Should Atheism be taught in schools?

[trumad]

or How witchcraft, Devil worshipping, voodoo? etc.... Just askin?

[Kazak]

1. Heh, nice angle...

Hey, religious freedom results in religious diversity, right?

[trumad]

2. exactly...

[LittleApple81]

3. I am all for knowledge. In my house, my husband and kids are

atheists. I have my own version of God (not associated with ANY organized religion). But when the kids went to school in Germany, we had them take religion classes because that was the only they could understand what my husband called "the myths of Western Civilization."

[Kinkistyle]

4. You dont TEACH atheism. Everybody is born atheist. Its the default state.

Everybody is born atheist - with no religion. Kids have to be taught RELIGION.

[arwalden]

8. Thank You. Ya Beat Me To It...

-- Allen

[lapislzi]

9. I was just going to say that!!

Tabula rasa.

No bad juju to unlearn.

[tandot]

5. No. We just want them to teach that there is only one God and

that if you don't believe in OUR God you will go to hell.

Actually, I think kids who refuse to pray aloud to OUR God in school should have to wear a t-shirt stating "I don't believe and I don't pray and therefore I will burn in Hell"

And we should burn all the books mentioning that Darwin crap. We all know that God created the world in 7 days.


/sarcasm off

[KansDem]

11. Six days...

I thought it was six days...

He took Sunday off...Big game on TV, you know...

[tandot]

23. darn. I am just too used to 24/7 Walmarts. I totally forgot that

God took the 7th day off to watch a game. Sorry

;)

[KittyWampus]

6. It Already Is, In Essence.... In Science Class

In Western Science, as taught in America, the notion that the Material World is all there is and that is the basis for Reality and the Natural World exists as the norm.

Despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

Despite perfectly valid theoretical frameworks to the contrary.

[Az]

12. Thats is not atheism

Atheism certainly likes science in most cases but it is distinct and seperate.

There is a distinct difference between secular and atheistic. Secular remains neutral to the question of religion. Instead it approaches things with only what it can determine within reason.

Atheism is different in that it starts from a supposition that existing claims for god are invalid and there is no evidence to support such claims. An atheist education would not stop at teaching science. It would procede to directly dismantle the claims made in the bible, talmud, or quran. It would take a directly challenging position on the doctrine of these religions.

Secular education merely reports the current state of the particular field and lets each religion interpret it as they see fit.

[drdigi420]

21. teaching science IS dismantling biblical claims

Facts are anti-religion

[Az]

26. Which brings the question

Does our seperation of church and state mean that teaching the truth as best we understand it violate their rights if they choose to believe something that is refuted by those facts?

Of course from our position it seems a nonsensical question. We presume that if the beliefs do not match up with what we understand reality to be then the beliefs must be wrong. Makes sense doesn't it.

But to the believers the science must be flawed. It only makes sense. They know their truth to be the one valid truth. That science is teaching these lies means that it must be flawed or worse corrupted by evil.

By forcing them to accept science as fact we are effectively forcing a belief on them. Make no mistake. This is how they see it. They see science as a dogma. One that they are not allowed to challenge.

This is the fundimental flaw with Post Modern societies. They have no means of addressing a cultural value that sets itself in direct opposition to another. It can only work within a structure where all are prepared to acknowledge that each other system has some value. But in the case of the creationists they have set themself in direct opposition of established science. There is no Post Modern means to reconcile this issue other than to resort to force which is counter to everything Post Modernism strives for.

[pop goes the weasel]

13. good grief

"then a miracle happened" is not an acceptable explanation in science.And science classes are not philosophy classes. If you are bothered that philosophy isn't being taught in schools, then demand that it be. Don't expect the science teachers to handle it.

[immoderate]

7. the schools should teach everything

they can get their hands on. But then they should apply critical thinking to those teachings.

When I taught some science classes in the middle schools (out of license, I was a math teacher,) one of my students asked me to give time to some creation theories "to be fair." I explained, as I had to the class, that science was not a list of "facts" but a method of determination, and bringing in religious ideas and using the same critical scrutiny was an area of radioactivity that I would not expose myself to.

This was in NYC, and even in that bastion of free-thinking I would not stick my neck out so far as to say, let's do a critical analysis of biblical creationism.

I stuck to explaining that science advances principles that invite challenge, and some other explanations could not be science because they did not invite challenge. In some private conversations, to illustrate this point, I said, when your minister invites me to talk about evolution, then I think it would be fair to have him talk about creation.

I can't say that I saw much movement intellectually, but I hope I left the seeds for students to adopt some principles of critical thinking as their academic careers developed.

I want to add that a favorite professor of mine, a college chemistry teacher, started our course by approaching from the point of view of witchcraft, alchemy, etc. and let us evolve our thinking to that of scientific practice.


--IMM

[ComerPerro]

10. no

but I get your point

[leftofthedial]

14. atheism should be the basis of education

all the god-worshipping religions and those that anthropomorphize nature should be taught in some sort of comparative humanities class.

[Az]

17. The best approximation of the truth should be the basis of education

Whether that turns out to be atheism or Christianity (or any other reigions belief) is dependent on what the truth is. Predeterming the methodology without following the process is inherantly unfair.

If you are confident that your position is correct then lending support to a methodology of determing the truth should pose no threat. For if yours is the truth then that is what the method will unveil.

[leftofthedial]

36. at least with my approach,

there'd be a chance of continuing to validate the truth and to discover new truths.

Maybe some sort of anthropology class could address religion and the other strange superstitions, cults and rituals of primitive hom sapiens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Sure, why not?

It's one worldview among the many held by Americans.

[Texican]

16. Growing up in Texas

I really still have not grown up, but I have gotten older. I remember things like our modest school library and how happy I was when we got a new set of encyclopedias. Of course any mention of Darwin or Evolution had been cut out with a razor blade. There is no stopping the Krustian crowd from forcing their superstitions on others. Look at this mad war in Iraq. It really is a religious crusade and that is why the Iraqis are not even considered human by the Fundies. They are to be converted at gunpoint or killed. I have had all of the religion that I can stomach.

[Blue_Chill]

18. you mean like they do in China?

Sure why not after all China is a swell place for all.

[drdigi420]

22. china isnt a good place

but teaching that religion is false is a good thing

[Blue_Chill]

24. Good thing to you

but then again your are an proselytizing atheist. No different then Jerry Falwell and every other over zealous nut that wants their point of view to be heard as right and all others wrong.

[Pithlet]

40. Don't you just hate it?

When someone attacks your belief system and paints all people within it with a broad brush? </irony>

[starroute]

19. Our society is based on an avoidance of all religious disputes

The great religious wars and persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries were ended largely by a gentleman's agreement not to discuss in public anything that could start flame wars.

Science was considered a particularly safe topic, which is one reason that science has prospered so greatly in the West.

Social issues were also safe as long as they were kept within a general, non-sectarian framework of "self-evident" truths (as opposed to particular religious dogmas.) The Declaration of Independence is a model of this kind of approach.

Schools today teach science and avoid teaching religion because they are following that 300-year-old gentleman's agreement. However, the fundies are doing their best to break the agreement down. They see science as atheistic because it speaks only of what can be proven and avoids religious arguments. And they see a rational, non-sectarian society as a bad thing rather than a good thing.

I don't know what is going to come of all this. Sometimes I think the fundamentalists represent the final twitch of a dinosaur's tail which hasn't yet gotten the message that the head is already dead. At other times, I feel that the entire 17th century decision to remove religion from the public sphere was no more than a short-term solution born of desperation.

Perhaps both perceptions are true, and fundamentalism and secularism are doomed to collapse in tandem.

In either case, I'm quite sure that if religion is going to survive in any form, it will have to come to terms with science. The new religions like paganism that have already done so should be a model for the rest.

[Delano]

20. Religion should not be taught

That includes teaching "there is categorically no God".

Teaching comparative religion, however is another thing - it SHOULD include discussion of atheism.

[LeahMira]

25. You want serious answers?

Should Atheism be taught in schools?

What would you teach about atheism?


or How witchcraft, Devil worshipping, voodoo? etc....

Voodoo? I don't think there are very many people in the U.S. who know anything about voodoo.

As to the witchcraft and devil worshipping stuff, I've known of some people who pretend to be in to that, but sadly they are actually in to heavy drug and alcohol abuse and child abuse. Maybe we ought to teach our children to report abuse, and our teachers, pastors, counselors and such how to respond to those kinds of reports.

We in the U.S. tend to be so full of ourselves and our "scientific knowledge" that I think we take a patronizing and dismissive attitude towards what we don't understand... or want to understand. I imagine there's a lot in voodoo that comes down to mind over matter, but I also am totally open to understanding that there's a lot of ancient knowledge there that we dismiss at our own disadvantage.

But no... I wouldn't teach about it in elementary school.

Does that answer your question?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. Should Atheism be taught in schools?

What would you teach about atheism?

why some people can believe there is no god and still lead moral lives. why there are some people who feel that there is no god and can prove that by logic. the history of atheism.

you can teach as much about atheism as any one religion.


i know several people who are wiccan (witches) generally drug free, alcohol free and often meat free.

[Wapsie B]

28. As part of a Comparative Religion class, yes.

The only thing is in some places the konservative fundies wouldn't want a broad overview of various world religions. The more fundy an area is, the more the pods would want a Pentecostal minister or Southern Baptist to teach the class and give their views alone.

[Az]

29. Atheism is not an organised philosophy (the asmurfist argument)

It only exists as an absense of an aspect of other beliefs. Just as I do not believe in god I do not believe in Smurfs. But since there is not a large group of individuals proclaiming the existance of Smurfs I do not find it necissary to distinguish myself as an asmurfist.

There are organised philosophies that do include atheism as one of their tenants. Humanism is one in particular. You could teach the impact of Humanism in a class of comparitive religions. That would enable you to include the idea of atheism.

[0007]

30. No Atheism or any type of religion

[usregimechange]

31. Yes, just as religion can be taught in the context of...

American history. It should not be promoted.

[Solon]

32. Interesting scenario...

for one, call it Vodun please, Voodoo is the hollywood bastardization of it. Also Witchcraft, Satanism, Temple of Set, and yes even the viewpoints of atheistic and agnostic philosophers should be taught in public schools. A comparative religions course should include as many religions as possible that exist today, from Asatru to Zoroastrianism, why not, it only expands horizons, doesn't limit them.

ON EDIT: I would also include estoric mysteries of religions, such as the Kabbalah (Jewish Mysteries), and Sufism (Muslim Mysteries), and other such traditions.

[slackmaster]

33. Yes, under the subject of World Religions

Where all religions are treated with equal intellectual detachment.

[trumad]

34. Now you see how complicated it would be to teach Religion

to a bunch of high schoolers? Where does it stop? Open a crack and the damn will eventually break....

[slackmaster]

35. Teaching religion is not the same as teaching ABOUT religion

I know several people who took a "World Religions" course as an elective in high school, and it didn't seem to hurt them.

[Baltimoreboy]

37. The crack is there

World religions are a HUGE part of history AND current events and politics even the history of science. How can you avoid it?

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 7:52:24PM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
4 hours,
7 minutes, and
36 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Trillo]

39. Can ALL indoctrination be removed completely from education?

My answer to the posed question: no, but neither should religion,
unless it's part of another class.

There's a supposition in this discussion, and that is that school is supposed to teach instead of indoctrinate. Teach how to think instead of what to think. With math that should be easy enough.

How do you teach "how to think" about history without teaching "what to think" about selected facts?

[goodhue]

41. which schools?

what subject?