Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Generally that's pretty good. In fact if you translate that into education, a religion class teaching various beliefs would not infringe the 'keep religion out of school' rule, just as teaching the Bible as literature - if the Quran, Bhaghavad Gita, Tripitaka, Analects, Greek Myths etc. are also taught - as works of literature.
Equal (limited) time given to each before moving on to Shakespeare, The Odyssey and the tale of Sinuhe would not be regarded as 'indoctrination'. Because...it wouldn't be.
As an atheist, I would support a world religions class in high school, but as a principal I'd hate to have to supervise that!
I know what you mean. Somebody woud be sure to say that they know more about their religion tat the teacher does. But then they can be invited to explain their religion out front, field trips (1) to the temple or whatever, which would be good for better understanding.
(1) so called because you do the trip and then field the complaints from parents that their kids are being indoctrinated with a rival religion.
Just look at CD. we can't get sort through the noise here without agenda's all over the place. Like landmines blowing the legs of of rational conclusions running to help us all.
Flat earth was never a scientific theory. Neither is using leeches to cure diseases.
What you are are suggesting is flat out dangerous. You are basically saying anyone can believe in anything and everyone holds their own truths.
It is encouraging to read comments like yours that not only point out such dangers but make the important point that not all beliefs, arguments and opinions are equal just because there are people who can have whatever belief, argument or opinion they choose. Our progress as a species for better or worse is largely a function of more and more people promoting good ideas over bad ideas. Good judgement over bad. Right direction over wrong direction. Truth rather than falsehoods.
Hard to imagine a day when all people will agree about any of the above, but what is key and what has provided for our progress to date -- what is important -- is the slow push for better over worse. What at other times I have called the "slow maturing of man."
I know what you mean. Somebody woud be sure to say that they know more about their religion tat the teacher does. But then they can be invited to explain their religion out front, field trips (1) to the temple or whatever, which would be good for better understanding.
(1) so called because you do the trip and then field the complaints from parents that their kids are being indoctrinated with a rival religion.
It is encouraging to read comments like yours that not only point out such dangers but make the important point that not all beliefs, arguments and opinions are equal just because there are people who can have whatever belief, argument or opinion they choose. Our progress as a species for better or worse is largely a function of more and more people promoting good ideas over bad ideas. Good judgement over bad. Right direction over wrong direction. Truth rather than falsehoods.
Hard to imagine a day when all people will agree about any of the above, but what is key and what has provided for our progress to date -- what is important -- is the slow push for better over worse. What at other times I have called the "slow maturing of man."
I prefer to call it the "slow maturing of human consciousness." The major complicating factors have been two -
1)the need for our cognitive capabilities to evolve from their primitive roots, and
2) the need for each generation to mature from birth to adulthood within whatever level of cognitive capabilities and knowledge has been reached.
Within this framework, the achievement of cognitive capabilities and knowledge has also been sporadic, uneven, and beset by human perversity, cultural, and societal flaws. Given this framework, it is hardly surprising that the progress we all should desire has been so sporadic and hard-fought.
I prefer to call it the "slow maturing of human consciousness." The major complicating factors have been two -
1)the need for our cognitive capabilities to evolve from their primitive roots, and
2) the need for each generation to mature from birth to adulthood within whatever level of cognitive capabilities and knowledge has been reached.
Within this framework, the achievement of cognitive capabilities and knowledge has also been sporadic, uneven, and beset by human perversity, cultural, and societal flaws. Given this framework, it is hardly surprising that the progress we all should desire has been so sporadic and hard-fought.
Just to be clear and/or to stay true to my efforts toward better understanding others...
Is this the definition of consciousness you, we all are using?
"the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. ... full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing."
If so, I'm not sure how much or how well our consciousness as humans has changed since we were first using it to enjoy the heat of the Sun, or understand it's source. What has changed or provided for the progress of man that we can all recognize is our knowledge and ability to better understand such things (and each other among other things). Knowledge and ability having little-to-nothing to do with man's consciousness thousands of years ago compared to today.
Or again what am I missing as I sign off now to get on with a Sunday big breakfast and wish y'all another good Sunday too...
Just to be clear and/or to stay true to my efforts toward better understanding others...
Is this the definition of consciousness you, we all are using?
"the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. ... full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing."
If so, I'm not sure how much or how well our consciousness as humans has changed since we were first using it to enjoy the heat of the Sun, or understand it's source. What has changed or provided for the progress of man that we can all recognize is our knowledge and ability to better understand such things (and each other among other things). Knowledge and ability having little-to-nothing to do with man's consciousness thousands of years ago compared to today.
Or again what am I missing as I sign off now to get on with a Sunday big breakfast and wish y'all another good Sunday too...
Why on earth are you separating the state of our consciousness from the accumulated products of that consciousness? Do you actually think knowledge is somehow separate from the consciousness that acquires it? Do you actually think that the cognitive structures and thought processes it employs are separate from the consciousness that employs them? I am genuinely trying to comprehend how you perceive consciousness.
Why on earth are you separating the state of our consciousness from the accumulated products of that consciousness? Do you actually think knowledge is somehow separate from the consciousness that acquires it? Do you actually think that the cognitive structures and thought processes it employs are separate from the consciousness that employs them? I am genuinely trying to comprehend how you perceive consciousness.
I don't think he is mystic. He is staying within the definition people use when they look it up. Most people aren't sure what it means past describing some traits of it that we have and see in animals. Heck, nobody is really sure.
People like you me see information being exchanged via state changes in particles. Less people see that particles aren't really things but rather a net sets of particles popping into and out existence.
I was just telling my boy that the standard model is based on contact. The whole of our understanding is based on something touching something. I can't show where there is no contact.
We are in a sea of connections. Vastly more complex than any one of us.
so your position holds true using many different avenues of thought. I any not see it like you, but its at least reasonable as a belief.
Let's save the Mods some red ink and not drift off indoctrination to discussing consciousness and the like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I prefer to call it the "slow maturing of human consciousness." The major complicating factors have been two - 
