Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Discuss: If atheists truly controlled the education system.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by thermal, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. Not wanting to derail another thread, I have been prompted to start a new one.

    What would be the pros and cons of a pure atheist controlled education system?

    I would suggest that religion would still be taught, probably more so than it is today. The difference, however, would be to include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and ancient religions, along with other ways of life such as Buddhism and Confucianism. The fundamental difference would be that the concept of god is taught as a theory and not as a fact. Also, another big part of religion, morals, would also be presented as a product of evolution and not religion - of which there is increasingly mounting evidence to support.

    In addition to the obvious religious changes, I think curriculum would be more likely to adapt at a faster rate where feasible. Atheists, by and large, are motivated by the search for truth - so they would want the most up to date truth being taught at any given time.

    So, opinions? I can't think of any real downsides, but I'm biased.
  2. I suspect you'd see somewhat of an exodus from the public school system to private schools that catered to various religious groups.

    To a degree that's already happening now with the de emphasizing of religion in public schools.
  3. The world would be a better place. Critical thinking would be emphasised. Hopefully tax breaks for cults would be abolished due to youngsters not being indoctrinated.
  4. Cults don't get tax breaks in Australia, only organized religion.

  5. This is what I find interesting. 'Secular' schools, if I'm allowed to call them that should be teaching religion. They should teach it in it's entirety, as it is no less an important subject than maths or English. But that's the problem, schools are being pressured to stop teaching it all together, which does no one any good.
  6. Organised religion is just a big cult. Tax breaks for these sort of organisation should only be for expenditure demonstrated to be of societal benefit. Income not spent this way should not be tax free.

    I'm going to stop reading this thread now as all religion makes me angry.
  7. Same thing aren't they?:bolt:
  8. I agree. I was brought up in the Church of England, but once I was old enough to stay home by myself I was given a choice of going to church or not. I chose not to, except for special family things like Christenings, Weddings, Funerals and the occaisonal Christmas or Easter.

    These days I consider my self an atheist but I have no problem with religion being taught in school. Providing it's balanced, and currently it isn't. The children only get one or two different views of Christianity. Nothing on Isalm, Judaism, Hinduism, Budisim etc etc.

    So at the moments it's not RI (Religious Instruction), its CI (Christian Indoctrination).
  9. May I ask you to elaborate on why you think that?

    Personally, I am an atheist. I was force fed “religion” in primary school (catholic) but once I was given the choice, I ignored it. I have my reasons which are my own.

    One thing I do believe is that everyone has the right to choose their own beliefs, and should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from any other group whether they be religious or otherwise.
    Sadly, that is not how the world works…
  10. I think that most people, yourself seemingly included, take the view of teaching religion as a subject is the same as teaching someone to abide by said religion. Of course, in a religious school, that is certainly the case. However, as with any other subject at school, religion can be taught objectively. So, for example, "What we know about the Christian bible is that it was written a few thousand years ago." as opposed to "What we know about the bible is that it was written by god and you are to use it as a manual for living your life."

    I think the 'take religion out of school' thing is taken to the extreme and manifests itself literally. I think most people, if it was presented properly to them, would agree with having their children taught about all religions and their social context - it is a massive subject that effects the world and should be taught. Without knowledge, there can be only ignorance - and an ignorance of religion is just as bad as an ignorant religious person. But you don't need to believe in god and practice the rituals in order to learn, as mick eluded to above.
  11. I find it interesting that morals have to be taught at school? What about home?

    I teach in a Catholic school and the kids there get to hear about the variety of religions more than when I was in the public system, both as a student and teacher. Just to clarify my religious stance, I'm what you call a post Catholic, (I like the nice stuff they got to say and reckon the other 95% is bullshit) just don't tell my boss :demon:
    I see teaching religion as an exercise in cultural studies, like sociology, anthropology and human geography and in it you might learn some nice ways of doing things that can complement a humanist, atheist, Buddhist etc..

    One thing that shits me about Christianity (and other like religious traditions) is that they claim to be the sole source of "Truth". I think that's why you see dicks like Fred Nile get up on their high horse about ethics as he truly feels that anyone else has no ethical system like theirs. see this piece he has written
  12. Well this is part of my point, morals can't be taught any more than empathy can be taught. We can teach how morals fit into the theory of evolution and use hypothetical situations to highlight how they effect decision making, but you shouldn't say 'Here is a list of ten things you are not allowed to do... because that's what god says.'
  13. I agree, but what do morals have to do with religion?
  14. If I was a cynic I'd say that religion stole morals to use as a control mechanism.
  15. I agree with you, and that's why it pisses me off to see some so called religious people argue that they have sole patent on the idea. If you read the article I linked to have a think about what good old Nile has to say on the matter. Apparently "Jebus" is the only one qualified.
  16. Depends how deep you want this discussion to go? When you say " Morals can't be taught" are you basing this on the idea that a person might follow an ethical guideline (secular or not) but not truly believe it? For example, I'm not going to kill because the Law of the state says I can't and I will be punished, rather than "I will not kill because it's not the right thing to do to my fellow human".
  17. i don't understand why an atheist school system would teach any religion, subjectively or otherwise.
    though, an agnostic system would
  18. i can think of a few cults that do get tax breaks here.
    that's why they came here and are thriving. because our gov dose'nt recognise them as cults.
  19. I think there are people who are religious who don't do things that are morally neutral, just because they've been taught it's wrong. Being gay is the obvious example. On the flip side, there would be people who not only do things in the name of religion that are morally wrong - but that also contradict other teachings. For instance, a religious fanatic who kills a doctor that carries out abortions because they believe, morally, it's ok. Yet at that point in time, the 'Thou shalt not kill' seemed to elude them.

    So when I say morals can't be taught, I'm talking about the morals we are all born with. Religion tries to teach something that is already within every human. Some humans are born more 'morally adjusted' and some less. The saying 'Good will do good, evil will do evil and it's religion that allows good to do evil' is fairly succinct in highlighting my point.

    I still think they'd teach it (even if it was part of a creative writing class ;)), but I see your point and did have that thought when I started the thread. Though I think you'll find anyone who calls themselves an atheist, when asked directly, would actually consider themselves semantically agnostic. For instance, I would call myself a tooth fairy agnostic, in as much as I don't believe in the tooth fairy, I also cannot disprove that she/he/it exists. It's just easier to say atheist.
  20. Good question.
    Religions do a lot more than face value. And for some of these kids they really are a good thing. Say a kid from a twisted family who has no idea of a normal family, compassion, love and respect.
    I say this as a "I don't even think about it".... god...religion really. Hope there's heaven but Darwin makes a lot of sense.
    Basically my belief is man has not evolved enough yet not too have them.