Should religion be taught in schools?

philologos

I wasn't making direct reference to you. I have no problem with non-believers posting in the Christianity section or believers posting in the Atheism & Agnosticism section. Christians can sneer at other peoples beliefs or lack thereof as can atheists.

My point was that there will never be a point in time when everyone has no beliefs. As such we need to work out what is the best compromise. Personally for me that means that I have no issue with a number of faith schools existing alongside secular alternatives.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People should be respectful of others and only express their religious beliefs when asked; something you do not respect.

Why? If you want to express something then go ahead and express it. Everyone is at perfectly liberty to express whatever they like.

I never initiate sneering at peoples beliefs.

That's strange. I seem to recall the following labels being included in your first post on this thread...

"superstitious nonsense" and a cracking generalisation "I think people who have secular views should step up to the plate and start calling religious people out on their psychological* and physical** abuse of children"

Now let's turn the tables around. If I called atheism "amoral nonsense" and said "I think we theists ought to step up to the plate and start calling atheists out on their shockingly immoral behaviour" what would you say? Would I be sneering at your lack of belief and making offensive generalisations about you by any chance?

I think you'll find it's the 'believers' who hang around the A&A forums.

Not really.

Mike 1972

seanbmc wrote: »

The option is clearly there, just saying that it was. Nothing silly about it.

There are entire counties without ET schools. To claim the option realistically exists for everyone is disingenious bull$h1t

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why? If you want to express something then go ahead and express it. Everyone is at perfectly liberty to express whatever they like.

Because you should respect my desire to not be bombarded with your beliefs.

That's strange. I seem to recall the following labels being included in your first post on this thread...

"superstitious nonsense" and a cracking generalisation "I think people who have secular views should step up to the plate and start calling religious people out on their psychological* and physical** abuse of children"

I stand over these words.

Now let's turn the tables around. If I called atheism "amoral nonsense" and said "I think we theists ought to step up to the plate and start calling atheists out on their shockingly immoral behaviour" what would you say? Would I be sneering at your lack of belief and making offensive generalisations about you by any chance?

Yawn.

Nothing new here.

Ye've been dong that for centuries.

Water off a ducks back.

philologos

Chuck Stone: If you don't want to talk about faith, walking into a thread which is precisely about religious education in school is a bad idea. I don't treat faith as a "private matter" because it was never intended to be a "private matter" it's a part of who I am. If there is a reasonable opportunity to discuss it I will aim to in a respectful manner.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because you should respect my desire to not be bombarded with your beliefs.

Who said I don't? You're just assuming that I don't.

I stand over these words.

Do you also stand over "I never initiate sneering at peoples beliefs." too?

Yawn.

Nothing new here.

Ye've been dong that for centuries.

Actually no I haven't. I was born in the very late twentieth century and I am not responsible for the actions of others who came before me who I just so happen to share an extremely general label with.

The year is 2011 and as it stands you're sneering at religious people and making extremely offensive generalisations about them. If I went out and made similar generalisations about atheists and sneered at their lack of belief there would have been tens of people here angrily telling me not to generalise and to respect other people's opinions.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Chuck Stone: If you don't want to talk about faith, walking into a thread which is precisely about religious education in school is a bad idea. I don't treat faith as a "private matter" because it was never intended to be a "private matter" it's a part of who I am. If there is a reasonable opportunity to discuss it I will aim to in a respectful manner.

In fairness I had to tell you twice to stop rambling about your relationship with your god.

I have no interest in reading about or discussing your faith and I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep doing it.

Anyway - we really shouldn't get personal.

Peace brah.

philologos

In fairness I'll respond how I feel is most appropriate to posts. I'm not going to hide or conceal anything I want to say. I don't feel the need to apologise for my faith in Christ, far from it actually!

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In fairness I had to tell you twice to stop rambling about your relationship with your god.

I have no interest in reading about or discussing your faith and I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep doing it.

What if I told you stop rambling on about your lack of belief in God? Better yet, what if I told you to never say anything at all. Stay quiet. I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want to express anything at all.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What if I told you stop rambling on about your lack of belief in God? Better yet, what if I told you to never say anything at all. Stay quiet. I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want to express anything at all.

I would say you're being silly.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you also stand over "I never initiate sneering at peoples beliefs." too?

Yes.

I don't want this thread to become about me so out of respect for my fellow boards.ies

I'm out.

Peace brah.

Knight who says Meh

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What if I told you stop rambling on about your lack of belief in God? Better yet, what if I told you to never say anything at all. Stay quiet. I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want to express anything at all.

Perhaps because not rambling about a myriad of horse sh1te* in a sea of horse sh1te*(atheism) is utterly different to rambling about your 1 particular nugget of horse sh1te* as being the best nugget of sh1te* in an entire stable (theism)?

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would say you're being silly.

You'd say i'm being silly but when you do it you're not being silly at all? Hmm...

Yes.

Fair enough but I must point out that you've just made two rather contradictory statements. It's a bit like me saying "I'm not a racist and I never make racist comments but I really think Chinese people are evil."

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's strange. I know quite a few atheists who have no issue with understanding the viewpoints (And posts...) of theists. In fact, I think the vast majority of them do. It really is not too difficult to see things from other people's perspectives. If I were you i'd attempt to do so before dismissing other people's views as being incomprehensible "jibberish".

You wanted an example of the following;

flutterflye wrote: »

The religious nuts' posts are jibberish, and they seem to continually misinterpret other points of view.

and this;

flutterflye wrote: »

There seems to be some sort of communication barrier, as if the religious people are speaking their own language.
And they appear to either have not read, or not understood opposing viewpoints, and reply with irrelevant nonsense.

I find it very hard to grasp most points that are made by these types of posts.

This latest post of yours that I have quoted above is a perfect example.
Especially the parts I have highlighted with bold in my self-quotes.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It really is not too difficult to see things from other people's perspectives. If I were you i'd attempt to do so before dismissing other people's views as being incomprehensible "jibberish".

Firstly, the likelihood of you ever being me, is about as improbable as the likelihood of a virgin giving birth to a son who is an identical entity as his father, who incidentally created the universe in 7 days, 4000 years earlier.

And as for your comment regarding an adequate ability to objectively discern opposing perspectives, I do not feel the need to repeat myself.
Instead I will just self-quote again;
(Pay particular attention to the paragraph highlighted in bold)

flutterflye wrote: »

theists hold views that are so far removed from anything I believe, they use examples that do not connect to any of my personal perceptions in any way, therefore do not register as anything comprehensible.

I genuinely love hearing others' points of views on all sorts of subject matters.
The more I interact with alternating viewpoints, the more I understand and connect with them, and this aids personal growth.

I can understand theists' perspectives to an extent when they communicate on common ground, but not when they attempt to convey their point in a manner of which appears to assume that their molded beliefs and reasoning, their semantic connotations, their use of jargon etc... is all consistent with general consensus.

If you go to see a doctor, they are going to speak to you in a standard manner, rather than using the form of language they would use while speaking to an associate in their field.

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

You wanted an example of the following;

and this;

This latest post of yours that I have quoted above is a perfect example.
Especially the parts I have highlighted with bold in my self-quotes.

Firstly, the likelihood of you ever being me, is about as improbable as the likelihood of a virgin giving birth to a son who is an identical entity of his father, who incidentally created the universe in 7 days, 4000 years earlier.

I recommend you brush up on your English. The phrase "If I were you" is used to convey advice. It does not mean a hypothetical body swap.

However, I must commend you for your efforts to avoid actually substantiating your views on the differences between posts written by "religious nuts" and atheists.

And as for your comment regarding an adequate ability to objectively discern opposing perspectives, I do not feel the need to repeat myself.

It's great that you don't feel the need to repeat yourself. While we're talking about how we feel, I must say I feel a bit tired at the moment actually.

If you fail to comprehend how others see the world then yes you do lack an "adequate ability to objectively discern opposing perspectives". You said

I can understand theists' perspectives to an extent when they communicate on common ground, but not when they attempt to convey their point in a manner of which appears to assume that their molded beliefs and reasoning, their semantic connotations, their use of jargon etc... is all consistent with general consensus.

What is "general consensus"? Last I checked there are disproportionately more theists in the world than there are atheists. Atheism is not the "general consensus". Even if it were the general consensus I don't see why that would make it any more difficult to comprehend the point of views of theists.

dvpower

Niles wrote: »

But surely parents can just request that their child not undertake the Religion element? Certainly there have been examples of this happening in the schools near me, not a problem.

They can. Sometimes the child will feel that they are being excluded; sometimes the school wont accommodate this request; sometimes the school wont admit the non religious child in the first place.

Better if we had a state system where every child could get an education on an equal basis.

Jackobyte

Zebra3 wrote: »

What catholic parables?

This is the only reply to my comment I could see. Sorry if I missed any.

The Good Samaritan is the first that comes to mind. It teaches not to discrimate based on religion.

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What is "general consensus"? Last I checked there are disproportionately more theists in the world than there are atheists. Atheism is not the "general consensus". Even if it were the general consensus I don't see why that would make it any more difficult to comprehend the point of views of theists.

There is no general consensus.
That is the point.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I recommend you brush up on your English. The phrase "If I were you" is used to convey advice. It does not mean a hypothetical body swap.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you fail to comprehend how others see the world then yes you do lack an "adequate ability to objectively discern opposing perspectives".

I was clearly being facetious and deliberately obtuse.

Is there some particular reason that you persist in your attempt to disparage my grasp on the English language?
It is tedious, and irrelevant to the point that we are supposed to be discussing.

As is every other loaded comment designed to demean another poster, in a vain attempt at gaining superiority.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

However, I must commend you for your efforts to avoid actually substantiating your views on the differences between posts written by "religious nuts" and atheists.

From the beginning, I specifically stipulated that I would not partake in singling out a particular post or poster to use as an example, mainly due to the fact that it is a general issue.
However, I did try my best to offer an explanation without the use of examples, which you did not deem satisfactory.
Did you believe that I would suddenly change my mind and feel compelled to grant your request?


The op of this thread posed the question of whether or not religion as a subject should continue to be taught in schools.

How about you discuss your opinions on that topic instead of these silly, irrelevant agendas?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't, but let's look at what you say about the "evil" book. There was a study done in the UK (PDF 2.1MB) recently amongst evangelicals and this is what was found about the correlation between Bible reading and other behaviour:

The Bible encourages positive behaviour in peoples lives. How could an earnestly evil book do this?

The Guardian in covering this noted:


Why is this? It isn't a modern phenomenon either.

You are claiming that it is the reading of the bible that causes this behaviour right?
What you are doing here is taking two things that are linked and claiming one causes the other, this would be like claiming that a love for pasta is caused by speaking Italian, because people who speak Italian eat a lot of pasta.
What you have to do is take a lot more variables into consideration, for example, the nature of people who take up bible reading, the kind of groups that these people belong to, the amount of free time people who have time for such reading have, the economic situation of people, the actual charities people contribute to (many of them are missionary based), no doubt there are more but these are just off the top of my head.

Many people who discover religion later in life do so after some trauma or personal tribulation and often these people then want to help others because of theses experiences.
Now don't get me wrong I fully understand that properly following the teachings of Jesus would lead people to live very altruistic lives (as would following The Buddha's or Gandhi's neither of whom obviously were Christian).

Now I'm not trying to take away from the good religious people do, but lets take the example of Israel/Palestine, there are (no doubt) religious groups helping people in that area but many of the problems in that region are caused by religion in the first place.
In Africa, where a lot of charity money is spent, the present day problems are the result of interference in the natural development of societys by evangelical missionaries, and I won't even go into the subject of condoms and AIDS there.

Simply put, "there is more here than meets the eye".

philologos

^^ Well I'm not claiming it. The study found that there is a correlation between Bible reading in evangelical Christians in Britain and volunteering. If the Bible doesn't provoke this behaviour then how come there is a much higher % of evangelical Christians volunteering than the average? The rate goes up the more regularly a person reads it.

Now don't get me wrong I fully understand that properly following the teachings of Jesus would lead people to live very altruistic lives (as would following The Buddha's or Gandhi's neither of whom obviously were Christian).

So the substance of Christianity actually leads to altruism?

Now I'm not trying to take away from the good religious people do, but lets take the example of Israel/Palestine, there are (no doubt) religious groups helping people in that area but many of the problems in that region are caused by religion in the first place.
In Africa, where a lot of charity money is spent, the present day problems are the result of interference in the natural development of societys by evangelical missionaries, and I won't even go into the subject of condoms and AIDS there.

I'm aware that there are issues, but there are issues with plenty of demographics in society at large. I'm just saying that it is important to consider what Christianity actually promotes in the vast majority of people.

Freddie59

Mousey- wrote: »

send your child to a multidenominational school if your so pissed off...

Agree 100%. And the laughable thing is that many of those castigating God/The church, etc will allow their children to receive the sacraments 'so they won't feel left out'. If I felt as strongly as they obviously do I wouldn't let them inside the door of a school with a religious ethos. At the very least I would opt them out of religion class. Grow a pair.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

Aside from the fact that most people would like to see their kids going to the same school as the other local kids.

Sop they won't feel "left out". As I said already, you have to stand up for your beliefs/principles - whatever they are. Grow a pair indeed.

rainbow kirby

Freddie59 wrote: »

If I felt as strongly as they obviously do I wouldn't let them inside the door of a school with a religious ethos.

There are vast areas of the country for which this is simply not an option for parents.

Mike 1972

Jackobyte wrote: »

The Good Samaritan is the first that comes to mind. It teaches not to discrimate based on religion.

Dont the Orthadox and Protestant versions of the Bible have that one as well ...Possibly even the Quran In any case wasnt the conflict with Samaria more ethnic than religious ?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

^^ Well I'm not claiming it. The study found that there is a correlation between Bible reading in evangelical Christians in Britain and volunteering. If the Bible doesn't provoke this behaviour then how come there is a much higher % of evangelical Christians volunteering than the average? The rate goes up the more regularly a person reads it.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

So the substance of Christianity actually leads to altruism?

Of course following the teachings of Jesus regarding how to treat others would lead to altruism, but Christians today seem more obsessed with glorifying and worshipping Yahweh than following Jesus's examples. It's a hell of a lot easier to do.
In other words, glorifying the god, instead of following the man.

loike

i went to a christian brothers school and religion was just a class where we watched videos. when we did learn it was about all religions

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

What reason is better then?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Of course following the teachings of Jesus regarding how to treat others would lead to altruism, but Christians today seem more obsessed with glorifying and worshipping Yahweh than following Jesus's examples. It's a hell of a lot easier to do.
In other words, glorifying the god, instead of following the man.

Following Jesus = Loving God and serving ones neighbour. So of course it is about God.

I think your criticism is fair though in one way in that people aren't listening to Christ as much as they should be. How do they listen though? It seems by reading the Bible which is why this study finds a good connection between Bible reading and Christ-like living.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

What reason is better then?

I gave a few off the top of my head earlier.

Following Jesus = Loving God and serving ones neighbour. So of course it is about God.

Following Jesus's example regarding treating other people altruistically is good, loving a deity such as Yahweh of the OT is bad.

Tell me this, why should one love a being just because it has the ability to create a universe?

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I gave a few off the top of my head earlier.

They seem pretty weak in comparison to what is evident in the study.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Tell me this, why should one love a being just because it has the ability to create a universe?

I don't love God just because He had the ability to create the universe. I love God because He has shown me His love through sending His only Son to die for me. I love God because He loved me first even when I didn't really love Him. I love God simply because of what He has done and how He has clearly shown me how much He cares for me. As such I love God and I'm willing to serve Him.

God and Jesus are not separate in Christianity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. All are one as far as I would understand it.

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

They seem pretty weak in comparison to what is evident in the study.

How so? What exactly is evident in the study other than that a correlation between Bible reading and volunteer work exists? How have you or they infered causation? And why do you so quickly dismiss the idea that there are hidden variables?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

They seem pretty weak in comparison to what is evident in the study.

I'm sure you are wise enough to understand the concept of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" in statistical analysis, and I don't think you would accept this kind of "connecting" in something not so close to your heart.
My examples were only to show this causation is not as cut and dried as you make out.

I don't love God just because He had the ability to create the universe. I love God because He has shown me His love through sending His only Son to die for me. I love God because He loved me first even when I didn't really love Him. I love God simply because of what He has done and how He has clearly shown me how much He cares for me. As such I love God and I'm willing to serve Him.

Lots of empty christian sound bites there about love, if Yahweh really loves humans there would be no hell. Love with conditions is not love.

God and Jesus are not separate in Christianity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. All are one as far as I would understand it.

I am making the distinction to differentiate between the demonic Yahweh and the loving Jesus.