Atheism classes in our schools to add balance.

Rather than introducing a class for balance, the religion class they already have should be balanced. Teaching about religion, all religion, as a concept some people believe in, rather than "This is the truth and this one religion is the only right one"

Kids shouldn't be told in school that religion is true or false. The main difference between a good education and a bad one is that kids should be taught not what to think, but how to think.

A comparative religion class that addresses different religions from around the world and how different cultures believe is of quite a lot of use, as is a moral philosophy class. But Christian Doctrine or atheism? No, thanks.

Not a very good idea. How does one teach atheism anyway? Atheism is a failure, a refusal to believe the unbelievable, to accept as fact something for which there is no proof and could never be any proof.

It would be much better to remove religious classes from schools altogether. Schools are places where children are supposed to learn how to think, not have their heads stuffed with all kinds of bosh about non-corporeal beings. :rolleyes:

Let them go to churches to learn about religion, if that's what their parents ill-advisedly want.:D

By all means let schools have lessons where children are given outline introductions to the contents of the major world ideologies and belief systems, but are not indoctrinated to accept any of these systems as being the only genuine truth. That way, in this globalised world, it will be easier for them to understand why so many people in the world are misguided by one or other religion.:cool:

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

What’s the counterbalance to an argument that God may or may not exist?

I’m not just trying to be smart; this actually points to the problem with your suggestion.

“Does God exist?” is a religious question, and if you take a position on that and argue for it, that’s a religious discussion and, in the educational context, the class in which you have such discussions is a religion class - not because you call it that, necessarily, but because it in fact is.

Just as, in an ethics class, you might take the position that there are no objective moral absolutes, or the opposing position. Either way, it’s an ethics class by virtue of the fact that you are discussing that question in it. Or, in a science class, if you argue that light is a particle, or a wave, or something else, or that a particular postulated subatomic particle does or does not exist, it’s a science class by virtue of the fact that you are arguing in either direction on that point.

So, your wife did have religion classes in her school; she had classes in which religious ideas were discussed - classes the purpose of which was the discussion of relgious ideas. Those are religions classes, and they don’t cease to be so merely because she and her classmates were encouraged to adopt atheistic positions on the religious questions considered.

(No, I’m not saying that atheism is a religion or that atheists are religious. I’m just saying that atheists can and do study religion/talk about religion/adopt and argue for particular positions on religious questions. And in fact they usually are identified as atheists precisely because of the positions they adopt on certain religious questions, like “does God exist?”)

Hello all! Long time stalker here!:o

Too much of the principles of education has been handed down from the time when it was about learning scripture by rote.

There is far too little practical, useful and applicable education.
Why aren't 16 or 17 yo's taught how to drive? Cook? Clean? Do a budget? These are all things that are part of adult life but somehow, doing home ec is considered "too gay" and business studies "too boring".

Another aspect more pertinent to this particular thread is the rote learning of History, Science, Geography etc..

I think Religion should be absorbed into a comparative and applied History class that's used to assess not the facts of history, (whether religion is nonsense or not, it had very real ramifications) but what those facts resulted in and what caused them to occur in the first place.
Why did Christianity come about? What did Mao gain by starving millions of his people?

Doing so could be used as a tool to educate about the dangers of fanaticism, autocracy etc, rather than just learning that they happened.
Alot of education seems to be about learning trivia for the sake of it rather than trying to get any better understanding of how the world works.
Learning the laws of thermodynamics is fine but it's far better to learn how they were arrived at and what they achieve.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Again I am not suggesting we adopt the communist Lenin philosophy. But it is interesting that brainwashing was mentioned.

So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?

What counter point?

"Boys and girls, there is no god....that it's for the year".

Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.

I feel that the way most RC schools teach religion especially in Ireland usually have the child indoctrinated before the have come of age to question.

Im a non believing RC and wished for my children to also question religion so put no pressure on them and didn't wish for them to make there communion. However my eldest at the time was very upset when I told her and begged me to allow her to make it. Part of me thinks it was because she didnt want to feel left out and also we wanted this lovely princess dress to wear.

Now she is a little older and of an age to make her own decisions yet already a part of the RC church.

MagicMarker wrote: »

A what now?

lol I was brought up Roman Catholic but now im spiritual but not religious, so I believe we are more than the body but I dont believe any church doctrine.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How ridiculous is that, to teach things known to be wrong!

The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.