Atheism to be taught in RE..
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
That's new? It is quite common here in Germany...
So what is the atheistic belief system? Many words have been spent by atheists at this site trying to keep atheism from being pictured as a belief system.
It's just a single belief, or lack of belief, or however one wants to phrase it. After all the words spent trying to keep atheism from being considered a religion or a belief system, I would think atheists would be discouraged at the idea of a uniform atheism being taught.
It's just a single belief, or lack of belief, or however one wants to phrase it. After all the words spent trying to keep atheism from being considered a religion or a belief system, I would think atheists would be discouraged at the idea of a uniform atheism being taught.
How do you figure that?
In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world? Less time spent teaching religious nonsense in preference of teaching "there is no god". In time nobody will care for the spoutings of ancient shepherds, but will be much more interested in hearing about atheism and how there is no god. A while after that, religion will be on it's way to extinction.
SnakeLord said:
I think it's lame. Atheism is a label that people give to those whom don't
accept 'god' (this can be interpreted as acknolwedging 'god' exists but not
accpeting it, or not accepting the notion that 'god' exists). Either way it's
not a belief system (but it can arise from an absence of a belief system).
Quite simply anyone whom whom accept assertions as being true without hard
supporting / contradicting evidence is exercising a 'belief'. My take is that the
'education' provided may turn out to have an effect analgous to a gazillion
little kids thinking that 'evolution' is when a pokemon magically becomes a
bigger and stronger being within the course of a few seconds. It might lead
to more tolerance, but less comprehension.
Simple actually. As a Christian, for me, Hinduism = atheism = any religious belief/disbelief/lack of belief apart from the belief in the God of Christianity.SnakeLord said:
As I stated, welcome to the flock. Who know's Hinduism might be the dominant religion in time. I don't give a rat's ass about any other specific religion (atheism included). My Christian faith is what concerns me.
Funny statement. You are indeed the comedian. I imagine people sitting in school learning about the "booga mooga" that doesn't exist - valuable time spent.
Atheism included of course.
That link is one of the most informative posts I've ever seen from you. You did well. Have a nice day. tiassa said:
It's poor company to be kept in, for certain, but if it serves to help kids realize that there are people out there who don't indulge in the frightening tails of mythical cosmic sky fathers who will seek vengeance against us if we break the status quo then I suppose it's worth it.
so long as it's taught fairly I don't see any problem. It should be mentioned that the term doesn't imply a reasoning for believing that there is no God, and should certainly include some of the common reasoning among atheists. . .such as the fact that they are Buddhists, or they put a high value on empiric evidence and the logical concept of burden of proof.
Last edited:
MarcAC said:
Why should such a clearly theistic religion with so damned many gods be considered atheistic? Do we need to point you to dict.org so you can look up the term yourself?
I can certainly understand calling it paganistic/heathenistic or what have you, but atheistic? Stranger things have come from the mouths of Zealots to be sure, but this is a rather simple matter of semantics.
I think it's a bit presumptuous for you to speak for other Christians, many of whom I'm sure own dictionaries, or are even theologians and as such would disagree with your assessment of Hinduism.
I think it's absurd. Not all atheism is religion. Weak atheism and agnosticism are definitely not religions, although perhaps strong atheism could be defined as religious.
Are we a bit quick to jump to conclusions here? Is talk of atheism within the context of religious education necessarily an accusation that atheism is itself a religion, or simply an acknowledgement that the topic of atheism is in some way relevant to religion (which in a cultural sense it almost certainly is)?
mountainhare said:
Not really. Strong atheism is not a religion because it doesn't involve worship, ritual, a set of beliefs, or anything of that nature. Most strong atheists feel their conclusion that there is no God is a result of logical reasoning, not faith. I fail to see how it could possibly be considered a religion.
I concur with you (the erk),that was an utterly stupid statement (mountain).
teaching atheism at school, however I can only see as a good thing, teaching children to have a more decerning palete can only make them see the flaws in religion, they will realise there is only one life, and life is precious, it will be the begining of an higher humanity with care and love and the end of killing.
teaching atheism at school, however I can only see as a good thing, teaching children to have a more decerning palete can only make them see the flaws in religion, they will realise there is only one life, and life is precious, it will be the begining of an higher humanity with care and love and the end of killing.
MarcAC said:
Although I understand that you meant, basically, "if it isn't the Christian God, then it's all equal to me", your post was worded quite badly. You're suggesting that he takes a lesson in literary devices? This is laughable. Next time, don't get upset when somebody misinterprets one of your totally ambiguous posts.
Yes yes, the typical "everyone else is wrong but me" attitude. I didn't expect anything less. Before you over-inflate your ego; If we take a look at the actual questions and statements, we'd see we weren't talking about you.
You said that "we", (your kind), shall be proven right. I said how so, and you then wrote this irrelevant nonsense.
You still haven't answered my question, and talking about Hindu's as being as atheists to you, doesn't aid in any way whatsoever.
Let's try again shall we? How would the inclusion of 'teaching' atheism in RE classes "prove that we, (your kind), are right"?
Once more I can only say that the discussion was not about you. Let's try one more time for the hard of hearing:
"In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"
Impressionable children being taught that a lack of belief in god is normal, and safe can surely do more to damage religion than to aid it, or as you quoted "prove it right"?
The first response on this thread was by a guy who said this has been going on for a while in Germany. Is it a surprise then to see Germany very low on the list of countrywide religiosity? Do you think that could have contributed to a drop in religious belief? I mean, Germany is certainly a lot lower than England, and if England's overall religious beliefs start to dwindle as a result, what then? Oh I know, you'll just say you don't give a rat's ass, without realising this isn't about you
Kindly try and remember that there is more to life and more to this thread than just you. And if it's at all possible, try answering the questions. Thanks.
Well, they sit in school learning about the "dead jew" that doesn't exist, so what's the difference?
However, on a serious note: Since when did atheism have anything to do with someone called "booga mooga"? And you dare call me a comedian?
Oh c'mon, you've had several thousand years, and as time passes atheism grows - whereas the jesus camp becomes all the more vacant. What are you left with other than a few closet worshippers and some old grannies who like church bingo?
Then we must appreciate as science explains more, more and more people begin to understand life, and realise they don't need an invisible friend to guide them.
I always have a nice day. Undoubtedly however, it would be a nicer day if you'd answer the actual questions.
MarcAC
First off, literary devices don't fly well at Sciforums. I know, it's tragic. But that's the way it is.
Secondly, literary devices are supposed to help clarify communication. Not all do, as you show quite clearly in your statements that "Hinduism = Atheism" and "Atheism included".
Of that latter point, you seem to be reaching for some sense of personal satisfaction, although that assertion could easily be countered by reconsidering the point about Hinduism; it could simply be that you're so wrapped up in theopolitik that you're suspending conventional definitions of words in order to feel superior about yourself.
The reality is that while the religions we see on the face of the planet certainly won't plague it forever, religion and religious thought are part of being human. Atheism aims only at God; atheists can be otherwise religious. One can believe in luck, in ghosts, or even legitimate miracles without necessarily invoking God. Of course, this reality is often too subtle for the "religious" (atheists included).
The idea of atheism as a religion is more complicated than it needs to be, and more complicated than some religious folk understand.
• Atheism is protected as a religion in the United States, as freedom of religion includes the freedom to have no religion, or to believe that God does not exist. Freedom of religion does not mean you have to subscribe to a given subset of theosophical considerations.
• Atheism is an anti-identification for most of the folks that would call themselves atheists; without a proposition that God exists, those atheists would merely be getting on with their lives instead of stopping to argue the superiority of their necessity.
• Atheism is a simple idea: that one lives without God, that there is no God, &c. Anything beyond that--and this according to atheists--is a separate issue entirely and inappropriate to include in a discussion of atheism.
Most revealing, MarcAC, is the pleasure--that egocentric delight--you display without ever providing any basis; it merely reinforces the longstanding prejudice that theists, while human in their passions, think even less than their atheistic neighbors.
What can be taught of "atheism"? Nothing, aside from its central principle and an accentuation on moral relativity in the face of agnosticism.
"Baseball", these days, is more of a religion than atheism. College football (American) is more of a religion than atheism.
It will be most interesting to see how atheism is presented in the curriculum.
When you teach religion, the answer to why something is the way it is can always be traced--regardless of how many discussions of relevant factors one goes through--to God. Teaching atheism will be an adventure in the sense that there are no relevant factors to discuss.
The atheism portion of the class final exam should be a cinch.
First off, literary devices don't fly well at Sciforums. I know, it's tragic. But that's the way it is.
Secondly, literary devices are supposed to help clarify communication. Not all do, as you show quite clearly in your statements that "Hinduism = Atheism" and "Atheism included".
Of that latter point, you seem to be reaching for some sense of personal satisfaction, although that assertion could easily be countered by reconsidering the point about Hinduism; it could simply be that you're so wrapped up in theopolitik that you're suspending conventional definitions of words in order to feel superior about yourself.
The reality is that while the religions we see on the face of the planet certainly won't plague it forever, religion and religious thought are part of being human. Atheism aims only at God; atheists can be otherwise religious. One can believe in luck, in ghosts, or even legitimate miracles without necessarily invoking God. Of course, this reality is often too subtle for the "religious" (atheists included).
The idea of atheism as a religion is more complicated than it needs to be, and more complicated than some religious folk understand.
• Atheism is protected as a religion in the United States, as freedom of religion includes the freedom to have no religion, or to believe that God does not exist. Freedom of religion does not mean you have to subscribe to a given subset of theosophical considerations.
• Atheism is an anti-identification for most of the folks that would call themselves atheists; without a proposition that God exists, those atheists would merely be getting on with their lives instead of stopping to argue the superiority of their necessity.
• Atheism is a simple idea: that one lives without God, that there is no God, &c. Anything beyond that--and this according to atheists--is a separate issue entirely and inappropriate to include in a discussion of atheism.
- This actually creates an interesting problem wherein an atheist might appeal to a theist that there is no God, but will be unable to provide answers for the questions arising across the broad spectrum of what God represents to the religions; in other words, atheists, having no God except that which they identify themselves against, tend to underestimate the impact and influence of faith. It is well enough, as such, to say that no God exists, but without any objective anchor in the Universe, the idea that murder is wrong becomes just as much a trumped-up fiction as "Jesus saves". Unfortunately, those theists to whom the defeat of atheism matters most are not adept enough philosophers, sophists, or students to understand such subtlety. And the identifying atheists? By and large, they're too dense to care.
• The word "atheist" means "without God"; in any hair-splitting sense, yes, Hinduism = Atheism for the empty-headed. But then again, Christians, too, were called atheists for the simple reason that their vision of God was so absurd that it constituted no God whatsoever.- I, personally, am prone to using a phrase--"shoebox God"--to describe the nature of a vast deity compressed into a single volume easily accessible in your average hourly-rate motel. In other words, if you don't know what to do with a hooker, there's plenty of advice in the Bible in the drawer. However, Christianity provided such a shoebox sense of God--a God so limited and impotent compared, for instance, to the principles (authority) that governed the "polytheistic" Greek and Roman pantheons, that it really does seem rather like comparing various pagan "Earth goddesses" (e.g. planetary deities) with a monotheistic demiurge said to include all time and space and will.
- The kind of "atheism" that "equals Hinduism" is the atheism perceived by egocentric myopia.
- The kind of "atheism" that "equals Hinduism" is the atheism perceived by egocentric myopia.
What can be taught of "atheism"? Nothing, aside from its central principle and an accentuation on moral relativity in the face of agnosticism.
"Baseball", these days, is more of a religion than atheism. College football (American) is more of a religion than atheism.
It will be most interesting to see how atheism is presented in the curriculum.
When you teach religion, the answer to why something is the way it is can always be traced--regardless of how many discussions of relevant factors one goes through--to God. Teaching atheism will be an adventure in the sense that there are no relevant factors to discuss.
The atheism portion of the class final exam should be a cinch.
MarcAC said:
I give you my deepest apologies. I didn’t intend to misinterpret your words, but only to give the benefit of a doubt that you were not so blindly stupid as to ignore the reality of the situation, which you clearly are at least aware of, in favor of your own sense of self worth and religious hubris. I was mistaken.