religious education in primary school.

Originally posted by trev33
i wasn't getting at her belief in santa, the tooth fairy etc. that's pretty harmless.

i was just using it to compare my disbelief in the crucifiction of 'christ' to the make believe of the easter bunny and micheal jackson etc.

I know you weren't getting at her belief in whatever she's believing in; I don't think you read my post in context.

You wrote: i was taught this crap at that age also, it's like that in every school in ireland and it's wrong.

Reread my post - that's what I responded to.

Originally posted by trev33
meh, i'll give you this one. i still believe it to be functional but everyone has to believe in something. for me it's not the workings of the bible, btw i did think of the 7 days thing, as i have before but at that time was there a longer sunset to sunrise period? i doubt that.

if i was pushed to pick a religion it most certainly wouldn't be christianity gardless of how they have treated their religious counterpart.

stupid, simple people.

my friend i live in Glasgow, my father is a Roman catholic, my mother an Irish protestant, i have, as you yourself are aware, seen more religious prejudice than i care to mention, even as you yourself no doubt have, but I do not blame you, infact, i can really empathize with you, for we were all in the same position, subject to a form of worship, but without any knowledge, was it not the case? we went to church or chapel, learnt nothing, concluded that religion and the Bible were of no merit and lived our lives, it was empty and dead, we saw a priest or a minister at weddings, births and funerals, again, we learnt absolutely nothing, if we dared to ask them, it was a mystery, pathetic really. therefore i really admire your determination to teach your niece these things for yourself, for to be sure, she will be hard pushed to find a crumb of truth from church, chapel or sunday school. i apologize for my rude language, although if you are Irish, you will know that it was never intended to be personal 🙂

Originally posted by trev33
i was told by my 5 year old niece today that she was going to nail my hands to a cross. joking obviously but should the bible really be taught at that young an age. i think not.

i told her the bible wasn't real, she said it was 'my teacher told me so'

I remember my son at age 7 on the way to school was hitting himself on the shoulder. I asked why, and he said his teacher told them that the devil sits on your shoulder, so he was beating up the devil.

Luckily we have quite a wide range of religions here in Cape Town so he won't grow up thinking that only the one view can be correct. Children in a society with only one religion grow up thinking 'thats the way it is' whereas when there are multiple religions as well as atheists they are forced to be skeptical of at least some view points. They also tend to ask more questions such as why some other kid believes something different.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I remember my son at age 7 on the way to school was hitting himself on the shoulder. I asked why, and he said his teacher told them that the devil sits on your shoulder, so he was beating up the devil.

Luckily we have quite a wide range of religions here in Cape Town so he won't grow up thinking that only the one view can be correct. Children in a soci They also tend to ask more questions such as why some other kid believes something different.

mmm, one wonders where this belief originates from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_angel

if it was intended to depict the conscience, then what is wrong with discussing the operation of the conscience in a realistic way? in terms that a seven year old would readily comprehend? for their are many excellent Biblical principles that one has recourse to, without the need to resort to such inaccuracy and fabrication.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i apologize for my rude language, although if you are Irish, you will know that it was never intended to be personal 🙂

😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they should have a separate thread for you people, the seriously disgruntled non spirituality forum, Fabian are you claiming to have a deep understanding of the Bible? no, why not, for you have never studied it, what do we refer to persons who seem for some reason able
to pontificate to others about something of which they know little? that's cor ...[text shortened]... rwise, its termed prejudice, and Ireland has seen enough of that to last a thousand lifetimes!

Why is a girl from a non-Christian home being taught that the Bible is
"real" in school?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why is a girl from a non-Christian home being taught that the Bible is
"real" in school?

the same reason that my son, who is from a Christian home, is being taught about Egyptology, including the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians at school, its part of the curriculum.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh, touchy touchy touchy! for you Fabian, the two are incongruous, that is fine, FOR YOU, but others perceive things differently, Science is all good and well for helping others, but so is spirituality, for there are many aspects of humanity not governed by science, which to persons so inclined are equally important, but this degradation of spiritua ...[text shortened]... reduces concepts of conscience etc to a merely materialistic point of view, them problems occur.

Touchy touchy, me? Oh, I often hear the fundamentalists groan when they defend their right to be ignorant. When they deny science in that extent so they tell me that I will go to hell if I don't deny science myself.

I say religion and science never mix. Of this follows that we shouldn't ever treat religion scientifically.

This is a protection to those who actually believe that Jesus can walk on water, that there were dinosaurs onboard of the ark, that Universe is not older thatn thousands of years, that dead people can be brought to life again, that the people of god can kill others because they are the only true people, that god hears prayers, and the most basic thing of all: that there is infact a god.

But when the christian fundamentalists throw in science to prove that the earth is 6k years, without the slightest knowldedge of science, that miracles are possible, and even try to scientific prove the existance of god, then they try to mix science with religion, and they fail everytime.

So by saying to the fundamentalists: Don't try to use science to prove anything religious!, I'm actually give them a free lebensraum to have their religion in peace.

If a friend of mine says: "I believe in god, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I believe that Jesus could walk on water." Then I say "Good for you, I'm glad that you are happy in your beliefs!" (Yes, I do!)
But when he says: "The existance of god is now proved scientifically beyond any doubt! Dead people can actually be alive again with the aid of the holy spirit, and this is scientifically proven! In a monostary in high alps, monks has walked on water in company of scientists who tested and retested scientifically and concluded that if you are of the right kind (christians) then you can actually walk on water!", then I would probably laugh.

Yes, I know, scientists can be christians. And I know that christians belive in science. But no undamentalist who belive that the Universe is only 6k years old, cannot know much about science, and scientific methods. He is tought this by preachers who condemm them to hell if he is not trusted upon.

So by introduce religion in the Science Forum is as wrong as introduce science in Spiritual Forum in order to disprove religion.

Again: Religion cannot be proven, nor disproven scientifically. You cannot use religious methods in Science. Why? Because religion and science cannot be mixed.

Fundamentalists are ofen very touchy when I tell them that their view of science is not correct. That it is wrong of them to try to reference science in order to prove their belifs. I find their faith very thin.

Christians are okay (and moslems and jews and every other religion). Fundamentalists (of any religion) are always bad,

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Touchy touchy, me? Oh, I often hear the fundamentalists groan when they defend their right to be ignorant. When they deny science in that extent so they tell me that I will go to hell if I don't deny science myself.

I say religion and science never mix. Of this follows that we shouldn't ever treat religion scientifically.

This is a protection to th and jews and every other religion). Fundamentalists (of any religion) are always bad,

what can i say Fabian? for it seems to me that if you gather scientific data and formulate a theory on the basis of that data, why should others also not have recourse to the very same data and formulate a different theory? for if you are going to hold that the data on which you formed your theory is valid, then you cannot insist that others should be excluded from also using this 'valid ', data on which to form their theories, for to do so would be inconsistent, would it not.

for example, if you state that miracles cannot happen because they defy the known laws of physics, then you cannot be surprised when someone points out that the known laws of physics themselves behave in unusual ways when subject to unusual circumstances, can you, its inconsistent!

for example, did not Mr Hawking himself state, when discussing how the universe began, “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down.

also i gave reference to lead and its unusual characteristic of becoming a superconductor when frozen, this is certainly unusual and not to be expected, as is the so called Moses effect and the relationship between electromagnetism and water.

therefore if you are going to hold that this data is valid for your theories then others should also be allowed to use the same data on which to establish their theories. is it not the case?

the real problems, in my onion, arise when either side views their theories as sacrosanct and above reproach, for this appears to me to be real fundamentalism. for example that the universe is 6000 years old???, one must ask, what is the basis of this theory? what is known by science? is it a purely religious belief or have attempts been made to substantiate it scientifically? if it seems to run contrary to what has been established scientifically then we can dismiss it on that basis, and the same method can be used with regard to scientific theories, thus when we subject the 'data', to evaluation, for this is the best we can hope for, we form a perception of what it means.

science can never disprove substantiated religious beliefs (unsubstantiated ones YES! attempts may be made to call into question the validity of the theory on the basis of 'data'!), nor religious beliefs be used to dispense with science, thus for me my friend, the two are entirely compatible, its only when great liberties are taken with either one, that problems arise. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what can i say Fabian? for it seems to me that if you gather scientific data and formulate a theory on the basis of that data, why should others also not have recourse to the very same data and formulate a different theory? for if you are going to hold that the data on which you formed your theory is valid, then you cannot insist that others should ...[text shortened]... mpatible, its only when great liberties are taken with either one, that problems arise. 🙂

Substantiated religious beliefs? What would one of those be Robster?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the same reason that my son, who is from a Christian home, is being taught about Egyptology, including the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians at school, its part of the curriculum.

The two mode of teaching are very different.

Your son is presumably being taught about what we think the ancient egyptians believed, without a slant on whether their beliefs were correct.

The girl (sorry, can't remember whose relation she is) is being taught that a particular belief is correct.

I have no problem with children learning about the various beliefs in the world. I have a big problem with them being taught that any particular one is True(tm), particularly when there is no possibility of supplying objective evidence or encouragement to critically examine the belief.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Substantiated religious beliefs? What would one of those be Robster?

oh great and illustrious noobster, kind and generous one, i thought you had finished with me, but alas it seems there is decency in your heart, and that besides the fact that you are a morris dancer as well, anyhow, you may pick any number of substantiated religious beliefs, for example, there is a legalistic approach which substantiates that Christ was the messiah, substantiated in a number of ways, historic, prophetic, genealogical etc etc, or you may take a general christian principle, lets say, 'there is more happiness in giving than receiving', and you could substantiate this, or you could take a matter of morality , for example, the great universal issue of whether humans have benefited themselves in any way by seeking independence from God and you could substantiate this, or you could take a teaching, lets say, Matthew 6:25-32, which i reproduce here for your benefit, and contrast it with the ill effects of materialism, and thus the teaching itself can be substantiated,

' “On this account I say to you: Stop being anxious about your souls as to what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your bodies as to what your will wear. Does not the soul mean more than food and the body than clothing?  Observe intently the birds of heaven, because they do not sow seed or reap or gather into storehouses; still your heavenly Father feeds them. Are your not worth more than they are?  Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?  Also, on the matter of clothing, why are you anxious? Take a lesson from the lilies of the field, how they are growing; they do not toil, nor do they spin;  but I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these.  If, now, God thus clothes the vegetation of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much rather clothe you, you with little faith? So never be anxious and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or, ‘What are we to drink?’ or, ‘What are we to put on?’  For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. For your heavenly Father knows you need all these things, deny it you cannot.

so in each and every way, religious beliefs, may be substantiated, deny it you cannot! oh Great Proper Noobster 🙂

BTW, you will notice that i have changed my flag to the flag of Australia, a real cricket playing nation, and with my wife being Pakistani, i can also count on the reverse swing of the fearsome Pakistani bowling attack to bring me much joy in watching them also destroy the Angles! swing low sweet chariot.........

Originally posted by Penguin
The two mode of teaching are very different.

Your son is presumably being taught about what we think the ancient egyptians believed, without a slant on whether their beliefs were correct.

The girl (sorry, can't remember whose relation she is) is being taught that a particular belief is correct.

I have no problem with children learning about the var ...[text shortened]... supplying objective evidence or encouragement to critically examine the belief.

--- Penguin.

i have no idea whether the little girl in question is being taught that the Bible is the only truth, or not, what is clear, is that my little boy is being subject to religious beliefs which are contrary to our own, do i object, no, for i know that there is nothing as potent as truth, and as a direct consequence of his being subject, he will have his powers of reasoning trained, to enable him to make an informed choice for himself, and distinguish between what is accurate and what is not. 🙂