Children must be taught religions

[aaqucnaona]

This may seem surprising coming from an atheist, but I do say that religion must be taught to kids.

For one, I dont think that today's science alone can fill in the gaps which grown up atheists dont seem to mind. Born atheists, may become atheists later, but as children, we should teach them religions - the joy and wonder, the sociability and the cultural understanding and a poetic sense of wonder of the world are all areas in which science is painfully lacking - relgion is the main, if not the only contender and it must be taught.

Btw, I am not suggesting that science and religion are two opposite, mutually exculsive and antagonistic paradigms. I think they are [along with art] one of the great human endeavors, two overlapping and [for a large part of history] interdependent parts of our basic human instinct - to know.

However, of course I am not suggesting religious indoctrination, no more that I suggest political [leftism, conservatism] or ideological [marxism, communism] indoctrination. Moreover, I would have to agree with Dawkins on not naming kids by their religion. What I am suggesting might be a great boon to theism, but it would leave people without "my religion". I suggest that children be taught 2 new subjects - World Religion and Culture. World religion would deal with the stories, the moral precepts, the deities, the faiths and beliefs and histories of all major world religions. Let the child choose if he indeed is catholic or protestant or a theist at all. If your religion fails to convince children to join, maybe it doesn't deserve to be a world religion anymore. Such pressure is an amazing catalyst for religious reform and if theists' hearts are where their mouth is, they would jump around in joy at this suggestion. Culture would deal with how society and culture is built around ideas, beliefs and ideologies, how cultural changes take place, how social and religious reforms occur and a refined [and peer approved] take on the memetics of human civilization and world religions.

Finally, I want to tell you why I think this proposition is indispensable. We live in times where we can, if we choose, destroy most life on this planet overnight. We are truely capable of things only the gods of early pagans were capable of. And we live in a shrinking world. There is no looking back. We are now a global community and are becoming an increasingly interdependent one. We cannot live without each other, we cannot live without bumping into each other. However, we also live in times where simple ideological differences cost us planes and buildings.....and lives. We cant help running into people we dont agree with on the most basic beliefs in our lives. Our children would be even more helpless in this regard. What might happen in such situations, especially in an escalating environment of ideological antagonism coupled with increased power to do harm is indeed horrifying - there could be suicide bombings everyday in most major cities in the world, war be always be on between atleast some countries, 9/11s could happen each year - we might destroy ourselves....and we are more that capable of doing so.

In such a situation, ignorance of other people and their beliefs is suicidal. People need to know and understand what others believe and why they believe it. They need to know how to work with, converse with and productively debate with others. They need to be lifted above the veil of "my religion" and presented with the world as it is.

Ps. A video in the same vein - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE

 

[kx000]

The history of religion should be taught, then children can decide what their wondrous beliefs are, and who are we to say.

 

[ZAV]

I’m forced rto disagree with you on principle. Memes do not exist. Dawkins just made them up. They are not Science. Also, I do hate how “Religion” is conflated with “Theism” and how being an Atheist means you have no Religion. Why should I accept hat Religion requires belief in a god? Its obvious that Richard Dawkins is out dpign what he condemns, proselytising and stirring hatred. Spare me claims of tolerance, I read his books. He’s a useless Faithhead himself, and just being an Atheist doesn’t make his beliefs nonreligious. Nor yours.


I also think Dawkins is an idiot when he says we shouldn’t call Children by their Religion. He’s obviously got an Ulterior motive, and quiet frankly he doesn’t understand what a Religion even is and shouldn’t be waved about as an Authority.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I’m forced rto disagree with you on principle. Memes do not exist. Dawkins just made them up. They are not Science.

I know. Thats why I said refined and peer reviewed - it can be anything similiar - social/cultural evolution, sociology, etc. Btw, if it can be modefied and passes a peer review, it is a scientifc theory. Einstein made up relativity as did darwin evolution and newton gravity - its not yet there, but it can be.
Some people didnt believe in atoms till einstein's brownanian motion.
The case for memes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s&feature=relmfu

Also, I do hate how “Religion” is conflated with “Theism” and how being an Atheist means you have no Religion. Why should I accept hat Religion requires belief in a god?

An atheist is someone without god. Usually, no god = no religion. Religion must have some basic tenets that are unquestionable and require faith, it also almost always involves god. If you want to call be religious as in buddhists, fine by me. If religion doesnt have a belief in god, it becomes a philosophy/ideology. Call marxism a religion, lets twist the semantics till "conversion by definition", shall we?

Its obvious that Richard Dawkins is out dpign what he condemns, proselytising and stirring hatred. Spare me claims of tolerance, I read his books. He’s a useless Faithhead himself, and just being an Atheist doesn’t make his beliefs nonreligious. Nor yours.

He is a little harsh, but I think its justified to call a spade a spade. Last time I checked, not having faith is very problamatic in being a faithhead.

I also think Dawkins is an idiot when he says we shouldn’t call Children by their Religion. He’s obviously got an Ulterior motive, and quiet frankly he doesn’t understand what a Religion even is and shouldn’t be waved about as an Authority

If you want to get all [unsubstantiated] conspiracy and stuff, dont expect to be taken seriously, not on this forum. But I will humour you. Pray tell me what this motive is and also do include your [very] stretched definition of relgion.

I will give you mine -

A system or set of beliefs or ideas that are supposed to offer answer to life's great questions. This system is often claimed to be originated from some divinity and the central ideas are considered sacred and tabooed to be spoken against. This divinity may also be present today and be just a superhero or a supernatural creator of all and he may also be a personal god.

IMO, if something doesnt fit that definition, its not religion, its ideology. If its something about religion, its a belief [like the sun will rise tommorow, but there is no sun god].

 

[spidergoat]

- the joy and wonder, the sociability and the cultural understanding and a poetic sense of wonder of the world are all areas in which science is painfully lacking - relgion is the main, if not the only contender and it must be taught.

No. Science has revealed more wonders about the universe than ever appeared in some dusty book of fairy tales. Just look at anything Carl Sagan has done. Religion does not and should not have a monopoly on such things.

I do agree that classes on comparative religion are great, but not suitable for children. I would save it for high school.

 

[Yazata]

This may seem surprising coming from an atheist, but I do say that religion must be taught to kids.

I agree wholeheartedly that people need to learn about religion. But I'm less convinced that children should be indoctrinated into a particular religion at a young age. It's a big difference.

For one, I dont think that today's science alone can fill in the gaps which grown up atheists dont seem to mind. Born atheists, may become atheists later, but as children, we should teach them religions - the joy and wonder, the sociability and the cultural understanding and a poetic sense of wonder of the world are all areas in which science is painfully lacking - relgion is the main, if not the only contender and it must be taught.

That seems to equate science and atheism, which is questionable. But that quibble aside, there's no reason why scientists or atheists can't be deeply engaged in the arts. There's no reason why they can't have close friendships or love lives. And I think that you will find that it's often a sense of wonder at the scope and complexity of the universe that gets people interested in science in the first place.

So I'm going to disagree with your idea that religion is "the only contender". That seemingly dismisses all of the rest of our human lives.

Btw, I am not suggesting that science and religion are two opposite, mutually exculsive and antagonistic paradigms.

They do operate at cross-purposes much of the time.

I think they are [along with art] one of the great human endeavors, two overlapping and [for a large part of history] interdependent parts of our basic human instinct - to know.

I basically agree with that.

But are religion and art really motivated by a drive to know in any sense that science would recognize? Or do they more often appeal to different sides of human experience and address different needs?

Art seems to address an aesthetic sensibility that's very unlike science's factual propositional gnosis. Religion seeks good fortune in this world or perhaps salvation from it (or from a sense of moral guilt or from death). When it seeks spiritual knowledge, as it does in many mystical traditions, that gnosis usually turns out to be a pure and ineffable experience more akin to the artistic sublime than to scientific theorizing and conceptualizing.

However, of course I am not suggesting religious indoctrination, no more that I suggest political [leftism, conservatism] or ideological [marxism, communism] indoctrination.

So what kind of "religion" do you propose to teach to children and how could it be imparted to them without indoctrinating them?

Moreover, I would have to agree with Dawkins on not naming kids by their religion.

It's kind of ironic how the Baptists and 'born-agains' like them emphasize adult baptism, on the very defensible basis that people who enter into Christianity should be fully aware of what they are doing and be doing it voluntarily. Then the same kind of people will turn right around and indoctrinate their children mercilessly at a very early age, contradicting that very idea.

What I am suggesting might be a great boon to theism, but it would leave people without "my religion". I suggest that children be taught 2 new subjects - World Religion and Culture.

They aren't exactly new subjects. I don't believe that 'world religions' are commonly taught to children on the primary or secondary levels at public schools here in the United States, but these courses obviously exist on the undergraduate level in colleges and universities. (I'm a sometime community college world religions instructor.) In the UK, world religions are part of the government mandated secondary curriculum.

World religion would deal with the stories, the moral precepts, the deities, the faiths and beliefs and histories of all major world religions. Let the child choose if he indeed is catholic or protestant or a theist at all. If your religion fails to convince children to join, maybe it doesn't deserve to be a world religion anymore.

But how could you prevent children from receiving religious indoctrination at home from their parents, or in church, from clergymen and 'Sunday school' teachers?

And we live in a shrinking world. There is no looking back. We are now a global community and are becoming an increasingly interdependent one. We cannot live without each other, we cannot live without bumping into each other.

The internet may turn out to be a game-changer in that regard. Every kid with internet access (every kid in the developed world, in other words) has access to every religious belief on Earth and on 16 different planets, right there, just a few keystrokes away. No matter where a kid lives, no matter who that kid's parents are, endless varieties of Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, 'Wicca' and witchcraft, Santeria, Ufo believers... and yes, atheists too... ideas ranging from the dangerously crazy to the spiritually sublime, are displayed like items on supermarket shelves for anyone who is curious or perhaps seeking.

I don't think that kind situation has ever existed before in human history.

It's fascinating to speculate about what the results might turn out to be in 100 years or so.

 

[gmilam]

For one, I dont think that today's science alone can fill in the gaps which grown up atheists dont seem to mind. Born atheists, may become atheists later, but as children, we should teach them religions - the joy and wonder, the sociability and the cultural understanding and a poetic sense of wonder of the world are all areas in which science is painfully lacking - relgion is the main, if not the only contender and it must be taught.

Must add my non-agreement. My sense of wonder as a child inspired my interest in science, and my learning of science increased my sense of wonder much more than "god did it" ever could.

I give this idea 2 thumbs down.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You guys seem to misunderstand me - when science reveals its wonders, common average joe doesnt feel amazing to see the pale blue dot or to understand the 'accident' of evolution. Its belittling and depressing to them. Which is where religion and folk mythology can come in, give people a [false] sense of wonder and purpose and meaning. It is in this that religion is the sole competitor.

Btw, science is capable of wonder, meaning and purpose - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

 

[aaqucnaona]

One of my friends on youtube replies to the OP. He says -
"Children should not be taught religion, or what I call vague religion, even in the imaginary sense. There are a few problems here with allowing it..
I must insist you, if you haven't, to read the bible and pick out all of the good moral things that they couldn't learn from an episode of pokemon-- is as undoubtedly more realistic and touches on real life problems, such as how to take care of a giant rat.
Children are very susceptible to their imagination and can often be seen off in their own world. If we teach religion to children and be moderate about it.. say there's a story about a god who made a dude named Jesus, etc. That springs in the story and it's easy for them to roll with it, especially with over half the population believing in the nonsense. And that is completely beside the point. If religion is taught in moderation like in church, it'd be very wrong to do so.

As for teaching the books as literacy, and truly reading the whole thing... I first don't think children should suffer the repetition, nor the superstition, nor the violence, the rape, intolerance, bigotry, racism, and most importantly the lack of science, making place instead for pagan rituals. I don't think that this is anything to point out to children yet, it's too evil a book. No child would be able to read it as homework, nor could a sane skeptic read it allowed to his or her children as fiction. It's truly boring.
So religious people may be able to teach their children of the bible from what they learned from church or their parents, and that child may grow up believing in god as well, never touching a bible, completely convinced that there is a watcher. I will not do the same and I dare you to, because I know you wont be able to get through that piece of garbage.
And if it's to learn about how evil it makes people... Well we don't need a fictional book to look at for evil stories, we have the middle East right now who are living biblical times. A modern bronze age. We have a lesson of manipulation of mind through the act of Hitler not more than 70 years ago. Teach the children about how delicate the mind is and how it loves and lives to imagine... But lets bury the books of superstition. Let's make more books like Harry Potter, or books that can show the same concepts of the mind as the bible shows to skeptics. Here I'll create a book right now... Really nice guy gains friends then slowly makes them turn on each other and... I dunno, one of them turns out to be a dragon-- see, same story. "

 

[spidergoat]

You guys seem to misunderstand me - when science reveals its wonders, common average joe doesnt feel amazing to see the pale blue dot or to understand the 'accident' of evolution. Its belittling and depressing to them. Which is where religion and folk mythology can come in, give people a [false] sense of wonder and purpose and meaning. It is in this that religion is the sole competitor.

Btw, science is capable of wonder, meaning and purpose - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

Then lets encourage better science education, not replace wonder for the genuine with wonder for a fantasy.

 

[gmilam]

You guys seem to misunderstand me - when science reveals its wonders, common average joe doesnt feel amazing to see the pale blue dot or to understand the 'accident' of evolution. Its belittling and depressing to them. Which is where religion and folk mythology can come in, give people a [false] sense of wonder and purpose and meaning. It is in this that religion is the sole competitor.

It is because of this false since of wonder that mythology has planted in the Common Joe that makes the scientific answers seem belittling and depressing.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I agree wholeheartedly that people need to learn about religion. But I'm less convinced that children should be indoctrinated into a particular religion at a young age. It's a big difference.

Indoctrinate - to teach uncritically
This is indeed not acceptable in any such proposed course. But without any value judgements or truth claims, simply teaching the current facts, events and situations is what I had in mind.

That seems to equate science and atheism, which is questionable. But that quibble aside, there's no reason why scientists or atheists can't be deeply engaged in the arts. There's no reason why they can't have close friendships or love lives. And I think that you will find that it's often a sense of wonder at the scope and complexity of the universe that gets people interested in science in the first place.

Atheists usually fill in the theistic gap with scientism. And on wonder in science- http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

So I'm going to disagree with your idea that religion is "the only contender". That seemingly dismisses all of the rest of our human lives.

Like I said -
"You guys seem to misunderstand me - when science reveals its wonders, common average joe doesnt feel amazing to see the pale blue dot or to understand the 'accident' of evolution. Its belittling and depressing to them. Which is where religion and folk mythology can come in, give people a [false] sense of wonder and purpose and meaning. It is in this that religion is the sole competitor."

But are religion and art really motivated by a drive to know in any sense that science would recognize? Or do they more often appeal to different sides of human experience and address different needs?
Art seems to address an aesthetic sensibility that's very unlike science's factual propositional gnosis. Religion seeks good fortune in this world or perhaps salvation from it (or from a sense of moral guilt or from death). When it seeks spiritual knowledge, as it does in many mystical traditions, that gnosis usually turns out to be a pure and ineffable experience more akin to the artistic sublime than to scientific theorizing and conceptualizing.

They are different, they work differently. But problems occur when one of them tries to thread on the area rightfully, rationally and sensible of the other.

So what kind of "religion" do you propose to teach to children and how could it be imparted to them without indoctrinating them?

A secular, objective, scientific and historical study of world religion, society and culture.

It's kind of ironic how the Baptists and 'born-agains' like them emphasize adult baptism, on the very defensible basis that people who enter into Christianity should be fully aware of what they are doing and be doing it voluntarily. Then the same kind of people will turn right around and indoctrinate their children mercilessly at a very early age, contradicting that very idea.

Hypocrisy - they are good at that.

They aren't exactly new subjects. I don't believe that 'world religions' are commonly taught to children on the primary or secondary levels at public schools here in the United States, but these courses obviously exist on the undergraduate level in colleges and universities. (I'm a sometime community college world religions instructor.) In the UK, world religions are part of the government mandated secondary curriculum.

True. It is also done in Sweden - the atheist's dream country.

But how could you prevent children from receiving religious indoctrination at home from their parents, or in church, from clergymen and 'Sunday school' teachers?

By ensuring that the children are objective, critical and understanding spectics - through our proposed teaching.

The internet may turn out to be a game-changer in that regard. Every kid with internet access (every kid in the developed world, in other words) has access to every religious belief on Earth and on 16 different planets, right there, just a few keystrokes away. No matter where a kid lives, no matter who that kid's parents are, endless varieties of Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, 'Wicca' and witchcraft, Santeria, Ufo believers... and yes, atheists too... ideas ranging from the dangerously crazy to the spiritually sublime, are displayed like items on supermarket shelves for anyone who is curious or perhaps seeking.

I don't think that kind situation has ever existed before in human history.

It's fascinating to speculate about what the results might turn out to be in 100 years or so.

Agreed.

 

[spidergoat]

It's going to be too controversial in the US to teach other religions. At the same time we are reducing school programs not adding them. In an ideal world, kids would be taught a variety of subjects that are presently neglected.

 

[ZAV]

AAQ-

I know. Thats why I said refined and peer reviewed - it can be anything similiar - social/cultural evolution, sociology, etc. Btw, if it can be modefied and passes a peer review, it is a scientifc theory. Einstein made up relativity as did darwin evolution and newton gravity - its not yet there, but it can be.
Some people didnt believe in atoms till einstein's brownanian motion.
The case for memes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s&feature=relmfu

You know, Phrenology was once considered Scientific too... I'm sorry but, Memes aren't even a sound Theory, they are basically just Dawkisn tryign to fimnd an easy solution that fits his own prejudices to explain away Religion.

They are meanignless in the real world.

An atheist is someone without god. Usually, no god = no religion.

Er, no. Religiondoesn't require beleif in a god, and as I said, no one really has no Religion. Religion is actually dedined as a set of beleifs about the ultimate nature of our existance. Religion is not defined as beleif in gods.

Religion must have some basic tenets that are unquestionable

This is why men like Dawkins should not write books, as they lead to this kind of idiocy. In reality, of course, anyone 3who has bothered to read a book by a Theologian or Philosopher will realise that every Religion has had Thinkers who question its basic Tenets, and every Religion was founded by someone who questioend some other Religions tenets.


No Religion really has basic twetets that are actually unquestionable.


Now, it is True that some Religions, like Catholiscism, have what they call "Dogma", which are absolute, but that only means the Church itself has decided the matter is settled. However, not all Religions are Catholiscism. It is also True that some Religions have tenets tht if not acceptd they cannot exist, but the same is True of even the most basic Theoy in Science. EG, if I reject the idea that the Speed of Light is constant then I can't really accept Relativity. Obviosuly if you reject Tprah you can'rt follow Judaism, if your eject Christ you are not a Christian, and if you reject Muhammad as a Prophet you cannot be a Muslim.

Butt hats no different than anythign else.

I also woudl like to note that, despite the "fact" that Atheists have no Religion, and thus no dogma and nothign in common but a common lack of beleif in a god and all, I've met far too many Atheists who, even in spite of continually praising Freethought and Free Inquerry, have their own unquestionable Dogma to follow.

and require faith,

I doubt, if you ar a Dawkisn fan, you even know what Faith means... I'll give you a hint, it is not the opposite of Reason.

it also almost always involves god.

Almost Always is not the same as Always.

If you want to call be religious as in buddhists, fine by me. If religion doesnt have a belief in god, it becomes a philosophy/ideology.

You know, the distinction between Philosophy and Religion is itself Synthetic. Religion is a form of Philosophy. Its also absurd to say that if a religion has no god i becomes as Philosophy. The corerelary is, isf as Philosophy has a god its a Religion. This means Platonic Philosophy is a Religion, whilst Buddhism is a Philosophy. Of ocurse you may agree with Buddhism as ive herd that claim before but, it really seems a stupid thign to say, especially since the Atheists who compalin abotu Religion never complain about Philosophy, yet ther complaisn centre aroudn the generation of Violence, social division, and how Relgiion prevents you from thinklign for yoruself. If the only difference between a Philosophy and a Religion is beleif in a god, then can anyone explain how merely beleiving in a god causes all of that in and of itself?


Can't an Atheistic Philosophy do the same?

if so, then its not really Religion thats the problem is it?

Call marxism a religion, lets twist the semantics till "conversion by definition", shall we?

Hitchens did call Marxism a Religion Ironically, in orde to make Religion responcible for asll th worlds ills.


However, I am not twistign anything. if I follow yoru logic then its absurd to compalin abotu Religion as Religion just means one beleives in a god. Philosophy causes wars, social division, and the inability to think for yoruself, as its the philosophical aspects, not the Religious aspects tht cuse thoe things.

He is a little harsh, but I think its justified to call a spade a spade. Last time I checked, not having faith is very problamatic in being a faithhead.

Except dwkisn does havwe Faith, and worse, he has the same kind of faith he critisises. he beleives in spite of evidence to the contrary in several of his own ideas, EG the Science VS Religion paradigm.


Not that it matters since he misdefinesFaith. Faith is not really beleiving somethign even though there is no evidence. Faith is from the Latin word Fidese and means "Trust" , not "Beleif without evidence", and no Religiosu writer prior to the 1th entury woudl have even understood what Dawkins was on about in his critisism of Faith since thats how they used the word, as another word for Confidence.

If you want to get all [unsubstantiated] conspiracy and stuff, dont expect to be taken seriously, not on this forum. But I will humour you. Pray tell me what this motive is and also do include your [very] stretched definition of relgion.

I get tired of beign told my masters thesis which I aced is "a strtched definition". My definition of Religion is the one from the Oxford Dictionary. Religion is a set of beleifs about the Nature,cause, and ultimate meanign of our existance. That is how its defined. Thatis bnot a stretch. Its also not stretching the definition to incluide "Non-Religious hilosophies" like Humanism into the category of relgiion since Humanism is a set of beleifs about the Nature, Cause, and ultimate meaning of our existance.


Dawkisn is a Secualar umanist. Secular Humanism is his Religion. I also don;t need conspiracy theories aotu his motives, he's stated them oublically. he wants to convert everyone to his own Humanist beleifs.

I will give you mine -

A system or set of beliefs or ideas that are supposed to offer answer to life's great questions. This system is often claimed to be originated from some divinity and the central ideas are considered sacred and tabooed to be spoken against. This divinity may also be present today and be just a superhero or a supernatural creator of all and he may also be a personal god.

Not to bad, but given that the idea of a god is only descirbed as often havign a god, why shoudl I accept that Atheism is somehow the same as lack of Religion? Its obviosu that Atheists liek Dawkisn have a system of beleifs designed to offer answers to Great wuestiosn too. Please dotn tell me its Science insetad of Religion, as you didn't mention anything above that woudl disualify a system of beleifs from beign a Rligion if rooted in Science.

IMO, if something doesnt fit that definition, its not religion, its ideology. If its something about religion, its a belief [like the sun will rise tommorow, but there is no sun god].

Butyiu didn't mention the need for a god, and Dawkisn does have a beleif system that is designed to offer him answwers to lifes Great Questions. He is specificlaly a Secular Humanist, Secular Humanism is a relifion by yoru own definition.

 

[gmilam]

Dude - Spell check- look into it. Seriously.

 

[spidergoat]

If the only difference between a Philosophy and a Religion is beleif in a god, then can anyone explain how merely beleiving in a god causes all of that in and of itself?

Belief in God is faith, which is belief without evidence or even in light of contrary evidence. Despite what you claim, no theistic religion encourages questioning it's core belief, that God exists. If they do at all, it's just a ploy to solidify their claim with apologetics. Philosophers question everything. In this, Buddhism is also more like philosophy.

Faith can mean just trust or confidence, but when it's applied to religion it doesn't mean that. This is why religious people claim that others also have faith, but this is a form of equivocation fallacy. Faith in a scientific hypothesis or secular humanism is tentative. If and when new facts come to light that contradict it, the old ideas will be abandoned. Religious faith is an absolute thing.

 

[The Esotericist]

Don't listen to anything from the TED conference. If they are invited to get up and speak, they are paid shills of the establishment. They have ulterior motives. Generally all of them. Is this club as bad as the CFR, the Bilderburgers, or the Bohemian Grove?? No, probably not. None the less, you should still refer back to Plato's Dialogs to see what is really going on. Ignore these clowns. Their goal is to get on top, stay on top, control society, manipulate society, and reduce freedom and mobility for all of humanity.

Should everyone learn everything they can about our world, and the history of how we got here? Absolutely. Should it be forced down our throats with an agenda by the state for some purpose? What?! Are you freaking nuts?! If it were mandatory, you can be sure it would be taught with a slant, where spirituality, mysticism, love, ethics, morality, faith and all the good things about the culture of faith would be De-emphisized, while violence, conflict, control, etc. would be highlighted showing that in the end, state control and enlightenment are the only solution.

But really, where do natural rights come from? If there are none, then I guess all rights, (If any, come from the State.) Well, isn't that a convenient motivation to teach this curriculum, isn't it? To strip humanity of the rights endowed upon them by their creator?

Do yourself a favor, ignore TED.

The Haves and Have-Nots: The True Story of a Reader Suddenly De-Invited from TED

TED Organizer Trashes Speaker, Fails Social IQ Test

One of the comments from this article:

I spoke at TED. I am not using my real name. I met the people that run it.

TED is a festival of self-importance.

A waterfall of ego and a back-patting extravaganza of the loud and self-centered telling the masses how much louder and more important they are than the attendees. To talk at TED you have to hire a ghost-writer to write you a book about some amorphous topic that sounds important in a one sentence description but accomplishes nothing nor instructs anyone how to do anything tangible that will have visible results. Almost no speaker leaves TED and does anything tangible. Almost no speaker at TED has, or will, do anything that you can pull metrics on except get their PR agent to book them in more seminars. “But they inspire us to do great things”, cry some of the middle class attendees”… Do they really?

Why TED Sucks

Robin Williams Hijacks TED BBC conference
Pathetic. Couldn't be more illusory.

 

[spidergoat]

We do have rights, but they don't come from a creator.

 

[The Esotericist]

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Advanced Mathematics, Physical Education, the Hard Sciences, Music, Creative Arts; these are all that should be taught to children if the government has mandatory compulsory education. In literature classes, localities should choose the books, or individuals should have the right to decide what books they are to read.

These are the only subjects that should be taught. Anything that has the potential to be political should not be.

That includes the social sciences, history, social studies, sociology, psychology, etc. These should be left to the parents to teach or taught post high school by those who decide where they are to be educated and by choice.

The population clearly doesn't agree on the history of our world, or even our nation's history, or the interplay of our government with our people and our environment, so it should be left alone.

 

[ZAV]

Spidergoat-

Belief in God is faith, which is belief without evidence or even in light of contrary evidence.

Faith is not belief without evidence. That’s sort of one of the points I made earlier. The Bible doesn’t use the word Faith as belief without Evidence ( and I am aware of Hebrews), nor did Augustine understand it ass such, nor Aquinas, nor Basil, neither Luther nor Zwingli nor Calvin, nor Lewis nor Newman nor Wesley.

Judaism doesn’t define Faith as belief without evidence either, and neither does Islam, nor does Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

The idea that Faith is belief without evidence is a false one. Arguments based on Faith being belief without evidence are untenable nonsense.

By the ay there is no contrary evidence to God’s existence.

Despite what you claim, no theistic religion encourages questioning it's core belief, that God exists.

Actually Rene des carte would disagree with you. Before him you may want to also read St. Augustine. Come to think of it, questioning God’s existence can be traced back to Judaism as well, if you read the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.

Meanwhile, Atheism as presented today by men like Dawkins or by Dan Barker claims to allow Freethought, but I know full well they don’t allow you to question God’s existence themselves. They insist that you believe God doesn’t exist.

The “cute” cartoon about Christian Hypocrisy really applies to Atheists here, and I do deplore the arrogance presented by too many.


I mean, I’ve read numerous books on Philosophy, Religion, and Theology, and the asinine claims that Religion never allows Free Inquiry and demands you just believe is one that flies only in the Minds of the ignorant Atheists like Dawkins who live in a fantasy worlds. How can I sit down with the Theologica Suma or Des Cartes Meditations and come to the conclusion that they never allowed the question of God’s existence to enter their minds?

This is why Caricature of Religion, like what is presented by men like Dawkins and that is popular online, is useless.

If they do at all, it's just a ploy to solidify their claim with apologetics.

I read this as “If they allow people to question God’s existence but offer an argument for it rather than becoming Atheists, I can dismiss their claim as apologetics and thus claim they never really questioned it. Then I can say Atheism allows real free inquiry even though as an Atheist I would never allow the possibility that God exists.”


I’m sorry but saying that if they allow questioning at all its just a ploy ultimately prevents you from actually being taken seriously. In the end, nothing anyone can show you will dissuade you from thinking that belief in God can never be questioned by Theistic Religions, because even if we show you where such questions took place you will dismiss it as a ploy so you can keep your original conclusion in tact rather than face up to the possibility that you were mistaken.

Philosophers question everything. In this, Buddhism is also more like philosophy.

Buddhism is a Religion. People like you call it a Philosophy to bypass the Theism objectiosn and because westerners who don’t know the first thing about Buddhism have been taught ato appreciate the idea of it.

Theologians also question everything by the way, and saying it’s a ploy won’t cut it.

Faith can mean just trust or confidence, but when it's applied to religion it doesn't mean that.

You know, the word “Faith” doesn’t have a special religious definition, and actually Faith does mean just Trust or Confidence when applied to Religion. Please stop trying to salvage the useful but erroneous complaint against Religion that it rests on faith as opposed to reason. Its pathetic.

Religious Faith doesn’t mean belief without Evidence, and Dawkins, and all his little followers, and other Atheist writers, are wrong when they say Religious Faith is belief without evidence, just like they are wrong to say Religious people just blindly believe whatever their leaders tell them.

This is why religious people claim that others also have faith, but this is a form of equivocation fallacy.

Er, no, its because “religious people” often misunderstand the word because they just accept the framework the Atheists presented.

Of course I have noted the Atheists are also religious people, and often also promote ideas that have no evidence. Dawkins himself believes things that there are no evidence for. EG, the Multiverse, which you may say he ’doesn’t believe in” but he did use it to show God as unnecessary. He also believes in Scientific progressivism, a 19th Century Philosophical principle that states that mankind marches upward in Eternal advancement. He blindly accepts the Whig view of History. He believes, without evidence, that Scientists who believe in God must be compartmentalising. I could list more if I took my Time but plenty of Times Dawkins has been criticised, even by Fellow Atheists like David Orr, and one point is that he Hypocritically believes a lot of things without any evidence at all.

Its not really false equivocation, but it doesn’t mater as if you actually studied Religion you soon discover that the “Special Religious definition of Faith” is not used by Theologians and Philosophers, its made up nonsense like the idea that people believed the Earth was Flat in the Middle Ages, or that George Washington had wooden teeth.

Faith in a scientific hypothesis or secular humanism is tentative. If and when new facts come to light that contradict it, the old ideas will be abandoned.

You are of course not correct. Max Plank said of Science (This is paraphrased) that many believe that it works by a new discovery being confirmed then everyone just abandoning the old ideas for the New, but the Reality is that the Old Ideas are often resisted by the older Generation, and new Ideas only spread when picked up by the Younger generation, and allowing the Older Generation to die off. The Romantic notion of Scientists as dispassionate seekers of Objective Truth who are willing to go wherever the Evidence leads ignores the Humanity of the Scientist. Scientists often cling to the ideas they were taught or have some personal stake in even after evidence that contradicts it comes along. Fred Hoyle is a good example of this, as he went to his Deathbed still convinced of Steady State Theory and vehemently opposing the Big Bang Theory he named to deride. If a prominent Theory, like Relativity, were challenged many, especially those who built careers around it and developed personal understandings of the Universe with it as an integral part, simply would refuse to accept the New Evidence or would seek a way to force it into the older view. Heck, if Evolution were disproven en like Dawkins would still cling to it because Evolution is not a mere Scientific Theory to him, its how he understands his entire identify and the nature of existence. To deny this is to deny objective Reality about how Humanity thinks. Science as an Ideal is not the reality.

As for Secular Humanism, that’s an even bigger joke. Whereas Science is a method of Inquiry, unrelated to the actual conclusions or meaning you derive, Secular Humanism is a Religion in and of itself. Yes I know you make a distinction, but come off it. People who believe in the Tenets of Humanism as outlined in the Humanist Manifestos aren’t interested in questioning their beliefs, they already have the answers. If Anything contradicts their beliefs they will act just like the Religious People that they scorn, and simply refuse to accept it. Their entire identities are tied into their Humanist beliefs, and its how they understand their worked and navigate it. People don’t just give that up.

Spare me the usual “Your just a Religious person who doesn’t understand’ Garbage nexgt, I’ve met too many dogmatic Humanists to buy into the idea that they are open midmned and willing to change their beliefs with new evidence in a neat and orderly fashion.


Or are we not allowed to question those things?

Religious faith is an absolute thing.

No its not. This is equally a fallacy. The idea that Religious people just blindly believe and never question any of the tenets of their Faith may let the Atheist feel superior, but tis as much an illusion as the idea of Atheism being rooted in pure Reason and Science.


I’ve already listed people who did question their Faith, and can list others. Heck, Buddhism started what way. Oh that’s right, your one of those sots who think that Buddhism is more a Philosophy than a Religion to evade that, so lets look at the worst Religion ever…Christianity. Surley no one ever question it right?

Well, that’s not what Dr. Rowan Williams says. Its not what the Desert Fathers said. Its not what St. Ignatius of Loyola said. Its not what C. s. Lewis said. Its not what St. Augustine Said. I could list easily 300 names of writers who question their Religious Faith. Rene Des Carte’s entire Philosophy was derived by questioning all things, even his own existence. Yes, Des Carte questioned whether or not God existed.


Yoru statement is false.

Please don’t claim these men were just using a ploy to introduce apologetics as I hate how people try to explain away contrary evidence to their own claims so they don’t have to question their own assumptions.

That’d make you a Hypocrite.