The teaching of religion in schools is fundamentally flawed.

In my own school, we dedicated 1 hour a week to religious studies. This had to include at least the major religions (for my school, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Seeks).

The teachers did a great job, but honestly - how can you differentiate - say, Judaism from Catholocism in that short space of time ?, and the teachers will *always* be biased by their own religion.

Moving forward to today - how then can you then talk about this in relation to the current crysis of Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ? All fundamentally (or advertised) as religious vendettas / Phatwah's / Jihad.

Just wanted to quickly point out something that I didn't see discussed in this thread so far. From the original article:

The society does not consider itself to be a religious organisation...

Pretty sneaky when you think about it. Since atheism is not considered a religion per se (although there is some disagreement in that regard- but let's not get into that debate), preaching atheism or the lack of the existence of a God as fact does nothing to violate the 'separation of church and state' issue. And, yes, I noticed this was in Australia so that might not apply but the principle is the same.

I wonder how long until this tactic will be used to manipulate the youth's minds in public schools in the States. Either way, I think this humanist society is way, way out of line. Especially with what the article says: the target is primary school children. Way too impressionable of an age, in my opinion, on a serious and personal subject for the state to decide and teach.

I think this is absurd. The existence of a God can not be either proven or disproven. This is a subject which the school should not even touch. You cannot say that it is a fact that there is not a God. To force atheism, or religion, is a violation of human personal freedoms.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I wonder how long until this tactic will be used to manipulate the youth's minds in public schools in the States. Either way, I think this humanist society is way, way out of line. Especially with what the article says: the target is primary school children. Way too impressionable of an age, in my opinion, on a serious and personal subject for the state to decide and teach.

If that is the case then why do we allow religious people to preach to children of such a young age? That argument can easily be put towards any religion. Furthermore the article seems to state they are teaching there is no scientific, peer reviewed evidence for god, which is a fact i'm afraid.

That doesn't however mean there is no god, it just means there is no proof for one. So what is wrong in presenting the evidence?

It's the parent's option to let or not to let their kids attend that class. I see no problem with it.
I do believe that religion classes should be banned in schools except for religious schools (Catholic schools, for example) where parents specifically chose their children to attend.

There is no need to ever ever disprove God - no one has ever proposed that gods exists with any remotely serious scientific rigour. One does not need to disprove what has never even been proposed.

The simple assertions of religious simpletons that Gods exists through hearsay and temporal continuity is in no way an assertion of proof - we have had a and longer relationship with Zeus and Athena than Jesus and God, yet they are no more real, or fact than the holy spirit.

There is absolutely no burden on anyone to "disprove" God as he simply does not exist - this burden of proof will only ever be required when someone provides some serious attempt to prove his existence - the fundamental nature of all scientific reasoning is that OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS have an equally ONEROUS BURDEN OF PROOF.

Once more, there is no burden to disprove outrageous claims, none. If one makes an outrageous claim then one must prove this.

The position taken by Australia is to provide a counter balance to the indoctrination of young children by the church and other organisations to instill fictitious beliefs in impressionable young minds.

There would be no need to tell children the truth that there is no God if someone had not already tried to tell them of his existence in the first place.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If that is the case then why do we allow religious people to preach to children of such a young age? That argument can easily be put towards any religion.

I think there is a huge (as in massive) difference between children being taught religious beliefs or being taken to church (what have you) by their parents or under their parents consent and being indoctrinated in schools. It's the private vs. public sector.

Furthermore the article seems to state they are teaching there is no scientific, peer reviewed evidence for god, which is a fact i'm afraid.

As long as we are allowed to offer apologetic evidence in return? You and I both know atheists would be screaming 'foul!' from the roof tops in that event. And yes, I did notice the difference in the article's wording at times. On one end it was phrased they would simply be stating there is no evidence for God (which should take a whole 30 seconds to explain their position then leave if this was their sole intention- which makes no sense). On the other end, the article phrased it in more absolute terms that 'there is no God' (something that is far more likely their intention from the sounds of it and logical deduction).

That doesn't however mean there is no god, it just means there is no proof for one. So what is wrong in presenting the evidence?

First of all, if their innocent intention is to simply point out the obvious of there not being any evidence- then your reason makes no sense. You don't present the evidence on the non existence of evidence. You simply say 'There is no evidence.' There intention is obviously more than that simple point. Counter to that, when do we get to go in and argue the existence of a supreme being?'

Seriously, when you look at this without bias, it should be clear. Something like this gets into theology and should not be discussed in a classroom. Learning about various religions or religious history from a scholarly or historical point is acceptable. Actually trying to get into the factuality of religions, certain religions, or deities is not.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Methuselah
the one America was founded on... One nation under God... In God we trust. Jesus Christ.

I am not sure how to get any more ignorance into these posts. What church was this country founded on? "one Nation Under God" is not a church. "In God We Trust" is not a church. What are you going on about? What church do you think the U.S. was founded on? Please show the docs that explain how that church was always supposed to be a part of the country's policy.

How about we just keep god the hell out of school altogether.
I thought school was a place of fact and reasoning.

Morals can be left to the parents.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Just wanted to quickly point out something that I didn't see discussed in this thread so far. From the original article:

The society does not consider itself to be a religious organisation...

Pretty sneaky when you think about it.....

No, not really. Your premise is flawed. You insist that because the class covers the lack of evidence of a god that it still has some religious agenda (atheist.) Ok, you explain what you get when you remove gods from the equation? No matter what, you get to yell that they are being sneaky atheists right?
How about this...teach a class that is only based on observable known proven facts. Think gods will come up? Does that now mean that class is actually an atheist class?

I think you need to go back and look up atheist in your dictionary anyway. Atheists decidedly believe there is NO god and that is their belief.
This class is about exploring the idea that there is no proof for any gods. Does that really sound like the same thing to you?
Can you explain what they would teach in a secular school about gods if teaching there is no proof of them is atheist?
Are you saying there is no in between. Either there is religion or anti-religion and that is it? Secularity applies to what then? Please explain this to me as I usually find your posts thoughtful and interesting, maybe it is this thread.

Originally posted by audas
There is no need to ever ever disprove God - no one has ever proposed that gods exists with any remotely serious scientific rigour. One does not need to disprove what has never even been proposed.

You do realize that there are very rich Christians that have built their carreers out of going around presenting junk science to prove God exsists don't you? You have read the posts on here that insist there is a god right? I am not sure what wonderful place you live in where religion is a secret smile and known myth among friends. Out here in the real world, people try to use the "fact" of God all the time to move an agenda of some type. The next time you see a photo of a soldeirs funeral being protested by CHILDREN
with signs and shirts claiming "GOD HATES FAGS!" Ask yourself if they would be there, being obnoxious and hateful, if they knew there really was no god that told them "bein gay is bad mkaaaaaay."


[edit on 15-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

People posting stuff like "religion is a load of crock" are not helping matters here or benefiting this thread in any way.

I think that both of these mainstream theories (evolution and religion) should be taught. After all, I doubt teachers are going to go into a classroom and enforce their opinion on the students saying:

"Hello students, religion is a load of crap but we have to study it. Don't listen to a single word I am about to say, we all came from monkey mutant fish frogs and then became humans."

Nor are they going to rush into class screaming:

"Praise the LOOORD. Praise Jesus, he is real, Darwin was an in-bred fraud, PRAISE THE LORD!!!!"

I would guess, like I was, that they would be offered the views and perspectives and be allowed to make up their own minds.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I think there is a huge (as in massive) difference between children being taught religious beliefs or being taken to church (what have you) by their parents or under their parents consent and being indoctrinated in schools. It's the private vs. public sector.

The schools are run by the governments, the parents elect the government, therefore they are directly giving the go ahead for their children to be educated with whatever they are taught at school. By allowing their children to go to the school instead of home schooling them the parents are giving their legal consent.

So i'm afraid it's the same thing, consent is given and the parents can stop it anytime by taking their children out of school. Also the parents can take their kids to church and show the faith they believe in to their kids. The children can then make up their own minds as they'll have the theological argument and the scientific evidence.

Originally posted by AshleyD

As long as we are allowed to offer apologetic evidence in return? You and I both know atheists would be screaming 'foul!' from the roof tops in that event. And yes, I did notice the difference in the article's wording at times. On one end it was phrased they would simply be stating there is no evidence for God (which should take a whole 30 seconds to explain their position then leave if this was their sole intention- which makes no sense). On the other end, the article phrased it in more absolute terms that 'there is no God' (something that is far more likely their intention from the sounds of it and logical deduction).

I know no such thing and you are stereotyping atheists. I am an atheist and let me tell you now i would support any, peer reviewed, scientific evidence to support the existence of a god being taught in a classroom. I would march, arm in arm down the street with you, protesting that it should be taught.

However as far as i'm aware there is no peer reviewed evidence for there being a god. I don't see them teaching that there is no god, only showing there is no evidence for one. It would be down to the teacher to make sure they explain the fine line as they tread it and a good teacher should be able to.

If a teacher states there is no god in any of these classes i would again be happy to march with you against that, even though i am an atheist i don't want my belief forced on anyone.

Originally posted by AshleyD
First of all, if their innocent intention is to simply point out the obvious of there not being any evidence- then your reason makes no sense. You don't present the evidence on the non existence of evidence. You simply say 'There is no evidence.' There intention is obviously more than that simple point. Counter to that, when do we get to go in and argue the existence of a supreme being?'

Well not quite. The intention i believe is to address many of the creationist arguments which are currently seeping their way through the veins of science. They are based on no peer reviewed evidence, cannot be backed up with observation or any other quantative evidence.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Seriously, when you look at this without bias, it should be clear. Something like this gets into theology and should not be discussed in a classroom. Learning about various religions or religious history from a scholarly or historical point is acceptable. Actually trying to get into the factuality of religions, certain religions, or deities is not.

I am looking at it without bias, forgive me but i think it is you who isn't as you feel threatened by the idea of people hearing evidence against the creation arguments and coming out of it deciding for themselves that there is no god.

They are not getting into a theological debate, they are directly responding to arguments put forward by creationists. At least that's what it sounds like to me. It could be stated simply as trying to defend the scientific position, that being science requires evidence.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by Rocketgirl

Originally posted by zroth
I find it interesting that people who do not believe in GOD want everyone to feel the same way. It is almost just like...religion.

That's not really true. Why? because everyone who doesn't believe in God don't go out telling people they are wrong for believing in something they can't see.

For example: I don't believe there's a God, however, I don't go telling people to stop believing there is one.

Just because you don't tell people there isn't a God doesn't mean other atheists dont. I believe in God however, I don't go telling people to start believing in one. Your example can be used against you. Both atheists and believers can push their beliefs on others, or they can choose not to.

And instead of teaching kids there is no God, why not not even fall onto the topic of creation?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by yellowcard
I think religious classes should be required in schools,

If we're going to make school children learn about fantasy, then we might as well make it compulsory that they also learn about Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

Religion is a crock. Studying it is a crock. Believe it if you will, but don't force it upon anyone else.

Is there a place on Earth that is free from religious influence?

I think you're missing the point, this "fantasy" may be a load of crock to you, but to people across the world it is greatly influential. Most political motives revolve around religion, and teaching the sociological standpoint of it, is not teaching fantasy, it's teaching...sociology. If you teach the sociological standpoint of it, then people will actually understand people's motives, for say...religious wars, abortion riots, etc.... So what I believe I'm trying to say is that you're pretty much completely ignorant and oblivious, and didn't at all read my post.

In school, you learn about the Greek, Roman and Egyptian Gods, from a sociological standpoint in social studies classes, and I don't see a sudden up rising of Ra or Zeus fanatics. You don't' teach "this is what you should believe" you teach "this is what others believe." I'm telling you, the more you ignore religion as an important SOCIAL study the more and more hate will be brought up by religion from it's religious aspects and the ignorance of what what others believe, and really what you believe.

But yes, let's all act like religion has no play in the world, and isn't a major factor in current events, that sounds like a great idea Political Science majors are required to have a religion class, at least the upper education gets it.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The schools are run by the governments, the parents elect the government, therefore they are directly giving the go ahead for their children to be educated with whatever they are taught at school. By allowing their children to go to the school instead of home schooling them the parents are giving their legal consent.

I'm sorry IR and I mean no offense whatsoever but this has got to be one of the silliest excuses I've ever heard. The thing is, it looks like there are parents against this. But even that isn't the point. Just because it is taught in schools doesn't mean it has parental approval. I'm sure there are many parents who dislike their children being taught evolution. But that's the way it goes. But just because the parents elect the government officials really isn't fair. Seriously- since when to politicians have our best interest in hearts and work for the people? The logic you use to defend your position is ludicrous.

Also, not all parents have the ability or income to support home schooling. The existence of God discussed as fact simply is not suitable for school. Sorry. If the situation was reversed, atheists would be crying all over the place. You know it and I know it. It's not ok just because a view you believe in is what is being taught.

I know no such thing and you are stereotyping atheists.

I'm sorry but if you cannot look at history and see what atheists have done to take religion out of school and the lengths they have gone to, then there is nothing I can do to help. At this point they're being very hypocritical to have their views taught. I'm truly saddened you don't see it.

I am an atheist and let me tell you now i would support any, peer reviewed, scientific evidence to support the existence of a god being taught in a classroom. I would march, arm in arm down the street with you, protesting that it should be taught.

Apples and oranges. The thing is, this atheist society is not providing 'peer reviewed, scientific evidence to support the non existence of a God.' They're simply teaching their belief and pointing out a lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with science as we all know the God is an unfalsifiable concept. Just like there is not any evidence to prove Him, there cannot be any evidence to disprove Him. This whole charade is exactly that. They're simply preaching their ideals, nothing else. God cannot be proven or disproved but they are going to voice their personal view that there is no God, simply due to lack of evidence. That's not science or factual. It's a logical fallacy of 'argument from silence' if anything.

However as far as i'm aware there is no peer reviewed evidence for there being a god. I don't see them teaching that there is no god, only showing there is no evidence for one. It would be down to the teacher to make sure they explain the fine line as they tread it and a good teacher should be able to.

And again, there is also no peer reviewed evidence there is no God. What they are doing is not so thinly veiled. It goes beyond pointing out the lack of evidence and coming right out to claim there is no God, something that has not and cannot be verified. They're preaching, not teaching.

If a teacher states there is no god in any of these classes i would again be happy to march with you against that, even though i am an atheist i don't want my belief forced on anyone.

Again, the article words things differently at times so we really don't know their intentions for sure but logically, it makes no sense that their sole mission is to point out the lack of proof for a God. Again, that would take a whole 30 seconds.

I am looking at it without bias, forgive me but i think it is you who isn't as you feel threatened by the idea of people hearing evidence against the creation arguments and coming out of it deciding for themselves that there is no god.

They are not getting into a theological debate, they are directly responding to arguments put forward by creationists. At least that's what it sounds like to me. It could be stated simply as trying to defend the scientific position, that being science requires evidence.

I must apologize but the creationism vs. evolution angle really has nothing to do with this. These people are trying to assert there is no God, at all, period. Creationism is exclusive to the Judeo-Christian faith. Also, nothing in the article mentions the creationism controversy. Simply the existence of a God. This is also a religious studies class, not science. Apples and oranges again.