Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion in school?

EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.

(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.

A few more points-

(1)-It would not be taught in science class. It would be taught basically as a culture class. In science, they can mention that a greater being may have created the world, but there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it. They could have it over with in two or three sentences.

(2)-It wouldn't be indoctrination. Indoctrination is when parents don't expose their children to any other religion than that of their own. Kids don't actually know why they believe, because they are being indoctrinated. Having classes on different religions exposes kids to different possibilites, or perhaps helps them strengthen their current views, or at the very least, helps them learn to think for themselves.

So, what do you think?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:49:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Religious studies classes are popular in college and I find them useful for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure they're necessary before that time, nor do I think parents would support a religious-specific curriculum during, say, high school.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism

Err...No.

and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.

What you want to do is pretty much akin to a history class, in which the students memorize specifics of each religion, recite them on tests, and then forget them two days later. I see absolutely no "thinking value" that will come out of this; if you want to practice memorization, then science is that way --->

(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.

Is/Ought Fallacy. Just because it influences our culture, does not mean that students should be indoctrinated with it- because that is essentially what happens when you allow teachers to teach religion (I know from my experience in a private Jewish school and those Youtube videos of Bible Belt teachers).

By teaching about it, you are perpetuating it. If the ultimate goal is to get rid of it, which it should be, then by forgetting it in public schools and opting for the more scientific approach, students will not be as much influenced by religion.

A few more points-

(1)-It would not be taught in science class. It would be taught basically as a culture class. In science, they can mention that a greater being may have created the world, but there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it. They could have it over with in two or three sentences.

Somewhat of a slippery slope. If you allow religion to be taught in schools, it's only a matter of time before the Christian fascist will want to teach creationism in science class, and have some limited ground to do so, albeit not scientific.

(2)-It wouldn't be indoctrination. Indoctrination is when parents don't expose their children to any other religion than that of their own. Kids don't actually know why they believe, because they are being indoctrinated. Having classes on different religions exposes kids to different possibilites, or perhaps helps them strengthen their current views, or at the very least, helps them learn to think for themselves.

By having classes on these subjects, you are placing them as important and as something that students should ponder, which considering our modern age, is not something that you want the next generation of scientists and engineers exposed to.

Religion isn't the place to strengthen critical thinking- regular science and the social sciences are.

So, what do you think?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:18:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism

Err...No.

Why not?


and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.

What you want to do is pretty much akin to a history class, in which the students memorize specifics of each religion, recite them on tests, and then forget them two days later. I see absolutely no "thinking value" that will come out of this; if you want to practice memorization, then science is that way --->

I'm not a big believer in tests and regurgitation that takes place in school. Instead, simply go over the different beliefs that exists. There is some thinking value in the sense that it makes them try and decide which religion may seem true, especially those who are already indoctrinated at home.



(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.

Is/Ought Fallacy. Just because it influences our culture, does not mean that students should be indoctrinated with it- because that is essentially what happens when you allow teachers to teach religion (I know from my experience in a private Jewish school and those Youtube videos of Bible Belt teachers).

America isn't a Christian nation, but it's culture has been influenced by Christianity and religion in general. You don't need multiple teachers for this, just one would suffice. You don't need a Christian to teach what Christianity is about, same for islam, atheism, buddhism, etc.


By teaching about it, you are perpetuating it. If the ultimate goal is to get rid of it, which it should be, then by forgetting it in public schools and opting for the more scientific approach, students will not be as much influenced by religion.

America is a free nation, whether you agree with it or not, people can believe what they believe. Therefore, I don't think our goal is or should be, getting rid of religion.


A few more points-

(1)-It would not be taught in science class. It would be taught basically as a culture class. In science, they can mention that a greater being may have created the world, but there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it. They could have it over with in two or three sentences.

Somewhat of a slippery slope. If you allow religion to be taught in schools, it's only a matter of time before the Christian fascist will want to teach creationism in science class, and have some limited ground to do so, albeit not scientific.

Tell them no. Some already do teach creationism in science class, something I do object to. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach a religion class, simply to expose kids to different views.


(2)-It wouldn't be indoctrination. Indoctrination is when parents don't expose their children to any other religion than that of their own. Kids don't actually know why they believe, because they are being indoctrinated. Having classes on different religions exposes kids to different possibilites, or perhaps helps them strengthen their current views, or at the very least, helps them learn to think for themselves.

By having classes on these subjects, you are placing them as important and as something that students should ponder, which considering our modern age, is not something that you want the next generation of scientists and engineers exposed to.

They are already exposed to it at home, why not expose them to different views and let them decide for themselves what is or isn't true.


Religion isn't the place to strengthen critical thinking- regular science and the social sciences are.

Religion itself won't strenghten critical thinking, exposing kids to different views than those taught at home will cause at least some of the kids to use their brains and think which view they think is true. Just my opinion...


So, what do you think?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:48:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 12:49:17 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Religious studies classes are popular in college and I find them useful for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure they're necessary before that time, nor do I think parents would support a religious-specific curriculum during, say, high school.

Highschool would be the place to teach it, imo. And I agree, parents probably won't support it, but I think the kids would benefit from exposure to different points of view.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:23:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:47:35 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/18/2012 3:18:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism

Err...No.

Why not?

'Cause Atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. In the same way that Atheism does not require "faith," but a lack thereof.


and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.

What you want to do is pretty much akin to a history class, in which the students memorize specifics of each religion, recite them on tests, and then forget them two days later. I see absolutely no "thinking value" that will come out of this; if you want to practice memorization, then science is that way --->

I'm not a big believer in tests and regurgitation that takes place in school. Instead, simply go over the different beliefs that exists. There is some thinking value in the sense that it makes them try and decide which religion may seem true, especially those who are already indoctrinated at home.

Helping somebody "pick" a religion is completely counter-intuitive to the whole religion process. You are supposed to become religious when an imaginary friend speaks to you, not because of arbitrary characteristics in the religion.



(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.

Is/Ought Fallacy. Just because it influences our culture, does not mean that students should be indoctrinated with it- because that is essentially what happens when you allow teachers to teach religion (I know from my experience in a private Jewish school and those Youtube videos of Bible Belt teachers).

America isn't a Christian nation, but it's culture has been influenced by Christianity and religion in general. You don't need multiple teachers for this, just one would suffice. You don't need a Christian to teach what Christianity is about, same for islam, atheism, buddhism, etc.

America isn't a nation of slavery anymore, but it was influenced by slavery. Therefore, this means that we need to teach about slavery, different kinds of slavery, how to own a slave, the proper process for treating a slave, etc..... America has been built upon a lot of things, going over every single one will make you a history major, which nobody wants to be and frankly, there are better things to learn in school.

Furthermore, all of this information can be easily accessed and learned on the web, unlike concepts such as mathematics or the sciences, which are somewhat harder.


By teaching about it, you are perpetuating it. If the ultimate goal is to get rid of it, which it should be, then by forgetting it in public schools and opting for the more scientific approach, students will not be as much influenced by religion.

America is a free nation, whether you agree with it or not, people can believe what they believe. Therefore, I don't think our goal is or should be, getting rid of religion.

Cross-apply that logic to slavery. You are free to believe what you want, but trying to impose it on others is a big no-no.


A few more points-

(1)-It would not be taught in science class. It would be taught basically as a culture class. In science, they can mention that a greater being may have created the world, but there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it. They could have it over with in two or three sentences.

Somewhat of a slippery slope. If you allow religion to be taught in schools, it's only a matter of time before the Christian fascist will want to teach creationism in science class, and have some limited ground to do so, albeit not scientific.

Tell them no. Some already do teach creationism in science class, something I do object to. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach a religion class, simply to expose kids to different views.

Should we also have an objective and unbiased Nazi Class to expose children to their views?


(2)-It wouldn't be indoctrination. Indoctrination is when parents don't expose their children to any other religion than that of their own. Kids don't actually know why they believe, because they are being indoctrinated. Having classes on different religions exposes kids to different possibilites, or perhaps helps them strengthen their current views, or at the very least, helps them learn to think for themselves.

By having classes on these subjects, you are placing them as important and as something that students should ponder, which considering our modern age, is not something that you want the next generation of scientists and engineers exposed to.

They are already exposed to it at home, why not expose them to different views and let them decide for themselves what is or isn't true.

And that has to be done in a school? Frankly, a school isn't much better at home because no matter how much you don't like, all the students and teachers will have their own opinions, which will make unbiased and objective decisions challenging. I think that the most unbiased and objective thing that we have is the Internet. Although there are polar views on it, there is no social pressure to accept these views, unlike in other institutions, which allows you to make a somewhat unbiased choice. I really, like, using the, commas.


Religion isn't the place to strengthen critical thinking- regular science and the social sciences are.

Religion itself won't strenghten critical thinking, exposing kids to different views than those taught at home will cause at least some of the kids to use their brains and think which view they think is true. Just my opinion...

Read what I said above.


So, what do you think?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:39:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 4:23:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
'Cause Atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. In the same way that Atheism does not require "faith," but a lack thereof.

Depends on how you view it.

Helping somebody "pick" a religion is completely counter-intuitive to the whole religion process. You are supposed to become religious when an imaginary friend speaks to you, not because of arbitrary characteristics in the religion.

It's not helping them pick a religion, just exposing them to the different beliefs.

America isn't a nation of slavery anymore, but it was influenced by slavery. Therefore, this means that we need to teach about slavery, different kinds of slavery, how to own a slave, the proper process for treating a slave, etc..... America has been built upon a lot of things, going over every single one will make you a history major, which nobody wants to be and frankly, there are better things to learn in school.

We weren't influenced by slavery. Yes, we had it, but we weren't "influenced" by it.


Furthermore, all of this information can be easily accessed and learned on the web, unlike concepts such as mathematics or the sciences, which are somewhat harder.

True.

Cross-apply that logic to slavery. You are free to believe what you want, but trying to impose it on others is a big no-no.

It's not being imposed, just simply looking at different view points.

Should we also have an objective and unbiased Nazi Class to expose children to their views?

No.

And that has to be done in a school? Frankly, a school isn't much better at home because no matter how much you don't like, all the students and teachers will have their own opinions, which will make unbiased and objective decisions challenging. I think that the most unbiased and objective thing that we have is the Internet. Although there are polar views on it, there is no social pressure to accept these views, unlike in other institutions, which allows you to make a somewhat unbiased choice. I really, like, using the, commas.

Can't really argue with you there...

Read what I said above.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 4:39:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/18/2012 4:23:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
'Cause Atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. In the same way that Atheism does not require "faith," but a lack thereof.

Depends on how you view it.

You're right. If you view it like a theist, it's a faith. If you view it like a logical person, then it is not faith.

Helping somebody "pick" a religion is completely counter-intuitive to the whole religion process. You are supposed to become religious when an imaginary friend speaks to you, not because of arbitrary characteristics in the religion.

It's not helping them pick a religion, just exposing them to the different beliefs.

That's your whole point.

"exposing kids to different views than those taught at home will cause at least some of the kids to use their brains and think which view they think is true. "

By exposing individuals to different beliefs, then they will inevitably pick one of them based on characteristics which are not applicable with how religion "traditionally" works.

America isn't a nation of slavery anymore, but it was influenced by slavery. Therefore, this means that we need to teach about slavery, different kinds of slavery, how to own a slave, the proper process for treating a slave, etc..... America has been built upon a lot of things, going over every single one will make you a history major, which nobody wants to be and frankly, there are better things to learn in school.

We weren't influenced by slavery. Yes, we had it, but we weren't "influenced" by it.

Lol. Of course we were influenced by slavery. It was the basis of individual autonomy, civil rights, and black rights.


Furthermore, all of this information can be easily accessed and learned on the web, unlike concepts such as mathematics or the sciences, which are somewhat harder.

True.

Cross-apply that logic to slavery. You are free to believe what you want, but trying to impose it on others is a big no-no.

It's not being imposed, just simply looking at different view points.

That actual act of teaching is not an imposition but in society, religion is very often an act of imposition.

Should we also have an objective and unbiased Nazi Class to expose children to their views?

No.

So why should we have an unbiased and objective view of religion?

And that has to be done in a school? Frankly, a school isn't much better at home because no matter how much you don't like, all the students and teachers will have their own opinions, which will make unbiased and objective decisions challenging. I think that the most unbiased and objective thing that we have is the Internet. Although there are polar views on it, there is no social pressure to accept these views, unlike in other institutions, which allows you to make a somewhat unbiased choice. I really, like, using the, commas.

Can't really argue with you there...

Read what I said above.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 5:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:48:37 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/18/2012 12:49:17 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Religious studies classes are popular in college and I find them useful for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure they're necessary before that time, nor do I think parents would support a religious-specific curriculum during, say, high school.

Highschool would be the place to teach it, imo. And I agree, parents probably won't support it, but I think the kids would benefit from exposure to different points of view.

I think there are better and more important things to learn in high school. I guess is would be okay as an elective, but I don't see many kids choosing it. A world cultures would be a similar class that is better than world religion, because there is more to culture than just religion.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 5:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I benefitted greatly in college from taking classes on Islam, Buddhism, etc.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

Your idea would be a good optional class
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:03:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

Your idea would be a good optional class

We have an optional "Bible as literature"class at my school, but I know very little about it. I dont think it really counts as religious studies, but I wouldn't mind seeing those as electives in schools. But it's unlikely classes about religion could be implemented in public schools without causing an uproar.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:50:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

I'm really getting tired of these "why not" arguments; they scream "mentally challenged idiot."

We can teach students football culture, philosophy, art history, golf management, Star Trek studies, queer musicology, or surfing studies (these are all real course; no joke). Why don't we? Because they are useless. However, ID not only has the "useless" component in check, but it is also scientifically defunct. It's akin to teaching students that the Stork delivers babies in Sex Ed courses.

If you want to keep your unscientific views, then keep them at home. You have absolutely no right to shove them down the throats of a secular nation.

Your idea would be a good optional class
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:57:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:50:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

I'm really getting tired of these "why not" arguments; they scream "mentally challenged idiot."

We can teach students football culture, philosophy, art history, golf management, Star Trek studies, queer musicology, or surfing studies (these are all real course; no joke). Why don't we? Because they are useless. However, ID not only has the "useless" component in check, but it is also scientifically defunct. It's akin to teaching students that the Stork delivers babies in Sex Ed courses.

If you want to keep your unscientific views, then keep them at home. You have absolutely no right to shove them down the throats of a secular nation.

Your idea would be a good optional class

I was with you until you called Star Trek studies useless.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:31:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:50:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

I'm really getting tired of these "why not" arguments; they scream "mentally challenged idiot."

We can teach students football culture, philosophy, art history, golf management, Star Trek studies, queer musicology, or surfing studies (these are all real course; no joke). Why don't we? Because they are useless.

That's rather presumptuous, don't you think?

However, ID not only has the "useless" component in check, but it is also scientifically defunct. It's akin to teaching students that the Stork delivers babies in Sex Ed courses.

I can see ID successfully integrated into the more philosophical areas of physics (many of which are just theoretical circle-jerks anyway). If you've seen "The Elegant Universe," you'll see that there's plenty of room for ID in a scientific discussion.

Education ought to allow for as many points of discussion to come into the fray as possible.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:47:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:31:03 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:50:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

I'm really getting tired of these "why not" arguments; they scream "mentally challenged idiot."

We can teach students football culture, philosophy, art history, golf management, Star Trek studies, queer musicology, or surfing studies (these are all real course; no joke). Why don't we? Because they are useless.

That's rather presumptuous, don't you think?

It was done to illustrate that even though we can
teach some things, we don't.

However, ID not only has the "useless" component in check, but it is also scientifically defunct. It's akin to teaching students that the Stork delivers babies in Sex Ed courses.

I can see ID successfully integrated into the more philosophical areas of physics (many of which are just theoretical circle-jerks anyway). If you've seen "The Elegant Universe," you'll see that there's plenty of room for ID in a scientific discussion.

No. ID in the sense of denying evolution should be beaten with a cross and crucified. ID in the sense of god created everything but then evolution and sh!t happened, should be confined to a religion class only, which should not be made mandatory.

Science is about that which can be observed and replicated via the scientific method. Implementing hypotheses such as ID is a strict defiance of this method and hence why science should not teach it.

Education ought to allow for as many points of discussion to come into the fray as possible.

Lol no. When teaching the Holocaust, should education allow for the Nazi POV? Again, this is just a rehashing of "because we can" argument, which is ludicrous when applied to education.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:47:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

It was done to illustrate that even though we can
teach some things, we don't.

I think that's just a product of limited educational resources in public schools. I'm confident many universities offer "patriarchy in professional gold" or some PC course like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying courses like that should be prioritized, I'm just noting that there's no reason not to integrate them into existing curricula if students find it relevant and engaging.

No. ID in the sense of denying evolution should be beaten with a cross and crucified. ID in the sense of god created everything but then evolution and sh!t happened, should be confined to a religion class only, which should not be made mandatory.

Science is about that which can be observed and replicated via the scientific method. Implementing hypotheses such as ID is a strict defiance of this method and hence why science should not teach it.

Of course science shouldn't teach it as established truth. Teachers and students should approach it as more as a possible perspective, as a "maybe one day we'll know..." kind of topic. The same could be said with much of quantum physics.

Just because we haven't found a way to test or prove something doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

Lol no. When teaching the Holocaust, should education allow for the Nazi POV? Again, this is just a rehashing of "because we can" argument, which is ludicrous when applied to education.

In U.S. History I read multiple primary source documents of Nazi leaders "rationalizing" the Final Solution. Just because we learn about a particular perspective doesn't mean we endorse it.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 4:39:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 8/18/2012 4:23:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
'Cause Atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack thereof. In the same way that Atheism does not require "faith," but a lack thereof.

Depends on how you view it.

No, it doesn't depend on how you view it. This is not a term for you to misconstrue.
Helping somebody "pick" a religion is completely counter-intuitive to the whole religion process. You are supposed to become religious when an imaginary friend speaks to you, not because of arbitrary characteristics in the religion.

It's not helping them pick a religion, just exposing them to the different beliefs.

There is no reason to expose children (who haven't, for all we know, developed the full extent of their critical thinking abilities and analysis abilities) to unsubstantiated beliefs. We are taught in world history about the major world religions, but we learn their roles throughout history and their religious composition; nothing more.
America isn't a nation of slavery anymore, but it was influenced by slavery. Therefore, this means that we need to teach about slavery, different kinds of slavery, how to own a slave, the proper process for treating a slave, etc..... America has been built upon a lot of things, going over every single one will make you a history major, which nobody wants to be and frankly, there are better things to learn in school.

We weren't influenced by slavery. Yes, we had it, but we weren't "influenced" by it.

Influenced by slavery? We were CREATED by slavery. We were a major stop of the triangle trade with slavery.

Furthermore, all of this information can be easily accessed and learned on the web, unlike concepts such as mathematics or the sciences, which are somewhat harder.

True.

Cross-apply that logic to slavery. You are free to believe what you want, but trying to impose it on others is a big no-no.

It's not being imposed, just simply looking at different view points.

Should we also have an objective and unbiased Nazi Class to expose children to their views?

No.

Why not? It's a belief and different view point.
And that has to be done in a school? Frankly, a school isn't much better at home because no matter how much you don't like, all the students and teachers will have their own opinions, which will make unbiased and objective decisions challenging. I think that the most unbiased and objective thing that we have is the Internet. Although there are polar views on it, there is no social pressure to accept these views, unlike in other institutions, which allows you to make a somewhat unbiased choice. I really, like, using the, commas.

Can't really argue with you there...

Read what I said above.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:36:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I think it should be an optional class. There is no reason not too.

Teaching religion at the populace's expensive isn't quite secular.
And science should teach evolution and intelligent design. Why not?

One is scientific, the other is not.
One is accepted uniformly by the scientific community, the other is not.
Your idea would be a good optional class
turn down for h'what
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:00:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
And science should teach evolution and intelligent design.

Just a quick question. What is intelligent design and what does it have to do with evolution?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:33:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:14:48 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:47:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

It was done to illustrate that even though we can
teach some things, we don't.

I think that's just a product of limited educational resources in public schools. I'm confident many universities offer "patriarchy in professional gold" or some PC course like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying courses like that should be prioritized, I'm just noting that there's no reason not to integrate them into existing curricula if students find it relevant and engaging.

I'm sure that if you conducted a survey, students would rather learn about Star Trek than do Mathematics. What the students want is really irrelevant.

Also, the very reason that we have these limited resources, is the same reason why we should only teach classes that are "worth" teaching. ID is nothing but religious conjecture, with a lack of facts to back it up.

No. ID in the sense of denying evolution should be beaten with a cross and crucified. ID in the sense of god created everything but then evolution and sh!t happened, should be confined to a religion class only, which should not be made mandatory.

Science is about that which can be observed and replicated via the scientific method. Implementing hypotheses such as ID is a strict defiance of this method and hence why science should not teach it.

Of course science shouldn't teach it as established truth. Teachers and students should approach it as more as a possible perspective, as a "maybe one day we'll know..." kind of topic. The same could be said with much of quantum physics.

It's possible that we all had it wrong all along and that a Stork really does deliver babies. What is possible is redundant, because EVERYTHING is possible, due to no absolute certainty.

Just because we haven't found a way to test or prove something doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

In science, yes it does- especially at lower levels.

Lol no. When teaching the Holocaust, should education allow for the Nazi POV? Again, this is just a rehashing of "because we can" argument, which is ludicrous when applied to education.

In U.S. History I read multiple primary source documents of Nazi leaders "rationalizing" the Final Solution. Just because we learn about a particular perspective doesn't mean we endorse it.

Your quotation of "rationalizing" proves that the course was neither objective nor unbiased.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:31:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 4:00:20 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
And science should teach evolution and intelligent design.

Just a quick question. What is intelligent design and what does it have to do with evolution?

Intelligent design is the concept that the Universe and organic life was uniformly created/designe by a supreme intelligent being. This 'supreme intelligent being' is always professed to be a 'God'. I don't see it to be scientific at all; it's fallible in its most basic premises.

It has nothing to do with evolution.
turn down for h'what
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:21:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 9:31:47 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/19/2012 4:00:20 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
And science should teach evolution and intelligent design.

Just a quick question. What is intelligent design and what does it have to do with evolution?

Intelligent design is the concept that the Universe and organic life was uniformly created/designe by a supreme intelligent being. This 'supreme intelligent being' is always professed to be a 'God'. I don't see it to be scientific at all; it's fallible in its most basic premises.

It has nothing to do with evolution.

That blew my mind. I thout it was a scientific explanation on some of the fast evelution we are seeiong where the clinate change. Like brown rabbits turning white in a few years.

A second question though. Why should it be taught in science class?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:27:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We already have this as a major section of our history course in highschool. It was extremely informative.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:47:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 9:31:47 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/19/2012 4:00:20 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 5:48:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
And science should teach evolution and intelligent design.

Just a quick question. What is intelligent design and what does it have to do with evolution?

Intelligent design is the concept that the Universe and organic life was uniformly created/designe by a supreme intelligent being. This 'supreme intelligent being' is always professed to be a 'God'. I don't see it to be scientific at all; it's fallible in its most basic premises.

It has nothing to do with evolution.

Behe, Dembski, Phillips, and every other major ID advocate would say you are dead wrong on your definitions.

ID claims that naturalistic processes cannot account for certain aspects of existing biological systems. It has nothing to do with life being uniformly created by God, it has to do with Evolution's supposed inability to explain particulars about biology.

It does NOT necessarily claim that all things were created by a intelligent designer. For instance, Behe argues common descent occurred, but the flagella's evolution cannot be explained without an appeal to non-naturalistic mechanisms.

To argue that God is responsible for the all naturalistic mechanisms of evolution renders all ID claims meaningless (since there could no longer be a distinction between a "naturalistically-based mechanisms" and "non-naturalistically-based mechanisms").
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:51:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You'll notice that all ID claims boil down to "Evolutionary theory can't explain X right now, so X must have come about via an Intelligent Designer." No actual predictions past "we will find things evolutionary theory cannot explain." It's impossible to falsify ID since plugging in any gap of understanding simply means ID is applicable to even a smaller subset of examples than previously thought. It would be impossible to rule out ID unless all aspects of Evolutionary Theory were shown to have naturalistic mechanisms.

The patent absurdity of treating this as a meaningful scientific hypothesis is lost on many of its advocates.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:38:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.

They already do that. They teach all of them in 6th grade Social Studies.


(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.

A few more points-

(1)-It would not be taught in science class. It would be taught basically as a culture class. In science, they can mention that a greater being may have created the world, but there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it. They could have it over with in two or three sentences.

(2)-It wouldn't be indoctrination. Indoctrination is when parents don't expose their children to any other religion than that of their own. Kids don't actually know why they believe, because they are being indoctrinated. Having classes on different religions exposes kids to different possibilites, or perhaps helps them strengthen their current views, or at the very least, helps them learn to think for themselves.

So, what do you think?
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:04:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:49:17 PM, EvanK wrote:
Alright, very contraversial issue, I know. But personally, I think teaching religion in school would actually benefit society, for a few reasons.

(1)-It teaches kids to think. Any kid brought up in a religious household, will likely only be exposed to one religion, that of their family. They can't even say that they "believe", because they don't usually know why they "believe". They do, simply because their parents do. Teaching religion, and by religion, I mean all of the religions with large followings, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, or other non religions, but religious beliefs, such as Atheism and Deism. I think kids will benefit from being exposed to something new.:

Taking a religious studies course is not the same thing as teaching fundamentals of one specific religion. The contention is with the latter, not the former.

(2)-It influences culture, very much. Not even just in our country, but in most every country all over the world. I think it's hard to teach American or world culture without religious references.:

Teaching religious history is not the same thing as teaching values from a religion as if they have to be followed.

All in all it seems your understanding of what "religion in school" means is flawed.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:51:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do the same conservatives who so mistrust the abilities of the government to provide basic services REALLY want public schools to be the ones giving an interpretation of their religion?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:53:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 2:51:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Do the same conservatives who so mistrust the abilities of the government to provide basic services REALLY want public schools to be the ones giving an interpretation of their religion?

The same people who think public schools aren't even teaching SCIENCE correctly.