• 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 .
Not really, I see the left and it's tendency towards government control and their push towards "equal" results meaning actual being equal. They are the greater threat. But then, one does not try to fight a two front war if it is unnecessary. Also, at present, in my opinion, there is no unified right or a particular issue/trend, other than doing almost nothing, from those who are called the right. I am very much against corporatism also, just if given only the option of corporatism or socialism, I would chose corporatism. But my preference would be neither, and at present, the "right" are allies of convenience against the socialism of the left.

Yes, there's a unified Right. It's called "the Right." They may not have the numbers you like, but that doesn't equate to them not existing. True enough about the Right - they are essentially, the party that is against the Left - is that really a platform, though? That's not helping a situation.Come up with your own solution, not just denouncing the other guy's. Both parties, however, are useless, corrupt, and idiotic.
 
The freedom of religion has prevented countless millions from being murdered and persecuted under the laws of the most powerful organizations of men. It is so important that it is a guaranteed right in our Constitution, while the "mandate to evolve" has put forth actions that have taken place in such wonderful locations as Darfur, Rwanda, Germany, the USSR, and Bosnia.
 
Why do you start another topic? You really must be obsessed with this.

What I supprt I have indicated reeatedly and clearly in this thread: That schools should teach cildren reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, etc. - i.e. the skills they need - and that the teaching of morality is something that should be left to parents, family, friends, etc.

reeatedly? Cildren?
If bullying is happening in a classroom, are you suggesting that the teacher should not espouse tolerance, but rather send the children home to talk with their parents; some of whom may be bullies themselves?
 
But they are not like "everyone" else. Pretty much no one is ever "like everyone else". We are individuals, each and every one of us. Funny how so many liberals want to "protect" homosexuals, but yet they fully support intolerance of others who don't accept their world view.

:dito::good_job:
 
My daughter never had one of those student-parent handbooks where the parent had to sign and return or any other such nonsense. I expected the school to do just what businesses do, educate their people so they know what is and is not acceptable behavior. At work in the mid-90's we all had a classes on tolerance and that class was repeated every so often for new employees. That's what I expect children to learn at school, too.

Did you attend "Back to School Night"? Not a single year did I not receive a copy of such standards. Further I had to sign a copy as well as my progeny.
 
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?

You can extrapolate certain reasonings from science that would conflict with religion, but the compartmentalized study of a discipline is not religious or atheistic. If your fear is that science itself is a threat to religion (I might be inclined to agree) then you have a completely different problem.
 
You can extrapolate certain reasonings from science that would conflict with religion, but the compartmentalized study of a discipline is not religious or atheistic. If your fear is that science itself is a threat to religion (I might be inclined to agree) then you have a completely different problem.

Are you suggesting that Sir Isaac Newton, who invented physics in 1665 was promoting and supporting atheism?
 
If your fear is that science itself is a threat to religion (I might be inclined to agree) then you have a completely different problem.
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?
 
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?

Honestly not really. I thought the discussion was about teaching evolution and abiogenesis in schools unless I missed something.
 
Honestly not really. I thought the discussion was about teaching evolution and abiogenesis in schools unless I missed something.
You missed something. Science, itself, is crucial. Atheistic spin on science, is not. When you suggested that science could be a threat to religion, I submit that it was your inner atheist talking.
 
I'm sure it's not nearly the same level as teen/20s STD levels. I'm pretty sure that is the highest age group for STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

You are correct; however, in the past several years, I have had to be involved with several elders. It is has not be made very public, but there is a significant rise occurring. Elder residences are actually talking with the children of elders about this issue in attempt to stem the tide. It is quite embarrassing to have to converse with an elder concerning such matters! :blushing2
 
Honestly not really. I thought the discussion was about teaching evolution and abiogenesis in schools unless I missed something.

It has turned into a free-for-all on pretty much anything someone thinks makes religion and science at odds with each other. Those are within the bounds, so go for it.
 
You missed something. Science, itself, is crucial. Atheistic spin on science, is not. When you suggested that science could be a threat to religion, I submit that it was your inner atheist talking.

Well obviously. A naturalistic understanding of the Universe which has expanded considerable in the past century indicates to me that a God is unlikely. This comes from physics, biology, neuroscience, archeology, chemistry, etc in that they provide strong indications of an alternative and in my opinion superior explanation for the world around us. But they are not 'atheistic' in and of themselves, and I'm not sure what an atheistic spin on teaching them would look like.
 
Yes, there's a unified Right. It's called "the Right." They may not have the numbers you like, but that doesn't equate to them not existing. True enough about the Right - they are essentially, the party that is against the Left - is that really a platform, though? That's not helping a situation.Come up with your own solution, not just denouncing the other guy's. Both parties, however, are useless, corrupt, and idiotic.

The left is pretty much, despite their other differences, unified on using government to control society. Frankly, I can often agree with a lot of what they want to accomplish, I just don't agree with how (using the government to do it) they want to do it.
 
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?

Nope. It seems like imagined hysterics.
 
The left is pretty much, despite their other differences, unified on using government to control society. Frankly, I can often agree with a lot of what they want to accomplish, I just don't agree with how (using the government to do it) they want to do it.

That's great, but don't sit there screaming "Nuh-uh!" at them without your own solution.
 
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?

Do you honestly consider Richard Dawkins, who introduced the term meme, to be a threat to religion?
 
So what is this then?
It's an atheist's point of view that supports my argument.

1 guy maybe doing something (if you take his word at face value)...not really some grand conspiracy as you'd lead us to believe.
Oh, you want to see more evidence:

WORLD | Richard Dawkins encourages atheists to mock and ridicule Christians | La Shawn Barber | March 28, 2012

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists | Super Scholar

Are you trying to tell me there aren't little Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris disciples running around society today? How clueless (or deceptive) are you willing to be?
 
Do you honestly consider Richard Dawkins, who introduced the term meme, to be a threat to religion?
It's strength in numbers, lola. Why are you trying to isolate incidences of atheism? The above article + Richard Dawkins + the other top 24 atheists + you and Ikara running interference + God knows what else I have to dig up = A growing problem.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is a science. God is not part of the study of science. Why is this hard?

Evolution is both a scientific theory and the process that this theory describes. Whether or not God is involved in this proces is something science, and therefore also state school, are not competent to judge. You are making it hard by constantly varying what you say.
 
Back
Top Bottom