Should religion be taught in schools?

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

I presume you mean in the example of Estonia? - No. I'm just suggesting that the Soviets did a pretty good job at drilling atheism in that it has outlasted communism as a political ideology there.

So, people born in Estonia are more likely to be atheist is what you are saying?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

^^ I don't see why I can't fault atheism the second it fuels Mao, Stalin or any other ruthless dictator.

Again because they were not teaching atheism per se. They were teaching their own religion, and they were therefore teaching other religions as false. The state was the religion in these cases. Stalin was the ultimate moral law giver. Miracles were performed in biology and agriculture (or at least as with most religions the miracles were CLAIMED but never actually happened) and in Russia the Tsars were considered something more than human.

Teaching one religion is true and the others are false is not teaching "atheism". It is just the replacement of one dogma with another. Simple as. You resort to the old canard of associating atheism with failed states whenever you see a chance, but it simply has never been valid. Especially in the light of your continued inability to, wholesale reluctance to and consistent cop out and run for the hills each time you are asked to even once show that there is a god whatsoever.

Atheism is not about dogma. It is secularism coupled with free and open inquiry. If you think an abundance of secularism and free inquiry were the problem under Stalin and/or Mao then the only question remaining is which do you know LESS about. Atheism, or history.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So, people born in Estonia are more likely to be atheist is what you are saying?

Let me put it this way. Atheism is more available than any other form of thought in Estonia much as Islam is more available than any form of thought in the Middle East. It is always possible to shift if other ideologies become available through some means. In the case of the Middle East / Central and Far East Asia Christianity has become available. In the case of Ireland atheism is becoming available.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again because they were not teaching atheism per se. They were teaching their own religion, and they were therefore teaching other religions as false. The state was the religion in these cases. Stalin was the ultimate moral law giver. Miracles were performed in biology and agriculture (or at least as with most religions the miracles were CLAIMED but never actually happened) and in Russia the Tsars were considered something more than human.

It's the same type of excuse making that Christopher Hitchens makes in his book. The fact is that communism in the sense of Mao and Stalin required atheism as a prerequisite. Atheism was very clearly taught in both China and Russia, to deny this is denying fact. Atheism facilitated Stalin and Mao.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Atheism is not about dogma. It is secularism coupled with free and open inquiry. If you think an abundance of secularism and free inquiry were the problem under Stalin and/or Mao then the only question remaining is which do you know LESS about. Atheism, or history.

In your opinion. Herding atheists is like herding cats.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Let me put it this way. Atheism is more available than any other form of thought in Estonia much as Islam is more available than any form of thought in the Middle East. It is always possible to shift if other ideologies become available through some means. In the case of the Middle East / Central and Far East Asia Christianity has become available. In the case of Ireland atheism is becoming available.

So where you are born is a factor on your beliefs?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So where you are born is a factor on your beliefs?

It's a factor only to a certain degree. It isn't deterministic as that would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

The fact is that communism in the sense of Mao and Stalin required atheism as a prerequisite.

False again.

Again: The teaching of the state religion which people like Mao and Stalin wanted required that other religions be taught as false.

Again: Teaching one religion is true and the others are false is not the same as teaching atheism. If it were then teaching Christianity would require atheism as a pre-requisite too. If THATS your definition of pre-requisite then I wholly agree but I am doubting it is.

Alas calling something "fact" when it is not, does not make the things you are saying magically turn into "fact". We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

philologos wrote: »

In your opinion. Herding atheists is like herding cats.

Such is the effects of lack of dogma and such diversity is actually one of the core strengths of the current atheist movement. As I said: If you think an abundance of secularism and free inquiry were the problem under Stalin and/or Mao then the only question remaining is which do you know LESS about. Atheism, or history.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

^^ I don't see why I can't fault atheism the second it fuels Mao, Stalin or any other ruthless dictator. Most atheists would lap up the opportunity to do this in respect to religion.

However, the balanced approach would be to say that anything can be distorted or shaped into a tool to pursue selfish ambition, just that atheism was made into a tool in the case of communism. That's just acknowledging historical fact I'm afraid

Actually it was peoples inclination to worship and devotion that was abused by these systems.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

It's a factor only to a certain degree. It isn't deterministic as that would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

So how deterministic was it in Estonia?

It's largely why countries such as Estonia are majority atheist to this day.

How deterministic is it in Ireland?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So how deterministic was it in Estonia?

Considering how it was taught very deterministic I would have imagined given that the implications of exist to the present. For example in other countries such as the Ukraine people moved towards Christianity and to a lesser extent Islam after communism fell in the 90's. The same would be true for Albania, Romania and Hungary.

Malty_T wrote: »

How deterministic is it in Ireland?

I don't think it is that deterministic at all given how widely the society is questioning the dominant form of religion and other forms of religion. I would have said that perhaps from the 50's - 80's it was much more deterministic.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Actually it was peoples inclination to worship and devotion that was abused by these systems.

Keep putting your head in the sand if you want. I'll stick with the history.

Political ideology != religion

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Atheism facilitated Stalin and Mao.

There once was a non butterfly collector who never collected butterflies and had no interest in the hobby of the collecting butterflies. This non butterfly collector killed a man one day. In fact, several non butterfly collectors have brutally murdered people throughout history. Clearly, not collecting or believing in the art of butterfly collection facilitates murder.

Maybe, just maybe the ideas for killing emerged from something else? Maybe their anti bug collecting, maybe something almost entirely different like I don't know ethics?

nozzferrahhtoo

It is also worth pointing out the motivation which usually hides behind the canard of associating Atheism with Failed States.

Even if the lies from Jakkass above were true and Athiesm was actually what was being taught in those states, pointing it out would still be entirely irrelevant.

The canard is to set up a correlation, but to totally ignore causation. The dishonest Theist such as Jackkass here wants to build an image/association in your head that “Well that state was bad…. That state had atheism as a core part…. Therefore atheism is bad”.

It is a lie. It is a trick. It is a total non-sequitur. It is a canard. As such it is exactly what I have come to be used to from the poster in question who is not wont to practice honesty when it can be avoided.

Showing some X existed in a bad place in NO way says a SINGLE thing about X. Not… a single… thing. Correlation does not imply causation. In fact the correlation can be actively dismissed by looking at states today which are almost predominantly religion free and are functioning pretty well. Those states failed because of oppression, bad management, dictatorship and more. Atheism can not be blamed for this and despite years on this forum asking people like Jakkass to establish a causal relationship between the two things they so furtively and desperately want to correlate….

All I am ever left with is the dust cloud from how quickly they turn and run for the hills.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

Keep putting your head in the sand if you want. I'll stick with the history.
Political ideology != religion

What history? The one where communist regimes replaced devotion to a god with devotion to the state with an almost divine reverence for the head of that state, thereby creating de facto religions?
Yes, I'll stick with that one.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: How can it be lies when the history seems to back the fact that atheism was propagated in schools in Russia and China? I think you're a little upset that I've put atheism on the defence :pac:

Cú Giobach - Read the links I gave you and the footnotes that are cited if you fear bias.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: How can it be lies when the history seems to back the fact that atheism was propagated in schools in Russia and China? I think you're a little upset that I've put atheism on the defence

It is lies for all the reasons I just listed above which you have seemingly entirely ignored, skipped over, and then made this post following.

There is nothing to be on the defense FROM since… as I said… merely pointing out atheism was present in such states says nothing at all even if what you were saying was remotely true.

Saying you think it is on the defence from you is nothing but self masturbatory congratulations to make yourself feel you have been effective when in fact you ran away from and ignored everything I just said. You are willfully trolling now but you should have learned by now that A) I am untrollable and I am more than happy to use the platform your poor trolling attempts give me to reiterate both my points... and point out again and again how you keep lying and then running away.

If you want to attempt to establish a causal link between atheism and the horrific things that happened in such states I am all ears… but honestly I expect to see nothing more than your back as you run away from such questions as per usual.

philologos

They're not really reasons it's shameless dodging as I see it. You claim that a political ideology is a religion to say that atheism wasn't actually taught at the schools. They were taught not to believe in any form of deity. That's really enough for me.

I haven't lied at all, I've merely stated the truth.

Edit: By the by, I'm not saying atheism is bad because of this. I'm saying that atheism can be taught at school. Much as I wouldn't claim that Presbyterianism is essentially bad for the Salem Witch Trials or that Roman Catholicism is of necessity wrong for the Crusades.

nozzferrahhtoo

The were essentially told to believe in a deity, an ultimate moral law giver and a performer of miracles. Stalin himself was that god.

Again the two points that you keep ignoring and avoiding and running very fast away from:

1) Atheism is about freedom from dogma. Free and open inquiry. Secularism. If you think an explosion of Secularism and Free and Open Inquiry were at work in Russia then you are just raising a banner of ignorance about both History and Atheism.
2) Even if you were right your point is irrelevant. Even if atheism were taught, this says nothing about either atheism, or how that state failed and descended into abject misery and dictatorship.

The reasons you avoid those two points is that the first shows you are wrong, the second shows even if you were not wrong your point is irrelevant. Espousing a point that is wrong OR irrelevant is bad enough. That your point is BOTH is just comical. Comedy that is only compounded by your almost religious unwillingness to let go of the point… coupled with your absolute inability to answer anything else I ever put to you.

Honestly the only reason I so gleefully reply to you is that you never fail to promote the image of dishonest, copping out and irrelevance that I am all too happy to have you show off for me. It serves my own ends more than you know.

philologos

Political leadership isn't the same thing as religion. I'm merely saying that atheism can be taught at school and was. I don't see what is so difficult about accepting this fact.

1) You're changing the definition of atheism to go beyond its remit. Atheism = a theos. The lack of God.

2) Read the original post I replied to!

I haven't avoided any of those points. I just dispute the first, and the second just proves you've not been following the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Comedy that is only compounded by your almost religious unwillingness to let go of the point… coupled with your absolute inability to answer anything else I ever put to you.

This is tripe in that I've told you I'm working on revising those reasons.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Political leadership isn't the same thing as religion.

Not all the time but in many ways it can be, such as in states where people are taught that Tsars are something more than human, miracles of biology and agriculture are being performed (which just like the miracles in your own religion there is no reason to think they were), and that the head of the state is some kind of ultimate moral law giver.

They were not teaching atheism, they were teaching the falsehood of other religions in the face of the dogma THEY wanted to promote. There is a massive difference "I don't see what is so difficult about accepting this fact."

philologos wrote: »

2) Read the original post I replied to!

Huh? That post is not by me, has nothing to do with me, has nothing to do with what I am saying here, and has nothing to do with anything youve said to me. Why link to it?

philologos wrote: »

I haven't avoided any of those points.

Errrr yes you have. You have avoided everything I have said. Take this post for example when you did not reply to a single thing I said, and asked me a question that was already answered by everything I just said.... before then going on to Big up yourself in a self masturbatory way by pretending you are some kind of magical warrior of truth that has atheism on the defense when you have done no such thing. I have not seen such poor arguments from a supposed philosophy student since... oh I dont know... since Garth Peoples (sp?) stood up in debate against Micheal Nugent.

However you keep mentioning the presence of atheism in failed states. I here by formally ask you what the relevance of pointing that out is.

philologos wrote: »

This is tripe in that I've told you I'm working on revising those reasons.

So you keep saying. As I asked you on other thread (and of course was ignored as per usual whenever something I say is too much for you) I would like to know if you have a mailing list to inform people like me of when and where you do so. I would hate to miss it.

However I will express genuine surprise when that day comes I can assure you, because I think you are just copping out, running away, and claiming over and over you will get back to it. I doubt you ever will but as I said I am happy to keep pointing out this as it serves my ends and I have no compunction about being visibly gleeful at how easily and often you allow me to get you to give me platforms on which to highlight your continuous cop outs and lies. Both on a personal level, and on the level of painting you are a representative of what a "true christian" is like.

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

In the case of Ireland atheism is becoming available.

It always was. It's just a difficult country to live in if you choose to live without bending a knee to gods or those that worship them. The case in point being schools where religious institutions have almost unfettered access to children in order to sell their product.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not all the time but in many ways it can be, such as in states where people are taught that Tsars are something more than human, miracles of biology and agriculture are being performed (which just like the miracles in your own religion there is no reason to think they were), and that the head of the state is some kind of ultimate moral law giver.

Again, your intentional confusion between political ideologies and religion is very convenient but it was clearly stated Soviet state policy to propagate atheism. It seems dishonest to me to present this in any other way.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They were not teaching atheism, they were teaching the falsehood of other religions in the face of the dogma THEY wanted to promote. There is a massive difference "I don't see what is so difficult about accepting this fact."

How come they clearly called it atheism then? Unless we're going to get into the No True Scotsman fallacy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Huh? That post is not by me, has nothing to do with me, has nothing to do with what I am saying here, and has nothing to do with anything youve said to me. Why link to it?

Read the conversation from that post onwards until you joined in. The discussion was about whether or not it was possible to teach atheism in schools. I said yes of course because it happened in Soviet Russia and China. Now we're at the point where we are now.

If you are going to reply to my posts read the context in which it falls into. A headache less for both of us.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However you keep mentioning the presence of atheism in failed states. I here by formally ask you what the relevance of pointing that out is.

The relevance was that I was responding to whether or not it was possible to teach atheism in schools. If you had read what I had said correctly you would have got that much.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I will express genuine surprise when that day comes I can assure you, because I think you are just copping out, running away, and claiming over and over you will get back to it. I doubt you ever will but as I said I am happy to keep pointing out this as it serves my ends and I have no compunction about being visibly gleeful at how easily and often you allow me to get you to give me platforms on which to highlight your continuous cop outs and lies. Both on a personal level, and on the level of painting you are a representative of what a "true christian" is like.

Why would you express surprise? I've done this before and I'll do it again.

The reason why I don't reply every time with the reasons that I have for God's existence is that it takes time to write those posts and a lot of thought. Honestly though I don't really know why I bother sometimes because you're evidently not interested in even having a positive discussion with any Christian.

If you could lose some of the hostility and some of the vitriol we might get somewhere. I post on boards.ie recreationally, I don't post to get falsely accused for lying when I haven't been :pac:

crucamim

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

.... schools where religious institutions have almost unfettered access to children in order to sell their product.

What could be wrong with that - if parents send their children to religious institutions? Please respect parental cholice.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

I don't post to get falsely accused for lying when I haven't been :pac:

Sucks to be you because that seems to happen A LOT :pac:

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Sucks to be you because that seems to happen A LOT :pac:

Not really, just by nozzferrahhtoo :pac:

But really, I'm quite happy to cut out the crap if he's willing to.

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

What could be wrong with that - if parents send their children to religious institutions? Please respect parental cholice.

Parents don't have the right to abuse their children or deliberately teach them falsehoods. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that doesn't happen.

crucamim

Ghost Buster wrote: »

State owned schools owned and paid for by the tax paying population which is becoming increasingly non catholic.

Catholic schools are not owned by the State. Nor are Protestant schools. Nor are Muslim schools. Nor are Educate Together schools.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Not really, just by nozzferrahhtoo :pac:

But really, I'm quite happy to cut out the crap if he's willing to.

I don't believe you.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't believe you.

Que?

Edit: I don't mind discussing with people about anything. What I do mind is people questioning my sincerity or accuse me of "lying" when I haven't lied at all. That really gets my goat for obvious reasons :pac:

crucamim

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So they should not be accommodated but you should ? :rolleyes:

Of course. In a Catholic school Catholics should be accommodated while non-Catholics should not.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Que?

Was being ironic.

crucamim

Deleted User wrote: »

Parents don't have the right to abuse their children or deliberately teach them falsehoods. It's up to the rest of us to make sure that doesn't happen.

Parents do have the right to teach their children falsehoods. And who gave you the right to decide what is a falsehood? Less of the arrogance, please.