wrighty Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 RE should be taught in schools, but as a form of social science rather than (in the olden days, I hope) 'scripture'. If I were king it'd be taught from a strictly atheistic viewpoint, but if not then I suppose neutral will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 16 hours ago, Fuller K Rapp said: That's just one particular god from one specific religion. There are many others and indeed you can believe in God or gods without belonging to any religion or subscribing to any driveling religious text. You can also believe in a supreme being or higher intelligence and use the word "God" while not believing in the existence of the definition of a "God" as promoted by any religions. I personally do believe in a higher intelligence, but I don't believe in religion. I believe this higher intelligence is interconnected with us, existing within us, and not just an outside force, i.e. similar to Star Wars "the force". I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 14 hours ago, wrighty said: RE should be taught in schools, but as a form of social science rather than (in the olden days, I hope) 'scripture'. If I were king it'd be taught from a strictly atheistic viewpoint, but if not then I suppose neutral will do. What would a neutral angle be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 The only trouble with this is that it presents itself as an option from the mainstream, as an alternative to an equivalent God and religion. There's a built in assumption and a false premise slipped into the choice on offer. I suspect this book wouldn't get into schools on the IOM if it had a slightly different title and was 'stand alone' atheism purely on its own terms and merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 A neutral angle might be that at the end the lesson the (preferably Atheist) RE teacher says summat like, 'what we' ve just been discussing is quite possibly complete and utter bunkum and without reason. Decide for yourselves but remember, to have faith is not obligatory.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, quilp said: A neutral angle might be that at the end the lesson the (preferably Atheist) RE teacher says summat like, 'what we' ve just been discussing is quite possibly complete and utter bunkum and without reason. Decide for yourselves but remember, to have faith is not obligatory.' As a believer in a gnostic/pantheistic sort of spirituality, I could live with that. And they should include it in history classes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 19 hours ago, Fuller K Rapp said: I'm not about to waste my time reading a book written by these three half-wits. The question is meaningless, both from a philosophical and a theological standpoint. Do you really think Michael Rosen and Phillip Pullman are half-wits? I have no idea about Daniel Radcliffe's thinking abilities, but the other two are well respected authors who have written complex literary works. Also, do you not think the title might be deliberately ambiguous rather than meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuller K Rapp Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 9:30 AM, guzzi said: Do you really think Michael Rosen and Phillip Pullman are half-wits? I have no idea about Daniel Radcliffe's thinking abilities, but the other two are well respected authors who have written complex literary works. Also, do you not think the title might be deliberately ambiguous rather than meaningless? Well respected by who? Other half-wits? I think the title is meaningless because it poses a moot question. People already live without a god, whether one exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Fuller K Rapp said: Well respected by who? Other half-wits? I think the title is meaningless because it poses a moot question. People already live without a god, whether one exists or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rosen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pullman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 It's easy to live without a God. I've done it for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuller K Rapp Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Thank you but I'm well aware of who they are. I stand by my comment: they're all half-wits, especially the knob who played Harry Potter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 17 minutes ago, Fuller K Rapp said: Thank you but I'm well aware of who they are. I stand by my comment: they're all half-wits, especially the knob who played Harry Potter. You are very welcome. Now everybody can be well aware of what you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuller K Rapp Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, newsnight said: You are very welcome. Now everybody can be well aware of what you are. Someone who has no time for half-wits. Thank YOU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Fuller K Rapp said: Someone who has no time for half-wits. Thank YOU. https://giphy.com/gifs/g2cI29FBFNZ3G/fullscreen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 13 hours ago, Fuller K Rapp said: Well respected by who? Other half-wits? I think the title is meaningless because it poses a moot question. People already live without a god, whether one exists or not. But then, of course we only have your opinion that they are half wits. You might be half witted yourself and therefore unable to judge. As for the book title, you ought to think through the alternative meanings, because, as I implied, it is ambiguous. It's unlikely to be a reproach for living godlessly, as it is from the Humanists. Rather, the question is intended to provoke a discussion about moral codes for life that don't involve God. If people already live without God, then that's an excellent question to pose, isn't it? If you never confront it , then you aren't really examining yourself, your motivations and moral constraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.