User talk:Proxima Centauri
(→Teaching atheism) |
(→Teaching atheism) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::::"...life is not absurd..." These people need to read their [http://www.iep.utm.edu/camus/#SSH5c.i Camus.] [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 15:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::::::What about atheist-related concepts like [[Objectivism]]? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | :::::::What about atheist-related concepts like [[Objectivism]]? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Objectivism! AAAAhhhh! There are far fewer objectivists than secular humanists around. Objectivists and Randroids generally infest primarily the USA. I hope there won't be time for that selfish, anarchic system in the National School Curriculum. Objectivism is a suitable optional subject at college and university level. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | ::::::::Objectivism! AAAAhhhh! There are far fewer objectivists than secular humanists around. Objectivists and Randroids generally infest primarily the USA. I hope there won't be time for that selfish, anarchic system in the National School Curriculum. Objectivism is a suitable optional subject at college and university level. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:32, 4 June 2012
Barnstar
| |
Barnstar | |
| For your tireless contributions to RationalWiki, I award you this barnstar. |
Thanks. Proxima Centauri 14:17, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Step 2
Step 1: Discover Secret Christians, such as Godot Step 2: Take that christian to the chicken coop and get her kicked out!
- Come on Prox, save us from the secret christian underminers. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- RatWiki is crawling with groups of secret enemies out to undermine us! Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Well Godot you don't want to teach children more about atheism than that some people don't believe religion/Christianity and most kids know that by the age of ten. Despite that you were extremely concerned when I wrote stuff that pointed out the bad side of Christianity more than you liked. You feared young readers would get the wrong impression. I would like to know why you are inconsistent.
- If an atheist writes material that emphasises the bad side of Christianity that must be corrected so youngsters don’t get the wrong idea.
- We all know kids often get a bad impression about atheism from parents, priests, pastors, Sunday school teachers, various religious people at churches, mosques, other places of worship. Still there is no need for weekday schools to put this false impression right. Schoolchildren need to learn no more than that atheism exists. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Truly, "wow". Did you remember to take the blue pill, when offered the two?
GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment edited by Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's equivalent to Test yourself and doesn't adress the arguments. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You made no arguments. You barely assembled something resembling English sentences. And why did you edit WfG's comment? You know that's not kosher, right? ħuman
02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I made it clear that I edited the comment, when it was reversed I left it at that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- You made no arguments. You barely assembled something resembling English sentences. And why did you edit WfG's comment? You know that's not kosher, right? ħuman
- That's equivalent to Test yourself and doesn't adress the arguments. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Teaching atheism
Totally serious question. What do you think you can "teach" about atheism? There are no shared ideals. Athesists come in the form of murderes and "best people in the world", and everywhere in between. Atheists are racist and humanist. Atheists are cat lovers, dog lovers and money lovers. Atheists think abortion is good, and abortion is evil. Athiests think we should be capitalists, communists, and money hungry greedy bastards. The bible teaches specific things. "don't sleep with men" "beat up your women" "turn on loaf of bread into many", etc. Christianity has a shared, specific, and generally agreed upon history. "came from judeasim. Jesus born in our around the "0"s. Paul bastardized the religion. Augistine fucked it up beyond belife. The greeks left. The protestants left. etc. "Atheism" has none of that. You can, I suppose, teach various "arguments for / against God (god)", but that's philosophy and pretty deep for average highschool students. So what are you proposing we teach?— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
- I shall have to find that BBC documentary as part of the curriculum on it. It discussed the problem of evil, design, and a few other arguments. Although that is higher level than the primary school kids you're probably thinking about when saying this.
bomination 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- They are teaching stuff like how to be moral as an atheist and that is more important than just saying that some people don't believe it.
- They are teaching what terms like atheist and agnostic mean and that is more valuable than saying that some people don't believe it.
- They are teaching school students how to evaluate arguments and that is more valuable than saying that some people don't believe it.
RE studies 'should cover atheism'. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1) being moral as an atheist isn't really atheism. especially since not all atheists are moral, and what the fuck does moral even mean? 2) they already were teaching terms like atheist and agnostic. 3) knowing how to evaulate arguments (something you really need to learn, by the way) has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism. It's about logic, science, and rational thinking. Having taught religious studies at University for nearly 10 years, I just don't see what you can get out of this, in any "history of religion" class, since atheism is a philosophy, a view about other people, and not something tangible.
GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1) being moral as an atheist isn't really atheism. especially since not all atheists are moral, and what the fuck does moral even mean? 2) they already were teaching terms like atheist and agnostic. 3) knowing how to evaulate arguments (something you really need to learn, by the way) has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism. It's about logic, science, and rational thinking. Having taught religious studies at University for nearly 10 years, I just don't see what you can get out of this, in any "history of religion" class, since atheism is a philosophy, a view about other people, and not something tangible.
- It looks like I need to refer Godot to RE studies 'should cover atheism' again. I'm sure the UK government consulted experts who know far more than Godot does as an academic teaching university students. Further I've read the Argument from authority article and we should accept the authority of impartial experts. Godot has some nebulous agenda. Part of that agenda is insulting leading atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, calling them jerks. that's hardly impartial language. Just because Godot said something doesn't mean we have to accept it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Godot is right, "being moral as an atheist isn't really atheism." In the UK it's taught separately, see 'Right and wrong' lessons to end. When I researched this I was concerned to see they were considering ending that subject. At the age of 15 I finally decided I didn’t believe in God anymore, I also had to struggle over a secular moral system on my own and was far too young. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Try the history of atheism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Soviets used to have classes about "scientific atheism."
ListenerXTalkerX 04:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to this discussion and the same one elsewhere I don't think everybody is talking about the same things. "Teaching atheism" can be construed to mean "Teaching people to be athiests" or "Teaching people about atheism".
- I guess that you could theoretically do both these things though I would imagine you would have a lot more to say about the second than the first. I mean, how much would you say if your task was "Teaching people fairies don't exist?" Where schools are "teaching atheism" it seems to me that it is inevitably in the second sense.
- There is a second problem which is the confusion of the word "atheist" with the concepts rationalist, skeptic, secular humanist and such like. Many of the people on this site are athiests because they accept rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism. They are athiests because they hold to these ideas - not the other way around. But it is then easy to assume that all atheists share these ideas and confuse the teaching of rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism with the idea of teaching "Atheism".--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree teaching atheism is teaching about atheism. I think children should be taught objectively about atheism, and about other atheist related concepts like rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism. Lies by Christians and probably by other believers such as that atheists haven't got a good moral code need to be countered. The different moral traditions that are common among atheists, agnostics, secular humanists etc can be taught at a simple or complex level depending on the age and intelligence of the pupils. I’ve unearthed a video that would appeal to younger high school students as well as adults and teaches religion isn’t needed for morality:-
- Certainly for school use the video would need to be politer and less polemic but the concept can clearly be taught.
- Help and general support for atheist students attending religious studies courses in secondary schools in the United Kingdom This site has been round since 1999 and works.
- The Soviets used to have classes about "scientific atheism."
- Try the history of atheism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- "...life is not absurd..." These people need to read their Camus. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about atheist-related concepts like Objectivism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Objectivism! AAAAhhhh! There are far fewer objectivists than secular humanists around. Objectivists and Randroids generally infest primarily the USA. I hope there won't be time for that selfish, anarchic system in the National School Curriculum. Objectivism is a suitable optional subject at college and university level. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think all the non-completely-obscure 'atheist philosophies' should be included. Nihilist 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If objectivism and other obscure philosophies are included they should get relatively little time as there isn't time at school to teach everything. The case against objectivism, Marxism and other controversial philosophies should be given weight. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- "The case against"
- That sounds a bit one-sided. Nihilist 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Throwing Marxism and Objectivism in the same bin is sheer silliness. I'm not a terribly big fan of Marxism, especially in its vulgar formulations, but at least you don't have to deny much of 20th century physics, psychology, and environmental science to be a Marxist. (Denying bourgeois pseudosciences like genetics is always an option, though.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention Darwinian evolution and most of economics.
ListenerXTalkerX 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Economics really isn't a hard science. There is a shed load of difference between throwing quantum mechanics in the bin and throwing Ludwig von Mises in the bin. Plus, explain how Marxism is incompatible with Darwin. --
19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- ListenerX probably means Lysenkoism and the opposition to evolutionary theory in the USSR and its satellites.
- Anyway, the whole thing reminds me for the umpteenth time to go to the library and look for "scientific atheism" textbooks, if they haven't pulped them yet.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reds are big on the tabula rasa theory and have difficulty admitting to hereditary causes for anything. With the Soviets this manifested itself in Lysenkoism.
- There is a shed load of difference between... There is also a "shed load of difference" between chucking out the work of Ludwig von Mises and chucking out the consensus that supports capitalism.
ListenerXTalkerX 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Economics really isn't a hard science. There is a shed load of difference between throwing quantum mechanics in the bin and throwing Ludwig von Mises in the bin. Plus, explain how Marxism is incompatible with Darwin. --
- Not to mention Darwinian evolution and most of economics.
- Throwing Marxism and Objectivism in the same bin is sheer silliness. I'm not a terribly big fan of Marxism, especially in its vulgar formulations, but at least you don't have to deny much of 20th century physics, psychology, and environmental science to be a Marxist. (Denying bourgeois pseudosciences like genetics is always an option, though.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If objectivism and other obscure philosophies are included they should get relatively little time as there isn't time at school to teach everything. The case against objectivism, Marxism and other controversial philosophies should be given weight. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think all the non-completely-obscure 'atheist philosophies' should be included. Nihilist 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Objectivism! AAAAhhhh! There are far fewer objectivists than secular humanists around. Objectivists and Randroids generally infest primarily the USA. I hope there won't be time for that selfish, anarchic system in the National School Curriculum. Objectivism is a suitable optional subject at college and university level. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Other than the fact that Marx himself wrote positively on the Origin of Species. Furthermore, this is pretty much an association fallacy. Because Lysenkoist wingnuttery was dreamed up a Marxist doesn't mean that Marxism relies on said wingnuttery, no more than Capitalism relies on intelligent design or global warming denialism. Finally, Marxism was already a well developed philopshy long before Lysenko's deranged scribbling. --
22:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you examine why Marx approved of The Origin of Species, you will find that he did so not on account of its differences with the Lamarckian variant of evolution theory, but on account of a commonality between the two: that they both demolished the teleological argument.
- Because Lysenkoist wingnuttery was dreamed up a Marxist doesn't mean that Marxism relies on said wingnuttery... What I actually said was that said wingnuttery was drawn from certain aspects of Marxism.
ListenerXTalkerX 23:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)