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.

Who do you blame for the rape and genocide?

Human beings for believing the stories as literal truth? Or the stories themselves and the person that wrote them? Who has more to answer for?

Or are we blameless and were just led up the garden path?

If you have allowed yourself to be manipulated learned in the intervening years

Lol! 🙂 very paranoid and slightly odd interpretation there. I now have much greater experience than I did then, and I understand MORE points of view. That's called learning. Ironically, saying stuff like 'allowed yourself to be manipulated' is just the kind of thing religious nutjobs say.

There are at least three different issues:

Organised Christianity and its teachings
The Bible and its accuracy
The existence of God

I am not religious, and I am very much against indoctrination and other evils. However, I am also against thinking that other people are stupid just because they don't see things your way.

religion is a set of haphazard stories that have advocated mass rape and genocide right to the present day

See above. Some religious people have advocated that, using religion as an excuse; the bible doesn't.

Religion is a complete bunch of ar5e. The only positive is a number of pretty buildings dedicated to it.

End of.

See above. Some religious people have advocated that, using religion as an excuse; the bible doesn't

I think you will find amongst its "parables" that it did indeed advocate such things.
The "parables" of Exodus and Deuteronomy to name but two should provide you with sufficient reading.

I understand MORE points of view. That's called learning

I suppose in the same way that believing any claptrap is also called "learning".

Atheism is way too dogmatic. I'm cool was as many gods as there are

I suppose in the same way that believing any claptrap is also called "learning".

Eh? You're not mistaking me for a religious person are you?

My sister was christian from about 11 till she went to university(i should add that this was completley her own choice and made through no parental or school indoctrination) She went on to study a masters in Marine Biology. After talking to her recently i find out that she has changed her view point and still believes in a creator of everything but is also very keen to back the evolution of the universe as the more prominent theory. So in other words she changed her mind after seeing the evidence for herself but still holds a strong view towards being faithfull to the God her creator. But she'll never peached that to anybody Religion is very much a personal thing for her, a path of self discovery. I respect that.

I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread but I'll chuck in a few (non-scientific) observations from the point of view of a teacher (not RE) and an active atheist/agnostic/ theist (depending on the side of the bed I got out of).

1. RE is schools is subject to Ofsted inspection, we just had one, RE got done…

2. Teaching in an inner city comp RE is often the only access to a sense of global conscience or human driven empathy that many students get. Dawkins offers very sensible ideas about the evolution of morality but fails to offer a suitable answer to those who exempt themselves from it and take Materialism to its conclusion – think horrible 'spiritually' bereft 15 yr olds laughing at a starving child or an animal being mutilated – I'm not suggesting religion is the answer to their issues but Materialism has led them to it.

3. Scientific method is all about observation and conclusion but the nature of the observed and its ability to inform 'reality' is not a wholly scientific realm, philosophy and theology have their place.

4. Suggesting 'religion' is one, fundamental, looney, suicide bombing, kid indoctrinating uber force for evil is like suggesting all science and all scientists are swivel eyed crazies with a 'embiggernator' in their cellar and a corpse tied to the slab waiting for a swift bolt of lightning to the neck.

5. Religion in my school has about as much power to indoctrinate as a 'cut your own testicles' off after-school club. However blind self obsession and utter contempt for anyone or anything that does not immediately reward you is a prevalent ethos – for which I blame Dawkins and his lot (this may not be true…)

Here endeth the sermon…go in pieces…

I respect that.

is it sensible to respect belief ? Does more belief entail more respect ? I suggest one ignore belief as largely irrelevant and respect positive behaviour!

I don't see any point in ridiculing people for their beliefs unless they use them as an excuse for bad behaviour. I mean "Thou shalt not kill" seems happily unequivocal, yet many faiths nominally respecting that injunction seem to endorse no end of bloodshed 🙁

God made pretty girls.
Satan made uglies.

Conclusion god is good.

God made pretty girls.
Satan made uglies.

so, as I'm ugly I should worship the Devil ?

Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this. Can't you think for yourselves? Or do you need a whiny self-publicist (very rich from selling his acolytes lots of books) to do it for you? FFS.

'Ooh, Dawkins said this; Dawkins said that, Dawkins said the other'. Boring.

Dawkins would love to be seen as the Prophet of Atheism. That's his whole raison d'etre. Seems to be doing quite well at it too.

I'll do you a little pamphlet if you like. The 'Elfinsafety Manifesto'. £1.99 inc P+P.

Rich, I'll be RICH!

and conclusion but the nature of the observed and its ability to inform 'reality' is not a wholly scientific realm

Truly excellently put.

"Thou shalt not kill" seems happily unequivocal, yet many faiths nominally respecting that injunction seem to endorse no end of bloodshed

You're making the BIG mistake again Barnes. Some being claiming to belong to certain faiths may have endorsed violence, and some of them may have been in high positions within those religions, but that does not mean that the faith endorses it.

You might as well come right out and say Islam bombed the twin towers.

Can't you think for yourselves?

I'm trying mate. I've not read Dawkins either 🙂

I cannot be bothered to read the whole thread I'd had enough halfway down the first page, but has someone pointed out hs argument isnt about teaching creationism (as we have a national curriculum for science) but about the teaching of religion as fact and without consideration of other religions as occurs in many religious schools of all types. The number of faith based schools will also likely sky rocket under the condems plans for academies and so called "free schools". The lack of consideration of other religions in many faith schools it is argued is divisive to the community as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsa28CC_JQI&NR=1

You're making the BIG mistake again Barnes. Some being claiming to belong to certain faiths may have endorsed violence, and some of them may have been in high positions within those religions, but that does not mean that the faith endorses it.

OK, when I say "faith" I mean exclusively the people espousing it, not the abstract concept.

You might as well come right out and say Islam bombed the twin towers.

am I not specifically saying that I'm only interested in how people behave, not whatever their claimed justifications ? Only people do things, not ideas.

simonfbarnes – Just to clear up the 'I respect that' comment was clearly made after the scentence

But she'll never preach that to anybody

. So i feel your quotation is out of context. BUT saying that i agree with you. 🙂

I mean exclusively the people espousing it

SOME of the people espousing it mate.

So i feel your quotation is out of context.

it wasn't possible to tell that your respect only applied to your last sentence 🙂

Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this.

I'm an atheist, and I've never quoted the man in my life.

How do I know someone didn't make up Richard Dawkins? I've never seen him, or read anything he is alleged to have written – however I am prepared to believe in any number of him…

SOME of the people espousing it mate.

agreed 🙂

Actually, I'll expand on that a little.

I don't need a book or a self-publicising spokesman to tell me what's blatently obvious. I applaud what Dawkins is doing, but I have no need of him personally.

I hate the term 'atheist' because it implies a faith; I don't need faith. The stamp collecting comment sums it up beautifully for me. There isn't a need to disprove god any more than there's a need to disprove the tooth fairy. You might as well argue "yes, but how do you know there's no Santa Claus?"

How do I know someone didn't make up Richard Dawkins?

You're veering from religion to philosophy now. How do you know you exist?

Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this.

The guy is a prominant figure in many fields most notably Athism right? Having written so many books and having been in the public eye so much it's unlikley you can have one of these debates without a quote from him popping up. His work is extensive.

I would also point out that the OP tagline has the Name Richard Dawkins in it. soooo……Probably going to pop up here.