12yo Texan Girl Told to Write that God is Fake!

[Unnamed island state]

The only truth is agnosticism. Therefor the girl should have been told to write that arguments over whether god exists or not, are pointless and dumb.

[Italios]

I thought atheism wasn't a religion because the whole point was atheists don't want to be part of one?! I thought they were simply a set of beliefs, as one believes the Mets are better than the Royals.

I'm pretty sure atheism is the lack of belief in any deity. Atheists don't "believe" in anything.

They believe in not believing.

[Jetan]

Oh dear...

Dear Atheists, Christians, and Agnostics about to argue below:

It doesn't matter whether or not God is real. This is not about God. This is about a teacher forcing their religious views upon impressionable children. They should be fired, and never allowed to teach again.

Before the ignorant people come to me saying "Oh, but Atheism isn't a religion!". Yes it is. It requires just as much faith as Christianity. You can't prove God doesn't exist, but you have faith that he does not. So just accept that as fact, because it doesn't make any real difference.

Now, on the subject of God's existence, I shall begin with the wonderful myth of Macro-evolution. No, it's just wrong. Not a fact. You can't possibly claim something as fact when your measurements give a year predating humanity (to our knowledge anyway), because we have no proof that such a year existed. To then claim that the measurement proves such a year exists, is massively ignorant. The measuring method could be entirely wrong, which wouldn't be surprising. Science is knowledge, and knowledge requires facts. Therefore, by definition alone, Macro-evolution is NOT science.

Now, God. God is literally the same basic idea. God is just as scientifically feasible as the Big Bang. Miracles. What are miracles? A miracle is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. These happen. I'm not here claiming God is a magical creature, but rather a natural being. One who has achieved a state of understanding to the point where he is able to manipulate matter in a quick and easy way.

Yes, it may sound somewhat ridiculous, but just open your mind to some new ideas. Pride is dominating and completely ruining the Scientific Community today. People are so afraid to admit they're wrong that they manipulate the facts to fit their theories, and this is leading to a group of sheeople that blindly follow their "intelligent" idols. The only difference between Atheism and Christianity is their deity and morals. Christianity follows a single great being incapable of wrong who creates rules for them to follow. Atheism on the other hand, is a religion that worships men that society deems to be "intelligent". They then listen to the aforementioned society and trust on the corrupt being that they are to make a set of rules that they believe are "right" for society.

What should happen to the teacher, and what's your over-all opinion of the situation?

Let the debating begin.

Man, there's so much wrong with this OP I don't even know where to start. Your OP is bad and you should feel bad.

[Gim]

Oh dear...

Dear Atheists, Christians, and Agnostics about to argue below:

It doesn't matter whether or not God is real. This is not about God. This is about a teacher forcing their religious views upon impressionable children. They should be fired, and never allowed to teach again.

Before the ignorant people come to me saying "Oh, but Atheism isn't a religion!". Yes it is. It requires just as much faith as Christianity. You can't prove God doesn't exist, but you have faith that he does not. So just accept that as fact, because it doesn't make any real difference.

Now, on the subject of God's existence, I shall begin with the wonderful myth of Macro-evolution. No, it's just wrong. Not a fact. You can't possibly claim something as fact when your measurements give a year predating humanity (to our knowledge anyway), because we have no proof that such a year existed. To then claim that the measurement proves such a year exists, is massively ignorant. The measuring method could be entirely wrong, which wouldn't be surprising. Science is knowledge, and knowledge requires facts. Therefore, by definition alone, Macro-evolution is NOT science.

Now, God. God is literally the same basic idea. God is just as scientifically feasible as the Big Bang. Miracles. What are miracles? A miracle is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. These happen. I'm not here claiming God is a magical creature, but rather a natural being. One who has achieved a state of understanding to the point where he is able to manipulate matter in a quick and easy way.

Yes, it may sound somewhat ridiculous, but just open your mind to some new ideas. Pride is dominating and completely ruining the Scientific Community today. People are so afraid to admit they're wrong that they manipulate the facts to fit their theories, and this is leading to a group of sheeople that blindly follow their "intelligent" idols. The only difference between Atheism and Christianity is their deity and morals. Christianity follows a single great being incapable of wrong who creates rules for them to follow. Atheism on the other hand, is a religion that worships men that society deems to be "intelligent". They then listen to the aforementioned society and trust on the corrupt being that they are to make a set of rules that they believe are "right" for society.

What should happen to the teacher, and what's your over-all opinion of the situation?

Let the debating begin.

Man, there's so much wrong with this OP I don't even know where to start. Your OP is bad and you should feel bad.

Let's not encourage self-harm here.

[The Orson Empire]

I'm pretty sure atheism is the lack of belief in any deity. Atheists don't "believe" in anything.

They believe in not believing.

You can't "believe in not believing". That's an oxymoron. They don't have any belief to begin with.

[Jetan]

I'm pretty sure atheism is the lack of belief in any deity. Atheists don't "believe" in anything.

They believe in not believing.

Lack of belief =/= Belief of lack.

[Gim]

The only truth is agnosticism. Therefor the girl should have been told to write that arguments over whether god exists or not, are pointless and dumb.

Your opinion, really.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm pretty sure atheism is the lack of belief in any deity. Atheists don't "believe" in anything.

They believe in not believing.

...no? wut

[Gim]

They believe in not believing.

...no? wut

I know, right?

[Brandenbourg-Anhalt]

Yes they are but they are not entitled to degrade all those who are non-theist, like The Texan Union does in his OP to this thread

While yes he is biased I didn't find a speck of degrading of non-theists.

No, he was just saying that people who believe in science and not theism/a divine being have no morals and are corrupt.
If that isn't degrading to you, I don't know what is.

[Risottia]

Stopped reading right here.
Whomever wrote this shit is either completely and blissfully ignorant about the meaning of words, or is lying through his or her teeth.

Either way, his or her words on the subject have absolutely no meaning.

I thought atheism wasn't a religion because the whole point was atheists don't want to be part of one?! I thought they were simply a set of beliefs, as one believes the Mets are better than the Royals.

Belief in this context has a stronger meaning than holding an opinion knowing it is a subjective opinion, like which side you like the most.
And no, one can be an atheist without having any kind of belief on the issue. The point of atheism is LACK of belief in any kind of deity.

[Italios]

I thought atheism wasn't a religion because the whole point was atheists don't want to be part of one?! I thought they were simply a set of beliefs, as one believes the Mets are better than the Royals.

Belief in this context has a stronger meaning than holding an opinion knowing it is a subjective opinion, like which side you like the most.
And no, one can be an atheist without having any kind of belief on the issue. The point of atheism is LACK of belief in any kind of deity.

So it appears I'm wrong and the OP is wronger so.

[Unnamed island state]

The only truth is agnosticism. Therefor the girl should have been told to write that arguments over whether god exists or not, are pointless and dumb.

Your opinion, really.

An universal truth, actually

[Kingdoms of Cal]

I wonder what the OP makes of atheist religions. Some forms of, amongst others, Buddhism don't believe in a god, so they do have faith,but no god.

Listens for head explosion.

[Eastern Equestria]

Your opinion, really.

An universal truth, actually

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

[Italios]

Your opinion, really.

An universal truth, actually

Actually, yes technically speaking since there is no rock-bottom evidence for either of them, you really cannot confirm or deny that God exists.

Really believing in God has just been taught to you by someone else.

[The Wolven League]

I wonder what the OP makes of atheist atheistic religions. Some forms of, amongst others, Buddhism don't believe in a god, so they do have faith,but no god.

Listens for head explosion.

Corrected. "Atheist" implies a total lack of belief. "Atheistic" designates a lack of belief in a god but not a denial of religion, and usually used to describe religions like Buddhism and some Chinese folk religions.

[Dyakovo]

An universal truth, actually

Actually, yes technically speaking since there is no rock-bottom evidence for either of them, you really cannot confirm or deny that God exists.

Really believing in God has just been taught to you by someone else.

I don't think you understand what atheism is...

[Gim]

An universal truth, actually

Actually, yes technically speaking since there is no rock-bottom evidence for either of them, you really cannot confirm or deny that God exists.

Really believing in God has just been taught to you by someone else.

Apatheism is the right word. Since he's fundamentally wrong, his words cannot be the universal truth.

[Unnamed island state]

An universal truth, actually

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

I like to think of myself as a militant agnosticist, actually.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

I wonder what the OP makes of atheist atheistic religions. Some forms of, amongst others, Buddhism don't believe in a god, so they do have faith,but no god.

Listens for head explosion.

Corrected. "Atheist" implies a total lack of belief. "Atheistic" designates a lack of belief in a god but not a denial of religion, and usually used to describe religions like Buddhism and some Chinese folk religions.

That is very much a point of view and language usage. A theist does believe in God and Atheist is the opposite, some one who believes in nothing would probably be better called a humanist or secularist.

[Brandenbourg-Anhalt]

An universal truth, actually

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

Agnosticism and apatheism is not the same thing.

[Gim]

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

Agnosticism and apatheism is not the same thing.

Exactly the point he was trying to make.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

I like to think of myself as a militant agnosticist, actually.

Being picky, but agnosticism is the belief that what ever god it is so beyond mortal understanding that it is impossible for anyone to be sure, not just the person in question. If I recall Hume came up with the idea (probably wrong as it's been ages since I when on a philosophy tip)

[Eastern Equestria]

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

I like to think of myself as a militant agnosticist, actually.

You're militantly unsure of the existence of religious deities?

Actually, "agnosticism" denotes that one is unsure whether or not God(s) exist. It has nothing to do with belief.

I think the word you're looking for is apatheism.

Agnosticism and apatheism is not the same thing.

I didn't say they were...