Secularism

Yeah so we should all just be a bunch of slaves in the slave-submission religion of Christism, where everyone gets cuckolded equally, and the homosexual BDSM is revered on high. (nothing against homosexuals)

>cant have a nice thread about the nature of morality without creationfags shitting it up
>this is going to turn into a shitfest about stats, studies and bible passage spam no matter what we do now

I can't seem to find an argument, merely an ad hom of some sort.

No worries, I am not so mad as to do what the last Brother did. I will gladly let this play out.

Religion doesn't belong in education because religion has no knowledge to offer. And last I checked, schools don't teach ethics. There may be courses where ethics are discussed, but that's not the same as being taught what is/is not good.

I know that you think your god is different than the teapot, but it really isn't. The only difference here is that you haven't been raised in a culture that believes in the teapot.

My argument is in the post you responded to, and you merely went on to prove exactly why that kind of thing doesn't belong in the classroom.
>est we open the door for doubt and indoctrination
Which is exactly what we do when religion is TAUGHT, (i.e. one being the "true religion" and others being "false") rather than merely discussed in the context of history, which SHOULD be done and is IMPORTANT in order to better understand the world in general.

>this pic
>implying human 'common sense' is more reliable that scientific data and peer-reviewed research

>science can teach us ethics XDDDD

So this is christian fedora autism? Nice.

At least be civil, Brother.

Most of my philosophy professors are pretty die-hard about virtue ethics actually.

Because they don't realize the wave of cultural inertia they're riding only lasts for so long. Look how shit people are these days, the implosion has already begun.

>this pic
>implying people need to be afraid of punishment in order to care for their fellow man
That's some view of humanity you have (not to mention view of yourself)

So were the Jews just, like, indiscriminately raping and murdering each other in the desert, disrespecting their parents, worshiping idols, committing adultery, coveting their neighbor, their neighbor's wives, and their neighbor's wife's ass, all over the fucking desert, right up to the last second before Moses received the commandments?

I can't imagine how any of them even made it that far! Especially Moses!

Pretty much. The bronze age was a scary place.

What did they mean by this?

There really isn't this push towards moral relativism. In my critical thinking course, relativism was considered to be most commonly a sign of lazy thinking.

God was taken out of the picture because the Bible isn't useful for teaching anything but what's in the Bible.

Yes, there's plenty in history showing they did all that stuff then immediately and magically stopped when they received the word of 'god' nothing to do with anything else at all. Ya got me.

>God was taken out of the picture because the Bible isn't useful for teaching anything but what's in the Bible.

What's in the Bible is pretty damn useful though.

Fedoras literally cannot refute this

...

...

...

...

...

Checkmate atheists

I can say I've literally, in all my time in school, never once seen that happen. But who's to say my singular experience is any more or less valid than yours?

Why is this wrong? Ethics is slavery, the only thing that matters is morality semi-nebulous enough that society can still function. If I want something and I know for certain I will suffer no repercussions, I will seize it. Christian morality is the morality beaten into slaves so they will submit to a master and not rebel. It's why "Christian" conquerors behave so unlike their religion states to achieve greatness.

Here, and have an ass sandwich on me.

I've had a lot of teachers who are essentially just proselytizing for Marx.

Christcuck, do you know what the supramarginal gyrus is?

You could look at ethics as a system that maximizes beneficial behavior, balanced by flexible and specific limits on personal freedom. That probably doesn't allow for your idea of maximum freedom, but it's better than slavery, no?

What ethics system, Deontology? I'm a teleologist.I certainly do not wish society to collapse, but as an egotist I will never sacrifice myself or fail to seize something that will seize my life no matter at the cost of others.

>Why does mainstream academia wish to remove God from the classroom
The same reason scientists avoid appealing to God in their theories: it has proved both useless and impossible to justify.

...

Great when will you Semites allow proper European religion into the class room?
>oh wait you new worshipers only want (((your))) brand of Abrahamic religion in the classrooms

Odin and Thor not Christ and Semites

That's just substituting one form of BS for another.

They want to stop teaching children about God because that's what communists and fascists want. Two sides of the same coin!

Sure but it's my response to conservacucks when they bitch about religion and government. Its only their shit, see when they threw a fit about some Muslims organize a holiday play for their faith

>implying humans are so close to our primate ancestors that we can't see natural selection in action and say "that's *not* how we want our society to operate"

>What's in the Bible is pretty damn useful though.

Not particularly. It's had some use in understanding the history of the Bronze Age near east, but everything in it has to be taken with a grain of salt since a bunch of it is impossible.

Because different religions have different ideas of what "God" is. How can we teach of a God when there is inconsistency of what God would entail, provided a God even exists?

Tbqh I think that schools should teach the Bible from a historical/anthropological point of view

the freemasonry did it

>And last I checked, schools don't teach ethics. There may be courses where ethics are discussed, but that's not the same as being taught what is/is not good.
That's false though, if you don't believe me try going to a high school and arguing that colonialism is good and that rich people have a right to exploit poor people

>what are social standards
>what are laws

I went to a high school in the GTA and there were a significant amount of people who would agree with a played down version of this

Conceptually, the idea is scary, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's not the way it already is. For the most part, religion's teachings are at their core humanist/socially responsible behaviors (with the exceptions of some more specific/cultural examples), which are also generally what a secular morality system instills. In any case the idea of subjective morality is silly to act as though religious systems aren't the same way- as the most braindead example I can think of, the Crusades had thousands breaking the first commandment to avoid a greater "evil". Subjectively it was decided which was the greater sin, and collectively it was decided to prioritize reprisal against blasphemy.

Tons of reasons, most of them not inherently bad. Many people fear the potential for their child to be exposed to more pointed rhetoric/proselytization, some are just biased against religion in general, others think religious bias would negatively affect the education (take evolution/creationism for example), etc. As the chunk of religious Americans drops, expect to see more solidarity between disparate groups that hold suspicious or unfavorable views toward religion.

You misunderstand user. It's not that dogma is disappearing. It's that it is being replaced.

The morals that are being taught are still very christian, just with the fat cut out.

I've never had this experience, but no matter how hard you want it to be true economic/social ideology isn't the same as religion and shouldn't be treated as such, even if both are ideological in nature.

This, liberalism is our modern religion

Oh boy, here we go again

The worst part of this eugenic ideology is that it assumes the people in control of the program are capable of being dispassionate, unbiased and with enough foresight to be able to design better people with nature's tools- an extremely shaky proposition.

This thread is a prime example of why proselytizing should be banned on this board.

>Because different religions have different ideas of what "God" is. How can we teach of a God when there is inconsistency of what God would entail, provided a God even exists?
That sounds more like an argument for cultural homogeneity than for secularism. Different religious also have different ideas of what morality is, that doesn't stop us from insisting they live by our morals. At least we used to anyway, I can't help buy notice that those exact same secularists are making a strong push for moral relativism now too.

>The morals that are being taught are still very christian, just with the fat cut out.
You mean the bone, I still see plenty of fat in the cut that's being handed to us. Arguably more fat than was once the norm....

>How can we teach of a "law" when there is inconsistency of what law would entail?

The difference is most western nations are considered secular. But not anarchsit

I'm just further pointing out what a dumb statement that was that you quoted (assuming I know who I'm talking to). Arguing that a concept cannot exist because people disagree about real-world examples of that concept is plainly ridiculous.

>he hasn't heard of the frankfurt school

>THIS IS WHAT ATHEISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

Schools are a service provided by the state/greater society to allow for economic functionality and a common baseline of reality.

Faith is a functionally local social phenomenon, meant to instill a personal dogma with which to understand that reality.

It's like asking why there aren't commercial trucks that are also sports cars. They fulfill different purposes.

>Christcucks can only score points by strawmanning
>Meanwhile atheists can destroy Christcucks by quoting the Christcucks own retarded book at them

Really makes you think (about how retarded and stupid Christcucks must be).

>Christians raise valid points about the many inconsistencies in their opponents beliefs
>opponents quote mine and strut around as though they won
Really does.

>opponents quote mine
>quoting mines scripture

Failure in logic: false equivocation.
Faith is the core system from which our society arose. To remove that specific faith is to remove the foundation from a skyscraper.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pn_oipsF8d0

To want to impose an imaginary state of government on others by violence is not only a vulgar superstition, but even a criminal work. Understand that this work, far from assuring the well-being of humanity is only a lie, a more or less unconscious hypocrisy, camouflaging the lowest passions we posses. ~ Leo Tolstoy

They state "here are instances of polygamy in the Bible" as though it's condoned, rather than frowned upon as you learn from further reading. Polygamy ended in sorrow.

>Faith is the core system from which our society arose
No, that would be reproductive viability.

Materialist drivel.

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

If Rachel being at odds with her sister is a condemnation on polygamy then Cain and Abel was a condemnation on having multiple children

Faith is a function of society. It is not a founding tenet.

That does not make it unimportant.

More like not heeding divine orders.

point me to this divine order.
>inb4 Deuteronomy
that only condemns polygamy for kings

Do you think people just decided to work together? No, they united under a common belief: a God. A belief in nothing will yield apathy and division.

I was talking about Cain and Abel.

>that only condemns polygamy for kings
Is a man not king of his household and family?

>Noah was the tenth of the pre-flood (antediluvian) Patriarchs. His father was Lamech and his mother is unknown.[2] When Noah was five hundred years old, he begat Shem, Ham and Japheth (Genesis 5:32).

>After the flood, Noah offered burnt offerings to the LORD, who said: "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." (8:20–21)

>Noah plants the vineyard and utters the curse, not God, so "God is less involved".[19]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19:8)

This.

Time for some redpilling.

>By ‘modern ideas’, Nietzsche means what we might call ‘secular humanism’. ‘Modern ideas’ include the values of democracy and equality, a work ethic, a morality that opposes suffering, and beliefs in science and positivism (the view that philosophy should limit itself to what is ‘given’ in experience and the study of scientific methodology). Nietzsche criticises these values and argues that they originate in religion, even though most people of ‘modern ideas’ claim to be ‘atheists’.Democracy is founded on the value of equality – that all people are equal and so should have an equal say in how society is run. Yet the idea of equality should be more contentious than it has become. Samuel Johnson said ‘So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other’ (Boswell, Life of Johnson, Vol. 1, p. 318). If inequality is so easily established, what does our belief in equality rest upon?

>Equality and democracy are instincts of ‘the herd’ (§202), values that favour the unexceptional and mediocre. They do not recognise and respect the exceptional. In this, democrats, anarchists and socialists, even if they are atheists, uphold the values of Christianity. They all want a ‘free’ society of equals, i.e. a society of an autonomous herd, and believe the community will save humanity. The elimination of suffering is the foundation of their morality, which they think of as objective.

>And last I checked, schools don't teach ethics.

Where I'm from it's mandatory to pick either religion or ethics as a subject during primary and secondary education.

Because replacing God with the Idea of Gold and the corresponding Object Gold makes students easily enslaved and used.
Yes you do, otherwise all one has is their fickle desires.

If resisting idolatry was easy society would have been perfected a long time ago.

>objective truths
Don't exist, sorry!
>For the most part, religion's teachings are at their core humanist/socially responsible behaviors
Typical DISGUSTING HUMANIST whitewashing and proselytizing!

>I know that you think your god is different than the teapot, but it really isn't. The only difference here is that you haven't been raised in a culture that believes in the teapot.
People illiterate in the study of religions and theology ACTUALLY believe this. You even REJECT these fields!

>society is good
>christianity is le bad XDD
You need to go back.

Holy shit the ultra religious American wasnt a meme

WE WUZ VIKANGS N SHIEET
Nordcucks: the OTHER spearchuckers!

Why is the atheist wearing a christian symbol?

>>Meanwhile atheists can destroy Christcucks by quoting the Christcucks own retarded book at them
No, you deluded child.