• 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!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
ChrisL said:
At one time, it was a minority belief that the earth was round too. :roll: Get real, of course teachers should cover all the bases. You're being super ridiculous. It would do absolutely no harm and take no time to mention exactly what was stated in my post.
Click to expand...

That's true. But like with gravity, you still need to do more than pick out a minority view. You can't teach from the outer ring. We can't give the fairies are real view, or that some really believe in big foot. This is about science. School is largely about baseline. And baseline isn't about pretending all voices in the wilderness are equal to large bodies of peer reviewed accepted work.
 
ChrisL said:
So you think that teachers should teach it as undisputed fact? That's interesting considering that it is not.
Click to expand...
Teach what as undisputed fact? Scientific theories? As I just said, one of the first things they teach in science class is the difference between theory and fact. If the students don't learn the lesson who's fault is that?


As for the theories themselves, yes, they should teach the scientific consensus because that's all their is to teach. As I stated earlier, even the "laws" of gravity, the Theory of Relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the most supported theory in the world, are nothing more than scientific consensus.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
At one time, it was a minority belief that the earth was round too. :roll: Get real, of course teachers should cover all the bases. You're being super ridiculous. It would do absolutely no harm and take no time to mention exactly what was stated in my post.
Click to expand...
Maybe the minority of people but not a minority of what would have been called "scientists" of the time. Once the evidence was presented to those of knowledge and inquiry, the only place where the flat Earth survived was in the masses and the Church. Columbus knew he wasn't going to sail off the edge of the Earth even if some of his men believed it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Teach what as undisputed fact? Scientific theories? As I just said, one of the first things they teach in science class is the difference between theory and fact. If the students don't learn the lesson who's fault is that?


As for the theories themselves, yes, they should teach the scientific consensus because that's all their is to teach. As I stated earlier, even the "laws" of gravity, the Theory of Relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the most supported theory in the world, are nothing more than scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

Yes, but none of those theories have a group or groups of scientists who disagree with it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Maybe the minority of people but not a minority of what would have been called "scientists" of the time. Once the evidence was presented to those of knowledge and inquiry, the only place where the flat Earth survived was in the masses and the Church. Columbus knew he wasn't going to sail off the edge of the Earth even if some of his men believed it.
Click to expand...

Bull, the people who believed the earth was round were laughing stocks at the time. Nobody wanted to believe them.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, but it still doesn't qualify as a fact. Plenty of theories throughout history have been proven wrong. I know you want to believe that man is entirely responsible for global warming, but I'm not buying that. I think it's probably a combination of many different factors.
Click to expand...

What makes scientific fact and law then?
 
ChrisL said:
Bull, the people who believed the earth was round were laughing stocks at the time. Nobody wanted to believe them.
Click to expand...

Don't know your history. The EDUCATED elite knew the world was a globe at the time of Columbus' voyage but there was disagreement on the diameter.

Here's a link to a fairly detailed but not too long blog about who it was who determined the earth is round.
One of the most enduring myths that children grow up with is the idea that Columbus was the only one of his time who believed that the Earth was round; everyone else believed it was flat. “How brave the sailors of 1492 must have been,” you might imagine, “to travel towards the edge of the world without fear of falling off!”
Click to expand...
 
Dooble said:
Somerville said:
Don't know your history. The EDUCATED elite knew the world was a globe at the time of Columbus' voyage but there was disagreement on the diameter.

Here's a link to a fairly detailed but not too long blog about who it was who determined the earth is round.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. But none of this lends any credence to the homosexual assault on marriage.
Click to expand...

This is a truly bizarre response to my post but when one has an obsession, I suppose everything can be used as support for that obsession
 
Somerville said:
This is a truly bizarre response to my post but when one has an obsession, I suppose everything can be used as support for that obsession
Click to expand...
Keep your pants on, comrade. Just tying in with the op. ;)
 
Dooble said:
Keep your pants on, comrade. Just tying in with the op. ;)
Click to expand...

How does your reply tie to the OP? There is nothing in post #1 that says anything about homosexuality or same sex marriage.

A commenter may have thoughts on a subject but if that person doesn't post words to this forum that others may read, none of us can know what those thoughts might be.

Just think of me as being incredibly obtuse and assume that if I don't see words then I know nothing about your favourite subjects.
 
Somerville said:
How does your reply tie to the OP?
Click to expand...
Your comment doesn't tie in. The thread asks which is more crucial: Freedom of Religion or the Mandate to Evolve. Of course this poll was inspired by some moronic leftist opinion that the only way for a religion to survive, is if it embraces gay marriage. Where in YOUR post does it tie in with that?
 
Dooble said:
Your comment doesn't tie in. The thread asks which is more crucial: Freedom of Religion or the Mandate to Evolve. Of course this poll was inspired by some moronic leftist opinion that the only way for a religion to survive, is if it embraces gay marriage. Where in YOUR post does it tie in with that?
Click to expand...

I do think the question makes a bit of sense. There is no mandate anywhere. Unless your talking about a biological one, which really isn't ours to control. So, try to clear up your illogical question if you would.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, but none of those theories have a group or groups of scientists who disagree with it.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised. Einstein wasn't accepted by "everyone" for decades even though Relativity had huge acceptance almost from the get go. Darwin still isn't accepted by "everyone" as you should well know. Where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Bull, the people who believed the earth was round were laughing stocks at the time. Nobody wanted to believe them.
Click to expand...
Again, you're talking about the masses, not the "scientists" of the times.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Again, you're talking about the masses, not the "scientists" of the times.
Click to expand...

In regards to GW, there are a few scientists with opposing opinions, and to mention that during a lesson is not a big deal. What are you so afraid of anyway?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Progressives evolve? Into what?
Click to expand...

That's the very root of the idea. The next step, a better society, something superior, cast off your old foolish ways, and so on and so forth. Whether its' the dialectic or the mandate of history, or the need to evolve, or the sense of the times, or whatever the catchphrase of the geography and time is, the idea is the same - humanity must be dragged kicking and screaming into the future of my preference, which I have decided is a self-evident superior option to today.
 
cpwill said:
That's the very root of the idea. The next step, a better society, something superior, cast off your old foolish ways, and so on and so forth. Whether its' the dialectic or the mandate of history, or the need to evolve, or the sense of the times, or whatever the catchphrase of the geography and time is, the idea is the same - humanity must be dragged kicking and screaming into the future of my preference, which I have decided is a self-evident superior option to today.
Click to expand...

I would've accepted just Charzard.
 
ChrisL said:
Taxes are pooled together and then doled out. I don't think they could separate the portion of your tax that goes to public school funding, also childless people pay taxes too. Everyone does. Education is of benefit to the entire community, so if you care about your community you won't mind some of your tax money going towards public education.

As I said earlier though, I think schools and teachers should remain neutral on controversial matters, aside from teaching the facts.
Click to expand...


and my point is, if the public school is going to teach things, which are against a persons religious beliefs, either stop it by letting the child op out, and give the parents their tax money.

what is wrong if vouchers?.........not only does it help the poor, but it introduces competition into education, becuase the parents have the ability to shop for the best school for their child, and if the school does not do its job, and measure up, ...it does not get paid.

it forces the school to be a good places on learning or its goes out of business.
 
Gardener said:
What is a grade shcool of high school, anyway?

If you are needing suggestions for improving your education beyond a grade school level, though, I'm sure there are some agencies at your disposal that would be most accommodating.
Click to expand...

:roll:..
 
ernst barkmann said:
and my point is, if the public school is going to teach things, which are against a persons religious beliefs, either stop it by letting the child op out, and give the parents their tax money.

what is wrong if vouchers?.........not only does it help the poor, but it introduces competition into education, becuase the parents have the ability to shop for the best school for their child, and if the school does not do its job, and measure up, ...it does not get paid.

it forces the school to be a good places on learning or its goes out of business.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with vouchers, but every child can't have a voucher. What is it exactly that they teach in school that you are so afraid of your child learning about. Surely you don't think the school's influence is stronger than your own. Also, I don't know why you have a problem with neutrality on issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom