Religious teaching in Education

[athanasios]

When, where?

In my times I chose biology/anthropology...

[Edric O]

I was away for a few weeks, and no one has posted any reason for locking the topic, so I will unlock it and merge the new posts into it.

[ErasOmnius]

In fact, if anything ought to be taught in school, that would be it. Nietzche would be a good choice but in general philosophy will do. Children are naturally curious about life and what it is about, so don't leave them hanging nor force down ready answers down their throat; present them with what mankind has come up with throughout the centuries.

I suppose. I was really responding as to why you were asking why there should be homeless shelters, and why we should be compassionate. But if there is no God, and there never was, a person would never believe that homeless shelters are necessary.

[ErasOmnius]

This is what I 'm getting at. Objectively, there is nothing to suggest that they are necessary and that we should be teaching our children that. Throughout history people with no claim to land or property have been treated harshly, enslaved, left to starve and so on. Life went on.

Nowadays, we enjoy an abundance of resources and we may consider helping them, thanks in part to being infused with christian ideas for 2000 years. Even so, most of us go on with our daily lives without making that a priority - clearly, we 're not here to pick up the people from the streets.

In the future, resources on earth will dwindle and we may or may not move on to other planets. In any case, nothing guarantees that future societies will be able to cater for their respective homeless and nothing suggests that they ought to.

I guess it's just one's viewpoint of The Universe.

I believe that every person is equal in the sight of God. Last night, a guy came in to the Shelter that reeked of vomit, and had heroin marks on his arm. My first reaction was to close the inside door in his face. In Michigan, there are 2 sets of doors.

But I remembered that this poor fellow deserved a second, or a third, or a fourth, or a whatever, chance at life again. We had the nurse volunteer take his temperature, quiz him on medical issues, and gave him a new set of clothes. Hopefully today he can talk coherently today, so that when I go back in tonight, he can get some restorative counseling in his life.

I am not sure why you would want to give this bedrock of society up so easily. Just because some European so-called 'philosopher' thought it was a good idea?

As far as your reference to your belief that claim to ownership of property gives people rights. Well, I learned about 10 years as a Marketer for a major Bank, that the Banks own almost everything in this world. You may have a 20 or 30 year mortgage with them, but they are in control.

When we talk about people left to starve and so on. Those are real people with real emotions, with real feelings.

Lastly, if the Euro and the Dollar ever de-value, which they soon will-- that could easily be many of us needing Shelter. If you were put in that position of need, wouldn't you want a helping hand?

[Dante]

Since when is charity solely the province of christianity? After all, if you believe that there's nobody to care for people except other people...

[ErasOmnius]

Since when is charity solely the province of christianity? After all, if you believe that there's nobody to care for people except other people...

It's not that charity is the sole province of Christianity. It's just that, once again, there are no atheist homeless shelters. The faith-based charities are the successful ones. Also, not sure why you're not capitalizing Christianity.

Your second sentence. I guess I'm baffled. The love of God for humanity causes me to care for other people. How else could I put up with vomit, the drug addicts, the alcoholics, and the VD-infested, etc? It it usually a bad experience to be cursed out by a drunk; as he's flailing at, spitting on, punching out, and trying to bite you. But I got to believe that he's going to change for the better.

[Dante]

It's ok, I long ago stopped expecting you to understand anything I say. My point is that if you don't believe in god, you won't believe in some kind of spiritual fairness, justice, reward, karma, call it what you like. There's nobody and no cosmic force to look after people except other people. With that in mind, anyone of a mostly empathetic nature will seek to help others. Because nothing else will.

You know why there are no atheist shelters? Because atheists, as a rule, don't really care about self-promotion. What the place is is more important than what it does, surely. As for charities, there are plenty without any obvious religious affiliation.

As for the capitalisation, it's mostly spite.

[ErasOmnius]

Let me get this right. There are no atheist shelters because atheists don't want self-promotion.

What does self-promotion have to do with shelters? You are inferring that I mention shelters because I want to self-promote myself. No, I bring up shelters because that's what humanitstic, narcisstic, nihilistic philosophies produce. People with VD, people who are alcoholics, people who over-take drugs, husbands who leave their wives for women half their age, etc.

[Dante]

No, O stupid one, I am saying that those shelters with no particular religious bent, and they do exist, do not define themselves as "atheist shelters" in the same way. Mainly because it would be pointless and egocentric. Bit like you.

I'll just add humanism to the list of things you don't understand, 'kay? It's getting to be a big list.

[ErasOmnius]

I suppose. But don't you think that 'religious' shelters do any good?

And of course, the most common humanistic homeless food and shelter program is administered by your friendly national bureaucrat in your own particular nation's capital.

[Dante]

Better a bureaucrat than a bishop. What the place does is more important than why they do it.

[athanasios]

Bishop? That is not a Christian term. So I agree.

[Dante]

Oh yes, because I was advocating secretaries having power instead of chess pieces. It all makes so much more sense now, doesn't it?

[ErasOmnius]

I Timothy 3:1. The term episcopos could mean bishop, although overseer is probably more accurate.

What Dante means is that he wants people to receive a free government handout, without having to change at all. So for example, drunks would continue to get money from Washington, Athens, or London/Edinburgh; but never have to cure their alcoholism. In the Shelter model, you get a 2-3 day 'clean up', then a person has to make a decision if they want to change.

[Dragoon Knight]

What Dante means is that he wants people to receive a free government handout, without having to change at all.

[colour=#005FFF]I, too, enjoy putting words in other peoples' mouths. What you're trying to say is that you admit that your are perhaps the most stupid person to ever grace this forum with your presence. It's the combination of bigotry and repression, mixed with what appears to be a genuine ignorance of your own ignorance, that makes every post from you like having my eyes finely grated and sprinkled with balsamic vinegar.[/colour]

So for example, drunks would continue to get money from Washington, Athens, or London/Edinburgh; but never have to cure their alcoholism.

[colour=#005FFF]Ask yourself this, you idiot. You keep saying that you respect Dante's intelligence. Assuming you even know what intelligence is, can you reasonably deduce that he would advocate anything like that? Money for nothing, benefits without regard?

Be careful how you answer this. Or better yet, just choose to ignore this point, like you have with so many others. They all huddle together for warmth, you know.[/colour]

In the Shelter model, you get a 2-3 day 'clean up', then a person has to make a decision if they want to change.

[colour=#005FFF]First, shut the hell up about your precious shelter already. No-one cares.

Secondly, you're saying that if this hypothetical person didn't change after 2-3 days, you'd kick them right back out on the street? And you wouldn't let them back in again?

How very "Christian" of you.[/colour]

[athanasios]

Cool down please.

They would probably come back again and again...

[ErasOmnius]

#

[ErasOmnius]

I, too, enjoy putting words in other peoples' mouths. What you're trying to say is that you admit that your are perhaps the most stupid person to ever grace this forum with your presence. It's the combination of bigotry and repression, mixed with what appears to be a genuine ignorance of your own ignorance, that makes every post from you like having my eyes finely grated and sprinkled with balsamic vinegar.

Ask yourself this, you idiot. You keep saying that you respect Dante's intelligence. Assuming you even know what intelligence is, can you reasonably deduce that he would advocate anything like that? Money for nothing, benefits without regard?

Be careful how you answer this. Or better yet, just choose to ignore this point, like you have with so many others. They all huddle together for warmth, you know.

First, shut the hell up about your precious shelter already. No-one cares.

Secondly, you're saying that if this hypothetical person didn't change after 2-3 days, you'd kick them right back out on the street? And you wouldn't let them back in again?

How very "Christian" of you.

I know you hate the Shelter. I know you hate when I bring it up. The Shelter is the 'last stop' of hope, where your Western philosophies has led many people.

Last week, a girl who had had 3 abortions, finally decided to turn her life around. The philosophy of The West said she was an evolved animal, who simply could not control her sexual desires. But the philosophy of Christ said she could decide to have God as her Father, and Jesus as her older Brother. So now, in her early 20s, she has decided to become a second-chance virgin.

And then there's a guy whom we called 'Crazy Tony'. You see, The West's philosophies said that Tony could take prescription pills put our by the major pharm companies -- that he could pop pills and all of his problems would 'go away'. But he left his wife, abandoned his children, lost his house, and was living under a bridge a half mile away under the freeway near the football stadium. So I took a cop and went over there a month ago, and asked him to come in -- which he finally did last week. His cleanup is taking a lot of time. Lots of crying, vomiting, 'the shakes', fighting. I checked on him Friday night, and he still looks like 'hell'.

But as long as he and other's, are willing to commit to change, we're willing. If you could see the happiness that comes across people's faces when we tell them of the simple family relationship of God, and how it can be theirs.

But if a person wants to continue on in their misguided behavior, why would we help them out? I know that you want to focus on behaviors that have produced the highest VD rate inhuman history, so go right ahead. As you know form Forum discussion from last Summer, a lot of people come in for free VD testing, and the antibiotics, ointments, and other cures that we can dispense. We definitely hand them out to people, regardless of their behavior. But we are not going to prop up a VD-producing life-style.

Of course, you mean 'sexual bigotry', which is not bigotry at all. If I am so off about the world, then simply just pity me. I'm not sure why it feels like your eyes are being maimed and sprinkled with a food product.

Alcoholics who have been declared Disabled in the USA, can receive monthly Social Security checks in the US, and many do receive such funds, but Dante has never advocated such a thing. I think you're right about my post. I put words in his mouth, and I'm definitely wrong.

[Dante]

About that, and so much else. Know what I've noticed? You keep spouting your nonsense no matter what anyone says, but when people question the reasoning behind it you just clam up and move on to another topic. You love talking about that precious shelter of yours (almost as much as you love talking about homosexuality, as discussed in Fenceposts), so much so that you bring it up even if the argument at hand is entirely unrelated. Offtopic issues aside, I'm coming to the conclusion that you mention it so often because it's some kind of conversational safety blanket. Someone questioning scripture? At least you've got the clinic. Someone making you doubt your position? Refer to the clinic. A conversation about evolution/global warming/politics/history/English/basic multiplication/philosophy/parenthood/anything other than the clinic? Wrap yourself in the cuddly pink blanket of certainty of the clinic, and maybe all those bad things that you don't understand will fade into the soft, snuggly non-sequiter.

In short, in the above post you're (mostly indirectly) disparaging Western philosophies, homosexuality, evolution by natural selection and non-christian charities without understanding any of them (which is manifestly obvious to those of us who do) and thus without any sound basis for your argument. And you've been called out on this before, but all that happens is a brief flurry of excuses followed by denial or sullen silence. Basic philosophy 101: if your justifications don't exist, your argument is flawed.

Also, why was your reply before this one a single punctuation mark? Trying to hit the top of the page, are we?

And you're still abusing that poor apostrophe.

[ErasOmnius]

About that, and so much else. Know what I've noticed? You keep spouting your nonsense no matter what anyone says, but when people question the reasoning behind it you just clam up and move on to another topic. You love talking about that precious shelter of yours (almost as much as you love talking about homosexuality, as discussed in Fenceposts), so much so that you bring it up even if the argument at hand is entirely unrelated.

Thank you for admitting finally it was about me.

Offtopic issues aside, I'm coming to the conclusion that you mention it so often because it's some kind of conversational safety blanket. Someone questioning scripture? At least you've got the clinic. Someone making you doubt your position? Refer to the clinic. A conversation about evolution/global warming/politics/history/English/basic multiplication/philosophy/parenthood/anything other than the clinic? Wrap yourself in the cuddly pink blanket of certainty of the clinic, and maybe all those bad things that you don't understand will fade into the soft, snuggly non-sequiter.

In short, in the above post you're (mostly indirectly) disparaging Western philosophies, homosexuality, evolution by natural selection and non-christian charities without understanding any of them (which is manifestly obvious to those of us who do) and thus without any sound basis for your argument. And you've been called out on this before, but all that happens is a brief flurry of excuses followed by denial or sullen silence. Basic philosophy 101: if your justifications don't exist, your argument is flawed.

Also, why was your reply before this one a single punctuation mark? Trying to hit the top of the page, are we?

And you're still abusing that poor apostrophe.

No, I'm looking for honesty. Honesty, about yourself and what you believe. You came close when describing that earthquake a month ago, but sadly, you pulled back at the last moment. You see, I am brutally honest about what I believe, and I seek the same. I cannot get honesty.

If you don't care about the basics for humanity, then say it. If we are all just a collection of animated atoms, and it doesn't matter that 12,000 children die, then just say it. If you feel that you would want to kill yourself if you couldn't be close to a guy, then say it.

As far as proving that Shelters work. Shelters working are obvious. Our Staff is 75% volunteer; and the space, food, medicine, cloths, you name it, is donated. What we do with $1.25 million annually, costs the government 100X that amount -- and they have no results to show. But if you say that all of It has to be closed down tomorrow morning because we won't ratify misguided fornicating and any homosexual lifestyles, then say so.

The punctuation mark thing happened because I tried to re-order Dragoon's remarks, and all I got was words and code. I had forgotten to Preview the Post first, and when I posted it, it would not let me change the basics of the Post to the way I wanted. So I had to start with a new post.

[Dante]

Here's a funny thing, twit: if you want someone to answer a question, you really need to ask it.

This is what I call the "flurry of excuses" phase.

[ErasOmnius]

1. Do you believe that a human is nothing more than a collection of animated atoms. Such that, if an earthquake strikes a particular area, and thousands die, then the universe is no less?

2. Do you feel that you would be so lessened as a human being, that if you were not able to express yourself freely as a homosexual, that you would contemplate suicidal thoughts?

3. Do you feel that the rights of homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals are so great, that all religious Shelters which have a so-called "morals clause" forbidding such activity amongst its' long-term recipients (people being helped), should be closed down?

[Dante]

No, no, and no. And while I'm really tempted just to leave it there in order to teach you a lesson about phrasing questions properly, I long ago grew to understand that unless you explicitly explain your reasoning for something, people are liable to assume the ridiculous.

1. While atoms form our bodies, electrochemical patterns atop them are responsible for our minds. Bluntly, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

1b. All atoms are animated, in that they move and react.

1c. When such an earthquake occurs the universe has changed. It has lost lives. Whether or not it is then a "lesser" place is entirely a matter of personal opinion, given that other lives will have replaced them in the time it took the earthquake to happen (human lives, like everything else, have only as much value as we believe they do). Even if it wasn't, the effect on the universe as a whole, which is a remarkably big place, would be negligible.

1d. Less than what? The question is flawed.

2. Suicide is for quitters.

3. Closed? No. Changed? Yes.

And now that you're resting in the belief that you've successfully diverted attention from your own weaknesses to myself, here's some questions of my own.

1) Can you explain how natural selection works? If so, do so. Preferably with examples.

2) Why are you so interested in my personal life anyway?

3) What is humanism?

4) What is the Gaia hypothesis?

5) What are the central tenets of any three systems of morality apart from divine command theory?

[SandChigger]

(Glad to see this is proceeding much as I expected before peeking in. Hey, was Hweeeee really banned? Why did she change her name? WWJD?)

[Lord J]

Awesome, I just finished reading a twin set of articles from the current issue of Skeptic magazine. The first was an in-depth look at the anthropology of religion and violence, with the conclusion that they are more correlated than causally related. This was a very interesting perspective for me, considering that I tend to think of religion as more of an accidental arrival at means to control the masses.

The second was entitled, "Thank God for the New Atheists", and was essentially a call to Christians to revise their beliefs in an unchanging God, with the perspective that God is less of a person, and more of a personification. In other words, God it what you need it (him?) to be, to describe what you're talking about.

Anyway, I wish the articles were online, but all I can say is, do what I did, and visit your local bookshop and read them in the cafe.