Are Atheists Shaping UK School Curriculums?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phyzmatix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Schools Uk
AI Thread Summary
Atheists are launching a campaign to challenge the presence of Christian societies, collective worship, and religious education in UK schools, advocating for equal representation of their beliefs. Supporters argue that as long as Christianity is taught, atheists should have the right to promote their views, emphasizing the need for a balanced religious education. Critics question whether teaching atheism might lead to similar indoctrination as traditional religions, potentially creating uncritical followers. The AHS clarifies that their goal is not to undermine religious education but to foster dialogue and critical thinking among students regarding various belief systems. This initiative aims to address religious privilege in schools and promote understanding of secular perspectives.
  • #51
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
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.

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?
 
  • #53
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?

So you agree that the appealing to tradition in your earlier argument is invalid?
 
  • #54
Moridin said:
So you agree that the appealing to tradition in your earlier argument is invalid?

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.
 
  • #55
I think religion should be replaced by philosophy, ethics and psychology.
 
  • #56
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.

Slavery has been a solid tradition in the British empire from the Roman occupation to the early eighteen century. My refutation of your appeal to tradition stands. Either you must accept the teaching of slavery as moral virtue, or abandon the teaching of Christianity because of tradition.

Furthermore, it is impossible to teach atheism since it is a lack of something, not a positive ideology, like Christianity is.
 
  • #57
kasse said:
I think religion should be replaced by philosophy, ethics and psychology.


My wife is a teacher...according to her, philosophy, ethics and psychology are taught in public schools...not religion?
 
  • #58
Moridin said:
Furthermore, it is impossible to teach atheism since it is a lack of something, not a positive ideology, like Christianity is.

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."
 
  • #59
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."

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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
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)



I'll defer to Moridin to clarify exactly what he meant...fair enough?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
WhoWee said:
I'll defer to Moridin to clarify exactly what he meant...fair enough?

Nope. Use the context in which it was said.

Furthermore, it is impossible to teach atheism since it is a lack of something, not a positive ideology, like Christianity is.

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.
 
  • #62
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.

Moridin was the one that posted...again, that's the only person who can explain the exact meaning of the posted words...you would agree?
 
  • #63
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.
But killing children is OK if a voice in your head tells you to do so?
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.
If you may not steal then you can always borrow...
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.

I wonder when they gave it back?
 
Last edited:
  • #64
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?

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?
 
  • #65
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.

You will have to debate that with the OP. If I get his idea correctly, athiesm should be taught in schools where Christianity is taught. In the US, Christianity can only be "taught" at private schools. And private schools can teach whatever they want. As for other countries, I don't have an opinion.
 
  • #66
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?

I may be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that these morals cannot be taught outside of religious dogma?
 
  • #67
matt.o said:
I may be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that these morals cannot be taught outside of religious dogma?


No...I posted earlier that I don't think religion should be taught (or ridiculed) in the public school system.

At one point we fell into a discussion regarding select items of the 10 Commandments being the basis of our laws. The thread has twisted like a DNA string.

My whole point is that kids have a void for information and fill it with what they are exposed to...good or bad. I think we need to maintain a positive curriculum that teaches and reinforces strong ethics and humanity.
 
  • #68
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?




In Exodus 20 we see the Commandments (from 20:12 and further)

In Exodus 21 and 22 Moses goes on to approve slavery and polygamy.
He orders to kill witches, people with different religions, to kill children
that curse at their parents...

Is Moses the one which should teach our children moral values and
how to be responsible human beings?


Regards, Hans
 
  • #69
Hans, please see my last post...the one preceding yours. I'm not suggesting any religious teachings in public schools.
 
  • #70
WhoWee said:
Hans, please see my last post...the one preceding yours. I'm not suggesting any religious teachings in public schools.

Ahh.. ok, I think we simply agree about the moral values.


Regards, Hans
 
  • #71
WhoWee said:
Hans, please see my last post...the one preceding yours. I'm not suggesting any religious teachings in public schools.
If I'm not mistaken though, you are the one suggesting that moral values come from religion, specifically christian. You were the one that repeatedly cited the "10 commandments" as if non-christians had no moral values.
 
  • #72
Evo said:
If I'm not mistaken though, you are the one suggesting that moral values come from religion, specifically christian. You were the one that repeatedly cited the "10 commandments" as if non-christians had no moral values.

Western moral values do originate from Christianity.
 
  • #73
drankin said:
Western moral values do originate from Christianity.

What about Western Moral values is so different from Eastern Morality? Murder is wrong? Theft is wrong? Adultery is wrong? You should respect your parents?

These are all common ideas in almost all parts of the world. Could you tell me anything that stands out as different other than the duty to convert?
 
  • #74
Ghost803 said:
What about Western Moral values is so different from Eastern Morality? Murder is wrong? Theft is wrong? Adultery is wrong? You should respect your parents?

These are all common ideas in almost all parts of the world. Could you tell me anything that stands out as different other than the duty to convert?

I'm not arguing about the commonalities between the East and the West. What "duty to convert" are you talking about?
 
  • #75
drankin said:
I'm not arguing about the commonalities between the East and the West. What "duty to convert" are you talking about?

Well if the bible is the source of Western Morality, isn't it the duty of the followers to convert the unbelievers and save them from eternal damnation?Also, could you explain how the bible is the source of Western Morality? Were all those in the western world, who did not proscribe to the Biblical view of morality, immoral by "Western" standards?
 
  • #76
Ghost803 said:
Well if the bible is the source of Western Morality, isn't it the duty of the followers to convert the unbelievers and save them from eternal damnation?


Also, could you explain how the bible is the source of Western Morality? Were all those in the western world, who did not proscribe to the Biblical view of morality, immoral by "Western" standards?

To be more specific, it would be Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman culture that has the most influence on Western morals. As posted earlier, the Ten Commandments (from the bible), which came about approx 1600 BC has been a basis directly and indirectly to both Western law and morality for thousands of years. It is not necessary to proscribe to the religion in order to accept the morality that it shares. It is neither moral or immoral for someone who is a "Christian" to convert anyone. I've read the entire bible and have never seen this as a requirement for morality. Western standards of morality has been changing for thousands of years. The bible or Christianity does not define Western standards, Western society does.
 
  • #77
WhoWee said:
Moridin was the one that posted...again, that's the only person who can explain the exact meaning of the posted words...you would agree?

No, I would disagree.
 
  • #78
drankin said:
To be more specific, it would be Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman culture that has the most influence on Western morals. As posted earlier, the Ten Commandments (from the bible), which came about approx 1600 BC has been a basis directly and indirectly to both Western law and morality for thousands of years. It is not necessary to proscribe to the religion in order to accept the morality that it shares. It is neither moral or immoral for someone who is a "Christian" to convert anyone. I've read the entire bible and have never seen this as a requirement for morality. Western standards of morality has been changing for thousands of years. The bible or Christianity does not define Western standards, Western society does.

Just curious, perhaps you could tell me what "Western morals" are? And how they differ from morality around the rest of the globe?
 
  • #79
Evo said:
If I'm not mistaken though, you are the one suggesting that moral values come from religion, specifically christian. You were the one that repeatedly cited the "10 commandments" as if non-christians had no moral values.

I'm NOT trying to say that non-Christians have no moral values. I also do NOT think religion (of any type) should be taught in public schools...but I also do not believe religion should be ridiculed or dismissed by teachers...just avoided.

This is my original post...
"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."

My point was that some of the 10 Commandments are generally accepted.
 
  • #80
WhoWee said:
My point was that some of the 10 Commandments are generally accepted.
Even I (mr sarcastic) agree with that.
The objection to American's having the 10 commandments on public monuments is silly.
It's about as sensible as renaming the days because I don't believe in Tyr, Woden, Thor, Freya

Of course the 10 commandments (should really be the 7 commandments if you aren't one of the chosen people) were ripped off from the code of Hamurabi during the Babylonian exile - so really America's laws are based on Iraqis.
 
  • #81
mgb_phys said:
Of course the 10 commandments (should really be the 7 commandments if you aren't one of the chosen people) were ripped off from the code of Hamurabi during the Babylonian exile - so really America's laws are based on Iraqis.

Life truly does have a sense of humour! :smile:
 
  • #82
mgb_phys said:
Even I (mr sarcastic) agree with that.
The objection to American's having the 10 commandments on public monuments is silly.
It's about as sensible as renaming the days because I don't believe in Tyr, Woden, Thor, Freya

It isn't exactly the same thing. If you want the ten commandments as part of a monument to systems of laws throughout history, fine.

If you want a gigantic ten commandments display in a courthouse, sorry, no can do. There would be the perception that the US government is pushing one flavor of religion. It would also bring up questions as to whether you will receive a fair trial from the judge, when a giant sign in the front of the courthouse says "Thou shalt not have any gods before Me."

Besides, separation of church and state issues aside, a courtroom is supposed to be a house of law, not a house of religion. Only 3 of the 10 commandments are even illegal.

The naming of the days isn't listed in any holy books. There's a disconnect in your logic.
 
  • #83
Jack21222 said:
It isn't exactly the same thing. If you want the ten commandments as part of a monument to systems of laws throughout history, fine.

If you want a gigantic ten commandments display in a courthouse, sorry, no can do. There would be the perception that the US government is pushing one flavor of religion. It would also bring up questions as to whether you will receive a fair trial from the judge, when a giant sign in the front of the courthouse says "Thou shalt not have any gods before Me."

Besides, separation of church and state issues aside, a courtroom is supposed to be a house of law, not a house of religion. Only 3 of the 10 commandments are even illegal.

The naming of the days isn't listed in any holy books. There's a disconnect in your logic.

Where does a presidential inauguration that includes a prayer by a Christian pastor and ends with a (quite formal) "So help me G_d" fit into your reasoning? And how can there be no connection between the names of gods and holy books?

And what does any of this have to do with courthouses? :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #84
mgb_phys said:
Even I (mr sarcastic) agree with that.
The objection to American's having the 10 commandments on public monuments is silly.
It's about as sensible as renaming the days because I don't believe in Tyr, Woden, Thor, Freya

Of course the 10 commandments (should really be the 7 commandments if you aren't one of the chosen people) were ripped off from the code of Hamurabi during the Babylonian exile - so really America's laws are based on Iraqis.


I guess the point is you shouldn't disqualify/dismiss/disallow the content of the message because you don't like the source.
 
  • #85
WhoWee said:
I guess the point is you shouldn't disqualify/dismiss/disallow the content of the message because you don't like the source.

To be utterly pedantic, we can't be 100% sure that the "source" is the 10 Commandments as such, or if the 10 Commandments borrowed from existing social rules and norms of the time.

But I do understand what you're saying, I'm just being finicky :wink:
 
  • #86
mgb_phys said:
Even I (mr sarcastic) agree with that.
The objection to American's having the 10 commandments on public monuments is silly.
It's about as sensible as renaming the days because I don't believe in Tyr, Woden, Thor, Freya

Of course the 10 commandments (should really be the 7 commandments if you aren't one of the chosen people) were ripped off from the code of Hamurabi during the Babylonian exile - so really America's laws are based on Iraqis.

Not when the public monument specifically states that "you shall have no god before me".. To too many people, it seems like the government is endorsing the message of the thing.
 
  • #87
drankin said:
In the US, Christianity can only be "taught" at private schools.

I thought this thread was entitled "Atheists target UK schools." What relevance does any of this discussion of the US have to this thread?
 
  • #88
cristo said:
I thought this thread was entitled "Atheists target UK schools." What relevance does any of this discussion of the US have to this thread?

Why did you parse out one sentence that I posted and take it out of context? It belongs to a paragraph that is associated to the OP.
 
  • #89
drankin said:
Western moral values do originate from Christianity.

Yes many valid western moral values such as slavery, genocide, religious intolerance and so on originates from Christianity. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Also not that the positive moral value that Christianity purports has existed prior to Christianity, therefore Christianity cannot be the origin of said moral values.
 
  • #90
drankin said:
Western moral values do originate from Christianity.

Religions don't create morals - they borrow them. Some of the those morals still stand because they are so vague that you can apply them to any time i.e. don't kill or don't kill innocents.
 
  • #91
rootX said:
Religions don't create morals - they borrow them. Some of the those morals still stand because they are so vague that you can apply them to any time i.e. don't kill or don't kill innocents.

That doesn't negate my point. As I posted later to be more specific, Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman influences.

I also pointed out in that post that religion does not create the morals for a society, the society does.
 
  • #92
drankin said:
That doesn't negate my point. As I posted later to be more specific, Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman influences.

I also pointed out in that post that religion does not create the morals for a society, the society does.

I missed that post. But I am sure that there could be a better word than "originate" - spread or help people adhere to those morals more easily.
 
  • #93
drankin said:
Western moral values do originate from Christianity.

I am fairly certain the native American Indians had similar values long before Europeans arrived...are they not considered "western" enough? :wink:
 
  • #94
drankin said:
Western moral values do originate from Christianity.
The commandments are Christian now ?
 
  • #95
BoomBoom said:
I am fairly certain the native American Indians had similar values long before Europeans arrived...are they not considered "western" enough? :wink:

Yep, they are Western enough.
 
  • #96
mgb_phys said:
The commandments are Christian now ?

Sure.
 
  • #98
WhoWee said:
If you BELIEVE in something...you stand and fight...as believers in the major religions have for thousands of years.

However, if your "position" is belief in NOTHING...you are only paying "lip service"...and expect someone else to defend your "position".

I'm sorry, could you please clarify?
 
Last edited:
  • #99
WhoWee said:
If you BELIEVE in something...you stand and fight...as believers in the major religions have for thousands of years.

However, if your "position" is belief in NOTHING...you are only paying "lip service"...and expect someone else to defend your "position".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5219687/Atheists-target-UK-schools.html

Atheism is not a belief in nothing, it is a lack of belief in gods. As a theist, you probably do not believe in unicorns, making you an aunicornist.
 
  • #100
WhoWee said:
If you BELIEVE in something...you stand and fight.
Willingness to fight for a belief is not a sign of the strength of that belief, but of its weakness.
 

Similar threads

Are Kant, Freud, and Sartre Truly the Pillars of Unbelief?
Replies
1
Views
5K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
Replies
12
Views
3K
Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial
Replies
1
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top