Think Science .

On one hand, one may argue that it would be no better, rationaly speaking, if people just took theory of evolution as a new dogma. But I think it would be a difference anyway. Creationism is an actively subvertive movement that will combat public comprehension of how science works in order to present their quasi science as real science.

Creationism isn’t just a perception. It isn’t just a dogma. It’s a well funded and active movement to influence polititicians to actively avoid scientific questions being answerable to scientific standards. If only one generation kicked creationism out the window, I think creationism would have a hard time digging itself out of the mythology graveyard.

For theists, it is harder to embrace scientific standards because (like math) you cannot control the bottom line. You can’t bring your desired answer to the table and beforehand make sure that it will survive the objective scrutiny of the process. If you learn what good rational standards are, the theist will have to admit that his/her own religious affiliation is the result of, mildly speaking, dubious standards.

To many, this means that the standards is the problem and that they are evil. That’s why I think that science class should teach standards, not just content.

In order to obtain any real knowledge, it is important that we accept that some things are impossible. People often get into trouble because they are under the false assumption that anything is possible. It is not.

Allow me to demonstrate using the proposition “The cow jumped over the moon”.

Example 1: Theist’s viewpoint.

Q: Did the cow jump over the moon?
P1: A book claims the cow jumped over the moon.
P2: The book claims the book tells no lies.
C: Therefore, the cow jumped over the moon.

Example 2: Agnostic’s viewpoint.

Q: Is it logically possible for the cow to jump over the moon?
P1: The cow can jump.
P2: The moon orbits over the cow.
C: There is no logical contradiction to a cow jumping over the moon.

Example 3: Atheist’s viewpoint.

Q: Does it make sense for a cow to jump over the moon?
P1: Cows can only jump a few feet high.
P2: The moon is miles above.
C: The cow cannot jump over the moon.

Atheists are the only people who truly stand a chance to find the truth. Because we accept that some things are impossible. I know these examples are rather simplistic. The reason behind this is to communicate that the search for truth need not be complicated. All it really takes is that we limit our premises and conclusion to something that actually makes sense.

I think that you don’t have to consider “factors leading to non-religious stance”. Rather the opposite; Just consider the mere decline in opportunity to indoctrinate. If you grow up to about the age of ten without some influential significant adult having messed you up, then I think the window of opportunity is lost.

You need to get to the child before it develops critical faculties. I think that you also need to get to the child before it develops the concept of “fairy tales”. If the child is somewhat familiar with the genre, I think it takes many times times the effort to convince the child that, for no reason, this one particular story (which in shape and form is basically the same as all other stories) is supposed to be treated differently.

It is no accident that they lobby heavily to get access to the younger classes in school. Even though basic philosophy is only taught at university level, they want to start in first grade to

I visit local schools on behalf of Norwegian Humanist Association, and I don’t want younger than 10th graders. I educate, I don’t indoctrinate. I want to be challenged. I want a dialog.

Love has different dimensions and different levels of complexity. Sure there is love in animals too, but if you start talking about frogs and flies, that would be taking it a bit too far. All of them do not display the same kind or intensity of love.

In humans, in a male female relationship, sex only compliments love and not the thing itself
What is a lot more absurd is the assumption that it plays any role in animal love. Non mammals dont even have orgasm for hells sake.(same goes with most mammals esp females) Its it almost solely hormonal and can even be painful. In any case they cannot experience the pleasure in a human level, let alone make that an activity that compliments a relationship.

Man’s ancestors,the apes are divided in to chimpanzees,gibbons,gorillas and orangutans.
Male chimpanzees are polygamous and opportunistic-they tend to mate with which ever female comes in to season.

Gibbons ,how ever,establish a pair bond relationship that often lasts for life,they are familial and mutually supportive.
In a gorilla group,the silverback,the dominant male,has his pick of his females,though he may show special favour and develop a more lasting relationship with one or may be two.

Orangutans are solitary,or at most a unit consisting of a female and may be one or two children,to which group adults pay occasional visits.

I believe that,even evolved men and women are characterized in such different groups who has their own different instincts…one can not say its completely one genders fault in a non working relationship.

Objectivism is nothing more than a pseudo-philosophy which is patently devised to support an ideology, much in the same style of the anatomical pseudo-science which came out of Germany in the 30s and early 40s.

It is nice to wish to be free from coersion; that’s why modern governments usually involve some form of division of powers (with varying degrees of success) to make sure that no one person is too powerful. The problem is that people with an irrational exuberance for capitalism, such as Ayn Rand, obviously like to feel that power in the form of money should be excluded from any system which could limit extremes of power; and that capitalists should be free to seek the mediocre Nash equilibria of the economic games that they play with each other, without any interference by organizations that might (gasp) be more interested in public welfare than in money.

Objectivism is a great way to realize that you should be allowed to want and do things for yourself, if you’re trapped in some sort of codependent frame of mind. Beyond that, if you want real economic thinking, it would be better to read Adam Smith or even Thomas Hobbes, than a pretender such as Ayn Rand.