Are Atheists Shaping UK School Curriculums?

[Moridin]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

 

[Raizy]

They should replace religion class with basic philosophy or basic psychology starting from elementary school.

 

[cristo]

Is that an argument?

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.

 

[Doc Al]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

Good one.

 

[phyzmatix]

Richard Dawkins is so militant in his atheism. He writes articles, holds talks and get this, even writes books on occasion. This militancy could very well rival fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics or Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings... and now he is trying to indoctrinate our children into this way of thinking. Sacrilegious!

Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!

 

[mgb_phys]

Thanks for the introduction to Poe's Law!

Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.

 

[WhoWee]

This post is my opinion.

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.

Just because someone beats a murder charge doesn't mean they were right.

Again, this post is my opinion.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . .

It seems to me God had some influence...how does your interpretation differ?

It looks like Nature had a prominent influence. It seems that Nature has primacy.

Out of respect for G_d, many Jews, particular observant Jews, write G_d so as not to take name of G_d in vain, or to protect the intrinsic holiness.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

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.

I don't hold any beliefs but I wouldn't say I'm anti-religion. To be honest, I'm happy to have people believing in whatever they want if they keep it to themselves - and that's where the problem enters for me with religion. There have been too many instances throughout the ages where religion has forced itself into areas it doesn't belong and as a result has, many times, been counter-productive for the progress of humanity - as recently as the suggestions from the Pope that use of condoms actually spreads AIDS.

I'm happy for people to do and think whatever they want in the comfort of their own home - free thinking and belief is one of the great things in the world, but when I see baseless ideas that are actively promoting information that contravene scientific fact, I can't help but feel that it is dangerous. Not everyone in the world has access to the same education and resources that we do - thus many people aren't in a position to come to sensible conclucison about certain topics, in these cases there will be people that will believe whatever they are told and I feel that some religions take advantage of this to promote their own adgenda.

(I will just say as well, that I feel the teachings of some religions can be useful in showing certain elements of morality - stories are a good way to do that but I would say however that these are by no means necessary so for me, it isn't a good enough argument for preaching.)

Back to WhoWee, I also think that the 'it is just my opinion' is somewhat unnecessary - we can see that by virtue of the fact that you wrote it! :), I would like to think that the community that exists here wouldn't attack anyone for personal thoughts anyway.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Absolutely, I agree. That's morality and ethics (values) - and that doesn't require a formal religious or theistic position.

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'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".

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.

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.

 

[rootX]

None of them prescribe murder. It's the gun argument...guns don't kill people...people do. The religions don't kill people...

Does that exclude human/animal sacrifices or witchcraft?
I would love the idea of teaching the importance of religions, manipulations in them, religious dogma, and why they shouldn't be trusted blindly.

 

[jobyts]

It's spelled GOD.

Evo has automatic parsing for keywords like "GOD", "religion". If it hits, she wakes up even at 3:00 in the morning, and locks the thread. Better not to mention the exact spelling

Let's see how long my post lasts...

 

[mgb_phys]

Evo has automatic parsing for keywords like "GOD", "religion".

with her record she really can't risk any thunderbolts on top of life's other little adventures.

 

[Moridin]

Brilliant - I never knew there was a name for that.

There is even something called Poe's paradox -- there is at least one fundamentalist who will think that a statement by another fundamentalist is indistinguishable from a parody. This was made most obvious in the conservapedia issue; as a liberal you could easily be banned from editing because of your position, but holding a conservative position could give you a ban as well because it could be viewed as parody. An even more (outrageous) example is that some conservatives think that Fred Phelps is a deep cover liberal who tries to put real conservatives to shame for their "rational" homophobia.

 

[Moridin]

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.

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does that exclude human/animal sacrifices or witchcraft?

Witchcraft? Do you know anything about witchcraft? Or even the actual prevelence of human and animal sacrifice in religion?

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.

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.
Your bringing Nazism into the equation... I have no idea what that's all about really.

 

[Moridin]

I did not bring Nazism into the discussion -- that was made by kasse, I simply responded to a short remark made by cristo.

 

[cristo]

I did not bring Nazism into the discussion -- that was made by kasse, I simply responded to a short remark made by cristo.

A short remark? Naziism is a political viewpoint, whereas this thread is discussing the teaching of religion in schools. The whole point I was trying to make is that the UK is fundamentally a Christian country. This has nothing to do with the political party that is in power. In fact, if you look at the structure of the country, the monarch is at the top of the tree, as head of state and defender of the faith; below her comes the political leader and parliament.

The comparison to Naziisim is moot for several reasons. The UK is not a Nazi country, and even if it were, this makes no difference to my point, since (as mentioned above) politics comes second in the set up of the country. [Of course, one could argue that because of this set up, the UK would never become a Nazi country anyway, but that also isn't too relevant here].

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!

 

[signerror]

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!

Then shouldn't it belong in a history class? Monarchs cutting each others' throats is also one of the foundations of that country, but I don't see schools making a class out of it.

 

[cristo]

Then shouldn't it belong in a history class?

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).

 

[Moridin]

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]

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?

 

[Moridin]

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?

 

[cristo]

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.

 

[kasse]

I think religion should be replaced by philosophy, ethics and psychology.

 

[Moridin]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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."

 

[Jack21222]

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)

 

[WhoWee]

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?