The God Delusion

[YummyHoney]

In thinking that Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion should be compulsory reading for all secondary school children?

Not only would it put paid to all the religious nonsense some parents spout, it would also put an end to a lot of wars and violence in the world.

And if I was left alone to be an atheist, in peace, without being blamed for immorality, nor threatened with death, then I would not feel the need to rant.
Who did this? Did you report it to the authorities? What happened?

I'm guessing the Pope.

... The untouchable Pope

What Yummy was threatened with death by the pope?

DioneTheDiabolist

Mrgin, Surely for that to be a balanced view, the children should have also read the Bible, which isnt part of RS lessons?

I assume Christianity is taught in RS lessons ?

If you teach one view, teach the opposing view/s. Whether that includes book readings or not.

I'd actually welcome bible readings if the errors and inconsistencies were pointed out. And all the bits which show God to be a bit of a vain misogynist rather than the 'easy' bits.

Christianity and other cultures, traditions, beliefs etc in a very general way, as to inform that they exist, they are not taught that this is the correct view or the right view, just that religion exists. I dont see the point of opposing something that is not being taught as fact.

I dont know of any school which teaches RS via bible readings, even the Catholic school that my son attended. Perhaps in the 1940's!

Anyhow i must go, interesting debate, i cant believe i spent all this time discussing something i dont even believe in!!

What makes it a Catholic school the Claw ?!

But claw, I still don't see why it's essential learning. Why not teach it as part of history, or even psychology? Or teach philosophy instead?

Argh you made me sit down and post again I should have put a disclaimer! I should have said in 'state' schools.

In my son's school, the fact it was mainly funded by the Church and part Government funding hence the 10% no or other religion being alllowed to join. The only difference between the Catholic school which one son attended and the non Catholic school which my other son attends, is the amount of RS lessons involved. Catholic school had more lessons than the other (one more lesson a week), although the same thing was taught during RS.

Admittedly other cultures etc being taught, might be due to the Government funding. Im not sure whether schools which are funded exclusively by whatever Church are only allowed to teach that religion.

But lets say for arguements sake that schools funded solely by a church and are only allowed to teach a certain religion. No religion can be taught as a fact, its taught as a belief, in schools anyhow.

No, not The Pope, but I was warned off calling my dog Mohammed. Even though lots of Mohammeds have murdered people and the only way my dog could kill you would be if he licked you to death.

Sieglinde, im not saying it is essential learning.

Whether religion should be taught in schools in the first place or whether children should be given the option to opt out when they choose which subjects they want is a different debate.

This was about whether Dawkins should be available to counteract the Bible, the debate has kinda gone all over the place!

Yummy, lots of John's have murdered people too, perhaps you should have considered calling your dog John or Stalin or Hitler.

I ought to be able to call my dog anything I want! I live in England after all. I wouldn't dream of telling someone what they can and can't name their pet, because of my belief - or lack of.

I wasnt saying you couldnt name your dog anything you wanted, just seemed a strange choice.

Claw3 You seem more interested in my dog's name, than the fact that someone's religion means I don't have the freedom to name my pet anything I like.

I think I understand why you believe in God, and suspect that you also believe in fairies.

Of course anyone can call their pets, even their children so long as they find a registrar willing to cooperate, whatever they want.

However, I don't really see why you would want to call your dog Mohammed other than to insult the muslim religion. AFAIK, and I'm admittedly no expert, dogs are considered to be some sort of unclean in Islam.

TBH, I have a bit of an issue with being deliberately offensive towards people of faith. Hence the reason why I'm not a big fan of Dawkins for all that I agree with his basic arguments. It's just rude and childish and isn't going to make any theist change their mind.

Where Islam is concerned I also have the additional issue of being deliberately offensive being a bit too Melanie Phillips/Geert Wilders/EDL/non-existent god beware Anders Breivik for my taste. That is not to say that we should let muslims get away with things that everyone else doesn't. However, we do have an excellent homegrown version of logically impossible abrahamic monotheism to insult here if desired. (Also rude and childish if done for that very purpose IMHO).

Claw doesn't believe in God!

This thread is hilarious, and in places a bit lame!

Yummy, you are obviously not paying attention, i DONT believe in God!

I dont see the point of being insensitive to someones beliefs just for the sake of it or being inflamatory on purpose just to insult someone or cause conflict, just because i dont have the same beliefs and live in England.

For someone claiming to want an end to all conflict in their OP, naming a dog that, just because you can, is a bit illogical!

Why do atheists always bang on about fairies, unicorns, pink things, santa and copy dawkins flying spaghetti monster thingy?

Umm, the flying spaghetti monster has zero to do with Dawinkins. It was invented as part of a satirical protest to the Kansas education authority over the teachingbof intelligent design.

As for the reason why this keeps coming up: to an atheist, it seems quite simply equally absurd to buy into the idea of a god as into that of the easter bunny or liquid gold pissing fluffy pink unicorned guinea pigs. Or Russel's teapot. It's a methaphor. It means absurd thingbthat is based solely on belief and fr whih there is absolutely no rationally comprehensible evidence.

Please excuse the fact that my owner is incapable of typing on me and the resulting atrocious spelling. Sincerely, NotADude's iPad.