Atheistic education

[Unicorn]

The content and purpose of atheistic education is to disseminate scientific, materialist knowledge and free believers from the influence of religion, of all superstitions and prejudices. The main feature of scientific atheistic propaganda is that it presents well-argued facts in a manner that can be understood by all people.

Do you agree that schools should have an atheistic curriculum?

[RedAnarchist]

The content and purpose of atheistic education is to disseminate scientific, materialist knowledge and free believers from the influence of religion, of all superstitions and prejudices. The main feature of scientific atheistic propaganda is that it presents well-argued facts in a manner that can be understood by all people.

Do you agree that schools should have an atheistic curriculum?

I agree fully. Children should not be going to school and having religious ideas put in their heads. People should be brought up in as secular an environment as possible and encouraged to ask questions. Without religious ideas being forced into them from an early age, they will be far more open to progressive ideologies.

[al8]

I've been thinking over this for a long time. And I've come to the conclution that what I would really like and would like to see advocated that schools not merely be secular but openly anti-religious. For secular is merely a middle possition as of now. When all religion is devoid I guess secular would have no meaning it would just be called teaching or education. To weed out religion I think we should not take such an avoidant approach as to only settle for secular however easy that may be politically and substitute it for an actively open anti-religious corriculum. Such as having special courses on antheism and anti-religon taught by stern anti-religious atheists.

[lvl100]

I've been thinking over this for a long time. And I've come to the conclution that what I would really like and would like to see advocated that schools not merely be secular but openly anti-religious. For secular is merely a middle possition as of now. When all religion is devoid I guess secular would have no meaning it would just be called teaching or education. To weed out religion I think we should not take such an avoidant approach as to only settle for secular however easy that may be politically and substitute it for an actively open anti-religious corriculum. Such as having special courses on antheism and anti-religon taught by stern anti-religious atheists.


They tried in ex "socialist" states . From the marxist education in schools to the countless books for kids who portrait religious people like stupid or very limited in thinking.
It worked so well, that after the fall, there were more religious (or at least somewhat connected to religion) people than before socialism :laugh:

What i`m trying to say is that atheism is a result of real socialism/communism not the other way around.

[Comrade Vasilev]

I think we should use some definitions here, there is a big difference between Marxist materialism (which doesn't specify towards religion but instead provides a whole material analysis), and liberal 'rational' atheism, which has become so popular with pro-bourgeois liberals. Liberal atheism sees religion as a deviation from true human nature, a distortion, and a distortion which can be fixed through government education within a prevailing capitalist society.

This is where the Marxist analysis challenges this, on the contrary even with the modern age technology and information religion religion has not been destroyed but has evolved just as feudal religion evolved into modern bourgeois religion.

But where the rationalist atheist comes to grief in this, the latter part of the 1980s, is with the educated minions of the religious right here in the United States. For often they are sophisticated, computer-literate, holders of college degrees, active in civic and political affairs, perfectly attuned to the twentieth century except in their theology. In fact, the leaders and organizations of the religious right have capitalized on computer literacy with mass direct-mail solicitations and sophisticated development of mailing lists--which certainly suggests something other than Bible Belt illiteracy. Then there are the professional anti-evolutionists who employ all the trappings of the physical and natural sciences in advancing their theories and poking holes in the arguments of the evolutionists.

Many of these people are thoroughly adept with the concepts and language of genetics, molecular biology, comparative anatomy and physiology, and geology. Further, they are able to give their arguments a high enough degree of plausibility to befuddle millions of ordinary people and sow widespread doubts about the correctness of the theory of evolution. For better or worse, this is the reality, and it means that the rationalist atheist must confess his/her failure--here, in the last part of the twentieth century, millions of educated people prefer Genesis and Revelations to the Origin of the Species and The Age of Reason!

Only the Marxist analysis in this area suffices, because it's key to viewing religion not as a dangerous abstraction like bourgeois-atheism does, but instead as a cause-and-effect of capitalist society. In the face of modern bourgeois society the old traditional religion has been forced to adapt, and indeed it has, you'll find these days that it isn't the traditional religions (Catholicism, Anglicanism) which are so strident in defending capitalism, it's the evangelical and less tradition religions.

[pusher robot]

Do you agree that schools should have an atheistic curriculum?

I suppose that depends on what you wish to learn, doesn't it? Presumably if you want to learn about religion, an atheistic curriculum will not be of much use to you, and if you want to learn about the material world, religious instruction will be counterproductive.

I'm guessing your question is more along the lines of, "Do you agree that people should be forced to attend schools that have an atheistic curriculum?" To which my answer is, of course not, people should be free to use their resources to attend whatever school they want. Nobody has a right to dictate to another person what knowledge they are permitted to seek.

[Bud Struggle]

People can send their children to schools that reflect the religious and moral outlook--if they are willing to pay for the privilage. On the other hand--public schools should be totally neutral as to religion and atheism.

FWIW--American schools do a pretty good job in that area.

[Demogorgon]

Education should be secular in nature, that is to say that it should not promote any given religion over others, nor take a particular stance as to whether there is a God or not. Kids should be taught the facts about different faiths as well as about the debate as to whether there is a God at all (in an age-appropriate manner of course) and allowed to make up their minds.

Education should never withhold information, nor attempt to indoctrinate anybody.

[Lost In Translation]

Do you agree that schools should have an atheistic curriculum?
From K-12, of course. We must keep the children's minds as open as possible as early as possible, and for as long as possible. It will be their choice whether or not to become a pastor/priest/associated acts, but we need them to know the truth first before turning away.

[Chapter 24]

I think there should be a completely secular stance on education, where science is science and history is history. No alternative religious subjects such as "creationism" or "intelligent design". There might be a class where religious history is a subject, but no theology courses that actually teach what these religions preach and their beliefs - that is for that respective religion's place of worship is for.

[Lost In Translation]

I think there should be a completely secular stance on education, where science is science and history is history. No alternative religious subjects such as "creationism" or "intelligent design". I wouldn't be a class where religious history is a subject, but no theology courses that actually teach what these religions preach and their beliefs - that is for that respective religion's place of worship is for.
Yes, I agree. Those who are religious should practice their religions outside of school, and not bring their theories and whatnot in school.

[Drace]

Schools should just encourage students to think on their own and just introduce them to such things. In a communist society, you can give everyone internet access and the kid can learn the info on their own.

You might not even need school if you can get the kid to think!

I certainly don't need it.

My ideology of our existence is quite complex. I believe ANYTHING is possible and that any event can happen but some just have lower chances then others. Im typing on a keyboard right now. There is a chance that in 5 minutes it will disappear but the chances are so low that people consider it impossible. The percentage of it disappearing might be 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001% to 99.999%...
Why would it disappear?
I can say that god made the world just to see that event happening. I can say that he created me so he can mess with me, and only me and no one else. This can be because I was chosen randomely..Again, unlikely but not impossible.

Although I am in favor of a designer because I see it having more chance then evolution and the big bang crap.
I mean you cant even prove to me gravity existed 5 billion years ago!

[trivas7]

In truth all education is atheistic, otherwise it's miseducation.

[Red_or_Dead]

I think there should be a completely secular stance on education, where science is science and history is history. No alternative religious subjects such as "creationism" or "intelligent design". I wouldn't be a class where religious history is a subject, but no theology courses that actually teach what these religions preach and their beliefs - that is for that respective religion's place of worship is for.

I agree.

I think that above all education should be a preparation for life. It should get kids on the right setting, teach them how to use their heads and think for themselves. Then, they will be much better prepared for stuff like religion, nationalism, racism, politics, ect. when they encounter them in real life.

I bet that people would be half as much nationalistic as they are today, if they wouldnt be so indoctrinated from their youth.

[al8]

They tried in ex "socialist" states . From the marxist education in schools to the countless books for kids who portrait religious people like stupid or very limited in thinking.
It worked so well, that after the fall, there were more religious (or at least somewhat connected to religion) people than before socialism :laugh:


From what I'm told anti-theist actions, practices and propaganda were applied unevenly in the Soviets. And perhaps also not applied for a sufficient amount or length of time. I'm no expert on the intricacies of the matter, largely because I don't know russian. However countries with former "socialist" states show impressive amounts of non-religiosity*. Sometimes over half the population is non-religious. Like East Germany and Belarus.

So I myself wouldn't go so far as to say "it" didn't work, but rather that the job was left only half finished.


(*see; World Values Survey)

[Killfacer]

apart from Russia which is deeply religious.

[al8]

65,7% of the Russian Federation concider themselves a religious person. 29,4% do not, and a further 5,3% consider themselves convinced atheists form the last survey done, 1999.

Now when concidering these numbers one must take into account the vastness of Mother Russia. I would have been happier had the researchers split the larger countries into regions. And pare them with areas where strict atheist policies were followed as in the case of Russia.

But alas, I sadly have no say in the matter. :(

[Killfacer]

thats pretty high isnt it? A very small amount of Athiests. Do you know the country with the largest amount of Athiests? I assume it is something like England or australia or holland.

[Demogorgon]

thats pretty high isnt it? A very small amount of Athiests. Do you know the country with the largest amount of Athiests? I assume it is something like England or australia or holland.

France.

Countries like Britain have relatively high rates of believers. It is just that most believers don't practice.

[Killfacer]

wrong, i just read it was Sweden with 85% non beleivers. Followed oddly by Vietnam.

http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/atheism-everywhere-except-us/

[lvl100]

From what I'm told anti-theist actions, practices and propaganda were applied unevenly in the Soviets. And perhaps also not applied for a sufficient amount or length of time. I'm no expert on the intricacies of the matter, largely because I don't know russian. However countries with former "socialist" states show impressive amounts of non-religiosity*. Sometimes over half the population is non-religious. Like East Germany and Belarus.

So I myself wouldn't go so far as to say "it" didn't work, but rather that the job was left only half finished.


(*see; World Values Survey)

What job half finished ? Romanians declared a whopping 86% orthodox procent ( + other cults).
Dont get me started on Poland, where religion was always strong and when today 80% of Poland`s population believe that there is a god.

No, the method was wrong. They tried to cure the result ( religion) instead of curing the problems ( men`s alienation).

[al8]

Actually the highest amounts of those who identify themselfs as convinced atheists are in China and RoK when looking at this question. Next in line are France, Japan, East Germany, Belarus, The Czech Republic, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Sweden, Great Britain ect.*

There are also other factors that play a part in estimateing over all secularity and non-religiousness other than this sole answer of three to this one question. Other questions regarding opinion on afterlife, belief in a soul, heaven, hell, reincarnaton etc. exist for that purpose, at least on worldvaluessurvey.org.

*(Note there are also couple of possible skewing factors, such as the different meaning of the term atheist between the different languages, (or the word used as substitute when translated). And also, among the asiatic nations, the factor of non-theistic superstitions. And have in mind the difference between the conviced atheist and non-religious; not all not-religious are self-proclaimed atheists but all atheists are not religious)

[Killfacer]

explain yourself! You said that in the eastern block there were alot of athiests, yet clearly you're wrong. Why have you ignored this?

[al8]

What job half finished ? Romanians declared a whopping 86% orthodox procent ( + other cults).
Dont get me started on Poland, where religion was always strong and when today 80% of Poland`s population believe that there is a god.

No, the method was wrong. They tried to cure the result ( religion) instead of curing the problems ( men`s alienation).

That can yet again and all the same be contributed to lax implimentation of policy.

Peoples alienation is certainly a factor, yet not the sole factor of religion or religiosity. Some of the contributing factors to liberation from religion are (1) smashing the educational monopoly the superstitious have on kids, (2) a social security safety-net, and (3) banning religion from public life/making religion solely a private matter.

[al8]

explain yourself! You said that in the eastern block there were alot of athiests, yet clearly you're wrong. Why have you ignored this?

No, I have not. And I did not quite say the entire "eastern bloc had lot of atheist". I mentioned Belarus and Eastern germany as prime succesess. My hypotisis is that high levels of atheism can be taken to indicate successfully enforced atheist policies. And success is not mearly measured in self identified atheist but also in the amounts of people who self identify as non-religious.

On that note there is a marked trend in Russia fx. of an increas in religiousity and a decrease in atheists from after the disolvement of the Soviet Union.

[Demogorgon]

wrong, i just read it was Sweden with 85% non beleivers. Followed oddly by Vietnam.

http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/atheism-everywhere-except-us/

Different polls get different results. I have seen France at 80% and Sweden in the 60s.

Mind you, I wasn't specifically referring to non-believers as I was to atheists. Sweden has a very high level of agnosticism, but it is countries like France and Japan that lead on actual atheism.

[lvl100]

al8 you know whats funny ?

That in the case of Europe ( I dont have enough info on China & Co) the "socialist" countries actions against religion actually made more believers comparing to capitalist countries where religion actually was on a downfall.

And thats becouse of the religion`s nature. If you atack directly you`l just create more martyrs and saints and create a feeling of frustration even on non-believers, who even if they are atheist, they still may be offended becouse you atack something familiar with their enviroment (parents, friends beliefs, religion as a national identity , etc)

[al8]

I can of course concede that such things can happen (and have; Polland), and up to various degrees. But I most certainly don't think it's an unovercomable obsticle. And besides believers piss and moan all the time wether they have recent martyrs or not.

[Bud Struggle]

I can of course concede that such things can happen (and have; Polland), and up to various degrees. But I most certainly don't think it's an unovercomable obsticle. And besides believers piss and moan all the time wether they have recent martyrs or not.

But in the end in places like Poland that had been Communist for two generations--they prefer Catholicism to Communism by a large margin. No, by a HUGE, OVERWELMING margin.

So, what's the problem? :blink::bored::confused:

Don't you think that Communism had it's chance and it's time to move on?

[Jazzratt]

But in the end in places like Poland that had been Communist for two generations--they prefer Catholicism to Communism by a large margin. No, by a HUGE, OVERWELMING margin.

That's a bit dishonest on your part, given there was a post further up detailing how Vietnam is extremely atheistic and, of course, Catholicism's insidious grip hasn't really spread to, say, China either so talking specifically about Catholicism being more popular is a total non starter.

Also, the popularity of ideas in ex-communist nations gives them neither veracity nor superiority. It could be for instance that the enormous fascist presence in Russia is larger than the communist one, but it does not follow that fascism is better than communism or that communists should therefore give up, does it?

[Bud Struggle]

That's a bit dishonest on your part, given there was a post further up detailing how Vietnam is extremely atheistic and, of course, Catholicism's insidious grip hasn't really spread to, say, China either so talking specifically about Catholicism being more popular is a total non starter.

No Christianity is spreading to China a quite an advance rate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,2458211.story


Also, the popularity of ideas in ex-communist nations gives them neither veracity nor superiority. It could be for instance that the enormous fascist presence in Russia is larger than the communist one, but it does not follow that fascism is better than communism or that communists should therefore give up, does it?

I'm just wondering why 60 years of Communist rule could disapear in a heartbeat without a trace. I find it pretty amazing.

And as to my last comment in the other post--granted a bit snarkey. :cool:

And you do make a good point about Fascism--what the hell is going on there?

[al8]

What job half finished ? Romanians declared a whopping 86% orthodox procent ( + other cults)..

I suspect upon reglanceing your post that you are confuseing (1) state cencus registration of membership to religious denominations and sects recognized by the state with (2) actual beliefs held by the populace, best measured by opinion polls.

I say this for the criteria for membership is not to be equated with willing and concious consent. Standard practice, as I have noticed is that newborns are automatically registered into the dominant sect or state church or given the religious affiliacion of the mother. So no choice is given to indicate any held opinion by this process. Further more correcting this false registration is a beurocratic affair giving no immediate gains, so the cencus stays near excactly the same way as it has been doctored.

Did you use worldvaluessurvey.org or some other source?

[Jazzratt]

No Christianity is spreading to China a quite an advance rate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,2458211.story

I thought you were talking exclusively about catholisicm.


I'm just wondering why 60 years of Communist rule could disapear in a heartbeat without a trace. I find it pretty amazing.

1. It hasn't disappeared, don't be that dense.

2. The reason that religion is so popular in the ex-soviet states is ver, very simple. It absolutely fucking sucks to live there, after the collapse of soviet "socialism" the one thing that could possibly be worse was introduced - Chicago School capitalism. This meant that the national infrastructure was sold of, welfare was removed and starvation shot through the roof. Russia, for example, is now pretty much ruled by an oligarchich plutocracy that has less than no respect for the lives of its citizens. Is it at all surprising that people will flail for whatever comforting fairytale they can? And what could be more comforting to people in extreme poverty than a doctrine that glorifies this poverty?


And you do make a good point about Fascism--what the hell is going on there?

Fascism on the rise is less of a surprise than you would think and it is again due to the absolute gutting of the Russian nation by free marketeers. When everything you used to rely on is sold off to privateers, when your nation has turned from a world super power to an enormous tax haven do you not think it would be perfectly natural for some of your fellow citizens to become extreme nationalists?