Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.

That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally, so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.

God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.

This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists. In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves. They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.

A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon

It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!

In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day.

I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.

PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned ... its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.

Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.

Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.

[/QUOTE]
Ah, my dear, you are peerless!

[denuseri]

That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

I didnt say it had to be religious to be a system, nor does dogma = religion. Stop trying to re-define words allreadly will you.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally,so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.

You can call yourself whatever you wish, you can "say" your not doing something that you are in fact doing all you wish...it wont change who and what you are or what you do in the slightest however.


This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists.

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.

In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves.

To avoid being attacked by over zealous asshats who hate them simply becuase they are religious.

They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

Or like when the atheists bring law suits against them. The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong...not that they hold an ideology in and of itself. Yet again your trying to sidestep the real issue.


The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.

Re-painting the actual facts doesnt change things eaither.


It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!

Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method and in a science class to expound upon different theories of thought conserning the the topic that do not need have a hypotheisis or the scientific method involved....in fact, take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.

I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.

Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?


Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.


When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.

No its the people who pick up the guns and pull the triggers who actually kill people. Its a consious desicion...not something someone does against their own will. And again has zero to do with anything...since you dont have to be religious to use a gun...nor does it help one in any way. I thought you wanted to really debate here...and not just resort to the same sophistry youve used in all the other threads on the topic Thorne. Hummm what happened to that? Why keep trying to cover ground thats been covered repeatably, the outcome isnt going to change. All your doing is making your approach more evident for what it really is.

Ah, my dear, you are peerless![/QUOTE]

Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.

[Thorne]

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.

I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.

The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong

I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs. In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"

Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method

I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?

take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.

But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!

Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?

The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it. That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.

I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.

The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.

Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.

LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you!

[denuseri]

I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.

I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.

In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"

Again the same claim can be equally made when it comes to the atheists. Or any ideology that preaches intolerance and dis-respect and says only my way is right and all others are unacceptable or need to be curtailed.

I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

You mean within the confines of the scientific method. Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not, and even then peer review is nessesary before anything of fact becomes a consensus or becomes acceptable as past of the scientific cannon.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?

Again you choose a far fetched example which has nothing to do with the discussion or any pre-established theories conserning the subject as an obvious attempt to use sophistry perhaps?

I think I was pretty clear, let me re-clairify for you: When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented. Especially if thats what the parents of said students have expressed a desire for whithin their own community. Yes...Even in a science class. Otherwise "science" places itself on the same pedastel of postulation as any religion.


But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!

Here we shall I am affriad have to disagree. Your missing the point as well...Im speaking specifically about teaching mutual respect, understanding, and tollerance at every level in every classroom without exception.

The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.

That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us. Just as there is no reason to think it unliekly that the reason its part of us is becuase a God desired it to be that way. Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.


The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

And those same people are just as likely to stand up and say no, thats wrong we wont do it and this is what we are going to do instead...just like they did countless times with various leaders of all kinds, theist or otherwise.

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.

Again I disagree...just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem". Its what the people do not what they think or decide for themselves to follow thats the real issue.


LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you!

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.

[Thorne]

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.

Given the scenario you are presenting, I have to agree: I see no problem with her answering questions posed by her classmates, or having a civil discussion with willing classmates. To my mind it's no different than kids arguing about the relative merits of particular video games.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.

You may be right. I don't know squat about psychology.

Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented.

Ahh, but who decides what is plausible? Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms? What about other Creation myths? Shouldn't they be given time as well? If you allow ANY non-scientific claims to be taught, you MUST allow ALL of them, and you no longer have a science class. You have the Internet. Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science? If so, such a claim does not belong in a science classroom!

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for. Should we poll the students to determine what their opinions on spelling words are? How about math problems? "How many of you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? A majority? OK, then, that's what we'll learn today!"

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.

So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.

YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us.

Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.

And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.

just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem".

And again I agree. It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.

That sounds positively ... divine!

[denuseri]

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

Poor word choice on my part then...and inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.


Ahh, but who decides what is plausible?

The community.

Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms?

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do. It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

What about other Creation myths?

I never said it was supposed to be a Christianity as Thorne knows it vs The "theory" of evolution did I? No... yes relevant creation theories are acceptable...of course one will have to tailor the relevance to the student body...one doesnt have to cover anything mor than generalities.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?

No

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for.

They certiantly shouldnt be there to tell the students that they are not allowed to have thier own opinions or that their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents are stupid etc eaither. They should present the information and leave such judgments up to the individuals.

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

Cross disiplinarian approaches to learning are far more educationally valuable and inclussive however and teach one how to think for themselves and respect the beliefs of others and promotes secularism as opposed to the current system, and that applies equally to all types of classess, science or otherwise.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

Thats there decission to make, and I could care less about such speculations, especially since it equally applies I am sure to Atheist parents who are afriad their children might get even a glimpse of a cross or other holy symbol.


So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.


YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Alas you will have to at least for the time being wait, since the only way to find out for sure currently is to die. And again...the sophistry and belicosity are completely unnessesary. The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

But no evidence that eaither of those things mentioning loving thy nieghbor as thyself. Another moot sidestep, but not worth giving you anymore sophistry points.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

Which is even more of a reason to respect each others faiths since they do indeed seem to be coming from the same source.


Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Nor does it make it un-true.


And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.


And again I agree.

Yet you said just the opposite of what you said now several times as it suited you to try and sully anything religious, and that my friend is why I am in opposition to you.

It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Yes it applies to Atheism with equal zeal.

That sounds positively ... divine!

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

[Thorne]

inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.

And also untestable. They do not have workable theories which can be tested for evidence of their validity, nor any way that they can be falsified. And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science.

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do.

The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans.

It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?
No

No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how.

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? And you can keep the disrespect in, for all I care.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief!

The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

Yes, it does!
"Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter."
and
"Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation."
and
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world."
and, most telling,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,"

Theological claims may be classified as philosophical theories, but not scientific theories.

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"