Crosswords1 min ago
Why the hatred against religion?
95 Answers
Please, please, please I don't want to hear the usual ranty arguments against the existence of God or afterlife, I just want to know why the hatred against religious belief. Nobody today is forced to go to church and the Church no longer sets the standards or forms the opinions of our society, so what's the problem? Why the anti-religious posters on the sides of buses? Why does this ant-religious sentiment continue at all?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JockSporran. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jake, some would say a lack of familiarity with the Bible is hindering understanding of significant literary works such as those by Milton, Shakespeare and TS Eliot and that Bible instruction should be part of the School Curriculum.
�If people say this is about ramming religion down people�s throats, they aren�t thinking about it hard enough, it is more about the power of these words to connect with deep, recurring human truths, and also the story of the influence of that language and those stories.� (Andrew Motion, Poet Laureate and Atheist)
If it encourages schoolchildren to read these texts as literary and sociological works and read them critically, then it can only lead to greater understanding and opinion, can�t it?
I think all state schools should be funded equally for the sake of education. If they want to provide a rounded education that includes studies of religious faiths then so be it. Your approach to removing schoolchildren with faith based beliefs from state schools sounds like bullying to me, almost Orwellian, and removing religious education would produce a whole generation of global, cultural and historical ignorance, the likes of which can often be seen in Chatterbank and News.
Most learned atheists in this forum have learnt enough about religion in their education to have formed their own opinions. Why completely remove the knowledge base from the next generation that has privileged those to make informed decisions later in life?
�If people say this is about ramming religion down people�s throats, they aren�t thinking about it hard enough, it is more about the power of these words to connect with deep, recurring human truths, and also the story of the influence of that language and those stories.� (Andrew Motion, Poet Laureate and Atheist)
If it encourages schoolchildren to read these texts as literary and sociological works and read them critically, then it can only lead to greater understanding and opinion, can�t it?
I think all state schools should be funded equally for the sake of education. If they want to provide a rounded education that includes studies of religious faiths then so be it. Your approach to removing schoolchildren with faith based beliefs from state schools sounds like bullying to me, almost Orwellian, and removing religious education would produce a whole generation of global, cultural and historical ignorance, the likes of which can often be seen in Chatterbank and News.
Most learned atheists in this forum have learnt enough about religion in their education to have formed their own opinions. Why completely remove the knowledge base from the next generation that has privileged those to make informed decisions later in life?
I agree with Octavius, but on the point of religion dividing society I disagree with that poster's contention entirely.
Society divides itself in numerous ways, race, ethnicity, wealth, nationality and most disastrously politically.
Religion is the one thing that unifies people throughout the world, it is IMHO the only thing that can unify all the peoples of the world.
What silenced the guns on Christmas day 1914?
What unified the freedom riders in the 1950s and 60s?
What founded the schools and the hospitals across the world?
What supports the huge amount of aid to the third world?
Religion causes wars is a slander put about by atheists.
If more people understood and accepted the validity of the religions of the world, and also the right not to believe, then we'd all get along better.
To each their own.
Society divides itself in numerous ways, race, ethnicity, wealth, nationality and most disastrously politically.
Religion is the one thing that unifies people throughout the world, it is IMHO the only thing that can unify all the peoples of the world.
What silenced the guns on Christmas day 1914?
What unified the freedom riders in the 1950s and 60s?
What founded the schools and the hospitals across the world?
What supports the huge amount of aid to the third world?
Religion causes wars is a slander put about by atheists.
If more people understood and accepted the validity of the religions of the world, and also the right not to believe, then we'd all get along better.
To each their own.
Sqad, if religion wasn�t taught in the first place, there would be no motive to teach the reasons for the absence of belief - if you see what I mean. See ��.. it causes confusion. :o)
The influence of those stories is what worries me the most - and that influence depends upon the genre in which they are taught. Including the bible among the works of Shakespeare et al, would be fine, so long as it was very firmly confined, along with the rest, to the realms of fiction - or more appropriately, to the mythology section in the school library together with, say, the works of Homer.
The problem with teaching religion with a view to providing the choice in later life is that, often, by the time a child is grown the indoctrination has become so entrenched that he suffers unwarranted guilt, the burden of perceived sin, and the terrors of the promised retribution, and he is therefore incapable of making a free choice - and to answer the original question, it is for this reason that I dislike religion intensely. Religion demands - and achieves - the total surrender of the human intellect.
The influence of those stories is what worries me the most - and that influence depends upon the genre in which they are taught. Including the bible among the works of Shakespeare et al, would be fine, so long as it was very firmly confined, along with the rest, to the realms of fiction - or more appropriately, to the mythology section in the school library together with, say, the works of Homer.
The problem with teaching religion with a view to providing the choice in later life is that, often, by the time a child is grown the indoctrination has become so entrenched that he suffers unwarranted guilt, the burden of perceived sin, and the terrors of the promised retribution, and he is therefore incapable of making a free choice - and to answer the original question, it is for this reason that I dislike religion intensely. Religion demands - and achieves - the total surrender of the human intellect.
Why can we not just have ALL religions and the alternative of NO religion taught. I would have no qualms about a teacher saying right we're going to study Judaism, Christianity, sikhism etc and then stating the belief systems of what each group believe and why and of it's importance in a purely historical context. This would of course involves at no point implying any one religion ( or indeed atheists) were right, just different.... surely that would lead to a good rounded understanding of why certain ethnic or religious groups behave in certain ways, thus encouraging equality and a lack of prejeudice whilst at the same time remaining balanced and not offending anyone.
But as Octavius has pointed out one has a choice whether to believe or not to believe.
David Lloyd George expressed his religion quite forcefully (against the conventions of the time) as a child, as one grows and changes from concrete to formulative thinking then they themselves will take on the facts and decide for themselves what is right for them.
Why deny people a philosophical standpoint for the meaning of life and the point of creation?
It is expressed often that many people have read religion thoroughly before denying it's accuracy. why deny others that opportunity?
Is that not indoctrination?
David Lloyd George expressed his religion quite forcefully (against the conventions of the time) as a child, as one grows and changes from concrete to formulative thinking then they themselves will take on the facts and decide for themselves what is right for them.
Why deny people a philosophical standpoint for the meaning of life and the point of creation?
It is expressed often that many people have read religion thoroughly before denying it's accuracy. why deny others that opportunity?
Is that not indoctrination?
Religion, God, they have to be beyond proof, don't they?
Something proven enters scientific fact, that would be the ultimate spoiler.
I think it is rather natty that so many different authors managed to invent so much fiction, while maintaining enough broad agreement, to have mankind still debating it 2000 years later.
Caesar invaded Britain in 55BC it says here. Jesus rose from the dead approx 34AD, it says here, and here, and here, and here.
Something proven enters scientific fact, that would be the ultimate spoiler.
I think it is rather natty that so many different authors managed to invent so much fiction, while maintaining enough broad agreement, to have mankind still debating it 2000 years later.
Caesar invaded Britain in 55BC it says here. Jesus rose from the dead approx 34AD, it says here, and here, and here, and here.
�The problem with teaching religion with a view to providing the choice in later life is that, often, by the time a child is grown the indoctrination has become so entrenched that he suffers unwarranted guilt, the burden of perceived sin, and the terrors of the promised retribution, and he is therefore incapable of making a free choice�
Come, come now Naomi, are you saying that you have risen above the echelons of education and doctrine to make your own informed choice, without a thorough understanding of religion, and whilst being bogged down and drudgery and dogma? I thought your own choice was based on your own reasoning and interpretation, and that all religious burdens were removed.
Are you saying that you are �speshal� and that everyone else is incapable of doing that?
Come, come now Naomi, are you saying that you have risen above the echelons of education and doctrine to make your own informed choice, without a thorough understanding of religion, and whilst being bogged down and drudgery and dogma? I thought your own choice was based on your own reasoning and interpretation, and that all religious burdens were removed.
Are you saying that you are �speshal� and that everyone else is incapable of doing that?
No, Octavius, I'm not saying I'm special - there are others here who have done likewise - but there's no doubt whatsoever that fear of divine retribution renders some incapable of making that rational choice. I know Christians who are too afraid to read Harry Potter for fear of it's evil influence - and that's a fact! Shame really. Little do they know that the books contain more words of wisdom, and of love, and of goodness, than the bible ever did.
Gormless you miss a rather pertinant point.
Caesars invasion of Britain is backed up with archaelogical evidence and first hand accounts from attributable witnesses.
Jesus' supposed rising from the dead is not - and please don't give us that old tosh about Josephus as its about as credible as if it'd been written in crayon!
I think you may also recall I was not asking for the end of RE lessons ( although they need to be optional ) but specifically the end to the mandatory act of Worship in British schools.
Caesars invasion of Britain is backed up with archaelogical evidence and first hand accounts from attributable witnesses.
Jesus' supposed rising from the dead is not - and please don't give us that old tosh about Josephus as its about as credible as if it'd been written in crayon!
I think you may also recall I was not asking for the end of RE lessons ( although they need to be optional ) but specifically the end to the mandatory act of Worship in British schools.
Oh dear jake, can't believe you fell for Gormless' Caesar/Jesus line again!
So you resent contributing to our children's education on the basis of:
- The head teacher is responsible for arranging daily collective worship (assembly)
- Daily collective worship must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character but only 51% need be identifiably 'Christian' with the remaining 49% reflecting other faiths or 'interests' over the course of a year.
- It can happen at any time of the school day and should generally happen on the school premises.
- Parents can withdraw children from assemblies.
- Teachers may withdraw from assemblies.
- The school's annual prospectus should carry information about collective worship and how parents may withdraw their children from it.
?
Is that it?
So you resent contributing to our children's education on the basis of:
- The head teacher is responsible for arranging daily collective worship (assembly)
- Daily collective worship must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character but only 51% need be identifiably 'Christian' with the remaining 49% reflecting other faiths or 'interests' over the course of a year.
- It can happen at any time of the school day and should generally happen on the school premises.
- Parents can withdraw children from assemblies.
- Teachers may withdraw from assemblies.
- The school's annual prospectus should carry information about collective worship and how parents may withdraw their children from it.
?
Is that it?
