I was talking about abrahamic religions, they all have judgment day, and if you disbelieve in it you disbelief in the whole religion.

Dude where did I say atheists have no morals? or that you need God to be good? I'm saying that there's no reason for an atheist that forces him to be a moral person or else he will regret, this is common sense among real atheists you just have to search, or read The selfish gene by Dawkins.

I don't see what you mean by the last example? I'm not an atheist, what's moral and what's not for me is defined by my religion THEN my judgement which is not stable, I don't care about what other religions or people think, if YOU think that it's immoral than explain why and I'll reply to you.

I don't know too much about judaism and islam but most christians believe that the Bible was written by humans and therefore every passage of the Bible could be a potential misinterpretation of gods word. So no you don't have to beliefe in judgment day in order to be a christian.

Ah ok, yes I agree with you nothing forces an atheist to live a moral life but is this a problem? If you believe in judgment day then wouldn't the atheist be also judged on judgment day no matter if he beliefs in it or not and wouldn't be the atheist, who lived a moral life, much more noble than the theist, who lived a moral life, because the atheist was moral not out of fear but out of certainty?

Well (some) christians would say polygamy is immoral because the Bible says so.

2) It is interesting to me that you are portraying the relationship between parent and child as this unbelievably strong bond, almost as if parent and child are one and the same person(legally speaking), like when you say: "Again, they are not asking that their choices be imposed on others, they are asking that others' choices not be imposed on them." that's wrong, there are actually two outside forces projecting their views onto the child, one is the school and the other one are the parents.

2a) Wouldn't it be the best for the child to learn about both views so it can decide which view seems more plausible to them. By giving the parents the possibility to opt out of this program you basically denied the child access to knowledge. Also I wonder where you would draw the line? Should parents be able to opt out of all kinds of topics in school(opt out of biology class because the parents don't believe in evolution, opt out of history class because the parents are holocaust deniers, etc.)?

2b) About the oppression argument. By that logic many things would be oppression, like paying taxes. When I was in school I didn't want to go to the french class, was I oppressed? And if all these things are oppression maybe sometimes opression is justified?

3) Well you said that you don't want politics in education and I just pointed out that that is impossible, the parents protesting is already a political act. And yes the Educators made the lessons but they were told by politicians, through legislation, to include minorities such as LGBT people in them.

I don't like the term "Muslim-friendly" because it suggests that those protesters somehow represent all muslims in the UK which they don't. I think the school books are already incredible sensitive and not provocant at all. They simply tell the children that LGBT couple exist and that those couples love their children the same way as all other parents do, What is the manageable middle ground here?

It's not a problem, it's absurd when you defend morals (LGBT "rights" in this case) like if they were absolute, a rational atheist wouldn't care about other people's problems, his own life is short so he'll focus on getting the most of it, fulfilling his wants and needs, that's if he didn't realize that life is pointless anyway and there's no escape from oblivion so...

This is what the Quran says about the disbelievers who lived a moral life: "And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dispersed dust." you eat from the creation of God, you live in the creation of God, you entertain yourself with the creation of God etc... and in the end you don't acknowledge his existence and obey him (provided you received the undistorted and adequate message to do so), this is a major sin in Islam.

Being punished for being immoral doesn't imply being moral out of fear, because between morality and immorality there's neutrality, + doing good deeds isn't compulsory in Islam, except giving 2.5% of your wealth every year to the poor, widows, orphans...

You can say that about yourself but i am sure many think being rational makes us care about other people's problems in a constructive way,religion is also not needed to be good because we do not need to be forced into caring for others.

If you need to be forced to be good you just might be a wolf in sheepsclothing.

Free will is a blessing.

I'm only saying what Richard Dawkins, Lauren Krauss and the others say, I'm not atheist, what you or anyone think what is the rational way of life doesn't change the atheistic view on morals, there's no right and wrong in atheism, everyone is free to do whatever he likes, be good, be evil, whatever you choose, only the law of nature is absolute.

Where did I say that you need to be forced to do good, in Islam you're rewarded for doing good, not forced to do it.

There's no free will from an atheistic evolutionary view, every choice you make is a bunch of chemical reaction (determinism). however there have been recent studies involving quantum mechanics proving the opposite of that.

Richard Dawkins and Lauren Krauss do not decide what morals are for all atheists if they ever said that ofcourse,if they said it they just spoke for themselves.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a god,it is as simple as that and there is no need to attach all of that other nonsense to it.You describe atheism as a belief and you describe it as a group while every atheist is most likely personally different,they do not have laws on what to think and how to act.

It is as simple as not believing in a god and the rest are personal opinions.

You repeat the same thing because you keep missing the point, I'm not talking about your moral choices, I'm not saying that you must be immoral because you're atheist, be good or be evil, that doesn't change the fact that atheism nullifies absolute morals, every atheist is free to consider any act good or evil, and no one forces him to choose either paths, you said it, the rest is personal opinions, in the case of my beliefs, good and evil acts are defined by an all powerful and righteous authority. what's so unclear about that? If you fail to understand that then you ignore what atheism really means.

Did I say that atheists believe in God? you were talking about being forced to do good, I said there's no such thing in Islam.

Honestly I think I know more than you when it comes to atheism because you fail to understand simple notions such as moral relativism, and think I'm speaking for all atheists, while I'm speaking of atheism itself, you just have to read.

2) Look at the video. You can see the kids taking part in the protests (even the video mentions that protests are coming from students and parents).

2a) Children at this age cannot decide for themselves, ultimately it is the parent (unless they are found to be provably grossly negligent/harmful to their kids in w/c case, the state will have to step in) who decides for their children. I kinda find this line of reasoning a bit ludicrous. You want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?

2b) Someone already gave the holocaust-denier vs history argument to me. I feel the statement is a bit of a false comparison. LGBT sensitivity lessons are not hard sciences and I don't think we even teach hard sciences to 4-5 year olds.

Homeschooling is already the ultimate "opt out" option parents can exercise. Is opting for homeschooling illegal? Should it be? If it IS legal and if you think it should be, the answer would be: there was never a line to begin with. If not, then do you think schools should be able to take kids away from parents if they opt out of the public schooling and prefer to home school?

Did French lessons deeply conflict with your heritage/culture? Maybe you should have protested then. :p

2c) I feel that taxes and following of laws are within the social contracts agreed upon by those who wish to be members of society in order to pay for the needs of the collective. I guess you can see that as a form of oppression but at least it is something you signed up for and know about by becoming a member of society and it is enforced via the law (prison). I'm not too sure that accepting the majority's view (no matter how well meaning) on how society should be and forcing it onto a minority even tho it deeply contrary to their values is also part of the social contract we all signed up for.  I doubt these parents knowingly and willingly signed up for said classes as evidenced by their protest.

3) Their protest is a reaction to a political act. Once politics was inserted the reaction cannot be helped but be political as well. The thing about meeting government requirements is that there is quite a bit of discretion on the persons(s) meeting it, for as long as said requirements are legally met within the word of the law (this is part of what I do for a living). What this means is that educators are actually allowed to customize said lessons as a compromise to parents for as long as said lessons still meet the conditions of said law. 

Yeah, in retrospect, I agree I worded that badly, but I was in a hurry and couldn't really come up with a better descriptor at the time. My point was that protests and dialogue could possibly allow them to meet in the middle and come up with a solution for both sides. My suggestion for the school is to meet with the parents and clearly explain to them what the law is and ask them how they parents feel they should move forward to meet the requirements of this law and move from there.

I am not the parent in question here, I wouldn't know what their preferences are so I can't really answer your question on what the middle ground is. Whether or not a middle ground is ultimately found, we cannot deny the fact that if the parents are allowed to at least participate in a dialogue, their concerns can at least be heard. I don't know if it will work, but the process in place at least allows for such to be possible.

2a) You're almost right. "It is the parent who decides for their children" within the frame in which the State allowes them to decide for their children. Parents can't decide if their child should go to school, Parents mostly can't decide what their child learns at school and in those few cases they can decide what their child learns at school, the State gave them the ability to do so.

I don't understand why you find my line of reasoning ludicrous because what you said in the next sentence "you want the kids to have choice by giving them (and their parents) no choice (to opt out)?" is exactly the line of reasoning behind a mandatory education system.

2b) I think it is pretty well proven that LGBT people exist and that they love their children as much as anyone else so I don't think my comparison was false. Again where would you draw the line?

I think homeschooling should only be allowed in very extreme cases (the child is chronically ill and can't attend school, school is 50km away, etc.). I don't know how legislation is in the UK but here in Bavaria it is very difficult to homeschool your kid. And yes if parents refuse to bring their kids to school, the police will bring them to the school.

2c) Well I do think that education is up to a certain extent part of the social contract.

3) Politics was not inserted when they printed the new school books, politics was inserted when they invented the school system. Why do you think the old school books didn't include LGBT couples? It was a political decision to not include them.

Of course there are different ways to meet the requirements of the law but I doubt there is on without LGBT. I hope the can reach a solution in which still every student gets educated about LGBT.