when is not ready going to show up and destroy everyone again?

Proof, you just gave us proof. You state religion was presented to in a way that gave you the impression religions were all the same in a dumbed down way that made you rejected it. You are the witness and your account is the proof.

Who is imposing anything? Read the thread buddy, this is about theism vs atheism. NO WHERE is a single god or group gods listed.

He stated that he found them similar and that he rejected them, nothing he said constitutes proof that this happened because it wasn't presented fairly. You're operating on the assumption that he could only have rejected religion if it was presented improperly, which is false.

"God" is a loaded word, and if you don't believe me just try to compare your version of it to anyone else's.

Do you really want our kids to be in school fighting over which version of "God" is correct (when no two people EVER agree on it) when they have better things to do like...say....schoolwork.

Given that the op was beyond ******ed im pretty glad that the thread has gone on a tangent....

Our House and all others against any teaching of religion in school - Do you believe that a moral code should be taught in school? Do you believe school should be responsible for any human development beyond simple knowledge gain?

If so, does teaching christianity not have functional value by imposing this moral code for the good of society?

The "code" should be as simple as this:

Rule #1: Do not infringe on the rights of other students.
Rule #2: If you're not sure whether what you're doing is correct or not, see rule #1.

No. Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) does not have a monopoly on morality. It may claim to, but it doesn't. When people see morality as some sort of direct order from God, some crazy **** can happen.

Also, should we teach ALL of Christianity's morals, or only the ones that we've cherry-picked using logic and secular reasoning?

I think richness of experience should be provided and critical thinking abilities should be honed. But not a moral code, hell no.

I don't consider the Christian code to be good for society.

I found them to be alike. We didn't have one day in class where the teacher presented every religion and she followed it with "LOL THEY ARE ALL SO SIMILAR AND STUPID." I'm sorry I have a brain and can compare religions on my own. Now tell me why your religion is so unique?

Why do you continue to avoid answering the questions? Answer my questions, stop spouting bull****, and backup your claims.

I simply disagree with this, more needs to be taught to kids growing up to assist them in society.

It does not, no.

However it is a simple and easy to apply means to achieve an end.

Using the means to an end argument, clearly cherry picking the ones that are relevant to today's world is far superior.

Most people are far too ******ed to apply what you are suggesting, and to change that would require a complete overhaul of the education that goes far beyond teaching morals/religion.

Please see cherry picking argument.

I fail to see how love thy neighbour, treat people with respect etc can be anything but good.

Neither do I. But don't claim they're Christian morals just because Christianity mentions them.

If there is to be cherry-picking involved, then the morals you're talking about are hardly exclusive to Christianity. The same can be done for Islam or Judaism or Jainism -- ESPECIALLY Jainism (yet no one ever seems to talk about this one and only religion that is 0% violent). Do you really think that there were no people who loved their neighbor or treated others with respect before Jesus came along?

Choosing morals that are, as you put it, "relative to today's world" is exactly what's being done in schools right now. It's a secular movement based on human rights that was adopted in spite of religion, not because of it.

Wow, every religion is unique. I don't have time to argue with someone who is so far gone to the point of not being able to see that.

Of course it could hypothetically just as easily be pulled from other religions. In an ideal world any of these religions could be used, as once you start cherry picking the vast majority end up exactly the same.

However in the real world that has no relevance because such religions are not going to ever be accepted in most western countries. Christianity is ingrained in western culture and there are intolerant attitudes towards other religions. Suggesting implementing Islam etc in schools is not practically feasible and you know this.

I doubt this greatly. Such moral selection would require mass communication in forums that simply do not exist.

Furthermore the key problem with such an approach is the lack of standardisation which is generated by religion. Putting individuals or small groups in a position to generate moral codes is simply too much power for such a small group and creates way too much potentially destructive variance.


Note: I dont think what you are suggesting here is anything less than the optimal 'endgame' solution for the world. What Im arguing is that its not appropriate for today.

Can't they get moral training from learning what is/isn't allowed in their school and according to the law? Teaching them the entire religion in order to impart the morals (some of which would be hugely detrimental e.g. Christian stances on homosexuality) would not only be hugely inefficient, it would also ensure that we never reached the optimal solution you mention.

Since the method is going to be imperfect anyway, starting with an imperfect form of secular morality seems more beneficial in pretty much every way.

The Islam comment earlier was an obvious joke to prove the point that you can't segregate in schools. As a person who believes in fairness I'm equally intolerant of ALL religions.

Nobody is suggesting a mass morality system. As a matter of fact, that doesn't happen in schools now anyway. There is no group morality that comes down from the schoolboard or principal level. All moral issues (behavior between students) is set by teachers, and the best we can hope for is to hire teachers who have a good sense of fairness.

The school's job is education first and foremost. In the process, students' individual rights need to be protected...and that touches on morality at times. A "code" isn't necessary however. Teaching of morality doesn't belong to the school system. Teaching of religious morality only further distorts it.

What do YOU think should be done?

BTW, dude, this is results oriented thinking. We're dealing with the aftershock of religious morality and we're doing it on a secular level. Religion and morality are mutually exclusive, and the mere suggestion that we'd have to choose the "good" morals from religion shows a long process of human brainwashing that we, as a civilization, need to break out of.

You don't know the definition of alike? lmao

lol, is this comment for real?

there are tens of thousands of sects of every different religion out there.

Are you for real?

Im talking about cherry picking a selection of things from christianity.

I still fail to see why this would be any better than what they learn from following the rules in place at any public school and learning what is right and wrong from a legal perspective.