Why is religion not discouraged?

0byme75341jo28

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

The_Mac

Hoo boy folks lets crack open this can of worms again

Surreptitious

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

How can you teach something that essentially has no beliefs?

Grayson

Surreptitious wrote: »

How can you teach something that essentially has no beliefs?

Tis true. I'm an atheist and atheism is pretty much refusing to sign up to any o religion or belief that is unsupported by proof. It's really just looking at religion and saying "Seriously?"

I'd be ok with logic and philosophy being taught in schools. I think there's a need for kids to be taught ethics and learn how to construct an intellectual argument.

Surreptitious

Grayson wrote: »

Tis true. I'm an atheist and atheism is pretty much refusing to sign up to any o religion or belief that is unsupported by proof. It's really just looking at religion and saying "Seriously?"

I'd be ok with logic and philosophy being taught in schools. I think there's a need for kids to be taught ethics and learn how to construct an intellectual argument.

Philosophy is being introduced soon. Was on the news there recently.

The_Mac

Grayson wrote: »

Tis true. I'm an atheist and atheism is pretty much refusing to sign up to any o religion or belief that is unsupported by proof. It's really just looking at religion and saying "Seriously?"

I'd be ok with logic and philosophy being taught in schools. I think there's a need for kids to be taught ethics and learn how to construct an intellectual argument.

As much as I think philosophy should be a subject too regular religion delves into morality and ethics quite a bit in secondary school.

gctest50

Surreptitious wrote: »

How can you teach something that essentially has no beliefs?

Teach them what to do if some cult tries to recruit them

Peregrinus

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

Why should your beliefs be enforce through state policy?

unfortunately

Education isn't about discouraging beliefs, it's about developing skills of understanding, critical thinking, analysis etc combined with a fair presentation of facts, ideas and concepts.

Teaching "atheism", like saying "there is no god" isn't education it's the opposite, it's indoctrination of a point of view.

Children should learn about religion and not be indoctrinated in it either.

Personally, I don't believe in a god but I'd hate if a teacher stood up and stated there wasn't a god and children were expected to just accept it. They should be given the tools to figure it out themselves.

Grayson

The_Mac wrote: »

As much as I think philosophy should be a subject too regular religion delves into morality and ethics quite a bit in secondary school.

but philosophy give you the tools you need to investigate and study them. The second you start to look at the ethics of a religion you're studying philosophy.

Mackman

Kids should be taught about all religions (at least all the main ones) and their differences and similarities, then they can make up their own mind.

gctest50

Mackman wrote: »

Kids should be taught about all religions (at least all the main ones) and their differences and similarities, then they can make up their own mind.

Be easy enough really no ?

Some people are crazy and believe in fairies

They might start ranting on about their invisible friends

Luckily you can "cast a spell on them" and escape - just ask them say a few prayers for you for the big match/test/(whatever you can think of)

They will then start babbling and you can run away

Mackman

gctest50 wrote: »

Be easy enough really no ?

Mackman wrote: »

Kids should be taught about all religions (at least all the main ones) and their differences and similarities, then they can make up their own mind.

i.e. Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism

Speedwell

Mackman wrote: »

Kids should be taught about all religions (at least all the main ones) and their differences and similarities, then they can make up their own mind.

That is, kids should be taught critical thinking so that they can learn how to experience reality through a healthy mind and make decisions based on facts. Any religion that can defend itself based on evidence is welcome to try to do so, I suppose, once the person is taught how to use/not use/trust/not trust their senses, their emotions, their education, their culture, the motivations of those who want to manipulate them, and the motivations of those who don't have any idea they've been manipulated.

Undercover Elephant

Grayson wrote: »

but philosophy give you the tools you need to investigate and study them. The second you start to look at the ethics of a religion you're studying philosophy.

Only with one hand tied behind your back.

AudreyHepburn

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

So it's ok to enforce Atheism on children, but Religion is a no-no?

That's fair.

:rolleyes:

The Bishop Basher

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So it's ok to enforce Atheism on children, but Religion is a no-no?

That's fair.

:rolleyes:

I'm not sure the OP understands atheism if he thinks it's something that can be taught...

kneemos

Grayson wrote: »

Tis true. I'm an atheist and atheism is pretty much refusing to sign up to any o religion or belief that is unsupported by proof. It's really just looking at religion and saying "Seriously?"

I'd be ok with logic and philosophy being taught in schools. I think there's a need for kids to be taught ethics and learn how to construct an intellectual argument.

Surely you have to understand religion to decide if it's bullshoite?

jester77

People should be taught to just think for themselves. If one was to actually just put some thought into religion, then it wouldn't be long before it gets dismissed for what it is. Common sense goes a long way.

Captain Chaos

kneemos wrote: »

Surely you have to understand religion to decide if it's bullshoite?

Not really, logic and critical thinking along with philosophy will sort that out. From those topics alone one can see religion for what it is.

Tanner Millions Trolley

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

The simple answer is the Church wouldn't allow it be discouraged.

Peregrinus

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Not really, logic and critical thinking along with philosophy will sort that out. From those topics alone one can see religion for what it is.

Logical critical thinkers who have grasped the basics of philosophy will be able to spot the flaws in this assertion.

But, yes, it's perfectly possible to teach atheism. If we pose the question "is there a god?" it's nonsense to suggest that we can teach children one of the two possible one-word answers to this question but not the other one. Furthermore we can impart epistemologies and philosophies to children which, when applied to this question, are more likely to suggest the answer "no" than the answer "yes".

It's commonplace to point out that most people acquire their religion from their parents. Whether we describe this as being taught their religion, or inheriting it, or being indoctrinated, or being brainwashed, we all agree on what's going on here; the single biggest predictor for your current religious identification is the religious identification you were raised with.

But this is also true of atheists. In fact, if we persist in describing the handing-on of religious identification from parents to children as "brainwashing", then the parents who are most effective at brainwashing are atheist parents; their children are significantly less likely to arrive at an adult identification which differs from the one they were raised with than children raised in almost any religion.

While it may be gratifying to say that I raise my children to be independent thinkers but you brainwash yours, it's also obviously self-serving. If we avoid loaded language which presumese the validity of some standpoints and the invalidity of others, it's clear that both religious and non-religious parents do teach their children their respective stances with respect to religion and, if anything, non-religious parents do so more effectively.

Moo Moo Land

Mackman wrote: »

i.e. Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism

• Christianity: 2.1 billion.
• Islam: 1.3 billion.
• Hinduism: 900 million.
• Buddhism: 376 million.
• Sikhism: 23 million.
• Judaism: 14 million.

Fuzzytrooper

Le'Sigh - One of my pain points when volunteering with a youth group was how parents expected us to in many ways raise thier children and teach them things that they should be learning at home. You don't expect teachers to train your kids to use a toilet.

We as a society need to revisit what school is all about. It shouldn't be about pushing a particular agenda on kids, or just an exam factory but teaching them skills that they will use in life. They shouldn't need to come to school to learn morals, how to behave etc. I want my son to learn language skills, maths, art, engineering etc and not just by rote so he can pass an exam. Another pet peeve (slighly off topic rant) is that back in my school days I actively avoided essays (we all did) because the love of writing stories was killed by me in school. NOw here I am writing for fun....

Slightly more back on topic As a Christian I will of course be teaching my child about God. The foundation of my beliefs is that he has to decide to have a relationship with God himself so it's not something I can force him to believe, but he will see me praying, reading the bible, he will be coming with us to church until he is old enough to decide/stay at home himself.

As a programmer I will be teaching him to use logic, examine a problem and figure things out - I have made a decision myself, not based on random priest A.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's commonplace to point out that most people acquire their religion from their parents. Whether we describe this as being taught their religion, or inheriting it, or being indoctrinated, or being brainwashed, we all agree on what's going on here; the single biggest predictor for your current religious identification is the religious identification you were raised with.

I agree largely with what you've said but...I have noticed being around church (Pentecostal/Born again, whatever yo want to call us) is that a lot of people joining are first generation Christians as it were and a lot of children from Christian parents fall away.

Moo Moo Land

I am fairly convinced the current generation of young people will consign religion to the scrapheap.

They wont have the guilt, fear and baggage that their older generations have and will see religion for what is; utter supernatural nonsense.

Peregrinus

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

I agree largely with what you've said but...I have noticed being around church (Pentecostal/Born again, whatever yo want to call us) is that a lot of people joining are first generation Christians as it were and a lot of children from Christian parents fall away.

Pentecostal churches, for whatever reason, have a much higher "churn" than more, um, conventional churches. And this applies at both ends - they're more effective at getting in new converts, but they also lose a much higher proportion of their adherents.

You can speculate about the reasons for that, but in the present context the relevance is this; while the popular prejudice is that Pentecostal churches foster the kind of excitable, high-intensity , emotion-laden environment that is supposed to be conducive to brainwashing Impressionable Young Minds, the evidence suggest that Pentecostalists are doing less brainwashing of the young than almost any other group, and it's atheists who do the most. ;-)

Fuzzytrooper

You worry me sir. It feels like we are having a reasonable discussion on AH. I'm scared.

The_Valeyard

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

Educate together has put together a seven week course for this, with the help of Atheist Ireland.


https://motley.ie/atheism-classes-introduced-irish-primary-school-children/

Peregrinus

Don't worry. The feeling will pass soon.

Sh1tbag OToole

Ah Jaysis not this fecking atheism sh1te again, it is like a sh1t that won't flush in this forum

lightyears13

I'm a secondary teacher (non-religious) of R.E. - this is the subject in secondary schools now - Religious Education, not 'Religion' (as it was when I was in school myself)... and there's a big difference.

We examine all major world religions, like some of you have already mentioned.. we also teach about non-believers.. about morality.. about history and culture.. about human rights.. about cults.. etc etc.. There's also a stand-alone philosophy module in our school that all students take. In each of these, we encourage critical thinking and personal development. It's a Catholic school but like every school in the country, we have students of different religions.

This is the reality nowadays in secondary schools and I think it's important. As I said, I'm not religious but look around us, we need to explore these things. In schools where R.E. isn't taken as an exam subject, I think it's great for the students to have that downtime for 2-3 class periods a week when they can escape the stress of exams and explore their own minds and thoughts.

El_Duderino 09

Mackman wrote:

i.e. Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism

And the evolution of religion. How religions start (Mormons, Scientology, origin of Christianity) and how they coopt other religions to make hybrid religions like Christianity using dead pagans as Christian saints or using existing feasts and holidays.

These are important aspects of what religions are and how they work.

murpho999

Religion should not be a taught subject in modern day schools.

The school time should be given over to subjects that will lead to better educated students with more employer friendly skills for their careers. So more science or language lessons.

Alternatively, as the country faces an obesity problem, sport should be taught (I actually believe sport should be a proper subject).

If parents want their children to learn religion then let the church do that as extra-curricular activity.

Why is it such an issue in Ireland can anyone explain.

For example a C of E secondary school in the UK, which has prayers before every class, make a big deal of it religious ethos, has a good % of non religious other religious/Muslims ect, The school makes it ethos clear to any applicant.( crucially it has a very good academic reputation). Nobody is trowing a hissy fit.

Ideally religion should be taught outside school but at the same time I have no objections to religious schools.

Moo Moo Land

mariaalice wrote: »

Why is it such an issue in Ireland can anyone explain.

I would say it's because the Roman church ruled like conquerors since the 1920s and causes a lot of pain and suffering for many decades.

sadie06

Surreptitious wrote: »

Philosophy is being introduced soon. Was on the news there recently.

My son's school has been an early adopter of the Philosophy curriculum for secondary schools. Even better, it's a non-exam subject (in their school anyway) so something to really relish and enjoy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Grayson wrote: »

I'd be ok with logic and philosophy being taught in schools. I think there's a need for kids to be taught ethics and learn how to construct an intellectual argument.

Indeed, even Atheist Ireland have said in statements that they would be as opposed to atheism being taught as true in schools as they are to Catholicism being taught as true in schools.

Like you, and them, I would be more interested in having better mathematics, philosophy and ethics taught. Along with a grounding of what the main religions, and religion types, of the world are.... how they form and evolve and so forth.

I think a firm grounding in the fallacies, what they are, what causes us to be so predisposed to them, and how to spot and avoid them.... would do wonders in the inoculation against infection by religious meme viruses.

The_Mac wrote: »

As much as I think philosophy should be a subject too regular religion delves into morality and ethics quite a bit in secondary school.

And that is one of the problems I fear. It delves into morality from the perspective of unsubstantiated nonsense.... such as objective morality existing, or the existence of a moral law giver.

The interest I would have of teaching morality and ethics in schools would be to do so divested of any unsubstantiated nonsense and merely go into the idea of how we can rationally have moral discourse and ideas. And to understand issues in moral philosophy like "the Repugnant Conclusion" etc etc.

Even when you look at, say, Biblical morality...... if you list all the moral ideas you find correct and useful that you find there..... is there one that becomes less valid or less applicable when it is entirely divested from any and all unsubstantiated nonsense it is packaged with?

Moo Moo Land

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, even Atheist Ireland have said in statements that they would be as opposed to atheism being taught as true in schools as they are to Catholicism being taught as true in schools.

Like you, and them, I would be more interested in having better mathematics, philosophy and ethics taught. Along with a grounding of what the main religions, and religion types, of the world are.... how they form and evolve and so forth.

I think a firm grounding in the fallacies, what they are, what causes us to be so predisposed to them, and how to spot and avoid them.... would do wonders in the inoculation against infection by religious meme viruses.



And that is one of the problems I fear. It delves into morality from the perspective of unsubstantiated nonsense.... such as objective morality existing, or the existence of a moral law giver.

The interest I would have of teaching morality and ethics in schools would be to do so divested of any unsubstantiated nonsense and merely go into the idea of how we can rationally have moral discourse and ideas. And to understand issues in moral philosophy like "the Repugnant Conclusion" etc etc.

Even when you look at, say, Biblical morality...... if you list all the moral ideas you find correct and useful that you find there..... is there one that becomes less valid or less applicable when it is entirely divested from any and all unsubstantiated nonsense it is packaged with?

Brilliant post.

niamhstokes1

No, because atheists only exist on internet forums

MRnotlob606

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

I believe the state should be discouraging such nonsense.

Atheism should be taught in schools.

Sounds like a Soviet era policy, In fact in countries where state Atheism has been taught, They tend to me autocratic, See Cuba,North Korea,. When you try to ban a certain religion, it doesn't discourage worshipers, in fact it makes their faith even stronger, Think about Catholics during the penal times, or even the Yazidis in Iraq.

unfortunately

Peregrinus wrote:

But this is also true of atheists. In fact, if we persist in describing the handing-on of religious identification from parents to children as "brainwashing", then the parents who are most effective at brainwashing are atheist parents; their children are significantly less likely to arrive at an adult identification which differs from the one they were raised with than children raised in almost any religion.

The one caveat I would point out is that atheism is the default position of children. They have to be told what their religion is and continually have it reinforced, to the exclusion of others. Being young children they are inherently gullible and if you inject religion in at this point it gets ingrained deeply and they keep that religion into adulthood and likely repeat the process with their own children.

If as a non-believer I inform my child that they are many religions and different beliefs but don't insist they are one particular one they are likely to grow up not attached to any, is that brainwashing? Similarly if we just don't bring up religion or beliefs as they are not important in day-to-day life, is that brainwashing them against religion?

Left to their own devices children generally don't become religious, you need enforcement from schools, parents, churches, peers to keep the whole game going.

A lot of my generation are nonreligious or de facto atheists - they were not brainwashed to be atheists, its just that the religious brainwashing they were exposed to was ineffective.

looksee

I am an atheist, I post quite a lot in the atheist forum. I do not agree that atheism, or theism should be taught in schools. Critical thinking, logic and philosophy, and the history and social implications of religion should be taught.

Your Face

Does anyone here actually read philosophy?
There's a danger of belief present there too.
I think they should use the time to teach self-defense.

andekwarhola

Tanner Millions Trolley wrote: »

Atheism should be taught in schools.

Surreptitious wrote: »

How can you teach something that essentially has no beliefs?

Mandatory school modules in beard cultivation, optimal bookshelf arrangement of unread books on humanism and sharing social media posts about Good Friday and Educate Together could be a runner.

nozzferrahhtoo

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Sounds like a Soviet era policy, In fact in countries where state Atheism has been taught, They tend to me autocratic, See Cuba,North Korea,.

The difference there however, is that they are teaching not atheism or state atheism, but state religion. In North Korea for example, one of your examples, they teach that the now dead founder of the state is ETERNAL and his all loving and benevolent dictator son is essentially him reaincarnated and the eternal leader rules through him.

In fact Christopher Hitchens used to share an anecdote about some escapees from North Korea who, upon escaping, were picked up and taken to safety by Christian Missionaries.

As they were moving to safety the missionaries, as is the wont of such people, move to tell them about Jesus. An eternal loving father who gave us his son to rule in eternal dominion over us.

At which point the escapees quickly started to think to themselves "Hang on, is this not exactly what we thought we just escaped from???"

No the attempts to link atheism with state religions of this sort, as the user The Valeyard showed so quickly and so effectively on a locked thread, merely ends in flapping nonsense from the people making those links.

FURTHER what happened in states like Russia was not merely the teaching in schools that there is no god, or at least the more common atheist perspective of there being no reason at all to think there IS a god....... what happened there was the violent destruction of religion, the forcible removal of peoples faiths, the prosecution or murder of anyone with a faith and more.

That is hardly a fair comparison on any level I can think of. No one here is, as you put it in your words "Trying to ban a certain religion". The proposition was to merely teach atheism in schools. If people leave those schools and are STILL a member of a religion...... so be it. No one here, until you, suggested otherwise.

But as I, looksee, Atheist Ireland, Micheal Nugent, Jane Donnelly, and many more will tell you.... there does not appear to be a significant number of people (none that I am aware of) that actually want atheism taught as true in schools. In fact Atheist Ireland and Nugent move often, nearly every interview, to state they would be AS opposed to that as they are to teaching any one theism is true.

Dravokivich

If you believe in Human Rights, and the freedom of expression and one to hold their own belief's (or share belief's of others) you shouldn't be too keen on discouraging Religion. Especially looking for it to be state sanctioned.

Group thought as is common with Religion but not unique to it, isn't the issue. It's the way it's been used and misrepresented that irks most people.

When my son goes to school, I really couldn't care what else the school teaches once he gets the core subjects such as English, Maths, History, Geography, Sciences and such.

looksee

Your Face wrote: »

Does anyone here actually read philosophy?
There's a danger of belief present there too.
I think they should use the time to teach self-defense.

Isn't that what we are talking about?

Your Face

looksee wrote: »

Isn't that what we are talking about?

No.

Sleepy

lightyears13 wrote: »

I'm a secondary teacher (non-religious) of R.E. - this is the subject in secondary schools now - Religious Education, not 'Religion' (as it was when I was in school myself)... and there's a big difference.

We examine all major world religions, like some of you have already mentioned.. we also teach about non-believers.. about morality.. about history and culture.. about human rights.. about cults.. etc etc..

I'm curious, how does a cult differ from any other religion according to the curriculum?

nozzferrahhtoo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Educate together has put together a seven week course for this, with the help of Atheist Ireland.


https://motley.ie/atheism-classes-introduced-irish-primary-school-children/

Indeed they did work together, though alas a lot of people have managed to misunderstand the meaning of the joint venture, the content, the intention, or the results.

Ken.

Mod-Please do not bring discussions by users from other threads or forums into the current thread, this does not add to the current discussion and is against the charter:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...78&postcount=4