Are you for or against the separation of church and state?

[festive1]

I think critical thinking skills need to be nurtured from a young age. By the time students reach collegiate level, they've (hopefully) already figured out a way to retain and show they understand information given to them, but it isn't necessarily a method utilizing critical thinking.
Children are natural scientists trying to figure out what works and what doesn't. I don't think the American public educational system encourages this natural curiosity. We live in a good school district (according to test scores, SAT scores, and "college preparedness"), but I'm very disappointed that all they really do is: Sit on a mat, Teacher gives the lesson, Kids go to their desks, Do work to reinforce the lesson, Bring home homework to reinforce the lesson… There's really no allowance for natural curiosity. I've already had homework battles with my 1st grader. He expresses exasperation that he already knows the information, so why does he have to do it a million times, and continue to prove that he knows the information. He kind of feels like a performing monkey. This is not encouraging critical thinking, rather it teaches him to simply regurgitate what has been drilled into his head. I don't think this is atypical of a lot of kids in public school.

[Godscreated]

---

@ smax, Any of those people in the atrocities I mentioned were not religious people nor was religion a part of their governments. Many can hide behind the word religion, but that in no way means that any particular religion was responsible. FtR could kill 100 people in the name of smax, does that mean you had anything to do with giving him a reason to kill those people, he could of said smax the god of smaxism has given a decree these should die because they were unworthy of smax. Blame ie. guilt goes to the individuals, not their claims.

---

If I created a religion called smaxism, then your damn right I carry some responsibility for the actions of my followers.

And if someone else tried to create a religion based on me or my views, I would not only discourage such action, I would take action to stop it.

It's one thing to recognize good logical reason and leadership, but it's an entirely different, and far more dangerous thing, to worship those things or anything for that matter.

Religion is bad. Human beings, in general, are barely sane as it is. Giving them a good reason to take the plunge into insanity is a terribly bad idea, and the world's history is filled with proof.

Two rules, relating to this subject, that are very important to follow:

#1. Human beings should critically challenge any supernatural claims.

#2. Human beings should recognize the fact that all human beings are flawed and, therefore, require sound logic and reason to accompany leadership.

Ignoring either (and especially both) of these rules invites danger.

#2. This is what Christianity is about flawed people who need help and leadership, we choose the Creator of the universe, He definitely has the credentials. How have you missed this all this time.

[Angrboda]

@summer: I would distinguish between critical thinking skills and study skills, as both appear to be separate skill sets, requiring differrent pedagogical approaches for each. Sadly, educational systems are always in the throes of one fad or another, and it can take a long time and a lot of trial and error to see what sticks to the wall and what doesn't. In my college days, in computers it was all Niklaus Wirth and structured programming; now they teach a totally different set of ideas, because the limitations of focusing on structured programming itself became evident over the course of time. But I suppose this is going to be true regardless of what field you are in, but the cost in human waste can be infuriating and make one sad. (My current therapist is pushing ACT therapy on me, which is an approach that was developed in the decades following the boom in cognitive behavioral therapy. I can see the faddish or trendy side of it, but what am I to do with that information?)

@festive1: The main barrier is that pedagogical approaches which trend in that direction are relatively very expensive to implement. On top of that, educational reform in America in the past century has seen a recurrent theme in which people try to "throw money" at an educational reform issue without any tangible results, so people are skeptical of embracing expensive solutions in education. (Is the "throw money at it problem" real or just an artifact of the rhetoric of educational reform politics? I don't know.) Regardless, schools are underfunded as it is, and a frequent target of "fiscally responsible" politicians; I don't see a readily practical way to embrace such values as those you advocate. (Even if I agreed with them. I neither do, nor don't; given the practical issues involved, I've never gone much further in my analysis. It does sound like a rather simplistic and somewhat reactionary notion to my ears, though.)

[Ryantology]

#2. This is what Christianity is about flawed people who need help and leadership, we choose the Creator of the universe, He definitely has the credentials. How have you missed this all this time.

A teenager has to show up with credentials in person to get a job at Burger King. I do not expect less than that from the alleged Creator of the Universe.

[smax]

#1. Human beings should critically challenge any supernatural claims.

#2. Human beings should recognize the fact that all human beings are flawed and, therefore, require sound logic and reason to accompany leadership.

Ignoring either (and especially both) of these rules invites danger.

#2. This is what Christianity is about flawed people who need help and leadership, we choose the Creator of the universe, He definitely has the credentials. How have you missed this all this time.

Actually, your take on rule #2 violates rule #1, which is to challenge the supernatural.

And that's why rule #1 is ahead of rule #2. God is an invention of human beings. As such, he is limited to the human capacity. He's only as great as the invention itself, which isn't all that great.

So, no matter how you slice it, your stuck with human leadership. So the real question is, do you want deluded and flawed human beings in leadership, or just flawed ones.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

[Godscreated]

---

#1. Human beings should critically challenge any supernatural claims.

#2. Human beings should recognize the fact that all human beings are flawed and, therefore, require sound logic and reason to accompany leadership.

Ignoring either (and especially both) of these rules invites danger.

---

#2. This is what Christianity is about flawed people who need help and leadership, we choose the Creator of the universe, He definitely has the credentials. How have you missed this all this time.

Actually, your take on rule #2 violates rule #1, which is to challenge the supernatural.

And that's why rule #1 is ahead of rule #2. God is an invention of human beings. As such, he is limited to the human capacity. He's only as great as the invention itself, which isn't all that great.

So, no matter how you slice it, your stuck with human leadership. So the real question is, do you want deluded and flawed human beings in leadership, or just flawed ones.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

No you're wrong, #1 is no more than your opinion, and it's not a good one, you're trying to tell people how they need to live, so I just ignored #1. You can no more prove God does not exist than I can prove dark matter.

---

#2. This is what Christianity is about flawed people who need help and leadership, we choose the Creator of the universe, He definitely has the credentials. How have you missed this all this time.

A teenager has to show up with credentials in person to get a job at Burger King. I do not expect less than that from the alleged Creator of the Universe.

God shows up daily, you only need to look.

[Darkstar]

No you're wrong, #1 is no more than your opinion, and it's not a good one, you're trying to tell people how they need to live, so I just ignored #1. You can no more prove God does not exist than I can prove dark matter.

God cannot be proven to not exist as he is defined. (An omnipotent being could hide forever if he really wanted to). Why is it just opinion (and a poor one) to think that one should apply critical thinking to claims about things that go beyond what is scientifically demonstrable?

[Minimalist]

God shows up daily, you only need to look.

Apparently only the delusional can see him. Have you taken your medication today?

[Godscreated]

No you're wrong, #1 is no more than your opinion, and it's not a good one, you're trying to tell people how they need to live, so I just ignored #1. You can no more prove God does not exist than I can prove dark matter.

God cannot be proven to not exist as he is defined. (An omnipotent being could hide forever if he really wanted to). Why is it just opinion (and a poor one) to think that one should apply critical thinking to claims about things that go beyond what is scientifically demonstrable?

The question is vague at best and why do you not use spiritual reasoning with science? OK.

[smax]

No you're wrong, #1 is no more than your opinion, and it's not a good one, you're trying to tell people how they need to live, so I just ignored #1. You can no more prove God does not exist than I can prove dark matter.

Okay, we'll settle this matter once and for all, right here and right now:

You believe God exists and is actively interested in the human struggle.

I don't.

With that, we can now agree to terms that will settle this difference. You claim to have great confidence in your position that god is active and personal. I am equally confident that neither of those contentions are true.

So, I hereby issue an official challenge. If a personal god exists, and he's active and personal, let him prove your position on this matter by providing some kind of supernatural, yet undeniable proof of his existence and purpose to both you, me, and anyone who's reading this challenge. This proof should be something clearly verifiable, and something that all experiencing parties can discuss on this forum without encountering any significant inconsistencies.

Now we get to find out how strongly you really feel about your position. Because I'm all in. How about you? How's that faith holding up right about now?