Atheism does not belong in public schools

The misconception may be that one is confusing philosophy with the popular institution of Atheism rather than what it is. I can't say I haven't made the same mistake.

To make it simpler, there are 'beliefs' associated with the word Atheism, but those beliefs are actually contrary to the Atheist philosophy (which is all it is, not a belief, but a philosophy of belief's absence).

Many muslims and jews and christians have killed in the name of God, citing their 'beliefs', but are they really a 'member' of the religion? No, they're cultists, and the 'religion' they follow is a poor knock-off of whatever the real thing is.

Now, if one states that they are absent of belief, and cites sources for why their logic is sound, they are not making religious statements. However, if they state that no God exists, they are making a religious statement.

It seems your battle is against the institution of Atheism, which, ironically, contains no actual Atheists. As for your argument against the Atheists themselves, you might want to reconsider who you aim your argument at, because attacking a sound philosophy isn't going to give you any more points in the wisdom department than you'd get for attacking the religion of Islam for terrorism.

 

What a load of bull! We're not talking about a moment of silence for "a teacher[sic] passing away" or "a student passing away", that's just a red herring. We're talking about a daily moment of silence to give those students who believe in such nonsense time to pray. If it is enforced by the state, it effectively forces other students to respect superstitious nonsense. I certainly don't! I resent that the state would, either out of respect or fear of religious backlash, force all students to pause out of respect for superstition. Conduct your rituals before you go to school and leave the rest entirely out of it.

 

Atheists have argued that simply allowing the Bible at all in public schools = promoting religion. A few years back a school in Texas began having students study the Bible in literature classes, the Bible was just being studied because of its historical and literary significance, not being promoted as "The Truth", but according to several atheists, this is the same as "promoting religion".

So if that's the case, then a teacher cannot be allowed to have students read from a book by Voltaire, because reading any work of literature that is written from an atheist POV = "promoting atheism", just because it was written by an atheist.

 

Only the really stupid ones. They're simply wrong so it's equally wrong to argue the reverse.

 

You don't think the moment of silence effectively leaves you out? What are you being asked to do?

 

Fair enough.

 

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color, off is a TV channel, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not playing football is a sport.

 

Why the hell would you study the Bible in a literature class? Voltaire contributed to Western literature - the Bible didnt in the slightest.

 

Be quiet out of respect for superstitious nonsense! I don't think so! The state should not be in the business of enforcing respect for religion.

 

It would have some value if the Talmud and the Koran were taught together with the Orphic Hymns .

 

I disagree with the Supreme Court here. I know many atheist and none of them belong to an atheist organization nor do they practice any so called atheist religion. They just do not believe in God. If that is all it takes to make atheism a religion then the Supreme Court is wrong.

Does belief in Jesus Christ make a person a Christian? Is Little Wayne a Christian when up on stage drinking his purple drink (narcotic laced) wearing a crucifix while telling the crowd; I thank God for my success?

Good luck with the whole keeping atheism out of school thing though.

 

I love this post.

Let's look at the facts. Does Atheism include:

Rituals - No
Prayer/meditation - No
Moral imperative - No
Explanation of creation and meaning of life - Definitely Not
Religious Law - No

Seems its the polar opposite of what religion promotes.

 

Don't assume Spacecricket knows what he's talking about. First of all what he's referring to was not the Supreme Court but the Wisconsin 7th circuit and it did NOT say atheism was a religion but that for the purpose of the rights of of inmates, atheism should be treated as a religion. This has been pointed out before but Christians prefer to twist (lie) the truth to what they want it to be. Not suprising huh? That's basically what religion is all about.

 

Kind of weird that they want to call something that they despise so much (atheism) a religion...as if that is a derogatory term for it or something. What is the purpose of referring to atheism as a religion on their part anyhow? I don't understand it.

 

I think they think it will embarass atheists somehow. I really don't care but if atheism is called a religion it is a very different kind of religion. Common things to "other" religions are belief in some kind of deity, rituals, regular meetings, prayer... atheism would certainly be a peculiar religion. Spacecricket says it(atheism) functions "identically" to religion. That's just silly!

 

When atheists are publically demanding Chaplains for their unique spiritual needs ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ist-chaplains/2011/11/21/gIQAvV6hiN_blog.html

Well, this is exactly the point. What is atheism? The opposite of anything everyone else claims.

Its not a religion. OK, we accept that. Now you throw your unique, but unspecified, spiritual needs in our faces, and demand we protect your protected religious speech in prisons because we are uncooth barbarians who simply cannot accept your differing faith (even though we accept and protect most other religions). We simply accepted you claim that atheism is not a religion.

So, after getting THAT shoved in our faces, we accept that YOU ARE A RELIGION. Then we get the fact that you believe in no God, that you don;t meet (even though you do), or organize (even though you do), and that you have no doctrine (which is odd because you write so much) and we are just uncooth barbarians attempting to force you into a charcterized cubby hole.

The only constant? The need for atheists to think that everyone is an uncooth barbarian. Go figure, eh?

 

Do you even understand how the Chaplaincy works in the military? They're a counselor, someone for you to talk to without having to worry if command is going to hold it against you. Atheists want someone like that who they don't have to worry about pushing religion onto them but their only alternative is a what we called 68Z in the Army (not sure about the other service's MOS codes for it) and going to see the shrink is a black mark on your record whereas talking to a chaplain is not. Half the time a chaplain is not even doing anything religious whatsoever, they're planning morale boosting events.

 

Let me get this straight: There is a separation of church and state in the constitution, but science shouldn't be allowed? Since when is science equal to atheism? Schools should provide students with the latest scientific facts in the hope that the students being excited and willing to develop new theories and prove them with scientific methods. Science isn't equal atheism! According to a recent study, 100 advanced degrees create about 400 additional jobs. To fix any "job"-related problem the government should focus on getting at least 20% of their population advanced degrees in fields which actually create jobs. After all a doctor or physicist ins't an Atheist but also a real job creator. Teaching that dinosaurs existed doen't mean you're creating atheists, but you're creating potential "job-creators".

 

I can't imagine why anyone would want to reference any of those people in a graduation speech. But students are allowed to talk about their religious beliefs in school. It's free speech. Teachers, however, can't proselytize or lead a prayer. They can discuss religion and ideas in a neutral manner or teach from religious texts for learning purposes.

 

For anyone who wants to say that atheism espouses a view of creation based on the Miller-Urey Hypothesis, this is simply not the case. There is a movement of atheists who believe that humankind was created by aliens. They are called the Raelians. Their site describes their beliefs as "intelligent design for atheists."

 

Dawkins is an acclaimed evolutionary biologist and a former professor of Oxford College, Hitchens was an acclaimed journalist. And I don't know why for the life of me anyone would want to avoid mentioning Voltaire in their graduation speech, the man penned over 2000 books, wrote poetry, plays, historical and scientific essays, his own views on religious tolerance and separation from the state were an influence upon the Western World that has defined Western civilizations' outlook on religion in government for the past two-hundred years.

That is hilariously dumb.

 

We're talking about high school students here. Overwhelmingly they're less interested in Dawkins and Voltaire and more interested in getting laid and getting out of the house.

That's not to say all of them are like that. But it's rational for them to be interested in trivial pursuits. That's a part of growing up.

 

It's also rational for them to be interested in history, science and philosophy, so I don't think Voltaire, for example, is off the table as you suggested earlier.

Anyway, the topic is not whether students would want to mention such authors or not, but whether they should be allowed to or not.
I don't see any reason why not.

 

Im guessing that they simply cant comprehend the idea of someone not "believing in something". I've heard people say "In their hearts, atheists believe in god"
or, 'Atheists are rebelling against god".

 

Yep. It's ID for stupid atheists.