Ok.....So you killed off Religion...

[Zen Badger]

...hypothetically of course!

Maybe 50 or 60 years from now when science finally proves that all of you are right and there is no God..... and religion dies out for you!

Where as a society will the moral compass come from? Considering of course you even want a moral society?

Will it be: Laws? hmmmm...who will instill these laws? Teachers? Police? Parents? Military? Government Agencies?

Will it be community groups? Say like: Acorn? YMC...whoops....Boys & Girls & Gay clubs? Planned Parenthood? The cities or states?

Or will it be just every "being" for themselves, and NO LAWS? Total FREEDOM! WOW!! Freedom to do ANYTHING!! And no one to tell you differently!

I'm just wondering what it will be like in "Your Perfect World" w/o God & religion?

Let us see where the moral compass points in a world w/o God?

Morality will continue to be defined by people as it always has been.
The only difference being that they won't be able to claim divine inspiration for their claims.

[Brian37]

You are not going to "kill off" anything on a planet of 7 billion. All we as a species can pragmatically do is put a leash on monopolies of power OF ANY KIND, and foster education and good logic skills. But there will never be a utopia, for anyone.

[pocaracas]

I wonder.... what morality do ants follow when they refuse to kill every other ant in the colony? Or when they refuse to go on a rape spree... or.. you know, what keeps them from behaving badly? From being evil ants?
Is there an ant religion? ant god?
Or did they just evolve a particular set of behaviors which favor staying alive?

[Undeceived]

[Indoctrination is] an underlying agenda to teach a falsehood or an opinion as if it was factual truth.

Wouldn't you first have to show that Christianity is "falsehood or opinion"? Christianity has evidence. The evidence is inconclusive. Dark matter has evidence. Its evidence is inconclusive. So why do we teach one and not the other?

you don't need evidence for this assertion, just believe it... is indoctrination.

It sounds like you've hit on the professional definition for indoctrination: "Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically." The question of course becomes, what if we taught religion critically? Is that okay? Or better yet, what if we taught all material critically? Imagine it. The professor teaches the theories of Isaac Newton. A student cries out, "I don't believe he was a real person!" The professor provides primary sources. The student critically replies, "These could have been fabricated." How, in an education system like this, are we to teach history?

Of course, there is a difference between the historicity of Jesus and the truth of what he said. Jesus' words fall under philosophy. Like Plato, Descartes or Hume, we can read his worldview and evaluate it against the backdrop of the real world. Philosophy addresses problems science cannot answer: metaphysics, morality, knowledge. It even tells us how to use science. People must first accept a worldview, then they have a standpoint from which to judge and evaluate the world. If you fail to teach worldviews in school, children pick them up elsewhere. It’s like failing to give your child “the talk”. They end up learning about sex from dubious sources. Why not teach philosophy and religion under the umbrella of school, where they can be viewed critically and equally? Include atheism and agnosticism among the worldviews. But for the sake of our children, do not be silent on the subject! If the school omits God, it implicitly recommends atheism and agnosticism. Is that fair?

[Psykhronic]

If the school omits God, it implicitly recommends atheism and agnosticism. Is that fair?

If the school omits God, then the school is giving no recommendation at all.

[Tonus]

We can test the work of Isaac Newton and verify it, debunk it, or build upon it. It doesn't matter if he was real or just a fake persona created by an unknown scientist to publish work he didn't want credit for, or if the sources corroborating his existence were in on the gag. If we are unable to verify that Isaac Newton existed, or that certain specifics of his life are accurate, it doesn't stop us from testing his theories.

If people believed that Jesus was just another philosopher, they would discuss and debate his ideas as just that. But that isn't what Christians believe about him. They believe that he was (a) god and that he performed supernatural acts, including coming to life again after dying. We cannot reproduce his "work" or verify the claims of what he did. If we cannot verify that he existed and that he was who the Bible says he was, the claims about him are nothing more than fantasy.

[Undeceived]

If the school omits God, it implicitly recommends atheism and agnosticism. Is that fair?

If the school omits God, then the school is giving no recommendation at all.

Suppose you omit George Washington. Would a child be more likely to view him as (a) important to the founding of the United States ; or (b) unimportant to the founding of the United States?

---

If people believed that Jesus was just another philosopher, they would discuss and debate his ideas as just that. But that isn't what Christians believe about him. They believe that he was (a) god and that he performed supernatural acts, including coming to life again after dying. We cannot reproduce his "work" or verify the claims of what he did. If we cannot verify that he existed and that he was who the Bible says he was, the claims about him are nothing more than fantasy.

So we're supposed to leave out Jesus altogether because he claimed to be something more than a philosopher? Would you exclude Augustus Caesar? He claimed to be a god, too.

[Simon Moon]

Suppose you omit George Washington. Would a child be more likely to view him as (a) important; or (b) unimportant ?

False analogy.

George Washington is the subject of history class. The evidence for his existence is mountainous.

It doesn't matter what political beliefs a person has, everyone can study George Washington.

The US is made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Sikhs, Scientologists, Native American Animists, Atheists, etc, etc...

Just what version of 'god' do you want to teach? Don't tell me, let me guess...

And once again, in case you didn't read some of the previous posts, students are allowed to pray and have religious clubs on campus.

[Tonus]

So we're supposed to leave out Jesus altogether because he claimed to be something more than a philosopher? Would you exclude Augustus Caesar? He claimed to be a god, too.

Augustus Caesar's claims to divinity are just as valid as Jesus' claims. Neither can, as far as I am aware, be verified or tested. Perhaps it is Caesar who sits on a throne in heaven, royally pissed at humanity for worshipping some hippie preacher who didn't even lift.

[Faith No More]

If the school omits God, it implicitly recommends atheism and agnosticism. Is that fair?

No, it doesn't. I just brought this up in another thread in which I questioned why this was so hard for the religious to understand.

The school omits god, because it takes no stance on the existence of god. The absence of teaching about your beliefs does not mean that the opposite of your beliefs are being condoned. Secularism is a neutral stance.