No, it does not. Atheism will always have more of a place in classrooms than any religion, because atheism is right. No matter how much the religious may whine, nothing they say can change that fact. This is important because unless you are actively deceiving your students, your classroom will be atheist by default.
I have a relative who has lost jobs for doing exactly this. I also unfriended him on Facebook because he was posting some really offensive stuff (let’s just say if he said the same things about Muslims or Jews that he said about Christians, he’d have cops knocking on his door). He does have Asperger’s (officially diagnosed) so that may be a precipitating factor.
Yeah… so what if they are least-persecuted?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m trying to be open here, but the fact that they aren’t persecuted as much as other people isn’t a good reason to do so… That little factoid means nothing to me.
I already stated that it’s religion in a classroom, and it’s not up for debate because there’s, according to the slide, no real argument to be made for the other side… why risk it?
but religious people by definition have a close mind. so innocuous dilaouge they ignore completly. it is only through ridicule and criticism that some of them finally see how illogical their position is.
How about a scarlet “A”? That sounds just perfect!
Because I’m fairly sure there are people screaming that this is an example of “religious persecution”. Just like they’ll say in literally any situation where Christian privilege is attacked. It’s my own personal hobby-horse with no particular relevance to the discussion.
Because creationism is still a depressingly popular religious doctrine in the US?
Ok… religion should be allowed in schools so long as it’s anti-religion?
There is a symbol some of them use; it looks like an atom with an A in the middle, and the bottom loop is missing.
I agree that just living your life and being a good person as an atheist does more to counteract misperceptions than anything else. I don’t advertise my atheism; in fact, I don’t discuss it unless someone is wagging their own beliefs in my face and demanding that I agree with them. I find this rude, but I get the same reaction as you when I share my non-belief: “But… you’re such a good person!”
I began to notice a militant creep of religion into affairs of government about the time the Moral Majority was gaining their toehold. I and many other atheists I knew at the time took a position that people were entitled to their views. We see where that has gotten us. Give ‘em an inch… so I am glad to see FFR and other organizations actively standing against this insidious creep. I doubt you will ever see atheists instigate a dust-up by posting atheist sentiments on courthouse lawns and such sua sponte – but their responsive tactics have been very effective in demonstrating the ludicrous but logical conclusion of allowing religious (or non-religious) doctrines to be showcased in secular venues.
It’s challenging to advance atheists’ views as a whole because the only thing they have in common is a non-belief in a superior controlling being. It’s not a religion, it’s not organized, there are no rules or commandments. But I am heartened to see atheists taking an active role in saying, “Oh, no, you don’t,” to religious groups who would impose their beliefs on everyone else. In the USA, the Christian faith is the worst offender in this regard.
I belong to a fairly active meet-up group of skeptics. We don’t announce or advertise our non-beliefs, but we do many “good works” throughout the community all year long. We have taken on our local women’s shelter as a project. In addition to raising money to provide for their needs (new beds, repairs to their facility, etc.), we go in at least once a year to organize the children’s playroom and clean the place top to bottom. We buy and donate gift cards from local supermarkets for their administrative staff to donate as they see fit.
We also put together “care bags” for the homeless we all individually encounter through the year. I keep at least one in my car at all times. We volunteer to work at food distribution centers and several of us have volunteered at the local literacy council.
We meet weekly at a coffee house and monthly for social pub nights or open topic nights at many venues in our community.
Sooner or later, someone will ask what meet-up group we belong to. I always love sharing that information and the responses it provokes. 
Best way to “spread the word” I’ve ever found.
That’s awesome. 
I saw an experiment on YouTube where they were asking for money for charity. First they said they were religious, then they said they were part of an atheist group. To my surprise, when they were advertising as atheists, they actually raised more money. I’ll try to find the link.
If that’s the criteria, then obviously religion also belongs in the classroom because lots of people are very much convinced that’s right, too.
It’s important that science classes are about facts and not beliefs. The age of the earth or the origin of species are matters of fact and belong in a science class, where obviously explanations that are incompatible with observable facts have no place.
But it’s easy enough to define “god” such that its/his/her/His existence can’t be disproven. Then, any statement that god exists or doesn’t exist must be a matter of belief and as such has no place in science classes.
In this regard, atheism is nothing more than the flip side of belief in god, and as such I prefer to call myself areligious rather than atheist, rejecting the question rather than answering it in the negative. After all, who cares if god exists if she doesn’t do anything observable?
You have missed the point of that slide, and after I explicitly quoted him explaining it. Try again.
Yes. I read what he said. I didn’t miss the point of the slide.
I’m sorry it didn’t penetrate my current stance on it. I still think the slide was in poor taste. I don’t think Christ belongs in a science class, period. 
I’ve got no problem with the instructor’s actions, particularly given the nature of the course, but these posts are pretty good evidence that atheists have no lock on truth or accuracy.
The point of the slide was to make fun of religion. There is no reason to do that in a science class. Teach science, don’t ridicule religion. There is no reason for a professor such as this guy to bring the topic up. If a student tries to do so, he can simply say that we’re discussing science, not religion.
Best then that the science class progresses as if the questions were not raised in the first place then. i.e. the theories that can be shown to work are taught and those without evidence or explanatory power are rejected.
There is no need to make a concrete claim that god doesn’t exist in order to teach the theory of evolution. By teaching in that way it may strongly suggest that god/gods are unnecessary and I’m sure that will upset some but…tough luck. The facts don’t care if your feelings are hurt.
In my opinion, the fact that there were children in the classroom holding to creationist dogma necessitates the use of such a strong and clear image. If you knew that children in your maths class held to a biblical interpretation of pi = 3 then the teacher isn’t doing their job if they fail to nip that nonsense in the bud right away.
This was a class on evolutionary biology and there were young earth creationists in the audience. I’m sorry, but how does that equate to “no reason”?
To shamelessly rip off Novelty Bobble, imagine if you were holding a class on leprosy and you knew for a fact a large number of people in that class believed in the biblical cure for leprosy. I think you would be shirking your duty as a teacher if you didn’t take the time to point out that, no, the bible is wrong when it comes to leprosy. There’s a perfectly valid reason. Challenge misconceptions, particularly common ones.
And if a student says they can’t accept the theory of evolution because they believe in god…what then? If you have a creationist in your classroom the subject of religion has already been brought up anyway.
In any case I don’t see any way of explaining the “theory” of creationism within a science class that does not ridicule it. In comparison to all other theories…it is ridiculous. It is on a par with intelligent falling and I’d hope you’d agree that if that were a widespread belief that the teacher would be right to treat it in a very definite and dismissive manner.
IMO, the slide is no big deal (fundies object to it because it’s “blasphemy”!) and personally the only problem I see with it is that it’s unnecessary and puerile. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of biological evolution must be fully aware of the absurdity of creationism (and its close cousin, “intelligent design”), and surely at the university level this would be a given. So what’s the point of the cartoon, other than fairly pointless juvenile humor?
It’s kind of like a university class in atmospheric physics or climate modeling that might choose to devote a portion of the course to mocking climate change denialists. It should be clear to any student who even remotely understands the subject matter that these folks have no idea what they’re talking about, so why waste time pointing it out, except for the sophomoric pleasure of mocking them? It’s just unsophisticated and stupid, especially at the university level. To those who are educated and informed, these people – just like creationists – mock themselves without any help!
It seems from the article that there was at least one student in the class who claimed to believe in creationism and he was the one who took the picture and started all the fuss. I suppose it’s like a student from the College Republicans group said when he joined the protests – it seemed he was protesting while simultaneously believing both in the scientific view of evolution and in creationism, through some kind of cognitive dissonance that the fundies seem capable of. No point in riling these people up; you’re neither going to change their minds nor are you going to enlighten anyone who’s already enlightened.
Well, I’m not a biology teacher and I don’t live in a place where people tend to come out as creationists, so what do I know.
But I’m not sure if this is the best approach, as arguing against their claims creates the illusion that they actually have something remotely resembling a valid point. I would probably just teach evolution, and if a student said they couldn’t accept it because of their beliefs, I’d tell them that:
- Understanding evolution is required to pass the class
- Believing evolution is not required to pass the class
- You need to understand a theory before you can reject it
- You may want to take a class in philosophy of science