<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: who believes in God?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2009/06/24/who-believes-in-god/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2009/06/24/who-believes-in-god/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 06:10:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: grandad</title>
		<link>http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2009/06/24/who-believes-in-god/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>grandad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/?p=50#comment-41</guid>
		<description>Have read Dawkins and found it a good read, intelligent and logical but unfortunately, logical argument isn&#039;t going to make any difference to the faithful.

I find it somewhat daunting to see our leaders boasting about going to church as if it was some kind of useful action and it makes me annoyed to see them wasting the national income on financing religious schools, that suppress freedom of thought and threaten everlasting punishment if the teachings are questioned.

In NSW we presently have an argument going on in the education system to over turn the old rule that says &quot;  children that don&#039;t attend religious instruction classes cannot be given alternative class subjects during the RI period &quot;. At present these children just sit around and waste time.

The P&amp;C and education department have proposed that these children that are not religiously involved should be given alternative lessons in something like Ethics.

The religious groups are objecting to this change because RI is an ethically based subject and to teach atheistic ethics may contradict the RI teachings. Can&#039;t see the point of the argument because there is not one religion and the Muslims would be teaching different ethics to the Jews and, again the Christians would be teaching another set of ethics. Why not treat Atheism as a kind of superior religion and have its ethics taught along with all the others? It would probably promote a more cohesive community.

Perhaps the religious fanatics aren&#039;t sure that they will be able to convince the children that the Atheists aren&#039;t right and they will lose their flock!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have read Dawkins and found it a good read, intelligent and logical but unfortunately, logical argument isn&#8217;t going to make any difference to the faithful.</p>
<p>I find it somewhat daunting to see our leaders boasting about going to church as if it was some kind of useful action and it makes me annoyed to see them wasting the national income on financing religious schools, that suppress freedom of thought and threaten everlasting punishment if the teachings are questioned.</p>
<p>In NSW we presently have an argument going on in the education system to over turn the old rule that says &#8221;  children that don&#8217;t attend religious instruction classes cannot be given alternative class subjects during the RI period &#8220;. At present these children just sit around and waste time.</p>
<p>The P&amp;C and education department have proposed that these children that are not religiously involved should be given alternative lessons in something like Ethics.</p>
<p>The religious groups are objecting to this change because RI is an ethically based subject and to teach atheistic ethics may contradict the RI teachings. Can&#8217;t see the point of the argument because there is not one religion and the Muslims would be teaching different ethics to the Jews and, again the Christians would be teaching another set of ethics. Why not treat Atheism as a kind of superior religion and have its ethics taught along with all the others? It would probably promote a more cohesive community.</p>
<p>Perhaps the religious fanatics aren&#8217;t sure that they will be able to convince the children that the Atheists aren&#8217;t right and they will lose their flock!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2009/06/24/who-believes-in-god/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/?p=50#comment-40</guid>
		<description>More good work mate! You probably know that &quot;Allahu Akbar&quot; translates to &quot;God is Great&quot;, and I suggest you have a look at &quot;God Is Not Great&quot; by Christopher Hitchens for a bloody good   diatribe against the God Loonies.  &quot;The God Delusion&quot; by Richard Dawkins is also very good for some academic arguments if you want some good points for smiting the God-Nutters hip and thigh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More good work mate! You probably know that &#8220;Allahu Akbar&#8221; translates to &#8220;God is Great&#8221;, and I suggest you have a look at &#8220;God Is Not Great&#8221; by Christopher Hitchens for a bloody good   diatribe against the God Loonies.  &#8220;The God Delusion&#8221; by Richard Dawkins is also very good for some academic arguments if you want some good points for smiting the God-Nutters hip and thigh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

