The thing I like about Cali is that he forces me to not only expand my knowledge base but also my vocabulary. Slightly embarrassing to admit but today I learned what apposite means.

Ok, cheers.

thedistillers wrote:It seems to me that if Christianity is true, then a secular education is a form of child abuse, for children are not being told the Good News, and are being educated according to a set of random values, based on worldview with no objective morality, purpose or value.

Hmmm... I have a xian friend who gives her daughter a secular upbringing, giving her the scientific answers to her questions on dinosaurs and the like. The mother doesn't like filling the heads of small children with religion, and this from a woman whose father is a priest!

As thedistillers isn't likely to reply to this post (too busy starting another thread based on a strawman, I guess), we'll never know if he thinks the xian mother is subjecting her daughter to a form of child abuse...

Wow, what an unusual paradigm you seem to be operating under: If god doesn't exist, then we should all kill eaqchother and eat babies?
So, without your god to tell you what is kind, you would not know the differences between kindness and cruelty? Without your religion to tell you that punching somebody is painful, you would not know otherwise?
that's just plain ignorant.

It seems to me that if Christianity is true, then a secular education is a form of child abuse

Get back to me when you get over that giant Mount Everest of an IF. Until then, no, it's not child abuse.

thedistillers wrote:One of the outrageous claims made by some fundy atheists is that a religious education is a form of child abuse.

But all parents who educate their children share a set of values to their children regardless of their worldview! One could claim that a secular education is based on "reason" (unlike a religious education), but if there is no such Person as God, then there is no objective morality, purpose, or value. So according to what ojective standard are secular values reasonable? If God does not exist, then a parent could decide for example that we should live our life in the image of darwinian evolution, and kill the weak. Why would it be wrong?

It seems to me that if Christianity is true, then a secular education is a form of child abuse, for children are not being told the Good News, and are being educated according to a set of random values, based on worldview with no objective morality, purpose or value.

I can't even accept your premise. It's a clear display of the lack of understanding of what atheism is and it's relation to morals. There are quite a few interviews with Dawkins where he explains why social-Darwinism is a terrible idea.

“No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. … A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

And what's "good news" in telling children that if they don't believe they'll burn in a place of eternal torment. Or perhaps you're from one of those denominations where they don't even accept the concept of Hell? In other words a cherry-picker.

thedistillers wrote:One of the outrageous claims made by some fundy atheists is that a religious education is a form of child abuse.

But all parents who educate their children share a set of values to their children regardless of their worldview! One could claim that a secular education is based on "reason" (unlike a religious education), but if there is no such Person as God, then there is no objective morality, purpose, or value. So according to what ojective standard are secular values reasonable? If God does not exist, then a parent could decide for example that we should live our life in the image of darwinian evolution, and kill the weak. Why would it be wrong?

It seems to me that if Christianity is true, then a secular education is a form of child abuse, for children are not being told the Good News, and are being educated according to a set of random values, based on worldview with no objective morality, purpose or value.

Just let me say, YAWN! this tired argument.

There has to be a separation of religion and regular education. If parents insist on teaching their brats religion, then that should be kept for Sunday school. Most of these kids will in their own time come to realize what a load of hogwash all religion is.

angelo wrote:There has to be a separation of religion and regular education. If parents insist on teaching their brats religion, then that should be kept for Sunday school. Most of these kids will in their own time come to realize what a load of hogwash all religion is.

Amen to THAT! Sadly, it won't happen in our life-time. Just depressing, but what can we do? Progress is slow.

MattHunX wrote:

angelo wrote:There has to be a separation of religion and regular education. If parents insist on teaching their brats religion, then that should be kept for Sunday school. Most of these kids will in their own time come to realize what a load of hogwash all religion is.

Amen to THAT! Sadly, it won't happen in our life-time. Just depressing, but what can we do? Progress is slow.

What can we do? What we are already doing, I suppose, argue the toss and try to stop people from being allowed to impose their absurdities on others. Progress probably won't be equally paced in all countries but we need to "keep the faith!"

If any politician or their representative "doorsteps" me prior to the UK election, my first question is going to be about "Faith Schools", and I'll leave them in no doubt as to what I think about them.

You should also ask your local politician what he thinks about the muslim invasion as well. Or is this too late?

angelo wrote:You should also ask your local politician what he thinks about the muslim invasion as well. Or is this too late?

I live between Bradford & Leeds (I used to live in the area that some of the 7/7 bombers came from) so there is already a sizeable Muslim community around, but I don't like the scaremongering & the racist implications* of terms like "invasion", so I'd be more inclined to ask about efforts to encourage integration, and to resist ghettoisation & Muslim fundamentalism. As I've regularly worked with Muslims, I don't recognise the supposedly uniformly extremist caricature of Muslims presented in the press as representative of ordinary Muslims.

(*I have no idea if you meant any racist implications at all, but such terms are routinely used by actual racists in the UK, such as the BNP, so I'd not use it ever)

Ignorance is bliss > religion teaches ignorance > religion teaches bliss > secularism doesn't teach bliss > secular education is child abuse

Is that the sort of logic you are following?

I don't know what sort of fucked up universe you would have to live in to claim that teaching kids verifiable facts is abuse, as opposed to teaching them that they are miserable, pathetic sinners, and that unless they accept the unsupported assertions of the local dominant religion they are doomed to spend an eternity in damnation and agony by their all-loving god.

What it comes down to is this:
A(secular)
By all means, teach beliefs and faith and religion in school. (all of the main ones, not just yours)
Do not present said beliefs as fact.
Do not threaten pupils if/when they refuse to accept your beliefs.
All beliefs are equally valid, unless they cause harm or are contradicted by fact.
Encourage an open and enquiring mind.

versus:
B(religious)
My beliefs are the correct beliefs, if you do not share them, you either do not understand, or are evil.
If you have evidence that contradicts my beliefs, your evidence is wrong.
It is my duty to "cure" you of all "ails" that prevent you from agreeing with me.
If enquiring minds do not enquire from a position of agreement with my beliefs, stop them and bring them back in line, failing that, shun them.

A is the rational option, B is the religious option.

Which one sounds closer to child abuse?

Cali- I am fairly certain that our superstitious friend doesn't read all your responses (they just give answers and explanations, they are devoid of divine truth and are therefore worthless ) but i for one have learnt a great deal from them. Don't give up the good fight.

rJD wrote:

angelo wrote:You should also ask your local politician what he thinks about the muslim invasion as well. Or is this too late?

I live between Bradford & Leeds (I used to live in the area that some of the 7/7 bombers came from) so there is already a sizeable Muslim community around, but I don't like the scaremongering & the racist implications* of terms like "invasion", so I'd be more inclined to ask about efforts to encourage integration, and to resist ghettoisation & Muslim fundamentalism. As I've regularly worked with Muslims, I don't recognise the supposedly uniformly extremist caricature of Muslims presented in the press as representative of ordinary Muslims.

(*I have no idea if you meant any racist implications at all, but such terms are routinely used by actual racists in the UK, such as the BNP, so I'd not use it ever)

Things may be different over there. But here, muslims have their own schools and teachers. How do we start to try and separate religion and state in such circumstances. To a muslim, life and religion is one and the same. This means that if the westerners succeed in separating church and state and they obviously don't, within five or so generations, all of Europe will be Islamic, as will be Australasia.
Integration is nigh impossible because they gather in certain suburbs where they establish a mosque and schools. Very few muslims marry westerners, but it does happen in few cases. After all, true love finds a way. I am far from a racist. I like all people. But I can not tolerate any religion, and like I said, most muslims cannot separate their lives from their religion.

To the OP: another illogical and assinine assertion by a Christian! Why am I not surprised? I dismiss your religion for the ignorant nonsense that it is.

If that is in answer to my post, what on earth leads you to believe I'm a christian? I do not, and cannot fathom any religion.
I have been a militant atheist as long as I can remember.

GreatApe wrote:To the OP: another illogical and assinine assertion by a Christian! Why am I not surprised? I dismiss your religion for the ignorant nonsense that it is.

Yes our "friend" thedistillers is flying through, making a boatload of sensational claims, posts a few replies to ensure significant derailment and moves on to the next thread. His critique on secular literature is actually funny, because he asserts that he read the works, but still can not manage to spell literature correctly on several occasions.

Angelo, my response above was NOT a reply to your post. It was in response to the "OP" (Original Poster), who, as EduardHorak so accurately pointed out, is the Christian known as thedistillers, and whose "critiques," topics and opinions do not simply border on the ludicrous, but instead, travel freely and frequently across the state line of sanity.
--G

GreatApe wrote:Angelo, my response above was NOT a reply to your post. It was in response to the "OP" (Original Poster), who, as EduardHorak so accurately pointed out, is the Christian known as thedistillers, and whose "critiques," topics and opinions do not simply border on the ludicrous, but instead, travel freely and frequently across the state line of sanity.
--G

Please accept my apologies then.

EduardHorak wrote:

GreatApe wrote:...His critique on secular literature is actually funny, because he asserts that he read the works, but still can not manage to spell literature correctly on several occasions.

I thought it was a deliberate pun.

Check out the rest of the contents of thedistiller's posts - you'll find precious little to indicate linguistic expertise; what attempts at puns & similar wordplay that do exist are notable only for their naïveté and their discursive dishonesty.