Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Jason]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Damn, I've been beaten into second place by this little gem of poo.

Nice argument. Did you learn it from the same book that taught you about 'category errors'?

[Exi5tentialist]

I was responding to Homers post.

oops

[HomerJay]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Damn, I've been beaten into second place by this little gem of poo.

Nice argument. Did you learn it from the same book that taught you about 'category errors'?

Are you and Exi5t competing for best trolling of a thread?

What class are you suggesting gods be taught in?

Gods should be taught in all of them.

[Exi5tentialist]

trolling

[Jason]

Are you and Exi5t competing for best trolling of a thread?

Yes, but don't tell anyone.

[Bella Fortuna]

trolling

No, that's rolling!

[Exi5tentialist]

trolling

No, that's rolling!

Oh yes. What's the code for trolling?

[Hermit]

By not having gods in our Physics class, we are no more "restricting" the students than not including Aesop's fables or masturbation techniques in Physics class....

What class are you suggesting gods be taught in?

Gods should be taught in all of them. What's the point in doing a French class if you don't know what dieu means? By the way calculus, statistics, arithmetic, algebra and mathematics can all be included in mathematics, which rationalises your list a little bit, making it less dramatically long. You could add religion into philosophy, in fact you would have to to make it more well-rounded.[/quote]Oh great. We'll bring Ken Ham in to teach statistics; Irreducible complexity, the Jumbo jet argument, and so on.

You seem to be ignoring or avoiding the distinction between learning about religion (I'm in favour of that) and religious indoctrination.

[charlou]

What class are you suggesting gods be taught in?

Mythology.

[JimC]

Much ado about nothing, this thread...

Few if any are arguing that some form of education about religion should not be part of a curriculum, somewhere along the line...

Most would like no religious education by those who wish to indoctrinate the young, and certainly no creotard rubbish...

As I read it, Exi would like RE to be delivered by the deluded, because it is more existentially honest than some boring humanist droning on about the history of religion...

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

[Exi5tentialist]

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

Joke? Really?[/list]

[Ronja]

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

Joke? Really?[/list]

Exi5, if I read his post right, Jim is laughing at himself, in this case his own deeply cherished values and interests. AFAICT his self-mocking is warm and accepting. Quite a few ratz have been known to do something like that sometimes and I find it quite refreshing.

It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the ridiculous and/or failing in oneself and still genuinely like oneself. IME not taking oneself too seriously does make life more enjoyable.

I hope you don't find the idea of a humorous stance to oneself too alien and shocking - what I remember of my teenage reading of Sartre, Camus and Nietche, they were a rather decidedly humorless lot.

[charlou]

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

Joke? Really?[/list]

[charlou]

Much ado about nothing, this thread...

Few if any are arguing that some form of education about religion should not be part of a curriculum, somewhere along the line...

Most would like no religious education by those who wish to indoctrinate the young, and certainly no creotard rubbish...

As I read it, Exi would like RE to be delivered by the deluded, because it is more existentially honest than some boring humanist droning on about the history of religion...

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

I think you're right, Jim ... The most extreme view I've read in this thread (from my pov) is actually homerjay's ... but even so I can understand and share his concern* ...

*Even though you seem to continue to misunderstand my concept of religion education in schools, homerjay.

[charlou]

Deep down, I resent anything in education which takes precious time away from quadratic equations and Newtonian mechanics...

Joke? Really?[/list]

Exi5, if I read his post right, Jim is laughing at himself, in this case his own deeply cherished values and interests. AFAICT his self-mocking is warm and accepting. Quite a few ratz have been known to do something like that sometimes and I find it quite refreshing.

It is entirely possible to see and acknowledge the ridiculous and/or failing in oneself and still genuinely like oneself. IME not taking oneself too seriously does make life more enjoyable.

I hope you don't find the idea of a humorous stance to oneself too alien and shocking - what I remember of my teenage reading of Sartre, Camus and Nietche, they were a rather decidedly humorless lot.

This seems fitting here ..