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

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?
-

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? -

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? -

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?
-

Ken Shuffles wrote:
Nobody has to die to find Heaven.

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.

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."

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.

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

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?

Graham Hartley wrote:

Ken Shuffles wrote: Nobody has to die to find Heaven.

Does anybody have to find Heaven to die?

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

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

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.

matthewofthenight wrote:
I wish I knew what you were talking about Mr Shuffles