http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=node/4975

and assemblies in public schools to teach Christianity
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/03/06/bibl...-public-school/

I have never really led my kids (i have 4 boys aged 10 to 18) either direction. I personally don't believe in a single entity called god, living in a place called heaven. I do however have a pretty strong belief in reincarnation but that is a different thread. The point is, i have tried not to influence my kids either way. I have no problem if they choose to be Christians, I have no problem if they choose to be Buddhist, or anything else really. I believe it is a persons own personal choice that needs no justification to anyone. They started school and what subject is taught in the first year of school but Religious Education (RE).
Now I have a choice, do I pull them out of it? If I do, Dad the authority figure in there life is sending them a message that God is not real, thus they lose there free choice, or at least they are influenced. The ones that are not doing RE usually only 2 or 3 are separated out to another area to do Library. They are made to feel different from the others. So OK, I choose to let them stay and do RE, now we have teachers, the same ones that show them 2+2=4, telling them bible stories. What are they going to believe. I don't see other faiths such as Hindu, Islam, or Buddhism on the menu, so why RE?
I hate it, RE in school should not be allowed, at any level other than as perhaps an elective in university. It removes a kids free will to choose, a young mind of 5 or 6 will believe whatever an authority figure tells them.
And now we have this intelligent design. Please, you have to be kidding. How can this be passed of a science. It is straight out religion with a blanket over it to hide the key giveaway words. Why does the church have to recruit in this way, surely a product sells itself on its own merits. If a person has an inclination to Christianity, they have the opportunity to embrace it without it having to be rammed down our kids necks. I appose it in schools in any form.
It is plain outright brainwashing in my opinion.
As far as atheism being immoral, that is just plain bigotry in my opinion. Lets go back to the days of heresy, maybe we can start a witch hunt and burn a few people at the stake.

you shouldn't teach creationism as truth but it should be taught from the point of view "this is what christians believe". Atheism should not be taught as truth either.

Excellent response.

His argument is the fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief. That is really what spirituality is about for a lot of people, but it isn't biology.

I used to have religious assembly in a British Church of England (publically funded) school in the late '80s and early '90s, where we would recite the Lord's Prayer (although I never comprehended what it meant, it might as well have been in Dutch). Did you know that it is still the law (although thankfully it is now unenforced) to have compulsory religious assembly in British schools?

This post has been edited by Andrew: Mar 10 2008, 08:25 PM

The problem is if you appose this stuff, and want it removed from the corriculum, not to say god is not real, just to say nothing about it. You get flack from those that are religious folk. You have to be the odd one out and pull your kids out of it. I tell you, I started out so keen, so interested in school. We as a family would pull out the books of a night and do homework, it was easy as I was studying as well. But with all the crap that comes from school and in particular teachers, it just wears you out. You seem to have only two choices, be a non attentive parent and just flow with what happens, or tune in, if you do that, you are driven mad with school politics, idiot teachers. Idiot rules. Our system here is stuffed. You can take a student and in what? 7 year make them in to a doctor, 4 years into an electrician, 3 to 4 into an engineer. But our system has or kids for around 14 years form pre school to graduation and half of them cant spell or add up. But hey, they do learne LOTE (Language other than English) and RE!
It boggles my mind. I am now just wanting my kids to survive school, my effort is now not so much on the academic side, but on developing there ability to think, and people skills, an awareness of others and so on. I have had enough, i am so sick of teachers and our education system.

NO OFFENCE to any teachers here, it is likely different where you are tso in advance PEACE

This post has been edited by Dundee: Mar 11 2008, 01:30 AM

"Atheism should not be taught as truth either."

the lack of belief in supernatural things, that can't be proven.

I dont think any of it should be taught, least of all christianity. No one activly teaches atheism. I know of no western school that says god is not real. But there is plenty that say he is.
There is well and truly enough evidence to support evolution, it can be seen all around us. So unless you say teaching the Science of Evolution is teaching Atheism, well then..Atheism is not being taught. That I know of anyway. At least not here in OZ.

This post has been edited by Dundee: Mar 13 2008, 12:39 AM

No atheism shouldn't be taught, it's common sense. I never denied evolution, and teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. The bible disproves evolution, but evolution has been proven truth by scientific data. So either the bible is wrong or evolution is wrong, which is not the case. So evolution does disprove the bible creation story, I haven't look much into the koran, but I'm guessing they too have there own creation story.

Where are you saying atheism is taught?? I am not sure what you mean? I know of nowhere in OZ at least where Atheism is taught. You can't say that by not teaching christianity, is teaching Atheism. So show me where a school activly teaches god does not exist?






atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

I don't think he said that it was...

You shouldn't teach creationism at all unless its in a philosophy class. Teaching creationism in a science room is appalling, they might as well study telekinesis too.

Couldn't evolution be the tool God used to create man? I don't know, but it seems to be extreme in either direction of this argument isn't logical in the least.

WRONG evolution is not proven fact. In fact, they pretty much DO teach athiesm in schools. I guard a school (I are polizei offizer). I think it's outragteous. Evolution is NOT fact though.

Evolution is a fact to the same degree that gravity is.. its a theory only in sense of how the word is used in scientific context.

The existence of gravity is easily verified by the layman, evolution not so.

There are too many problems with Young Earth Creationism...even from a Christian point of view. Religions should allow for reform. That's their biggest folly.

If the laymen gets a flushot every year he can verify evolution.

And simply because a layman cant confirm or understand something easily has no bearing on the degree to which something has been verified. Thats actually quite a problem I believe.. the average person seems to think that all of the universe, all natural law.. should follow "common sense" laws verifiable by our senses.. when quite clearly that is not true.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity defines "common sense".. a layman can neither properly understand nor verify it.. yet it is accepted. Principly because no one imagines it is somehow demeaning to them or their religion.

I disagree. I think general acceptance here has little to do with 'offense to religion' and more to do with appeal to authority. Foremost, people generally accept Einstein's Theory of Relativity because Einstein is generally accepted as an authority in the matter. Laypeople have neither the time nor the comprehension to deal directly with the complexity or the evidence in the matter as to dispute Einstein's assertion. Therefore, it is commonly accepted. Secondarily, its accepted because it does not cause dispute among theologians or religious adherents, but not primarily.

Evolution Theory is not commonly accepted, despite Darwin's authority, because it contradicts certain theologies.

Of course, that minor distinction between primarily and secondarily really amounts to nothing more significant other than giving me something to type. lol

For my own part, I reject any idea which has been proven false by weight of evidence. I accept, to a lesser degree (recognizing that any empirical truth necessarily deals with probability rather than 'true' statements), any idea proven probable by weight of evidence. I leave open to speculation any idea neither proven false nor probable. I demand evidence to justify belief but not speculation. Whether creation by non-sentient forces and shaped by the mechanism of evolution or creation by divine will and shaped by the mechanism of evolution, both remain a matter of pure speculation. For those that believe that they prove either condition by weight of evidence...by all means...step up to bat.

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: May 4 2008, 09:57 PM