Should religion be taught in schools?

Belle E. Flops

Deleted User wrote: »

Sommmmme one wants to shirk off from worrrrk.

Tough shenanigans teach, the little brats gaoot know, so you gotta go through the book fo religions! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to spell and someone might take you seriously

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

Do you actually think I'm going to send you a pm so we can have a private discussion about other posters?

Oh heavens no. I was more expecting a few examples of gibberish posts written by theists on AH. If you don't want to include names that's fine. I never mentioned discussing anything.

Well, I'm not.

Then i'm afraid i'll have to relegate your views on the differences between posts written by Theists and Atheists to the realm of unsubstantiated rubbish.

If you have not understood my post

On the contrary, I understood it and then some. You simply claimed that you have difficulty understanding posts written by theists as they're "jibberish"(sic) and appear to talk in a "different language" but have no such issues with deciphering the posts of militant atheists.

the post You said or have been oblivious to the type of posts that I have referred to

Perhaps I am oblivious to the type of posts of which you speak. Why not educate me on them? It'd be an awful shame if you didn't.


If you'd rather back down and retract your statement then that's fine too.

philologos

sock puppet wrote: »

Lol. Stop acting like a retard you clearly know what I meant. The Christian position on homosexuality is, by any measurement, wrong.

In your opinion. Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well. It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm. It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

sock puppet wrote: »

I don't dispute this. It isn't really relevant to what I posted though.

It's hugely relevant to the thread. Christianity urged them to do the right thing in their societies.

flutterflye

Naikon wrote: »

Atheism is the default natural state for a child.

While this is true, I think Irish Guitarist has a point.
I think it is important for children to be made aware of an array of different world views to broaden their minds, choose for themselves, and just generally learn tolerance for others.

(How do you put a quote in a quote?)

KeithM89_old

Belle E. Flops wrote: »

Learn to spell and someone might take you seriously

Enough of the grammar Nazis. In case people have forgotten, its against the charter.

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

I think it is important for children to be made aware of an array of different world views to broaden their minds, choose for themselves, and just generally learn tolerance for others.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. But if parents want to raise their kids a certain way, give them the option. I personally want an excuse to dress up my kids, bring over my male and female best freinds (honoured with "godparent" status) & get the family together when they're 7 and 12.

Religions: Any excuse for a party is a good excuse for a party.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well spotted.

Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well.

Marriage is just a little ceremony people do. It does not imbue the married with some special property they might not have otherwise had.

It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm.

How the hell can a little ceremony provide stability? Such nonsense. It's the people who decide to be together who provide 'stability'. Unless you think that marriage somehow puts the magic of a god into the couple...

It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

No. I think you'll find that copulating is the basis for having a family.

It's hugely relevant to the thread. Christianity urged them to do the right thing in their societies.

Na. You know why.

CelticSoul

It was never taught when I was in school. Oh sure, I had to learn the Cathecism off by heart. In fact in the Christian Brothers school that I attended, it was beaten into me, with a leather strap. In later years, I have discovered real Christianity. I have found a deep and personal faith in Jesus that provides me with a blueprint for living that works for me. I will gladly share this with anyone who wants to listen, including my teenage children, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. So, do I think it should be taught in schools? well, as a way of life, I think the basics should be taught by someone who (1) believes in what they teach, and (2) can demonstrate through their own personal experience, that it is a concept worth following. After that it is up to the individual who wants to pursue this way of life, to find his or her way to a Christian Church or group of believers who will help and encourage them along the way.

sock puppet

philologos wrote: »

In your opinion. Christians claim that the place of sexuality is in a marriage and that's the principle I'd strive for as well. It isn't always easy but a marriage provides stability that isn't found elsewhere by and large and I can see good reason as to why that's the case as a general norm. It also provides a basis for the family unit, mother, father, children.

No it is not just my opinion. It's the position of society at large (bar some obvious exceptions like Iran) that homosexual acts are indeed acceptable. Same sex unions are also becoming increasingly accepted. So that really leaves two conclusions. Either the Christian position on this is out of date or else we are all wrong which can of course happen. I've yet to see any evidence of the latter though.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

Religions: Any excuse for a party is a good excuse for a party.

It's only saving grace imo.

Sure tis the best thing about a wedding, funeral and baptisim.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Marriage is just a little ceremony people do. It does not imbue the married with some special property they might not have otherwise had.

Honestly couldn't disagree with you more that is if you believe that marriage is just a ceremony and just paperwork.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How the hell can a little ceremony provide stability? Such nonsense. It's the people who decide to be together who provide 'stability'. Unless you think that marriage somehow puts the magic of a god into the couple...

Stability comes as a result of a commitment and drawing lines. In waiting one is more likely to know more about the other before engaging sexually with them. One is more likely to know if they truly love you for who you are rather than merely lusting after you.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. I think you'll find that copulating is the basis for having a family.

Copulating is just the basis of making children. A family is about a relationship structure between parents and children.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Na. You know why.

I do, it's because of God that their hearts are transformed to stand up for what is good rather than what is evil. There is nothing more powerful than it. What is written in the Bible can transform peoples hearts if they are willing to listen to it and then to act upon it. That's exactly why when reading the Bible it is impacting every corner of their life from their finances, to how they spend their time, to their relationships, their families, and so on.

CelticSoul wrote: »

It was never taught when I was in school. Oh sure, I had to learn the Cathecism off by heart. In fact in the Christian Brothers school that I attended, it was beaten into me, with a leather strap. In later years, I have discovered real Christianity. I have found a deep and personal faith in Jesus that provides me with a blueprint for living that works for me. I will gladly share this with anyone who wants to listen, including my teenage children, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. So, do I think it should be taught in schools? well, as a way of life, I think the basics should be taught by someone who (1) believes in what they teach, and (2) can demonstrate through their own personal experience, that it is a concept worth following. After that it is up to the individual who wants to pursue this way of life, to find his or her way to a Christian Church or group of believers who will help and encourage them along the way.

This ^^ is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. God bless you!

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you'd rather back down and retract your statement then that's fine too.

Lol! What age are you?!

I read your post in my mind in the manner of a boastful schoolchild trying to goad another into doing something by implying they are 'chicken'!
Because this is how your post read to me.

When I spoke about the posts being 'jibberish' and 'a different language', I was merely saying this from my point of view, from my own perceptions (or lack there of) of the posts written by a certain 'type' of poster.

I am not implying that they are 'jibberish', just that this is how they read to me, as I cannot decipher them.

I have no idea why you appear so hell bent on me pointing out posts.
I actually do not see the point, because it would go around and round in circles for ever, because you would most likely fail to understand what I was failing to understand.

Chuck Stone

CelticSoul wrote: »

It was never taught when I was in school. Oh sure, I had to learn the Cathecism off by heart. In fact in the Christian Brothers school that I attended, it was beaten into me, with a leather strap. In later years, I have discovered real Christianity. I have found a deep and personal faith in Jesus that provides me with a blueprint for living that works for me. I will gladly share this with anyone who wants to listen, including my teenage children, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. So, do I think it should be taught in schools? well, as a way of life, I think the basics should be taught by someone who (1) believes in what they teach, and (2) can demonstrate through their own personal experience, that it is a concept worth following. After that it is up to the individual who wants to pursue this way of life, to find his or her way to a Christian Church or group of believers who will help and encourage them along the way.

Sick 1st post for a person who joined 3 years ago.

Hopefully all theists will adopt this passive stance and we will see this curious human construct out grown.

dvpower

seanbmc wrote: »

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

The option isn't there in any realistic sense. If you are a non Christian living in rural Ireland, you might have to travel 50 miles or more twice a day (if you're lucky) to bring your kid to the nearest ET school. It's just not feasible.

Even in large urban centres the ET option doesn't work because the choice of school is often tied to the choice of after school care etc.

Aside from the fact that most people would like to see their kids going to the same school as the other local kids. Seperating kids based on religion is a really crappy idea.

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

Lol! What age are you?!

I read your post in my mind in the manner of a boastful schoolchild trying to goad another into doing something by implying they are 'chicken'!
Because this is how your post read to me.

...

So I take it you can't actually substantiate what you said?

When I spoke about the posts being 'jibberish' and 'a different language', I was merely saying this from my point of view, from my own perceptions (or lack there of) of the posts written by a certain 'type' of poster.

Well isn't that just great? How about you substantiate this "point of view" for us?

I am not implying that they are 'jibberish', just that this is how they read to me, as I cannot decipher them.

There are two possible explanations. Either the posts are truly gibberish and nonsensical and no one can decipher them or you simply cannot comprehend the posts for whatever reason. In the case of the former, i'd like an example or two of said posts. In the case of the latter, I can only recommend you brush up on your English comprehension skills.

I have no idea why you appear so hell bent on me pointing out posts.

For the simple reason that you are insinuating that the posts of "religious nuts" are gibberish and inferior to that of atheists without actually giving any evidence of said inferiority.

I actually do not see the point, because it would go around and round in circles for ever, because you would most likely fail to understand what I was failing to understand.

It's very simple really. All I want is an example of one of these gibberish posts. For all you know I may be able to decipher that gibberish for you.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sick 1st post for a person who joined 3 years ago.

You mean sick as in awesome, right?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Hopefully all theists will adopt this passive stance and we will see this curious human construct out grown.

I like the first bit, but the second is no different from a Muslim praying for a Global Islamic Caliphate or an Evangelist looking for everyone to Turn to the Lord. I abhore the notion that humanity would chose One Ism to Rule Them All, be it atheism, monotheism, polytheism or whatever.

A World of Many, Yet All in Brotherhood. I'd give my life for that if I had to.

Antikythera

paulmr wrote: »

Life is full of symbols look around you! A wedding ring for example a noose aroud your neck...

Get some counselling.

Naikon

Antikythera wrote: »

Get some counselling.

Talking. that will sovle the "problems":rolleyes:

Now, where is my 100 euro, patient?

Onesimus

Take it to the Christianity forum

Locked :pac:

Funny how threads like one on a foreign pub is locked and told to take it to the appropriate forum and yet this one on Christians ( which also deserves to be taken elsewhere ) is allowed to run wild on After Hours.

Just sayin is all....

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean sick as in awesome, right?

I surely do.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Edit: Just noticed that this thread's finally been locked & sent to the Christianity forum, as countless ones before it should have.

No it hasn't?

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

I like the first bit, but the second is no different from a Muslim praying for a Global Islamic Caliphate or an Evangelist looking for everyone to Turn to the Lord. I abhore the notion that humanity would chose One Ism to Rule Them All, be it atheism, monotheism, polytheism or whatever.

You're doing it wrong. Atheism isn't a belief or way of life. It's a rejection of theism and all the abuse which orbits it.

A World of Many, Yet All in Brotherhood. I'd give my life for that if I had to.

A religion free world need not exclude any man (or woman, careful now).

Edit: Just noticed that this thread's finally been locked & sent to the Christianity forum, as countless ones before it should have.

Looks like someone played you for a fool ese.

strobe

Onesimus wrote: »

yet this one on Christians ( which also deserves to be taken elsewhere ) is allowed to run wild on After Hours.

Christianity isn't the only religion.

Just sayin is all...

flutterflye

partyatmygaff wrote: »

For the simple reason that you are insinuating that the posts of "religious nuts" are gibberish and inferior to that of atheists without actually giving any evidence of said inferiority.

No, I already clarified this;

flutterflye wrote: »

I am not implying that they are 'jibberish', just that this is how they read to me, as I cannot decipher them.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There are two possible explanations. Either the posts are truly gibberish and nonsensical and no one can decipher them or you simply cannot comprehend the posts for whatever reason. In the case of the former, i'd like an example or two of said posts. In the case of the latter, I can only recommend you brush up on your English comprehension skills.

No, I do not think it is either of your explanations actually.
I think it is the fact that 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.

Niles

dvpower wrote: »

Are you saying that the religious organisations provide operational funding for the state school system? Do you have a link for this?

No, religious organisations would not be funding the state school system. What I meant was that denominational schools do not recieve the same level of funding from the state as state-run ones. I recall this being explained to us back in school when a teacher had to be laid off due to lack of funds, with the result being that their class was divided into the two others (there was originally one Higher Level and two Ordinary Level class groups for the subject in question, it was reduced to just one Higher and one Ordinary, with the middle group being divvied up between the two) - the end result was the student-teacher ratio rose beyond the recommended level.

dvpower wrote: »

The option isn't there in any realistic sense. If you are a non Christian living in rural Ireland, you might have to travel 50 miles or more twice a day (if you're lucky) to bring your kid to the nearest ET school. It's just not feasible.

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.

Micky Dolenz

Onesimus wrote: »

Take it to the Christianity forum

Locked :pac:

Funny how threads like one on a foreign pub is locked and told to take it to the appropriate forum and yet this one on Christians ( which also deserves to be taken elsewhere ) is allowed to run wild on After Hours.

Just sayin is all....

Take complaints to feedback and leave the locking to the mods.

Thanks.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're doing it wrong. Atheism isn't a belief or way of life. It's a rejection of theism and all the abuse which orbits it.

Sorry chuck, it's an idea, like pacifism, feudalism, capital punishment, communism, veganism, whatever. It has no special status. It might have one to you, but then again it's your *insert whatever way you describe it. I'll go for hobby*.

You will not get everyone on this planet to agree to adhere to it. Your only options are to accept the existence of religious beleif or actively oppress religious beleif.

Oppressors include Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, the Spanish Inquisition, The Moors, the Israelis, North Korea....

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A religion free world need not exclude any man (or woman, careful now).

But it will. Whatever the idea, if it's a case of "my way or the highway", people will get excluded.

philologos

A religion free world is never going to happen. As such we need to figure out as best as possible how we are going to live together in a amicable manner. Sneering at what other people believe isn't really going to acheive this.

partyatmygaff

flutterflye wrote: »

No, I already clarified this;
No, I do not think it is either of your explanations actually.
I think it is the fact that 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.

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".

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Sneering at what other people believe isn't really going to acheive this.

I'll answer this as if it were aimed at me.

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

I never initiate sneering at peoples beliefs.

I have never once posted in the Christianity or any other religious forum just as I have never posted in the LGBT forum - I'm not religious nor am I gay - what business is it of mine when people volutarily meet to engage in their beliefs and way of living?

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

When we talk about religion in schools we are talking about a forced subject. Now I know there are logistical reasons why we couldn't do away with it overnight but I think it's removal from schools as a subject in and of itself is a good idea and should be strived for by all rational and reasonable people.

And for that reason - I'm out.