Atheism is the equal opposite to theism. The former asserts there is no God (ergo a-theism, deriving from the Greek), the latter asserts there is.
The claims 'absence of the belief in a god' or 'believing there is no god' is simply two sides of the same coin.
For me, it is the absence of theism. My position is primarily a rejection/absence of belief.
There is Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism (apparently... I didn't know this was a thing but there you go) where Strong Atheism is the latter, and Weak Atheism is the former. The difference is a claim to knowledge or a level of assertion. They are definitely not
logically the same (a good example from my quick googling is innocent, not guilty and guilty) , with Strong Atheism having a claim to knowledge (like its counterpart theism) and a high level of assertion ("There is no God!" vs "There is a God!").
No, I'm quite happy for science teachers to teach science. My issue is when they teach the absence of God in science. I want them to leave religion out of the science room ;-)
Agreed, as I mentioned. That goes both ways, too, of course.
That's a secular mindset.
It needs to be taught because to not teach it means ignoring an enormous part of human history, the human condition and an integral part of coexisting with people who hold other points of view to you.
So you think a religious studies subject should be compulsory? If you do, what do you think should be included in the subject?
You've answered your own question. Teaching secularism is teaching people 'to be free from religious based rulings and teachings'. Its suggesting church and state be separate, its suggesting humanist morality and ethics rather than religious or spiritually based morals and ethics, its creating a worldview for the kids to view things through that is devoid of any religious aspect at all.
The point was that you don't really 'teach' secularism but rather implement it.
Given I'm obviously biased, I'm not sure how this is even remotely a bad thing. It's an incredibly good thing when it's actually practised. They should be kept separate.
But there is an important distinction to be made here as I understand. Separating objective religious studies (humour me for a moment) is not the intention of secularism, rather it is to separate/remove the direct teaching of a faith, if that makes sense.
Even our biology lecturer (Who is in no way religious, but believes in evolution) said that scientifically, we can state the evolution took place, but we can't disprove the existence of there possibly being "A power above us" as there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. But there's no evidence to prove it, either.
If your biology lecturer actually said at any point he "believes in evolution", may I suggest getting a new lecturer? Deary me....
As for the rest, well, yeah it doesn't disprove anything religious except (most forms of) creationism.
Actually, more relevant to the religion class. History is what happened. Science is how things happen. Religion are for the questions of 'why?'.
This is where it gets pretty iffy for me. One religion is one answer for the 'why' (a question I personally could not care less about), another religion another answer, etc. How do you resolve this - a team of Super Best Friends? Is this just like a 'meaning of life' discussion class or something? Do you include the general agnostic/atheist positions too? I honestly think this is a waste of time that could be better spent learning things that will actually help the human race continue to progress.
Actually, the word 'faith' is πίστις, which means to 'trust' or hold a 'firm persuasion' on something. In essence, it is holding something to be truth based on the evidence you have for it.
Funnily enough, most people have 'faith' in science because of the truth it reveals.
Urge to rage rising, although you did acknowledge it's not the same as religious 'faith'.
Blind faith, on the other hand - that's where things get dangerous. For a Christian, doubts aren't defeaters. Doubts show a healthy mind searching to identify truth and looking for answers. I'm more worried by Christians who have never suggested they have any doubts, as it shows either a supernatural faith in something they haven't seen (quite unlikely) or it identifies a genuine lack of thoughtfulness to the entire process.
Agreed on this point.
