Religion
Related: About this forumWe Neglect Religious Education At Our Peril
2/26/2014 @ 9:53AM
Nick Morrison
Religious education is in crisis. The subject is increasingly marginalized, unloved and taught by non-specialists – at a time when teaching about religion has never been more important. The result is we risk creating a vacuum that spells danger for all of us.
Many of the most divisive issues we face today are coated in religion, whether it is those that divide a community, such as abortion or gay marriage, or those that give rise to conflicts between societies. If ever there has been a time when an understanding of belief and the role it plays in people’s lives is important it is now.
And yet we seem content to let it wither, caught between a worry it could be seen as indoctrination and a suspicion that it is an anachronism in a scientific age.
In the U.K., the government has scrapped grants for trainee religious education teachers, at a time when one fifth of places are already unfilled. Although the subject is compulsory up to 16, it is more likely to be taught by non-specialists than any other and its exclusion from the core that count towards school rankings ensures it will be marginalized.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2014/02/26/we-neglect-religious-education-at-our-peril/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)and the Damage They've Done"?
ANYthing else is a complete waste of funds and would probably be a violation of the 1st.
rug
(82,333 posts)"Comparative". And I mean completely honest discussion of ALL organized religion including the horrors perpetrated in the name of faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but taking a very one-sided and slanted view against specific religions might be.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I'm not guilty of that.
I'm against them all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)1st amendment protections than the teaching of religious studies.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Though I'll admit that our legislature and judiciary would support you, due to their pandering to public superstition.
The Fathers were quite specific in their framing of the1st, but could not foresee all chicanery. If they could have, I'm personally sure they would have included "freedom of and from " in the Amendments and would have expressed more succinctly that religion must be excluded from government.
'Course, I'm no scholar of the Constitution or American history, but I really think their intent was clear. Only self-serving religious demagogues try to twist their language in order to subvert the Constitution.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)freedom from religion and freedom of religion. So I guess they were a step ahead of you.
Teaching religion impinges on neither of these unless it is used to promote one religion over another, and I would include in that teaching non-religion over religion in general.
This has nothing to do with religion being included or excluded from government. It's just an argument that we may make a mistake if we neglect to teach our students about the role religion plays in our world.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Do we really expect that the thousands of religions man has devised for himself are going to be taught in public schools?
Let's be honest, when people say they want religion taught in school they are talking almost exclusively about Christianity, and fundamentalist Xianity at that. They're not talking about teaching about the Berbers, the Bantus, the Cargo cults, the ancient Egyptians, teaching about Cheondoism, Korean shamanism, Shinbutsu-shūgō, Modekngei, Wiccanisn, Satanism, or Scientology. They're not even talking about teaching about the differences between the 33,000-odd sects of Christianity on this planet.
It has everything to to do with teaching ONE religion, and we all know what that religion is.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to teach everything that has ever been known or thought of.
I don't think they are talking exclusively about christianity at all, and certainly the author of this article isn't.
You have just made that up because that's what you apparently want to believe. No one hear has suggested anything remotely like that.
I'm sorry, but you really need to get that beam out of your eye.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)is subjective. Please show me phrase "freedom from religion within the text.
I agree it was the probable intent of the fathers, at any rate.
Back on topic, do you really believe that no teacher of a fundy bent will abuse this subject to proselytize? Perhaps your faith is stronger than mine, but I believe this proposal is the slippery slope we've heard tell of.
Seriously, although I've been out of school for decades, I do remember standard history classes teaching the impacts of religion on civilization and covering such diverse topics as the despair of the First Millennials when their prayed-for Apocalypse failed to materialize, the religious hysteria of the Salem trials, and the gruesome sadism of the Inquisition. Also covered were the incarcerations and oppression of scientists such as Galileo and Da Vinci.
The cynicism of the Medici was discussed. The religious fervor that a Pope stirred up to drive the aggression and land-grabbing of the Crusades.
In short, I believe that the few benefits and the huge transgressions of religions are already adequately covered and there's no need to create a new syllabus that opens the door for abuse by fanatics.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The first amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of any state religion. That means that religion can't be imposed on anyone.
I do indeed think that these kinds of classes are best taught by those without a personal religious agenda.
One of the points of the article is that what may have been included decades ago when you were being educated, has been abandoned for the most part. So your experience of there having been adequate coverage may no longer be the case.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)that history classes no longer teach these aspects of religions' impact on history, but the proper approach is to reinstate those segments within the discipline of history, with out establishing a brand new curriculum.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Feral Child
(2,086 posts)And thanks for the courteous discussion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)(whatever that is)?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Then again, I'd have no protection, because there's nothing in the bill of rights protecting me from antiquated modes of transportation.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Influence on history? Sure, like many bad ideas, religion has influenced history.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)national and international politics at this time?
Do you think we should not teach students about previous wars or the holocaust either?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)That should be taught in a history class.
What we don't need are religion classes that teach the doctrines of religion, as is the compulsory case in England. What we don''t need are classes teaching the fables of religions - the Exodus, the resurrection, Mohammed flying to heaven on a horse - taught as if they had any historical verisimilitude.
As long as religious studies are confined to like studies in fiction and the effect such fictions have had on humanity, then I have no problem with mention of religion being included in academic studies. The line is crossed the second religion is taught as actual history and as an alternate reality.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)muslim doctrine.
One can not even pretend to understand what is going on in some of the legislative bodies in this country without understanding fundamentalist christian doctrine.
You may night need these things, but I am hopeful that those of the next generation who will work in both domestic and international capacities will have some knowledge base to guide them.
You don't think religion is an actual history? That's ridiculous.
But then again, ignorance is bliss…. I guess.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)I can't claim to have an intimate knowledge of the Koran, but I have a deep knowledge of the Bible. 95% of that book is made up of ahistoric myths and legends. It's more along the lines of a historical fiction like Gone With The Wind than an actual history book.
Many Biblical scholars - especially those in Israel - agree that the personages of the Bible like Moses, David, Abraham et al are fictions. They never existed as real human beings. In many cases, they are pure fictions, not even being a composite of people who did live.
I would say that even Jesus never really existed, though there were a surfeit of Jesuses running around the middle east back in the day. There's absolutely ZERO historical evidence that Jesus existed. That's a simple fact.
Actually, it's sort of shame that the church decided to go with the "Jesus was a real person" meme, because that decision removes Jesus from the realm of the spirit world of most Mediterranean gods of that period. That's certainly how St Paul saw Jesus, ie: as a non-corporeal being who lived and died and fought his battles in the spirit world, just like many other gods did. Read Paul's epistles. He's very clear that Jesus was a spirit, not a man. Paul mentions nothing of the life of the corporeal Jesus as extolled in the Synoptic Gospels. Removing Jesus from the realm of the spirits breaks with the continuum of other religions that serve as a window into the human psyche. That's not to say it wasn't a great marketing idea to claim that Jesus was a real man - even NASA figured out that humans would identify more with their space program if they started sending men into space, rather than monkeys.
Paul's writing came BEFORE any of the Gospels were written. The first Gospel written was Mark - which is best read as a reactive religious allegory - and the other Gospels are based upon it. Mark was possibly influenced by Paul. And on it goes. The actual history of how religious writings came into being IS a subject that is of interest to me. Perhaps that's something that could be mentioned in academic studies. At least people wouldn't be going around believing that the Gospels bear the names of the disciples of Jesus who wrote them, or believing that the Gospels are contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus based on eyewitness accounts. They aren't.
What part of the Bible do you think is historically accurate?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you were to be doing some work in a muslim community or country or region, do you think that your lack of knowledge about Islam might impair your ability to be effective?
It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, nor should it. It's about having some understanding about where other people are coming from and what motivates them.
I couldn't be less interested in what part of the bible may be historically accurate. This isn't about arguing with believers to try and prove that their beliefs are wrong. It's about understanding those beliefs in order to better work with them.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)That said, it's probably much deeper than the study of the Koran taken on by the Average Joe.
I said I couldn't claim to be an expert on the Koran, not that I hadn't studied it at all.
You say you're not interested in what parts of the Bible are historically accurate, yet you take me to task for believing it isn't historically accurate. Strange.
As far as knowing where people are coming from, I don't need to have a deep knowledge of fairies to understand where people are coming from who believe in fairies. Same goes for my knowledge of werewolves. It is enough to know that people who are coming from a religious view of the world are coming from a fictional perspective of the world. I can work with that. It doesn't help me to better work with someone if they really really really believe Jesus rose from the dead or if they really really really believe Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
Let's get beyond the fictions and discuss the real issues. Real issues aren't solved by appealing to some supernatural entity. The chances for success aren't increased by spending long hours in the self-serving and self-aggrandizing exercise called prayer (just ask Rick Perry how it worked out praying for rain in Texas).
It's not a matter of disrespecting people's beliefs. It's a matter of putting those beliefs in perspective when dealing with reality.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Ah, the fairy/werewolf/Santa Claus comparison. How quaint. But then again, when one is in a position to declare all religious belief as fictional…..
stopbush
(24,396 posts)"You don't think religion is an actual history? That's ridiculous. But then again, ignorance is bliss…. I guess."
Do you not remember writing that earlier today?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And it doesnt take you to task for saying that the bible is historically inaccurate.
It says that religion represents an actual history. You called it a fiction, which is to deny that there is any actual history and that everything is just fabricated. That is patently false.
Why do you keep doing that? Do you think if you twist my words into saying something I didn't say, that I will suddenly recognize that what you appear to hear is the accurate version?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)What you've written in #28 is diametrically opposed to what you wrote in #11.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That can easily be seen by the high level of accuracy and legitimate sourcing of so many of your posts.
longship
(40,416 posts)So I find your casual disregard somewhat puzzling.
Maybe an explanation of your opinion would help. Thanks.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)My (admittedly limited) experience with religion teachers is they are there to proselytize. That there is a demand for these people that goes unfulfilled, I find amusing. I guess that's me.
--imm
longship
(40,416 posts)Does anybody think that in certain areas of the country that it would be Christian education rather than religious?
Education policy is set at the state and local level. There's where the wedge is inserted.
longship
(40,416 posts)Learning about religion is crucial to understand history, culture, and any number of other human endeavors. The problem is, religious factions want to turn religious education into religious indoctrination. That is the big battle that must be fought, and one that we must not lose.
How does one proceed? That's the big question here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)any kind of indoctrination.
And that is not what the author is arguing for either.
The fact that there are some here who feel it should simply be ignored or taught only in a very negative light is problematic, imo. That's the kind of intolerance and divisiveness that always bites dems in the ass in the end.
longship
(40,416 posts)I think religious education is a good thing, but only if it has no ideology.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I think that's very important, indeed. We need to teach them about religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)what you mean.
You would not care for what I would teach about religion, nor would I care for what you would teach, I'm quite sure.
rug
(82,333 posts)" . . . . there is a risk that teaching about religion will be replaced by teaching of a religion . . . ."
If the education is about what different religions hold, and their histories, there really should be little difference between what you and I taught, absent indoctrination.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)content required of host bread, really. It's more tangible.
Still, few schools actually teach about religion. They might say they do, but generally the teaching is biased in favor of whatever religion is believed by those doing the teaching. In the United States, that usually means a bias toward Christian theological thinking.
When I returned to the university after my service in the USAF, I change my major to English from Electronics Engineering, my major before I dropped out and enlisted. So, really, I didn't have many elective class requirements left before fulfilling my degree requirements. My language, history, science and math requirements were all completed. Not wanting to take only classes in my new major, I cast about for some interesting course to add to my schedule each semester.
One semester, I chose a survey course in World Religions. I thought it might be an interesting thing to add to my own independent studies. On the first day of class, I discovered that the instructor, an adjunct professor, was also a Baptist minister. I was skeptical that the class would be taught in an unbiased way immediately. I was quickly proven correct in the very first lecture, when he began discussing the "Origins of Religion." His position was not in keeping even with the thinking of the author of the text for the class. This adjunct professor held that the "real and true" origin of religion came from Divine Revelation and dismissed a long list of other possibilities as nonsense. Clearly, he was heavily invested in his own theology, from the beginning.
Now my habit was to get an early start on reading the materials for any class, so I had read the chapter on Origins and had thought about it before that first lecture. I interrupted the lecture when the instructor made the declaration about what was the "real and true" origin of religion. I asked him what reasoning he used to differ from the conclusion of the author of the book, which was that there was no single origin of religion but a combination of factors that depended on individual societies and available fundamental knowledge and common questions. Here is what this adjunct professor cum Baptist minister said to me in response:
"In this class, what I say is what is correct. I will brook no argument from students."
Those were his exact words. I stood up, picked up my things, walked out of the classroom, withdrew from the course, and wrote a long letter to the Dean of Humanities about this erstwhile professor and his decidedly unacademic approach to the subject. He was not there the next semester.
Teaching about religion almost never works. There is always a bias of some sort. I would not venture to teach such a class, myself. I could, but I'm an atheist, and almost certainly my bias would color my lectures in some way, even if unintentionally. In my opinion, teaching about religion is a virtual impossibility in any society with a dominant religion.
Now about the gluten requirement....
rug
(82,333 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)The thing is that in our primary and secondary schools, the students do not have the option I had of walking out of that person's class and addressing a complaint to the Dean of Humanities. In fact, those public school students have no options at all, really, nor do they have the knowledge base on which to judge what is being taught to them. And what is likely to be taught to them in most public schools will hardly be unbiased by the beliefs of those doing the teaching.
That is why I oppose all teaching regarding religion in any public primary or secondary school. All. I want neither religious believers or atheists teaching about religion in those venues. Whoever is doing the teaching is likely to bring personal bias to the table, whether openly, subtly, or unconsciously.
If the parents of children wish for them to have religious education, there are a number of institutions that will be more than happy to provide that to them at no charge. Our schools should not be in that business at all. It is not appropriate, because it will not be taught in an unbiased way, except in very rare cases.
rug
(82,333 posts)There are curricula and standards already that provide a sound basis for teaching about religion even in the primary grades.
You can't teach about castles, knights, ladies and serfs without teaching about the culture, including religion, in which they existed.
Deliberate blindness is not the answer.
If they're going to watch Aladdin movies they should at least know whether it took place in pre- or post-Islamic Arabia.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I've not found such to be the case. If you know of someone who teaches classes about religion that are bias-free, please let me know at what school such classes are being taught.
Curriculum is one thing; actual classes are quite another, as I'm sure you're aware.
Do you think you could teach a high school religion class without bias? Be honest.
rug
(82,333 posts)If I were to teach religion in high school, it would not be bias-free but pretty damn close.
How about you? Can you teach politics without bias in a red county high school?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I could do an excellent job of teaching about government, though, and without bias. I never took a politics class in high school, though.
I could not teach a religion class without bias. I would not try. I could teach the fundamental beliefs and practices of a wide range of religions, but my bias against belief in supernatural entities would be exposed, I'm sure. I find it difficult to discuss such things with a straight face, I'm afraid.
I'm thinking your discussion about non-belief might display some bias, as well. Just saying...
rug
(82,333 posts)I would teach politics with a much stronger bias than if I taught religion, especially if I taught politics in a red county.
But that's just me.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Jim__
(14,077 posts)Ignorance is not the solution to many problems.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Greek, Persian, Norse, etc. By the time you get to Christianity/Islam people have it pretty well figured out.
It's like inoculation against a socially transmitted disease.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So you think teaching religion would "inoculate" people.
Just another fantasy on your part.
If everyone in the world were just like you, it would be a much better place.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think there's a reason atheists score so highly on tests like this: http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Careful with that heap of straw ("If everyone in the world were just like you,"
it's starting to look like a person.
Get 10 atheists in a room (or generally classified 'secular' people) and you will still have 10 genuinely different people.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)disease, or do you just reserve that special piece of intolerance for this site?
Of course you will have 10 genuinely different people. Get 10 religious people in a room and you will find the same.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I can give examples.
But it's not limited to religion by any means. There are LOTS of similar ideas, get around the same way.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Bet you are getting a lot of converts using that tactic.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To give a non-religious example, comprehensive sex ed is an inoculation against equally bad ideas about condom use, HIV transmissibility, etc.
It does work.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are comparing religious beliefs to a sexually transmitted disease.
It doesn't work. I think people are just being kind to you so as not to embarrass you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ideas like 'condoms don't stop aids' isn't a sexually transmitted disease. It's a socially transmitted idea.
Crimony, are we going to do the whole 'you not grasping what I say' thing again today?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You used the word disease, not idea.
I grasp quite clearly what you are saying.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Edit: I didn't substitute 'idea' for 'disease' until that last post, just trying to illustrate the delta between what you repeated back, and what I am saying.
Such an idea is actually virulent. It bears commandments to spread it. To replicate. There's no difference here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's not a mirror. That is spitting back in someones face.
You are in a group right now that includes believers and you think it's a-ok to say that they have a socially transmitted disease, but it's not ok for others (none of whom are in this group) to say that you are going to burn in hell.
Yep, that is very much your problem.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)because it might offend them?
Do you have any idea how lopsided and ridiculous that analysis is?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But if your goal is to have a civil and adult conversation with them about religion, I don't think calling what they believe a disease is going to accomplish that.
Same as it's not going to accomplish much with you if someone says that atheism is a disease.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'd debate the merits of the claim, not gasp and be all concerned about the delivery.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible. I think many have taken this path.
I believed for years, purely out of fear of not believing. Finally actually read the whole thing, and now identify as agnostic.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a belief system pretty much based on the same kinds of presumptions religious people make.
I am glad you found your path and perhaps reading the bible is how you got there, but that doesn't mean yours is the only meaningful path.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sorry, that logic doesn't wash. It applies ONLY to anti-theists, at best.
I am actually a fairly rare creature in atheist circles. I never believed. Not for a minute. I rejected, of my own recognizance, the pledge of allegiance in kindergarten, based on those two extra little words added in 1957. (I did not know, and was not told at the time that the two words had not always been there)
My parents did not teach me this. My father was, unbeknownst to me, an actively believing catholic until he died. Meaning, he would say his prayers at bedside every night, etc. I actually didn't know that. Mom was a protestant. My parents were not atheists. Yet I grew up, from day one, 100% a non-believer. That's incredibly rare. Most atheists are people who were believers of some sort or another, at one point.
I would love to see a hard study on it, but in my estimation, most formerly religious atheists I have met (and they constitute most atheists, and I do 'get around' with secular groups quite often, at least as often as I do with motorcycle groups) got there through, or, rather escaped from religion. And most delved too deeply into their religious dogma, and found it logically wanting.
I will look for some study or data to supply you with, I'm not sure if any exists, but in my experience, that poster's comment is dead-on.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Guess what? There are no organizations dedicated to those that don't collect stamps. There are no shelves of books written primarily to discuss the art of not collecting stamps. There are no yearly conferences whose main theme is not collecting stamps. There is no group on DU specifically for those that don't collect stamps.
This is another one of those trite, useless memes that gets thrown out there when it's convenient, but has no actual relationship with atheism.
Your story is uniquely yours. Everyone's story is uniquely theirs. How people got to their current places is as varied as there are people. And I wouldn't for a moment assume that where I find myself now is where I might always be.
For some, atheism is the easy way out. Not believing in something can be very simple. For others, it involved the process you describes. The same goes for believers.
The important thing is to recognize that no one has really found a better answer than anyone else, in general. The key is only to find the one that suits you and let everyone else find theirs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)what color stationary to use with what embossing, the position of the stamp relative to the address or upper right hand corner, etc.
Meaning; as a non-stamp-collector, I never have to DEFEND MYSELF from lobbying efforts/regulation required by stamp collector dogma.
If there were such intrusion into the public sphere/law by stamp collectors, yes, an opposition would form. That wouldn't make said non-stamp-collectors a form of stamp collecting.
So you can 'go through that meme' again with something better, I hope, because that objection doesn't fly, hold water, or fly while holding water.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Can you think of one that might work better?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There of course, exist people armed with the Chicago Manual of Style, and other pedantic 'standards' tools of correspondence, that will nitpick everything from the size envelope, color, right down to the handwriting and physical position of info on the envelope, selection of stamp, location of stamp, etc.
They just don't go about trying to control others, beyond perhaps expressing their opinions. (And they will, at great length...)
A good model for religious people to follow, actually.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are both religious and non-religious people that are interested in separation issues and in keeping religion out of government. That group of people share some common goals, even though some may be stamp collectors and other are not.
In light of this, what you are really talking about is a Secular Crusade, not an atheist crusade. It's not about whether you collect stamps or not, it's about how much power you want to cede to those that do and how much you want to limit their control.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When a religious group lobbies to prevent me from using certain reproductive medical procedures, I have an interest in A) Keeping their religious horseshit out of our laws, and B) Defending myself.
Being that I am ON THE DEFENSE, I don't see joining forces with other people to fight against it, as anything on footing with a cohesive religious faith. They are not equal positions.
This is what the Supreme Court specifies, and it is not a 'secular crusade', it is what the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DEMANDS:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
This isn't about a 'secular crusade'. I am not forcing my behavior, my values, my beliefs ON them. I am fighting for MY RIGHT to believe/act/do what is right by MY moral code. You don't see me advocating for a law forcing them to abort a fetus under XYZ conditions. They have no right telling me I can't abort a fetus, or discard IVF fertilized embryos.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am guessing it's the kind you ride.
When a religious group advocates for restricting the rights of women to choose, all who support 1st amendment are an interest in stopping them and defending themselves.
It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.
What you describe is a secular crusade. Secular does not mean non-religious. It is not exclusive to atheists or non-believers. You have colleagues that want the same things you do and feel the need to protect themselves, and some of them are religious.
Making the distinction that this "crusade" only applies to atheists is incorrect.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I was involved in the creation of those embryos as well.
Their legislative efforts affect MY choices as well, even though I am male.
That aside.
"There are no organizations dedicated to those that don't collect stamps. There are no shelves of books written primarily to discuss the art of not collecting stamps. There are no yearly conferences whose main theme is not collecting stamps. There is no group on DU specifically for those that don't collect stamps."
Those things don't exist, because stamp collectors pretty much keep to themselves. The religious right, 'pro-life' lobby does not.
Books/conferences/etc exist, mostly because of the criticality of this fight. Most atheists wouldn't bother much with the issue, except for the intrusion of religious dogma into political lobbying. It's an external threat. So yeah, we have an interest now, in survival. That includes helping people question whether faith is a thing worth having at all. Helping each other.
It's still not a positive faith claim, no matter how desperately you want it to be, to score a rhetorical point, and pretend non-belief is just like asserted belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Listen, there are both religious and non-religious people that are dedicated to secular issues that include keeping religion out of the government, schools, medical systems, etc.
There are lots of organizations, shelves of books and yearly conferences about those secular issues.
Those things include both believers and non-believers.
This is why your stamp collecting analogy doesn't work. Stamp collectors are not trying to impose on others. The religious right is. Both religious and non-religious people have an interest in stopping them.
I think the blinder that prevents you from recognizing that is where you get stuck.
If someone has faith and believes in secular causes that you outline, what would be the purpose of trying to talk them out of that faith?
Is being associated with any believer such anathema to you that you can't even imagine it happening?
You seem to think that I am making the argument that atheism is a positive faith claim. I'm not. I think it's just the point that you want to hear because you have some pat arguments against it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cycle can produce, store, implant, or discard?*
I realize that there are non-atheist allies of the secular wedge between government and faith. I work WITH them regularly. That doesn't change anything WRT this discussion. Wherein you tried to equate atheism to a form of faith. It isn't. The fact that atheists band together to do certain things, or view de-converting people from religious dogma, doesn't make atheism a positive faith claim.
It's the ABSENCE of a positive faith claim.
*I bring this up, because you are again, not internally consistent. You just tried to castigate me for not explicitly acknowledging non-atheist secular allies, while yourself not explicitly acknowledging that the pro-life movement impacts men as well, with lobbied, restrictive legislation. If you're going to criticize me for working with a subset, I'm going to do the same to you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)At no point in this thread or any previous thread have I tried to equate atheism to a form a faith. I just said that as clearly as I could in my last post.
I made the argument that the non-stamp collector analogy doesn't work, not that atheism is a form of faith.
Why do you keep seeing it when it's not there? I am asking this seriously. Why do you keep repeating that I have said something that I have not said?
If you misread something as saying that, then that can be corrected right now. Because that's not something I think or believe.
And I have never, ever said that the anti-choice movement only effects women. I can say that with certainty, because that is not what I think
Seriously, you appear to hear only what you want to hear and not what is actually being said. What do you make of that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"It's a belief system pretty much based on the same kinds of presumptions religious people make."
Sound familiar?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)over and over again that reading the bible is what leads people to atheism.
It doesn't say that atheism is a belief system. It refutes this specific claim which, like some others, are made in the absence of any evidence and apparently repeated on faith alone by only a few people.
You are intent on seeing something that is not there.
I am sure you can find somebody who is actually saying it, but it won't be me.
Farewell.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's a suggested correlation in the PEW test that showed atheists/agnostics knew the most about the bible in practice.
It's the most common reason cited when I ask people why. This poll indicated 1/4 of the respondents listed the bible itself as the reason for their de-conversion.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2008/10/13/what-convinced-you-a-non-belief-summary/
This is not some random claim pulled out of someone's ass and asserted as true. It's a very real, demonstrable phenomenon.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)be considered actual data (a thin correlation, you personal experience and a completely statistically invalid poll). If you think this is a real, demonstrable phenomenon, fine, but it's not data and has not been statistically confirmed.
Hey, that's science for you! You need facts and verifiability!
So then, do you see that I wasn't comparing atheism to a faith based system but just challenging a meme that has no data to back it up?
Anyway, you've got your arguments down all right. But they only work if someone says what you want them to.
That just leads to repeated dead ends.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not many have been done, actually. We're just starting to see this taken up as a subject of interest. For instance, there are studies that show atheists are far more likely to be men. None that say 'why' that is the case.
I don't see a problem with that poll. It's elective, and self-selective, in that it is presented to an audience that is, apparently entirely atheists. Fine. The goal was to ask atheists, so targeting them is fine.
Absent a controlled study, 9/41 people expressing precisely the reason you just called a "oft-cited meme", that you RECOGNIZE, it is cited so often, should suffice in the meanwhile.
("no data to back it up?" That poll IS data, even if it might not be scientifically valid or have a reliable margin of error due to possible response/non-response bias)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Right now a lot of attention is being paid to the "nones", but there is not much distinction being made between non-believers, spiritual but not religious and believers who are unaffiliated.
There seems some emerging evidence that many are leaving their churches because of the stances they have taken on things like GLBT rights.
The poll is anecdotal and even the author of the piece recognizes that one can not draw anything conclusive from it. It is exactly because it is elective, self-selective and done by and for a specific audience that it doesn't really provide anything you can hang your hat on.
It just isn't sufficient to make any claims.
I think there are as many reasons for being an atheist as there are atheists. I also think that about religious people.
Too many variables to get much reliable data.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm excited to learn more about the nature of other non-believers. (For myself, being selfish, specifically atheists, but Buddhists intrigue me as well as a couple other non-theistic faiths)
There's just not much science yet on it. Needs research.
That said, I find the claim that the bible is a reason people de-convert fairly credible. I'd like to know more about the specifics, but that will have to come with time. One might also see similar reasons studying people who convert from Christianity to a non-Abrahamic faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As for the bible, it has to be one of the easiest documents in the world to cherry pick. It is full of contradictions. It has good parts and bad parts.
If one wants to glean a positive message from it, it is possible to do that. OTOH, if one want to glean a negative message, that is just as easy.
Nay
(12,051 posts)We ARE very rare, AC. In my big group of atheists, there's only one other.
I was preschool age when I found out that people actually believed there was a god up in the sky, watching everything we did, counting up sins, etc. Beforehand, I thought that the religious ideas I had heard from my little friends about Jesus, etc., were in the same league as the fairy tales read to me -- IOW, they weren't taken as true, but were stories that everyone enjoyed as stories.
What exactly happened? A little friend of mine and I were playing in a field on a nice summer day. I said, "You pretend you're Jesus, and I'll be _______." My friend looked troubled and said she couldn't do that, because it would be a sin and she wouldn't go to heaven if she did that.
At that moment, it was as if I'd been hit in the head with a hammer. THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS SHIT!!!!
I was still required to go to church for a while, and also attended a Catholic school for first grade. But I never believed any of it and still don't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've gone looking, but there aren't any in-depth studies on it that I could discover. Lots about income, gender, education, age, WRT atheism, but none on whether a person was always an atheist, or lapsed from some religion.
I think it's a very interesting question, both how many, and why.
Nay
(12,051 posts)do with natural IQ, for example.
Another interesting fact about atheists who were former believers is that the Catholic religion makes A LOT of atheists; our large group contained a disproportionate number of former Catholics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)However, I wonder if it might just be that they are the most numerous religion in the nation. Almost 25% of the entire country, and if you look county-by-county, they are clearly dominant.
Being numerically on top, I would expect defectors from all religions to be biased as a result.
But, I think Catholic Dogma isn't super-popular these days. For instance, there is a significant delta between the adherents of the religion, and their church's position on contraception. Cognitive dissonance comes at a price, and that too might be driving the number of lapsed catholics.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)you've altready flunked the course. You'll need to take remedial taxonomy before proceeding.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They are just religions people discarded in favor of new religions.
The process will continue, whether it leads to secularism or not.
rug
(82,333 posts)They also had mythologies. There was overlap but they are nevertheless separate things.
Besides, secularism is the antithesis to theocracy, not religion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)secularism to encompass many expressions of thought, not just atheism.
"secular; spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. "
Note 'especially' not 'exclusively'. The usage is correct, though I will grant, not the norm.
Classical mythology, specifically encompassing Roman/Greek mythos, includes their gods (As well as heroes). Simple classification. I agree there is not 100% overlap between 'mythos' and 'religion' in this case, but I wasn't attempting that level of precision.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He dismisses other mythologies. Just not his.
rug
(82,333 posts)Next time you wish to make a stupid personal attack, do it directly.
It's rather cowardly otherwise.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Much as you recoil from the notion, there's a difference between myth and religion.
Pay attention.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The virgin birth myth?
The immaculate conception myth?
The Noah and the Flood myth?
The Creation myth as told in genesis?
I understand that you wish to separate your myths that you believe in from other myths in your or other people's belief systems, past and present, and claim yours as "not myths" but really, there is no such distinction.
rug
(82,333 posts)without the need to add the appellation of myth.
Well, maybe I do believe that.
Of course there's a distinction. You should learn it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)thinks that "myth" is a pejorative term.
But please do have your last word.
rug
(82,333 posts)Thanks.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Religion and mythology differ but have overlapping aspects. Both terms refer to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred. Generally, mythology is considered one component or aspect of religion. Religion is the broader term: besides mythological aspects, it includes aspects of ritual, morality, theology, and mystical experience. A given mythology is almost always associated with a certain religion such as Greek mythology with Ancient Greek religion. Disconnected from its religious system, a myth may lose its immediate relevance to the community and evolve—away from sacred importance—into a legend or folktale.
Now have the last fucking word Rug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology
rug
(82,333 posts)BTW, I do not disparage myth despite your attempt to use it so.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2014, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)
In fact? Could you document a religion in ancient Greece, with no myth in it?
Or an easier question: any myths in that era, that did not have a religious application?
Here's what Wiki says on Myth and Religion:
"Generally, mythology is considered one component or aspect of religion. Religion is the broader term: besides mythological aspects, it includes aspects of ritual, morality, theology, and mystical experience. A given mythology is almost always associated with a certain religion such as Greek mythology with Ancient Greek religion. Disconnected from its religious system, a myth may lose its immediate relevance to the community and evolve—away from sacred importance—into a legend or folktale."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Beachwood
(106 posts)Education about each and every topic, literally under and above and beyond the sun?
One of those topics is "education about religion" but not "religious education".
"Religious education", defined by "In secular usage, religious education is the teaching of a particular religion".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education
Teaching about religions is what we want to see and experience more often. "Religious education", not so much, please.
Then and only then can we agree with this writer's premise.
rug
(82,333 posts)His premise is quite sound and developed.
