Britain's new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not.

[bossykate]

fascinating article in today's guardian.

here

Why assume that a personal belief in God means that you denigrate others' belief (or disbelief)? Because I believe doesn't mean that I think you should believe as well. Not all religions seek converts, or have opinions on other religions - other than to say that it's not for them.

off topic but a quick question for the other Atheists.

If your 13 yr olds secondary school told your child they had to purchase a bible (old testament) by the next lesson, would you?

My two penneth

Whilst not a believer myself, I have utter respect for others to believe what they like.
I think faith provides a very important role in modern life for many individuals and have to admit that we can learn from many faiths.

Enjoyed that Retreat programme on BBc last night too

The "division" the Guaridan cites is a temporary one. Groups of supersitious people have worked out that their threats of violence, and control over resources like adoption and education get them listened to.
They have common goals, for now of increasing the amount of superstition in education by the introduction of creationism and other junk, and screwing with health services and education for women which they are not all that keen on.
They use the threats to get monmey for "community projects". We've been here before. Wonder where all the money for all those big expensive churches came from. God ?
No.

But it won't last.
They are competitors for money, and occasionally souls. Once there is more to be gained by screwing with each other, it wil be the standard rats in a sack attacks on each other. Will happen even before then. The gangs t hat are "closest" to each other (Sunni/Shia), (Catholics/Protestants) contain many people who hate each other more than religions that are more different.

The separation of church and state did not evolve to protect atheists. Christians have not yet succeeded in spinning history well enough to miss the fact that we had a thousand years of Christians torturing and murdering each other over doctrinal differences. They did stop every so often to murder Jews, but there were never enough to really sate their appetite for blood.
To an extent that is why some Moslems want Shria. That culture has no tradition of this separation, which is of course why every Moslem country is a total shit heap. A Moslem has more freedom to worship in a way of his choice in Israel, a country that randomly murders moslems than in Moslem countries who are supposed to be helping them.

Do they have to buy other books? I could probably lay my hands on a copy of the Bible tbh. I wouldn't go out and buy a copy of all the religious texts, no. I'd buy some proper books instead!

Domini's light went off! I did wonder!

Now we have his truly unbiased and reflective views to dwell on. Thank goodness for him!

Aloha it's a textbook for RE technically
RE is compulsory, but in the forst yr they studied world religions, this year it's full on Biblical indoctrination.
Not overly thrilled.
FWIw ds wants me to make a stand

Bravo Pifflet! Why is RE compulsory in this form? It's compulsory for my sdd, whose school is private but sort of linked to the cofe. She hates it!

Why do you spell it Moslem? It's not very nice you know.

Piff I would. The bible is full of great stories.

Message withdrawn

It's a grammar school Aloha, I did hear a rumour that is you protest enough about being Atheist you get exempted - it's also compulsory as short course gcse.
Might give that a bash.
Stories are all well and good, but ds has 1001 more books he'd rather read
I think as it is prescribed text it should be provided...

I don't think Dawkin's argument is about 'whatever gets you through the night' - (I have it just haven't had the time to read it yet)but about fundamantalists forcing one religion on another. He is a scientist, a war of words is fine, but he knows religion can't 'win' on that score and thats why fundamantalists on all sides turn to violence. The prizes are huge.

Hang on Bloss, I'm just reading a paper on moralist and reciprocal alturism...

morality

No, Bloss. You implied that religion is the source of our 'good' behaviour. I completely disagree with that. We behave well primarily because it is in our interests to do so. We are primed by evolution to love and care for our children, to cooperate with each other and to organise ourselves in such a way as to ensure that those who threaten the group's security and wellbeing are dealt with. These are our primal instincts. We are also intelligent, empathetic creatures and capable of using our rational brain and our natural empathy and love to create moral codes.
And some people decided to create gods to give their particular moral/political vision or set of prejudices more force.
Let's face it, religious morals are quite bizarre - it is moral to trim your pubic hair to a specific length, it is moral to never cut your beard, it is moral/immoral to keep slaves (depending on the era you take your religion from) it is moral to send your daughter out to be raped, but immoral to refuse a visitor to your home. It is wrong and bad to worship a golden statue, but good and moral to worship an invisible sky god. It is good to be willing to kill your own child for that god, immoral to refuse him. These are all completely random!

As I recall the only compulsory subjects are RE and PE.
But you can ask for your child not to have RE lessons, and they have to go with that. Did this myself at the age of 14. Got my mother to sign the bit of paper.
Wasn't a doctrinal issue, the school agreed that I could do computing on my own, rather than have 20 different flavours of superstition read to me.
My RE teacher did not put up a fight at all

If enough of us did this, then schools would have to make proper arrangements.
We need to move away from granting a spurious respectability towards the legacy of bronze age drug trips.
As Dawkins rightly points out, there is no such thing as a Catholic. Moslem or Atheist child, merely one that labels himself thus as a result of indoctrination.
Atheism is often just as bad as superstition, and I wouldn't teach that either.

"Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell."

What an outrageous assertion. I think the Dean has been on the Communion wine.

Human?s are profoundly moral creatures. That is one of the fascinating things about us as a species and is central to studies of human nature via an evolutionary perspective.

we do seem to have a very strong and innate sense of justice, for example. As well as a natural capacity for love and empathy. That is where our 'morals' come from. Not from the sky.

It's Muslim DC, not Moslem.

"Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. However, translated, Moslem is the Arabic word for "one who is evil and unjust."- thus the word is now most commonly written "Muslim"." here

I'm disappointed with Rabbi Julia Neuberger too. She'd always seemed like a common-sense person. But to say:

"What I find really distasteful is not just the tone of their rhetoric, but their lack of doubt... No scientific method says that there is no doubt. If you don't accept there's doubt in all things, you're being intellectually dishonest."

This is to misunderstand Dawkins' "improbability" argument completely. Does Julia believe we should "accept there is doubt" vis-a-vis denying the existence of fairies, the Celestial Teapot, Thor, Apollo, the Spaghetti Monster and the great big invisible pink unicorn sitting in my back garden?

Yes, morality evolved just like everything else.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier Unquiet Dad - do you think Dame Julia thinks that Thor or Zues may actually exist after all? I bet you a damehood she doesn't.

MT, I think it is clear that we have used our brains to think about our innate feelings and so codify them. Animals behave in a very 'moral' way often (love and nurture their babies, protect their group at the expense of themselves, work on behalf of others, cooperate in tasks etc) but don't have the intelligence and language to codify these things and define them as 'moral'. Then of course there are the things we think about, like I believe it is moral for women to be treated as equals. Nothing in religion about that! (quite the contrary).

Exactly DC, I had no issue with the yr 7 syllabus which included the history and beliefs of Judaism, Buddhism and Sikhism
this year it's all Christianity rammed home. Nothing else.
I'm all for a well informed child who is free to make up his own mind.
Sadly I fear, he was reading Stephen Hawkings before he got to the Bible.
And he is scientific over all else.
I blame my brother, when ds was 6 he came home with a story from his CofE school about laughing frogs making lakes or something and brother asked what lesson did this happen in.
DS said RE
Bro said, don't believe any of that shit matey boy.

We had a way back from there as he idolises my brother...