To think that religous education should be complusory for EVERYONE

[ReallyTired]

I think that everyone should learn about ALL the major relgions in the world, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, or Athesist or agnostic.

However I think that religous education should be taught as "This is what Christians believe" rather than "This is what WE believe". Children should not be subjected to attempts to convert them to different relgions, but they need to understand and tolerate difference. Ie. Learn that there are times that we should agree to disagree.

A basic knowledge of the five world's major relgions helps children understand current affairs, history and avoid offending people from other cultures to themselves.

If parents want their children brought up as a Christian, Muslim, athesist or pagan then they can take their children to church/ Temple/ Mosque out of school hours.

I like the assemblies at the the special school I work at. They have no relgious songs, but the school has fun singing pop songs. Although the songs are non religous they have lyrics encouraging good behaviour.
All the children are included and gain from the experience.

Well said Greyriverside. Since when was 'might is right' a remotely convincing argument???

Lots of people used to believe the world was flat, that homosexuals should be in prison and that hitler was a damn fine leader.

GimmaTheNome you have just made my WEEK, nay possibly my YEAR

grey, I do not say you have to use that as evidence of the existence of God.
OK, I'll try to explain again: it is an indication that there may be something worth investigating, at least. To me, it would be a good reason to harbour a doubt, and to put aside any intellectual arrogance about it, and avoid dismissing the whole thing as a "delusion" of "some" people. I think people should try to reason with arguments because calling something a "delusion" doesn't make it wrong or untrue.

Spero, ty

people used to believe the world was flat, that homosexuals should be in prison and that hitler was a damn fine leader

InLoveWithSweeneyTodd, ok then. present some evidence and we're consider it. So far no religion has offered any evidence at all - not even a little bit.

Sweeny todd, sorry if I'm missing the point in a massive way, but to paraphrase, the 'evidence' that is proffered to suggest that relgious people are not delusional appears to boil down to

a) lots of people believe in a god or gods

doesn't that translate as 'lots of people are scared of death and need to come up with some explanation to make it less frightening' ?

And sorry to repeat myself, but WHY do religious people get upset about being called 'delusional'?

If I was called 'delusional' for believing in democracy, equality under law etc, etc, I would just smile sadly and metophorically pat my accuser on the head.

I just don't get it. If you've got 'faith' why give a toss what others say? or why get worked up about it?

just curious.

Oh, grey this is the end of the debate. God is immaterial by definition. It is impossible to prove the existence of God to a materialist, ie, someone who will not accept the possibility of something of Its nature existing at all.

That's not the end of the debate, that's just moving the goal posts.

What evidence is there for the 'possibility of something of Its nature existing at all'

Who got offended spero?
I do think it is patronising and arrogant though, but not offensive.

Sweeney I think you have just pithily summed up why this topic should be kept well away from schools.

Leave children alone and let them make up their minds when they are old enough to WANT to consider these things.

none, that's why it is faith and not science.

OK, maybe nobody got offended, but to call it 'patronising and arrogant' suggests a degree of ruffled feelings which I just don't see as being compatible with fundamental faith in a supreme Being.

cos us atheists are going to have Egg all Over our Faces come judgment day after all.

spero, I agree, I started saying that religions should be taught from their history point of view, not dogma or preaching.
I just said that they will ask about the concept of God and I think it is short sighted to call it a mere delusion. I think a more reasoned, more respectful apporach, to religious people wouldn't go amiss, unless we want to teach our children to despise religious people like in other times people despised other social groups.

sorry, maybe it's my grap of English, that I wouldn't think anyone would cheer at being called deluded for any reason. But it is not offensive, well, not for me anyway.

grasp of English, even

Sweeney that does seem to make a lot of sense.

But it is difficult to be 'reasoned and respectful' when you genuinely believe the other person is talking a pile of tosh - and that cuts both ways, for the religious and the not.

But the ones who seem to get REALLY steamed up, to the extent that they will seek to physically hurt those who don't agree with them are, I'm afraid, the religious.

Sorry, not sure what point I'm trying to make. Possibly that atheists are criticised for being rude whereas religious people can picket plays, threaten playwrights and drive women into hiding for renoucing islam. Seems all a bit unequal really.

I'm not saying i like being called 'deluded' . but if I'm called 'deluded' over a belief in which I have complete faith then it doesn't make me remotely angry or feel like I'm being patronised.

that doesn't seem to be true for the religious and I am just wondering why.

is it because in their hearts of hearts their faith is wavering somewhat?

SweeneyTodd, what an odd point.

What if I said "this is the end of the debate. The Great Spaghetti Monster is immaterial by definition. It is impossible to prove the existence of TGSM to a materialist, i.e., someone who will not accept the possibility of something of Its nature existing at all."

spero, the sweeping statements are really dangerous when describing other people.
i am worried that some people will talk to their children saying: "bah, those christians/muslims would have all of us killed if they had their way". You say that to a kid, and he'll believe that ALL christians or muslims would do that. It is horrible.

I think religion or any belief or no belief in God is irrelevant when it comes to teach tolerance and respect. And you cannot teach children to be tolerant and respectful to something you openly despise and denigrate with the language you use.

clearly, relgion is about FAITH. if you don't have FAITH it is all blethering tosh.

You can't 'teach' faith. Alert children to what is out there by all means but i rather hope my daughter will be learning to read rather than musing on that which is immaterial by definition.

Well, that would be true too UQD. You cannot prove the existence of anything immaterial to a a materialist. That statement is not a proof of existence, it just means what it says, that the material proof is out of the question.

I don't see anyone here suggesting any group, religious or not harbous murderous thoughts, so I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment really. But it is very difficult to be respectful of someone's views if you think they are deeply odd. That doesn't mean you can't respect them as a person (although it will be a factor in how you view them) and it doesn't mean that you can't be tolerant (although that has it's limits too). Half of my family have deeply held religious views, and our disparity in faith does cause problems because the result is a very different world view. It doesn't mean we don't love each other though.

Exactly. So, my point is - should we therefore believe everything for which there is no material proof? I'd contend that we don't. We must have some sort of filtering technique for things which cannot be "proved" one way or the other. Otherwise we just go through life believing any old shit.

The "proof" thing is old hat - atheists don't ask for proof or offer it.

It's like being asked to float six inches above the ground - you can't do it, but it doesn't affect the argument one way or the other. Therefore we need other mechanisms. And for me the "likelihood" argument is the strongest of these.

But Sweeney, it depends entirely on what you consider to be worthy of respect and tolerance. i am unable to tolerate or respect much of what religious people promote, but unlike a lot of them i do not feel i have to threaten to kill them because of it.

We should all be allowed to SAY what we think.

The real problem seems to be those adults who are simply unable to say to a child 'this is just my view; accept or reject as you will'.

I will be honest with my daughter about what i think about religion and i'm afraid words like 'delusional' will probably be used.

But I think this is only a 'bad' thing if by doing so i am attempting to prohibit her own freedom of thought. and hopefully we won't be having this conversation for a number of years yet.