David Allen is a comedian/atheist.

He was yes, and it has to be said,entertaining because of it.

I mean, should we feed the Christians to the lions in large sporting event

I can think of a few posters where that would make a popular event.

Now if you changed that to read "politicians and wannabe ones", it would be a vote well worth walking in the rain for.

---

Atheism
The belief that there is no god or gods.
(Which in my mind is a paradox, because by holding a belief you are making a "god" of what you believe is, so falling into the second definition above

Unfortunately you are contributing to the misidentification of Atheism with your own personal anecdote there. Most Atheists would identify themselves as Agnostic Atheist, because the former answers the epistemological question of the existence of a deity while acknowledging a limit to our intelligence, and the latter is a rational-based conclusion based upon the limited dataset available. Proclaiming one's self to be an Atheist simply means that, while admitting no one can know there's a God, certainly one sees no reason to believe there is. Any perceived paradox is merely a display of a lack of understanding of the meaning of the term and the question asked.

While anyone who professes pure Agnosticism isn't being truly honest with themselves. Agnosticism alone (without Atheism) is an intermediate state, and fails to answer a direct question, while professing confusion about whether one believes without evidence. Quite simply, if you ask "Is there a God", a reasonable and legitimate answer would be "I don't know". If you ask "Do you believe there's a God", there are only two possible answers. Either you believe there is or you believe there isn't. An Atheist professing a lack of belief, even in the face of not knowing, is merely stating a personal position, not to be confused with religion, which takes the opposite approach of positively believing due to lack of evidence. When an Agnostic answers "I don't know" to both questions, they are professing to be uncertain in their own beliefs. However, by stating that you don't know if you believe there's a god, you are already stating doubt, which means you're already one more step to Agnostic Atheism.

It seems to me, though, that many Agnostics do not wish to be associated with Atheism due to the negative connotations associated with the term over, quite literally, centuries. Rather than to suffer the social stimgas of Atheism, many would-be Atheists have instead misidentified themselves with a position that is less emphatic, and distance themselves with the term Atheist because of the misunderstanding of the Atheist's position in answering not only the epistemological question of a deity, but the direct knowledge of or lack thereof to answer the direct question.

If you were to slightly change the question though, and ask an Agnostic, "Is there a giant iron skillet orbiting in space", a fair answer would be "I don't know." We can attempt to answer the question by looking for evidence of an orbiting skillet, and eventually conclude "I do not believe there is an iron skillet orbiting in space". This doesn't mean that we know there isn't, it just means we have no reason to conclude there is. Concluding that there is not a giant iron skillet orbiting space does not create a faithful opposite of religion (or a paradox as you call it) because unlike faith, we have attempted to find reason and saw none, whereas the faithful would say "I haven't found it, but I know it's out there".

tl;dr Asking the right question, and understanding the question appropriately solves the Agnostic vs. Atheist question.

Speaking to no atheist in particular, maybe you can't see what you deny because what you're seeing is so obvious, you don't see it. It's like trying to view the eye using the eye you're using to view. And even though you're holding a mirror in front of the eye you're trying to view, your eye is in the way of what you're looking for.

If some people don't have this problem, they would be able to come up with some proof. They could point out to the person not able to see, what exactly they are missing. In the case of religion, it would all be baseless, made up, hand-wavy statements with no backup of anything physical.

I mean, should we feed the Christians to the lions in large sporting event arenas because their lives have been deemed less valuable because they refuse to *believe* that science will eventually have answers for everything, and it's fun to watch them being chased and eaten by lions?

I certainly don't think anyone on these forums is suggesting that someone should die because of their beliefs.

By denying faith based religious teachings in the classroom aren't we forcing atheism on our children?

No. Schools also don't teach astrology or taro card reading. I don't believe you could possibly argue that this means a school is forcing astrology and taro card reading on children by never mentioning it.

How is teaching atheism good for humanity? What are the expected long-term effects? Why isn't anybody approaching this question?

Here are some of the positive effects that being a non-believer has given me.

1) I respect all life equally. From humans, to animals, to bugs on my wall. We are all lucky to have been spawned in some fashion, and no life is less valuable than any others individually.

2) Personal responsibility. I don't pray in hopes something will happen. I personally make it happen. I don't pray that god will help me in some fashion, I help myself and make it happen. There is no mystery to my failures, and no mystery to my successes. It is all from the people around me, and myself, both of which I have control over to some degree. No destiny, no 'god has a plan for me', I am responsible for the things that happen in my life and the life of others around me.

3) Our time on this planet is limited. I spend more time with my family. I make more phone calls to the elderly. I appreciate the time I get to spend with people because we are lucky to have it. Once they are gone, they are gone. There is no making myself feel better with some bible story. I appreciate the time we have today because one day I know that it will be gone for forever.

4) I help people and animals because I want to, because it is the right thing to do. Not because of a threat of a bad afterlife if I don't.

Some long term affects could easily be that politicians wouldn't rule with an imaginary friend on their shoulder. Plans for the future could be established without assuming god will take care of it. Or better yet, plans for the future could be made without assuming the "End Of Days" will happen any time now.

People often give the argument that without god, society would plunge into madness with crime and killings. Well, that is already happening now, with much of the United States already being a believer in something. The only thing stopping someone from being a bad person is NOT their god. Usually, their god is a thing of convenience, to only adhere to when it makes sense to. It does not turn a bad person into a good one.

Did I bring up a point that brings a certain realization to light?

Anybody?

<all I hear are crickets chirping>

With all due respect, I'm not sure you can consider any information in your post to be some revolutionary unanswered question. I see nothing ground breaking here.

Most people get tired of debating people about it, and that could be why you aren't getting a ton of responses.

I've only responded because it seemed as if you were thinking your arguments were so good, no one could come up with why they weren't.

I would rather define atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods. And therefore in religious terms atheism cannot be taught.

One of the reasons why I don't think religion should be taught in schools. But I do agree there should be a subject that cover the various culture of the world, which would explain than some people are religious.

I would rather define atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods. And therefore in religious terms atheism cannot be taught.

That is an interesting point, Wiggo.

It was my thinking of how absurb religion is that made me become a non-believer. Atheism itself is not a guiding beacon of light people land at. I would think that it is the continual logical degradation of a religion's components that just have people end up there.

Thank you, mherr170, for an answer that seems to have had some thought put into it. I take some offense to the reason you responded, but I'll chalk that up to your incorrect assumption that I fit in with all others who've discussed these issues with you before.

Sorry about the offense taken, I'm not always as nice as I should be with what I say.

Your answer verifies for me what I've come to realize recently. From my perspective: part of seeing proof that God exists requires self examination. If you look within yourself, I can understand either seeing God or not seeing God. I thought the "eye looking at itself" analogy was a way of stating this without creating the usual automatic emotional responses that usually occur. I must admit, there have been times in my life when I did not see Him.

Your point here then, is that god is always within a person, and it is just a matter of whether or not that person can realize this fact? Just trying to clarify. If that is what you are saying, I just don't agree, and of course there is no proof of that other than just someone thinking it.

I don't follow your logic with the astrology/taro card reading analogy. What I'm saying is if you only teach kids the methods of science, then the obvious conclusion is that God does not exist--because He cannot be proven. I don't see much of a jump in logic there to say that by deleting faith based teachings you are by default teaching atheism.

I didn't understand what you were saying when I wrote that analogy, and I understand your point now. You say that having people believe in something they can't prove like it is a bad thing. Children shouldn't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, monsters under the bed. They aren't real. If a logical based approach to god concludes in obvious fashion that there is no evidence for it, why is this a bad thing? It may only be frightening for all of those who have believed it with no evidence for their entire lives.

However, schools do not teach a logical progression to disprove a god. They don't (or shouldn't) talk about god at all. They will teach a scientific way to understand plants, or chemicals, or a math equation. To my knowledge, no class will deconstruct christianity logically and conclude when the bell rings "And there kids is why your god is a lie". That doesn't happen.

And I believe you when you say that because of your scientific way of thinking, you respect all life equally, place more emphasis on personal responsibility, time on this planet, help people/animals NOT because of the threat of consequences in the after-life but because *it's the right thing to do.* I've heard similiar statements from other atheists. Most atheists are not evil.

"The right thing to do." Where does that come from? Do you ever ask yourself where that "feeling" of right/wrong comes from? Where does this feeling of "self evident" ideas come from? We could get into philosophy and logic but many others have gone down that road before with no real end to it.

I know what you are getting at here. I have heard this arguement a lot, the fact that morality must come from god. That feeling of "the right thing to do" comes from god. I don't agree, as I am sure you can imagine.

I'm no expert on these topics, but to me morality comes from your culture and perhaps from a bit of your own personal thought.

Morality is not universal in any sense of the word. Not between religions, not between countries, not between states, or maybe not even between neighbors. It is a very personal thing that can vary wildly between even members of the same church.

Just take a brief look at different cultures around the world. They all do things you would never dream of, things that would disgust you, and things you would never try in a million years. Maybe even take a look at your neighbors, and I bet you would find a lot of things about them that you wouldn't morally agree with.

If morality came from a higher power, why is there an infinite amount of versions of it?

At least here in the states, I assume you're aware that we do not have to worry about politicians ruling with an imaginary friend of their shoulder. As soon as any politician starts to do that, they don't last much longer. And if a politician ever rose to power and then started using the bible as his authority, the courts would be all over him because of the intent that was established 237 years ago.

This is only true on paper, and the most furthest thing from the truth in reality. I am surprised that are even suggesting that politicians don't use god to justify their actions. Both main US parties reference god every time they speak a verbal word or write up a document. Atheists legally are not allowed to hold office in a large handful of US states. If you really believe what you are saying here, I highly suggest looking a little deeper. It is absolutely everywhere.

Even if a person does not publicly reference god, if they have spent the last 30 years of their life adhering to a doctrine that is influenced by religion, they are going to make decisions based on this regardless of it they say so or not. It is at that point ingrained into their brain. The same could be said about any belief.

I won't disagree with you about some folks using God as their crutch in life to be used only when it's convenient for them. Most thinking people (believers and non-believers alike) see those people for who they really are sooner or later.

Whether or not God is real or something fabricated, He is something which represents higher ideals than humans can achieve. Is it a stretch to think that out of the billions of people on this planet, the thought of reward/punishment (based on the 2,000 years of Christian teachings) in the afterlife has a positive effect on some people/societies?

I am sure that religion can and does have a positive effect on some people. But if someone needs a religion to act a certain way, really needs it, it is a form of population control. What better than to have people that are otherwise uncontrollable be scared into a way of life? I would advise people in this category to really take a deep look at themselves. They need to be tricked to fit into a society, and they are unaware enough that it worked on them.

For the majority on this planet who have no opportunity to expand their thinking, to learn, the belief in God answers a lot of questions for them. For example, the feeling that something is right or wrong--where does that come from? Many people on this planet can answer that without hesitation and many people on this planet accept that answer without question. Take that answer away from them and what do they have left?

You are right. God is the laymen's explanation to things they don't have the ability to understand or find out for themselves. The mere fact that you seem to understand this concept makes me wonder why you are so adhered to its source in the first place.

Yes, you can't really teach atheism. But by teaching the methods of science and repeating "because we haven't had enough time to figure everything out," aren't you by default claiming that there is no higher authority than man?

So, is teaching atheism good?

If there is no higher authority than man, why teach otherwise? If you are talking about all of these things being the product of school, you don't need to worry.

There will always be parents/grandparents/churches/communities/neighbors/door knockers willing to tell kids ALL about their religion. School is just one place where it isn't discussed.

When I hear you ask, "is teaching atheism good?", what I really hear you ask is "is lying to the public good?". If it is, it is only for the wrong reasons. Population control, scaring people into a way of life (which would be great for a leader of a country), or keeping the people who really need to be told how to live in check, these maybe are all valid reasons to lie to the public.

However, if atheism was indeed taught like you are suggesting, I think that the world might be a more empathetic place. All of the reasons I've listed as to why non-belief makes me better are valid, and if others got the same benefit, I don't see why that would be bad.

Ah, but there is evidence of a God/Designer. You just deny that evidence when I use it and accept it when teaching about life on another planet. It's called statistics, chance happening, what ever you like.

There is more. It's in the Design itself.

And yet another way of thinking, is thinking itself. How can the unguided life, produce the guided mind and the odds of that happening?

There is much more but I'll stop right here...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The thing is I.D. that you don't provide evidence, you just provided links from sites who's work is heavily derided by the much greater majority.

I look at everything with an open mind, but when things don't make sense, alarm bells ring very loudly (you should try it sometime).

Cheers.

Did you see a link? Even if you had what reason do you have for attacking the source and not the content?

Apply your mind to what I posted...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

You're just preaching the same old thing still (you just don't change).

Cheers.

You're just preaching the same old thing still (you just don't change).

Cheers.

Riiiiiight. Ditto...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Ah, but there is evidence of a God/Designer.

There you go again, you don't actually support the ID theory do you. You are a supporter of creationism.

The ID people changed their viewpoint, to try and get ID taught as a science subject, and these days say the designer(s) can come from anywhere that introduce designed species to our planet, not necessarily god.

You always go back to the designer as being god, that is by the ID crew's viewpoint creationism. And that is a subject that is not allowed to be taught.

Ah, but there is evidence of a God/Designer.

There you go again, you don't actually support the ID theory do you. You are a supporter of creationism.

The ID people changed their viewpoint, to try and get ID taught as a science subject, and these days say the designer(s) can come from anywhere that introduce designed species to our planet, not necessarily god.

You always go back to the designer as being god, that is by the ID crew's viewpoint creationism. And that is a subject that is not allowed to be taught.

2 + 2 makes 4 Mr. Winston Smith

I see 4 lights, Gul Madred

What part of..."It's up to the person to make up their minds as to who or what the Designer is.", do you not get?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I get it absolutely. You are pushing on these boards that the designer is your god.

That by all the definitions is CREATIONISM.

So shouldn't you think about changing your name, to reflect the truth.

I get it absolutely. You are pushing on these boards that the designer is your god.

That by all the definitions is CREATIONISM.

So shouldn't you think about changing your name, to reflect the truth.

What is truth?

What would you know about this word called truth?

You have proven you know a lot about fallacy, so this begs the question, what do you know about truth?

You was given the truth yet still persist to misrepresent.

So please, do tell, what is this word called truth.

And don't call it relevant. That would be another fallacy and we all know that you know about them.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

---

Unfortunately you are contributing to the misidentification of Atheism with your own personal anecdote there. Most Atheists would identify themselves as Agnostic Atheist, because the former answers the epistemological question of the existence of a deity while acknowledging a limit to our intelligence, and the latter is a rational-based conclusion based upon the limited dataset available. Proclaiming one's self to be an Atheist simply means that, while admitting no one can know there's a God, certainly one sees no reason to believe there is. Any perceived paradox is merely a display of a lack of understanding of the meaning of the term and the question asked.

Unfortunately it then seems that many modern self professed atheists thinkers did not get that note. There are two kind of atheists (yes, the distinction has been made) between these 'agnostic atheists' who see no reason to believe in God and atheists who quite literally state that God does not exist (most famous being someone like Richard Dawkins).


To go to the original question on whether atheism should be 'taught' the answer is no. Doing that would be preaching 'answers' in a similar way your priest preaches theism as an answer. Ideally you want people to learn to think critically for themselves. They can then come up with their own answer on whether there is or isn't a God and if they should or shouldn't believe in him/her/it.

Failing to teach critical thinking, you should avoid the whole 'is there a God'-debate. Any answers you teach people have no meaning if they are taught like that. Mindlessly accepting either atheism or theism makes both answers void. Its like teaching answers in math, you can teach someone that 2+2=4 and technically its correct, but its pointless to teach someone that if you don't teach them the underlying mathematical principle that explains why 2+2=4.

In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

No, that does not suffice. Any theory--evolves. This was once the truth at that time. It is no longer what is thought.

There are many Faiths in this one nation called The United States of America. To teach of one Christian God when in fact all the theory teaches is that there is a Causal Agent would be indoctrinating a child.

Good schooling requires 'Good parenting'.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Unfortunately you are contributing to the misidentification of Atheism with your own personal anecdote there. Most Atheists would identify themselves as Agnostic Atheist, because the former answers the epistemological question of the existence of a deity while acknowledging a limit to our intelligence, and the latter is a rational-based conclusion based upon the limited dataset available. Proclaiming one's self to be an Atheist simply means that, while admitting no one can know there's a God, certainly one sees no reason to believe there is. Any perceived paradox is merely a display of a lack of understanding of the meaning of the term and the question asked.

Unfortunately it then seems that many modern self professed atheists thinkers did not get that note. There are two kind of atheists (yes, the distinction has been made) between these 'agnostic atheists' who see no reason to believe in God and atheists who quite literally state that God does not exist (most famous being someone like Richard Dawkins).

If one sees no reason to believe, it follows that it should be OK to state affirmatively that such a thing doesn't exist. In my example given, very few people would have a problem if an non-believer stated affirmatively that a giant iron skillet is indeed not orbiting the Earth, so it shouldn't be much different for them to state a lack of belief in a deity. Similarly, most people wouldn't bawk at someone stating affirmatively that Sasquatch doesn't exist due to lack of evidence. Or Unicorns. Or the Loch ness Monster. We don't look upon those denying the existence of the aforementioned items/beings as "religious" or faithful in their non-belief. Stating the same for a deity shouldn't be viewed any differently. Yet some people choose to incorrectly label it as such.