"Ending religion lessons in schools leads to overall decline in belief but not morals"

[Tcg]

.

This article reports on data from Germany that reveals that abolishing religious teaching in schools leads to a decline in belief but not morality:

Ending religion lessons in schools leads to overall decline in belief but not morals
Torsten Bell

Data taken from across Germany reveals that as mandated RE was abolished, atheism increased as a collective choice

We tend to think about religiousness as a personal decision but new research examining the role of schools illustrates that collective choices have a part to play. The authors use data from Germany, exploiting the fact the religious education mandated by the postwar West German constitution was removed across different states at different times from the 1970s. They find abolishment significantly reduced religiousness, both in private (less praying) and public (church attendance). The effect was biggest in Catholic areas.

Before the social conservatives get all up in arms, note there was no impact on moral or ethical views, life satisfaction or political leaning. That may be because religious education was replaced with non-denominational ethical teaching, rather than more maths.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-morals

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

To me, people are born, at best, agnostic, not knowing one way or the other.

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?

No matter what, some will see atheists in a negative light because an atheist's belief flies in the face of their belief.

That's a good point. It seems that some will consider others as suspect if their lack of belief threatens the comfort some get from their beliefs.


Tcg

To be fair, the bolded section is something that can be seen as 'human' more so than theist or atheist.

The bolded part is your own claim, and it specifies how some react to atheist's position. Have you changed your mind so quickly?


Tcg

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

To me, people are born, at best, agnostic, not knowing one way or the other.

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?

No matter what, some will see atheists in a negative light because an atheist's belief flies in the face of their belief.

That's a good point. It seems that some will consider others as suspect if their lack of belief threatens the comfort some get from their beliefs.


Tcg

To be fair, the bolded section is something that can be seen as 'human' more so than theist or atheist.

The bolded part is your own claim, and it specifies how some react to atheist's position. Have you changed your mind so quickly?


Tcg

What I meant was, a person can see another in a negative light no matter their belief or lack of. In other words, doing so isn't strictly an atheist/theist/agnostic thing only, but more of a human 'thing'.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

To me, people are born, at best, agnostic, not knowing one way or the other.

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?

No matter what, some will see atheists in a negative light because an atheist's belief flies in the face of their belief.

That's a good point. It seems that some will consider others as suspect if their lack of belief threatens the comfort some get from their beliefs.


Tcg

To be fair, the bolded section is something that can be seen as 'human' more so than theist or atheist.

The bolded part is your own claim, and it specifies how some react to atheist's position. Have you changed your mind so quickly?


Tcg

What I meant was, a person can see another in a negative light no matter their belief or lack of. In other words, doing so isn't strictly an atheist/theist/agnostic thing only, but more of a human 'thing'.

Sure, but are atheists threatened by theist's beliefs in the same way some theists are threatened by atheist's lack of belief? It may be a hard question to answer, but I think there is a drastic difference between the two. Some theists classify atheist's lack of belief as some sort of great evil while many atheists realize that theist's beliefs are based on wishful thinking. Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

To me, people are born, at best, agnostic, not knowing one way or the other.

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?

No matter what, some will see atheists in a negative light because an atheist's belief flies in the face of their belief.

That's a good point. It seems that some will consider others as suspect if their lack of belief threatens the comfort some get from their beliefs.


Tcg

To be fair, the bolded section is something that can be seen as 'human' more so than theist or atheist.

The bolded part is your own claim, and it specifies how some react to atheist's position. Have you changed your mind so quickly?


Tcg

What I meant was, a person can see another in a negative light no matter their belief or lack of. In other words, doing so isn't strictly an atheist/theist/agnostic thing only, but more of a human 'thing'.

Sure, but are atheists threatened by theist's beliefs in the same way some theists are threatened by atheist's lack of belief? It may be a hard question to answer, but I think there is a drastic difference between the two. Some theists classify atheist's lack of belief as some sort of great evil while many atheists realize that theist's beliefs are based on wishful thinking. Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.


Tcg

Are they threatened in the same way? I can't answer that. Surely some are, but some aren't, I'd suspect. It's hard to answer for sure, as you suggest. But yes, there is a drastic difference.
In regards to the bolded section, I couldn't agree more.
I've seen more theists complain about being unjustly chastised when they, themselves, are the one doing the chastising to others!
Between atheists and theists, I see more theists complaining unjustly.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13

Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.

You do realize that this is an ad hominem argument, don't you?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13

Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.

You do realize that this is an ad hominem argument, don't you?

No, but if you support your accusation, I'll consider it so.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

"There's some good in this world Mr Frodo, and it's worth fighting for". (Lor filmscript....As I have said before rather than Biblequotes, I see the wisdom of other book as just as apposite, and often more so).

You know the author of that book was a Catholic right?

I did know that. This may be a digression, but it has always tickled me profoundly that Tolkiens'' religio -political and somewhat Luddite message made better sense when directed against the Big Lie of religion rather than what he evidently saw as the evils of scientific secularism.

Gimli's words about Saruman "the words of this wizard stand on their heads" is a subliminal accusation of scientific secularism as doing crafty fiddling with words and meanings to turn them upside down. But what I have seen in some time of debate with the Faithful is how they juggle semantics and rhetorical tricks to try to win the argument or at least scrape a draw: "let's agree to differ, eh?", 'My belief is as good as yours', and 'nobody can be entirely sure' and most notoriously 'teach the controversy'.

An Arq atheist Axiom is 'To the theists, a draw is a win' means that talking the rationalist to a standstill enables the well known 'In years of argument no atheist has been able to beat me'. The final trump card of religion has been to escape without admitting that the evidence was against them.

I also found it hard to reverence elves as much as the Book expected me to. Their cold snobby elitism, and the airy claim that their 'magic' was somehow different and better than exactly the same thing as the 'deceits' of the Enemy made it hard for me to admire them. I adore Tolkien's world but I am well aware that it is fantasy and, like fantasy (and sci fi which is often fantasy rather than science, anyway) it isn't a plan for life, though it may raise serious questions, which I look to the rational to answers for society (said he, clawing back onto topic ) and not going to over -simple superheroes to wave a magic wand, whether Superman, Gandalf or Jessusgod.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13

Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.

You do realize that this is an ad hominem argument, don't you?

No, but if you support your accusation, I'll consider it so.

directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

You guys are supposed to be familiar with logical fallacies.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Tcg in post #8

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

I think it fairly evident that theology is innate. If it isn't, who taught the first theist to believe in gods?

Who taught the first person to believe in Santa Claus?

Hopefully you can see the error in reason here.

Clearly the first theist was the one taught about a god by someone and they believed it. Just like the first Santa Claus believer was the first one taught about Santa Claus and believed it.

i.e. we only need someone to make something up and then teach it as fact to create theists, Santa Claus believers, etc.

I think what is innate is to trust what others tell you before you learn how to think critically.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #19

Clearly the first theist was the one taught about a god by someone and they believed it.

Then they weren't the first theist, were they?