How to think intelligently. It's not ideology dependent.
Should we make it illegal for stupid people to reproduce?
Going right off topic now, but...Should we make it illegal for stupid people to reproduce?
Going right off topic now, but...
No, I don't think so.
Actually, I think the term "stupid people' is essentially meaningless.
Thoughts can be stupid.
Actions can be stupid.
But people? I don't think the adjective is applicable.
That again begs the question: what education?
Should we close down the faith schools? Ban religious teaching at home or in the community?
Education on critical thinking skills. How to think, not what to think.
Both for children and for adults.
I don't know how it could or should be implemented. I don't have all the answers. I certainly don't advocate closing down schools, or imposing bans on religious institutions.
Thoughts...
I think that school curriculums should be free of religious doctrine, and include a strong focus on critical thinking skills.
I think that the idea of parental ownership of children and their beliefs is deeply ingrained in society, that it is not a good thing, but that any radical "cure" would be far worse than the problem. An effective remedy would take generations.
Why do you imply that I have done so?Why is it that athiests always somehow end up delegitimising the stabilising influences of family and community?
What makes you think it can't?What makes them think a society can function in the long term if the family unit is considered incidental?
you're really jumping around tonight, Sam.
Why do you imply that I have done so?
What makes you think it can't?
Farm them out, you mean? A kibbutz?I don't necessarily think that it can. I do think that if a society not strongly focused on the *traditional* family unit were possible, then long-term social preparation would be necessary.
Like I said, any radical change at this level would be very bad.
The idea of child ownership is a small and unnecessary part of the family construct. It's an ancient and odious notion.You clearly think of current system of parental rights as ownership.
It sounds extremely odd to me.
That's because there's no effective replacement in place. It doesn't mean it can't be done in principle.Because of the effect that breakdown of the family structure is having on kids today. They'll soon be having shorter lifespans because less parental intervention has essentially led to less healthy kids, in both physical and psychological sense.
That might be a viable alternative social model.Farm them out, you mean? A kibbutz?
Why do theists think they are the only ones who can possibly have social values?
http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/index2.htmlFounded by Felix Adler, the son of a rabbi, to drive social-justice initiatives and promote good without God, Ethical Culture walks like a church and talks like a church—congregants sit in pews, rise to sing hymns, and pass around a collection plate. But at one of their Sunday-morning meetings in January, their Senior Leader, in a very unchurchlike fashion, cited agnosticism as the only intellectually defensible religious position. More to the point, Epstein is eyeing the group’s building as a prototype for the church of New Humanism. Modeled on a Greco-Roman coliseum, Ethical Culture has semi-circular pews to promote conversation and a low stage designed to minimize the distance between leader and congregation. “I want to build big, beautiful buildings like Ethical Culture in every big city in America,” says Epstein. Unfortunately, his organization only brings in $200,000 a year. And while that’s up from $28,000 four years ago, it’s not enough to build a New Humanist church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, let alone Central Park West.
Right back at you!Because athiests have yet to prove that their actions can benefit society in the long term.
Yes, to a point where people are becoming psychologically adrift.The idea of child ownership is a small and unnecessary part of the family construct. It's an ancient and odious notion.
It's changing, slowly.
It's not all that long ago in western society that a parent could kill a recalcitrant child without fear of the law.
That's because there's no effective replacement in place. It doesn't mean it can't be done in principle.
There is some data on this from studies in Germany during WWII.That might be a viable alternative social model.
Right back at you!
Even if I did accept your contentious premise, how does it relate to the question?
Whereas some theism taking credit for the family, human love, decency and tolerance and all the good in the world is proof of great benefit from their Deity du jour ?SAM said:Because athiests have yet to prove that their actions can benefit society in the long term.