- #36
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,902
- 15
Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.phyzmatix said:Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!
Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.phyzmatix said:Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!
It looks like Nature had a prominent influence. It seems that Nature has primacy.WhoWee said:. . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . .
It seems to me God had some influence...how does your interpretation differ?
WhoWee said:My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.
An anti-religion message, overall, is negative, restrictive and suggests that the rules (again -the 10 Commandments - 1 or all) are wrong...that is a slippery slope.
Absolutely, I agree. That's morality and ethics (values) - and that doesn't require a formal religious or theistic position.However, a general message of tell the truth, be nice and courteous to other people, be honest, never cheat, be respectful of others, be faithful to your friends, family and mate, help other people when you can, have a strong work (and study ethic), think for yourself (and be aware of the people that want you to worship them or what they tell you), protect other people and their property, and life is sacred - never murder anyone are all acceptable and positive. Kids need guidance and structure.
I'm not aware that atheists are proposing not teaching positive ideas. On the other hand, I've seen people who claim to be religious engage in such behavior as "lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught".These ideas don't need to be labeled religious. But if you don't teach these positive ideas...what would you propose they be replaced with...lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught?
I don't see where atheists are try to water down or compromise on respect for rules, or ethics or morality. I do see common ground among atheists and theists in this regard.My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.
WhoWee said:None of them prescribe murder. It's the gun argument...guns don't kill people...people do. The religions don't kill people...
WhoWee said:It's spelled GOD.
with her record she really can't risk any thunderbolts on top of life's other little adventures.jobyts said:Evo has automatic parsing for keywords like "GOD", "religion".
mgb_phys said:Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.
cristo said:I wasn't aware I was arguing against anyone: I was merely saying why I appreciate that christianity takes up a large proportion of the religious education in the UK.
Naziism isn't a religion, thus your point is moot.
Witchcraft? Do you know anything about witchcraft? Or even the actual prevelence of human and animal sacrifice in religion?rootX said:Does that exclude human/animal sacrifices or witchcraft?
I believe Cristo's point (and I could be wrong of course)is that the UK has a history of separatism and oppression primarily in regards to various sects of the chirstian faith. From a historical stand point and due to the incredibly large number of christians from various sects in the area it makes sense that a class regarding religion and tolerance/acceptance of others beliefs would focus greatly on christianity.Moridin said:The Nazism that was prevalent in Germany at the time shares many core features of a religion -- an omnipotent leader, infallible literature, the belief in themselves as chosen or superior, the preference of ideology over evidence, specific rituals, anti-scientific mythology and signs and so on to the extent that Nazism and Stalinist communism has been referred to as "political religions".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion
The "missing link" between political religions and "real" religions like the world religions is of course things like earlier emperors of Japan, for instance, who actually was considered as gods by the populace.
Moridin said:I did not bring Nazism into the discussion -- that was made by kasse, I simply responded to a short remark made by cristo.
cristo said:Note that I'm not religious in any way, but I'm merely saying that I respect why christianity is taught as the major part of religious education: namely because it is one of the foundations of the country!
Certainly the political/historial side should be taught in history classes, but the religious side should be taught in religious education classes (along with all the other religions which, as I said early on in this thread, were taught in my religious education classes).signerror said:Then shouldn't it belong in a history class?
Moridin said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
Of course, England is to a large degree based on slavery as it was an important factor establishing the kingdom as the largest empire in the world during its golden age. This should, according to your logic, imply that we should teach the moral superiority of keeping slaves.
cristo said:I think everyone agrees that slavery has no moral superiority. Seriously, what point are you trying to argue here, other than trying to bash religion?
Moridin said:So you agree that the appealing to tradition in your earlier argument is invalid?
cristo said:If it were merely tradition being appealed to, then yes. (Which, by the way, shows that your slaver argument is invalid, as something which has been illegal for over 200 years is not a tradition!) But anyway, it's not: the country and the church are intertwined.
Let's return to the actual point I was making, before things started getting twisted, namely that religious education classes mainly discuss Christianity. What do you have to say about that, or about the suggestion that atheism should be taught in religious education classes? I've made my point quite clearly, though you seem adamant on ignoring that and dragging the thread way off topic.
kasse said:I think religion should be replaced by philosophy, ethics and psychology.
Moridin said:Furthermore, it is impossible to teach atheism since it is a lack of something, not a positive ideology, like Christianity is.
WhoWee said:This was the central idea to my earlier post:
"I believe the old saying is..."If a void exists in the heart...eventually something will fill it".
As a parent, I want a balanced and positive message reinforced in the schools. I don't think religion should be taught in the public school system.
However, a general message of tell the truth, be nice and courteous to other people, be honest, never cheat, be respectful of others, be faithful to your friends, family and mate, help other people when you can, have a strong work (and study ethic), think for yourself (and be aware of the people that want you to worship them or what they tell you), protect other people and their property, and life is sacred - never murder anyone are all acceptable and positive. Kids need guidance and structure.
These ideas don't need to be labeled religious. But if you don't teach these positive ideas...what would you propose they be replaced with...lie when it's convenient, don't get caught cheating, steal a little if you need to - just don't get caught?
My point is this, when you water something down or compromises are made with respect to rules...the rules are weakened. We shouldn't care where the rules come from...if they are generally accepted as positive and teach humanity.
An anti-religion message, overall, is negative, restrictive and suggests that the rules (again -the 10 Commandments - 1 or all) are wrong...that is a slippery slope."
Jack21222 said:Err, that isn't the definition of "positive" that was used in the line you quoted. It looks like in that case, "positive" means "explicitly or openly expressed or laid down."
Source: http://www.answers.com/positive , 3rd definition.
They were trying to say that athiesm isn't something that is "explicitly expressed," but rather is the lack of something that is "explicitly expressed." It's used in the same way as "Negative rights" and "Positive rights." (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)
WhoWee said:I'll defer to Moridin to clarify exactly what he meant...fair enough?
Furthermore, it is impossible to teach atheism since it is a lack of something, not a positive ideology, like Christianity is.
Jack21222 said:Nope. Use the context in which it was said.
In other words, Atheism isn't an ideology where pieces of information are taught. Rather, it's the lack of such ideological teachings. You can't teach a lack of teachings.
The meaning is pretty clear from context.
But killing children is OK if a voice in your head tells you to do so?WhoWee said:The rules...10 Commandments...are the basis of our laws.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm
Off the top of my head...don't kill, don't cheat on spouse, don't steal, don't lie...all things I want to teach my kids.
If you may not steal then you can always borrow...Exodus 11 said:11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go
out into the midst of Egypt:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first
born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn
of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite
all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against
all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the
firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on
his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon;
and all the firstborn of cattle.
Exodus 11 said:12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses;
and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold,
and raiment.
Hans de Vries said:But killing children is OK if a voice in your head tells you to do so?
If you may not steal then you can always borrow...
I wonder when they gave it back?
Jack21222 said:In other words, Atheism isn't an ideology where pieces of information are taught. Rather, it's the lack of such ideological teachings. You can't teach a lack of teachings.
WhoWee said:Let's do this a different way.
If you don't like the basic rules of the Commandments of Don't Kill, Don't Lie, Don't Cheat, Don't Steal, Don't Covet...taught in school...and not from a religious context...
What exactly do you suggest/recommend kids be taught?
matt.o said:I may be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that these morals cannot be taught outside of religious dogma?
WhoWee said:Let's do this a different way.
If you don't like the basic rules of the Commandments of Don't Kill, Don't Lie, Don't Cheat, Don't Steal, Don't Covet...taught in school...and not from a religious context...
What exactly do you suggest/recommend kids be taught?
WhoWee said:Hans, please see my last post...the one preceding yours. I'm not suggesting any religious teachings in public schools.