• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sissy-boy said:
I don't really see anything wrong with that really, BUT I don't think we should use just evolution and creationism -- why should we choose the CHRISTIAN creation story over those of another religion?? That would not be very democratic now would it??

But your premise is a good one. I think even a small child (unless brainwashed by superstition already) would look at the facts and choose evolution. I'd LOVE to teach that class and lay down all the evidence then for the creation one lay down NOTHING but a picture of what 'God' looks like and say -- or this guy floated around in space and said a couple magic words and there was a sun (in our galaxy) and he made a few other galaxies to keep us in the dark and said go screw your brains out. (or was it 'be fruitful and multiply'?) hahah!!

You say you believe in God, then you mock his motives. You sir, are a moron.
 
Duke said:
No. You are confusing teaching religion and teaching about religion. Having knowledge of the religions of the world is important, whether you subscribe to that religion or not.

Teaching students about religion is different from teaching religion.


Duke

Exactly, thank you.
 
Saw this cartoon in Time magazine:
Teach%20both%20theories3.gif

(also in another thread).
 
Duke said:
No. You are confusing teaching religion and teaching about religion. Having knowledge of the religions of the world is important, whether you subscribe to that religion or not.

Teaching students about religion is different from teaching religion.


Duke


A class about religion is a lot different from 'Intelligent Design' class. I think they cover most religions when they talk about war in history class anyway. But no, I wouldn't be opposed to teaching about religion in general, but not an entire class. That could be covered in about a half a semester or a couple weeks.
 
Donkey1499 said:
You say you believe in God, then you mock his motives. You sir, are a moron.

You really don't get it do you?? I don't believe in the same CONCEPT of 'God' as you. It is my belief that God is the interconnection of us, not a thinking old man that can make decsions. Not a entity that makes up 'morals' or 'commandments' -- THAT is what I refer to as superstition. God is indifferent towards morality. The archetypes that my 'God' (I don't even use the word God -- I use 'The Source') uses is Nature and general Chaos theory as the only real 'rule'.
 
sissy-boy said:
A class about religion is a lot different from 'Intelligent Design' class. I think they cover most religions when they talk about war in history class anyway. But no, I wouldn't be opposed to teaching about religion in general, but not an entire class. That could be covered in about a half a semester or a couple weeks.


Many people want a class solely about the different religions of the world. We were debating wether that was possible, necessary and so on. Don't come out and say something if you don't know what is being talked about. In my Humanities class we covered religion, and many other things in 2 semesters.


Duke
 
sissy-boy said:
You really don't get it do you?? I don't believe in the same CONCEPT of 'God' as you. It is my belief that God is the interconnection of us, not a thinking old man that can make decsions. Not a entity that makes up 'morals' or 'commandments' -- THAT is what I refer to as superstition. God is indifferent towards morality. The archetypes that my 'God' (I don't even use the word God -- I use 'The Source') uses is Nature and general Chaos theory as the only real 'rule'.

It's not suprising that your religion has no sense of morality coming from a man that openly endorses pedophilia and beastiality.
 
It's not suprising that your religion has no sense of morality coming from a man that openly endorses pedophilia and beastiality.

he endorses beastiality and pedophilia?


Anyways, my view on God is also of an entity that is beyond petty human feelings and morals. I mean how could an all-powerful infinite entity put itself to the level of human thoughts and emotions and get dabbled in all our problems.

I think morals is just a guideline to how one should live so that society could function cohesively, it just evolved from irrational human emotions and a human social needs. Thus, in fulfilling our social instincts, we wouldn't go around killing and hating everyone, always driving potential partners away, etc. Hence our morals prevent us from doing exactly so.
 
Truly it may not be necessary to require such a class as religion, but certainly the study of religion is a reputable division of academia.
 
George_Washington said:
It's not suprising that your religion has no sense of morality coming from a man that openly endorses pedophilia and beastiality.

WHAT??! I've never have endorsed EITHER, but as usual you lie and try, resort to namecalling and whine to paint me into any perverse picture that your PERVERSE little brain can dream up so that you can make yourself feel better than someone just because they are homosexual. You're a classic bigot.

 
nkgupta80 said:
he endorses beastiality and pedophilia?


Anyways, my view on God is also of an entity that is beyond petty human feelings and morals. I mean how could an all-powerful infinite entity put itself to the level of human thoughts and emotions and get dabbled in all our problems.

I think morals is just a guideline to how one should live so that society could function cohesively, it just evolved from irrational human emotions and a human social needs. Thus, in fulfilling our social instincts, we wouldn't go around killing and hating everyone, always driving potential partners away, etc. Hence our morals prevent us from doing exactly so.

I like your definition too. It's a bit like my own Spirituality. And the difference between 'george washington' is that I have a sense of humility and gratitude instead of HATE and intolerance like him.
 
Duke said:
Many people want a class solely about the different religions of the world. We were debating wether that was possible, necessary and so on. Don't come out and say something if you don't know what is being talked about. In my Humanities class we covered religion, and many other things in 2 semesters.


Duke

That's what college is for. Children don't need their brains messed with and polluted by religious dogma at an early age. Maybe seniors, but that is as far as I'd be willing to take it and I would always put a NO vote on any kind of religious class in a public school. It just is not the place for that kind of instruction. We can't even get a child through who can speak ENGLISH or write it for chrissakes. Perhaps for advanced students, but even then, they should be OUT of the PUBLIC spectrum.
 
sissy-boy said:
That's what college is for. Children don't need their brains messed with and polluted by religious dogma at an early age. Maybe seniors, but that is as far as I'd be willing to take it and I would always put a NO vote on any kind of religious class in a public school. It just is not the place for that kind of instruction. We can't even get a child through who can speak ENGLISH or write it for chrissakes. Perhaps for advanced students, but even then, they should be OUT of the PUBLIC spectrum.

Thats a load of garbage from the very first sentence. Comparative religions classes offer perspective to young people and gives them a solid and truthful foundation for tolerance. Your own intolerant hatred of religion in general blinds you to the benefits of education. I am almost convinced that your ignorance and intolerance stems from your own education having been left wanting. Pity when you see a passionate mind darkened by stupidity.
 
sissy-boy said:
WHAT??! I've never have endorsed EITHER, but as usual you lie and try, resort to namecalling and whine to paint me into any perverse picture that your PERVERSE little brain can dream up so that you can make yourself feel better than someone just because they are homosexual. You're a classic bigot.


Dude in that one thread you were saying that it's ok for 14 year olds to have sex with adults. And you've said you don't see anything wrong with people having relations with animals and marrying them.
 
sissy-boy said:
That's what college is for. Children don't need their brains messed with and polluted by religious dogma at an early age. Maybe seniors, but that is as far as I'd be willing to take it and I would always put a NO vote on any kind of religious class in a public school. It just is not the place for that kind of instruction. We can't even get a child through who can speak ENGLISH or write it for chrissakes. Perhaps for advanced students, but even then, they should be OUT of the PUBLIC spectrum.

Yeah, not necessarily high school, I doubt a substantial amount of people would sign up for the class.

Duke
 
jallman said:
Thats a load of garbage from the very first sentence. Comparative religions classes offer perspective to young people and gives them a solid and truthful foundation for tolerance. Your own intolerant hatred of religion in general blinds you to the benefits of education. I am almost convinced that your ignorance and intolerance stems from your own education having been left wanting. Pity when you see a passionate mind darkened by stupidity.

That just demonstrates just how ignorant you are. My parents are both hardcore christian republicans and we get along just fine. And it' snot a load of 'garbage', it's an OPINION! I was raised as a strict Christian and KNEW it was BS even as a child. I don't hate religion, I think it did wonders for my parents -- it's the people that USE it destructively that give it a bad name. I don't care if children learn about it, but a PUBLIC school is not the place for this kind of superstitious stuff -- GENERAL studies is what public schools are for.
 
George_Washington said:
Dude in that one thread you were saying that it's ok for 14 year olds to have sex with adults. And you've said you don't see anything wrong with people having relations with animals and marrying them.


I said that I could care less if teens had sex with other teens -- BIG difference. That's not pedophilia. It all depends on the kid and how emotionally mature they are. Not an age group, though I do think that 15 is a good one to choose.
 
George_Washington said:
Dude in that one thread you were saying that it's ok for 14 year olds to have sex with adults. And you've said you don't see anything wrong with people having relations with animals and marrying them.


I didn't say that I didn't see anything WRONG with it, I said that I could CARE LESS. I think it's stupid to marry a dog but I wouldn't go try to prevent it. As usual, you twist my words for your own convenient and intolerant means.
 
Duke said:
Yeah, not necessarily high school, I doubt a substantial amount of people would sign up for the class.

Duke


And even then, the ONLY people who would sign up for it would be brainwashed kids from X-tian homes who would go there only to whine and complain about the fact that they taught about other religions alongside of x-ianity. You see, no matter WHAT is being taught, if x-ianty isn't given PREFERENCE they regard it as an ATTACK and run whining to their legislators to pass laws that ban any other type of discussion with the exception of x-ianity. It's just a simple fact of the fundamentalist state of mind. And sad, but true.
 
sissy-boy said:
I like your definition too. It's a bit like my own Spirituality. And the difference between 'george washington' is that I have a sense of humility and gratitude instead of HATE and intolerance like him.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?! You show hate and intolerence towards religion as a whole. Yet not everyone who follows a religion is as you say it is. You're just as much of a hate-monger as the next guy.
 
I think that Bill O'Reilly said best on his Talking Points Memo last night. Here's the link to his Talking Points:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174428,00.html

You should also read the "Most Rediculous Item of the Day" at the bottom of Bill's Talking Points. It's hilarious how the ACLU runs itself. I'ts like that one book that just came out, called: "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): [something about Dems or whatever]"
 
sissy-boy said:
I didn't say that I didn't see anything WRONG with it, I said that I could CARE LESS. I think it's stupid to marry a dog but I wouldn't go try to prevent it. As usual, you twist my words for your own convenient and intolerant means.

Well if you do think that beastiality is immoral, than how could you possibly allow people to legally marry animals? I don't think you really think about these things. It' so stupid to even advocate that marriage between humans and animals should be legal because an animal can't give consent to the marriage. Duh.
 
Truly it may not be necessary to require such a class as religion, but certainly the study of religion is a reputable division of academia.

The only real value of religion classes it so show the absurdity of the beliefs alongside ways to tolerate them notwithstanding that retardation inherent. There is little else of "practical" value to society. It's almost like literature, but with the benefit that it can help you in how to deal with people suffering from the psychological afflictions of "serious" religiosity.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
The only real value of religion classes it so show the absurdity of the beliefs alongside ways to tolerate them notwithstanding that retardation inherent. There is little else of "practical" value to society. It's almost like literature, but with the benefit that it can help you in how to deal with people suffering from the psychological afflictions of "serious" religiosity.

We'll just say that the above post is just your "opinion". Being as that there is nothing to prove that religion is absurd and atheism isn't. You're being one sided, as usual. Both sides make good points.
 
We'll just say that the above post is just your "opinion". Being as that there is nothing to prove that religion is absurd and atheism isn't. You're being one sided, as usual. Both sides make good points.


Of course it is my opinion. Opinion is a neutral word neither denoting wrong, false, or subjective. It also does not denote factual. Opinions can be subjective or opinions can be fact. Opinions can be what you think, but also be true just as they can be what you think and be subjective or totally false.

Subjective also doesn't mean "false." Saying it is my opinion is altogether pointless as an endeavour to discredit what I said.

IE. Evolution is a workable theory. That's an opinion but also fact.

IE. Religon sucks moneky balls. That's an opinion, subjective.

IE. Religon can be dangerous, destructive: That's a fact and an opinion.

Atheism obviously isn't absurd since most forms of atheism are quite logical and in accordance with logical parsimony. Religions, however, are badly-written fantasy epics. Religions are not logical: they are neither parsimonious, nor are they falsifiable (if they deal with God). All that easern religion feng shui **** is just that---bullshit. It's unverifiable, and you cannot falsify the "metaphsyical" element to it, which makes it pointless.

This whole "spiritual" nonsense is akin to faerietales you tell your 2 year old by the fireside.

There's nothing absurd about saying there's no reason to believe in something that has no evidence or logic behind it, nor is there something wrong with saying you have lack of faith, since faith is inherently irrational. It's no more absurd to say God doesn't exist than it is to say that Lepreuchans or the divine parrot which sneezed life out of his left nostril, don't exist.

Except belief in Lepreuchans isn't life-threatening or dangerous, as are myiad religions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom