Your children and your views

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, if you take this to be true, nothing is a rational decision: rationality doesn't exist; because, everything is unfalsifiable. We can't say for sure that Kim Jong-il won't fart the world out of existance tomorrow - so, going by what you've said - it isn't a rational decision to declare that he won't. Rationality: farwell.

That's wrong. Science depends on falsifiability. The hypothesis that the world is flat has, for instance, been falsified.

pH wrote: »

You know what you're dead right, that's not what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

The fact that people believe that a God created this whole universe, to allow carbon based lifeforms evolve over billions of years, then at some stage God suddenly loves them, but feels a huge need to play some kind of "how good are you?" game by forcing these humans to obey an arbitrary set of rules and believe in him for 70 years, and those that pass the test win the big prize!

The fact that people believe that somehow God had to have part of himself killed (for 3 days) so save the rest of us from his rules, and that we should gather in churches once a week to remember this and pretend to eat him.

The fact that people believe all of this based on the writings of bronze age desert nomads, and then some barely remembered inconsistent tales about a carpenter in Galilee written years after his death, and let's not forget the rantings of a man who fell off his horse on the road to Damascus years later and felt free to pronounce on all kinds of things.

The fact that no matter how much the faithful claim it's about "faith" they really justify it with evidence, and yet when all their evidence is looked at it amounts to absolutely nothing.

They're what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

This is just what Goduznt Xzst said, but with better use of paragraphing and capital letters. However, it is even weaker on facts, and even worse for biased language. I can see right through this kind of negative framing, for it is nothing more than framing.

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

However, I must ask, is it relevant to the thread? Or do atheists simply have no idea about when is good and when is not a good time to proselytise?

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

Listen, knowing your belief is irrational has nothing to do with "culture-specific prejudices". Belief just IS irrational, ipso facto. Most religious people would accept, in a sense, that there is no rationale for their beliefs, they believe that they are under the influence of some magical spiritual power that lets them see scripture clearly and behold truths that unbelievers of their faith can't know. They believe they are above rationality.

Húrin wrote: »

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

Ok, I'm not going to entertain this line of argument again. You clearly don't understand anything about what Atheism means. I think you are trying to bracket it in with some other belief system when it is merely a lack of belief.

Let me ask you this, and I would appreciate an answer. If an individual walked up beside you right now, and said "there is an invisible monkey between you and the computer screen" and you said "no there isn't". Would you say that both of yous where being equally rational?

Húrin wrote: »

I received the Holy Spirit from God as the text promised I would. Seems rational to me.

What? Are you just plucking words out of thin air and applying your own meanings to them? How on earth can you say this hunch you have that you have now been gifted with holy powers is rational?

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

That's wrong. Science depends on falsifiability. The hypothesis that the world is flat has, for instance, been falsified.

Yes. But, my point was that saying something is an "unfalsifiable hypotheses" isn't a good enough reason to put it on par with beliefs that hold more credence; My point was that the line regarding what to consider to be true, and where to start really thinking about falsifiability has to be drawn somewhere: or else we could believe nothing. And, I think this line should be drawn before the concept of a theistic god.

Húrin

It seems there is woeful misunderstanding of what it meant by the term of rationality. PEople especially seem to be assuming it is a synonym for "sensiblity" or "respectability", or even "agrees with my opinions"; it is not these. Wikipedia holds it thus:

Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect.

One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.

For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,
I am cold
I don't want to be cold
If I close the window I will not be cold...
Therefore, I will close the window

All that is required for an action to be rational is that if one believes action X (which can be done) implies Y, and that Y is desirable, he or she does X. The action would likewise be avoided were Y undesirable. Such arguments are logically valid but not necessarily logically sound.

For example, the premise "If I close the window I will not be cold..." may in fact be incorrect. As making formally sound argument is generally considered difficult, the "soundness" or "strength" of such premises will often rest on induction, statistics, and simplified heuristical models.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes. But, my point was that saying something is an "unfalsifiable hypotheses" isn't a good enough reason to put it on par with beliefs that hold more credence

I mentioned unfalsifiability to demonstrate that both atheism and theism are positions that transgress that line of falsifiability.

My point was that the line regarding what to consider to be true, and where to start really thinking about falsifiability has to be drawn somewhere: or else we could believe nothing. And, I think this line should be drawn before the concept of a theistic god.

Yes, that's why I called God scientifically unfalsifiable. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you mean here.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

It seems there is woeful misunderstanding of what it meant by the term of rationality. PEople especially seem to be assuming it is a synonym for "sensiblity" or "respectability", or even "agrees with my opinions"; it is not these. Wikipedia holds it thus:

Oh, my apologies Húrin, I had assumed, foolishly so it would seem now in retrospect that we where taking the commonly accepted connotation of rational to mean a logically sound argument. If you are broadening its definition to mean anything a person believes to be true even though it is probably false, then yes under this definition of rationality where a person believes an illogical and unsound argument to be true that your religious beliefs, are in fact, rational.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Oh, my apologies Húrin, I had assumed, foolishly so it would seem now in retrospect that we where taking the commonly accepted connotation of rational to mean a logically sound argument. If you are broadening its definition to mean anything a person believes to be true even though it is probably false, then yes under this definition of rationality where a person believes an illogical and unsound argument to be true that your religious beliefs, are in fact, rational.

I am not broadening the definition. I didn't write the wikipedia article. I am simply reporting the definition.

I agree that my description of the process of testing the Christian gospel was not logically sound since its conclusion is unfalsifiable. I found it rather obtuse of you to insist that I was being irrational even after I had explained the process rationally. We were using different definitions! However, I do insist that the process was a rational one. I also insist on people using their words correctly, not as emotionalised insults (as the term "irrational" too often is).

On the same grounds, strong atheism is rational, but it is logically unsound. I do not misunderstand atheism; I used to be one. If my beliefs are "probably false" that is your opinion; it is not fact.

Of what relevance is this to the thread? Do some atheists simply have no idea about when is good and when is not a good time to proselytise?

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, that's why I called God scientifically unfalsifiable. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you mean here.

In this quote:

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

You imply that atheism and theism are on par, with regards to falsifiability. I was trying to explain that atheism stands much stronger with the concept of unfalsifiability than theism does: as theism is the one proposing the hypotheses; atheism is simply refusing to believe in what the hypotheses states. And when there's, we'll say equal evidence (I know there certainly isn't equal evidence for the idea of a god - this is just for arguments sake) for the idea of a god - the side that doesn't believe the hypotheses is in a stronger position than the side that proposed it.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You imply that atheism and theism are on par, with regards to falsifiability. I was trying to explain that atheism stands much stronger with the concept of unfalsifiability than theism does: as theism is the one proposing the hypotheses; atheism is simply refusing to believe in what the hypotheses states.

Atheism states that the hypothesis is false even though it cannot be falsified.

And when there's, we'll say equal evidence (I know there certainly isn't equal evidence for the idea of a god - this is just for arguments sake)

If atheism is merely the dismissal of God, then theism has nothing to provide equal evidence to.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism states that the hypothesis is false even though it cannot be falsified.

Atheism may state that, but no half way intelligent atheist would. An atheist should state that theism is far more unlikely than it is likely.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that theism has the "burden of proof" (even though I hate using that phrase), as it's the one proposing the hypotheses. This is getting increasingly more off-topic.

If atheism is merely the dismissal of God, then theism has nothing to provide equal evidence to.

Atheism isn't the dismissal of God, it's the dimissal of the idea or concept of a god.

Anyway this has gone completely off-topic. Dades is going to go mad when he sees it in the morning.:pac:

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Atheism may state that, but no half way intelligent atheist would. An atheist should state that theism is far more unlikely than it is likely.

In fairness, most atheists speak in exactly such as way as to imply that they deny idea of God.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that theism has the "burden of proof" (even though I hate using that phrase), as it's the one proposing the hypotheses. This is getting increasingly more off-topic.

Only agnosticism lacks a burden of proof, as it proposes nothing.

Anyway this has gone completely off-topic. Dades is going to go mad when he sees it in the morning.:pac:

Why do many (not all) atheists try to infect every thread with the general God argument? Why do you guys feel such a need to take every imaginable opportunity, no matter how tasteless or inappropriate, to scorn or "disprove" the existence of God? I know I've been playing along for a few posts too but false claims must be refuted; it would be better had they not been made.

philologos

Húrin wrote: »

Do you even understand what the word rational means? I read that Christian Gospels, and taking their advice I tested their veracity by praying for guidance to a kind of God I wasn't even sure existed (remember, believing in God is not the same as accepting Christianity). I received the Holy Spirit from God as the text promised I would. Seems rational to me.

Amen! The abuse of "rational" is enough to cause you to crack. Seriously a philosophical debate has been taking place between empiricists and rationalists for centuries. There is no such thing as pure 100% rational knowledge at all. Infact ironically suggesting such a thing would be irrational.

We gain some of our knowledge through reason, but the vast majority comes from empiricism, through experience. In terms of scientific research this is particularly noteworthy, in that we observe how things happen and then reason given this emprical evidence to see if there could be other instances of this in the natural world. In terms of theological research, this involves reasoning on the Scriptures and the original texts of the Bible. Both involve rational thought, however both use differing sources of empiricism.

Is it really rational thought that is to question at all? No, rather it is what source of empiricism we use. Atheists clearly have a different one than that of theists.

(NOTE: Atheists do not have a monopoly on logic, reason, scientific enquiry, and "rational thought")

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness, most atheists speak in exactly such as way as to imply that they deny idea of God.

They do for the sake of saying it. It would be too, for lack of a better word, annoying, to have to define athiesm everytime you say you're one. Atheists should just be considered strong agnostics, in that they believe the idea of a god is far, far, far less likely than the idea of no god.

Only agnosticism lacks a burden of proof, as it proposes nothing.

Atheism doesn't propose anything. It just refuses to believe what theism proposes.

Why do many (not all) atheists try to infect every thread with the general God argument? Why do you guys feel such a need to take every imaginable opportunity, no matter how tasteless or inappropriate, to scorn or "disprove" the existence of God? I know I've been playing along for a few posts too but false claims must be refuted; it would be better had they not been made.

False claims? Yes. That's what they are, Húrin.

Well I certainly didn't start this discussion, so don't blame me; and you participate in it as often as atheists do. I suppose because it's the most interesting question that atheists and theists can debate over, I don't know.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

False claims? Yes. That's what they are, Húrin.

The usual idiocy started in this thread because Goduznt Xzst felt the need to refute my true claim that some people convert to religion for rational reasons, and some for rebellious reasons (same with atheism).

Among his many subsequent false claims were that the Israelites were a nomadic bronze age desert tribe. In fact, they were a settled, Iron Age nation that inhabited a fertile land.

This kind of threadwrecking is almost never started by theists; nearly always it's atheists who feel the need to jump in and say something like "all this is rubbish anyway". Notice how there has never been a need to place an "atheists/agnostic response only" notice on a thread in this forum? There's a reason for that. Theists on these forums are not in the habit of blowing apart topics in order to proselytise. And make no mistake; that's what you guys are doing with your naturalism.

With these thoughts I bid you good night before the lock!

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

The usual idiocy started in this thread because Goduznt Xzst felt the need to refute my true claim that some people convert to religion for rational reasons, and some for rebellious reasons (same with atheism).

Well I'd agree with you that rational thought can be applied to either. Both just, as Jakkass has said, use different sources for their empiricism.

I assumed your accusation of false claims was against atheistic "beliefs", or lack thereof.

This kind of threadwrecking is almost never started by theists; nearly always it's atheists who feel the need to jump in and say something like "all this is rubbish anyway". Notice how there has never been a need to place an "atheists/agnostic response only" notice on a thread in this forum? There's a reason for that. Theists on these forums are not in the habit of blowing apart topics in order to proselytise. And make no mistake; that's what you guys are doing with your naturalism.

I won't comment on that, as I don't want the thread to become further derailed. I haven't been around here long enough to pass judgement or draw conclusions: perhaps you're right, perhaps you're not - I don't know. I know that I, personally, haven't done what you've said to many threads. If you've issues with others I'll leave it to them to respond.

Rb

Húrin wrote: »

This kind of threadwrecking is almost never started by theists; nearly always it's atheists who feel the need to jump in and say something like "all this is rubbish anyway".

Then perhaps you should consider not posting in a forum dedicated to discussing the improbability of God and why, in this so called "modern" society, we still have people clinging to such beliefs and living their life around them.

I don't know why Atheists bother posting in the Christianity forum fwiw but I can understand why Christians want Christian only responses and we both know it's not because of "threadwrecking".

Dades

This bitter tangent survives only because my stupid broadband connection went down yesterday evening.

This thread had a purpose before, and shall again.
Any more "I'm more rational than you" debate and I'll delete the whole OT lot.

kiffer

with an eye to getting back on thread...


I intend to use whatever tools I can get my hands on to raise my children as sensible and morally sound individuals.

I would tell them fairy tails, stories and even parables... the three little pigs, Hansel and Gretel, Norse myths, Greek myths, Celtic myths, Christian parables... lots of them have useful messages and images.

The moral of the story can be sound even if the story itself is untrue.

You don't need explain to children that every fairy tale is just a story...

Then on the day my child asks if Siegfried really killed a dragon and bathed in it's blood to become invulnerable... I'll say "no, it's just a story, just like the story of Achilles being dipped in the Styx by his mother Thetis". (although perhaps gently if their really into the story... I really wish dragons were real )

All myths will be presented as being interesting/fun stories... and hopefully will be taken in the same light.

Children, I think, are better at telling story from reality than we sometimes give them credit for.


I remember the children in school realising the truth about Santa, and then rationalising that he must exist because their parents had said they couldn't afford the presents that turned up...
I remember similar conversations in the primary school yard about God, little children talking amongst themselves deciding that the whole God thing was a little suspect but was probably true because Parents still believed.

I'm not sure you could actively teach a child that gods don't exist...
You could mention nothing about them at all but then when the child encounters other children they'll hit culture shock.

It might be better if they are prepared and understand the stories and that they aren't real, just like the Cow jumping over the moon, and Humpty Dumpty.

Goduznt Xzst

Further to this, would you homeschool your child? What you see as the pros and cons to homeschooling.

and I don't necessarily mean schooling them yourself, but rather getting them a personal tutor.

Also, before people start making generalizations about homeschooling, my brothers wife was homeschooled right up to her graduation and she is probably one of the most socially adjusted and extroverted individuals I know.

lostexpectation

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hiya I'd say I wanted to be catholic as a child, purely during my primary school years. And yes it would have been totally just to fit in. For the social aspect. It's not like i actually understood what they were on about (and im sure most of the other kids hadnt a clue what it was about either, it was purely a social thing, and the excitement of communion and confirmation.)
I grew out of this stage at around 12, when I started to question everything (and listen to my parents), so was profoundly atheist from 12 to 23. argued with everyone including this poor priest that I did choir with in college!! Then this year (24) I just had a strange set of occurences happen to me. I know it's the old vague 'feelings' story, but I can't do any better than that! And am now a christian.

As to what lostexpectation said, I suppose I do try to influence my parents to my views in a certain sense. I suppose it's impossible not to. But I would do it in a way where i would just say 'if you're so open minded can you not just be open minded to what I believe in, and let me be happy?' I would never be like 'AGGHHHH YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!! thats not what its all about. anyway i think if i had children i would tell them what i believe in, but i wouldnt baptise them in anything (which i dont think is necessary anyway) and just let them follow their own path.

i don't think you answered either of my questions, seeing as you made strong claims about atheist pressing their views on their children i think its worth asking them again.

/wonders if the op's faith is still based on cultural homogeny

wonders does she think the atheist parent should give credence to god.

philologos

Why would one expect an atheist parent to give credence to God? I don't expect anything to be honest with you, I just hope that they may explore Christianity for themselves and find God in the long run. It's the same view I'd have about anyone.

Secondly cultural homogeny? The OP has already made it clear that she was an atheist up until last year when she looked at the Bible for herself. I don't think that's quite the same as cultural homogeny. Mind you theres a whole thread dealing with the accident of geography in this forum.

Ickle Magoo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hello,

I think that the majority of the people on this board have become atheists as either adults or teenagers. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.(which i'm sure you will!) Therefore I think I might have a unique viewpoint of what it's like to be an atheist as a child in ireland.

Hello there.

Well, I'm not Irish & I don't think I have ever believed in God - so I didn't "become" an atheist. I have also never been a child in Ireland, so my experiences will differ somewhat from your own. I grew up in a country where (with the exception of the outlying islands) the majority are apathetic protestants, the Catholics are very much in the minority & tend to congregate around Parkhead.:pac:

I reckon being an atheist in Scotland is a rather different because - outside of the sectarian football factions (and my Dad's best friend is a Catholic rangers fan so all that was completely lost on me!) - no-one actually cares. Add that to the fact that the Church has so little influence in mainstream education, politics, anything really, that no-faith causes no issues because well, no-one knows what anyone else "is".

I remember one Wednesday the first year we moved here, I called my husband at work in a panic asking what the hell was going on that everyone from the postie to the girl at the checkout had soot smudged across their faces - was it some kind of freaky local tradition that he hadn't warned me about.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So my point really here is: Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, people are always going to want their children to be the same as they are, even though it might not be necessarily right for the child.

No they don't. That was your experience but I don't think it's fair to assume every parent would/will or does do the same.

I come from a family which do not believe that everyone should or will believe or think the same way. My mother is Church of Scotland & my father is agnostic. I was raised to believe faith is a deeply personal thing (I remember my father telling my mother he would not go to Church as "What goes on between me & the Big Man, is between me & the Big Man, I don't need any of his lackeys telling me what He wants to say to me"). I wasn't Christened or Baptised & I can't remember seeing either of my parents in a Church other than for weddings or funerals

My parents sent me to Sunday School because there are some good lessons in them there parables! I was told to go until I could come up with a reasonable argument as to why I shouldn't. When I was five I started to question what I was being taught at Sunday School versus what other aspects of life were telling me. I remember asking why, if God made all animals were there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...or cavemen....or far off galaxies...or indeed anything that MAN would not have known at the time the Bible was written. Seemed mighty suspicious to me. Queue end of Sunday School.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My mum pressed her views onto me as much as any religious person does.

As a christian now I think, 'if i have a child is it right for me to make my child a christian, shouldn't i let them make their own journey themselves.'.

I agree. I've never understood how another person could instruct another on what their spirituality aught to be. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I wouldn't bring up a child telling them what political party to vote for, why on earth would I tell them what God to believe in?!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As atheists do you think you will make your children atheists?
I know there is more of a mix in schools these days than when I was young, so social factors probably wouldnt be as relevant.

I think an almost inevitable knock on effect of my own atheism & my husbands apathetic lapsed Catholicism would be to question religious dogma, explore other avenues & a raised likelihood of them being atheists. My kids are going to an Educate Together primary school & a protestant secondary so the whole Non-Catholic, not taking sacraments/confirmation/whatever is not an issue, thankfully.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Would you be upset if your child turned out to be a christian?

No, lots of people I love & respect are Christians, why would it make any difference if it were one of my children? If they decided to become hateful or spiteful, homophobic or anti-Semitic - I would have an issue with it. Become a loving, caring citizen who believes in a God - nope. I'd still be proud as punch.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My mum used to say to me when I was young, 'be whatever you want when you grow up', now im a christian she gives me all the old atheist arguments and im like 'I thought you said you wanted me to make my own choice as an adult' and she was like 'oh yeah yeah', but of course what she really wanted was me to make the same choice as her.

It is all too easy to press our views on children, and something we all maybe need to think about? what do you think? In regards to your parents and yourself? and in regards to what you might do with your own children?

I liked the way my parents did it & I'd like to do similar. I agree with my parents that faith is an intensely personal thing & I wouldn't foist that onto my child any more than I will do my atheism or my husband his weird lapse Catholic/Buddhist/humanist stuff.

I often accompany my mother-in-law to Mass & take the kids because she likes us being there & I think it's important that the kids know that Irish Catholicism is a part of their - our - family demographic. I want them to be knowledgeable and respectful of religions. To be understanding and respectful towards people even if they don't feel that way about the organisations behind those peoples faith/lack of. In short, just be good people. :cool:

Conar

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hello,

I think that the majority of the people on this board have become atheists as either adults or teenagers. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.(which i'm sure you will!) Therefore I think I might have a unique viewpoint of what it's like to be an atheist as a child in ireland.

I was raised as an atheist so I'd have had a similar experience.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As atheists do you think you will make your children atheists?

Yes I have and will continue to do so.
My daughter is 8 and is just finishing 2nd class, or the year her friends have done their communion. She has not had any issues at all or felt left out in any way more so than if she had missed a birthday party because she was sick or something. She was interested in what was going on but thinks its all a bit mad.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I know there is more of a mix in schools these days than when I was young, so social factors probably wouldnt be as relevant.

I have to say that I never had any social issues at all, other than feeling a little bored on Sunday mornings when my friends were forced to go to church.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Would you be upset if your child turned out to be a christian?

I would be extremely upset if they turned out to be christian. Honestly I'd be deeply hurt.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My mum used to say to me when I was young, 'be whatever you want when you grow up', now im a christian she gives me all the old atheist arguments and im like 'I thought you said you wanted me to make my own choice as an adult' and she was like 'oh yeah yeah', but of course what she really wanted was me to make the same choice as her.

I say the same to my kids, but I guess I mean it in a career and or sexuality kind of way.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It is all too easy to press our views on children, and something we all maybe need to think about? what do you think? In regards to your parents and yourself? and in regards to what you might do with your own children?

I don't think pressing our views on our kids is a bad thing all the time. I try to ensure they are critical thinkers and that they respect others feelings and property etc but I do actively tell my daughter that I think the whole God thing is completely mad and not to believe what they tell her in school about him.
I tell her that the stories are interesting and they have some decent lessons to be learnt but no more than other fairy tales.
I intend to do the same with my son once he starts school.

Goduznt Xzst

Conar wrote: »

My daughter is 8 and is just finishing 2nd class, or the year her friends have done their communion. She has not had any issues at all or felt left out in any way more so than if she had missed a birthday party because she was sick or something. She was interested in what was going on but thinks its all a bit mad.

I'm assuming since your daughter is around children that have been doing their communion that she is going to a Catholic school. How did you handle the application to the school? (in regards to baptism... etc)

Conar

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm assuming since your daughter is around children that have been doing their communion that she is going to a Catholic school. How did you handle the application to the school? (in regards to baptism... etc)

Yeah, she's going to a gaelscoil and it seems to be quite Catholic. Prayers in the yard before they go to their classes etc.

Its a difficult school to get into I believe but their 1st check for entrance is whether a parent or sibling went there so there wasn't an issue as my wife went there as a child.

I would have definitely have initially gone for an educate together school if there was one in my area but unfortunately not, I'm glad there wasn't now though as she loves Irish and it seems to give them a great start with languages.