Only one option.....

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools.
This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion.
Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle
(atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?

Firstly, you do not have to abandon religion to accept evolution, the majority of people who
accept evolution are not only religious but Christian.

Secondly, Atheists do not want children to not learn ABOUT religion, in fact atheists tend to
be firmly of the opinion that religions are important things to learn about, because otherwise
nothing in politics or history and quite a bit of art makes any sense.
There is a difference between being taught about religions, and be indoctrinated into one.
If you want your kid to join a particular faith then you can teach your kid that faith and take them
to church with you, that is your prerogative as parent.
At school all the kids can learn about all the (major/relevant) religions as part of their RE and/or
history/politics classes. Thus they get a rounded education, and parents get to chose which (if any)
religion they want to steer their kids towards.

Thirdly, In science classes kids should be taught about science, both the methodology and philosophy
of science but also the findings of that methodology. (ie how it works and what its found).
They should not be taught religion, because religion isn't science.
Creationism IS NOT, HAS NEVER BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE, SCIENCE and thus should not be taught
in biology classes.
Evolutionary theory is completely accepted and supported in mainstream science and thus should be
taught as part of the science curriculum.

Fourth, Teaching children about the world to the best of our collective ability is not and can't be construed
to be child abuse. Scaring the s**t out of them by telling them they will spend an eternity burning in hell
if they don't behave might well be, but teaching science, with all it's critical thinking skills and questioning
is fun, non-threatening, useful, and nourishing of a child's innate desire for information...
Teaching science is pretty much the exact opposite of child abuse.


The difference is that...

atheists want all kids to learn about religion and science. and have the freedom to chose which, if any,
religion they wish to follow.

Creationists want all kids to be indoctrinated into their religion, and have any subjects that might threaten
their version of religion banned.

That is how it differs.


EDIT: Calling someone a child abuser is a serious accusation that you had better be able to back up.
It is a filthy and despicable thing to call someone without justification, and here, you have none.
You really need to apologise and retract this vile piece of bile you have uttered.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes - cause evolutionists are putting a lot of effort in to having evolution learned in schools. This will be child abuse as children are forced to accept evolution instead of religion.

Evolution isn't an alternative to religion. I learnt evolution in a Catholic school from a Catholic teacher. It is part of the school syllabus in country that is predominantly Christian (Zambia). Similarly in the US, it is part of the school syllabus even though a significant proportion of the US is Christian. Are you saying that all those in government and decision making in these countries are atheists?

Religion has been taken out from school because of the same principle (atheist not wanting their children to be learned religion) so how does this differ?
Religion should never have been in school in the first place. Many countries however still teach it, though which religion or religions varies from place to place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution isn't an alternative to religion. I learnt evolution in a Catholic school from a Catholic teacher. It is part of the school syllabus in country that is predominantly Christian (Zambia). Similarly in the US, it is part of the school syllabus even though a significant proportion of the US is Christian. Are you saying that all those in government a ...[text shortened]... ountries however still teach it, though which religion or religions varies from place to place.

Religion should definitely be taught, as Googlefudge says, in a comparitive manner. I.e. all major religions should be described and given similar coverage, without making assertions that any one is more 'true' than any other.

There should be no indoctrination into any specific religion within school.

I believe this is what you mean TWhitehead, please correct me if I am wrong.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Religion should definitely be taught, as Googlefudge says, in a comparitive manner. I.e. all major religions should be described and given similar coverage, without making assertions that any one is more 'true' than any other.

I suppose there is room for that. However, in my experience, the teacher will invariably be a member of one of the religions and will therefore be biased.

In Zambia, which is predominantly Christian, but has many denominations, the Religious Education syllabus is decided by a multi denominational organization, but even so, some denominations are not represented, and the syllabus is taught as if Christianity is fact. I remember one thing that really annoyed me at the time: the text book said that animals are incapable of thought and act purely on instinct and that is what separates humans from animals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suppose there is room for that. However, in my experience, the teacher will invariably be a member of one of the religions and will therefore be biased.

In Zambia, which is predominantly Christian, but has many denominations, the Religious Education syllabus is decided by a multi denominational organization, but even so, some denominations are not re ...[text shortened]... incapable of thought and act purely on instinct and that is what separates humans from animals.

Ouch!

Yes, I suppose it often is. I recall my 'RE' in secondary school to be more bible-oriented although I do remember a few lessons talking about other religions. If your RE teacher is religious then it's unlikely you will get an unbiased education.

I suppose that just means that RE needs more heavy regulation than most other subjects.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I suppose that just means that RE needs more heavy regulation than most other subjects.

Even an atheist would be biased. Maybe at a minimum a member of each major religion would be given a chance to introduce their own religion, and attempt to give critique of all other religions.
Of course there would be fights over what constitutes a religion, and teachers would regularly get accused of blasphemy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even an atheist would be biased. Maybe at a minimum a member of each major religion would be given a chance to introduce their own religion, and attempt to give critique of all other religions.
Of course there would be fights over what constitutes a religion, and teachers would regularly get accused of blasphemy.

I think that tackling the subject from a historical and political perspective would help.

Rather than teaching RE as a standalone subject, incorporate teaching about religious and
political ideologies into history and current affairs classes as an aid to understanding the
context for the events and peoples being studied.

That way you cover the relevant religions because you discuss all the beliefs of those involved
and you are doing so in a relevant and secular way.

If your country is so religiously biased that this isn't possible then you probably have bigger
problems.

RE as a standalone subject doesn't make sense to me unless you are going to study theology,
and even then the kind of serious depth and commitment needed for that makes it a university
subject.
As preparation for that you probably want History, English (or local equivalent), Other languages
may be helpful, and critical thinking/debating skills. Coupled with a general education covering
maths, science, politics, art, ect...

Teaching kids about religion in a historical and political context is the only method that makes sense
to me. And that way it's being taught by history and politics teachers and not specialist RE teachers
who may well be more biased.

At least, that's my view.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course there would be fights over what constitutes a religion, and teachers would regularly get accused of blasphemy.

Anywhere that this is true needs to become more secular... badly.

EDIT: btw an atheist might be biased against religion, but atheists are biased equally against
all religions.
And if your goal is to learn about religions without being indoctrinated into any of them then
an atheist is your best bet.

However anyone who is properly trained and professional aught to be able to teach the subject
without letting their personal beliefs interfere with the way they teach the subject.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I think I got carried away quite a bit, but that was a reaction against your ridicule of the myths present in the Brihadarnyak Upanishad. The algorithms of science are also not always sequential and going in a relentless march towards the Truth. Many a scientist had recourse to leaps of faith, blind guesses and even that elusive faculty called Intiution. ...[text shortened]... ams. I say that using a-logical ways for the search of the Ultimate Reality is well justified.

you describe science as having at times taken leaps of faith, but faith doesn't quiet describe it since science doesn't stop at speculation, it goes on to extract the truth of hypothesis.

mythology does not teach what science teaches. it has a very important role in the human database of literature and it imparts vast amounts of wisdom in the interpersonal relations and human nature departments.

just don't try to explain how the universe came into being using mythology or claim that such mythology is more valid than science in describing the natural universe (i'm not saying you did, my original reply was directed at dasa). that's just ridiculous.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you describe science as having at times taken leaps of faith, but faith doesn't quiet describe it since science doesn't stop at speculation, it goes on to extract the truth of hypothesis.

mythology does not teach what science teaches. it has a very important role in the human database of literature and it imparts vast amounts of wisdom in the interper ...[text shortened]... (i'm not saying you did, my original reply was directed at dasa). that's just ridiculous.

Thanks for the reply ! All I am saying is that Mythology is a precious legacy of humanity. It should not be dismissed out of hand but should be examined for any truth it may contain. And it does contain truths, some mundane and many spiritual. My 2nd point was that the yardsticks which we apply to scientific thinking do not apply to a-logical thinking i.e.thinking using the right brain capability. A-logical thinking is the best tool available for the study of supernatural.

Originally posted by FMF
So astrology, phrenology and scientology don't help you reach God but you "welcome" them because perhaps they might be "the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words" along with mythology and experimenting with drugs?

Please do not put assume things which I never wrote in my post. A serious and mutually satisfying discussion can take place only if we make efforts to understand each other. By the way, although you have repeatedly declared that you are a theist, you always take up cudgels on behalf of atheists. Why ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
And it does contain truths, some mundane and many spiritual.

But "the great churning of the ocean by gods and demons using the great serpent Vasuki as a rope and the Himalaya mountain as the churning rod" is not one of those truths.

My 2nd point was that the yardsticks which we apply to scientific thinking do not apply to a-logical thinking i.e.thinking using the right brain capability. A-logical thinking is the best tool available for the study of supernatural.
No yardstick can be applied to alogical thinking because the use of a yardstick is a logical process. But then again, study is a logical process, so to suggest that you can study the illogical is illogical - hence your need to use illogical thinking.
Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with truth or reality - that would be illogical (or supernatural?)

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
By the way, although you have repeatedly declared that you are a theist, you always take up cudgels on behalf of atheists. Why ?

I am not taking up a cudgel on behalf of atheists. I am simply rejecting what I see as sentimental nonsense about things like mythology, tarot cards and astrology.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
At science, children should be taught about science, not religion.
At religion, children should be taught about religion, every religion.

You see, creationism isn't science, it's religion.

At religion, children should be taught about religion, every religion.
I don't like it but I do agree.

I on the other hand as a Christian would only accept teachings of Christianity to my children in school when it comes to religion. I will not allow lecturing on evolution and if it means moving my children to a school which supports this I will do it, and even if there is no school, then they will be home schooled. I guess atheists will react the same and not put any of their children in any type of religious school.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
A serious and mutually satisfying discussion can take place only if we make efforts to understand each other.

But I do understand why people like you suggest that mythology is "the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words". That has been the whole point of me posting about it. You seem to be making no effort to understand me.