Atheism And Kids

You can't. So don't try.

God might exist, as might fairies, goblins and spaghetti monsters.

I'm rooting for Ganesh personally.
 
you can never prove a negative 100% , but if the opposing positive can't be proved it does give grounds for doubt

goblins definitely exist btw , the sock goblin is the only rational explanation for all my odd socks ;)
 
neil_g said:
Serious question.. How do you prove something/someone doesn't exist.?

I can read minds.. Prove that I can't.. ;)
Click to expand...
I knew you were going to say that :-)
 
neil_g said:
Serious question.. How do you prove something/someone doesn't exist.?

I can read minds.. Prove that I can't.. ;)
Click to expand...
Negative proof isn't generally possible outside of mathematics.

With regard to your alleged mind-reading ability, I might subject you to the standard Zener card (circle, square, triangle, wave) test. Obviously a big positive result would be strong evidence for you having that ability. Not technically proof, but there comes a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that "proof" is a convenient shorthand term. But a negative result could mean anything. Maybe you weren't trying. Maybe you got the answers wrong deliberately. Maybe your ability is erratic. Maybe you would do better tomorrow. It's simply not possible to "prove" (even in the sloppy sense of the word) that you can't do it.

Same with God. If God doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove. My personal belief is that everything that happens in the universe happens due to particles of matter simply and blindly obeying the laws of physics. There's no room for God in my universe, day-to-day, but even if I'm 100% correct it's still not proof of God's non-existence. He might just be sitting back and watching a giant game of Mousetrap which he set up a few billion years ago. That would be entirely compatible with my beliefs.
 
StewartR said:
Same with God. If God doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove. My personal belief is that everything that happens in the universe happens due to particles of matter simply and blindly obeying the laws of physics. There's no room for God in my universe, day-to-day, but even if I'm 100% correct it's still not proof of God's non-existence. He might just be sitting back and watching a giant game of Mousetrap which he set up a few billion years ago. That would be entirely compatible with my beliefs.
Click to expand...

course jesus reportedly proved his divine credentials by performing a series of miracles .... trouble is the reporting isnt very accurate, imo we need a re play, preferably live on the internet
 
Interesting thread
As I understand it the teaching of religion/religious service aka as assembly is a requirement of the 1946 Education Act (CBA to read it up)

Also I note that people seem to rely on the scriptures as a source of faith and 'proof'. In the bible there are 66 books (only learned this today after door knocking god botherers came to tell me) of which 4 are the the gospels although there are considered to be many other gospels which were ignored/rejected.
Christianity also has many different sects - one of which Swedenborgian rejects the existence of a hell and the Mormons say we can't drink coffee. Well Joseph Smith said no hot drinks or stimulants.

This makes it difficult for me to have faith that any one is correct.

As a background I am a beleiver in a multiverse where in many other parallel universes I didn't even reply tpo this thread
 
To the OP. Unless I've missed it, you didn't actually state what kind of school it is.

I've got young children who go to s voluntary aided Catholic primary and secondary school. Reading a lot of the comments on here, I find it hard to relate my current and direct experience to it.

Even as a voluntary aided religious school it doesn't stick to its main affiliation. Each term the RE subject is made up of modules where representatives from other faiths come in and explain their parts. And yes atheism was covered as well. Just like evolution is as well in other subjects. This is my experience from five different schools, two of which were non affiliated to any religion.

I think it is the correct way, and it helps to understand and appreciate the people around us that we interact with on a daily basis.

Also don't forget that children will get fascinated, and slightly obsessed, by all sorts of things. Hey a bid of blood and gore sparks the imagination (unusual time of year to talk about that part though) of many a child.

I would focus on answering the questions opposed to focus on why the questions are wrong if you understand what I say.
 
Aren't a lot of schools linked to a church and those that are generally perform better? St Johns school, St Marks school etc. If you've moved house to get to or selected that school for your child I think you can expect it is within their rights to teach their religion to the child. You just have to put up with it because you believe they are getting a better education at that school. If you dont like it, send them to a non religious school.

If its just a bog standard comprehensive school with no religious links, then no, religion doesnt need to be "taught". It can be explained but not forced on pupils IYSWIM.

IMHO
 
Do you celebrate Christmas as a family?
I know the message has been watered down over the years as the birth of Christ, but do atheists celebrate (Christmas)? and if they do, isn't that hypocritical?

I was brought up in Italy in a strict religious family, as i got older i still respected the beliefs of my parents but made my own choice not to follow in their strict way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Swissy said:
Do you celebrate Christmas as a family?
I know the message has been watered down over the years as the birth of Christ, but do atheists celebrate (Christmas)? and if they do, isn't that hypocritical?
Click to expand...

I think Christmas celebrations have become more of a cultural event, than a religious one, well for the people I know anyway. People I know of most religions, or no religion, tend to celebrate Christmas, where Christmas equals giving presents, eating lots, time off work, spending time with family and for some more time in the pub.

Now if I went to mass or something, that would be hypocritical, or actually celebrated the birth of Christ.

I think in life you take the good bits out of everything you can - personally whilst I see bad in religious beliefs, I also see good, so you take the good bits, if you choose to. Though that's probably a bad example in this case.
 
Swissy said:
Do you celebrate Christmas as a family?
but do atheists celebrate (Christmas)? and if they do, isn't that hypocritical?
Click to expand...

akr said:
I think Christmas celebrations have become more of a cultural event, than a religious one, well for the people I know anyway. People I know of most religions, or no religion, tend to celebrate Christmas, where Christmas equals giving presents, eating lots, time off work, spending time with family and for some more time in the pub.
Click to expand...

As Akr said above, i'm more antireligion than atheist but we still 'celebrate' Christmas. Christmas in the sense of extended holiday, presents, Baileys @ £9 a bottle in ASDA etc.
 
Swissy said:
Do you celebrate Christmas as a family?
I know the message has been watered down over the years as the birth of Christ, but do atheists celebrate (Christmas)? and if they do, isn't that hypocritical?
Click to expand...



Depends how you celebrate it. To me its just a day off that happens to be called Christmas.

So no - I don't celebrate Christ or religion....To me its just a day :)

I would wonder though - Do most Christians visit church, say prayers/worship Christ on Christmas?? I doubt they do. I would argue that's more hypocritical.
 
Maybe it would be fairer if atheists had to work at Christmas, it is essentially a religious holiday ;)
 
Christmas and Easter were originally Pagan festivals that were 'adopted' by Christians.

Our celebration of those festivals more closely resembles their original Pagan reasons for a festival, ie a midwinter feast at Christmas and another one in the spring to celebrate fertility.
 
Mattyd said:
I would wonder though - Do most Christians visit church, say prayers/worship Christ on Christmas?? I doubt they do. I would argue that's more hypocritical.
Click to expand...

There's an odd concept of the Christian faith that, sadly, at times Christians have been responsible for projecting: the idea that it's all about 'going to church' and 'following the rules'.

As Christians, we are supposed to be in a relationship with God. He's Father, friend, older brother, Lord Almighty and a whole bunch of other stuff, and He's there all the time (praying on the loo can be the only way you get some time alone together during the day) so going to a place to meet God doesn't make sense. Also church isn't a building (though that's what it has come to mean in present usage) but is the gathering of Christians together - the church is the people of God: all those who, throughout the ages, have accepted Jesus by faith.

So the idea that you need to go to church at christmas in order to practice your faith is an odd one, because it doesn't match a biblical concept of Christianity at all (and of course, christmas isn't a biblical concept either). It IS important for Christians to gather together for encouragement, teaching, experience worship together, to provide pastoral care and build relationships, but no-one is going to hell because they failed to turn up for midnight mass on the 24th or didn't drag their kids along Christmas morning to show what presents they got.
 
Swissy said:
Do you celebrate Christmas as a family?
Click to expand...
assuming that was thrown out to the floor..

no, dont celebrate Christmas per say. however the family will generally gather from their respective parts of the country where possible for a bit of a holiday / social event, which doesnt happen often these days now everyone is an adult. everyone is off work, everywhere is shut so it makes sense :D

but no, i dont believe that god exists (any version of). maybe there was a guy called jesus who existed once and his and others stories were written down in a book but thats about it.
 
Last edited:
Mattyd said:
I would wonder though - Do most Christians visit church, say prayers/worship Christ on Christmas?? I doubt they do. I would argue that's more hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought that was the time of most attendance? Certainly people I know is sometimes their only attendance at church around Christmas, other than weddings etc.

ancient_mariner said:
There's an odd concept of the Christian faith that, sadly, at times Christians have been responsible for projecting: the idea that it's all about 'going to church' and 'following the rules'.

As Christians, we are supposed to be in a relationship with God. He's Father, friend, older brother, Lord Almighty and a whole bunch of other stuff, and He's there all the time (praying on the loo can be the only way you get some time alone together during the day) so going to a place to meet God doesn't make sense. Also church isn't a building (though that's what it has come to mean in present usage) but is the gathering of Christians together - the church is the people of God: all those who, throughout the ages, have accepted Jesus by faith.

So the idea that you need to go to church at christmas in order to practice your faith is an odd one, because it doesn't match a biblical concept of Christianity at all (and of course, christmas isn't a biblical concept either). It IS important for Christians to gather together for encouragement, teaching, experience worship together, to provide pastoral care and build relationships, but no-one is going to hell because they failed to turn up for midnight mass on the 24th or didn't drag their kids along Christmas morning to show what presents they got.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would assume that's the same of most religions, and most tend to have churches / temples / places of worship. I guess with mass participation as such it makes sense to have a place to congregate.
 
akr said:
Interesting. I would assume that's the same of most religions, and most tend to have churches / temples / places of worship. I guess with mass participation as such it makes sense to have a place to congregate.
Click to expand...

There may be lots of reasons for having temples etc, not least to do with providing a focal point and also as a place of control.

The early church met in homes & other local buildings and did not have cathedrals and a priesthood in the way you see with the big formal traditions today: there was no need for such things. Most of my life I have been involved in churches that did not own buildings, and I generally feel much more comfortable with that. Once there is property then comes a need to control resources, much more money is involved looking after structures and local people/groups will often start playing politics to use the space for free. It becomes a focal point for time & energy, and as such can be a major distraction.

It *can* be very useful to own a building, especially when, as you suggest, there are large numbers of people involved. We were at one time part of Oxford Community Church, and before the Odeon in George St. was converted to a multiplex the church would meet in the main cinema, often filling it so there were no seats available. Eventually we were able to acquire the Oxford Instruments industrial unit, and that has been fitted out with 2 large auditoriums, classrooms, kitchen, cafe area etc. I believe it's the only decent size venue within the Oxford ring road now. The project was carefully managed, but still became a huge drain on resources for a while. It's run so that, among other things, it can serve the local community too - it's not full of religious paraphernalia - and isn't the centre point of the church's life. This is different from my local CoE church experience, where often almost the whole energy of the church is put into fund raising, either to keep fixing the building, or to pay their parish share that funds the local priest.
 
neil_g said:
I can read minds.. Prove that I can't.. ;)
Click to expand...

what we really needed was one of the ladies to use that line ... then i could have said "if you could read minds you'd have slapped my face by now" - but it doesnt work here (you'll be glad to know)
 
In Scotland, children are taught that religion exists etc but they are not told it is true. This I have no problem with. The kids don't go to the church services at easter, xmas etc with the school.

I've explained the facts to Lewis, Samuel is too young to understand - The brain washing of kids to religion really does disgust me. I'm not an atheist though, I would describe myself more as a existential nihilist
 
To get back on track a bit, I've been through exactly the same situation with my two kids who are 17 & 19 now. Their maternal grandfather is a CofE lay minister. I'm am far more inclined towards Atheism myself.

I have always respected my children's views over the years however diverse, and been straightforward and honest with them at all times. That's all you can do, be honest and treat them with respect.

All is fine with my two, they're as sceptical as I am. ;)
 
Just out of interest, kid doesn't go to something like a C of E county primary school or anything?

Personally I am a fully blown athiest, however should someone what to worship some deity of their choosing, up to them, just don't ram it down my throat.

I can accept that 2000 or so years ago there may have been a guy in the middle east, who had a few followers. What I don't get is all the (in my mind) rubbish about immaculate conception etc...

What I particularly don't get is it is accepted rightly or wrongly that born on 25th Dec and Christmas does not move from year to year. What I don't get is Easter changes year or year and is something to do with the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring Equinox. With that lack of fact or logic, my brain totally rejects the concept. However I reiterate that I have no issue with others wanting to believe.
 
Lynton said:
. What I don't get is Easter changes year or year and is something to do with the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring Equinox. With that lack of fact or logic, my brain totally rejects the concept. However I reiterate that I have no issue with others wanting to believe.
Click to expand...

thats because easter is the pagan festival of Eostre - which was about greeting the coming of spring (Eostre being the fertility goddess of the nortnern saxon/norse tribes) , Like many christian festivals it was adopted by the early church to make for easier conversions ( Haloween for example is remarkably similar to Samain eve from Celtic paganism, where the souls of the dead return to walk the earth and food is left on the doorstep or hearth to propiate them) this is the same reason that Xmas is timed to pretty much coincide with Yule

Also on the matter of dating Herod the great died in 4 BC , so if he really performed the mascre of the innocents as per biblical accounts , then the birth year of Christ must be incorect (theres also the issue with the Gregorian alteration of the calendar in the 1500s which makes any date before that a bit of a movable feast) all of which makes the scheduling of festivals somewhat flexible.
 
big soft moose said:
thats because easter is the pagan festival of Eostre - which was about greeting the coming of spring (Eostre being the fertility goddess of the nortnern saxon/norse tribes) , Like many christian festivals it was adopted by the early church to make for easier conversions ( Haloween for example is remarkably similar to Samain eve from Celtic paganism, where the souls of the dead return to walk the earth and food is left on the doorstep or hearth to propiate them) this is the same reason that Xmas is timed to pretty much coincide with Yule

Also on the matter of dating Herod the great died in 4 BC , so if he really performed the mascre of the innocents as per biblical accounts , then the birth year of Christ must be incorect (theres also the issue with the Gregorian alteration of the calendar in the 1500s which makes any date before that a bit of a movable feast) all of which makes the scheduling of festivals somewhat flexible.
Click to expand...

You're quite right that the pagan festivals were adopted - it was considered better to redeem them by putting them to a better use than to scratch them altogether & then come over as a bunch of party-poopers.

As you say, dates are a very moveable feast, with much mucking about and a general failure to grasp or forgetting knowledge of orbital mechanics for a while by those who devised calendars. The census mentioned that required Mary & Joseph to travel to Bethlehem was in the first governorship of Quirinius, that ran from 6-4BC.
 
Religion should be taught as just another mythology, not as fact.

It's all superstition really.


Steve.
 
ancient_mariner said:
You're quite right that the pagan festivals were adopted - it was considered better to redeem them by putting them to a better use than to scratch them altogether & then come over as a bunch of party-poopers.
Click to expand...
Except they were stolen by the church rather than adopted via a brutal regime of mistruth and/or bloodshed. Some people to this day believe paegans are related to some form of devil worship.
 
neil_g said:
Except they were stolen by the church rather than adopted via a brutal regime of mistruth and/or bloodshed. Some people to this day believe paegans are related to some form of devil worship.
Click to expand...

Crikey. I'm pretty much, though not totally, anti organised religion, but I wouldn't go that far.

It seems to me the early Roman church needed to integrate the many pagan officials, bureaucrats and senior political figures of the Roman Empire. It was a pragmatic strategy.

The date of Easter, for example was set, though much later, at the Diet of Whitby in what was essentially a power struggle between the Celtic church and the Roman church.

There was only going to be one winner.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
Except they were stolen by the church rather than adopted via a brutal regime of mistruth and/or bloodshed. Some people to this day believe paegans are related to some form of devil worship.
Click to expand...

Adopted : stolen. From this point in time the effect is the same. Sure, I understand that there was a fair bit of sword-point 'conversion' that happened, as was de rigeur for the day. You won't find me defending that, and we can see the legacy of that kind of 'christianity' still present today. Some of your friendly local pagans weren't averse to similar things but in reverse too.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Sure, I understand that there was a fair bit of sword-point 'conversion' that happened, as was de rigeur for the day. .
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. There was probably some but, in the main, the chief persuader was association with Rome and what it stood for.

The peasant covered in s*** didn't really care as long as he ate.
 
Thanks for that - very interesting, but one of the most confused pieces on the subject I've ever read.

I shall take a little more time to work out what he's actually trying to say.

I think he's referring primarily to Charlemagne and Post Charlemagne.

The earlier conversions, of the Saxons in Britain for example, was easily accomplished by a handful of missionaries.
 
Aah, Ok. Having read it more carefully, and assuming the good professor understands the historiographical process, which of course he does, this is just a very poor piece of journalism, written with the organisational apologist agenda very much in mind.

There exists within it, however, little pointers for further exploration.
 
simon ess said:
Crikey. I'm pretty much, though not totally, anti organised religion, but I wouldn't go that far.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it's fairly well documented how brutal the church was with its "conversion" of people.

People tend to forget how bloody the church was throughout history, including the slaughter of a lot of "other faiths" in the crusades.

ancient_mariner said:
Adopted : stolen. From this point in time the effect is the same. Sure, I understand that there was a fair bit of sword-point 'conversion' that happened, as was de rigeur for the day. You won't find me defending that, and we can see the legacy of that kind of 'christianity' still present today. Some of your friendly local pagans weren't averse to similar things but in reverse too.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Fwiw I'm not pro paegan persay, just not keen on the practices of any religion throughout time.
 
ST4 said:
Religion to me is one of those things that kids need to be taught about in school given its defined so much history/culture. Let him/her believe/disbelieve...its just life.
Click to expand...

Being taught about it is one thing. Being taught that they must believe it and have it shape their lives (and sometimes require others to follow suite) is another.
 
arclight said:
Being taught about it is one thing. Being taught that they must believe it and have it shape their lives (and sometimes require others to follow suite) is another.
Click to expand...
Is that really happening in main stream education in the UK. I've actually got school age children going through the system. Not singling out your particular post, I just don't recognise these teachings of that they must believe it, that evolution isn't being taught, that they are brainwashed. As posted before, perhaps I'm lucky with the five schools I've got experience with, but I just don't recognise those extreme examples some people seem to make here.
 
Wow, a bit deep for photography forums.
I was expelled from RE back in my day for asking too many questions, like who invented the devil, why can we paint angles, god & jeseus, why do we get locked up now when we say god told me to do it yet 200years ago you would be applauded for it.
Now my daughter is in 'normal' education and they are taught all religions without bias or which one is right or wrong. They only get complaints from Muslim parents.
In my opinion, the should be no religious schools. Religious beliefs are for the individual not for schools. Schools should teach about religion and its REAL history & let those who choose to believe what ever flavour they want.
 
Peter69 said:
Wow, a bit deep for photography forums.
I was expelled from RE back in my day for asking too many questions, like who invented the devil, why can we paint angles, god & jeseus, why do we get locked up now when we say god told me to do it yet 200years ago you would be applauded for it.
Now my daughter is in 'normal' education and they are taught all religions without bias or which one is right or wrong. They only get complaints from Muslim parents.
In my opinion, the should be no religious schools. Religious beliefs are for the individual not for schools. Schools should teach about religion and its REAL history & let those who choose to believe what ever flavour they want.
Click to expand...

An oxymoron? ;)

Perhaps it's effects throughout history :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top