Children to study atheism at school
 

I did not know they had religious education classes In Britain.

Education Guardian

-Snip-

Children will be taught about atheism during religious education classes under official plans being drawn up to reflect the decline in churchgoing in Britain.

Non-religious beliefs such as humanism, agnosticism and atheism would be covered alongside major faiths such as Christianity or Islam under draft guidelines being prepared by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which regulates what is taught in schools in England.

Although some schools already cover non-religious beliefs, there is currently no national guidance for what is taught, even though all schools must provide religious education.

The draft plans being drawn up by the QCA will not be compulsory, allowing religious schools the freedom to keep devout parents happy. But they will be regarded as best practice for heads, and are likely to be followed across the country.

Interesting. If one religion is going to be taught, I imagine they all should be. But when did atheism and agnosticism become religions?

They have religion classes in some high schools in the United States also. It seems that atheism and agnosticism ought to be covered along with the rest of the religions just for points of comparison if for no other reason.

"We believe in nothing Lebowski... we'll cut off your Johnson"

i had a world religion class in high school, it was pretty enlightening. until then i didn't even know about zoroastrianism! :)

This can only be a positive thing. I don't see how anyone could argue with this.
If you're going to have religion taught in schools, then it seems correct that the counterpoints to any claims should also be brought up.
Of course how the subject is taught will depend entirely on the teacher. Hopefully more will emerge than small minded knocking over of straw men.

sexymama: True, atheism and agnostisism are not religions, but this is purely a matter of semantics...who cares what you name them:
"What religion are you?"
"I'm an atheist."

Atheism and Agnosticism are not Religions.

Is baldness a hair color ... No :D

I have always felt it is best to give someone as much information as possible, in order to make educated descisions in life. I fail to see how religion should be any different.

Nice Analogy! :thumbsup:

We had a sociology course that made a study of various religions. Of course agnosticism and atheism came up... why wouldn't they?

It is important to discuss both sides of a discussion if you are to understand the discussion at all...

The hard part about studying atheism is it has no real history to study.

The great forces of atheism?

The relation of atheism to the government?

The Roman persecution of the atheists?

About the only thing you could 'teach' would be the nutballs atheists that hate religion and want you to know it, which doesn't really say much.

I have been an atheist since I was 8 but its a personal thing, and no matter how high or low I go, my atheism is unimportant to it.

I don't think the point is to make a study of atheism but rather introduce and understand the concept in the context of world religions.


Why is religion in decline? What does it mean to be an atheist?

The Agnostic faith, the beleif in not knowing ;)

Interesting stance though.. Much better then knee jerk reactions banning scarfs and kippas

Interesting point! I'm not sure about which is true, that is, Atheism and Agnosticism are not religions, or are.
If the idea of these is that there is no God, does that mean they are not religions? Can religion exist without God?

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Gnosticism are all schools of thought. Their are as many forms of agnosticism as there are religions.

I waited till I was 16, then got out of the church registry and got into "Life view" class. In Finland, you are either taught religion according to your beliefs at school or then you can take that, but you can only go to Life view if you are not member of the majority religion (Lutheran evagelic christians, one protestant church form).

We had tons of extra stuff on philosophy, long debates, not kissing teacher's ass and telling what she wants to hear and stuff. I really loved that class in high school as much as I liked psychology & philosophy.

Actually, there are countless famous atheists to discuss. And one could talk about ethics *without* a god as final judge. It would also be a great way of incorporating the whole evolution thing into a grand "atheist" philosophy.

Think about it: atheism is a totally different way of looking at things than theism, and it brings a totally different set of rules and regulations.

teach them all, teach every religion, with relitive equal time. only way to be fair.

Don't science and athiesm share very similar perspectives? Couldn't you argue that atheism has been taught in one form or another since the teaching of the big bang and the theory of evolution?

Not from an absurdist standpoint - not existential atheism.

My biology book has a section on the theory of evolution. It was not covered, chapter was skipped completely. I'll let you decide if the teacher being christian had anything to do with that. School is located in Missouri USA if anyone is wondering.

Peace be with you.

You can be a theist AND believe in evolution. I think even the Pope stated a few years ago that the theory of evolution is fine and a good Catholic can believe in it, as long as you believe in God, Jesus and the rest of the bag of Chips.

Yeah PJP II found evolution and the Big Bang in accordance with creation.

How the hell are angsty teenagers supposed to rebel against school and authority when educators begin teaching the disputable foundation religion of anarchy? It's just not fair to those socially akward young adults. How are they to justify their existance?

Hahaha. Interesting question, skier. Wonder where I would have fled to in my sophomore and junior days if atheism was mainline...

I take a world religions course now and it doesn't cover any non-theistic belief systems, with the possible exception of Theravada Buddhism.

I think of atheism and agnosticism as philosophies rather than religions. I'd have a much more meaningful discussion of them in a philosophical context than in a religious one.

As for teaching small children...that sort of thing should be at the parents' discretion. My parents handed down the Catholic faith to me, partially through my primary education, and I plan to do the same thing. I'd rather wait for a time when my children were quite capable of informed, critical thought before I started deluding them with knowledge of other belief systems.

Side note:

Anarchism was rooted more in 19th century political and economic theory than in a religious belief system. The anarchist "thinkers" believed that government is inevitably a force that oppresses the little guy and that sides with powerful interests. Government was inherently coercive, and the only solution was abolition.

End side note.

It strikes me that teaching of atheism is inherently devoid of substance. A teacher might talk about christianity and all the things that most christians believe in common, and about hinduism, which seems twice as complex. Then: "oh, and some people believe none of those things."

How bad can it be? It's not even equal time!

i don't mind a variety of religions and atheistic viewpoints being discussed in the classroom... but who honestly believes that it will be done correctly?

we all know that fundamentalist (INSERT RELIGION HERE) will attempt to debunk any opposing viewpoints in the class. Conversely, the self-important atheist will undoubtedly disparage any faith in the curriculum. (both extreme examples, but you catch my drift) you know it as well as i do, no one will be able to teach it in an objective manner.

the opportunity for abuse and distraction far outweighs the any likely benefits of this idea.

let's make sure every kid can read, write and use a computer before resources are spent towards this.

I think a better analogy might be "is baldness a hair cut" or maybe better "is a shaved head a hair cut".

Belief in god = hair

type of belief = specific style of hair cut

belief that there is no God = concious decision to remove hair

In my opinion a shaved head would be a hair cut, and atheism religion in the sense that it represents a concious decision on the part of a person to choose a certain belief in God (or a style of hair).

Of course, Religion is far more then a belief in God, or a belief about the nature of God. It includes all kinds of ethical, cultural, and ritualistic aspects. All of which, for the most part, atheism and agnosticism lack. So while its good to recognize that some people don't belive in God, the sections on these "religions" would necessarily be short. Kind of like how the lesson at beauty college on how to shave someone's head is necessarily short.

Re: Children to study atheism at school
 

yeh, course we do, but most people just use RE as a good place for a nap and to roll up a joint/argue alot. t'aint really to good.

Yeah, we have RE in Ireland too.
Most pointless thing in existence.
Jesus did this, and then Jesus did that etc.
Everything is taught from a factual point of view to children of a very young age, a disgusting abuse of the naivety of the young. The idea of "faith" or "doubt" or "belief" never even enters the picture. These matters discussed are no different from learning about history, or maths or geography.

Then in secondary school (high school) things move on to apparently better, more open-minded things. We partake in "discussions" about abortion, and why the use of condoms and premarital sex is so terrible.
My religion "teacher" was an ignorant narrow-minded fool, who complained about the attitude of apathy of the class towards the "debates" etc. Of course as religion was not an exam subject, most of my peers couldn't give a shit about anything that was under "discussion".

After him complaining about people showing no interest, I decided to take him up on issues. We were discussing the death penalty, and incredibly enough this guy was against it completely. (As it happens I am against the death penalty, but I put this aside, just in the interest of what may turn out to be a remotely interesting way to pass the period)

He was nattering on with his usual highly informative lecture "death penalty is bad m'kay?" etc. "but" I interjected, "surely it works as a deterrent to people who would consider committing these terrible crimes?"
And with his typically penetrating insight, he crushed my argument under the weight of his powerful rebuttal:
"No".

I gave up after that