It should be a crime to teach children anything other than reason. A child has a few years in which their thinking pattern is laid down for life and to corrupt that process is sentencing that child to a life of ignorance. We wonder why places like China and other eastern civilizations have begun an explosion of knowledge. Has anyone made the connection between not teaching kids crap and those kids studying math and science. I use the word crap but would rather substitute Jesus or any other story from the big book of fiction. For anyone who has the courage to stop for a minute and think freely it is a no brainer. Really, and to assert that morals can only come from “god” has got to be the stupidest thing a religious person can say. Not only is it stupid it is offensive. It doesn’t take long for two people trying to move the same rock to realize that instead of one pulling one way and another pulling another way that they should both pull together. Thus forming a society, people working together for no other reason than it being a good idea.

Views: 226

Comment by Dirk Diggler on October 13, 2011 at 11:45pm
Very well said.
Comment by Trish E. Harmon on October 14, 2011 at 1:14am

Unfortunately, parents and other adults have the freedom in America to teach as much hate to their kids as they like, and can teach them that god is real regardless of the evidence against it. People are telling their kids that homosexuals are subhuman and sinners, white supremacists teach that the white race is being wiped out because of those "ignorant" blacks, Hispanics, etc. who are beneath them and so they must do what they can to keep them in their place. To me, it's child abuse, though the courts will never see it that way. Then we have new generations of haters who are dangerous to us all because their parents had the freedom to brainwash them with the vilest of hate propaganda. I really wish we could do something to stop it, but instead we're expected to allow it to happen because we don't want to step on other people's freedom of speech rights. Disgusting.

Comment by Jason Silva on October 14, 2011 at 10:01am

Well said but in America where "God" is said now then anything else I dont think it would happen that and it would be shot down in senate faster  then a I can say bang.

Comment by John Kelly on October 15, 2011 at 6:13am

You oversimplify it.  How can you only see it as people's freedom of speech rights?  Cannot you see the inner workings of it all?

I don't think you understand what it will take humanity to become what you desire for them to be as well.  We would need more than to replace religion.  We would need a master philosophy that surpasses what we have now.
China has been atheist for years.  They are behind in technology, and have had to resort to stealing information.  Sure they are catching up, but they are plagued with problems, and are not leaders.  Plus they have access to more resources than the USA.  China used to be supreme in the world before the Industrial Revolution.  America was religious, theist and produced an astounding number of scientific discoveries.  There is no evidence supporting the posession of religious belief having an effect on the capacity to think critically.  There is plenty of counter-evidence  Even among the atheists we have, not all of them have the same capacity for critical thought as others.  Collins is religious, a good friend of Hitchens and headed the human genome project for an individual example.

As for morals, it is not hard to understand at all.  You have to think about Plato's world of forms.  As far back as the time of Plato, and even earlier than that humanity has considered morality an archetype to which must be adhered.  This archetype has been understood as intrinsically best, and astoundingly desirable, and even as the Greeks put it, beautiful.  That morality is an archetype to which one must adhere is understood by almost everyone.  It is neither odd or suprising that if you cast down the spiritual, then you also knock the archetype down from the heavens and crumble the very foundations on which the notion of morality has been understood for thousands of years.  What you propose as morality is actually a primitive parent which is sacrifice for the sake of greater benefit.  That is more of an investment rather than looking anything like it's child morality.  To a religious, the atheist version of morality appears to be as CS Lewis put when he criticized us in The Silver Chair, "hollow".  I believe that there is more to morality than personal benefit and I am working on a way to very clearly explain why it is so.  Even if we originally started working together for personal benefit, and even if we are now biologically predisposed to social cooperation due to the antisocial not reproducing, we got lucky and stumbled onto something valuable.  That is the the child of morality. 

But anyway, back to this law, first what are you trying to accomplish?  From what you have shared, it seems that you are trying to impose something radical on the majority to curtail undesirable ideology found within the fringe groups of society.  You see the hate in the world, and you see the suffering it causes.  The problem is that suffering is the product of perception, as Albert Ellis cites the Stoics as saying.  It is not any act that causes suffering, but how that act is interpreted or experienced.  Such a law would create oppression and increase suffering immensely.  Furthermore, it would incite rebellion and revolt.  It would alienate a large portion of society, even if the religious were a minority.  At the moment, they are a majority, and the reverse application, if they accepted the kind of ideology proposed here, would be to ban atheists from teaching anything that caused Atheists' children to question the existence of a supreme being.  Discover why it is wrong for the religious to impose such a law, and you may discover why it is wrong for atheists to impose its counterpart.  It has to do with being a flawed antisocial ideology in the first place.  Also, not all religious people believe in an authoritative text, or in accepting divine commands without question.  There are large denominations such as the Episcopalian, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ, t

Comment by John Kelly on October 15, 2011 at 6:19am


the United Methodists, who are accepting of everyone GLBTQ, of other religions, or atheists.  They just try to make the world a better place the way they know how.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service