nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + +
→Basic Problem: The answers were not directly addressing the points.
::::"But if they cover the range (no god, one God, multiple gods, etc.) then at least one of them has to be correct, at least on specific questions. So your presumption that all are equal is demonstrably wrong. If one is in fact correct, then what is wrong with a teacher endorsing that? What is wrong with a teacher teaching students facts?"
::::"But if they cover the range (no god, one God, multiple gods, etc.) then at least one of them has to be correct, at least on specific questions. So your presumption that all are equal is demonstrably wrong. If one is in fact correct, then what is wrong with a teacher endorsing that? What is wrong with a teacher teaching students facts?"
:::::I never said all religions are equal. I said everyone should have equal opportunity to choose whatever religion they please. And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong. Teacher should not be accordingly teaching such as "fact," even if they think it is.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:10, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::::I never said all religions are equal. I said everyone should have equal opportunity to choose whatever religion they please. And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong. Teacher should not be accordingly teaching such as "fact," even if they think it is.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:10, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: "''Hindus have a right to their religion as well.''": According to who? Your answer from your following comments seems to be "according to the law", and this may be so, but we are talking about what ''should be'' the case, not what ''is'' the case. As such, we can ignore what the law or constitution currently says as well as how it is interpreted.
:::::: "''I thought this sort of thing was commonly understood...''": That's the common view that atheists and similar have propagated.
:::::: "''As I detailed above, any teacher speaking the "truth" would merely be them endorsing their personal opinion.''": This doesn't make sense. If a teacher "speaking the truth" says that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, are they "merely...endorsing their personal opinion"???
:::::: "''It is, after all, only what you regard as the truth to say that there is one God.''": No, it's only postmodernist thinking that says that such things are dependant on your viewpoint rather than being factual.
:::::: "''I never claimed that all religions are "equal," I instead said that everyone has a right to choose which religion to which they would adhere.''": And I never disputed—and even endorsed—''that point''. But that wasn't the point. That comment was not in relation to what people have a right to believe, but to what a government school can teach. As I said above, a school teaching that God exists does not mean that you are forcing someone to believe it. So teaching it and being free to believe or not believe ''are two separate things''. We were talking about the former, and you replied by repeating the latter.
:::::: "''But it is not the government's job to decide for you what the religious truth is.''": Why not? They teach many other things as truth; why not also teach which religion is true?
:::::: "''would you be comfortable with a Governmental Panel on Religious Truth deciding whether Catholicism or Shinto would be taught to your child?''": Assuming they are not the only two options, then yes, I would be quite comfortable with that, ''as long as they came up with the correct answer''.
:::::: "''And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong.''": Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are ''scientifically'' proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to ''prove'' anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not ''scientific proof''? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been ''scientifically'' proven?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)