Religion...and SCIENCE! (Nee - Re: Oh..those people at westboro baptist are at it again! o3o)

[Nyarly]

Public policy should be shaped by what the majority of the culture wants, end of story. If thsoe policies are religiously influenced then Im fine with that, as long as all the facts (religious and scientific) are presented to the culture in question as well.

Remember that sometimes science isnt qualified to answer questions like whether something is right or wrong but at the same time religion isnt qualified to answer other questions like how to build an irrigation system. In these cases I agree that one or the other should be removed from public policy as they arent designed to deal with it

What the hell (no pun intended) are "religious facts"?

Religion isn't exactly qualified to answer the question, about what is right or wrong, either. This is answered by the society as whole. While it may be influenced by religion, and in many places this is the case, it doesn't have to be and it's never determined by religion alone. At least it shouldn't.

[Will]

Dude, the cursing is unnecessary.

[Trieste]

There are also ways to get around insufficient lecture time.  Anyone remember getting assigned research papers in high school?

Or oral presentations. Or things to research for in-class debates. Or...

[Oniya]

I could see oral presentations and in-class debates as eating into 'the limited schedule', but researching and writing an assignment would all be done during 'homework time' (i.e., outside of the classroom.)

[Jude]

Religion is not the only source of ethics, and has shown itself in the past to be a flawed vehicle for ethics. I know you 'don't want to get into it' so I won't bring up the mistakes you so hate to hear about. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away, however.

The majority of the culture is not what is important in ethics and what is right or wrong. It's the minorities in the culture (not necessarily the racial element that 'minority' has come to stand for in modern politics, either) that matter. It's been said before that a culture should not be judged for how it treats its wealthy, its affluent and its comfortable citizens. A culture should be judged on how it treats the least fortunate of its population: the poor, the criminal, the insane. How do we treat ours? Not very well. How ethical is that?

Religion should not shape social policy, at all. Ever.

Possibly. If that's the case, I'd say it's somewhat of a leftover (unless you're an evolutionary biologist) since science hasn't had the upper hand against scientific progress for a century or more. It can be frustrating when someone is so skeptical of your work that they seem to refuse to understand the underlying stuff, though, and it can be easy to get hostile toward that. Many newbie scientists miss the fact that someone taking an interest in what you're doing enough to be healthily skeptical is a good thing. It demands more rigor, and promotes discussion about your work.

Again, I agree.  I know whether it's a scientific, academic, philosophic, or logical endeavors, there's nothing more unnerving to me than someone who simply accepts my conclusions at face value because they want to agree with them without going through and following the calculations (or logic) to arrive at the premise.

Yeah, it's nice when people agree with your results, but the process is what needs to be protected, utilized, taught, and respected.

[Jude]

Public policy should be shaped by what the majority of the culture wants, end of story. If thsoe policies are religiously influenced then Im fine with that, as long as all the facts (religious and scientific) are presented to the culture in question as well.

Remember that sometimes science isnt qualified to answer questions like whether something is right or wrong but at the same time religion isnt qualified to answer other questions like how to build an irrigation system. In these cases I agree that one or the other should be removed from public policy as they arent designed to deal with it

I guess you're OK with the kill the gays law in Uganda, the fact that Muslim women are repressed throughout the Middle East, and India's dying caste system?

[Noelle]

The first article you posted indeed deals with an upcoming shortage of doctors.  Mainly, as the article addresses, this is due to the Obama Healthcare Plan depositing a few million new patients into the system.  Kind of hard to prepare for a few million more people without much advance notice.  Also take note that the shortage mainly consists of Primary-Care Physicians who are paid far less than specialty doctors. Note the article does touch on a shortage all around but focuses on the need for primary-care physicians.  Part of the problem, as stated in the article, is that specialty doctors are lobbying for primary-care physicians to not receive more compensation.  So not really seeing the problem of a lack of interest in medicine or lack of qualified applicants.

So you say the article acknowledges a shortage all-around but then you go on to say there's not?
Let's not forget the fact that many pre-existing doctors are aging and are set to retire en masse in the next ten years.

Second article actually states right at the beginning how more spots in medical school are opening and more people are entering.

But apparently this still happens anyway:

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

This means that there will be doctors with no jobs!  Why no jobs someone might ask and then conclude that religion is somehow to blame.

...Nobody here is concluding religion is curtailing the number of people who become a doctor.

Sadly no, that reason lies with the government cutting medical residency programs which doctors need to earn the ability to actually practice medicine.

Yes, I don't disagree with this. But this "great bottleneck" doesn't mean we have an abundance of qualified doctors sitting around now. Which we don't. It's completely hypothetical. The numbers, the projections, all hypothetical. Meaning they're not real. Meaning we still have a shortage.

Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.

An upturn in numbers =/= abundance, as I've already said exhaustively. It's an increase that is relative to previous years and in no way states that it is meeting our present needs. Because it's not. And hasn't been, even pre-healthcare bill.

At the end of the article they talk and talk more about increasing admissions size for medical schools and for graduates to get more clinical training, in essence to give them something to do while waiting for a residency spot to open.

Increasing admissions size =/= those slots will be filled =/= an abundance now =/= overall popularity or prevalence.

I guess these three were made in response to my typo, but I am not really seeing that you put much effort or reading into this research.  So mind if I ask if you actually read what you put up?  Doesn’t seem like your articles are actually saying what you claim they are stating. 

It seems to me like you're skimming over the parts of the article you don't like.
You say there isn't a shortage of doctors. I say you're wrong, there is. I do the research. Research says:

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

The need for more doctors comes up at almost every Congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. “We’re not producing enough primary care physicians,” Mr. Obama said at one forum. “The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they’ve got to specialize.” New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.

Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences. “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.

But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.

I don't really know what more you want to hear. Suddenly when I come up with articles that show a shortage of doctors, they're not the right kind of doctors for you despite the fact that they are apparently the main source of healthcare for most Americans. Okay, fine. If we're gonna keep moving the goalpost, I'll go a step further.

Shortage of surgeons

It's a problem rooted in the 1980s and 1990s, when U.S. medical schools put a cap on enrollments, believing that managed health care, among other factors, would create a glut of doctors.

They were wrong. And now the impact of a national shortage of surgeons and family practice doctors is echoing across the country.

From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, several national advisory groups, including the Institute of Medicine and the Council on Graduate Medical Education, issued reports forecasting a surplus of physicians. As a result, medical schools voluntarily held enrollment relatively constant at about 16,000 new students a year. From 1980 to 2005, enrollment was flat while the U.S. population grew by more than 70 million, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

As the 79 million baby boomers begin entering retirement age, so are their doctors. From 1985 to 2006, the percentage of doctors 55 and older rose from 27% to 34%, and the AAMC predicted in a 2006 report that members of this group — roughly 250,000 active physicians — will retire by 2020.

Shortage of radiologists

If you are a radiologist practicing in the U.S., you most likely know how it feels to be in demand. Of course, with the physician shortage hitting this specialty particularly hard, you may also know the feeling of being overworked.

Healthcare facilities in the U.S. have been battling a severe shortage of radiologists for more than a decade now. While the staffing crisis of the early 2000s seems to have leveled off a bit, demand for radiology services is likely to outpace physician supply for years to come.

Providing services about 40 weeks annually, Dr. Chaffin has found that in recent years there has been a marked increase in the need for locum tenens radiologists, especially in small and medium-sized towns

Shortage of cardiologists
Shortage of anesthesiologists
Shortage of oncologists

This math article you really didn’t read.  I know this because at the end of the article it discusses how there are more people enrolling in advanced math, an indicator for more advanced degrees coming.  Also the article makes note that the declining degrees in “pure math” are misleading because students that would major in math are going into other quantified fields such as computer science.  One of the people interviewed even says they were not surprised by the decline because other fields utilize math.  So promising math students move off into other fields that interest them and still utilize their math skills.  Sorry, this article essentially says that math is boring and students take their math skills elsewhere.

If it said the same thing of medical degrees, I know you'd be singing a different tune. "Medicine is boring, they're going elsewhere". Yes, I'm sure. It's pretty similar to the primary care physicians, if yo uask me...They're qualified, but underpaid and underappreciated. Their specialization is hardly glamorous, so fewer people take interest.

But hey, let's take a look at some others:

Computer science down
10 hardest jobs to fill in America - If you'll notice, math/science takes quite a few slots.

Why are engineers so hard to find? "We have whole generations of people loving liberal arts, not going into science and math," says Larry Jacobson, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers.

"Companies are looking to replace more than half of their engineers over the next eight years, because baby boomers are retiring," Jacobson says. "When you have 80,000 engineers working for you, as Lockheed Martin does, that's a lot of jobs." He says that even if every single seat in the nation's engineering schools is filled, that's only 75,000 engineers being trained annually. That won't come close to making up the shortage. Engineering is a field that requires years of experience before you take on major responsibility.

More on a shortage of STEM students

The downward trend in college graduates with STEM [science, technology, engineering and maths] majors is particularly pronounced in Computer Science (CS). While computers and internet connectivity become daily fixtures in the lives of Americans, we are steadily losing the engineering talent to project these systems.

Verbal reports from industry partners, as well as the presence of constant job openings, indicate industry is having difficulty finding software engineering talent to develop and maintain their software systems.

So, did you read these articles or just google them until you found a sensational title with a reputable source?

Even if this were true, it's still more research than you've shown in all of your posts combined on this thread. I believe the massive wall of text I've just provided you should sufficiently answer your question. Or maybe not.

Oh, the article did state that enrollment in math courses is up by 9%.

Increase =/= abundance =/= the shortage is over, etc etc, repeat repeat

Oh and the quote is a little misleading.  What the quote doesn’t say is that people are enrolling in physics programs across the United States at higher rates, but not finishing.  Why?  The article says that students feel physics is not cool.  An example of a more cool study, biological science.

Except the whole part where your conclusion is proving my point. Yes, Pumpkin Seeds, science must be so interesting and so prevalent as you continually claim that students are dropping out and not finishing. Your conclusions are smug, but they're really just incomplete. There are more people going to biology (including medical school dropouts), yes. But you're acting like this number is comparative overall to every other field out there. I'll elaborate on this in a moment.

For my backing I will use a link as well with data from the National Center for Education Statistics which is derived from the U.S Department of Education. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37).  Since the title isn’t as flashy or catchy, I will highlight a couple of areas of interest.  These are for the years 07-08.  Biology up 30 percent, Physical sciences up 22 percent, health professions up 56 percent (go me!), and engineering up 8 percent.

Let's give that a bigger outlook, shall we?

Source
This article praises math and science-based jobs as being the highest in demand. Let's delve a little deeper.

"Math is at the crux of who gets paid," said Ed Koc, director of research at NACE. "If you have those skills, you are an extremely valuable asset. We don't generate enough people like that in this country."

Specifically, engineering diplomas account for 12 of the 15 the top-paying majors. NACE collects its data by surveying 200 college career center

Wow, yes, that sounds like a high percentage, right? Let's make this relevant to the article you provided.

What happened to well-rounded? There are far fewer people graduating with math-based majors, compared to their liberal-arts counterparts, which is why they are paid at such a premium. The fields of engineering and computer science each make up about 4% of all college graduates, while social science and history each comprise 16%, Koc noted.

As a result, salaries for graduates who studied fields like social work command tiny paychecks, somewhere in the vicinity of $29,000. English, foreign language and communications majors make about $35,000, Koc said.

"It's a supply and demand issue," he added. "So few grads offer math skills, and those who can are rewarded."

I will start by saying that television reflects a distinct interest in the population and culture.

Television is part of popular culture and so is a very good indicator for what the population is interested in seeing.

I'm quoting these because it's important later.

Animal Planet – You don’t watch but disregarded.  Guess Jane Goodall was just sitting in a jungle staring at chimps for nothing.  What science could there possible be in watching animals?

Actually, if you listened to me, I mentioned that I wasn't sure what kind of programming this channel provided. You can provide shows about animals without actually giving any meaningful content pertaining to actual science. I'll even requote myself for clarity.

Animal Planet - Do they have informative, science-based programming or is it more nature-based documentary? How informative/serious is this channel in bringing current, relevant, and accurate science news? The last time I watched this channel (and it's been awhile), it really had nothing of real substance for a viewer with higher education in a science or math-related field.

Those weren't just rhetorical questions. I really don't know, but from my own recollections, it seemed doubtful.

Discovery Channel – A good amount of reality shows about crab fishermen and building stuff.  I think Myth Busters is on there too along with some other programming that seems to look at engineering and nature.  No science there either I guess.

I mentioned Mythbusters. If you've watched said reality shows, you'd know that there is nothing of scientific relevance there. From what I've seen of Discovery, especially during the daytime, I would not count it as a channel that has any real abundance of solid science.

Discovery Health – A show dedicated to health sciences and the people working in those fields.  Complete with news segments and shows about revolutions in medicine.  You highlighted this one but didn’t talk about or count.

I missed this, it was late when I was replying, but okay, let's count this one.

Discovery Kids – This one was highlighted too but you failed to mentioned it later.  While I guess this wouldn’t hold interest for adults but certainly for children.  Influencing them to enjoy science with cartoons and children shows.  This isn’t “sciencey” enough?

Same for this one.

National Geographic – Wow, thanks for the slap in the face to social sciences.  Note at the beginning you used the word sciencey and now are looking for “serious science news.” 

We're not talking about social sciences and never have been. Our discussion prior to now has been related to the health field, math, biology, physics, chemistry...

Planet Green – I guess the interest in green technologies, alternative energy and learning to live with the environment aren’t much for science either. 

Or is it a channel that is playing on a current trend to be green? How much of this channel is devoted to serious science? Let's look at their website to see just how interested they are in the science of "going green". I've bolded headlines that go to science-related articles.

Headlines:
Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: A Poolside Party
Can Bee Venom Improve Brain Function? (x)
Pesticide Lobby Blames Organics for Americans Not Eating More Veggies
Sweat Shop Free Clothing That's Fiscally Responsible: Maggie's Organics Certified Fair Labor Apparel
Organic, High Quality, and Local: Wine Coolers Are All Grown Up
Bike-Sharing is Coming to London!
"The Coal War" Shows Alternatives to Mountaintop Removal - But Needs Help on Kickstarter (I checked the actual article because the title seemed iffy -- it has a trailer to a documentary, but nothing informational.)
Congress Acts to Stop Conflict Mineral Trade While it Cleans Up Wall Street
Grow Carrots in Containers
Straight From the Garden: Homemade Pasta with Zucchini
Lettuce Lady Takes on Meat in Kenya
Reduce Your Back Pain with Better Posture
Start Planning for Your Fall Garden Now
Psychic Octopus Retires (Video News)
New Coal Plants in China, India Built Under UN Clean Development Mechanism
Hydroponics: Not Just For Grow-Ops Any More
Freecycle@Work Brings the Benefits of Freecycle to Your Office
Ghosts, Goths And Galas At The Fabulous Beekman Boys Farm

No, with this, I have concluded that I would not consider this channel a great source of science news and information.

I think you are being a little over eager to think that any show type would beat out sports and movie channels.

Just to be clear, I'm going to quote you again.

I will start by saying that television reflects a distinct interest in the population and culture.

Television is part of popular culture and so is a very good indicator for what the population is interested in seeing.

And judging from the number of science-related networks (and I even provided you a figure in my original response that did include the shows I didn't count. It's still extremely dismal, which doesn't account for their viewership, which I'm too tired to go look for now, but I'd be willing to make a bet that their viewership is nothing in comparison to other channels, not to mention the demographics being just as telling of who exactly is watching to begin with...) in comparison to all others, using your own standards here, I would say that the public is not that interested.

That being said --

Though I do think that is a nice amount of shows for science.  Since this conversation is about religion and science, let me see how well religion is doing.  Hey, got one there, Christian Television Network. 

You're right. There aren't a lot of shows for religion, and yet somehow most of the nation still manages to be Christian, and as statistics that have been exhausted here over and over have said, Christians still manage to distrust science.

I am going to address this part at the end because this also applies to the top portion.  Nice of you to admit that you put words in my mouth and went off about something I did not say.  Been better if you had not done that, but I will take what points I can.

I'll be honest with you here, your condescending tone is getting kind of tiresome.

I also pointed out that if a school simply needed a textbook and a teacher, no matter how many students she had in the classroom or how little education she was given or updated on or assisted in class, but the textbook had everything in it then funding really wouldn’t be a problem.

Funding is an issue for schools. Funding affects the pay they can offer their teachers. Funding affects the new materials the school can purchase. Funding does not change what is already available to them. Funding typically does not change the length of a semester (to my knowledge -- schools have requirements for time, as far as i'm aware). I'm not really sure what kind of correlation you're making. Of course a school needs more than just a textbook and a teacher, but funding does not affect the kind of knowledge a science teacher should have, and that includes evolution. I think it's absolutely absurd to write off the fact that they could be avoiding teaching evolution due to controversy. It's like you're pretending it doesn't happen or that it's a completely unrealistic idea.

Thus far your inferring has been real bad.

Or your points have just been unclear and/or convoluted. Dialogue does require more than one person, after all. But it really only seems to count if I admit something I've done wrong, so why not? Yes, it must be all my fault, and I must not have made one single intelligent point ever. Let's just go with that, it seems easier.

Alright, as for my statement about math and science failing not being the reason for budget movement.  That line you quoted sounds just like you said doesn’t it?  Sounds like I am saying failing is not a big deal and that are kids are doing fine.  Except, I didn’t say that nor anything similar.  I simply stated that the reason more money is being moved into the sciences is because more science and math are needed in our society.  Which, you even pointed out later about increased government funding cause of need.  So wait a minute, the government is funding something cause it needs it instead of because the scores are low?  Well, I mean if the government is moving funds from one school area to another because of failing grades than it stands to reason that the others are alright.  Except, they aren’t. 

You failed to infer my meaning. I said it was a combination of failing test scores AND need. That's all I'm saying on that, because you're misreading my statements.

I could go into the narrow minded view you seem to have about education and its need to focus solely on math and science.

You could, but then you'd be getting into the same "putting words into your mouth" thing you chastised me for that I actually admitted to doing and corrected myself on. But you're actually kind of doing it anyway. Hmmm.

Yes, I'm so narrow-minded that I decided to attend a private liberal arts college and obtained a degree in French and visual arts. I must only care about math and science. That must be it.

How subjects like philosophy encourage critical thinking and abstract thought, how creative writing teaches better use of words and expression along with communication of ideas, about how music teachers children discipline and focus along with instilling pride, and how language is of growing importance the world over as we become a closer knit global society.  Math and science are getting more money and yet still we are falling lower.  We might want to look a little deeper than shifting money around.  That would be off topic though, much like your rant here.

But these subjects do not improve health, lengthen your lifespan, provide you with modern conveniences, innovate new technologies, or keep your basic everyday life running. Math and science are getting money because we are falling lower, and the statistics that you, yourself have provided previously prove that although our demands are still not met, there are signs of improvement. I'm not even really sure what you would suggest even if getting more money WAS causing it to still fall lower (which, as I just said, it isn't) -- giving something less attention doesn't make the problem go away.

As I stated before, I have a liberal arts education. I enjoy writing, I enjoy foreign languages, I live and love art, I have a few talents in music under my belt, I enjoy sociology, I have studied philosophy, I am annoyed that there isn't more funding allotted to the arts, I'm absolutely terrible at math, and I have a relatively practical, but un-advanced knowledge of science (though I am interested in learning more anyway) but relatively speaking, trying to compare someone who plays an instrument or writes poetry or studies Kierkegaard or speaks Arabic is not comparable to someone who is saving lives, designing and maintaining the very infrastructure of your country, or helping you live longer.  I believe math and science serves a much more practical purpose in our world, and still maintain my own career making art because in spite of this belief, I am not writing off the importance of the liberal arts, either.

I think both have their niche, and while I'm at it, I think I'll just go ahead and tie this into the debate at hand. Math/science and religion both have a niche in peoples lives much as math/science and art does. I don't consider them equal, but I recognize their importance in their own domains. If I'm worried about cancer, I don't want to talk to God or Picasso, I want to talk to a doctor. Science sustains us, you could say, and for some, things like religion and art become reasons to keep sustaining.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Will, you are jumping up and down on the same subject for several posts.  Already I said that religion was probably a theme in the decision to pass over evolution and also that the teacher was more than likely avoiding pressure from parents.  I’ve said that a few times so that you would try to find something else to write about.  If you want to keep walking down this road of how funding for schools does not affect the education of students, does not affect the topics covered and really has no detrimental effect on the country then be my guest.  I have a sneaky suspicion that there is more scientific evidence backing up my side than yours. 

Seriously, do people want to debate the effects of poor funding on schools?  To explore the missed material and the decisions teachers have to make when making a curriculum for their students?  Oral presentations would take up more class time, papers would take up more time to grade and both of which would still require effort and time for the teacher to make sure the students understood the material.  A teacher I once had would give out essay tests and he did this over scantron only because he had a teaching assistant.  One question on an ACT was asked about this material that people are pushing so hard.  Will is stating that most of his classmates went to college, which is an anomaly for a poor school, so the teachers were doing something right.  Do people think teaching is so easy that if the subject is in the textbook it can easily and quickly be covered?  Is evolution so cut and dry that the teacher would have no difficulty explaining the material to however many students she was teaching and they no problem understanding? 

Trieste is right that religion should stay out of science.  I agree with her as much as I can because religion has no place affecting science.  Religion has nothing to offer scientific research aside from the institutions used to teach, but even then teach science and not religion during those class hours.  Science and religion, as I said at the start, are two separate entities with two separate areas. 

Social policy is more difficult to say.  I don’t believe that religion should affect social policy.  I don’t believe that someone in office should consult the Bible for their lawmaking.  At the same time religion does pass on a moral code that politicians are going to use in times of hardship.  I can only hope they rise above the pettiness that religion can pass on in regard to the choices of others and look for the right and wrong for their people.  Religion, if raised in a household that practices a certain faith, is going to be part of their culture and heritage for them.  That will obviously affect their thought process. 

I do think that the results of religion mixing with government are things like Jude is demonstrating.  Laws that appear to be ethically charged by religion, but are in truth twisted versions for someone else’s power.  Religion becomes a tool for power.  Muslims have often stated, over and over again, that their religion does not support such things and that they cannot understand why such extremism goes on from their religion.  Perhaps we should look to that example and show our politicians that this is what happens when advancing a religion is placed over the needs and desires of the people.

And Noelle, I am not moving the goalpost only trying to tie whatever you are doing into the conversation.  I am tired of it and tired of having to hold several different conversations at once.  You mentioned my condescending tone, but your single minded desire to prove me wrong at something is just tiresome.  If you want to debate the future of medicine, start a thread.  Want to talk about doctor shortages and why they exist, awesome.  As what you posted reflects in this thread, I am right.  Science is not in danger of being usurped by religion.  All of those things you posted with shortages and problems are made by economics and politics.  That is all that I needed to demonstrate and you are doing that for me even now.

Every post you’ve made I have had to state that you are putting words in my mouth and making bad inferences from what I have said.  That is with EVERY post.  You even admit doing it and then go right on doing so.  I have shown that the articles you linked did not say what you were presenting and I am not about to go through another wall of links so that you can then go google more.  You just bulldoze ahead without any thought for what has been said or what you are saying so long as you are saying something.  If you want to tick this off as some victory in your head, go for it.  When I engage in debates, in my circles, when someone has to correct you about bad evidence and poor judgment on what is said multiple times then the debate is over. 

I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, organize what you want to say pertaining to this topic and try again.  That is what I had to do and Trieste is right, this topic has gone way too far off the road it was meant for.  I spent 3-4 hours going through your stuff, trying to understand what I said to warrant your assumptions and understand where you were going with those links.  That honestly is pathetic from my stand point since this isn’t for a grade or going to change anyone’s mind. 

[Noelle]

That's alright, because I'm voluntarily stepping away from debating with you further.
I can't and frankly do not want to reason with people who are convinced they can't possibly be wrong and can admit no fault.

Thanks, but no thanks. Good luck.

[Will]

Will, you are jumping up and down on the same subject for several posts.  Already I said that religion was probably a theme in the decision to pass over evolution and also that the teacher was more than likely avoiding pressure from parents.  I’ve said that a few times so that you would try to find something else to write about.  If you want to keep walking down this road of how funding for schools does not affect the education of students, does not affect the topics covered and really has no detrimental effect on the country then be my guest.  I have a sneaky suspicion that there is more scientific evidence backing up my side than yours.

I'm jumping up and down on it because you never really addressed this:

I used it as an example to show that the conflict of religion vs. science is real, first of all.  I also used it to show that it isn't as one-sided as Pumpkin implied in her much earlier post.

You're as guilty as anyone for getting off-topic. *shrugs*

Seriously, do people want to debate the effects of poor funding on schools?  To explore the missed material and the decisions teachers have to make when making a curriculum for their students?  Oral presentations would take up more class time, papers would take up more time to grade and both of which would still require effort and time for the teacher to make sure the students understood the material.  A teacher I once had would give out essay tests and he did this over scantron only because he had a teaching assistant.  One question on an ACT was asked about this material that people are pushing so hard.  Will is stating that most of his classmates went to college, which is an anomaly for a poor school, so the teachers were doing something right.  Do people think teaching is so easy that if the subject is in the textbook it can easily and quickly be covered?  Is evolution so cut and dry that the teacher would have no difficulty explaining the material to however many students she was teaching and they no problem understanding?

And here, you continue to apply explanations besides religion to why the content was skipped.  You concede my point, then immediately deny it.  Which is it?

[Brandon]

Religion is not the only source of ethics, and has shown itself in the past to be a flawed vehicle for ethics. I know you 'don't want to get into it' so I won't bring up the mistakes you so hate to hear about. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away, however.

The majority of the culture is not what is important in ethics and what is right or wrong. It's the minorities in the culture (not necessarily the racial element that 'minority' has come to stand for in modern politics, either) that matter. It's been said before that a culture should not be judged for how it treats its wealthy, its affluent and its comfortable citizens. A culture should be judged on how it treats the least fortunate of its population: the poor, the criminal, the insane. How do we treat ours? Not very well. How ethical is that?

Religion should not shape social policy, at all. Ever.

Its not that I hate hearing about them, its that I hate how it always resorts to this. Its the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Ive lost about all my patience for it because no one remembers the conclusions we did come to in previous discussions. I could quote every post Ive done in the past and it wont matter because as soon as the discussion stops everythings going to go in one ear and out the other. So excuse me if I dont want to get into it because its just going to happen all over again in the next thread

@Will: YOu wanted to know how funding (or lack there of) could effect topics viewed in the classroom. I gave you solid examples of how tight budgets and time constraints can cause this problem but now you complain that it has nothing to do with funding? Im confused

@Jude: Ya know what? Its easy, no its very easy, for you and I to compare our ideas of right and wrong to other cultures whether they live in the present or the past. Yeah I think some of that shit is evil but since when do I have the right to tell other people how to live their lives? When did you or anyone get that right? For that matter who determines what is right and wrong and how those ideals should apply to the culture in question?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Seriously Will?  Not addressed even though you’ve been dragging this personal experience up for the past few pages.  You must be the most ignored person on this forum at this point.  Brandon and I have both talked about this experience ad nausem.  Other people have brought up this personal experience, discussed it and then moved on to other things.  The topic has been derailed by talk about school funding and government expenses on school systems because of your personal experience.  Seriously, not addressed or just not the answer you want? 

[Will]

Heh, nevermind then.  I don't think there's much chance left of thoughtful discourse in this thread.  The dream is over!  I leave you folks to your sarcasm.

[Vekseid]

This thread needs splitting a few times, again >_>

I need sleep, but wanted to respond to Brandon here.

I think you missed the point of that statement Veks. If this were gay bashing, racial bashing, or male/female bashing the staff would get on that, but this is about religion another aspect of peoples lives that is not a choice

Did I read this correctly? Are you claiming that religion is not a choice? I was raised Catholic, myself, you know.

and when its bashed the staff doesnt seem to do a thing. That is my problem, and I think pumpkin is in the same boat as me. Since I dont see you guys fighting against the Theocist comments that means I have to. Sometimes you even seem to participate in the theocism

I have never critisized the staff before but I think this is long past due

I try to be considerate of the beliefs of others, so long as they do not cause harm. For this, I tend to be harshly critical of any religion's claims on facts about the Universe, will judge its moral values according to their genuine merit, and appreciate and respect its culture, rituals and traditions in most cases.

If you feel I am attacking you, cite something specific, and I will either apologize, or explain my logic. Likewise, if you see someone else being overly aggressive, feel free to click on the report button.

Being vague does not help anyone, it builds resentment on both sides and is only really useful for trapping people. The approval process is supposed to remove the need for that, so it really does not belong here.

Public policy should be shaped by what the majority of the culture wants, end of story. If thsoe policies are religiously influenced then Im fine with that, as long as all the facts (religious and scientific) are presented to the culture in question as well.

The Founding Fathers disagreed with you, you know. The entire reason for the Senate is to protect the opulent majority from the poor minority. I am neither kidding nor exaggerating, James Madison is quoted on this.

[Brandon]

This thread needs splitting a few times, again >_>

I need sleep, but wanted to respond to Brandon here.

Did I read this correctly? Are you claiming that religion is not a choice? I was raised Catholic, myself, you know.

I did and this will probably be the third time Ive explained why it is not in this thread. Please make sure you read this, and I mean really read it and think about it. Try to apply what I say here to some thought excersises before you come back with a counter argument. Im quite tired of beating a dead horse, only by now the horse is little more then a pool of dried blood and some hamburger

Alright so here we go. Shortly after we are born we are sometimes raised in a religious culture. Some people call it indoctrination, others call it brainwashing. I dislike both terms I think why I dislike the latter is obvious but the former I can sort of get along with only because one of the definitions of indoctrination is "to imbue with learning" although the other definition talks of outright bias and its clear that most people mean that definition when they use the word.

Its possible that as we grow into adults there is pressure to remain and learn about that religion. For some religions its a garantee but when we reach adulthood and leave the nest  we are free. We dont have the social/cultural baggage to hold us there and without that, people without faith in their religion will cease to practice or believe in it. People who still have faith in it will continue to practice and believe in it in their own way. 

A beleif is not a choice. Its a personal conclusion formed by our experiences and personalities, beliefs arent chosen they just are. Think about it for a minute, if you jump up into the air do you believe you will be pulled back down to the ground? Of course, because you've felt it happen before all through out your life. Now is that belief a choice? Lets get more abstract. One of the definitions of belief is an opinion or a conviction, now expressing these is certainly a choice but is just having one a choice? Really, keep in mind that choice requires other options of belief so you would have had to believe the opposite of what this next question asks. Do you believe that Elliquiy is a good community? Was that belief a choice?

What Im saying here is that pure belief or faith and by extension religion is not a choice. Expressing those beliefs is. Subtle but important distinction

At this point, I think Ive pretty conclusivly proved that belief in some things is not choice because choice requires a person to consider other options. I think I've also proven that religion is not choice because when we become adults we can leave it behind us or continue to worship based on what we believe.

For me, I was never given a choice with religion. I was raised as a catholic but I was never and Im still not a very religious person. I always believed that there was something beyond what I could percieve but for a long time I never bought into the catholic faith. I liked the message of peace, love, and helping others but the message was about all I believed in. It was kind of a "believe in the ideal not the idol" time for me. When I turned 18 and went into the military I stopped worshiping all together, I didnt go or even entertain the idea of going to church. I just didnt believe in any of it at that point in my life, I still believed that there was more to the world , especially when i started seeing places like Egypt, Italy, Germany, and Japan. At that time I knew I had the knowlegde, ability, and will to help others and I threw myself into that role but I didnt really believe in any religion

Now understand that what Im about to say is all I will say.I consider this a very private moment in my life and do not discuss the specifics of what happened to me with anyone. Please respect that privacy. The first time I was deployed to Iraq something happened to me and that sole event changed my entire life. That event changed everything for me, where at one time I had "lost my faith" (I think it would be more accurate to say I never had it) that event made me think a lot of it was real for the first time in my life but like always I knew that humans were failable. I knew that there was and still is injustice in the church and since that day I have been working to change things

For me, religion or specifically Catholisicm and Agnosticism was never a choice and I dont see how anyone can think of it as a choice. As a child and a teenager they were forced on me. As a really young man I just stopped worshiping because it didnt matter for my life. Still as a young man my eyes were opened to the truth, it was forced on me but I accept it as a part of who I am.

I try to be considerate of the beliefs of others, so long as they do not cause harm. For this, I tend to be harshly critical of any religion's claims on facts about the Universe, will judge its moral values according to their genuine merit, and appreciate and respect its culture, rituals and traditions in most cases.

If you feel I am attacking you, cite something specific, and I will either apologize, or explain my logic. Likewise, if you see someone else being overly aggressive, feel free to click on the report button.

Being vague does not help anyone, it builds resentment on both sides and is only really useful for trapping people. The approval process is supposed to remove the need for that, so it really does not belong here.

Sorry Veks but the staffs track record of snuffing out religion bashing isnt very good right now. So I have my doubts to whether anything would really happen if I did report a theocist post or statement. Still Im willing to give it a shot

The Founding Fathers disagreed with you, you know. The entire reason for the Senate is to protect the opulent majority from the poor minority. I am neither kidding nor exaggerating, James Madison is quoted on this.

That did not make much sense to me. The rich is actually the minority of the country. The majority is poor/middle class citizens. When all votes are counted equally (and they should be rather then having the electoral college we have setup now) then the majority of the people wanting something makes sense to me. This system prevents a minority group (like the rich) from stopping things that the majority of citizens want

[Jude]

If belief isn't a choice then it makes no sense for people to be rewarded or punished on the basis of it (as that would be inherently unjust).  This is one of the tenets of your religion Brandon:

John 3:16  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How do you rectify this?

EDIT:  In addition, couldn't those arguments be extended to all things?  There are certainly many schools of philosophy that contend choice doesn't exist.

However, generalizing your argument to another example:  someone doesn't choose to be racist.  They have bad experiences and grow up in an environment that fosters racism.  By extension of your argument, we shouldn't criticize racists because they didn't choose to be them.

What about murderers who were born sociopaths, etc.?

I'm not saying believers in religion are like racists and sociopaths in any other sense, I'm just saying your logic doesn't hold water.

[Brandon]

I am not going to debate/talk about things written in the bible. Ever. End of story. I will not have my principles or beliefs chained to a book like its some master who owns and towers above me.

However on that topic, earlier in this thread I mentioned that from my point of view bible quotes are most used by atheists (we later agreed that they should be called anti-theists). The very notion that I must adhere to it is pretty anti-discussion and Im on record of saying it pisses me off. If you want to talk about my thoughts then you can leave the bible quoting at home Im having none of that.

Now I was quite clear that acting upon beliefs is a choice. The racist can choose to do nothing but if he does do something he has to face the conseqences for that choice.

The sociopath one, I kind of get as there are some mental illnesses where a persons mind needs to harm others as much as the body needs oxygen. In these cases for the safety of others yes they should be incarcerated and cared for. However I do look at this more as a public saftey issue rather then a belief issue

[Jude]

If it's my religion to berate and insult other religions, and I have no choice but to accept this because it's my personal belief (say, an anti-theist), wouldn't it be hypocritical of you to cast that as wrong, considering you're essentially arguing that you can't judge other people's beliefs because they're not a choice?

It just doesn't make any sense.

P.S.  There's a reason why bible quotes are used by atheists in arguments:  they're useful, hard and fast statements of belief for Christians.  Saying that someone having a religious debate with you "isn't allowed to quote them" is kind of... senseless.  Either you believe the quotes or you don't, and if you believe them you can't call "off limits" indiscriminately to suit your arguments whenever you like.  There's nothing even remotely logical about that.

If you don't want to discuss your beliefs you don't have to keep talking to me, but it's not fair in a discussion to say "I don't want to talk about that" when the person you're talking to brings up a contradiction and expect to carry on civil discourse.

[Nyarly]

It's true that religion is not completely a choice (the thought of the existence of god is nonsensical and alien to me, so there's no way that I could ever join a religion).

However, there is some choice involved, even if it's only small. That's more than can be said about gender or sexuality. No, I don't think that religion-bashing (or atheist-bashing) should be punished in the same way as gender- or sexuality-bashing.

[Lithos]

A beleif is not a choice. Its a personal conclusion formed by our experiences and personalities, beliefs arent chosen they just are. Think about it for a minute, if you jump up into the air do you believe you will be pulled back down to the ground? Of course, because you've felt it happen before all through out your life. Now is that belief a choice? Lets get more abstract. One of the definitions of belief is an opinion or a conviction, now expressing these is certainly a choice but is just having one a choice? Really, keep in mind that choice requires other options of belief so you would have had to believe the opposite of what this next question asks. Do you believe that Elliquiy is a good community? Was that belief a choice?

Everyone is not made of same mold, and religion IS a choice Brandon. There are countless different religions and beliefs, and no, we are not eternally stuck to any one of them. We can be due to outside pressure if we stay our whole lives in one country and in one culture but honestly, who does that anymore?. First traveling and now the net allow people to browse huge amount of different outlooks of life. I will try and explain here why your founding argument is wrong, it should be easy to follow.

You are mixing things in very bad way in your reply. You are saying that it is faith / belief that makes us think that when we jump up, we fall back down. You are mixing facts with beliefs though. We _know_ that we are going to drop down cause everything in our realm of experience falls down. We can believe that the reason why we are falling down is what ever. That part is what comes of faith, and it is flexible and changes throughout our lives. We can believe that it is force called gravity, or we can believe something entirely different. Whether we are in culture X, Y, Z or raised to religion whatever, everything in our realm of experience will fall down.

So no, knowing that you fall down after jumping up is not acting upon belief, it is acting upon experience and knowledge. The _reason_ we think we fall down is the belief part that has only to do with our mind. It is very important that you understand this distinction since it can skew arguments pretty badly.

Acting upon belief is a choice, and belief itself is a choice as well. If some belief proves to be generally harmful to society some way, with enough education and time it CAN be removed and changed. It cannot be removed or changed by ignorance or violence, I believe this was tried in Soviet Union and results were not good at all.

[Brandon]

Jude you would be acting upon a belief and thus making  a choice.

I dont know if Im just not explaining this right, if your not getting it or what but I feel like Im explaining this clearly and its going over your head.

@lithos: I never said we were eternally stuck to certain religions or one religion over our lifetimes so dont put words in my mouth. Read this definition

choice   /tʃɔɪs/  Show Spelled [chois]  Show IPA noun, adjective, choic·er, choic·est. 
–noun
1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.
2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.
3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.
4. an alternative: There is another choice.
5. an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.
6. something that is preferred or preferable to others; the best part of something: Mare's Nest is the choice in the sixth race.
7. a carefully selected supply: This restaurant has a fine choice of wines.
8. a choice grade of beef.
–adjective
9. worthy of being chosen; excellent; superior.
10. carefully selected: choice words.
11. (in the grading of beef in the U.S.) rated between prime and good.
—Idiom
12. of choice, that is generally preferred: A detached house is still the home of choice.

A person does not go "religion shopping" to select the right religion for them. When they come upon one that has the same goals, principles, and beliefs as the person they are already tied to that religion. That is not choice because a person isnt selecting a religion from a number of options they already are of that religions thinking and goals.

So let me ask you this. If at any time your in the air or high up do you ever wonder if you were to fall would you fly up into the air or rocket across the skys like the Rocketeer (great movie btw, see it if you havnt)? Im guessing youll answer no. Thats because you believe you will fall to the ground, that conclusion has been developed from your experiences. If you had to jump off for any reason you probably wouldntt even entertain for a moment that there was another option, no mater how ludicrous, so you didnt select anything and thus didnt make a choice.

Do you see what Im getting at now?

[Jude]

A person does not go "religion shopping" to select the right religion for them. When they come upon one that has the same goals, principles, and beliefs as the person they are already tied to that religion. That is not choice because a person isnt selecting a religion from a number of options they already are of that religions thinking and goals.

That's not really accurate.  My girlfriend for instance is very interested in the concept of religions, so she tried several.  I know at one point she tried some Wiccan-type thing.  Made the choice to partake, eventually chose to stop.  "Religion shopping" is actually a common hippie-type phenomenon.

So let me ask you this. If at any time your in the air or high up do you ever wonder if you were to fall would you fly up into the air or rocket across the skys like the Rocketeer (great movie btw, see it if you havnt)? Im guessing youll answer no. Thats because you believe you will fall to the ground, that conclusion has been developed from your experiences. If you had to jump off for any reason you probably wouldntt even entertain for a moment that there was another option, no mater how ludicrous, so you didnt select anything and thus didnt make a choice.

Do you see what Im getting at now?

You gave one example Brandon.  Here's a better one:  You're flying with a jetpack between two Celestial bodies of equal mass, thus making your gravitational attraction to each equal if you are equidistant to them, meaning if you turn off the jetpack, you could fall either direction.  You have no idea which you're closer to.  Just because the evidence doesn't point solidly one direction or another doesn't mean you'll be unable to choose, or have no belief on which way you'll fall.  There is such a thing as randomness in decisions, people do it all the time when they gamble.  But all of that aside...

Brandon, in order for belief not being a choice to be relevant at all you have to first establish that...

A)  You're right that it isn't a choice.  Considering that free will is not understood and it's a philosophical question, I'm not sure you can.  Sure, what you propose sounds reasonable, but you know as well as I do that there are several jumps in logic.

b)  That anything is a choice.  If nothing is a choice, then it doesn't matter if belief isn't.  Again, this goes back to proving the existence of Free Will; good luck on that one.

Then if you're going to use that as a basis to make criticizing religion wrong, you need to explain why something which isn't a choice still shouldn't be discouraged in order to influence people away from it if it is harmful.  Or you can establish that religion isn't harmful (good luck doing that without a bunch of subjectivity--especially because some religions, like cults, are implicitly harmful).

[Brandon]

That's not really accurate.  My girlfriend for instance is very interested in the concept of religions, so she tried several.  I know at one point she tried some Wiccan-type thing.  Made the choice to partake, eventually chose to stop.  "Religion shopping" is actually a common hippie-type phenomenon.You gave one example Brandon.  Here's a better one:  You're flying with a jetpack between two Celestial bodies of equal mass, thus making your gravitational attraction to each equal if you are equidistant to them, meaning if you turn off the jetpack, you could fall either direction.  You have no idea which you're closer to.  Just because the evidence doesn't point solidly one direction or another doesn't mean you'll be unable to choose, or have no belief on which way you'll fall.  There is such a thing as randomness in decisions, people do it all the time when they gamble.  But all of that aside...

It sounds like shes not looking for spiritual guidance but intellectual pursuit regarding cultures. If thats the case then I would argue she is an exception to the rule

Brandon, in order for belief not being a choice to be relevant at all you have to first establish that...

A)  You're right that it isn't a choice.  Considering that free will is not understood and it's a philosophical question, I'm not sure you can.  Sure, what you propose sounds reasonable, but you know as well as I do that there are several jumps in logic.

b)  That anything is a choice.  If nothing is a choice, then it doesn't matter if belief isn't.  Again, this goes back to proving the existence of Free Will; good luck on that one.

Then if you're going to use that as a basis to make criticizing religion wrong, you need to explain why something which isn't a choice still shouldn't be discouraged in order to influence people away from it if it is harmful.  Or you can establish that religion isn't harmful (good luck doing that without a bunch of subjectivity--especially because some religions, like cults, are implicitly harmful).

Im sorry Jude but trying to tell me free will has to be proven is preposterous. Its like saying someone can choose to be born white or gay. Just look around at the people you know, look into your own mind. You can prove free will is there just by taking a good look at yourself. Does anyone here not believe free will exists?

[HairyHeretic]

So how then would you define those who are unsatisfied with the religion they were raised in, and who choose another?

[Brandon]

So how then would you define those who are unsatisfied with the religion they were raised in, and who choose another?

They would be in the same situation I was. Being raised in a religion and being unsatisfied with it or just not beliving in it is the same thing I went through. When the become adults if they need spiritual guidance they might go looking for it, or they might just watch their surrondings till it finds them. Whatever the case when they find the group that matches what they're looking for they join it