Picking up religion as an exam subject

Naikon

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Did you read what she said?
Here it is again:
"We study what people believe, are you saying people don't actually believe this stuff, and that the DOE is lying to us by saying they do?"
If you mean to say that there is no evidence to support the existence of any religious belief, then I think the mere existence of Jakkass, among many other people (see your local place of religious worship), would prove you wrong.

This kind of "I hate religion get it away from me, you're all fools!" is what gives atheists a bad name.

Let me reiterate, I am simply saying there is no evidence to support the existence of omnipresent beings.
I am not denying the fact that people actually "believe" in religious practices.
Some even brainwashed into believing.

PurpleFistMixer

Very well, I was simply taking umbrage at your very selective quoting and interpretation of what Piste was saying.

While I'm not familiar with the content of the Religion course, it seems like it would make sense to study something which has an extremely large influence in the world, if not for personal religious reasons.

philologos

Naikon wrote: »

http://www.brendancalling.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/christianity.JPG

Studying theology is a waste of time in my humble opinion.
There is no escaping the fact that these sources are pure nonsense.
Historically speaking, Jesus was a mere manipulative mortal.

I don't want to particularly offend you, but do you honestly believe that
it's acceptable in this day and age to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that Jesus was a magical holy figure from the heavens?
Why is religion used as tool to cover up our lack of knowledge about the universe?

It makes perfect sense to me, you can't prove a negative.
I stand by my terms until proven otherwise.

That's what you think, and I'm okay with your views. A lot of my friends express similar views. However upon reading the Bible, I think that it isn't a "cover up to our lack of knowledge", or anything else, it deals with spiritual connections and giving us a deeper understanding to the life we life. Of course it is possible to claim such an understanding of this through other philosophies, but I believe that Christianity is the most comprehensive, and finally the one which has the most truth behind it.

I honestly believe that there are different ways of interpreting the facts that we are given in the world today. Either in favour of theistic Creation, theistic Evolution, or secular Evolution, or deistic Creation, deistic Evolution etc. People interpret these things in plenty of ways. So yes I do believe it's acceptable for people to gain their own understanding of the world yes, and through Christianity I have found my own understanding. There is a logical basis behind Christianity as well whether you realise it or not, the sheer amount of historical sources is impeccable. I think your question is a loaded question then, as people can also believe that religion is a tool used for broadening our knowledge, that is my stance. Good question, one that we will not know the answer until the end of time.

Hmm, interesting that you say you cannot prove a negative, it's a bit of a get out clause if you ask me. If I rephrased this to "you cannot disprove a positive" how would you feel about it? Again that is a policy of closed mindedness and an unwillingness to look around further than what is visually infront of us through the sense. Actually philosophers such as Plato also proposed that we should look beyond what is physically present to gain an understanding of the world. It's not just confined to Christianity or even religion, but also in philosophy. Or the love of wisdom, if one is too look at the Greek. How about being open, which could lead to you gaining wisdom, instead of closed minded ultimately leading to ignorance of what is around you?

I read something interesting lately, 80% of the worlds population by 2050 will be an adherent of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, a rise from 73% in 2005. Also notable Christianity is still expected to top the world in terms of faith by 2050 in the light of Pentecostalism in the Far East etc. Faith is on the rise not on the fall, therefore there is a reason to study it.(figures from Economist 3/11/2007)

I fear that this is going incredibly off topic and apologies to the moderators for doing so. Feel free to continue discussing LC Religion, a subject which I enjoy a lot actually.

PurpleFistMixer wrote:

While I'm not familiar with the content of the Religion course, it seems like it would make sense to study something which has an extremely large influence in the world, if not for personal religious reasons.

Infact a large portion of our religion class (I'd say a majority actually), are either agnostic or atheists but yet they still find the course interesting. It also allows for a lot of open discussion as well.

Naikon wrote:

but there is far too much emphasis on scripture and religious stuff.

Interesting, that is why the subject is called Religious Education isn't it?

PurpleFistMixer wrote:

This kind of "I hate religion get it away from me, you're all fools!" is what gives atheists a bad name.

Absolutely, I have no problem discussing with atheists as long as they take 2 premises into account before I discuss with them, 1) Respect me for who I am, a Christian, 2) be at least somewhat open minded to learn something new, this doesn't mean conversion, it just means take an interest in the general Christian thought of things. I find this "I hate religion" thing to be a disturbing trend, no doubt spurred on by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc, that will hopefully die out.