Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Teachers brainwashing our children?


Mr.Canada

Recommended Posts

Similarly, if the existence of such hoidays is harmeless, every day should be a paid holiday! ;)

Naw, obviously, some work needs to be done now and then. But having more holidays would not be the end of the world. Most European countries have substantially more time off than we do in North America and they are doing ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Naw, obviously, some work needs to be done now and then. But having more holidays would not be the end of the world. Most European countries have substantially more time off than we do in North America and they are doing ok.

This tangent wasn't about productivity....but state sponsored religious holidays. Member betsy correctly identifies the historical and cultural legacy of such holidays, despite your lack of concern. If your ability to enjoy the "time off" as you please were impacted, your views might be different.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tangent wasn't about productivity....but state sponsored religious holidays.

Productivity was an issue you brought up.

Member betsy correctly identifies the historical and cultural legacy of such holidays, despite your lack of concern.

Yes, and?

If your ability to enjoy the "time off" as you please were impacted, your views might be different.

Impacted how? By removing these holidays since they are considered too religious to have in a secular society? Yes, I wouldn't like that. Like I said, my atheist self will be only too happy to continue to have Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc, as holidays. I'd take the last day of Ramadan off with a similar lack of care about its religious origins and a similar level of appreciation for the time off.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Productivity was an issue you brought up.

...and one that you cast aside until presented with limit theory.

Yes, and?

She is right...in a general sense. Canada has seen fit to continue the legal sanction of religious holidays.

Impacted how? By removing these holidays since they are considered too religious to have in a secular society? Yes, I wouldn't like that.

Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and one that you cast aside until presented with limit theory.

The fact that something has an adverse affect when taken to the extreme does not mean that it cannot be beneficial in a more moderate quantity. For the number of holidays and their effect on a nation's productivity, happiness, etc, the optimum is obviously somewhere between 0 and 365, not at either end.

She is right...in a general sense. Canada has seen fit to continue the legal sanction of religious holidays.

Yes. And, as a non-religious person, I am stating that I don't mind this fact at all, and think that people that campaign against the continued sanction of such holidays need to find some hobbies besides trying to take away people's free time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that something has an adverse affect when taken to the extreme does not mean that it cannot be beneficial in a more moderate quantity. For the number of holidays and their effect on a nation's productivity, happiness, etc, the optimum is obviously somewhere between 0 and 365, not at either end.

Well, clearly, productivity lags in other nations with beacoup paid holidays. Just sayin'....

Yes. And, as a non-religious person, I am stating that I don't mind this fact at all, and think that people that campaign against the continued sanction of such holidays need to find some hobbies besides trying to take away people's free time.

And as a pagan, I don't care either way. I don't even worship free time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This atheist uses those holidays to spend time with family, but that seems to be such an un-christian thing to do these days.

No, that's a very Christian thing to do. It's the un-Christians that have helped turn said holidays into shopping sprees. And it's the atheists that have fought to take the very mention of Christ out of Christmas. Look in the mirror! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's a very Christian thing to do. It's the un-Christians that have helped turn said holidays into shopping sprees. And it's the atheists that have fought to take the very mention of Christ out of Christmas. Look in the mirror! :)

Well, since I am atheist, I have no use for Christ in my life, and really it seems to be just a 'human' thing to do. However, spending time with my family will always be on the forefront when those holidays come around. But at least we can agree that these holidays are over commercialized to the point there really is no meaning to these holidays anymore. Regardless of their religious beginnings, even athiests regocnize the importance of these holidays. I am of the mind that I can't support any religion, but do recognize others that want to believe in god or jesus, or allah, or who ever. If it's important to you then go for it. But it may not be important to me, and we can leave it at that. Live and let live. I am not bugging you, you ain't bugging me. We'd probably be more happy as a society if we were not forcing each others beliefs on one another.

And I checked the mirror today .. I need to shave. And do some dishes and laundry today.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where the great debate lies, isn't it? Your theory is unsound.

Absolutely not, since Creationism - and all that it entails - can only be taught as fact. Science can allow for a godhead - if it is proven. Creationism cannot allow for a non-godhead, as evidenced. So there is no debate at all really. If Creationism was a scientific theory - and you somehow truly believed it - then it would be incumbent on you to disprove it and by doing so either discover the truth of it or revise it to conform to the evidence. Creationists always paint themselves into the same corner. It is likely statistically predictable.

The source of my theory is absolutely irrelevant to its validity. Your pseudo-psychoanalytic process about my inner thoughts is laughable when you supporters of evolution refuse to even entertain scientific evidence that contradicts evolution.

Bit and pieces of displaced evidence here and there do not make or break any sound theory. There are always anomolies in practically every study or theory. That is what science is all about and makes it so interesting. Creationism is an unsound theory because it ignores the greater body of evidence and relies on bits and pieces of displaced or otherwise unexamined evidence. Your personal faith may mean something to you, internally, but to science, externally, it means nothing.

What are you so afraid of?

Nothing since I have been there done that. Creationism, as a theory, is unsound. Evolution, as a theory, is more sound. Thus if you want to prove that Creationism is an sound theory you have to first accept that, as a theory it can - and usually will be - changed and replaced by something better in the future, and that you must support efforts to disprove it. Otherwise you would be dishonest and nothing more than an alchemist with a fancy notion.

Dawkins used that very tactic on Wendy Wright, claiming "well, evolution is just a fact!"(declaring the "truth" of the very fact they're trying to debate) and asking her, "Are you a scientist?" (attempting to disparage her opinion).

If that's the case, one should ask Dawkins why then on earth did he waste his time debating her???

I could care less about Dawkins or Wright really. They hold no authority over anything except perhaps a political debate about some small branch of social theory inspecting a small population sample. Meh.

Whoa. You mimic your preacher Dawkins in his interview with Wendy Wright (thread Munk Debates- link provided by Dre). You are short on the fuse too, aren't you?

Like Bishop...er Cardinal...or is it Pope Dawkins, are you all red and splotchy on the face too, complete with the rapid eye-blinking?

Dawkins isn't my "preacher" anymore than Wendy Wright is your preferred dominatrix.

Why is it you guys inevitably resort to personal attacks?

Oh, you are stuck at introspection when I am offering extrospection. If you take that as a personal attack then perhaps you may wish to re-examine what doctors and nurses are actually doing to you when they give you a needle. That is a "personal attack" as well.

Talk about blatant adhominem. Not only are you psycho-analysing me but you're demanding I psycho-analyse myself.

Not at all. The only thing I demand of you is that you give equal billing to my impression - my "theory" - of you as you give to your own impression yourself. One would think that someone who demands that the unsound theory of Creationsim be taught "alongside" the sound theories of science, would recognize they ought to practice what they preach.

Further more, it's a feeble explanatory narrative to begin with. Santa Claus? Eh?

Santa Claus, yep. One explanatory hero narrative is as good and valid as any other don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Letting the child make a decision based solely on one side of an argument isn't allowing for much of a choice at all is it?

Yes, allow your children to run with scissors, play between parked cars or wander out onto thin ice is good parenting because you want to give them "a choice." :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's a very Christian thing to do. It's the un-Christians that have helped turn said holidays into shopping sprees. And it's the atheists that have fought to take the very mention of Christ out of Christmas. Look in the mirror! :)

You mean the Jews? :rolleyes: It's not atheists or "un-Christians" who are to blame for the transformation of Christmas in to a orgy of mass consumption, but your one true god: capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

un-christians took over christmas?...christmas should be celebrated in June, it was christians who took over the winter pagan solstice celebration marking the return of the sun, Xmas tree, yule log, mistletoe are all pagan symbols...the custom of gift giving was transferred from the St. Nicholas' day celebrated on Dec 5th or 6th there's nothing atheist about it, likely transferred in New Amsterdam/New York from the dutch colonists to english colonists St Nicholas>Sinterklaas>Santa Claus.

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. If you want to teach democracy....you have to set an example. You don't stifle or silence dissenting views....or theories.

You don't enforce and ram your theory as the rule....when there is a serious debate about its validity!

That ain't democratic!

Knowledge is not to be passed around in a way to ensure that "all ideas get equal treatment," using "democracy" as an excuse.

All ideas are not equal. Obviously.

Unless you feel that Satanism should be allowed equal weight as Christianity...why isn't it? why aren't we teaching our children in public schools the "equally valid" religions of Satanism and Scientology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge is not to be passed around in a way to ensure that "all ideas get equal treatment," using "democracy" as an excuse.

All ideas are not equal. Obviously.

Unless you feel that Satanism should be allowed equal weight as Christianity...why isn't it? why aren't we teaching our children in public schools the "equally valid" religions of Satanism and Scientology?

I've asked the question to some before. If you believe in God, then you must believe in the Devil (Lucifer whatever you want to call him)... and some answered with a NO. I thought that was odd.

And wow Scientology .. hehe ... I bet Hubbard created it as a tax shelter of some kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there is no "serious debate about (evolution's) validity." AT least not among serious people.

Correct! There are debates as to some of the how's and why's, but never a debate on the validity of evolution, just some of the finer points that make up evolution on the whole. Because, well, we don't quite yet have the whole picture, and may never get there. But that in of itself is not evidence to support creationism and god itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge is not to be passed around in a way to ensure that "all ideas get equal treatment," using "democracy" as an excuse.

All ideas are not equal. Obviously.

Unless you feel that Satanism should be allowed equal weight as Christianity...why isn't it? why aren't we teaching our children in public schools the "equally valid" religions of Satanism and Scientology?

Why do we observe Christmas, Easter and Good Friday as statutory holidays? Aren't they part of history and culture of this nation? That is the point.

Please scroll back and read how we came to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open-mindedness my foot! Why then is the "theory" of Creationism not taught in school alongside the theory of evolution?

Check out the link given by Dre on the other thread about Munk Debates. Dawkins interviewing Wright. His lame reiteration runs along the line, "it's the truth, so there!" That's critical thinking alright!

If you think our foundation is more sand than rock....then there shouldn't be any worries if Creationism is taught along the theory of evolution. Call it a "theory" if that will make it feel less threatening.

then there shouldn't be any worries if Creationism is taught along the theory of evolution.

Why on earth would those two things be taught beside each other? That would be like teaching astronomy and astrology "beside each other".

Science class isnt supposed to teach every point of view, its supposed to teach the scientific method, and the body of knowledge aquired using the scientific method. Religion is a doctrine that some people believe because they were told to by other people. Even if you think the scientific method has produced the wrong conclusion in this case, you should still be able to see why those theories dont belong in the same forum. If you want to teach religion in a school then you would have to do it in a "comparative religion" class where children all taught about the hundreds of different religions, worshipping thousands of different gods, and all the bizzare beliefs religious followers have held along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we observe Christmas, Easter and Good Friday as statutory holidays? Aren't they part of history and culture of this nation? That is the point.

Please scroll back and read how we came to this.

Aren't they part of history and culture of this nation? That is the point.

Right... so it might make sense to discuss some religious beliefs in a class about "this history and culture of this nation". I think they actually already do that, and I could care less really. But religious beliefs have no place in a science classroom.

And if youre going to teach religioun why do you have the audacity to presume it would be YOUR religion thats taught? Why not hinduism? Why mono-theism over poly-theism? Why not buddism or taoism? Why not cargoism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out "relativism." :rolleyes:

Its not relativism, its a simple fact. Some schools teach the traditions behind christian holidays, and some don't. Some schools do christmas projects in art class, some don't.

If you believe that is "relativism," I'm not sure what else to say.

That said, insisting that all views ought to enjoy equal presentation and airtime in the interest of "fairness" is bordering on relativism, but still not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we observe Christmas, Easter and Good Friday as statutory holidays? Aren't they part of history and culture of this nation? That is the point.

Please scroll back and read how we came to this.

Hey, I'm all for statutory holidays. I'd like to see more of them. I think we should use Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu holidays as well, for a start, just because holidays are awesome.

But to the point: you said that Creationism should get equal treatment in public schools, and you summoned the word "democracy," to buttress the argument.

I'm wondering why we should stop at the superstitions of the big three monotheisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

schools became the place once evolution became required knowledge...

There is a difference in teaching about Jesus’s birth and death and teaching the theory of evolution in Science classes. Creationsim is part of bible study, not the study of Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference in teaching about Jesus’s birth and death and teaching the theory of evolution in Science classes. Creationsim is part of bible study, not the study of Science.

there was no "bible study" when I went to school and there was no "creationism" taught when I went to school...there was some comparative world religious study in high school but that was part of a larger Social Studies course...

what we see today is religious groups fighting for survival by attempting to inject their beliefs through the school system...religion is dying a slow death of attrition as young students are educated in logical sciences without the biased fantasies of religion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...