Lancashire TelegraphAtheism to be taught in Blackburn and Darwen schools (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Atheism to be taught in Blackburn and Darwen schools

CHILDREN as young as four will be taught about atheism in Blackburn with Darwen schools for the first time.

Education bosses at Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council have overhauled the RE syllabus to ensure non-religious beliefs are taught.

The major shake-up will be introduced from September in each of the 28 primary and secondary community schools in the borough.

Faith schools can also opt to teach the syllabus.

Education chiefs stressed that children will continue to learn about the six major faiths - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.

But they will also be taught humanism - the belief there is no God or Gods, and that moral values are founded on human nature and experience alone.

According to one of the council’s advisors it will allow children to become ‘citizens in Blackburn and the world’ and instill ‘confidence.’

The overhaul is based on the Leicester’s RE syllabus which was one of the first places in the country to teach about atheism.

‘Blackburn with Darwen: Harmony and Diversity Curriculum’ was developed to recognise that many children in Blackburn with Darwen come from ‘non-religious for life stances’.

Lancashire County Council schools in Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, do not teach atheism.

Fiona Moss, from RE Today, helped create the new syllabus for Blackburn with Darwen.

She said: “We really must recognise that some people do not believe in God and do not have a religious background.

"We have to make children aware of non-beliefs.

“We want to support children to engage and enthuse them about RE to become good citizens in Blackburn and the world.

“The aim is for them to be confident wherever they settle.”

To create the syllabus the team reviewed the census results in 2001 which revealed that, although the borough has representatives from all of the six major faiths, there were more than 10,000 people who stated they did not follow a religion.

At its launch in Blackburn yesterday, Dot Thomson, Blackburn with Darwen school improvement officer, said: “I would not describe the syllabus as radical but it is disassociated from what went before in Blackburn with Darwen.

“This is the first time we have given respect for non-religious life stances.

“It is an important area. We expect this year’s census to show the diverse faiths and beliefs in the area and we need to reflect this when teaching RE in schools.

“This syllabus is more imaginative and creative.”

Coun Chris Thayne, chair of Blackburn with Darwen Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education, or SACRE, said: “We don’t want the future to be blind.

"We want it to be illuminated. We need understanding without prejudice.”

The syllabus has already been trialled in some of the borough’s schools after work began on the new curriculum in September.

But it has concerned Salim Mulla, chair of Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion.

"The values are very, very important. I don’t think the non-God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.

“I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay.

“The non-faith beliefs send a wrong message to the children and confuse them.”

But the move was backed by Lancashire Telegraph columnist Rev Kevin Logan.

He said: "It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

"They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.

"I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light."

Voluntary-aided CofE schools must use the Diocese’s RE syllabus but the areas voluntary-controlled schools can opt to use Blackburn with Darwen Council’s new syllabus.

A spokeswoman for Blackburn Diocese education department said: “We fully support the use of the Leicester syllabus in Blackburn with Darwen schools.

"It gives a balanced picture of the wide range of faiths and gives pupils a balanced view of beliefs.”

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Tue 29 Mar 11

useyourhead says...

One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children.
-
what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins?
-
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? - useyourhead
  • Score: 0

9:20am Tue 29 Mar 11

Carlost says...

Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right.
Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.
Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view. Carlost
  • Score: 0

9:22am Tue 29 Mar 11

happycyclist says...

useyourhead wrote:
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children.
-
what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins?
-
LOL!
[quote][p][bold]useyourhead[/bold] wrote: One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -[/p][/quote]LOL! happycyclist
  • Score: 0

9:24am Tue 29 Mar 11

happycyclist says...

useyourhead -that's the funniest comment I've seen on the news page in yonks. I hope they use it in the printed LT.
useyourhead -that's the funniest comment I've seen on the news page in yonks. I hope they use it in the printed LT. happycyclist
  • Score: 0

9:35am Tue 29 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

Nobody has to die to find Heaven.
Nobody has to die to find Heaven. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

9:40am Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian_G says...

Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children.

It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!).

It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation.

Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools.

Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age.
Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children. It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!). It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation. Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools. Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age. Ian_G
  • Score: 0

9:45am Tue 29 Mar 11

ENGLISH SKINHEAD says...

God, about time!

To pinch another quote off here-

RELIGION HAS ONLY HELD BACK THE HUMAN RACE.
God, about time! To pinch another quote off here- RELIGION HAS ONLY HELD BACK THE HUMAN RACE. ENGLISH SKINHEAD
  • Score: 0

9:48am Tue 29 Mar 11

useyourhead says...

happycyclist wrote:
useyourhead -that's the funniest comment I've seen on the news page in yonks. I hope they use it in the printed LT.
Thank-you Happycyclist, I Just HAD to comment on that one lol.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: useyourhead -that's the funniest comment I've seen on the news page in yonks. I hope they use it in the printed LT.[/p][/quote]Thank-you Happycyclist, I Just HAD to comment on that one lol. useyourhead
  • Score: 0

9:48am Tue 29 Mar 11

ENGLISH SKINHEAD says...

Ian_G wrote:
Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children.

It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!).

It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation.

Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools.

Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age.
In a nutshell !!
[quote][p][bold]Ian_G[/bold] wrote: Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children. It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!). It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation. Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools. Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell !! ENGLISH SKINHEAD
  • Score: 0

10:02am Tue 29 Mar 11

Guzford says...

If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools Guzford
  • Score: 0

10:14am Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian the Beancounter says...

Guzford wrote:
If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!!
[quote][p][bold]Guzford[/bold] wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!! Ian the Beancounter
  • Score: 0

10:29am Tue 29 Mar 11

CapitaBackHander says...

They did this at my school decades ago, industrial action always meant RE was missed. RE should not be taught at schools - religion should be left for other places to brainwash the gulible.
I thought C of E was the same - always the one you tick on the form if you are not religious.... imagine saying that about a different faith - the post would be reported a.s.a.p
Religion is evil anyway which is quite ironic.....
They did this at my school decades ago, industrial action always meant RE was missed. RE should not be taught at schools - religion should be left for other places to brainwash the gulible. I thought C of E was the same - always the one you tick on the form if you are not religious.... imagine saying that about a different faith - the post would be reported a.s.a.p Religion is evil anyway which is quite ironic..... CapitaBackHander
  • Score: 0

10:39am Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Carlost wrote:
Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right.
Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.
I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings.
[quote][p][bold]Carlost[/bold] wrote: Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.[/p][/quote]I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

10:41am Tue 29 Mar 11

Izanears says...

According to one of the council’s advisors it will allow children to become ‘citizens in Blackburn and the world’ and instill ‘confidence.’

Have you ever read such rubbish in your life? I bet we are paying this idiot thousands a year to talk c**p.
According to one of the council’s advisors it will allow children to become ‘citizens in Blackburn and the world’ and instill ‘confidence.’ Have you ever read such rubbish in your life? I bet we are paying this idiot thousands a year to talk c**p. Izanears
  • Score: 0

10:43am Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Ian the Beancounter wrote:
Guzford wrote:
If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!!
Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.
[quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guzford[/bold] wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!![/p][/quote]Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

10:54am Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Ian_G wrote:
Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children.

It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!).

It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation.

Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools.

Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age.
Yet more wild claims - "merciless indoctrination", "defenceless children", "poisons and damages their minds", "mental abuse" - all without any substantiation! It must be many years indeed since you and some other posters on here have experienced religious education in school. Modern Religious Studies looks at religious faiths from a thematic and sometimes comparative point of view. Students are taughts what faiths teach, what the core beliefs and practices are. Given our increasingly global marketplace, and our growing interconnectedness, it would be foolish to ignore 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, almost 1 billion Hindus, c. 1 billion Buddhists and probably another 500 million Taoists and Confucianists in China. It is just as important for our kids to know what others believe and why in order to understand, interact and communicate with them, not only in their own back yards but across the world.
[quote][p][bold]Ian_G[/bold] wrote: Religion in schools is nothing less than merciless indoctrination of defenceless children. It poisons and damages their minds in a way that takes decades to repair (if it can be repaired at all!). It is nothing less than mental abuse designed to swell the ranks (and the coffers) of the organised religions for the next generation. Children should be protected, not taken advantage of and rather than teaching about atheism, ALL religion should be taken out of all schools. Let them make their minds up when they are old enough to do so rather than indoctrinate and emotionally blackmail them from an early, vulnerable age.[/p][/quote]Yet more wild claims - "merciless indoctrination", "defenceless children", "poisons and damages their minds", "mental abuse" - all without any substantiation! It must be many years indeed since you and some other posters on here have experienced religious education in school. Modern Religious Studies looks at religious faiths from a thematic and sometimes comparative point of view. Students are taughts what faiths teach, what the core beliefs and practices are. Given our increasingly global marketplace, and our growing interconnectedness, it would be foolish to ignore 2.2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, almost 1 billion Hindus, c. 1 billion Buddhists and probably another 500 million Taoists and Confucianists in China. It is just as important for our kids to know what others believe and why in order to understand, interact and communicate with them, not only in their own back yards but across the world. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 29 Mar 11

alsarg72 says...

Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational.

Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information.
Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational. Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information. alsarg72
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 29 Mar 11

Carlost says...

MerlinTheVoiceofReas
on
wrote:
Carlost wrote: Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.
I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings.
Hi MerlinTheVoiceOfReas
on

I did say that truth is what Science "deals with" and of course as new knowledge is uncovered our understanding is updated and modified. The important thing is that we use logic and reason to make sense of the world. The scientific method is self regulating. It is science that updates itself, as opposed to religious dogma which is resistant to any change or criticism. I do think Science and Religion are competing to describe reality - one based on reason and one based in irrational belief - I know which one I prefer for my children.
[quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlost[/bold] wrote: Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.[/p][/quote]I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings.[/p][/quote]Hi MerlinTheVoiceOfReas on I did say that truth is what Science "deals with" and of course as new knowledge is uncovered our understanding is updated and modified. The important thing is that we use logic and reason to make sense of the world. The scientific method is self regulating. It is science that updates itself, as opposed to religious dogma which is resistant to any change or criticism. I do think Science and Religion are competing to describe reality - one based on reason and one based in irrational belief - I know which one I prefer for my children. Carlost
  • Score: 0

11:35am Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian_G says...

alsarg72 wrote:
Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational. Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information.
I am all for the educating children with facts.

Billions of people around the World have faith in different Gods and therefore, religion does have a major influence globally and children need to know about it.

Therefore, if children were told ABOUT religion, I would not have a problem about it - just as I would not have a problem with them being taught about different political views.

However, children are told to BELIEVE in religion and it is taught to them as fact - they are utterly unable to distinguish between a theory and fact and thererfore, indoctrinating them with an unsubstantiated view as fact is downright WRONG.

Merlin, you have some audacity in stating to me that my statements are unsubstantiated - take a look at any religion for the ultimate example of something being unsubstatiated.
[quote][p][bold]alsarg72[/bold] wrote: Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational. Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information.[/p][/quote]I am all for the educating children with facts. Billions of people around the World have faith in different Gods and therefore, religion does have a major influence globally and children need to know about it. Therefore, if children were told ABOUT religion, I would not have a problem about it - just as I would not have a problem with them being taught about different political views. However, children are told to BELIEVE in religion and it is taught to them as fact - they are utterly unable to distinguish between a theory and fact and thererfore, indoctrinating them with an unsubstantiated view as fact is downright WRONG. Merlin, you have some audacity in stating to me that my statements are unsubstantiated - take a look at any religion for the ultimate example of something being unsubstatiated. Ian_G
  • Score: 0

11:46am Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Carlost wrote:
MerlinTheVoiceofReas

on
wrote:
Carlost wrote: Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.
I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings.
Hi MerlinTheVoiceOfReas

on

I did say that truth is what Science "deals with" and of course as new knowledge is uncovered our understanding is updated and modified. The important thing is that we use logic and reason to make sense of the world. The scientific method is self regulating. It is science that updates itself, as opposed to religious dogma which is resistant to any change or criticism. I do think Science and Religion are competing to describe reality - one based on reason and one based in irrational belief - I know which one I prefer for my children.
Science and religion are perceived by many like yourself to be competing, others would describe them as different "language games" to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein. There is a significant enough number of religious scientists to show that they at least do not find conflict between the two - their faith is just somewhat more sophisticated. John Polkinghorne is a good expample - erstwhile Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, he then joined the Anglican priesthood in 1982. He has written extensively on the relationship between science and religion. Paul Davies is another English physicist who holds that faith and religion can co-exist and has also questioned the claim that science is "free of faith" as "manifestly bogus." One could add to this list John Hapgood, former Archbishop of York, who was a biologist; Malcolm Jeeves, eminent neuropsychologist; Arthur Peacock who was a biochemist; and many more. The matter is not quite as black and white as you make out.
[quote][p][bold]Carlost[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlost[/bold] wrote: Excellent! Good! At last we are on the road to teaching children the truth about the world. Schools should not be filling childrens heads with confusing and conflicting myths and stories as though they are true. Teaching "about" religions is fine, but too often this falls into indoctrination. Truth is universal, it is what science deals with and is the same for everyone.Which religion is true, there are so many and they can't all be right. Schools shuold teach children the truth and leave religious beliefs to the parents. There are more people in the Uk who do not believe in god, than Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, JWs, Buddists etc. etc. it is time that non-belief is given the same respect and status as any other point of view.[/p][/quote]I am all in favour of teaching about the diversity of beliefs, including all of the major world faiths plus humanism, agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, paganism and so on. However, your analysis is itself full of confusion. To state that science teaches universal truth is in itself misleading. Many scientific "facts", taught as truth a hundred years ago, are no longer considered to be facts today. There have been paradigm shifts in physics from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Theory and onwards. Similarly, it used to be taught in O Level biology that vitamin E had no function in humans, only of benefit to rats for reproduction. It should also be pointed out that scientists don't always agree. There are many areas of science where there are "schools of thought", rival theories etc. So rather than claim that science teaches universal truths, you should qualify your statement. You could claim that science promotes a methodolgy based on evidence, experiment and observation which may lead to "truth claims" being revised in the light of new knowledge. However, to think that science and faith are competing to describe reality is wrong - they are different languages with different meanings.[/p][/quote]Hi MerlinTheVoiceOfReas on I did say that truth is what Science "deals with" and of course as new knowledge is uncovered our understanding is updated and modified. The important thing is that we use logic and reason to make sense of the world. The scientific method is self regulating. It is science that updates itself, as opposed to religious dogma which is resistant to any change or criticism. I do think Science and Religion are competing to describe reality - one based on reason and one based in irrational belief - I know which one I prefer for my children.[/p][/quote]Science and religion are perceived by many like yourself to be competing, others would describe them as different "language games" to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein. There is a significant enough number of religious scientists to show that they at least do not find conflict between the two - their faith is just somewhat more sophisticated. John Polkinghorne is a good expample - erstwhile Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, he then joined the Anglican priesthood in 1982. He has written extensively on the relationship between science and religion. Paul Davies is another English physicist who holds that faith and religion can co-exist and has also questioned the claim that science is "free of faith" as "manifestly bogus." One could add to this list John Hapgood, former Archbishop of York, who was a biologist; Malcolm Jeeves, eminent neuropsychologist; Arthur Peacock who was a biochemist; and many more. The matter is not quite as black and white as you make out. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 29 Mar 11

matthewofthenight says...

Reading the views of Salim Mulla, and then some of the comments; it goes to show that there's still a great deal of prejudice directed by theists towards atheists.

In any case, atheism doesn't need to be taught to atheists; as these children almost certainly are. They might believe in a creator, they may be deists (I'm feeling generous) but ask a so called "Christian" child to recite the Nicene Creed and you'll get a blank look. Engage with it about doctrine and you'll get a blank look. There's nothing, apart from the protestations of the parents, to distinguish any child as being theistic.
Reading the views of Salim Mulla, and then some of the comments; it goes to show that there's still a great deal of prejudice directed by theists towards atheists. In any case, atheism doesn't need to be taught to atheists; as these children almost certainly are. They might believe in a creator, they may be deists (I'm feeling generous) but ask a so called "Christian" child to recite the Nicene Creed and you'll get a blank look. Engage with it about doctrine and you'll get a blank look. There's nothing, apart from the protestations of the parents, to distinguish any child as being theistic. matthewofthenight
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Ian_G wrote:
alsarg72 wrote:
Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational. Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information.
I am all for the educating children with facts.

Billions of people around the World have faith in different Gods and therefore, religion does have a major influence globally and children need to know about it.

Therefore, if children were told ABOUT religion, I would not have a problem about it - just as I would not have a problem with them being taught about different political views.

However, children are told to BELIEVE in religion and it is taught to them as fact - they are utterly unable to distinguish between a theory and fact and thererfore, indoctrinating them with an unsubstantiated view as fact is downright WRONG.

Merlin, you have some audacity in stating to me that my statements are unsubstantiated - take a look at any religion for the ultimate example of something being unsubstatiated.
Told by who to believe? Most schoolchildren are taught about several religions, it's part of the national curriculum. They are taught ABOUT religion. I suggest you go back to school and find out. I doubt they are utterly unable to distinguish fact from theory (and by the way a lot of science is taught as fact when it is no more than theory) - otherwise we would surely have many more religious adherents coming out of schools. As usual, a complete over-reaction from many on these pages.
[quote][p][bold]Ian_G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alsarg72[/bold] wrote: Bravo! Not just that they will be teaching atheism, but that their syllabus sounds balanced and educational - as opposed to indoctrinational. Ian_G - preventing children from learning about religions would leave them ignorant and unable to choose for themselves to not be religious, rather than save them from being religious. Good information trumps no information as well as wrong information.[/p][/quote]I am all for the educating children with facts. Billions of people around the World have faith in different Gods and therefore, religion does have a major influence globally and children need to know about it. Therefore, if children were told ABOUT religion, I would not have a problem about it - just as I would not have a problem with them being taught about different political views. However, children are told to BELIEVE in religion and it is taught to them as fact - they are utterly unable to distinguish between a theory and fact and thererfore, indoctrinating them with an unsubstantiated view as fact is downright WRONG. Merlin, you have some audacity in stating to me that my statements are unsubstantiated - take a look at any religion for the ultimate example of something being unsubstatiated.[/p][/quote]Told by who to believe? Most schoolchildren are taught about several religions, it's part of the national curriculum. They are taught ABOUT religion. I suggest you go back to school and find out. I doubt they are utterly unable to distinguish fact from theory (and by the way a lot of science is taught as fact when it is no more than theory) - otherwise we would surely have many more religious adherents coming out of schools. As usual, a complete over-reaction from many on these pages. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 29 Mar 11

time.team says...

useyourhead wrote:
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -
Well said!
There’s nothing wrong with religion except for what is believed. As a group who enjoy the sense of community and belonging nothing could be better some would say. Unfortunately all of our religious beliefs derive from the dark ages when we were still lacking the ability to even see beyond the horizon. Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell if you wonder elsewhere, so help me God.
Hell must have been believed to be a big place!
-
No, we’re at last dragging ourselves out of the dark ages to discover ‘things’ for what they actually are. Proven and understandable facts and figures that make the world we live on even more of a problem to understand fully. So insignificant within the whole of whatever is going on. Just what was there before the big gang? But just like politics, when you’ve been brought up under the one shell your always afraid to venture forth to discover the truth. We only feel secure within our own home!
-
So as for the teaching of Atheism in schools?
The only reason for anyone not wanting to teach the meaning of atheism in schools is the fear of having to justify another belief theory.
-
An open mind shows no prejudice?
[quote][p][bold]useyourhead[/bold] wrote: One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -[/p][/quote]Well said! There’s nothing wrong with religion except for what is believed. As a group who enjoy the sense of community and belonging nothing could be better some would say. Unfortunately all of our religious beliefs derive from the dark ages when we were still lacking the ability to even see beyond the horizon. Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell if you wonder elsewhere, so help me God. Hell must have been believed to be a big place! - No, we’re at last dragging ourselves out of the dark ages to discover ‘things’ for what they actually are. Proven and understandable facts and figures that make the world we live on even more of a problem to understand fully. So insignificant within the whole of whatever is going on. Just what was there before the big gang? But just like politics, when you’ve been brought up under the one shell your always afraid to venture forth to discover the truth. We only feel secure within our own home! - So as for the teaching of Atheism in schools? The only reason for anyone not wanting to teach the meaning of atheism in schools is the fear of having to justify another belief theory. - An open mind shows no prejudice? time.team
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Tue 29 Mar 11

AlbieM says...

The council should now be renamed as 'Blackburn with DARWIN'!!!
The council should now be renamed as 'Blackburn with DARWIN'!!! AlbieM
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Slimplynth says...

Sensibly Agnostic...

..Tell the kids but Secular UK is the only way...
Sensibly Agnostic... ..Tell the kids but Secular UK is the only way... Slimplynth
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Tue 29 Mar 11

past it says...

useyourhead wrote:
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -
Spot on post, lol , I never got the holy ghost, and angels, but then again I was at the back of the class in RE.
[quote][p][bold]useyourhead[/bold] wrote: One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -[/p][/quote]Spot on post, lol , I never got the holy ghost, and angels, but then again I was at the back of the class in RE. past it
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Tue 29 Mar 11

ladysal says...

Yes, but isn't it funny that it is a different religion which is against the change?

Ian_G: while I can see where you are coming from, speaking from my own experience and that which I can see my daughter having, I feel that there are benefits to having religion as a child. I remember feeling strangely comforted by the idea that there was a higher power looking after us all and I know my daughter feels the same way.
Being lucky enough to belong to a religion which lets you leave (as I did as a teenager) and then return with a big welcome, I can't speak for those who follow a less understanding religion.
All I would say is that when I started to question things then I was allowed to follow my own beliefs without censure and when my daughter is old enough to express the same she will be given the same freedom. That applies to non belief and change of belief. She attends a Catholic school so will probably not follow this syllabus. However, the beliefs and customs of other religions are already a part of what she is taught.
Yes, but isn't it funny that it is a different religion which is against the change? Ian_G: while I can see where you are coming from, speaking from my own experience and that which I can see my daughter having, I feel that there are benefits to having religion as a child. I remember feeling strangely comforted by the idea that there was a higher power looking after us all and I know my daughter feels the same way. Being lucky enough to belong to a religion which lets you leave (as I did as a teenager) and then return with a big welcome, I can't speak for those who follow a less understanding religion. All I would say is that when I started to question things then I was allowed to follow my own beliefs without censure and when my daughter is old enough to express the same she will be given the same freedom. That applies to non belief and change of belief. She attends a Catholic school so will probably not follow this syllabus. However, the beliefs and customs of other religions are already a part of what she is taught. ladysal
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 29 Mar 11

matthewofthenight says...

There seems to be some confusion as to what agnostism and atheism actually mean. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism merely relates to whether knowledge can be known. There are gnostic atheists (though not many at all) who believe that it can be known that a deity or deities don't exist. The agnostic atheists (who are by far and away the majority of nonbelievers)believe that the answer to the question can not be known, but as they do not believe in any deity or deities they are, by default, atheists.

It's worth being sceptical of people who differentiate between atheists and agnostics. If a religious person is speaking to an atheist and that atheist declares agnosticism, they're usually doing so for diplomatic reasons.
There seems to be some confusion as to what agnostism and atheism actually mean. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism merely relates to whether knowledge can be known. There are gnostic atheists (though not many at all) who believe that it can be known that a deity or deities don't exist. The agnostic atheists (who are by far and away the majority of nonbelievers)believe that the answer to the question can not be known, but as they do not believe in any deity or deities they are, by default, atheists. It's worth being sceptical of people who differentiate between atheists and agnostics. If a religious person is speaking to an atheist and that atheist declares agnosticism, they're usually doing so for diplomatic reasons. matthewofthenight
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 29 Mar 11

jack daniels says...

"But it has concerned Salim Mulla, chair of Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion."

But he is also a BwD councillor and he holds this opinion.
"But it has concerned Salim Mulla, chair of Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion." But he is also a BwD councillor and he holds this opinion. jack daniels
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian the Beancounter says...

MerlinTheVoiceofReas
on
wrote:
Ian the Beancounter wrote:
Guzford wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!!
Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.
Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week.
.
N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt!
[quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guzford[/bold] wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!![/p][/quote]Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.[/p][/quote]Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week. . N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt! Ian the Beancounter
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Carlost says...

Hi MerlintheVoiceOfReas
on

Ref: your reply to me above.

Thanks for the examples of eminent men or men of noteriety who have changed their minds or can accomodate multiple belief systems. I don't know what this demonstrates other than the fickleness of human nature or man's tendancy to irrational beliefs. Mathematics makes sense even when you believe in god. Physics is based on fundamental laws which work equaly for believers and non-believers. I know lots of people belive in god and are religious that is a truth about the world. I know there are many people who would like me dead for not agreeing with or crticising their beliefs. All their holy books including the Bilbe say repeatedly that I should be killed, put to death, stoned or burned in hell for not agreeing with them. I know of not one Scientsist or Scientific Journal who woukd wnat me dead for any disagreement or different point of view. To me these are definitely two different views of the world. I agree that not everything is black and white, but on balance I think irrational belief systems do us more harm than good and we would be better off without them.
Hi MerlintheVoiceOfReas on Ref: your reply to me above. Thanks for the examples of eminent men or men of noteriety who have changed their minds or can accomodate multiple belief systems. I don't know what this demonstrates other than the fickleness of human nature or man's tendancy to irrational beliefs. Mathematics makes sense even when you believe in god. Physics is based on fundamental laws which work equaly for believers and non-believers. I know lots of people belive in god and are religious that is a truth about the world. I know there are many people who would like me dead for not agreeing with or crticising their beliefs. All their holy books including the Bilbe say repeatedly that I should be killed, put to death, stoned or burned in hell for not agreeing with them. I know of not one Scientsist or Scientific Journal who woukd wnat me dead for any disagreement or different point of view. To me these are definitely two different views of the world. I agree that not everything is black and white, but on balance I think irrational belief systems do us more harm than good and we would be better off without them. Carlost
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Carlost says...

Dear Lancashire Telegraph

Ihave just seen your front page.

Although this article is informative and fair I take issue with the headline which is misleading. It seems mischieviously designed to be sensationalist. Why is this a "shock", why show a seemingly worried child. Why not say " At last our children get a balanced view of the world" and have a picture of a smiling child?
Dear Lancashire Telegraph Ihave just seen your front page. Although this article is informative and fair I take issue with the headline which is misleading. It seems mischieviously designed to be sensationalist. Why is this a "shock", why show a seemingly worried child. Why not say " At last our children get a balanced view of the world" and have a picture of a smiling child? Carlost
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 29 Mar 11

tuckster says...

What people don’t realize is that the majority of pupils in Blackburn get their real RE lessons daily at mosque. Whilst it is true people are not born Christian or Muslim their parents are their role models and It is rare but not uncommon for people to change from their parents’ religion. A professor at the University of Manchester says to blame parents for the decline religiosity and church attendance. He showed that children having faith is proportional to how many of the parents attend church services and how often. Einstein in the 30s suggested it was easier to define science than religion, how much more so is it today to define science and ignore religion. England used to be a Christian country- yet there would be a revolution if people had to go to church to justify their ‘public holidays’ which are 90% religious. Before long other councils will follow suite and England will no longer be a Christian country. God help us all.
What people don’t realize is that the majority of pupils in Blackburn get their real RE lessons daily at mosque. Whilst it is true people are not born Christian or Muslim their parents are their role models and It is rare but not uncommon for people to change from their parents’ religion. A professor at the University of Manchester says to blame parents for the decline religiosity and church attendance. He showed that children having faith is proportional to how many of the parents attend church services and how often. Einstein in the 30s suggested it was easier to define science than religion, how much more so is it today to define science and ignore religion. England used to be a Christian country- yet there would be a revolution if people had to go to church to justify their ‘public holidays’ which are 90% religious. Before long other councils will follow suite and England will no longer be a Christian country. God help us all. tuckster
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 29 Mar 11

catburn says...

There's a difference between being taught religion and being taught about religion. It is about time that the school curriculum was modernised to reflect the reality of modern society's religious and aetheist beliefs. RE should be taught wholistic and politically/critical
ly reflective or not at all. As mentioned in the article, it is important for children to have faith values, but this does not mean that values need to be taught under the guise of religion. I'd like to think that my non-religious children have learnt sound humanistic values without the threat of eternal fiery damnation hanging over their heads! Not all children are born into faiths!
There's a difference between being taught religion and being taught about religion. It is about time that the school curriculum was modernised to reflect the reality of modern society's religious and aetheist beliefs. RE should be taught wholistic and politically/critical ly reflective or not at all. As mentioned in the article, it is important for children to have faith values, but this does not mean that values need to be taught under the guise of religion. I'd like to think that my non-religious children have learnt sound humanistic values without the threat of eternal fiery damnation hanging over their heads! Not all children are born into faiths! catburn
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Carlost wrote:
Hi MerlintheVoiceOfReas

on

Ref: your reply to me above.

Thanks for the examples of eminent men or men of noteriety who have changed their minds or can accomodate multiple belief systems. I don't know what this demonstrates other than the fickleness of human nature or man's tendancy to irrational beliefs. Mathematics makes sense even when you believe in god. Physics is based on fundamental laws which work equaly for believers and non-believers. I know lots of people belive in god and are religious that is a truth about the world. I know there are many people who would like me dead for not agreeing with or crticising their beliefs. All their holy books including the Bilbe say repeatedly that I should be killed, put to death, stoned or burned in hell for not agreeing with them. I know of not one Scientsist or Scientific Journal who woukd wnat me dead for any disagreement or different point of view. To me these are definitely two different views of the world. I agree that not everything is black and white, but on balance I think irrational belief systems do us more harm than good and we would be better off without them.
I understand your drift and there are many balanced religious people who are happy for unbelievers to co-exist and atheists happy for religion to co-exist with them. I can't for one minute see Mrs Smith who attends the local C of E on a Sunday wanting to stone you to death :). Finally, John Polkinghorne might be slightly perturbed that you think he's irrational - his faith and his physics happily sit alongside each other. I'm not banging the drum for belief here by the way - just trying to bring some sense to some of the comments made by several contributors on here! :)
[quote][p][bold]Carlost[/bold] wrote: Hi MerlintheVoiceOfReas on Ref: your reply to me above. Thanks for the examples of eminent men or men of noteriety who have changed their minds or can accomodate multiple belief systems. I don't know what this demonstrates other than the fickleness of human nature or man's tendancy to irrational beliefs. Mathematics makes sense even when you believe in god. Physics is based on fundamental laws which work equaly for believers and non-believers. I know lots of people belive in god and are religious that is a truth about the world. I know there are many people who would like me dead for not agreeing with or crticising their beliefs. All their holy books including the Bilbe say repeatedly that I should be killed, put to death, stoned or burned in hell for not agreeing with them. I know of not one Scientsist or Scientific Journal who woukd wnat me dead for any disagreement or different point of view. To me these are definitely two different views of the world. I agree that not everything is black and white, but on balance I think irrational belief systems do us more harm than good and we would be better off without them.[/p][/quote]I understand your drift and there are many balanced religious people who are happy for unbelievers to co-exist and atheists happy for religion to co-exist with them. I can't for one minute see Mrs Smith who attends the local C of E on a Sunday wanting to stone you to death :). Finally, John Polkinghorne might be slightly perturbed that you think he's irrational - his faith and his physics happily sit alongside each other. I'm not banging the drum for belief here by the way - just trying to bring some sense to some of the comments made by several contributors on here! :) MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

time.team wrote:
useyourhead wrote:
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -
Well said!
There’s nothing wrong with religion except for what is believed. As a group who enjoy the sense of community and belonging nothing could be better some would say. Unfortunately all of our religious beliefs derive from the dark ages when we were still lacking the ability to even see beyond the horizon. Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell if you wonder elsewhere, so help me God.
Hell must have been believed to be a big place!
-
No, we’re at last dragging ourselves out of the dark ages to discover ‘things’ for what they actually are. Proven and understandable facts and figures that make the world we live on even more of a problem to understand fully. So insignificant within the whole of whatever is going on. Just what was there before the big gang? But just like politics, when you’ve been brought up under the one shell your always afraid to venture forth to discover the truth. We only feel secure within our own home!
-
So as for the teaching of Atheism in schools?
The only reason for anyone not wanting to teach the meaning of atheism in schools is the fear of having to justify another belief theory.
-
An open mind shows no prejudice?
"ALL" of our relgious beliefs derive from the Dark Ages do they? That's a sweeping statement which has no basis in fact. "Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell" - all of them? Again, another inaccurate claim. Please do some research on the world's religions before you make these statements. As for dragging ourselves out of the Dark Ages, I thought we had done that a long time ago.
[quote][p][bold]time.team[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]useyourhead[/bold] wrote: One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -[/p][/quote]Well said! There’s nothing wrong with religion except for what is believed. As a group who enjoy the sense of community and belonging nothing could be better some would say. Unfortunately all of our religious beliefs derive from the dark ages when we were still lacking the ability to even see beyond the horizon. Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell if you wonder elsewhere, so help me God. Hell must have been believed to be a big place! - No, we’re at last dragging ourselves out of the dark ages to discover ‘things’ for what they actually are. Proven and understandable facts and figures that make the world we live on even more of a problem to understand fully. So insignificant within the whole of whatever is going on. Just what was there before the big gang? But just like politics, when you’ve been brought up under the one shell your always afraid to venture forth to discover the truth. We only feel secure within our own home! - So as for the teaching of Atheism in schools? The only reason for anyone not wanting to teach the meaning of atheism in schools is the fear of having to justify another belief theory. - An open mind shows no prejudice?[/p][/quote]"ALL" of our relgious beliefs derive from the Dark Ages do they? That's a sweeping statement which has no basis in fact. "Religious beliefs are all based on the written word and the fear of ending up in hell" - all of them? Again, another inaccurate claim. Please do some research on the world's religions before you make these statements. As for dragging ourselves out of the Dark Ages, I thought we had done that a long time ago. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Tue 29 Mar 11

wtloild says...

Izanears wrote:
According to one of the council’s advisors it will allow children to become ‘citizens in Blackburn and the world’ and instill ‘confidence.’

Have you ever read such rubbish in your life? I bet we are paying this idiot thousands a year to talk c**p.
If it opens their minds to an alternative thinking to the superstitious nonsense they learn at Sunday School or Madrassa, then yes they probably will grow up to be better citizens.
The only pity is that the Faith schools have the option to opt out of it.
[quote][p][bold]Izanears[/bold] wrote: According to one of the council’s advisors it will allow children to become ‘citizens in Blackburn and the world’ and instill ‘confidence.’ Have you ever read such rubbish in your life? I bet we are paying this idiot thousands a year to talk c**p.[/p][/quote]If it opens their minds to an alternative thinking to the superstitious nonsense they learn at Sunday School or Madrassa, then yes they probably will grow up to be better citizens. The only pity is that the Faith schools have the option to opt out of it. wtloild
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Tue 29 Mar 11

MerlinTheVoiceofReason says...

Ian the Beancounter wrote:
MerlinTheVoiceofReas

on
wrote:
Ian the Beancounter wrote:
Guzford wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!!
Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.
Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week.
.
N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt!
I would say that young minds are "impressionable" in the sense that they are able to absorb and process a lot of information and sensory data. That is not the same thing as vulnerable. I don't see any problem at all with teaching about world religions if the teaching is done in a balanced and responsible way. Neither do I have a problem with atheism or secularism being taught. But your desire to see it removed from the syllabus would deprive our children from understanding how billions of others around the world think and behave. On this basis, religious studies does provide children with the knowledge they require. I won't get into a philosophical debate about "evidence" for God because that would run and run. As I've said in another post, there are many eminent scientists of faith, many philosophers of faith; equally, there are some eminent atheist scientists and philosophers. I'm not siding with either, just making the case that it's not quite as black and white as you make out. Enjoy your meeting next week.
[quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guzford[/bold] wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!![/p][/quote]Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.[/p][/quote]Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week. . N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt![/p][/quote]I would say that young minds are "impressionable" in the sense that they are able to absorb and process a lot of information and sensory data. That is not the same thing as vulnerable. I don't see any problem at all with teaching about world religions if the teaching is done in a balanced and responsible way. Neither do I have a problem with atheism or secularism being taught. But your desire to see it removed from the syllabus would deprive our children from understanding how billions of others around the world think and behave. On this basis, religious studies does provide children with the knowledge they require. I won't get into a philosophical debate about "evidence" for God because that would run and run. As I've said in another post, there are many eminent scientists of faith, many philosophers of faith; equally, there are some eminent atheist scientists and philosophers. I'm not siding with either, just making the case that it's not quite as black and white as you make out. Enjoy your meeting next week. MerlinTheVoiceofReason
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Tue 29 Mar 11

chippys222 says...

Religion is the root that has caused every WAR there as been FACT. all you have done is read a book or be brainwashed by your parents to believe in it. FACT. PS if you can prove am wrong then go ahead and tell me
Religion is the root that has caused every WAR there as been FACT. all you have done is read a book or be brainwashed by your parents to believe in it. FACT. PS if you can prove am wrong then go ahead and tell me chippys222
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Tue 29 Mar 11

burner says...

Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released.
Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released. burner
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Tue 29 Mar 11

useyourhead says...

burner wrote:
Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released.
what in 100 years lol, I'll put the kettle on!
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released.[/p][/quote]what in 100 years lol, I'll put the kettle on! useyourhead
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Tue 29 Mar 11

kenbro says...

Humans have been wandering the earth for about 100,000 years or so. For 98,000 of those years, they worshipped nothing, or perhaps the moon, the sun, an idol, etc.
I suppose that all those unfortunates went to "hell", even though the "intelligent designer" had not informed them about any choices they had.
Incidentally, if you go back far enough, we didn't just evolve from apes, but from microbes.
Everything did.
Humans have been wandering the earth for about 100,000 years or so. For 98,000 of those years, they worshipped nothing, or perhaps the moon, the sun, an idol, etc. I suppose that all those unfortunates went to "hell", even though the "intelligent designer" had not informed them about any choices they had. Incidentally, if you go back far enough, we didn't just evolve from apes, but from microbes. Everything did. kenbro
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Tue 29 Mar 11

hasslem hasslem says...

tuckster wrote:
What people don’t realize is that the majority of pupils in Blackburn get their real RE lessons daily at mosque. Whilst it is true people are not born Christian or Muslim their parents are their role models and It is rare but not uncommon for people to change from their parents’ religion. A professor at the University of Manchester says to blame parents for the decline religiosity and church attendance. He showed that children having faith is proportional to how many of the parents attend church services and how often. Einstein in the 30s suggested it was easier to define science than religion, how much more so is it today to define science and ignore religion. England used to be a Christian country- yet there would be a revolution if people had to go to church to justify their ‘public holidays’ which are 90% religious. Before long other councils will follow suite and England will no longer be a Christian country. God help us all.
90% religious based public holidays?
.
well good friday definitely and easter monday yes but there is an argument that the latter was hi-jacked.
.
first may bank holiday - err No
.
second may bank holiday - arguably
.
august bank holiday - err No
.
christmas day - nicked from pagans
boxing day - err No
.
new year's day - err No.
.
i thank god i am an athiest (not an original line i know)
.
unbelievably sec word is "lord-spot", it must be a sign.
[quote][p][bold]tuckster[/bold] wrote: What people don’t realize is that the majority of pupils in Blackburn get their real RE lessons daily at mosque. Whilst it is true people are not born Christian or Muslim their parents are their role models and It is rare but not uncommon for people to change from their parents’ religion. A professor at the University of Manchester says to blame parents for the decline religiosity and church attendance. He showed that children having faith is proportional to how many of the parents attend church services and how often. Einstein in the 30s suggested it was easier to define science than religion, how much more so is it today to define science and ignore religion. England used to be a Christian country- yet there would be a revolution if people had to go to church to justify their ‘public holidays’ which are 90% religious. Before long other councils will follow suite and England will no longer be a Christian country. God help us all.[/p][/quote]90% religious based public holidays? . well good friday definitely and easter monday yes but there is an argument that the latter was hi-jacked. . first may bank holiday - err No . second may bank holiday - arguably . august bank holiday - err No . christmas day - nicked from pagans boxing day - err No . new year's day - err No. . i thank god i am an athiest (not an original line i know) . unbelievably sec word is "lord-spot", it must be a sign. hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Excluded again says...

If pupils are old enough to be taught about religious beliefs they are old enough to be taught about non-religious beliefs. If you can't teach a child there is such a thing as atheism, then you can't teach them there is such a thing as religion.

Give children an awareness of the range of beliefs there are - religious and non-religious - and when they are old enough let them make up their own minds.
If pupils are old enough to be taught about religious beliefs they are old enough to be taught about non-religious beliefs. If you can't teach a child there is such a thing as atheism, then you can't teach them there is such a thing as religion. Give children an awareness of the range of beliefs there are - religious and non-religious - and when they are old enough let them make up their own minds. Excluded again
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian the Beancounter says...

MerlinTheVoiceofReas
on
wrote:
Ian the Beancounter wrote:
MerlinTheVoiceofReas on wrote:
Ian the Beancounter wrote:
Guzford wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools
I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!!
Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.
Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week. . N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt!
I would say that young minds are "impressionable" in the sense that they are able to absorb and process a lot of information and sensory data. That is not the same thing as vulnerable. I don't see any problem at all with teaching about world religions if the teaching is done in a balanced and responsible way. Neither do I have a problem with atheism or secularism being taught. But your desire to see it removed from the syllabus would deprive our children from understanding how billions of others around the world think and behave. On this basis, religious studies does provide children with the knowledge they require. I won't get into a philosophical debate about "evidence" for God because that would run and run. As I've said in another post, there are many eminent scientists of faith, many philosophers of faith; equally, there are some eminent atheist scientists and philosophers. I'm not siding with either, just making the case that it's not quite as black and white as you make out. Enjoy your meeting next week.
That's a far more reasoned and balanced reply, Merlin. Thank you.
.
BTW, why don't you join the forum - I'm sure you'd enjoy the "cut and thrust"!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerlinTheVoiceofReas on[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian the Beancounter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guzford[/bold] wrote: If I wanted my kids to learn about religion I'd send them to church not school.....I send them to school to be educated, religion has no place in schools[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more! I've long advocated that schools in the 21st century should exist to educate our kids in the practical subjects which will enable them to make their way in the World. If they, or their parents, have a specific need to learn about religion, then there are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc to satisfy that need. STOP INDOCTRINATING VULNERABLE YOUNG MINDS WITH SUPERSTITIOUS RHETORIC!![/p][/quote]Who is to say they are vulnerable? On what basis do you claim it is "superstitious rhetoric"? You seem to be making wild claims without any substantiation. If only practical subjects were taught in schools, does that mean we should abandon the teaching of history, English literature, music and art? I think you have your own agenda.[/p][/quote]Merlin, I spoke about "vulnerable young minds". Children are influenced heavily in their formative years. I call it "superstitious rhetoric" because there is absolutely no evidence of a "God". Nor is there any evidence of the Easter Bunny. Catch my drift? And if you'd read my comments properly, I said "practical subjects to enable them to make their way in life". That includes all the academic subjects which provide them with the knowledge they require. And my only "agenda" is for a meeting I have to attend next week. . N.B. Security words: very-fail. How apt![/p][/quote]I would say that young minds are "impressionable" in the sense that they are able to absorb and process a lot of information and sensory data. That is not the same thing as vulnerable. I don't see any problem at all with teaching about world religions if the teaching is done in a balanced and responsible way. Neither do I have a problem with atheism or secularism being taught. But your desire to see it removed from the syllabus would deprive our children from understanding how billions of others around the world think and behave. On this basis, religious studies does provide children with the knowledge they require. I won't get into a philosophical debate about "evidence" for God because that would run and run. As I've said in another post, there are many eminent scientists of faith, many philosophers of faith; equally, there are some eminent atheist scientists and philosophers. I'm not siding with either, just making the case that it's not quite as black and white as you make out. Enjoy your meeting next week.[/p][/quote]That's a far more reasoned and balanced reply, Merlin. Thank you. . BTW, why don't you join the forum - I'm sure you'd enjoy the "cut and thrust"!!!!! Ian the Beancounter
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Tue 29 Mar 11

time.team says...

MerlinTheVoiceofReas
on, Ramsbottom:
Unsure about the point your making but here’s a few things that have always made me wonder:
Is there a God and why?
Is there a religion that say’s we won’t go to hell if we’re evil?
Where actually is hell?
Is there a modern religion?
Did Alice really go to Wonderland?
-
PS - Religion and ‘The Dark Ages‘. Words to conjure with!
MerlinTheVoiceofReas on, Ramsbottom: Unsure about the point your making but here’s a few things that have always made me wonder: Is there a God and why? Is there a religion that say’s we won’t go to hell if we’re evil? Where actually is hell? Is there a modern religion? Did Alice really go to Wonderland? - PS - Religion and ‘The Dark Ages‘. Words to conjure with! time.team
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 29 Mar 11

security/issolated says...

I don't really see what the problem is, some people believe in God and must have reason for this, some don't believe in God and must have reason for this. The most important thing is we are all human and what ever our believes/teachings, we must respect each other. Simple as that
I don't really see what the problem is, some people believe in God and must have reason for this, some don't believe in God and must have reason for this. The most important thing is we are all human and what ever our believes/teachings, we must respect each other. Simple as that security/issolated
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Tue 29 Mar 11

britguy says...

Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England.
Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.
Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at. britguy
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Tue 29 Mar 11

time.team says...

Britguy:
But what are the government and the EU doing to England?
Britguy: But what are the government and the EU doing to England? time.team
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Tue 29 Mar 11

jack daniels says...

burner wrote:
Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released.
a good point burner. These results should tell us what our children need to be taught in schools
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: Instead of crying "foul" on here - wait till the results of the 2011 Census are released.[/p][/quote]a good point burner. These results should tell us what our children need to be taught in schools jack daniels
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Tue 29 Mar 11

jack daniels says...

britguy wrote:
Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.
England needs a God to survive? You need your bumps feeling britguy. It was the mill owners that forced us to church on a sunday (you failed to turn up and your job was at peril) and when they influence dropped so did church attendance. Still, we'll always have you to laugh at.
[quote][p][bold]britguy[/bold] wrote: Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.[/p][/quote]England needs a God to survive? You need your bumps feeling britguy. It was the mill owners that forced us to church on a sunday (you failed to turn up and your job was at peril) and when they influence dropped so did church attendance. Still, we'll always have you to laugh at. jack daniels
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Ian123xyz says...

m.

“I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay."

Hard to believe that we are in the 21st century. Scary stuff.

As for "worshipping man" Does Kevin Logan mean denying that we are an evolved animal and believing that God has especially selected us and that we aren't really part of the wide animal kingdom.? Now that really is "worshipping man" Some might say it's incredible arrogance.
m. “I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay." Hard to believe that we are in the 21st century. Scary stuff. As for "worshipping man" Does Kevin Logan mean denying that we are an evolved animal and believing that God has especially selected us and that we aren't really part of the wide animal kingdom.? Now that really is "worshipping man" Some might say it's incredible arrogance. Ian123xyz
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Tue 29 Mar 11

chocky says...

What could be more confusing than teaching the kifds about all those different religions. That will definately make their heads spin. Keep the teaching of religion for Sundays (Or Saturdays) and keep religion out of schools altogther. Teach them science in school and religion in the Church, Synogogue Mosque etc.
What could be more confusing than teaching the kifds about all those different religions. That will definately make their heads spin. Keep the teaching of religion for Sundays (Or Saturdays) and keep religion out of schools altogther. Teach them science in school and religion in the Church, Synogogue Mosque etc. chocky
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Tue 29 Mar 11

jack daniels says...

britguy wrote:
Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.
So the English civil war between the Catholic’s and Puritans didn’t decimate parts of England? Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland and the eventual creation of the IRA who wished independence, didn’t cause any damage either according to you. The wars between Europe and England, especially Henry VIII and the Pope/King of Spain where all solved with a kiss and a hug? What about the wars with Scotland, did religion play any part?

Still laughing?
[quote][p][bold]britguy[/bold] wrote: Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.[/p][/quote]So the English civil war between the Catholic’s and Puritans didn’t decimate parts of England? Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland and the eventual creation of the IRA who wished independence, didn’t cause any damage either according to you. The wars between Europe and England, especially Henry VIII and the Pope/King of Spain where all solved with a kiss and a hug? What about the wars with Scotland, did religion play any part? Still laughing? jack daniels
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Tue 29 Mar 11

oh please.!! says...

useyourhead wrote:
One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children.
-
what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins?
-
spot on...corpses returning to life pregnant virgins..you could,nt make it up..religion=control
...power..manipulati
on..and lots of ££money$$..our destiny in life on planet earth will be down to all the great scientists..engineer
s and inventors of the world...NOT greenpeace..NOT friend of the earth..and NOT an invisible man in the sky.!!! and remember you cant reason with an idiot and you cant reason with people who still think the earths flat...
[quote][p][bold]useyourhead[/bold] wrote: One East Lancashire faith leader said that could ‘send a wrong message’ and ‘confuse’ children. - what? more than spontaneously combusting bushes, corpses returning to life and pregnant virgins? -[/p][/quote]spot on...corpses returning to life pregnant virgins..you could,nt make it up..religion=control ...power..manipulati on..and lots of ££money$$..our destiny in life on planet earth will be down to all the great scientists..engineer s and inventors of the world...NOT greenpeace..NOT friend of the earth..and NOT an invisible man in the sky.!!! and remember you cant reason with an idiot and you cant reason with people who still think the earths flat... oh please.!!
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Tue 29 Mar 11

mark1961a says...

I'm all for it I suppose since I am an atheist and have been since childhood. Although the nagging doubt that a particularly dry, boring and inaccurate syllabus will bore kids back into church still, well...nags.

Personally I'd prefer Science to be taught properly which it never is in secondary school by introducing 13+ kids to critical thinking and leave atheism itself alone as such (although the basic tenets of CT are fundamental to atheist thought). And use the time allocated to "teaching atheism" (whatever that means) for that.
I'm all for it I suppose since I am an atheist and have been since childhood. Although the nagging doubt that a particularly dry, boring and inaccurate syllabus will bore kids back into church still, well...nags. Personally I'd prefer Science to be taught properly which it never is in secondary school by introducing 13+ kids to critical thinking and leave atheism itself alone as such (although the basic tenets of CT are fundamental to atheist thought). And use the time allocated to "teaching atheism" (whatever that means) for that. mark1961a
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Livalot says...

It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions.
Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves
It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions. Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves Livalot
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Graham Hartley says...

Ken Shuffles wrote:
Nobody has to die to find Heaven.
Does anybody have to find Heaven to die?
[quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: Nobody has to die to find Heaven.[/p][/quote]Does anybody have to find Heaven to die? Graham Hartley
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Tue 29 Mar 11

tpreece01 says...

Can somebody enlighten me as to how you can teach a child atheism?

"Right kids - everything I've told you over the past year is crap. Ignore it, you've all passed. Now go home."
Can somebody enlighten me as to how you can teach a child atheism? "Right kids - everything I've told you over the past year is crap. Ignore it, you've all passed. Now go home." tpreece01
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Slimplynth says...

matthewofthenight wrote:
There seems to be some confusion as to what agnostism and atheism actually mean. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism merely relates to whether knowledge can be known. There are gnostic atheists (though not many at all) who believe that it can be known that a deity or deities don't exist. The agnostic atheists (who are by far and away the majority of nonbelievers)believe that the answer to the question can not be known, but as they do not believe in any deity or deities they are, by default, atheists.

It's worth being sceptical of people who differentiate between atheists and agnostics. If a religious person is speaking to an atheist and that atheist declares agnosticism, they're usually doing so for diplomatic reasons.
Im fairly clear of my reasonings.. I'm not at all sure about the workings of the universe.. I don't believe in a god but it certainly doesn't hurt to live a life whereby you know you won't have offended a deity should one exist.. which I find highly unlikely. I'm sceptical of someone who likes to pontificate about how people interact... If i were speaking to someone who believes in a god I wouldn't be any different to as you find me now.. completely at ease to discuss...
[quote][p][bold]matthewofthenight[/bold] wrote: There seems to be some confusion as to what agnostism and atheism actually mean. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism merely relates to whether knowledge can be known. There are gnostic atheists (though not many at all) who believe that it can be known that a deity or deities don't exist. The agnostic atheists (who are by far and away the majority of nonbelievers)believe that the answer to the question can not be known, but as they do not believe in any deity or deities they are, by default, atheists. It's worth being sceptical of people who differentiate between atheists and agnostics. If a religious person is speaking to an atheist and that atheist declares agnosticism, they're usually doing so for diplomatic reasons.[/p][/quote]Im fairly clear of my reasonings.. I'm not at all sure about the workings of the universe.. I don't believe in a god but it certainly doesn't hurt to live a life whereby you know you won't have offended a deity should one exist.. which I find highly unlikely. I'm sceptical of someone who likes to pontificate about how people interact... If i were speaking to someone who believes in a god I wouldn't be any different to as you find me now.. completely at ease to discuss... Slimplynth
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Tue 29 Mar 11

useyourhead says...

tpreece01 wrote:
Can somebody enlighten me as to how you can teach a child atheism?

"Right kids - everything I've told you over the past year is crap. Ignore it, you've all passed. Now go home."
LOL
[quote][p][bold]tpreece01[/bold] wrote: Can somebody enlighten me as to how you can teach a child atheism? "Right kids - everything I've told you over the past year is crap. Ignore it, you've all passed. Now go home."[/p][/quote]LOL useyourhead
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Revlog says...

Ian123xyz wrote:
m.

“I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay."

Hard to believe that we are in the 21st century. Scary stuff.

As for "worshipping man" Does Kevin Logan mean denying that we are an evolved animal and believing that God has especially selected us and that we aren't really part of the wide animal kingdom.? Now that really is "worshipping man" Some might say it's incredible arrogance.
Hello Ian123xyz,
I was brought up and schooled in one religion and converted to Christianity at 28.
I thought it was such a waste that I wasn't taught in school what I now know and value.
xxxxx
Regarding your question about my comments in the article...
I am simply pointing out that for humanists, secularists and atheists humanity is the highest life force they acknowledge.
You and me and approaching 7 billion other humans is the best that it gets.
But, the way humanity sometimes behaves, God help us.
xxxxx
Noting the way some atheists and humanists attack others (see above), I'd hate to know that this is the best we can be.
xxxxxx
God, who loved us so much that he sent his son to save us, seems a much better truth and proposition.
[quote][p][bold]Ian123xyz[/bold] wrote: m. “I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay." Hard to believe that we are in the 21st century. Scary stuff. As for "worshipping man" Does Kevin Logan mean denying that we are an evolved animal and believing that God has especially selected us and that we aren't really part of the wide animal kingdom.? Now that really is "worshipping man" Some might say it's incredible arrogance.[/p][/quote]Hello Ian123xyz, I was brought up and schooled in one religion and converted to Christianity at 28. I thought it was such a waste that I wasn't taught in school what I now know and value. xxxxx Regarding your question about my comments in the article... I am simply pointing out that for humanists, secularists and atheists humanity is the highest life force they acknowledge. You and me and approaching 7 billion other humans is the best that it gets. But, the way humanity sometimes behaves, God help us. xxxxx Noting the way some atheists and humanists attack others (see above), I'd hate to know that this is the best we can be. xxxxxx God, who loved us so much that he sent his son to save us, seems a much better truth and proposition. Revlog
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Tue 29 Mar 11

Revlog says...

Livalot wrote:
It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions.
Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves
Hi Livalot
You do make good sense.
I think this is what I'm trying to say in my post before this one.
[quote][p][bold]Livalot[/bold] wrote: It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions. Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves[/p][/quote]Hi Livalot You do make good sense. I think this is what I'm trying to say in my post before this one. Revlog
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 29 Mar 11

vegeboy says...

it is the duty of all christians to share the gospel teachers also
it is the duty of all christians to share the gospel teachers also vegeboy
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Tue 29 Mar 11

john 3:16 says...

mark
42“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
mark 42“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. john 3:16
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Tue 29 Mar 11

prince of darkness says...

Its a bit ironic that a discusion on religion can attract so many posts.When there are so much more important things in life.
Its a bit ironic that a discusion on religion can attract so many posts.When there are so much more important things in life. prince of darkness
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Tue 29 Mar 11

stealer says...

KS & G Hartley. Where is Heaven ?

A bloke visits an ancient Cathedral in Scotland and sees a Golden Telephone on a table at the rear of the Altar. It has a plaque at the side with the figure £10 enscribed.
Curiosly he enquires of the Priest,
' What's the phone for' ?
The priest says, 'it's a direct link to Heaven,that's why it's so expensive' !

Weeks later the same bloke is visiting Wigan and he decides to visit the Parish church,a very old and attractive building. Near the entrance at the rear of the church he notices a telephone fastened to the wall. Itis made of brass and is well polished. There is a brass plate at the side inscribe '50p per call'.
The bloke sees the Verger at the far side of the church and goes over to him. 'Excuse me' he says, I've just been up to Scotland and I saw,in a Cathedral, a Golden phone,which I was told was a direct line to Heaven.
Yes said the Verger I know the one you mean. The one on the wall is our direct line to Heaven.
' How come then',says the bloke,'it costs £10 in Scotland and only 50p here in Wigan' ?
'Ah', says the Verger,' that's because ours is only a Local Call' !
KS & G Hartley. Where is Heaven ? A bloke visits an ancient Cathedral in Scotland and sees a Golden Telephone on a table at the rear of the Altar. It has a plaque at the side with the figure £10 enscribed. Curiosly he enquires of the Priest, ' What's the phone for' ? The priest says, 'it's a direct link to Heaven,that's why it's so expensive' ! Weeks later the same bloke is visiting Wigan and he decides to visit the Parish church,a very old and attractive building. Near the entrance at the rear of the church he notices a telephone fastened to the wall. Itis made of brass and is well polished. There is a brass plate at the side inscribe '50p per call'. The bloke sees the Verger at the far side of the church and goes over to him. 'Excuse me' he says, I've just been up to Scotland and I saw,in a Cathedral, a Golden phone,which I was told was a direct line to Heaven. Yes said the Verger I know the one you mean. The one on the wall is our direct line to Heaven. ' How come then',says the bloke,'it costs £10 in Scotland and only 50p here in Wigan' ? 'Ah', says the Verger,' that's because ours is only a Local Call' ! stealer
  • Score: 0

2:15am Wed 30 Mar 11

nice person says...

There is no such thing as god in any religion,no proof has ever been shown that such a god exists,god has no attributes and if god had then he would not be a supernatural being but of this natural world.All religion is based on arbitras from people who have claimed this supernatural being exists-They choose to believe but cannot and will never prove gods existence and if they did somehow prove this-Then as above god would be of the natural world.
God is out of the realms of human perception with no attributes.
There is no such thing as god in any religion,no proof has ever been shown that such a god exists,god has no attributes and if god had then he would not be a supernatural being but of this natural world.All religion is based on arbitras from people who have claimed this supernatural being exists-They choose to believe but cannot and will never prove gods existence and if they did somehow prove this-Then as above god would be of the natural world. God is out of the realms of human perception with no attributes. nice person
  • Score: 0

9:25am Wed 30 Mar 11

Hopey65 says...

I recently attended the first holy communion of nephew. To see young primary school children queueing up to "eat flesh and drink blood" was at best weird, at worst, downright perverse.
I recently attended the first holy communion of nephew. To see young primary school children queueing up to "eat flesh and drink blood" was at best weird, at worst, downright perverse. Hopey65
  • Score: 0

9:33am Wed 30 Mar 11

julietooo says...

I actually disagree with the people who are saying religion should not be taught in schools at all. If kids aren't educated about the major religions, we're at risk of producing a whole generation who think that 'muslamics' are bringing their 'iraq law' into Britain (see video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=kjuNuqIev
8M)...and before anyone says anything, yes I realise this is a bit of a slippery slope argument but it is just for effect and a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

Religious pluralism is in fact one of the greatest arguments against the existence of any gods, and this is what should be pointed out to children. Indeed, the quickest way to debunk Pascal's Wager is to point out that to be completely safe you would have to believe in every god ever.

I'm a bit unsure as to how one would teach atheism, short of saying 'atheists don't believe in god/gods because there is a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever to support the notion'. It's also worthwhile pointing out that in order to teach about atheism, continual emphasis should be placed on the fact that atheism is merely a response to assertions about religion; atheists make no claims about the existence of gods, they just reject claims made by other people for lack of supporting evidence, therefore the burden of proof lies with religion until someone actually makes the claim that 'no gods exist'. Other than that, yes I think education about atheist/humanist movements would be beneficial and may encourage kids to get involved.
I actually disagree with the people who are saying religion should not be taught in schools at all. If kids aren't educated about the major religions, we're at risk of producing a whole generation who think that 'muslamics' are bringing their 'iraq law' into Britain (see video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=kjuNuqIev 8M)...and before anyone says anything, yes I realise this is a bit of a slippery slope argument but it is just for effect and a little bit tongue-in-cheek. Religious pluralism is in fact one of the greatest arguments against the existence of any gods, and this is what should be pointed out to children. Indeed, the quickest way to debunk Pascal's Wager is to point out that to be completely safe you would have to believe in every god ever. I'm a bit unsure as to how one would teach atheism, short of saying 'atheists don't believe in god/gods because there is a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever to support the notion'. It's also worthwhile pointing out that in order to teach about atheism, continual emphasis should be placed on the fact that atheism is merely a response to assertions about religion; atheists make no claims about the existence of gods, they just reject claims made by other people for lack of supporting evidence, therefore the burden of proof lies with religion until someone actually makes the claim that 'no gods exist'. Other than that, yes I think education about atheist/humanist movements would be beneficial and may encourage kids to get involved. julietooo
  • Score: 0

10:15am Wed 30 Mar 11

LutherKing says...

If there is no God, what is there to teach?
There is no theology, there is no God!
There is no basis for ethics, there is no God!
The only creed is "There is no God!"
It can't even be called "religious education" with any integrity.
If there is no God, what is there to teach? There is no theology, there is no God! There is no basis for ethics, there is no God! The only creed is "There is no God!" It can't even be called "religious education" with any integrity. LutherKing
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 30 Mar 11

ladysal says...

jack daniels wrote:
britguy wrote: Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.
So the English civil war between the Catholic’s and Puritans didn’t decimate parts of England? Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland and the eventual creation of the IRA who wished independence, didn’t cause any damage either according to you. The wars between Europe and England, especially Henry VIII and the Pope/King of Spain where all solved with a kiss and a hug? What about the wars with Scotland, did religion play any part? Still laughing?
The Engilsh civil war wasn't a battle between Catholics and Protestants, any more than Henry VIII's antics.
Both wars were about Kings who belived they had divine power doing whatever they wanted. Religion had nothing to do with the root cause: one man's ego was the problem.
Henry VIII's argument with the Pope and the King of Spain were due simply and completely to his desire to get rid of his wife, something neither the Pope nor the Queen's nephew (the King of Spain) wanted to happen.
To turn both situations into an argument about Catholics and Protestant's is to completely miss the point.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]britguy[/bold] wrote: Whilst many of you dont believe in a God of any religeon you should seriously realise that this has nothing to do with teaching Atheism but it has everything to do with destroying England so for those of you who smugly laugh at the thought of any form of God need to stop being so niave and wake up to what the government and the EU are doing to England. Not many years from now you will have very little to laugh at.[/p][/quote]So the English civil war between the Catholic’s and Puritans didn’t decimate parts of England? Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland and the eventual creation of the IRA who wished independence, didn’t cause any damage either according to you. The wars between Europe and England, especially Henry VIII and the Pope/King of Spain where all solved with a kiss and a hug? What about the wars with Scotland, did religion play any part? Still laughing?[/p][/quote]The Engilsh civil war wasn't a battle between Catholics and Protestants, any more than Henry VIII's antics. Both wars were about Kings who belived they had divine power doing whatever they wanted. Religion had nothing to do with the root cause: one man's ego was the problem. Henry VIII's argument with the Pope and the King of Spain were due simply and completely to his desire to get rid of his wife, something neither the Pope nor the Queen's nephew (the King of Spain) wanted to happen. To turn both situations into an argument about Catholics and Protestant's is to completely miss the point. ladysal
  • Score: 0

11:02am Wed 30 Mar 11

Atticman says...

Two points on this subject.

I believe that all points of view should be taught in school in an absolutly imparshal way. As a Christian I think it's important to know what other beliefs that are practised, but alot of you are being quite militant on how we should teach our children or how we shouldn't teach them as you feel us Christians are.

If the goverment beleive it is right then we must agree with the goverment as they are in power. But as I said it should be all taught along side each other with no bias leaving every individul the right to choose what feels right to them.

And my second point is as we have just had the census, how many people have ticked the box Christian when they don't beleive or even go to church, have we got a real demagraphic on what the UK residents truly belive.
Two points on this subject. I believe that all points of view should be taught in school in an absolutly imparshal way. As a Christian I think it's important to know what other beliefs that are practised, but alot of you are being quite militant on how we should teach our children or how we shouldn't teach them as you feel us Christians are. If the goverment beleive it is right then we must agree with the goverment as they are in power. But as I said it should be all taught along side each other with no bias leaving every individul the right to choose what feels right to them. And my second point is as we have just had the census, how many people have ticked the box Christian when they don't beleive or even go to church, have we got a real demagraphic on what the UK residents truly belive. Atticman
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Wed 30 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

Graham Hartley wrote:
Ken Shuffles wrote: Nobody has to die to find Heaven.
Does anybody have to find Heaven to die?
Nobody has to find Heaven. There is no reason why anyone should find Heaven. Either, you find Heaven while you exist or you don't find Heaven while you exist.

.

You have to determine if you exist to find Heaven now while you are alive or whether to take a chance on finding it when you are dead.

.

However, it needs to be said, that there is no reason whatsoever why you should ever make this decision.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Hartley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: Nobody has to die to find Heaven.[/p][/quote]Does anybody have to find Heaven to die?[/p][/quote]Nobody has to find Heaven. There is no reason why anyone should find Heaven. Either, you find Heaven while you exist or you don't find Heaven while you exist. . You have to determine if you exist to find Heaven now while you are alive or whether to take a chance on finding it when you are dead. . However, it needs to be said, that there is no reason whatsoever why you should ever make this decision. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Wed 30 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

The Heart of Humans has been made in such a way as to appreciate Heaven.

.

As the Heart has been fashioned and predetermined in this way, no logical, rationales or reasons to justify the pursuit of Heaven was ever made. As no reason or rationale was ever made to exist, no mortal mind is capable of containing the understanding of it.
The Heart of Humans has been made in such a way as to appreciate Heaven. . As the Heart has been fashioned and predetermined in this way, no logical, rationales or reasons to justify the pursuit of Heaven was ever made. As no reason or rationale was ever made to exist, no mortal mind is capable of containing the understanding of it. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Wed 30 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

There is no Death for those who find Heaven while they are alive. I cannot speak for the dead, People get paid to do that.
There is no Death for those who find Heaven while they are alive. I cannot speak for the dead, People get paid to do that. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 30 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

Unless and until that reality, that manifestation of truth, dawns on us in our lives - no matter what we do, we are incomplete.

.

As long as we remain incomplete all the rest of our scientific and religious knowledges will remain incomplete.
Unless and until that reality, that manifestation of truth, dawns on us in our lives - no matter what we do, we are incomplete. . As long as we remain incomplete all the rest of our scientific and religious knowledges will remain incomplete. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 30 Mar 11

mark1961a says...

Livalot wrote:
It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions.
Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves
There's a lot of us about I suppose. I don't usually count myself as being one of the more militant types but I would like to say again that my preferred option of using the time allocated to teaching basic Critical Thinking instead of "atheism" as such would be a better approach. Many religious types find it to be quite compatible with their beliefs and from my own experience it turns looking at advertising claims in their various forms into a kind of rather enjoyable sport. It's for everybody. Not just the non-godders. Don't believe me? Google and ye shall find. Google is your friend.
[quote][p][bold]Livalot[/bold] wrote: It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions. Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves[/p][/quote]There's a lot of us about I suppose. I don't usually count myself as being one of the more militant types but I would like to say again that my preferred option of using the time allocated to teaching basic Critical Thinking instead of "atheism" as such would be a better approach. Many religious types find it to be quite compatible with their beliefs and from my own experience it turns looking at advertising claims in their various forms into a kind of rather enjoyable sport. It's for everybody. Not just the non-godders. Don't believe me? Google and ye shall find. Google is your friend. mark1961a
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Wed 30 Mar 11

noddy57 says...

untill we all find out the real reason why were here,let us all have the freedom of choice eh?,all religions deprive the people of real freedom,,why should we be indoctrinated by the powers that be, this athiesm isnt such a bad thing,,
untill we all find out the real reason why were here,let us all have the freedom of choice eh?,all religions deprive the people of real freedom,,why should we be indoctrinated by the powers that be, this athiesm isnt such a bad thing,, noddy57
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Wed 30 Mar 11

Phlegmatic says...

Understanding what shapes another person's thoughts, values and actions is crucial if we want our children to grow up to intelligent, empathic and tolerant individuals and this must include learning about ALL religions, atheism and humanism. For faith schools (many recieving state-funding) to be allowed to opt out of teaching that atheism is a valid choice for many people rather defeats the object though. Surely 'religious faith' cannot be so fragile that teaching about other systems for living might undermine it?
Understanding what shapes another person's thoughts, values and actions is crucial if we want our children to grow up to intelligent, empathic and tolerant individuals and this must include learning about ALL religions, atheism and humanism. For faith schools (many recieving state-funding) to be allowed to opt out of teaching that atheism is a valid choice for many people rather defeats the object though. Surely 'religious faith' cannot be so fragile that teaching about other systems for living might undermine it? Phlegmatic
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 31 Mar 11

Ken Shuffles says...

A little bit of understanding is worth a ton of believing.
A little bit of understanding is worth a ton of believing. Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

8:52am Fri 1 Apr 11

matthewofthenight says...

Livalot wrote:
It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions. Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves
This notion of militancy has to be addressed. It's a common slur against those who have no belief who choose to vocalise their non-belief, or question the belief's of others. It's an attempt to scare non-believers into keeping their views to themselves, which is something Christians or Muslims wouldn't adhere to themselves. Where I see passion, a theist will see militancy.

In any case, what are the images that spring to mind when the word militancy is used? War. Violence. Pain. Suffering. These are the images that a theist wants to associate vocal atheism with. It's a form of discrimination. I speculate that it'll be the basis for the next civil rights movement.

Also, it's important to point out that many people have found real meaning in their lives without God. A deity isn't necessary to live a fulfilled live.
[quote][p][bold]Livalot[/bold] wrote: It seems that the non believers in God are very militant on here. Where is the balance and accepting of other people`s views or religions. Many people have found a real meaning in their lives through knowing God as a friend to trust and a hope for the future. People are free to choose to believe or not believe and if children are informed of these choices they can decide for themselves[/p][/quote]This notion of militancy has to be addressed. It's a common slur against those who have no belief who choose to vocalise their non-belief, or question the belief's of others. It's an attempt to scare non-believers into keeping their views to themselves, which is something Christians or Muslims wouldn't adhere to themselves. Where I see passion, a theist will see militancy. In any case, what are the images that spring to mind when the word militancy is used? War. Violence. Pain. Suffering. These are the images that a theist wants to associate vocal atheism with. It's a form of discrimination. I speculate that it'll be the basis for the next civil rights movement. Also, it's important to point out that many people have found real meaning in their lives without God. A deity isn't necessary to live a fulfilled live. matthewofthenight
  • Score: 0

11:43am Fri 1 Apr 11

Ken Shuffles says...

Religion pollutes our potential for fulfillment. It encourages us to settle for malcontentment and death. It suggests that Heaven is somewhere other than, more than, two inches away from where we are right now.

.

Before Religion there was no valid concept of any hell. Once there is a religion, there becomes an invalid concept of Heaven to teach.

two inces from your violence pain and suffering there is your Joy of Heaven.

.


God post btw!
Religion pollutes our potential for fulfillment. It encourages us to settle for malcontentment and death. It suggests that Heaven is somewhere other than, more than, two inches away from where we are right now. . Before Religion there was no valid concept of any hell. Once there is a religion, there becomes an invalid concept of Heaven to teach. two inces from your violence pain and suffering there is your Joy of Heaven. . God post btw! Ken Shuffles
  • Score: 0

11:54am Fri 1 Apr 11

matthewofthenight says...

I wish I knew what you were talking about Mr Shuffles
I wish I knew what you were talking about Mr Shuffles matthewofthenight
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Fri 1 Apr 11

mazx4 says...

christianity is true, i belive. Budda, ala, and all the other religians if look are all based on fear , christianity is based on love , if muslims turn to christianity they get a bounty or sumat on them which means they need to be killed , if people dont belive me read up about different religians and tell me which one is love and which are all done by fear
christianity is true, i belive. Budda, ala, and all the other religians if look are all based on fear , christianity is based on love , if muslims turn to christianity they get a bounty or sumat on them which means they need to be killed , if people dont belive me read up about different religians and tell me which one is love and which are all done by fear mazx4
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Fri 1 Apr 11

l m h jones says...

john 3:16 wrote:
mark
42“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
and that's another reason why children should be given the opportunity to use their brains to decide for themselves..if i allow children to think outside of the confines of christianity then i would be better drowned? nice religion you have
[quote][p][bold]john 3:16[/bold] wrote: mark 42“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.[/p][/quote]and that's another reason why children should be given the opportunity to use their brains to decide for themselves..if i allow children to think outside of the confines of christianity then i would be better drowned? nice religion you have l m h jones
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Fri 1 Apr 11

Graham Hartley says...

matthewofthenight wrote:
I wish I knew what you were talking about Mr Shuffles
Shuff is talking about three hundred words a minute.
.
I come late to this party: pleasing to see jones here.
[quote][p][bold]matthewofthenight[/bold] wrote: I wish I knew what you were talking about Mr Shuffles[/p][/quote]Shuff is talking about three hundred words a minute. . I come late to this party: pleasing to see jones here. Graham Hartley
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Fri 1 Apr 11

Graham Hartley says...

Right on, Carly et alia! Quite why schools should be teaching religion has been lost on me; it's a family affair, innit.
.
I'm experimenting with the use of 'innit' here, innit.
Right on, Carly et alia! Quite why schools should be teaching religion has been lost on me; it's a family affair, innit. . I'm experimenting with the use of 'innit' here, innit. Graham Hartley
  • Score: 0

12:06am Sat 2 Apr 11

Graham Hartley says...

"...different "language games" to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein."
.
When borrowing phrases from Witgenstein, always pay them back.
.
A difficulty I have when asked to consider the arguments of Denton, Shuffles, Davies and others is that I find them so parochial. Even Davies' claim that science and religion can co-exist doesn't make no never mind (in modern idiom). What concerns me is the connection between the parochial and the wider consensus; often, I find none.
"...different "language games" to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein." . When borrowing phrases from Witgenstein, always pay them back. . A difficulty I have when asked to consider the arguments of Denton, Shuffles, Davies and others is that I find them so parochial. Even Davies' claim that science and religion can co-exist doesn't make no never mind (in modern idiom). What concerns me is the connection between the parochial and the wider consensus; often, I find none. Graham Hartley
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree