• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teachers suspended for spraying non-Christian teacher w/ squirt bottle

You have no factual data God doesn't exist so your argument is also based on faith.

Wrong, the negative in this case does not need to be proven. Since it's an argument of existence, it's the positive which must be shown true. Otherwise, the negative can be assumed. That's how it works. How do you prove something is not there? Well there's nothing but lack of evidence for it being there. Essentially, the necessity to demonstrate a side comes on the behalf of the creation. If I claim leprechauns exist, someone can say "no they don't, prove it". It doesn't mean the guy is operating on faith that leprechauns do not exist; but is rather issuing a statement for proof. The claim isn't that god doesn't exist, the claim is that it does. So prove it. If not, then it doesn't take faith to not believe, but rather just a healthy dose of skepticism. If you start to collect convincing data, then ok; maybe I'll buy a faith sort of thing. But we're not at that point, and it's not faith but skepticism.
 
Bottom line if the teachers did this they need fired
also if the teacher discussing atheism was not involved in a general discussion like a Q&A and was telling students TO BE or saying its better to be atheist that needs addressed too.
 
Wrong, the negative in this case does not need to be proven. Since it's an argument of existence, it's the positive which must be shown true. Otherwise, the negative can be assumed. That's how it works. How do you prove something is not there? Well there's nothing but lack of evidence for it being there. Essentially, the necessity to demonstrate a side comes on the behalf of the creation. If I claim leprechauns exist, someone can say "no they don't, prove it". It doesn't mean the guy is operating on faith that leprechauns do not exist; but is rather issuing a statement for proof.

Of course its operating on faith. You cannot prove they do not exist so faith must be used to draw any conclusion.

The claim isn't that god doesn't exist, the claim is that it does. So prove it. If not, then it doesn't take faith to not believe, but rather just a healthy dose of skepticism. If you start to collect convincing data, then ok; maybe I'll buy a faith sort of thing. But we're not at that point, and it's not faith but skepticism.

Your error is assuming those who believe must prove to those who do not. That is your flaw. Those who believe choose to do so, they have no obligation to prove to anyone that that their belief has to go beyond belif in order to be justified. Likewise if you insist God does not exist, you are operating on faith because you cannot prove He doesn't exist.

The only true non faith is Agnositc because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
 
Of course its operating on faith. You cannot prove they do not exist so faith must be used to draw any conclusion.
Your error is assuming those who believe must prove to those who do not. That is your flaw. Those who believe choose to do so, they have no obligation to prove to anyone that that their belief has to go beyond belif in order to be justified. Likewise if you insist God does not exist, you are operating on faith because you cannot prove He doesn't exist.

The only true non faith is Agnositc because they neither believe nor disbelieve.

It is logically impossible for someone to neither hold a belief nor not hold a belief. Something either is or it isn't, you can either believe a proposition is true, or you can not believe a proposition is true. With your definitions there are two separate propositions, "God exists" and "God does not exist". Obviously you can't agree with both propositions simultaneously, so that leaves three possibilities,
  1. You agree with the statement "God exists" (theist)
  2. You agree with the statement "God does not exist" (atheist)
  3. You don't agree with either of the statements (agnostic)

By your definition many who call themselves atheists are "actually" agnostic. Wouldn't someone need to have evidence for or against god for a person to have a reason to be atheistic (your definition) or theistic?
 
So is this a philosophy thread or are we discussing an actual event? Has theen been any evidence to support that the teacher was "preaching" atheism? I haven't seen any mention of it at all from either party involved, only extrapolations made by people trying to somehow justify the actions made by the other two teachers.
 
Oh Please! Yes, the teachers deserve to be disciplined but fired? And it couldn't have been holy water because she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West. Let's get together, have a group hug, promise to be good and move on.
 
Back
Top Bottom