe, so it all comes down to a matter of faith. As a religious person, all of this is why it frustrates me to no end when those of a fundamentalist persuasion try to erect artificial barriers between religious faith and scientific study; not only does it exhibit an extreme ignorance of the scientific method, but it also demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the tenets of one's own faith.
(Or in other words, science trying to prove or disprove religion is a hell of a lot like science trying to prove or disprove string theory (http://xkcd.com/171/). :p)
-
Personal gods mostly just bug me because they're so LAME. It's like, the universe is massive and mysterious and awesome and complex, and then all people can come up with for a supernatural being is some dinky god modeled after humans with every human flaw who has nothing better to do than hang around and listen to the little arrogant freak organisms on some insignificant dustmote in space whinge all day? oh, and he tortures you for eternity if you don't worship him *just so.*
-
Putting it another way, science really can't disprove the basic tenets of religion, or at least the world's major religions, because such attempts would lie completely outside the purview of science.
I know but I've had enough of arguing that science can't or won't disprove religion and just moved on to arguing at the level of people who claim it does with "journals or it didn't happen" :p
-
"But...but this website with bold red text told me so!" :p
-
*snip*
Wow, ok. Perhaps I should rephrase that. Mongoose's following post actually said most of what I was gonna say, so...
Geez, I really talked myself into a corner there, didn't I?
I don't seriously think that science can replace religion; they both deal with different things. However, religion can forcibly "replace" scientific study, and, well... it doesn't work all that well. Truth be told, I was simply trying to put together a clever little parallelism sorta play on words to underscore the differences of focus between religion and science.
Incidences of science being replaced (or attempted to) are easy to find. The converse only really exists in dystopian fiction.
Could it be that we're in some form of violent agreement?
-
However, religion can forcibly "replace" scientific study, and, well... it doesn't work all that well.
And yet they keep trying. Watch "Jesus Camp" for a good idea as to the kinds of nutcases we're dealing with.
-
Is there really a film called "jesus camp" :wtf: Who would endorse that ?!!?
Who the hell would act in that more to the point..
-
It's a documentary, Dekker. It shows the crazy anti-reason brainwashing that people subject their kids to in order to keep them true to their god.
-
Wow, ok. Perhaps I should rephrase that. Mongoose's following post actually said most of what I was gonna say, so...
Geez, I really talked myself into a corner there, didn't I?
I don't seriously think that science can replace religion; they both deal with different things. However, religion can forcibly "replace" scientific study, and, well... it doesn't work all that well. Truth be told, I was simply trying to put together a clever little parallelism sorta play on words to underscore the differences of focus between religion and science.
Incidences of science being replaced (or attempted to) are easy to find. The converse only really exists in dystopian fiction.
Could it be that we're in some form of violent agreement?
Like I said, I wasn't really singling you out for saying it. It's just that I've heard it once too often and it way it gives any weight to the fundamentalist arguments that science is trying to replace religion.
Like I said, you could argue that reason and logic are trying to replace religion but that's not science and it's completely typical of the idiots that call themselves fundamentalists to aim all their guns at completely the wrong target.
-
That's like Conservapedia!
-
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
-
Like I said, you could argue that reason and logic are trying to replace religion but that's not science and it's completely typical of the idiots that call themselves fundamentalists to aim all their guns at completely the wrong target.
Because they don't use reason or logic.
Like I said, I wasn't really singling you out for saying it. It's just that I've heard it once too often and it way it gives any weight to the fundamentalist arguments that science is trying to replace religion.
Actually there are some religious tenants which science can and has disproven, like the universe revolves around the earth, the earth was created in 6 days, the earth is 6000 years old, etc.
-
My goodness...
If anything, religion should be about bettering yourself as a person and bettering your understanding of how to live with your fellow man. This **** about converting the devils and being saved, or combating your enemies... It's kind of like a game. Seriously, what the hell?
-
Actually there are some religious tenants which science can and has disproven, like the universe revolves around the earth, the earth was created in 6 days, the earth is 6000 years old, etc.
I don't know why, but this comment, especially the '6 days' comment, reminded me of this (http://xkcd.com/505/). Also, who was it that said time was relative? That applies to both of those.
Aaaand, now that I'm off my happy little rant, I agree for the most part with thesizzler. I am reminded of that Easter South Park, with the Hare Club for Men. If you haven't seen that one, check it out. It's hilarious, and the end message was very fitting, I thought.