h a l f b a k e r y
fnord
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
This idea first occured to me when at various school competitions, in which were many Christian academies. Of course, I am tolerant of other religions, but this made me aware of to what extent atheists are neglected. Everyone seems to assume that you believe in a god.
Thus was the birth of atheist
academies. These would be private schools in which students could be taught subjects untainted by religion, where teachers don't clutter up their speeches with the phrases "God forbid," or "Heaven knows." If the USA Pledge of Allegiance were to be recited, the "under God" part would be omitted, and pupils could learn about the theory of evolution in biology class.
In the end, it would give children a chance to be educated in a secular environment, and, at least, possibly give atheists, a minority, a sense of pride for their religion, or lack thereof.
City Academies
http://www.odpm.gov..._urbpol_608382.hcsp
not a very helpful link but the best official link I could find. [calum, Jun 22 2005]
Reg Vardy City Academies
http://www.redpeppe...E/x-kye-Jun2005.htm
not an unbiased piece. [calum, Jun 22 2005]
Official site of emmanuel schools.
http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/
"The EMMANUEL Schools Foundation exists to promote the highest possible standards within comprehensive secondary education through provision based upon Christian principles. " [calum, Jun 22 2005]
Should public money be used for scholarships toward divinity degrees?
http://www.atheists...ash.line/court2.htm
[reensure, Jun 22 2005]
Reed College
http://www.answers..../topic/reed-college
The unofficial motto of Reed is "Atheism, Communism, and Free Love," [bungston, Jun 23 2005]
Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia...g_Spaghetti_Monster
[calum, Aug 19 2005]
Invisible Pink Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia...isible_Pink_Unicorn
[calum, Aug 19 2005]
The Public Schools of the Future
The_20Public_20Scho...20of_20the_20Future
[quantum_flux, Feb 10 2008]
founded mostly, IIRC, by agnostics, freemasons and non-religious jews...
http://en.wikipedia...sity_College_London
...for precisely this purpose. See also University College School (the related high school). [pertinax, Feb 10 2008]
Cectic Comic - Status Quo
http://cectic.com/132.html
Let's leave ALL discussions about God out . . . [baconbrain, Apr 07 2008]
overbaked @ groups.yahoo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbaked/
A great place for discussions about gods. [jutta, Apr 09 2008]
Camp Quest
http://www.answers.com/topic/camp-quest
And, a great place to send your freethinking children so they don't have to have discussions about gods. [quantum_flux, Apr 09 2008]
Complex Color Plot
http://upload.wikim...or_complex_plot.jpg
With math, you can "imagine" anything. [quantum_flux, Jun 24 2008]
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Agree agree. Heaven knows it's a good idea. Bun |
|
| |
Could there be a class which introduces many religions? Such a class already exists in some public schools. |
|
| |
Go the whole hog: complete separation of church and state. So that nobody feels neglected or excluding. |
|
| |
I agree utterly with OldChina - religion
should be completely divorced from the
State, and should not be a part of
schooling (other than as a topic in
history etc). However, I think trying to
weed out neutral phrases such as
"heaven knows" is a bit silly. |
|
| |
//Could there be a class which introduces many religions? //
Move to the UK, where such a class exists at secondary school level (poss. at primary school, too, but it is such a long time ago that I was at either). This class is called "Religious Education" and introduces the children to all the major world religions, in a non prostletysory way. The class is regarded as a skive, though, and is often taken by a clearly unhappy-to-be-there PE teacher. |
|
| |
As to the idea, this is utterly bakable in the UK, if you have a few million quid lying about; there exists in a policy, the name of which escapes me presently, that allows business to team up with the state to build/fund state (not private/public) schools, called "City Academies", the main selling point being that the private funder is allowed, to a certain extent, to set the curriculum to be taught at the school. Pete Vardy, of the Reg Vardy used car sales chain, has funded two such schools which teach creationism and Darwinism on an equal footing. This may, to Americans, seem normal, even an improvement. In the UK, this is very much not the norm: even in the CofE school I attended way back when, Darwin's theory of evolution was taught ahead of any creationist/intelligent design theory. |
|
| |
Scary stuff calum. If people want to teach their kids a few bonkers religious theories then that's their perogative but let 'em do it at their own expense and not under the cover of the national curriculum. |
|
| |
It's not the 'choice in education' that's scary, it's the diversion of public funds, in a supposedly secular state, to propogate religious dogma. |
|
| |
I agree with what you're saying [DrBob] but are we officially a secular state? Ain't old Queenie the head of the C of E etc? |
|
| |
"Heathen Academy" would be a misnomer since "heathen" is a term used to denote anyone not believing in a specific god (dictionary.com has it as "Judaism, Christianity or Islam). It doesn't prohibit heathens from believing in other gods though. |
|
| |
[DrBob]: You'll note that Peter Vardy funds the school in question. In any event, is the diversion of public funds to propagate religious dogma any worse than the diversion of public funds to propagate socio-political dogma? Not that [calum] need worry; education's devolved in Scotland, isn't it? |
|
| |
Pursuing that line of logic [angel] ie. "it's funding education, let it go" leads to all kinds of fun - see America, United States of. Schools mandated to include soft drink vending machines despite chronic obesity amongst kids because of sponsorship deals with Big Soda. Best not to compromise on this sort of thing I think. Before you know it, you're dependent on them for funds and in a mess. |
|
| |
[DocBrown]: The choice is not simply between funding by corporate sponsorship or funding by Government allocating public money. Why not let parents take the funding for their child's education wherever they see fit? |
|
| |
Separation of church and state would be ideal; however, as academies are private schools, the state would have nothing to do with it. |
|
| |
As for "Heathen Academies," I believe that the word 'heathen' has a negative connotation, as it also means uncivilized. Cleary not what I was striving for. |
|
| |
<Nearly Off Topic And Risking The Beginning Of A Religious Debate> I have always found it really funny how atheists base their denial of God's existance on Dogmas, the same thing religions are based on </NOTARTBOARD>. |
|
| |
Oh, and about the idea, [+]. |
|
| |
There are groups of atheists, organized and not, the same as there are organized religions. I don't get your point. |
|
| |
My daughter was raised with the knowledge and history of all religions. She was half Chirstian, and half Jewish. I didn't tell her which way to go, she opted for Judiasm, and that made the most sense for her, and that's where she landed. |
|
| |
For fucks sake, open the front door, allow innocence to walk out, wait till the footsteps return, open the door, and leave the kid alone. They will form their own opinions, and it *should* be free of any of our sour and stale platitudes. Otherwise, life on this planet will continune as we know it...yahoooooooo. |
|
| |
I could care less, about her, or anyone else's god. I have mine. She has to live by her god's rules, and me, by mine. If they are seperate, so be it. |
|
| |
Don't get the big deal, but I am sure this thread will be frothing with anger and bad manners, as everyone, yet again, attempts to prove their religion is right, and all the others, well poo-poo. |
|
| |
(ditto Murdoch), but change that to religion. |
|
| |
I guess I am my own god, when it comes down to it. I see no need for academies that teach one dogma or another. Can't we just teach the languages, mathematics and sciences, leaving religion to personal choice? |
|
| |
Because [angel] this can lead to a marked disparity in the nature and quality of the education provided. Take the example of the Peter Vardy schools. In this case, the government has (effectively) accepted partial funding for a school and allowed in return the teaching of creationist theories in equal weighting with the conventional evolutional stuff.
Scale up by allowing every wealthy single-issue fruit loop who feels like it to establish a school and in twenty years 10% of the population will have a moral objection to toast, acolytes of religion X (nurtured through their many academies) will believe followers of other religions should be culled, 1 in 5 people will believe in the healing power of zoning crystals and cats will be regarded as sacred animals (yeah, the HB got its own academy).
The point is that whilst parents have a right to teach their children whatever they please on their own time, this should not interfere with the servicing of a child's right to education. For childrens' rights in this regard to be upheld equally with respect to one another "an education" must necessarily be a standard, recognised across the area striving to provide it. |
|
| |
You think that the state should have more say in how your child is educated than you do? You're opposed to the teaching of faith-oriented ethics but in favour of the teaching of politically-correct versions of history over which you have no control? If a school meets the parents' criteria for the form of education they wish for their child, why should the state intervene? |
|
| |
//You think that the state should have more say in how your child is educated than you do?// |
|
| |
Provision of "core" educational topics (mathematics, languages, science, history, geography)is best done by the state, which is able to leverage economies of scale for effective provision of buildings, facilities, teachers etc. The obvious caveat is that the state in question is a nice cuddly democratic type.
//You're opposed to the teaching of faith-oriented ethics but in favour of the teaching of politically-correct versions of history over which you have no control?//
I made no reference to "ethics" which are subtly different to "beliefs". Provision of a moral framework is one thing, proffering creationism as a viable explanation of the world's history is something else entirely. I also made no mention of history, although I did propose that "parents have a right to teach their children whatever they please on their own time" this would include stuff like religious beliefs, personal takes on history, how to fix cars, throw punches, not tell lies, tie your shoes, wash your hands all the yummy extra-curricular stuff.
//If a school meets the parents' criteria for the form of education they wish for their child, why should the state intervene?//The state has a responsibility to intervene when the educational offering in question fails to meet the child's right to recieve an education ie. when what is on offer departs sufficiently from the agreed standard of education such that the child on the receiving end is put at a disadvantage compared to its peers. |
|
| |
Whoa! This one got big whilst I wasn't looking.
//is the diversion of public funds to propagate religious dogma any worse than the diversion of public funds to propagate socio-political dogma? //
Nope, but to which socio-political dogma do you refer? It's the word propogate that is the important one to my mind. I've got no problem with kids discussing creationism in school but only as one amongst a vast number of religious theories (as blissy did with her daughter) . It shouldn't be foisted on kids as the one and only truth and the same goes for political theories as well. Teach them how to read, write and do arithmatic and for anything else give them the available facts and the arguments for and against and then let them make their own minds up. |
|
| |
//You're opposed to the teaching of faith-oriented ethics but in favour of the teaching of politically-correct versions of history over which you have no control?// |
|
| |
There's a bloody good point. Most of what we read as "history" is at best a sanitised version and at worst propaganda promulgated by the victors. |
|
| |
There are always two or more sides to a story in history. 50 years from now there are going to be some pretty lurid tales about Islamic fundamentalism and its rise to prominence at the beginning of this century, gracing history texts, unless Islam's adherents prevail. |
|
| |
In that case there will be some pretty lurid tales about Christian fundamentalists and their attempts to destroy Islam... |
|
| |
I was fortunate, insofar as I was sent to an Anglican boarding school, where I often engaged in long and detailed discussions about religion, science and history with a remarkable man. Brother Robin had turned his back on a certain fortune in his family's business, to become a member of an obscure Anglican order of monks. He could debate a point from any side of the table, and would often play devil's advocate. I miss the old guy, as he was a great mentor. |
|
| |
[DocBrown]: //Provision of "core" educational topics ... is best done by the state ... //
The reasons you give may (just "may") argue in favour of state-controlled funding, but not of state-controlled curricula which should be the responsibility of parents.
//I made no reference to "ethics" which are subtly different to "beliefs".//
No, but my point was that a faith-school will, de facto, teach ethics on the basis of that faith.
// I also made no mention of history.//
Again, no, but just as the teaching of ethics is influenced by faith, the teaching of history is influenced by political considerations.
[DrBob]: //to which socio-political dogma do you refer?//
Any which is stuffed into the head of a child whose parents have no say in the choice of school. I'm all in favour of schools teaching the absolute basics and leaving the rest to parents, but I'm more in favour of parents being able to select the type of teaching that they wish for their children.
The objections of both Doctors can be countered by giving to parents the choice of school which best suits their own beliefs, and which they consider best suits their child's temperament. I'm not suggesting that non-Christian children should be obliged to attend schools which teach Creationism, simply that such schools should be available to parents who wish it to be taught to their children.
[UB]: Quite so. Ignatius Loyola said "Give me the child and I will give you the man" (I'm paraphrasing). |
|
| |
//The reasons you give may (just "may") argue in favour of state-controlled funding, but not of state-controlled curricula which should be the responsibility of parents//
The reasons I give do argue persuasively in favour of state-controlled funding - until you can provide on an average UK income sports facilties, chemistry lab, specialist teachers, IT resources etc I'll consider that point closed. The larger argument was that when we talk about a child's right to an education, we're really talking about a child's right to *the* education - that being the one which everyone agrees should be provided as a basis for further learning. This leaves parents the option to bolt on beliefs, prejudices, takes on history etc as is their wont, but it ensures that each child gets an equal start. Without this common curriculum, there is no way to enforce a child's right to an education because there's no consensus as to what that actually entails.
Re. ethics, you must acknowledge the difference between provision of a moral framework to guide one's actions which is laudable and the elevation of widely discredited beliefs such as creationism to be on an equal par with established science. One is complementary to education and to be encouraged, the other is certainly not.
The state has a duty to provide children with an education. Let it do this, and let parents add to this what they will. What must not be tolerated is the irrevocable compromising of a child's start in life because of a parent's beliefs. |
|
| |
//The reasons I give do argue persuasively in favour of state-controlled funding - until you can provide on an average UK income sports facilties, chemistry lab, specialist teachers, IT resources etc I'll consider that point closed.//
Independent schools manage to provide those facilities without state funding, so the point is by no means closed, although it remains somewhat incidental to the main argument. There is no style of education which "everyone agrees" is right; if there were, we would not be having this discussion. The education (if it can be called that) offered in state schools is not only not as everyone would choose, if they had a choice, it is probably not the one most suitable for most children, for the simple reason that it is virtually identical everywhere and children are not virtually identical everywhere. Further, neither you nor "everyone" nor the state has the right to over-rule parents in their decisions as to what is the right education for their children. |
|
| |
The fact that children are not identical would not necessitate altering the content of the education merely the style of its delivery. New teachers are now encouraged to recognise this and attempt to adapt their teaching to fit the children they encounter.
To take one more of your points:
//Further, neither you nor "everyone" nor the state has the right to over-rule parents in their decisions as to what is the right education for their children.//
Test case: Parents who choose to educate their child at home and do a poor job, or those who choose not to send their child to school at all can be prosecuted for failing to meet their child's right to an education. In this regard their right to choose the content of their child's education is subservient to the child's right to an education. Therefore in legal terms at least in the UK, your statement doesn't hold.
I've got to go home now and won't be around for tomorrow. Thank you for the pleasure of a civil and stimulating discussion - rare these days. I look forward to reading your comprehensive rebuttal of my points in due course! |
|
| |
In America, no need to build any new schools, just declare a few of the existing schools to be athiest. A few professors might need to be swapped, but not many. |
|
| |
For those who want their higher learning in an atheist context - I recommend investigating Reed College in Portland. Linked. |
|
| |
I agree with you, [soliloquy], although one side of my family is Jewish, I attend a school that, although isn't very religeous, they force us to go to a church at the end of the year, sing hymns and things, but I can't help feeling like a traitor to the other side of my family's religeon, and they claim to be multicultural, even though a few are of very different religeons... |
|
| |
//schools which teach Creationism...should be available to parents who wish it to be taught to their children//
I don't agree, angel, and not just about Creationism but any religion. I guess that this is one of those topics where we're never going to see eye to eye!
I don't think that religious belief should have any part in a school curriculum. Religious teaching (as opposed to a broader based discussion of religions generally) is something that should be done at home or in church/temple etc. If a state school was to start teaching, for example, a Socialist curriculum there would quite rightly be an outrage (you're going to claim that they're already doing this, aren't you!) and I don't really see a difference between political indoctrination and religious indoctrination.
Kids should be encouraged to have their mind open about things, not have it slammed shut before they've ever seen anything of the world.
ps: Just to take issue with DocBrown slightly, I think you have to be a bit wary about seperating scientific fact (e.g. if you combine these two chemicals together they will blow up in your face) from the conclusions of scientists. When I was at school a lot of what are now termed 'Complimentary' medicines, were rubbished out of hand as quackery. These days you can get acupuncture treatment on the NHS. |
|
| |
Strange to relate, [DrB], we're not as far apart as you think. I'm not proposing that any religion be part of the curriculum for those children whose parents don't wish it; similarly, I'm proposing that the current PC influence in the curriculum also be removed where parents wish so. My stance is that it should be parents who decide what and how their children should be taught, not the state. [DocBrown]'s "test case" rightly identifies those parents who do a poor job of home schooling, but fails to notice the millions more children poorly educated in a state school system from which there is virtually no escape (and which there is absolutely no way of avoiding funding). |
|
| |
"I can't believe you want to go to that school". |
|
| |
//I don't think that religious belief should have any part in a school curriculum// most UK teachers are objective enough to give a fair view of them all - or they flippin' well should - my school has pupils of all faiths and our policy is to treat them equally. what else can we do? |
|
| |
But [po], you're starting from where we are now. Yes, schools in the current state system have to treat all religions equally, but there are parents who want *their* religion to be taught preferentially (or exclusively). [DrBob] and [DocBrown] argue that no religion should be taught at all, you say that they should all (All? Some chance.) be taught; I say that the state should mind its own business and let the parents choose, not whether their particular beliefs should be taught in whichever state-controlled school their child has been allocated to, but which school their child should attend. |
|
| |
yes, exactly. teach them all - objectively... |
|
| |
our religious assemblies are about being kind and considerate and tolerant... |
|
| |
then the staff beat each other up mentally/physically in the staffroom |
|
| |
you have to teach RE, you can't just pretend it does not exist. |
|
| |
now for sex, who wants to tackle that? |
|
| |
the newest member of staff gets - science! |
|
| |
Here in these parts churches are gearing up for Vacation Bible School. What would be the atheist equivalent? |
|
| |
[pericles]: I have always found it really funny how atheists base their denial of God's existance on Dogmas, the same thing religions are based on |
|
| |
I find it interesting how you utterly refrained from saying just what these supposed dogmas are. |
|
| |
//I have always found it really funny how atheists base their denial of God's existance on Dogmas//
In general, you will find that atheists base their denial of the existence of god or gods on their belief that there is no god or gods. Atheism is a matter of belief. |
|
| |
The most sensible debate I've seen about the existance or non-existance of god was portrayed in an old Monty Python skit where a preacher and an athiest wrestled in a ring to see who was right. |
|
| |
That method not only works about as well as any other for converting people from one side to the other, it's more entertaining to watch. |
|
| |
Shirely this is a disguised rant bordering on advocacy? What about agnostics? Can we send them somewhere to get them to make their minds up? |
|
| |
I belive the James Randi Foundation has
a fund to support teaching children
athiesm. When Penn Jillette's baby was
born, fans donated money in her name
to this fund. |
|
| |
I recently saw a Dogma with some really cute puppies. |
|
| |
What [calum] said. Atheism is a belief like any other. The bottom line is, it's impossible to know. Just like it's impossible to know whether there really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster hiding behind the universe.
(oops what a giveaway) |
|
| |
Drifting slightly off-topic - What I find weird is that, as the world shrinks and we become more and more aware of how many different belief systems exist and how many people share them and live normal, happy lives, that religion can still be a driving force for bloody, vicious wars. |
|
| |
//Atheism is a belief like any other.// Well, it can be. Some people are atheists for no good reason--their child died, so they decided to believe there is no god (That'll teach him!). They are dogmaticallly anti-god, as some annos above have assumed that all atheists are. |
|
| |
An atheist academy would have to teach that there are all kinds of non-god people, just as there are all kinds of godly people, with almost as many reasons for holding their particular worldview. Some have arrived at their current mode of thought through careful study of the world, and will continue to modify their understanding as they learn and live. To say that they are dogmatic believers is possible, but not a correct description of their case. |
|
| |
Of course, if you want to believe that //Atheism is a belief like any other// I cannot change your mind. |
|
| |
Where do you come from, [soliliquy], for secular education to be such a foreign concept to you that you feel the need to invent it? |
|
| |
When I went to school we were taught about many religions (in the RE classes mentioned by others). This was done in an absolutely secular and objective manner. We were introduced to a wide variety of belief systems and their histories without anyone saying "And THIS is the truth". I voluntarily took a subject called Religion and Philosophy at A-level purely because I was interested in it and not because I had been indoctrinated by my teachers. I then took it even further by studying Philosophy at Uni which of course, being partly the study of the history of thought, included various religious questions. None of this has lead to me being involved in organised religion. On the contrary, it has made me a sceptic (and not just a religious skeptic) and given me a set of tools which I use every day. |
|
| |
I understand and agree with your rejection of christian academies but cannot agree with comprehensive excision of all religion from the educational curiculum. To completely ignore systems of thought which affect the entire human race greatly limits the scope of student's knowledge and goes againt the spirit of enquiry which is surely the very heart of education. |
|
| |
(Nice sub-title, by the way) |
|
| |
//To completely ignore systems of thought which affect the entire human race greatly limits the scope of student's knowledge and goes againt the spirit of enquiry which is surely the very heart of education// Nicely put [squeak]. Bone from an atheist. |
|
| |
My son is about to start college this month. He will attend Washington College in Chestertown MD.
One of the more interesting interviews was with the head of the Philosophy and Religion department.
I think those go together well in a liberal arts setting.
And yes, atheism is covered when he says "religion". |
|
| |
Well said, [squeak], quite well said. But, sadly, my religion/school experiences have basically ruined it for me. |
|
| |
I remember having to learn about the three most popular religions of the world, and, as the majority of the class was Christian, having to sit through classes of everyone there assuming that there _was_ a god. They viewed the other religions as something to laugh at, something odd and weird, and not respecting them as a true religions. |
|
| |
Then I also remember (and predicted) the gasps and looks of astonishment when I declared my lack of religion. Some became condescending to me, and tried to get me to change, one even hunting me up outside of school, which only made me angry and not able to focus on my studies. Others even said I was going to "hell." |
|
| |
Then there were the teachers who would say something to the effect of "You're wasting your God-given talent!" |
|
| |
I find religion in school distracting, and though public schools are supposed to be secular here, that is not the case. |
|
| |
//If you are suggesting that taxes be used to support them, the question becomes one of distribution. Does [moom's]Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Behind the Universe get money for its school? What if it only has four members?//
I'm not suggesting any such thing. I see no need for the State to be involved at all. If the CotFSMBtU wants to educate its followers' children in its dogma, those followers should fork over the funding. Likewise for any other school.
The way education funding and administration works in UK is that the Treasury allocates a slice of tax revenue to Education. The Department for Education keeps some of it and distributes the rest to Local Education Authorities (with strings attached) who then keep some of it and allocate the rest to individual schools (also with strings attached). Parents have virtually no say in how or where their child is educated; all they do is pay for it through taxation, as do non-parents. My preferred scenario is that parents' money should go directly to the school of their choice, with absolutely no state involvement at all. The fact that an entire Government department and 126 local authority departments would no longer be necessary gives some idea of the monetary savings involved. |
|
| |
[calum] Thanks for the links - that's the first time I've snorted out tea from my nose in a long time. Looks like I'll be joining the ranks of the pastafari |
|
| |
This could effectively be coupled with my idea "the public schools of the future" to form the ultimate education that secular things can bring about. |
|
| |
baked since 1826 - see link |
|
| |
Aside from the modification of the Pledge of Allegiance, which we stopped saying in the seventh grade, this exactly describes my educational career from kindergarten to the time I got my AS. |
|
| |
I have never, ever, been taught any religious subject in any of the schools I ever attended. All my biology classes were untainted by religious concepts. There was one subject related to religion but it was optional and I never took it. In Portugal it has worked as I described for the last 34 years. It amazes me that this is not common policy in all civilized countries. |
|
| |
What a pointless idea. The majority of schools are _already_ secular. Religious schools are aimed at certain cultural minorities. Who exactly is this school supposed to be aimed at? Atheism isn't a religion or culture. It is simply the absence of such, and there is no such thing as a group identity of atheists. Why would anyone bother sending their children to such a school when their needs are arleady catered for? |
|
| |
This is like opening a "non-Waldorf school" or "non-International school" etc.
[-] |
|
| |
Religious Education as a subject is not pointless. Whether you believe in anything or not, religion is important historically and remains a major force throughout civilisation. I think it is important for athiests and members of a particular religion to be aware of the beliefs and teachings of religions. |
|
| |
There is a difference between teaching about religion and encouraging belief in a religion. |
|
| |
Atheists say there is no God. I see them doing their lives without ultimate purpose. I sensed God and His Purpose, then, I try to live my life with a definite and ultimate purpose: for I feel I would be with Him soon. |
|
| |
Thanks for that, [rotary]... |
|
| |
Anyway, this idea is nor for atheist alone. Agnostics like myself are all for it too. I think. |
|
| |
I can't relate to any of this, since I joined the idol rich. |
|
| |
//I see them doing their lives without ultimate purpose.//
Life is its own purpose. You don't have to be doing the work of a higher being for life to be something other than a pointless drudge, and it's entirely possible to live virtuously without the expectation of heavenly reward. In fact, a virtuous life without such an expectation is more valid because it indicates that good was done *because* it was good, rather than because you get a cookie.
Those arguing that atheists are as dogmatic as believers are way off base; for me, "atheism" is a silly term. I don't believe that god exists just as I don't believe that blue strawberries exist; show me evidence of either and my belief will change. Faith - any faith - is, by definition, irrational. I am a rational person. |
|
| |
[angel], wouldn't it be more rational to just say that you don't know if God exists or not? And then you could call yourself an agnostic and all you other considerations are still valid if you're an agnostic. |
|
| |
Well, for this atheist, agnosticism is a wuss-out, a way of saying "I dunno". To me, if there is a god, one had best figure out how to get on its good side. If there isn't a god, figuring out what the hell is happening here is necessary to be fully aware of what it is to be a human being. |
|
| |
I may not be able to prove to everyone that gods do not exist, for proving the absence of something is a challenge. But the only reason I would possibly have to think that gods might possibly exist is the incoherent testimony of folks that I know are wrong about many a thing. "If you're an atheist, thank a Baptist." But that's my flavor of atheism--snarly. |
|
| |
Atheist, as a term, doesn't really mean that one is against the gods, or has proven that they don't exist, or even faithfully believes that they don't exist. It just means that the person described does not have a belief that there are gods. It's kind of like calling someone a non-smoker--we don't know why he doesn't smoke, all we know is that he doesn't indulge in that particular behavior--but as [angel] says, we should just realize the person is baseline human, instead of giving them a label about what they aren't. And yes, I'm comparing coughing up a lung to going to church. |
|
| |
But (says he, barging in), by the same
token, [Paulo], [Angel] is also an
agnobluestrawberryic. By
the same token, I'm an agnoleprechaunic,
an
agnolochnessmonsteric and an
agnoflyingsauceric, as well as an atheist.
There is an unlimited list of irrational
things not to believe in. Theism is
basically a pathology. |
|
| |
Walt Kelly's _Pogo_ comic once imagined a catalog that described all the things that could not be bought with the worthless Puce Stamps. "Mink-lined garbage cans . . .. |
|
| |
Agnosticism, if I recollect correct, was originally a religious belief that God was unknowable, for us puny humans, due to unimaginable levels of pure fabbo. Using the term to mean that one doesn't know IF a god exists is kinda new. I'll go look that up. Dammit, I need an atheist academy. |
|
| |
An atheist would like to suggest to me to prove if there is a God that loves me. Most religions suggest that God loves me back if I love Him first. All agnostics suggest that I will never have proof, even by myself. But, when I had loved to search for Him deep inside my heart (emotions), I felt He loves me already, and it proves them all wrong. Yet, my own limited definition of Him is my growing love of Him: so, as He is what I felt, He is also the fullness of what I felt that grows. |
|
| |
God is a monster like the boogeyman. The fear makes the idea real. He is also smelly. |
|
| |
An agnostic says (in this context), "It cannot be proved that god exists and it cannot be proved that god does not exist, so the only correct position is that we don't know". He takes some arbitrary claim and, by allowing it as a subject for debate, assigns it the same validity as any other. Further, he demands proof for the absence even where there is no possibility of proof for the presence. For that reason, [PauloSargaco], no, it would not be more rational to do as you suggest.
[rotary], I don't intend to offend you (although if you do happen to be offended, I take no responsibility) but belief in god is not just the opposite of reason, it denies reason. God's only definition is that it is undefinable (because to define is to limit, and god is unlimitable). This is meaningless. You say that god loves you; such a claim is indistinguishable from saying that Napoleon Bonaparte loves you, except that there is evidence that Bonaparte existed. You say that you feel it, but that does not make it so any more than my saying that I feel that oranges do not exist makes that so. |
|
| |
Oh, I love you friend. I reasoned, and I reasoned well, and it is valid: that GOD is LOVE. Of all that I said wholeheartedly, it settled to as simple as that, I repeat: GOD is LOVE. (please... respond...) |
|
| |
// GOD is LOVE // You see that written a lot more than you see anyone provide an example of this unlimited affection in action. |
|
| |
[rotary], one of us is misunderstanding - or simply mis-using - the word 'reason', and I submit that it is you. It is not possible to reach that conclusion by the use of reason. I accept that you may have reached it, but it would be by emotion, by suspending your rational faculties. This is a fault, not a virtue. You are not failing to see, you are refusing to see. You are not blind, but your eyes are closed.
I have no expectation - and no intention - of altering your opinion, because I really don't care what you think, but to claim that belief in god can be achieved by rational means is simply untrue. |
|
| |
// An agnostic says (in this context), "It cannot be proved that god exists and it cannot be proved that god does not exist, so the only correct position is that we don't know" // |
|
| |
That's exactly it! Thanks [angel] (yes, I believe I will ignore what came after that). To that explanation I would add that besides not knowing if God exists or not, and besides the fact that I believe that proof of it's existence or non-existence is not possible , I don't really care about the answer. As someone else wrote before, one should behave properly for the sake of everybody getting along under reasonable expectations of freedom and respect for other people's freedoms, and not because if you don't there is a spot saved for you in Hell... or whatever. That's regarding God. Regarding religions I have absolute conviction that they're all false. |
|
| |
To appreciate my point, [Paulo], you cannot "ignore what came after that". Agnostics assign equal validity to unreasonable notions as to reasonable ones because there is no 'proof' one way or the other. They ignore the fact that the unreasonable notion - that god exists - has no concrete supporting evidence, and no ontological requirement. Agnosticism is just as wrong as theism because it offers the possibility that god exists, in denial of reason. |
|
| |
I await the Atheist Crusades, whereupon
horse-mounted atheists sack the Agnostic
holy city, do a bit of murdering in the
name of no-one in particular, and
thoroughly teach those wet-eared
indecisive young Aggies a thing or two
about existential truths, the ignorant
bastards. |
|
| |
You're not likely to find me on that crusade, [theleopard]; as I said, I'm not particularly concerned about the delusions of others. |
|
| |
Well [angel] (or is it angelus?), not that I'm trying to defend the existence of God, but there is something that strikes me as odd in your argumentation. You say that the non-existence of God is the only rational proposition and that the denial of that proposition is arbitrary. That seems to me as being as dogmatic as any religious dogma. The scientific process regarding things that are hard to prove is to build a theory and then trying to prove it wrong. It is not to take a definition, state that by definition it is against reason and as such leaving it at that. |
|
| |
I think that I may have mis-explained again. I'm not saying that the non-existence of God is the only rational proposition, I'm saying it's the only rational conclusion. It cannot be challenged by simply saying, "God exists" or "God might exist" without evidence. Those two are the non-scientific positions; they introduce a hypothesis, but fail to support it. |
|
| |
<devil's advocate>
Isn't "God doesn't exist" an unfounded
hypothesis as well?
</devil's advocate> |
|
| |
//the only rational conclusion// |
|
| |
Perhaps we're using different definitions of 'reason' here, but in general a rational conclusion will vary depending on the chosen premises. Those premises, if followed far enough back up the chain of reasoning, tend to be
either unsupported
or supported in a circular way;
to that extent, they are in themselves neither rational nor irrational, just arbitrarily chosen. |
|
| |
Consequently, any number of different conclusions may be rational, provided that the process by which they were reached from those arbitrary premises was rational. (Asserting several of those different conclusions at the same time may be more of a challenge, but not an insuperable one). |
|
| |
[theleopard]: First, no; it's not a hypothesis, it's a response to the hypothesis that god exists. Second, no; it's not unfounded, because it can be supported by citing the total lack of evidence in favour of the hypothesis, as well as the lack of any logical requirement for god to exist (Occam's Razor, and so on).
[pertinax]: OK, please suggest a way that a belief in the existence of any object can be sensibly maintained, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. |
|
| |
1) Is there a tooth fairy?
2) Did anyone say "There is no god" before someone said "There is a god"? |
|
| |
Ok [angel], as of now I am an atheist... wait, no, I can't. I can say, based on my system of beliefs that if God exist than it certainly does not have the human traits that religions make their followers believe it does. But the fact remains that I don't think you can argument that the lack of proof of the existence of something is ground to state that it doesn't exist. It would be as if people from in the Middle Ages were visited by someone from our own time who told them that there were binary star systems. Even if you could pass the part about the stars before they lit the torches, you would never be able to present them with the proof that such systems exist. You could perhaps, between coughs, talk about how it is possible to determine that there are such star systems but you would be able to produce no evidence to support your claims. Especially after all your belongings happily started to burn. So, the fact that we know of no proof that sustains the hypothesis that God exists seems insufficient. My point being that even before people started wondering if the Earth was round or flat, binary systems already existed. You could argue that proof was there and we just didn't know about it. But perhaps the same thing is true about God. |
|
| |
As to a requirement for God's existence, maybe you could present me with a requirement for the existence of flies. I can think of several requirements for their removal from existence but, alas, not one requirement for their existence comes to my mind. |
|
| |
//Pete Vardy, of the Reg Vardy used car
sales chain, has funded two such
schools which teach creationism and
Darwinism on an equal footing. This
may, to Americans, seem normal, even
an improvement. // |
|
| |
For my part, it seems neither normal
nor an improvement. I really don't want
*any* of my tax dollars to go to
teaching that some god so intelligently
designed humanity that he had to later
send his radical flying Jewish miracle
man to get killed in a horrible way so
that we can all perform ritualized
simulated cannibalism and wear a little
model of a torture instrument to
remember him by. |
|
| |
Yes, religion makes people more
comfortable about reality, but we
mustn't lose sight of the fact that every
bit of it is complete and utter
disingenuous bullshit written to keep
various factions in power at different
times. |
|
| |
As long as religion is taught as a
comparative course without all of the
can't-disprove-it-so-it
-must-
be-true
mumbo jumbo, fine. But when you
start teaching it too support the truth of
the matter asserted, you are necessarily
moving from ridiculous, silly premises
from which nothing predictive can be
learned. |
|
| |
//But the fact remains that I don't think
you can argument that the lack of proof
of the existence of something is ground
to state that it doesn't exist.// |
|
| |
There's a difference in proving that
something does not exist having no
proof that it does. |
|
| |
Examples of things that 1) there is no
proof that they do not exist and 2) there
is no proof that they do not exist: |
|
| |
Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah |
|
| |
The Flying Spaghetti Monster |
|
| |
The Turtle at the bottom of the stack
which holds up this dimension. |
|
| |
Bippo the Hippo, who created our entire
existence in a great spray of Hippo spit
when he laughed at Cosmic Crane When
the Platonic form of Tom the Cat hit
him with a giant wooden mallet. |
|
| |
Hippo spit? Hippos spray from the other end, which would explain a lot. |
|
| |
This discussion illustrates the need for an atheist academy. Some of the arguments are old and tired, some are new and good, and things would be a lot simpler if we all were familiar with them. |
|
| |
The old saw about atheism being a dogma, and/or evolution requiring faith, is really bogus. But repeating it is an article of faith for many, and communicating with them is difficult. Which is why an academy would be helpful--to have a large, respected institute that proclaims its atheistic base would be a lot more impressive to believer-types than all us quiet individuals. |
|
| |
//I don't think you can argument that the lack of proof of the existence of something is ground to state that it doesn't exist.//
Perhaps not, but it's certainly a better case for the non-existence than it is for the existence; lack of evidence is a good reason not to believe, and it is grounds to state that belief in it is irrational. A middle-ages dweller would not believe in binary stars because he could see no evidence for their existence; this is entirely rational. If he were to be given evidence, he probably would believe; this is also entirely rational. You see, I'm not arguing a priori that there is no god, just as I'm not arguing a priori that there is no blue strawberry; I'm saying that there is no evidence of god and, this being the case, belief in god is irrational. To borrow your example, people rationally refused to believe that the Earth was round until there was evidence that it is was, at which time belief in a flat Earth became irrational. When there is evidence of god's existence, belief in it will be rational; until then it is not. |
|
| |
//To borrow your example, people
rationally refused to believe that the
Earth was round until there was
evidence that it is was,// Actually,
almost nobody ever believed the earth
was flat - it doesn't take a lot of brain
to figure out that it's spherical. |
|
| |
//When there is evidence of god's
existence, belief in it will be rational//
Actually, it's the other way around.
Belief in a god used to be the most
rational (or least irrational) way to
explain most things. It no longer is,
and will not become so. |
|
| |
No, it was never rational. It was habitual. It's not rational to believe something without evidence. The fact that most did is not the point. |
|
| |
Good point, [MB]. In some of the earlier books of the Christian bible, it is quite clear that the religionists of the time were not arguing the existence of God, but the goodness of God. A creator was assumed as self-evident, his motives were sometimes in doubt. But of course folks don't read, "Have faith in God" to mean encouraging trust in divine motives, but blind belief in divinities. Although they'll change their minds a moment later. |
|
| |
The problem with carrying on this discussion here, even though it makes the need for an Atheist Academy quite clear, is that we are depending on folks to read what we write, and to understand our meanings. Many of the worst readers that I have ever met were waving scriptures in my face, and making it quite clear that they couldn't follow a chain of logic, or even a line of text. |
|
| |
Atheists can write all we want, whether quickly to avoid boredom, or slowly to cover every damn point and possible objection, and have our intended audience leap to entirely different conclusions. There are good reasons that the faithful have elevated faith to the center of their religion--they believe what they wish, and assume that all others are doing the same. They literally do not understand the slow journey to understanding and the methods and tools used to look for truth. |
|
| |
If anybody cares, I strongly support the Atheist Academy idea based on personal experience. I attended college in Springfield, Missouri. There are at least three Christian colleges in that city, although I have never understood why there is more than one flavor of Christian, so I see no need for more than one type of Christian college. The college I went to was a state university, not a bible college, but it had about a dozen Christian student organizations infesting the campus. Why those students didn't go off to a Christian college I don't know. What I do know was that when I attempted to start an atheist student group, I met strong opposition and indications of fear. What the hell? |
|
| |
Which may be to say that an Atheist's Academy is not going to go big. There's nothing stopping anyone from starting one, technically. It could have been done at any time. 'Tis a shame it hasn't happened. The reasons why it has not may be good or bad--reality is atheist, and only the delusional need special schools, or, perhaps, the persecution that the religious believe in so fondly is, as usual, projection. |
|
| |
//No, it was never rational.// I'd have
to disagree. If you have no conception
of evolution, nor any of the laws of
physics, then the simplest way to
explain most things is "someone made
it" or "someone made it happen". That
leaves the logical gulf of "who made the
someone", but that's a lesser problem
than explaining every other thing. In
that sense, god is a grand unification
theory. |
|
| |
Only when you start to develop enough
science to realize that a handful of
physical laws and some inevitable
statistical processes are responsible for
the vast variety of phenomena, only
then does it become more parsimonious
to say "It happens because of physics"
than "It happens because someone
makes it happen." |
|
| |
So, millennia ago, a single god was less
of an irrationality than a multitide of
independent, spontaneous events. Now
we know better, and it's the other way
around. |
|
| |
That's where Occam's Razor comes in. I maintain that it's irrational to introduce complication in an attempt to explain some phenomenon. The only result is turtles all the way down. (To where? Do we bring in another razor? Did no-one notice that we're running out of turtles?) I accept that superstitious primitives may have regarded lightning as a manifestation of some unknowable entity, but making the most of your ignorance is not the same as reason. At the time it may have seemed rational, but that was a failing in the reasoning process; in hindsight it certainly was not. There is no logical connection from "fire in the sky" to "all-knowing creator", only to "I don't know what that is". The primitive mind didn't realise this. We do. |
|
| |
//the simplest way to explain most things is "someone made it"// |
|
| |
Which brings us back to the fact that the simplest way to explain religion is "someone made it" up. I wish that argument had more impact on the credulous poor. But if they can ignore pedophile priests, gold-plated churches, blinged-out televangelists and fat preachers, power-mad missionaries, blood sacrifices, tax exemptions and collection baskets as motives for someone to make up a religion, there's not much more to say. |
|
| |
"Does God exist?" "Someone made it up." |
|
| |
//That's where Occam's Razor comes
in// Yes, but in a different way to the
way you argue. Occam's Razor does not
advocate saying simply "we don't
know" until you have enough data for a
solid theory. Instead, Occam's Razor
advocates seeking the explanation
which involves the fewest unknowns,
given the data you have,
which is what early religion would have
done. |
|
| |
The same process enables us to make
reasonable hypotheses about the
beginning of the universe and the origin
of life, rather than simply saying "we
don't know". |
|
| |
God is a difficult idea to wrestle with. |
|
| |
//Belief in a god used to be the most rational (or least irrational) way to explain most things. It no longer is, and will not become so.// |
|
|