@ ransos - WTF yourself!!
'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.
Teaching your children that some people have religious beliefs and some don't, and leaving them free to make their own mind up is not indoctrination (obviously). However, teaching them that there is definitely no god and that religious people are deluded and believe in fairy stories is a form of indoctrination.
Well done, OP.
This is some stellar work.
Jesus would be proud.
everyone know Christmas is about the baby jesus, that's what kids are taught in school
Religious education in school says different, I'm pretty sure they don't teach kids about fertility and rebirth.
Gary M, you don't even sound convinced by your words. May I interest you in the teachings of the one true prophet Richard Dawkins, who preaches the scripture of our Lord Darwin (PBUH)...
...Said no atheist ever, militant or otherwise 😉
Teaching your children that some people have religious beliefs and some don't, and leaving them free to make their own mind up is not indoctrination (obviously). However, teaching them that there is definitely no god and that religious people are deluded and believe in fairy stories is a form of indoctrination.
Crazy talk, you can only indoctrinate people to believe something that's not the same as my opinion 🙂
And Easter eggs have naff all to do with Jesus.
"Religious education in school says different,"
Is that the ones who say it symbolises the rock from Jesus' tomb.
'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.
Atheism is an absence of a belief, so there is nothing to accept.
Next!
[i]Gary M, you don't even sound convinced by your words[/i]
Right, in what way? No forget it, I couldn't care less. I'm not even interested enough to call my self part of any group, atheist or otherwise.
It's nothing to do with religion for people that aren't bothered, but if you're a bit, you know, radical in you're anti god/anti religion stance then I would have thought you would be bothered.
I suppose a "militant atheist" might object to Christmas, assuming that Christmas is actually a religious celebration in any sort of practical manner for most folk these days.
Which is sort of what I was getting at. The vast majority of folk in the UK celebrate Christmas, and I'd hazard that the vast majority of those aren't regular church-going True Believers, not really. Christmas in the UK might well once have been a celebration of the birth of some blue-eyed white bloke in the Middle East, and for some people it still is of course, but it's grown to encompass far more than its religious beginnings for people. If you switched on the TV what do you reckon you'd see first, Jesus or Father Christmas?
This is why "why do atheists celebrate Christmas, bunch of hypocrites" is fallacious. We atheists don't celebrate Christmas because yay Jesus, we celebrate it because it's a national holiday. And because, y'know, it's nice to give gifts to people and remind our loved ones how much we care about them, we just don't require to get our moral guidance from a book.
Thinking about it, after centuries of religion sticking its beak into matters of state and politics, isn't there a delicious irony in that the atheists are quietly and successfully removing religion from religious festivals? (-:
On a seperate but related note; why is there never an atheist on 'thought for the day'? Is it that spiritualists have the monopoly on moralising and 'makes you think' moments?
The cynic in me would suggest that the atheists don't need the advertising. (-:
There's no reason why there [i]shouldn't[/i] be an atheist Thought for the Day of course, though I do wonder what they'd use for authority. That is to say, a Reverend speaks from (arguably) a position of power because of the weight of the Church behind him. I doubt that people would pay much attention if Chris Evans announced, "and now, today's Thought for the Day comes from Dave, a retired plumber from Sheffield."
Atheism is an absence of faith, not belief.
From the religious observance policy:
"An approach seeking to convert an audience to one faith or another is not appropriate in the non-denominational sector"
You'll have to explain how a minister leading the children in prayer does not constitute "seeking to convert".
Because the non-Christian kids weren't required to pray with him and because (I strongly suspect) it was nondenominational prayer. The same way that going to a mosque and having someone pray in front of you isn't trying to get you to convert.
Basically, this whole thread is predicated on a fallacy: that OP sends his kids to a secular school. He doesn't, as he would have realised if he'd read his own guidelines or possibly if he'd thought about what the kids [i]doing a nativity play means.[/i] "you know, it's funny, I knew the kids had been sacrificing goats but I never realised this was a pagan after school club before".
The guidelines set out by Glasgow Council for these matters are [url= https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12233&p=0 ]here[/url]. The Headteacher has done nothing which contravenes these guidelines - you may wish the guidelines were different, but that is a completely different beef.
Really? Coz you've been in the discussion from the very first page. Seem fairly interested to me. (My previous post was light hearted by the way, at risk of being accused of the Edinburgh defence...)Gary M - member, preached; No forget it, I couldn't care less. I'm not even interested enough to call my self part of any group
Only because iLike winding up hypocrites.
I'm Interested to know whether atheists "indoctrinate" their children in atheism, or allow them to experience religion for themselves and make their own minds up - i.e. based on informed decision.
How do you "experience" religion? Teaching kids that some people believe in a person called Jesus, and that he was the son of this other deity they believe in called God, that's sensible and it's called religious education. But is that "experiencing" religion? To experience it, do you have to actually meet a true believer who believes every word of it and will try to convert you?
If so, then why does that only apply to religions, especially Christianity? Why shouldn't a Star Wars uber-fan have the chance to convince children that it's absolutely true that there's a little green bloke who lives in a swamp who can levitate things and talk backwards he does?
Informed decision is a contradiction in terms when it comes to religion - religion only works if you don't let people reach informed decisions.
'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.
And you've answered your own question right there.
There's no need to provide atheist indoctrination as, unlike theism, they're already born with it. And in the hypothetical event that I reproduce I would be teaching my child critical thinking; I would be teaching them to question the world rather than believing everything they hear.
If I'm successful there then I won't [i]need[/i] to tell them religion is a set of stories and superstitions, they'll work out for themselves whether it is or not.
Atheism is an absence of faith, not belief.
No, it's an absence of belief (in the existence of god or gods)
Because the non-Christian kids weren't required to pray with him
Yeah, I'm sure that was made clear to the attendees at the time.
The same way that going to a mosque and having someone pray in front of you isn't trying to get you to convert.
Which is entirely different to a minister leading a captive audience in prayer at a non-denominational school.
@ben, apologies I haven't read the whole 6 pages just the first one. Its the nativitey so seems reasonable for a Christian to comment that the story is true (or certainky that he believes it) and to [b]invite[/b] people to pray. Its wasn't compulsory and imho it wasn't an attempt to convert anyone.
I'd observe that the most strongly argued threads on STW are from atheists against those that do chose to believe (not referencingyou @ben), this I find quite odd as thats hardly an inclusive and accepting stance.
@Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving
The guidelines set out by Glasgow Council for these matters are here. The Headteacher has done nothing which contravenes these guidelines - you may wish the guidelines were different, but that is a completely different beef.
The headteacher hasn't, but the minister clearly crossed over from a Religious Observance into an Act of Worship. I guess the argument is that that is what ministers will do, so either you don't invite them, or tell them to tone it down.
Oh for God's sake you lot.........
Or should that be "for a god's sake"?
Or is it just "for anything or nothing that you call a belief's sake"?
These first world problems are so confusing.
This priest need to be named because if he is converting people with one prayer, he will be very in demand.
This priest need to be named because if he is converting people with one prayer, he will be very in demand.
From the document you linked to:
"An approach [u]seeking[/u] to convert an audience to one faith or another is not appropriate in the non-denominational sector"
I've highlighted the important bit.
A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.
A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.
He wasn't praying by himself, he gave a sermon then invited everyone to pray with him.
Or, actually, just assumed we all would. It wasn't "would anyone like to pray with me", it was "let us pray".
Just for the record:
Atheism isn't the absence of belief in anything. Its a very definite position saying there is no god.
Agnosticism on the other hand is a position saying, there is no proof for the existence of god and no proof that he doesn't exist either. Which is much closer to an absence of belief.
Its perfectly possible to indoctrinate (i.e. teach) someone into either position if you exclude the others.
FWIW most atheists are agnostics, they just don't realise it!
A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.
[i]worship
/?w????p/
noun
1.
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.[/i]
I'll leave others to judge whether or not prayers include expressions of reverence or adoration of a deity.
Well, really, atheism is saying "there is no god" in the same way as saying "there's no chocolate teapot in orbit around Saturn".
It's microscopically, infinitesimally theoretically possible, but all reason and logic goes against it.
It's not saying there's no god as a belief without facts.
Atheism isn't the absence of belief in anything. Its a very definite position saying there is no god.Agnosticism on the other hand is a position saying, there is no proof for the existence of god and no proof that he doesn't exist either. Which is much closer to an absence of belief.
No, that's completely wrong. The etymology of "atheism" is a strong clue...
Bencooper,
Good on you; I'd like to think I'd have done the same, if it wasn't for my highly-developed level of apathy. I hope the result isn't low-level ostracization of you or your child(ren).
[i]It wasn't "would anyone like to pray with me", it was "let us pray".[/i]
But the let us pray thing is a turn of phrase, saying 'would anyone like to pray with me' would be daft as some would say yes, some would say no and mass confusion would break out. By saying 'let us pray' the fella just meant 'let those that want to pray with me crack on and do so'. His way was much quicker and less confusing (for most).
Jambala - member, preached; Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving
[url= https://www.quora.com/Are-humans-born-agnostic-or-atheist-Would-animals-be-considered-agnostic-or-atheist ]Source[/url]Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know for certain whether a god or gods exist. Babies are born without beliefs. Therefore, since atheism merely requires the lack of a belief, while agnosticism requires the presence of a belief, babies automatically meet the definition of atheism but not of agnosticism.
Jambalaya, what's that, the fifth time, EVER, that you've been wrong? 😉
I'm confused, and can no longer be bothered to catch up with the various points being made in this discussion.
A few final comments from me, though...
@cougar:
This is why "why do atheists celebrate Christmas, bunch of hypocrites" is fallacious. We atheists don't celebrate Christmas because yay Jesus, we celebrate it because it's a national holiday. And because, y'know, it's nice to give gifts to people and remind our loved ones how much we care about them
100% agreed. I didn't read through the whole thread, but I have never bought into the idea that atheists or anyone else should not be able to celebrate what they see Christmas to be. So please do have a very happy one.
And the same goes for all of you.
There's no need to provide atheist indoctrination as, unlike theism, they're already born with it. And in the hypothetical event that I reproduce I would be teaching my child critical thinking; I would be teaching them to question the world rather than believing everything they hear.If I'm successful there then I won't need to tell them religion is a set of stories and superstitions, they'll work out for themselves whether it is or not.
Devils advocate:
Doesn't that make the huge assumption that they will come to the same conclusion as you, and you are irrefutably correct.
There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.
Regarding Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it [b]Christ[/b]mas; and not the winter break like some US companies
There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.
The usual "atheist" position would be we still have a lot to learn. The position that we only know 5% and the rest is the work of a sky fairy is much more laughable.
@Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving
Somewhat appropriately perhaps, what you believe is irrelevant.
First hit on Google for Atheism, "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
FWIW most atheists are agnostics, they just don't realise it!
We've done this before, it's a popular tool amongst some theists used to gain what small bit of concession they can from the non-believers. The argument goes something like, "it's not possible to know, therefore you must be agnostic by definition." IIRC, poster boy atheist for (theists and almost no-one else) Richard Dawkins agrees with this and identifies as agnostic.
Whilst the position is sound, it's a technicality. Whilst I cannot disprove the existence of a god or gods because it's impossible to prove a negative, there is little compelling evidence that such a thing exists for all practical purposes. We're back to Russell's teapot again, or invisible tiny unicorns living in my skirting board. Ergo I'm certain [i]beyond reasonable doubt[/i] that there is no god, and I identify as atheist. The burden of proof is not mine, anything else is special pleading.
I call it Christmas because that way everyone knows what I'm talking about, and I (generally) avoid getting labelled a militant atheist that way. The date I really celebrate is the 22nd though, when we get over the hill! Can't bloody wait!Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies
Spot on, Cougar, again.
Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies
Why do Christians call Easter Easter?
Cougar, if this were a real pub, I'd buy you a drink.
A lot of this thread and the definitions of agnostic / atheist etc are a bit in depth for me.
However, I do know a lad who went to a wedding in a church where a lot of the regular congregation attended weddings. When the bit came to exchange a sign of peace (with the handshake and 'peace be with you') he started to do the Vulcan sign and saying "live long and prosper".
Doesn't that make the huge assumption that they will come to the same conclusion as you, and you are irrefutably correct.
Not at all. They may grow up to disagree with me. That's fine, I'd rather have free-thinking kids (even if they're wrong) than kids who blindly believe any old pish they [s]read on the Internet[/s] are told by people in positions of relative power.
There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works,
Absolutely. So? Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we get to make up any old horseshit and parade it around as fact. That's the sort of wooly thinking that gets people eaten.
Regarding Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies
Because that's what it's called. Renaming it "winter break" is a liberal way of trying too hard not to offend people who almost certainly wouldn't have been offended in the first place, and if are offended can bloody well be offended. What's next, renaming Easter "Eggmas"? Insanity of the highest order, get in the sea.
I can't handle more than one big-hitterthon today, sorry folks. Too much work to do. But:
What's next, renaming Easter "Eggmas"?
Easter is already its pagan name 🙂
However, I do know a lad who went to a wedding in a church where a lot of the regular congregation attended weddings. When the bit came to exchange a sign of peace (with the handshake and 'peace be with you') he started to do the Vulcan sign and saying "live long and prosper".
Damn it, that's genius, I wish I'd thought of that when I was writing my vows last year.
I have never bought into the idea that atheists or anyone else should not be able to celebrate what they see Christmas to be. So please do have a very happy one.
Amen!
Oh, shit.
The usual "atheist" position would be we still have a lot to learn. The position that we only know 5% and the rest is the work of a sky fairy is much more laughable.
To make any definite conclusion with 5% knowledge is laughable isn't it?