+1 for teaching philosophy. And Economics and politics.
"the biggest problem atheism has at the moment i think, is people who call others stupid for having different beliefs, a lot of young athiests (especially online) are very quick to tear into anyone religous and this creates a bad impression of atheism, when i think it should just create a bad impression of the individuals who are dismissive of others."
Well put sir. Still thinking of Dawkins in lycra though - it's a disturbing, yet somehow persistent image.
Economics
As an art, not a science though 🙂
Surely, the problem with state faith schools is that they are 'state'. I would force them all to become privately funded. The state should not pay a penny towards religious indoctrination.
With further reference to the thread title. I now think it makes Dawkins look like the faith school menace.
Faith and religion are not necessary for morale behaviour. In fact they are sometimes detrimental to it. Not a debate I think this thread should enter into but there are ways of prescribing moral behaviour that do not involve religion and are more routed in philosophy.
the biggest problem atheism has at the moment i think, is people who call others stupid for having different beliefs
that might be a problem if (a) they were a cohesive group and (b) they were seeking converts
I'm intrigued as to why, if there are any gods, it assumed they require worship and/or compliance with any particular code of ethics?
I'm intrigued as to why, if there are any gods, it assumed they require worship and/or compliance with any particular code of ethics?
Or as Bill Hicks put it: "Christains belive that eternal damnation awaits those who question God's infinite love"
Or as Bill Hicks put it: "Christains belive that eternal damnation awaits those who question God's infinite love"
I don't see that as a paraphrase of my question, but certainly unlimited punishment for healthy scepticsm does seem extreme, particularly for a supposedly infinitely compassionate entity...
religion - nice idea see BB's moral compass argument.
organised religion - quite sinister actually, even the fairly low grade easy going happy clappy stuff. The way organised religion can be exploited by the (sometimes non-religous, sometimes immoral) members of said organisation is truly depressing.
Junkyard - to describe it as a deal is probably misleading, a quid pro quo may be more accurate but lacking a detailed understanding of the development of widespread state education from the schooling provided by the church which preceded it I can not be certain how the present position arose. A summary of CofE schools is contained on their website [url= http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education/schools/ ]here[/url]. If you look at the FAQs you will note that any parent may withdraw their child from RE classes.
the biggest problem atheism has at the moment i think, is people who call others stupid for having different beliefs, a lot of young athiests (especially online) are very quick to tear into anyone religous and this creates a bad impression of atheism, when i think it should just create a bad impression of the individuals who are dismissive of others."
Well as Gypsy Rose Lee said: "If people dont like their ideas being laughed at, then they shouldnt have such funny ideas"
The other thing that interests me is when people say "You have offended [mighty god-thing] and now we need to punish you". As I understand it, a god is supposed to be all-powerful, so if a god wanted a person to be punished they could easily do it in such a way as to demonstrate or conceal their existence, whether by suffering, death or even total expungement from existence and everyone's memory, so presuming to act in god's name implies uncertain belief ?
Ah, but you see, god employs peons to do his bidding so that he can get on with the really big smiting jobs. He needs priests to do the day-to-day stuff like flogging loose women and buggering choirboys so that he can get on with the big stuff like sending floods to deal with followers of competing religions.
to deal with followers of competing religions
Or even his own! All a bit hit and miss really.
Not to worry however as research shows that those on the receiving end tend to have their faith reinforced by such "natural" disasters.
Barnes, there are loads of holes in these kinds of arguments. Finding them is like shooting fish in a barrel. And it's not at all productive since it won't make any difference to anyone.
It really isn't about logic and reasoning, I don't think. It's about how you feel.
Finding them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
oh, that's no fun then 🙁
Exactly.
fish in a barrel is right, and is one of the main stumbling blocks to any reasoned debate, if such a thing is possible when discussing religion.
I fear that, as usual in STW land, this may go the way of previous discussions, which would be a shame.
.... and so on...
and so forth
Ad nauseum!
[img] 
[/img]
its very hard to sensibly debate such subjects.
If we can teach fairy-tales in school and go to war etc
how come when I said my dog ate my homework the teacher said to stop making up fairy-tails but teaches them to kids everyday?
😆
There was no dog... 😀
Religious logic?
Point-getting FAIL.
What part of the word 'faith' don't you understand?
Apparently, all of it.
I am an Atheist. And I do think Dawkins comes across a bit preachy. But then if you are trying to convince people to come around to your way of thinking, isn't that always preachy?
I do think religion should be taught in a 'this is what some people beleive to be true' way but also with the caveat 'but that doesn't necesarrily make it so'. Then give the reasons why it may or may not be true in a reasoned manner.
No one would accept schools that teach the story of little red riding hood as fact! So why should they teach religious doctrine as fact? Basically they asking people to accept something they cannot substantiate or quantify in anyway shape or form.
Perhaps there are some moral issues to be learned from religion and religious history.
Theres an essential difference between science and religion. Science will accept that they could be wrong. Theories are submitted to peers for scrutiny and through that process the truth will come out. Science also accepts that it doesn't know everything, other wise scientists would stop (thanks Dara).
Religion: And Jesus turned water into wine
Person: How?
Religion: He just did. Stop questioning it heathen!
Science: And Jesus turned water into wine apparently
Person: How?
Science: We're not sure. Theres precious little evidence to substantiate it. But it COULD of happened, we just don't know.
Just because you don't know how something came about, theres no reason to put in place an arbitrary construct of your imagination and treat it as fact. Because someone will come along and simply prove you wrong. It's better to just accept that you just dont know!
Is religion taught in schools like that, mtb_rossi? I certainly don't recall that.
In RE we just learned about various feast days and practises in world religions.
molgrips was that aimed at me?
Molgrips, in my secondary school we had RE lessons but it was implied that it happened if you know what i mean. It wasn't really taught as fact and was left to us to pretty much decide for ourselves. Which was good.
My parents made a point of not sending me to a school with a specifc policy of religious indoctrination. This was in the 80s when I think this sort of thing was the norm. However, my folks made sure that I wasn't exposed too much to brainwashing. And thank 'god' for that lol 😀
But I do worry that some faith schools, perhaps not so much these days, still try to teach this stuff as fact.
Yes, but it wasn't meant to be as nasty as it now seems on reading back - sorry.
But logic really isn't the point.
mtb_rossi - that sounds like around the time it was changing. In my primary school we did prayers in assembly, and said grace, in the mid-80s. By the time I went to secondary school that was strictly banned afaik.
School is extremely different from what it was when you or I went there 🙂
🙂 no worries dude, just taken back a bit by the reaction lol! Logic isnt the point, it was more the use of a handy image i saw on the web a while back about what its like when you try and discuss religion at times....
we had an incredibly strict and religious RE teacher at school, she was a dragon on a woman and unfortunately due to our headteacher being very very christian too, most of the complaints about her teaching christian stuff as fact fell on deaf ears 🙁 this however wasnt a problem as we'd have competitions to see how quickly we could get asked to leave the classroom....
any assembly with the headteacher however was just a painful load of preaching and unfortunately for him (as a really nice guy and very helpful + motivating headteacher) he lost the respect of the pupils everytime he opened up his bible 🙁
oh and i do know what faith means/is.... comparative religion has been an area of interest for me for the past couple of years, the world would be a better place if everyone had some of the morals that most religions try and promote... thats a whole different debate though
I think the whole world would be a better place if people just taught respect.
Any truely brilliant religion should include lots of cake.
Phil - I should probably have aimed my comments at the author of the cartoon really. I do understand the point they are making, but the person in the cartoon is guitly of flawed religious thinking I reckon. And it's certainly not true of all religious folk.
Some religious folk are thick, some are not - as true for everyone. The non-thick ones have intelligent and reasoned thought on the subject, the thick ones don't.
+1 mtb_rossi tho.
Even within religious circles theres varing degrees of tolerance.
There was one time I was asked if I beleived in God and I said 'No'. Then in a condescending manner, this man put his hand on my shoulder and said 'I feel sorry for you. I will pray for your soul'. I'm thinking, 'Ok then, go for it'.
I HATE that. Firstly you're implying that I am part of your beleif even though I have specifically said I dont beleive, and secondly, trying to have pitty on me and suggesting that I am in the wrong and that he should do something about it by praying.
No real harm done, but it's this passive disrespect for my position on the subject that gets me riled.
The non-thick ones have intelligent and reasoned thought on the subject
How can this be possible? It is based on faith and is by definition illogical and without scientific foundation. Consequently how can we determine if those that have faith have an "intelligent" view.
Without being flippant isnt that like saying I have an "intelligent! approach to my belief in Astrology or the Tooth fairy?
How can this be possible? It is based on faith and is by definition illogical and without scientific foundation
You are only thinking of religion as a way of explaining the creation of the world and universe.
For many people, it's not. There are many interpretations of the faiths. It's not as simple as you think.
Hmm yup.
Some people think the earth was created in 7 days as it says in Bible: Episode 1. 😛
And some people take the ideas and use them as a life basis.
Its obvious to anyone with a brain that the earth was not created in 7 days but there are some brainless people who do think that. I think Mol is on about those beleivers that discount the bits that are obviously nonsense and just take on the 'guiding principles' with a pinch of rationality.
I used to think like surfer when I was 18 or so, then I met someone who said that they considered the bible creation stories simply as parables.
That got me thinking.
What turned me away from religion was going down that very path. Fine, genesis is a parable and not truth but then what else is not truth. If you start to pick and chose what you believe out of the bible then on what basis do you pick. Eventually I picked not to believe any of it, it's all a parable to explain the world at the time it was written. It is a collection of stories and nothing more.
That and the blatant hypocrisy of the catholic church.
Well thats just it.
You might as well read Derren Browns 'Think yourself slim'.
"You might as well read Derren Browns 'Think yourself slim'."
You're perfectly right of course, apart from the fact that he didnt write it...
Ah ok. Who ever wrote that 😀 I couldnt be bothered to google it lol
I used to think like surfer when I was 18 or so, then I met someone who said that they considered the bible creation stories simply as parables.
If you have allowed yourself to be manipulated in the intervening years then thats fine, you were certainly deviated from your healthy sceptical path easily! however accepting that religious teachings are parables meant to be understood in a non literal sense doesnt get us very far and only means religion is a set of haphazard stories that have advocated mass rape and genocide right to the present day. When it teaches us that condom use is against gods law. Maybe the millions that die each year in sub saharan Africa dont have your insight.
You are only thinking of religion as a way of explaining the creation of the world and universe
Except that I'm not! I think only a fool would accept that the world is only a few thousand years old, my point is how religion interferes with our daily lives today. I am happy with the scientific explanation of how the earth came into being and am more interested in 21st century indoctrination of children.
