Students to be taught there isn't a God

I support this move as an atheist, however, there is a large difference between saying there is no evidence for gods existence and saying there is no god. The line there is fine but it is there.

It's a voluntary class so I could care less. Considering I came from a school system where prayer before football games was mandatory, would have liked to have a class like that.

The Humanist Society of Victoria - well who are they, what other areas of people's lives (or their children's lives) have they interfered with in the past??? Who are these people? As a citizen of Australia, I would expect professional educators from the Department of Education in Victoria to design the school curriculum.

Victoria has always been known in this country as a strange and corrupt state - more manipulated than the others. The insignia of the police with its inverted pentacle says it all..............

I see there is a lot of confusion here mixing the belief in God with religion.

They are two separate concepts.

I firmly believe in a Creator. I have never heard an argument that can shoot it down. Does that make me a believer in God? Probably so.

I would take that course just to see how the teacher would handle the idea of a Creator, without the cop-out that being a Creator doesn't make Him a God.

the problem all religions have is the idea of a "who" as the creator. when you believe in a god, the very last question that man cannot answer about god is, how was god created?....the answer always is, he has always been there. it turns into a purely philosophical discussion, because all logic, and reason can no longer be used, thus ending any debate based on fact, or evidence.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by jimmyx]

I don't know where the misconception is. I guess it's rather easy to criticize sitting in a chair thousands of miles away.

There was no brainwashing - it was learning about other peoples beliefs, no indoctrination. The intent was of teaching, and it was successful at that. Learning does not mean indoctrination. They have two seperate definitions. As for your question, the state should not be responsible for instilling values - I never said that. However, in this day and age, are students going to get values from there parents? My answer is: Not often. That points to a much greater issue with society which isn't really what this topic is about.

Thus, I would much rather a local volunteer from a local Christian Church, which half the parents go to itself, in a predominantly Christian neighborhood, teach students about religion, morals, racism, tolerance, and choice, rather than nothing being getting done. You shalt not steal? What the hell is wrong with that? Or, what about this, be nice to thy neighbor? Tolerance? All races are equal? There is nothing wrong with that, the outcome can only be good, and it was. If you didn't like it, then circle the NO box on the notice.

But some humanist group coming in and teaching specifically "that there is no evidence God exists?" It's making them become athiests, as it isn't giving Religion a fair go (of course students can still opt out at any time.). Furthermore, there is already WAY to much intolerance regarding religion down here in Victoria - learning about religion, morals, racism, tolerance, AND obviously science (seperately), is the way to go, as it gives students understanding and CHOICE about belief systems.

Thanks.

[edit on 14/12/2008 by C0bzz]

Huh?????

Do you not think that as part of an education revolving around history and culture that religions should be taught? Of course religions should be taught. If more people in the U.S. actually knew something about Islam, we may have been able to save ourselves some trouble by knowing how much of the crap they tell us about muslims is a lie.

The problem is in teaching you to practice a particular religion. I do not understand though why you would insist that people not learn about something that is everywhere, with all peoples, and a part of most historical events.

You then go on to say that they should not teach there is no god without evidence? Huh? I thought the point was that they were teaching that there was no evidence for god? Did I miss that?

Eh....I hate to be a wet blanket but this is a specific that bother's me.

You cannot seperate God and religion. It is impossible. The reason is God is the name of a religious character.

on the other hand, there is no need to combine religion and god.

This is where the confusion starts to come in. People say, I do not believe in religion but as a deeply spiritual being, I believe in God. OK, what God exactly? That is a proper noun. The word God specifies a particular religious figure. How do people believe in the God of the bible or the Qua'ran and not the books themselves? I have a problem with that.

Now if you want to talk about god or gods, then I gotcha.

religion should not be taught to anyone under the age of 18... they brainwash the young so that they can leech money from them all there lives

It's a good move. However, they shouldn't need to be separate classes.

They should have one subject in schools that covers religion and philosophy. Essentially, it would be a comparative education outlining various belief-systems - religious and non-theist. The aim would be to foster a greater understanding of the range of positions people hold in this area. Most certainly not indoctrination, we can leave that to some parents and religious figureheads.

We have had whines from certain quarters about including humanism in RE classes in the UK.


linky

If the semantics are so important, change the title of the course - 'Philosophy, Religion and Ethics', or something. We could even throw 'Spirituality' in there, whatever you might take it to mean. The classical religions have too long had a hold over such courses. They deserve no special status.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by melatonin]

Amazingly enough, Satanism is the only religion that i know of that does not allow anyone under 18 to be brought into the church, in part to protect from filling the ranks with the brainwashed youth-types you speak of.

You just did.

I love it when people get all ideological and righteous. So cuute!



I went to a college where you were required to take 1 religious course. They had many different courses but I chose a basic one, "Introduction to the Bible." It was described as "a scholarly study of the Bible." One of my favorite classes while I was there. Now I have a wonderful understanding of what's written in the Bible and it makes arguing with religous zealots super fun.

BTW, if anyone proclaims to have the answer to the question "Is there God or not?" then they are lying. That is the truth. Anyone claiming to have the answer is extremely limited in their thinking.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

I should have been more specific. I should have said organized religion. Too many times the discussion turns to "The muslims do this" or "The Christians do that".

And I don't feel obliged to give my Creator, or God, a name. Those are human constructs, created by man to control his limited knowledge and lessen his confusion.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by jsobecky

---

That was all I was saying. I would hate to see your good point get lost in the muck of some dude named God. All you need is a god and you can call him whatever you want but them old testament fans have a lock on the capital G. I agree with what you are saying, I just don't like how the Christians seem to feel only they can have a god and he has the proper noun so let them have it.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Yes,how can you mark an exam on god when noone knows any of the answers?

Perhaps organised religion should not have anything to do with education whatsoever or at least be relegated to a separate class entitled 'non provable beleif systems' where children can learn all about the many thousands of gods and godessess worshipped by man down the years like Eskimo religion,Polynesian religion,Viking religion,Rastafaarian religion etc..

I do think this is a step foward as encouraging children the values of enlightened free thinking and 'affording them the luxury of arriving at their own conclusions' can only be a good thing.
I suppose a well grounded,comprehensive education about 'all' non provable opinions is healthy when attempting to indulge in balanced,informed speculation.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by Dulcimer

---

I couldn't agree more and since no one can scientifically prove GOD he should not be taught in our schools. besides who trusts the government schools anyways?

This of course would also be true for any other non scientifically provable courses such as EVOLUTION, also a belief and not proven by any Science a?nd SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT in our schools, again do You trust the Government

reply to post by theindependentjournal

---

Well now I think that both should be taught. I want an evolution course to be taught along side a course about God.

I know the evolution course will be filled with scientific observations, repeatable experiments, verifiable predictions, history, examples, evidence, facts, and so on.

Care to tell me what the coures teach us there is God will use to make the case?

...or...admit that maybe evolution is a bit more scientific?

Either or.

Yes you can, it's called a personal belief system, I have one myself, it helps explain the world around me, as well as setting morals I should adhere too and why I should adhere too them. It allows me to predict specific features of my reality that I would expect to see, it is quite nice and it doesn't force me choose between scientific theory and my belief of an omnipresent being that we all stem from, such as the creationist vs evolution argument.

Not only that, it allows me free roam when trying to expand my perceptions, I am not confined within the box of someone else's ideas and beliefs, if it doesn't sound right, or if it no longer fits into the theory, it is rearranged or thrown out. It really is the D's B's IMO.

Anywho, IMO, Religion needs a God, God does not need a religion.



I could say an omnipresent 'being', but that is not strictly true. As with my personal belief system, it is not a being but more of an energy a concsiousness that we all are a part of, a refraction of this energy.

It does not sit up on high, judging people and eating grapes and touching angels fingers, it is just their, for no other reason than to experience and exist, same reason we are here. It is a universal conscioussness, an omnipresent consciousness and IMO, we are all part of it, helping it with it's experience, whilst helping ourselves with our own.



Alot of people assume someones God and it often makes discussions difficult, when I say I have my own personal belief of God, most people will automatically envision some hairy dude in a toga sitting on a throne, same problem when people step forward and say they believe in God and not religion, the first question asked is how? God is part of Religion?

Yes, but Religion is not part of God, IMO.

EMM

This isn't college and has Absolutely No Business in Primary School...
Also if for some weird reason the school feels it must offer a 'there isn't a God class' then they should have a 'there is a God class'. both taught by Qualified educators.
This is Not Right in all ways...