PDA

View Full Version : Atheists target UK schools



FlaGator
04-27-2009, 08:36 AM
More of the same from our atheist friends in England.


The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) plans to launch a recruitment drive this summer.

Backed by professors Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, the initiative aims to establish a network of atheist societies in schools to counter the role of Christianity.

It will coincide with the first atheist summer camp for children that will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.
The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God.

ChloŽ Clifford-Frith, AHS co-founder, said that the societies would act as a direct challenge to the Christian message being taught in schools.

She expressed concern that Christian Unions could influence vulnerable teenagers looking for a club to belong to with fundamentalist doctrine.

In particular, she claimed that some students were being told that homosexuality is a sin and to believe the Biblical account of creation.

"We want to point out how silly some of these beliefs are and hope that these groups will help to do that," she said.



After the fine examples set for us by the moral and ethical doctrines of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cambodia under Pol Pot it's a wonder that every one hasn't abandoned religion for the higher moral ground of atheism. :rolleyes:

The rest is here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5219687/Atheists-target-UK-schools.html)

Gingersnap
04-27-2009, 10:11 AM
Just wait until this project runs up against Islam in the schools. I doubt the Brits will be as keen to allow 'defamation' of Islam as they happily do for Christianity. ;)

wilbur
04-27-2009, 02:59 PM
Just wait until this project runs up against Islam in the schools. I doubt the Brits will be as keen to allow 'defamation' of Islam as they happily do for Christianity. ;)

I wouldnt count on it..

wilbur
04-27-2009, 03:02 PM
After the fine examples set for us by the moral and ethical doctrines of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cambodia under Pol Pot it's a wonder that every one hasn't abandoned religion for the higher moral ground of atheism. :rolleyes:


Yes, atheism == communism... good lord dude, read a book.

megimoo
04-27-2009, 03:30 PM
I wouldnt count on it..
It's an interesting quandary the Gay/Atheist lobby face.They demand equality in all things in the UK but will definitely run afoul with Islam.Islam in the UK has much more power than in the in the U.S. .Islam is much less tolerant than Christianity of both the Atheist and the Homo .IRAN has a habit of hanging their gays or of late gluing the offending orifice closed and purging them.When they run head to head in conflict there will be blood in the streets.

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Yes, atheism == communism... good lord dude, read a book.

You are becoming delusional in your old age. No where did I say that atheism = communism. Three of those four entities did happen to be communist and did put in place atheistic regimes that by some estimates killed nearly a hundred million people in the 20th century. Maybe killing that many people is a moral virtue of atheistic regimes and that is what has caused your confusion since communists feel the same way. However, I never said that one equaled the other. That was totally in your mind. Perhaps you should look in to a reading comprehension class. And while you improving your reading skills, you should read a book about Pol Pot's Cambodia. I don't believe he ever claimed that it was a communist state. But he did have put to death a good percentage of the Cambodian population so maybe that is why you are confusing him with communists. Pol Pot was, however, an atheist.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and the rest of CU and name a successful, not murderous atheistic government?

wilbur
04-27-2009, 05:52 PM
It's an interesting quandary the Gay/Atheist lobby face.They demand equality in all things in the UK but will definitely run afoul with Islam.Islam in the UK has much more power than in the in the U.S. .Islam is much less tolerant than Christianity of both the Atheist and the Homo .IRAN has a habit of hanging their gays or of late gluing the offending orifice closed and purging them.When they run head to head in conflict there will be blood in the streets.

The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite.

It seems that there are only two kinds people in the world according to megs... good ol' right wing Christians... and the other people. And it seems this other group of people, to you, are one homogeneous bunch, harmoniously proclaiming the joys of atheism, liberalism and homosexuality. At this point Megs, one can only tell you to stop believing everything you read.... given the selection of articles you post on a regular basis, its no wonder you are so misinformed and confused.

What you will see, should religion lose even more ground in the world, is Christians and Moslems become the best of buds, to fight the "common enemy". The Vatican of late, has even been addressing Islam in an almost submissive posture because of advances of godlessness. The envy they have for Muslim piety is palpable

megimoo
04-27-2009, 07:19 PM
The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite.

It seems that there are only two kinds people in the world according to megs... good ol' right wing Christians... and the other people. And it seems this other group of people, to you, are one homogeneous bunch, harmoniously proclaiming the joys of atheism, liberalism and homosexuality. At this point Megs, one can only tell you to stop believing everything you read.... given the selection of articles you post on a regular basis, its no wonder you are so misinformed and confused.

What you will see, should religion lose even more ground in the world, is Christians and Moslems become the best of buds, to fight the "common enemy". The Vatican of late, has even been addressing Islam in an almost submissive posture because of advances of godlessness. The envy they have for Muslim piety is palpable

Can you provide any evidence of Rome's envy of Islam ?Do you imply that Rome is impressed with the Muslem fealty towards Mecca five times a day and that they wish it was to Rome ?

Rome has very little in common with Islam and much more with their sworn enemies Israel !Islam is a very violant intolerant system of beliefs that advocate killing or converting all non Muslims to Islam and killing all that would leave the fold.

Islams goal is to conquer the world for Islam and kill all who resist.They made it to Europe once before and that was almost a total conquest of Europe but they were stopped and finally driven out of Spain in 1492 and they still consider Spain as theirs.Any professed atheist or gay wouldn't survive for very long .

There are many good people in the world and not just Christians who believe in a creator and follow a lifestyle that would make many Christiands bow their heads in shame but Islam isn't one of those .Islam is a religion of death and destruction only interested in conquests and subjugation.

For an militant, in your face,intolerant,hard core atheist to argue the point that GOD doesn't exist is in the face of all evidence absurd .The seasonal changes, the exactly right distance from its primary source of energy,its satellite regulating the tidal forces are much to much to be sheer Coincidence.The very symmetry of creation, creation that was designed to have the power to replicate itself in total while making necessary slight adjustments over generations is proof.The very planets and stars speak of his genus of Creation from a infinitesimal spark of created energy to worlds without end.As I said before Earth appears to have been 'custom made' for mankind and as further proof after many century's of search none like it have been found.

MrsSmith
04-27-2009, 08:30 PM
The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite.



No, no, no...not tolerance. Atheists have no tolerance for any religion. But they are afraid of Muslims. They know that Christians allow them the right to believe as they choose, but Muslims tolerate atheists as little as atheists tolerate Christians.

And we all know what your favorite author says about the beliefs of others...

Odysseus
04-27-2009, 08:32 PM
I wouldnt count on it..
Why? Britain's been extremely concilliatory towards Islamists. That whole beheading thing tends to bring out the Neville Chamberlain in them.

Yes, atheism == communism... good lord dude, read a book.
Would you be so kind as to cite a communist state that wasn't avowedly secular and atheist?

The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite.
Really? When was the last time atheists rallied against Islamist terrorism? The atheists at International A.N.S.W.E.R and other various leftist groups seem to have no problem taking up the side of Al Qaeda and Hamas. They tend to reserve their ire for Christians (serious Christians, the kind who actually follow their scriptures as opposed to the ones who tend to think of Christianity as socialism with holidays) and Jews. But, feel free to cite one atheist group that has unabashedly supported the GWOT and opposed the global jihad.

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 09:36 PM
Why? Britain's been extremely concilliatory towards Islamists. That whole beheading thing tends to bring out the Neville Chamberlain in them.

Would you be so kind as to cite a communist state that wasn't avowedly secular and atheist?

Really? When was the last time atheists rallied against Islamist terrorism? The atheists at International A.N.S.W.E.R and other various leftist groups seem to have no problem taking up the side of Al Qaeda and Hamas. They tend to reserve their ire for Christians (serious Christians, the kind who actually follow their scriptures as opposed to the ones who tend to think of Christianity as socialism with holidays) and Jews. But, feel free to cite one atheist group that has unabashedly supported the GWOT and opposed the global jihad.

I'm still waiting for him to name a successful society that was based on atheistic principles.

wilbur
04-27-2009, 09:51 PM
You are becoming delusional in your old age. No where did I say that atheism = communism.

No, but you might as well have.. you love to drop all the little insinuations, hinting that atheism leads to communism, then to mass murder and gulags and the like. Then you come out the death toll counts as proof that atheism kills! Despite the allusions, there is quite a marked difference between non-religiousness growing grassroots style in a free populace versus the scenario where, with totalitarianism, its forced upon an unwilling people. What old communist regimes attempted to do was replace one king-ship with another... one dogma with another... the character of the modern humanist movements (and the world-views within) is generally one that has an aversion to any type of king-ship or dogma.

So to continually compare the situations is simplistic and dishonest.



Perhaps you can enlighten me and the rest of CU and name a successful, not murderous atheistic government?

I don't want an 'atheistic' government (whatever that means) anymore than I want a Christian or Muslim government. Making claims about the existence of supreme deities should not be included in the list of duties of a good government.

I want a secular government, one that requires pragmatic, reason based justifications for the actions it undertakes and the laws it implements... and to the extent that that has been allowed to happen in modern governments, its been a resounding success. Thank the founding fathers for listening to all those pagan philosophers.

wilbur
04-27-2009, 09:52 PM
I'm still waiting for him to name a successful society that was based on atheistic principles.

What is an 'atheist principle'?

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 09:58 PM
What is an 'atheist principle'?

How about the principle that religon isn't necessary for a moral society? Show me a religionless society that has been a success?

Oh, I do owe you an apology for my snarky remarks earlier. You didn't deserve it.

wilbur
04-27-2009, 10:07 PM
How about the principle that religon isn't necessary for a moral society? Show me a religionless society that has been a success?


Assertions about morality are not principles of atheism... both atheism and any moral ethos are conclusions derived from an underlying worldview or epistemological framework. There are even a few nihilists out there who agree with the theists that god is necessary for morality, and therefore conclude there is no such thing... but they seem to be few and far between these days.



Oh, I do owe you an apology for my snarky remarks earlier. You didn't deserve it.

We both indulge... no worries.

Rockntractor
04-27-2009, 10:16 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that the Gulf of Mexico is not full of liberals, communist and atheists in rowboats headed for the utopia Cuba has to offer. If western society is so bad why are they not running from it?

wilbur
04-27-2009, 10:23 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that the Gulf of Mexico is not full of liberals, communist and atheists in rowboats headed for the utopia Cuba has to offer. If western society is so bad why are they not running from it?

I can relate to your statement when it comes to communists... but the others don't make much sense.

I don't think liberals, nor atheists in any large degree, have any dislike for western society when compared to the rest of the world.

Rockntractor
04-27-2009, 10:26 PM
I can relate to your statement when it comes to communists... but the others don't make much sense.

I don't think liberals, nor atheists in any large degree, have any dislike for western society when compared to the rest of the world.
If that is the case Sir why do most of them make it their goal to change our society?

wilbur
04-27-2009, 10:33 PM
If that is the case Sir why do most of them make it their goal to change our society?

Because society isn't perfect. They identify what they believe to be major problems in society and go about implementing solutions that they believe can solve them. Republicans also work to change society in this way, as does anyone with a cause.

The die-hard communists though... well they pretty much just bitch about capitalism and don't do much else.

FlaGator
04-27-2009, 10:39 PM
Assertions of morality are not a principle of atheism... both atheism and any moral ethos are conclusions derived from an underlying worldview or epistemological framework. There are even a few nihilists out there who agree with the theists that god is necessary for morality, and therefore conclude there is no such thing... but they seem to be few and far between these days.



We both indulge... no worries.

Most of the books on atheism, by atheists, that I have read assert that a moral society is not dependent upon religion and that atheists can behave morally with out belief in a higher being. I believe that this can be true for some individuals but not for a whole society. Nietzsche argued that man could define his morality and if he was strong enough he could enforce that morality on others. But this would lead to a morality that is in a constant state of flux and that is no morality at all and what it degenerates in to is mob rule and survival of the fittest. Morals must be constant to be effective and this is why an atheistic society, in my opinion, is doomed to failure. One of the points that Thomas Jefferson made concerning the founding of America was that only a largely Christian society could maintain the discipline necessary to hold true to the founding principles of the U.S. I'm not saying that the principles themselves were specifically Christian but that Jefferson believed was that only people of faith, because of what Christian faith asks of Christians, could be expected to live up to them and keep them.

Having said all that I know of no successful society that was absence of belief in a greater power of some sort. Do you know of one.

movie buff
04-27-2009, 10:39 PM
If they are openly trying to push it on kids (i.e. openly try to persuade kids to abandon their faith), I'd have to say hell, no.
Aside from the obvious fact that such a movement demonstrates intolerance of beliefs, another important point is that the Christian community in Britain is already weakening rapidly, between the rise of secularism and the growing influence of Islam. They don't need another blow to their faith. Pretty soon, history will be reversed, with the Americans being the ones sending missionaries to England to witness to the British!

"Assertions of morality are not a principle of atheism"
It seems like the atheist society in that article considers it a principle of atheism, since it apparently claims that certain religious beliefs prevent people from making moral decisions.

"The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite."
From what I have seen of atheists, that is no myth. Atheists I've known have almost ALWAYS displayed a great deal more hatred of Christianity than of Islam, even though they'd have much more freedom to practice their beliefs in a Christian society than in a Muslim one.

I'd have to agree with Ginger and Megimoo on this, that the clash between this atheist movement and the ever- growing influence of Islam is inevitable, and won't be pretty. And, the leftists who aren't actually involved will have no clue which side to root for. It's what happens on the DUmp whenever there's a conflict between one force they support, usually Islam, and another force they support (i.e. a Muslim cleric making a homophobic comment, or an Islamic terror cell issuing a death threat against a liberal celebrity who they find offensive).

Rockntractor
04-27-2009, 10:55 PM
[QUOTE=wilbur;132329]Because society isn't perfect. They identify what they believe to be major problems in society and go about implementing solutions that they believe can solve them. Republicans also work to change society in this way, as does anyone with a cause.

I am not sure what republicans do any more . What conservatives do is try to take us back to the constitution and tried and true methods of government that allow men to be free .The liberal is always wanting to experiment and take chances with our future. In most cases their changes take away individual freedoms and give them to groups.

wilbur
04-27-2009, 11:38 PM
Most of the books on atheism, by atheists, that I have read assert that a moral society is not dependent upon religion and that atheists can behave morally with out belief in a higher being. I believe that this can be true for some individuals but not for a whole society.


True, but these are conclusions that don't generally come about, simply as a consequence of atheism. The atheism, and the ethics of those individuals both arise from their underlying worldview. The underlying world-views behind most of the deadly communist regimes and the modern day naturalist atheists are not similar at all, even though both have conclusions of atheism embedded within them. We should not expect similar results. Although, yes, there are plenty of materialist atheists out there who have very Marxist world-views.. but they generally see the communist regimes as perversions of marxism, and also don't have a defining presence in the 'new atheist' movements.

Most 'new atheists' tend not to be hard atheists, though there are exceptions. They tend to have a naturalistic worldview, and atheism is a conclusion within that worldview. There is actually room for a god in this worldview, but any such claims about god would be evaluated by the same empiricism that any other claim about the natural world would be, and with an inherent distrust in highly subjective 'ways of knowing'. Most soft atheists of this worldview would claim that no religion or god-theory has met the burden of evidence that this worldview requires in order to assign any confidence to a truth-claim (although some hard atheists do claim that a burden of evidence has been met that disproves most god-concepts).

Most of these atheists use the same naturalistic and empirical thought processes to make judgements about morality that they used to arrive at the conclusion that atheism is probably true (or at least, that there is no good reason for theism). They arent going, "Hey, I'm an atheist! Oh shit, I gotta figure out morality apart from God now that I am an atheist". The atheism and moral theories come from the same source.



Nietzsche argued that man could define his morality and if he was strong enough he could enforce that morality on others. But this would lead to a morality that is in a constant state of flux and that is no morality at all and what it degenerates in to is mob rule and survival of the fittest. Morals must be constant to be effective and this is why an atheistic society, in my opinion, is doomed to failure. One of the points that Thomas Jefferson made concerning the founding of America was that only a largely Christian society could maintain the discipline necessary to hold true to the founding principles of the U.S. I'm not saying that the principles themselves were specifically Christian but that Jefferson believed was that only people of faith, because of what Christian faith asked of Christians, could be expected to live up to them and keep them.


We've been back and forth on this many times now, but the repeats are good, because, at least for me, I feel I get better at articulating what I want to say each time.

But those who work from a worldview of naturalism have answered your concerns about shifting morality. Richard Carrier is a favorite author, philosopher and ancient historian of mine who has a very articulate thesis of naturalistic (ie godless) objective morality. He claims, "Morality flows from basic facts about human nature and the universe". In other words, rules that result in a thriving society, can be discovered through objective empirical means. Hence, our previous discussions where I tried to explain that every time you posit a non-god related reason for obeying a moral rule, you support the idea that that moral rule is discoverable and justifiable by naturalistic means. Societies prohibit stealing and murder because it causes widespread suffering. That type of suffering is something that, by our very natures, we are compelled to avoid. We cannot change this about ourselves, or the universe, anymore than we can remove our need to eat. Therefore, not murdering and not stealing objectively lead to less miserable humans, so stealing and murdering are objective moral wrongs. As long as there are objective reasons to obey a moral, we have ample reason to compel, persuade, and in some instances coerce the "mob" to follow them.

As our knowledge and intelligence increases, our moral knowledge should too. Our morality will get better (ie more efficient in bringing about thriving individuals and society) in time, even though there might be ups and downs along the way. Yes, morality will change, but that is a good thing... at least assuming mankind continues its overall upward trend in knowledge and wisdom.



Having said all that I know of no successful society that was absence of belief in a greater power of some sort. Do you know of one.

I don't think there has been any significantly non-religious society. Religion was still present if muted in regimes that sought to remove it. Any non-religious society (with an aversion to dogmatic thinking) that arises, based upon modern naturalistic philosophies would be something that, to my knowledge, hasn't been done before, in earnest.

wilbur
04-27-2009, 11:59 PM
If they are openly trying to push it on kids (i.e. openly try to persuade kids to abandon their faith), I'd have to say hell, no.
Aside from the obvious fact that such a movement demonstrates intolerance of beliefs, another important point is that the Christian community in Britain is already weakening rapidly, between the rise of secularism and the growing influence of Islam. They don't need another blow to their faith. Pretty soon, history will be reversed, with the Americans being the ones sending missionaries to England to witness to the British!


If they are trying to push atheism on kids, I agree.... that would be indoctrination, the same kind that happens in religious education... I don't want that either. But this article seems to be written in a very intentionally controversial way... can't say as I really trust it. It simply sounds like they are working to set up atheist equivalents of religious chapters on college campuses.



"Assertions of morality are not a principle of atheism"
It seems like the atheist society in that article considers it a principle of atheism, since it apparently claims that certain religious beliefs prevent people from making moral decisions.


Sort of, but it is a little deceptive. One who claims to have a sound objective basis for a moral theory would always claim that adhering to some other (lesser) opposing theory would prevent people from making the best moral decisions. You can't really get to the heart of someone's ethical code by a 5 word quote in an article.



"The common myth around here is that atheists have more tolerance of Islam... I have seen no evidence of this... just the opposite."
From what I have seen of atheists, that is no myth. Atheists I've known have almost ALWAYS displayed a great deal more hatred of Christianity than of Islam, even though they'd have much more freedom to practice their beliefs in a Christian society than in a Muslim one.


9/11 and radical islam is what really jump-started the 'new atheist' movement that has been in the press so much... but there are others who simply respond to what they feel is an excessive dominance of Christian culture in western society.



I'd have to agree with Ginger and Megimoo on this, that the clash between this atheist movement and the ever- growing influence of Islam is inevitable, and won't be pretty. And, the leftists who aren't actually involved will have no clue which side to root for. It's what happens on the DUmp whenever there's a conflict between one force they support, usually Islam, and another force they support (i.e. a Muslim cleric making a homophobic comment, or an Islamic terror cell issuing a death threat against a liberal celebrity who they find offensive).

And I say, if/when the clash starts to culminate, you will see the major Christian churches outreach and align themselves with Islam to combat "godlessness"... as the Vatican has, at least with words, sort of done so already (in regards to the recent U.N. defamation of religion resolutions).