Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Its basically a class to undo all the brainwashing that religious parents and churches subject their children too in their pre teen years? i welcome this.
Children as young as 4 to be educated in Atheism
- Thread starter bhavv
- Start date
Apparently. What, may I ask, is wrong about learning something about philosophy and comparative religion? I found it fascinating at school though I admit others don't/didn't. The teaching approach has a bearing, too, obviously.
If you learnt nothing at school in RE you were either dense, ignorant or your teacher was terrible. Who knows? I'm not a Muslim, Christian/Catholic, Hindu or suchlike but I enjoyed learning about them all and learnt an awful lot about various cultures in the process. What's wrong with that?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss 'lolreligion' but yet seem to know very little about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
WHat are you talking about?
What part of the atheistic beliefs incorporate any sort or moral code or cultural value?
Yes you might teach that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
Teaching Atheism, 'Some people believe no God exists'
Thats it.
There is no moral code there, no cultural values.
Its a very short class.
Good grief, do any of you people read? I said it would be a nice opportunity to remind the children (many of whom are indoctrinated at home) that some people don't believe in God, and this doesn't mean you lack a moral code or any sense of culture.
That is, not believing in God doesn't mean you're bad. You can still be moral and be atheist.
What, I ask, is incorrect about that? You say "There is no moral code" - are you saying atheists have no morals? Code might have been the wrong word to use earlier, but it was clear by my elucidating what I was referring to.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's not about teaching there is a moral code implicit to atheism but that people can be moral and have a moral framework without being of any specific religion or indeed being religious at all.
Thank you, sir. I was beginning to think I was typing in Dutch.
I think the most interesting thing was when another pupil commented on when we were taught that Muslim men can marry up to 4 women as long as he treats them all equally:
'Well that would be really easy - Bake me a cake, bake me a cake, bake me a cake, bake me a cake'
Seriously RE is a lame subject that teaches you nothing important. I'd rather have studied Drama instead in that time slot, which none of my schools taught whatsoever.
What exactly did you learn from RE classes? Because I cant think of anything worthwhile that the subject teaches.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,746
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Where are they teaching atheism?
Nicely put. I think it's more important for 4 year old children to understand that others may follow different belief systems to them and that that isn't a bad thing, than it is for them to know what the difference between Hanukkah and Christmas is. Trivia facts are great and all but they don't really help a child's social development.
I think the most interesting thing was when another pupil commented on when we were taught that Muslim men can marry up to 4 women as long as he treats them all equally:
'Well that would be really easy - Bake me a cake, bake me a cake, bake me a cake, bake me a cake'
Then I'm sad to say you either attended a very dull school, had very dull companions or perhaps both. I realise not everyone entertains interest in the same subjects, but if you could honestly go through your whole school life and learn - in your own words - 'nothing' from RE, and conclude with a comment that they did nothing to allow you to respect religion is sad.
If I gave you a pencil and paper, right this second, and asked you to write two pages on the history, culture and philosophy of each of the world religions; could you? By that I mean two pages PER religion, not two pages about them all.
If the answer is 'no' then with respect perhaps you don't respect it because you have absolutely no real idea about it, and would benefit from spending your time reading rather than making meaningless threads debasing something you admittedly don't understand?
Some things I remember 'learning' in my RE classes:
- Draw a picture of what you think a Theist, Agnostic and Atheist look like (I drew a nun, a normal person and a punk because I hardly knew any better, as did most of the class).
- Read some newspapers for homework and cut out and bring in a religious article
- Create a religious wedding invitation (another homework).
Oh seriously wow, how absolutely fascinating and useful it was to be wasting my time to be doing stuff like that instead of simply doing equations or revising something for science instead?
- Draw a picture of what you think a Theist, Agnostic and Atheist look like (I drew a nun, a normal person and a punk because I hardly knew any better, as did most of the class).
- Read some newspapers for homework and cut out and bring in a religious article
- Create a religious wedding invitation (another homework).
Oh seriously wow, how absolutely fascinating and useful it was to be wasting my time to be doing stuff like that instead of simply doing equations or revising something for science instead?
Wow, our schools were worlds apart then.
If that's your sum total knowledge and experience of religion, perhaps you would benefit from spending some time reading up on various theologies and philosophy? A little grounding is never a bad thing, especially if you seek to debase something on an ongoing basis; understanding the thing you're lol-ing at would help.
I seriously don't mean this post as a dig or anything ad homien, I'm simply saying that at your own admission you weren't taught about it at school, you clearly haven't bothered to learn much about it since, so why lol about it instead of learning what the fuss might be about and THEN deciding?
You seriously think that this is what kids learn about religion in RE classes at ages 4-14? And if they dont then they must be going to a bad school?
Lol, you're a joker.
Wow, our schools were worlds apart then.
If that's your sum total knowledge and experience of religion, perhaps you would benefit from spending some time reading up on various theologies and philosophy? A little grounding is never a bad thing, especially if you seek to debase something on an ongoing basis; understanding the thing you're lol-ing at would help.
I seriously don't mean this post as a dig or anything ad homien, I'm simply saying that at your own admission you weren't taught about it at school, you clearly haven't bothered to learn much about it since, so why lol about it instead of learning what the fuss might be about and THEN deciding?
Why would I want to waste my time learning complete BS like that? I dont think you learnt what you claim to have while you were a kid at school, that is more like GSCE+ Religious Studies content, not compulsory RE up to age 14 which is simply a useless dos subject.
And no, you definitely dont learn anything about religious philosophy in those classes.
Last edited:
My school taught me a great deal about religions, philosophy and how things could be compared and contrasted. We were also greatly encouraged to read further books and various religious texts, or speak to people of other religions, in our own time.
I'm not a joker my friend, I just perhaps was lucky to have a great RE teacher? As I said, considering some of the awe-inspiring works that have been written in the realms of theology and philosophy, 'lol' seems something of a weak response. But that's just me.
That one simple, solitary sentence just underlined (and undermined) your entire stance. I have no interest in debating things with someone who is admittedly ignorant and professes a desire to learn nothing about the 'BS' subject at hand. Enjoy your weekend.
Get off your high horse.
Some people don't want to learn about subjects that don't interest them. It doesn't make them dense, and it certainly doesn't mean they don't respect that subject.
Original post with the article? Or are you getting at something else?
My school taught me a great deal about religions, philosophy and how things could be compared and contrasted. We were also greatly encouraged to read further books and various religious texts, or speak to people of other religions, in our own time.
I'm not a joker my friend, I just perhaps was lucky to have a great RE teacher? As I said, considering some of the awe-inspiring works that have been written in the realms of theology and philosophy, 'lol' seems something of a weak response. But that's just me.
I dont believe you because that kind of stuff wouldnt be in the compulsory RE curriculum up to age 14.
Philosophy isnt a subject that people learn until GCSE or even A Level and then its only if they choose to study it.
You're sat on a very high horse from which you actually dont know anything about compulsory RE classes, or the actual curriculum that is taught in normal schools.
Indeed sir. But when someone starts a multitude of threads whose content is, loosely speaking, 'lolreligion' and they back it up by stating they're ignorant of those religions and quite happy to remain so... Well...
I don't start threads about things in which I have no interest, simply to poke fun at them and tell everyone I know nothing about it.
Just because it's not compulsory in the curriculum doesn't mean a good teacher won't expound it. But we differ, so I'll leave you to the rest of the thread.