Ireland first course on Atheism to be launched in schooll

Michael Nugent

It seems that a lot of the concerns are about the use of the word atheism, rather than the content of the lessons.

Firstly, the classes will be teaching ‘about atheism’, not teaching ‘atheism’ because we will be conveying the information in an objective, critical and pluralist manner in accordance with the Toledo guiding principles.

That will include teaching about the types of ideas about atheism that are some people have expressed in this thread: i.e., that it means only a lack of belief in gods, that any additional concepts are not atheism and/or should not be linked to atheism, etc.

But those are personal beliefs, not objective reality. The objective reality is that the idea of atheism means different things to different people. Insisting that it means only what you want it to mean is simply not reflecting reality.

The reality is that there are atheists who believe that atheism is only a lack of belief in gods and nothing else, and there are atheists who believe that atheism is intrinsically linked to wider worldviews including social and ethical ideas.

There are atheists who spend little or no time thinking about atheism, and there atheists who are active around the world in atheist organisations, promoting change in society while self-identifying as atheists.

There are atheists in democratic countries and in nondemocratic countries who face different challenges and opportunities with regard to manifesting their atheism.

There are atheists who want to limit the use of the word atheism to coincide with their own preferred usage, and there are atheists who are happy to recognise the ambiguity of reality where different atheists think differently.

The bottom line is that you are entitled to your personal beliefs about how you think about atheism and how you use the word atheism, but you are not entitled to insist that everyone else thinks about atheism and uses the word atheism in the same way as you do.

Not only is that leaning towards a type of fundamentalism, but more importantly it does not reflect objective reality. And children should be taught about reality in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

Genghiz Cohen

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Insisting that it means only what you want it to mean is simply not reflecting reality.

Unless you are the one holding the red hot pliers, of course.

Sarky

The objective reality is that it's all subjective? I was pretty happy with the dictionary definition. That all sounds a little, uh, contradictory. Tacking on "it means different things to different people" on top of a lack of belief in gods seems unwise.

Michael Nugent

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Unless you are the one holding the red hot pliers, of course.

Yes, that is one of the significant issues that we often don't think about in western democracies. While we have problems with regard to vindicating our right to freedom of conscience, we typically don't face the prospect of being beaten, imprisoned or killed because of our atheism (or indeed because of our religious beliefs if we were religious). Atheist Ireland works with colleagues in other countries to challenge these infringements of fundamental human rights, as well as trying to advance more positive freedoms in democratic states.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There are atheists who want to limit the use of the word atheism to coincide with their own preferred usage, and there are atheists who are happy to recognise the ambiguity of reality where different atheists think differently.

And there are people whose use of terminology broadly concurs with that given in all the major contemporary dictionaries, and strive to avoid re-using existing terms in new contexts in order to avoid creating ambiguity unnecessarily. This is particularly true when educating young children. Surely the definitions you give in a school text book should concur with those found in the dictionary?

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

And there are people whose use of terminology broadly concurs with that given in all the major contemporary dictionaries, and strive to avoid re-using existing terms in new contexts in order to avoid creating ambiguity unnecessarily. This is particularly true when educating young children. Surely the definitions you give in a school text book should concur with those found in the dictionary?

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It doesn't explain a whole lot and leaves a lot of questions and room for differences of opinion.

Michael Nugent

Sarky wrote: »

The objective reality is that it's all subjective? I was pretty happy with the dictionary definition. That all sounds a little, uh, contradictory. Tacking on "it means different things to different people" on top of a lack of belief in gods seems unwise.

smacl wrote: »

And there are people whose use of terminology broadly concurs with that given in all the major contemporary dictionaries, and strive to avoid re-using existing terms in new contexts in order to avoid creating ambiguity unnecessarily. This is particularly true when educating young children. Surely the definitions you give in a school text book should concur with those found in the dictionary?

Dictionaries do not give meanings to words, they retrospectively try to reflect the evolving meanings that people give to words.

Atheism used to mean people who did not believe in the established gods of a society (Romans thought early Christians were atheists), and then it used to be a derogatory term for people who disbelieved in a god that actually existed, and included attribution of immorality. It is only relatively recently that people have self-identified as atheists, as opposed to being accused of being atheists.

Also, "a lack of belief in gods" is not "the" dictionary definition. Different dictionaries include different definitions ranging from variations of a disbelief in the existence of deity to the doctrine that there is no deity. And whatever subject you are discussing or teaching, the definitions are merely the starting point for understanding the ideas that the words are pointing towards.

Edit: Obviously the range of current dictionary definitions would be a key concept in what is being taught. However, as in any other subject, they are part of the start, not the end, of understanding the subject.
.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Also, "a lack of belief in gods" is not "the" dictionary definition. Different dictionaries include different definitions ranging from variations of a disbelief in the existence of deity to the doctrine that there is no deity. And whatever subject you are discussing or teaching, the definitions are merely the starting point for understanding the ideas that the words are pointing towards.

Ok, so we've had the OED and Merriam-Webster. Would you be able to give a succinct definition of atheism in the broader terms that you consider it applies?

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

Ok, so we've had the OED and Merriam-Webster. Would you be able to give a succinct definition of atheism in the broader terms that you consider it applies?

I think what Michael is saying is that there is much to be discussed behind the simple definition of the word.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Ok, so we've had the OED and Merriam-Webster. Would you be able to give a succinct definition of atheism in the broader terms that you consider it applies?

Okay. For clarity, this is how I personally consider it to apply, and is not intended to pre-empt what might be included in the course.

Atheism can mean any position on a scale ranging from a belief that gods do not exist with or without an associated natural worldview, to an absence of belief that gods do exist with no associated ideas or worldviews.

Some people describe the belief that gods do not exist as positive, strong or hard atheism. Some people describe an absence of belief that gods do exist as negative, weak or soft atheism.

I'm always open to revising or refining that way of looking at it.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay. For clarity, this is how I personally consider it to apply, and is not intended to pre-empt what might be included in the course.

Atheism can mean any position on a scale ranging from a belief that gods do not exist with or without an associated natural worldview, to an absence of belief that gods do exist with no associated ideas or worldviews.

Some people describe the belief that gods do not exist as positive, strong or hard atheism. Some people describe an absence of belief that gods do exist as negative, weak or soft atheism.

I'm always open to revising or refining that way of looking at it.

Firstly thanks for the reply. My only concern here would be the associated worldview which suggests to me a significant degree of consensus that I somehow doubt exists outside of members of atheist groups. Even in this small group of boards atheists, I'm well aware that there are significant divergences between my world view and that of other atheists on here. Thus stating atheists share a common world view at face value appears to be a fallacy, which in turn limits the usefulness of the word atheist in this context.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Firstly thanks for the reply. My only concern here would be the associated worldview which suggests to me a significant degree of consensus that I somehow doubt exists outside of members of atheist groups. Even in this small group of boards atheists, I'm well aware that there are significant divergences between my world view and that of other atheists on here. Thus stating atheists share a common world view at face value appears to be a fallacy, which in turn limits the usefulness of the word atheist in this context.

But, said she playing Devil's Advocate - the exact same thing can be said out Christianity.

Obliq

Semantics matter a whole lot less to me than the fact that atheist children will now have some back-up literature in school situations where insensitive children or teachers may otherwise be in a position to point the finger at the child/children with the unexplained ideology in the class.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But, said she playing Devil's Advocate - the exact same thing can be said out Christianity.

Exactly, which is why a far narrower definition of atheism works so much better for me. On you start advocating any one world view over another, you're implying that one way of doing things is superior to another independently of context. This leads to multiple opposing views, polarisation, and you start falling into all the traps that every other religion has fallen into. World view to me also suggests an as yet undisclosed socio-political dimension, just begging for a few power structures to be tacked on.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Exactly, which is why a far narrower definition of atheism works so much better for me. On you start advocating any one world view over another, you're implying that one way of doing things is superior to another independently of context. This leads to multiple opposing views, polarisation, and you start falling into all the traps that every other religion has fallen into. World view to me also suggests an as yet undisclosed socio-political dimension, just begging for a few power structures to be tacked on.

All of that may or may not be true, but it is not what I was addressing in trying to respond to your request for a broad definition for educational purposes.

I was not trying to promote what I would prefer people to mean by atheism. I was trying to describe what people do actually mean by atheism.

Obviously it would have to be translated into age-appropriate language by educational professionals, and revised based on piloting and feedback etc.

But the general principle should be to teach about atheism in an objective, critical and pluralist manner, consistently with the Toledo guiding principles, and not to promote our own personal preferred views of what atheism should mean.

Absoluvely

Geomy wrote: »

Some people don't even give a toss about Atheism or Religion.

Isn't that absolutely disgraceful.

Is there a name for people who don't worry, think or discuss religion or atheism ?

Catholics :cool:

Turtwig

Absoluvely wrote: »

Catholics :cool:

Given that Catholicism tends to mean just about anything these days including those things which patently aren't Catholic, I'd agree.

Zillah

I think the word "atheism" should be left alone as not believing in a God or Gods. Expand on other philosophies and processes than relate to or include atheism, if you will; humanism, naturalism, skepticism, science, logical positivism - whatever you like - and expand on those or teach those or lobby for them to be included in schools.

Don't have a course on something that rather intrinsically warrants a mere dictionary entry. It's not appropriate and it plays directly into the strawmen that religious conservatives employ.

Turtwig

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll find time to answer your main question in detail later.

But why on earth would you consider yourself an agnostic (by which I assume you mean that you would no longer consider yourself an atheist) because of your beliefs about tropes?

Surely you should consider yourself an atheist or not on the basis of what you believe about the idea of gods?

I don't by any means consider myself to be agnostic. However, when dealing ordinary everyday folk I do find it more comfortable to use that label. To most people "agnostic" means what atheist means to me. Atheism itself carries too many negative associations. Very often it's not the words we say that but the concepts understood by others that count. On this forum I'd have no issue with using terms like 'ignorant' or 'mild paedophilia'. Depending on the company outside this forum I would never use such language. I just feel that the idea of an 'atheist' course is feeding more into the negative stereotypes of atheism. My fear is that it's lead to distinct paradigms in education. Where parents will have option of choosing between your curriculum and the Catholic Alive-O shyte. Neither of which to my mind would be desirable solutions.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It seems that a lot of the concerns are about the use of the word atheism, rather than the content of the lessons.

Firstly, the classes will be teaching ‘about atheism’, not teaching ‘atheism’ because we will be conveying the information in an objective, critical and pluralist manner in accordance with the Toledo guiding principles.

That will include teaching about the types of ideas about atheism that are some people have expressed in this thread: i.e., that it means only a lack of belief in gods, that any additional concepts are not atheism and/or should not be linked to atheism, etc.

But those are personal beliefs, not objective reality. The objective reality is that the idea of atheism means different things to different people. Insisting that it means only what you want it to mean is simply not reflecting reality.

The reality is that there are atheists who believe that atheism is only a lack of belief in gods and nothing else, and there are atheists who believe that atheism is intrinsically linked to wider worldviews including social and ethical ideas.

There are atheists who spend little or no time thinking about atheism, and there atheists who are active around the world in atheist organisations, promoting change in society while self-identifying as atheists.

There are atheists in democratic countries and in nondemocratic countries who face different challenges and opportunities with regard to manifesting their atheism.

There are atheists who want to limit the use of the word atheism to coincide with their own preferred usage, and there are atheists who are happy to recognise the ambiguity of reality where different atheists think differently.

The bottom line is that you are entitled to your personal beliefs about how you think about atheism and how you use the word atheism, but you are not entitled to insist that everyone else thinks about atheism and uses the word atheism in the same way as you do.

Not only is that leaning towards a type of fundamentalism, but more importantly it does not reflect objective reality. And children should be taught about reality in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

"Irishness" means different things to different people. What constitutes a person being Irish is distinct and unchanging. No two people have the same idea of gravity. A physicist would imagine it very different to a layperson. Likewise, an atheist physicist would likely view atheism differently to an accountant atheist. Subtle differences, but differences none the less. However, no matter what we look at things, be they "irishness","gravity" or "atheism" we always discern whether something falls under a word or definition by striking off the significant things the criteria doesn't entail. For example, person is not an Irish citizen: not Irish; a force of repulsion: not gravity; person believes in a God: Not an atheist. That's the one thing that's truly universal to all atheists. (Apart from possibly being human.) Surely the definition of a word should be based on its universal characteristics not the subjective ones of the individual?

I'm actually of the opinion that terminology of atheist is useless. I use it, but only because the word exists. It says nothing definitive about anyone and if it anything the term tends to obfuscate conversations rather than clarify them. It's some sort of grand scale fallacy of popularity.

Michael Nugent

Zillah wrote: »

I think the word "atheism" should be left alone as not believing in a God or Gods. Expand on other philosophies and processes than relate to or include atheism, if you will; humanism, naturalism, skepticism, science, logical positivism - whatever you like - and expand on those or teach those or lobby for them to be included in schools.

Don't have a course on something that rather intrinsically warrants a mere dictionary entry. It's not appropriate and it plays directly into the strawmen that religious conservatives employ.

Again, that is what you believe people should mean by the word atheism, not what people actually do mean by the word atheism (or even what current dictionaries describe as the meaning of the word atheism).

I’m happy to debate what I believe people should mean by the word atheism, but that is a matter for personal discourse or public advocacy, not for designing a school course.

A school course about atheism should teach children about atheism in an objective, critical and pluralist manner, and give them the information and thinking skills to form their own beliefs about what atheism means to them.

Michael Nugent

Jernal wrote: »

I don't by any means consider myself to be agnostic. However, when dealing ordinary everyday folk I do find it more comfortable to use that label. To most people "agnostic" means what atheist means to me.

That's interesting. I am almost the opposite of that. I am more likely to say that I am an atheist when talking to people using ordinary day-to-day language, and to clarify the nuance that I am an agnostic atheist in forums like this or when speaking strictly philosophically.

I'll try to come back to your other points later.

robindch

Perhaps somebody should set up a group named "Agnostic Ireland":

Reporter: Well, what do you believe?
AI: Uh, we're not sure.

Zillah

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’m happy to debate what I believe people should mean by the word atheism, but that is a matter for personal discourse or public advocacy, not for designing a school course.

I don't think there should be any such school course. It massively overly-emphasises atheism. Plonk an atheist/secular humanist module into the religion/world philosophy section of the curriculum and you're good to go.

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

Atheism itself carries too many negative associations. Very often it's not the words we say that but the concepts understood by others that count.

And to me, that's exactly why the term atheism should be taught to others to mean just what it is. No belief in a god. All the fallacies that we come up against here, in school and particularly as portrayed by christian fundamentalist types don't change the fact that we are atheists, just because they all have the wrong idea.

I'm actually of the opinion that terminology of atheist is useless. I use it, but only because the word exists. It says nothing definitive about anyone and if it anything the term tends to obfuscate conversations rather than clarify them. It's some sort of grand scale fallacy of popularity.

Much like the term feminism. Says nothing whatsoever about me except that I believe in equality for women. However, it's the only term that fits the purpose of describing myself as someone who supports equality for women - whatever else that term has also come to imply, it still does mean that one thing.

Penn

recedite wrote: »

I don't understand your objection. Its what you want, but you don't like the label "atheism"? If you are going to discuss various aspects of theism in RE class, why not devote some time to discussing various aspects of atheism and its consequences.
The consequences are actually quite important. If you reject an all-powerful deity as the founder and head of our society, then what is the basis for government, laws etc? Also the "Divine right" of kings to rule no longer exists; the civic leader is no longer the person anointed by god. We have made some progress in secularism, founding a Republic, but we have a long way to go. Compared to other republics, such as France and USA, the religion in schools issue is a bit of a joke here.

I'm not saying that students shouldn't be taught about atheism, I'm saying it should be taught as part of a religion class. That Religious Education should be about all religion and no religion, without promoting any of them.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And children should be taught about reality in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

I agree. But would you not have concerns that parents, even ones who may be religious but were considering sending their children to an ET school may be put off from doing so with Atheism being considered a subject? I hear what you're saying about the class being designed to teach "about atheism", but I think it'll be more inclined to scare some parents away than teaching about atheism as part of multidenominational Religion class.

smacl

Obliq wrote: »

And to me, that's exactly why the term atheism should be taught to others to mean just what it is. No belief in a god.

That's what I thought atheism meant until reading this thread, but now I've come to the understanding that apparently for many people it means more, though what exactly I'm not sure. Given the ambiguity, I think I'll go back to 'not religious, don't believe in God', long winded and all as it is. I wonder will we see separate options on a future census of Religion:None, and Religion:Athiest

gaynorvader

Penn wrote: »

I'm not saying that students shouldn't be taught about atheism, I'm saying it should be taught as part of a religion class. That Religious Education should be about all religion and no religion, without promoting any of them.
{...}

In an ideal world, however, it's very hard to get teachers to give atheism its allotted time in a religious education class. I remember we had 2 religion classes a week in secondary school and we had 1 class during that time in which we touched upon atheism/agnosticism.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

That's what I thought atheism meant until reading this thread, but now I've come to the understanding that apparently for many people it means more, though what exactly I'm not sure. Given the ambiguity, I think I'll go back to 'not religious, don't believe in God', long winded and all as it is. I wonder will we see separate options on a future census of Religion:None, and Religion:Athiest

It is what atheism literally means. However, much like the word literally, it has taken on other meanings in common parlance. People use it to mean "a belief that there are no gods".

Penn

gaynorvader wrote: »

In an ideal world, however, it's very hard to get teachers to give atheism its allotted time in a religious education class. I remember we had 2 religion classes a week in secondary school and we had 1 class during that time in which we touched upon atheism/agnosticism.

I only see this as a step sideways rather than a step forward. I can't see too many religious parents letting their children attend atheism classes. It doesn't address the problem of how religion is taught in schools.

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

It is what atheism literally means. However, much like the word literally, it has taken on other meanings in common parlance. People use it to mean "a belief that there are no gods".

Yep, no problem there. The concept of atheism as a group of people who don't believe in a god or gods, or who believe there is no God or gods, both work equally fine with me. The notion that these people share a common world view they would like to see others adopt is where my spidey senses start tingling.

Obliq

Penn wrote: »

I agree. But would you not have concerns that parents, even ones who may be religious but were considering sending their children to an ET school may be put off from doing so with Atheism being considered a subject? I hear what you're saying about the class being designed to teach "about atheism", but I think it'll be more inclined to scare some parents away than teaching about atheism as part of multidenominational Religion class.

Interestingly, I think you're right about that possibility - after all, converting to the logic of there being no evidence to prove the existence of any supernatural power is much more likely than conversion to the notion of Allah or any number of Hindu gods. It would probably be more objectionable to religious parents than the teaching about any other religion. All the more reason to have it included in teaching about religion in schools

Obliq

smacl wrote: »

Yep, no problem there. The concept of atheism as a group of people who don't believe in a god or gods, or who believe there is no God or gods, both work equally fine with me. The notion that these people share a common world view they would like to see others adopt is where my spidey senses start tingling.

Nobody has anywhere suggested that an atheist world view (and there is no such thing) is what AI are developing for the curriculum. The understanding of atheism - that people can and do exist perfectly happily without believing in a god - is necessary, as is the debunking of popular myths about atheism (such as us having a uniform world view).

smacl

Obliq wrote: »

Nobody has anywhere suggested that an atheist world view (and there is no such thing) is what AI are developing for the curriculum. The understanding of atheism - that people can and do exist perfectly happily without believing in a god - is necessary, as is the debunking of popular myths about atheism (such as us having a uniform world view).

This is becoming rather circular. Looking at Michael's point below, and various definitions of atheism above, I still fail entirely to see why the subject is called atheism. Saying that atheists don't believe in a God or gods, and debunking popular myths about atheism (i.e. the other things atheists don't believe in or subscribe to) should take all of about five minutes. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching kids about social inclusion and tolerance of other peoples beliefs and views, but this has nothing to do with atheism as anyone has yet defined it on this thread.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland has always had a policy that schools should teach children about religious and nonreligious beliefs, but not teach that any particular belief is true or false.

In line with this policy (and unlike religious instruction in Catholic schools) our lessons will teach about atheism, not teach atheism.

The nearest we've come to is that part of Michael's definition states that some atheists associate a natural worldview with their atheism.

Atheism can mean any position on a scale ranging from a belief that gods do not exist with or without an associated natural worldview, to an absence of belief that gods do exist with no associated ideas or worldviews.

Looking at it again, I think the subject should be title 'Religious tolerance and awareness' or something similar. Certainly not atheism.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

This is becoming rather circular. Looking at Michael's point below, and various definitions of atheism above, I still fail entirely to see why the subject is called atheism. Saying that atheists don't believe in a God or gods, and debunking popular myths about atheism (i.e. the other things atheists don't believe in or subscribe to) should take all of about five minutes. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching kids about social inclusion and tolerance of other peoples beliefs and views, but this has nothing to do with atheism as anyone has yet defined it on this thread.

{...}

I think you're underestimating how difficult it might be to explain why people might be atheists. After all, to a child, a god creating everything seems so right, it's not contradicted by anything they've learned yet, magic still exists, he's just like Santa or the Tooth Fairy, right? If they're real, why can't God be?

clairefontaine

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think you're underestimating how difficult it might be to explain why people might be atheists. After all, to a child, a god creating everything seems so right, it's not contradicted by anything they've learned yet, magic still exists, he's just like Santa or the Tooth Fairy, right? If they're real, why can't God be?

There is no way to talk about this without discussing consensual vs. subjective reality. I don't think small kids should be worrying about that at that stage of this lives, when they are learning how leaves change colour and still learning how to read and do sums. It's not really right.

That's why the oly answer I could come up with to the God and Jesus stuff in school, was to tell him its not that important.

MadsL

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think you're underestimating how difficult it might be to explain why people might be atheists. After all, to a child, a god creating everything seems so right, it's not contradicted by anything they've learned yet, magic still exists, he's just like Santa or the Tooth Fairy, right? If they're real, why can't God be?

...errr...debunk Santa and the Tooth Fairy

or explain that some people like a sense of awe and wonder at the 'miracle of life'...

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

...errr...debunk Santa and the Tooth Fairy

or explain that some people like a sense of awe and wonder at the 'miracle of life'...

Yeah hey do that in France. My friends daughter went home in tears one day because the teacher laid it down. No Santa, no tooth fairy, no nothing. She announced it to a classroom of 8 year olds. That's how secular France is.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no way to talk about this without discussing consensual vs. subjective reality. I don't think small kids should be worrying about that at that stage of this lives, when they are learning how leaves change colour and still learning how to read and do sums. It's not really right.

That's why the oly answer I could come up with to the God and Jesus stuff in school, was to tell him its not that important.

Teaching comparative religion through festivals is pretty innocuous though. New year festivals, Light festivals, Observance festivals...

Religion is one big party at Key Stage 1 -5

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Teaching comparative religion through festivals is pretty innocuous though. New year festivals, Light festivals, Observance festivals...

Religion is one big party at Key Stage 1 -5

Yom Kippur? You want the eight year olds to think about who they have sinned against?

Easter, forget it. Totally offensive to Jews.

How about Rammadan?

No way, its a pandora box.

Mike1961

I don't believe it

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think you're underestimating how difficult it might be to explain why people might be atheists.

About as difficult as explaining that someone might be a Hindu or Muslim, but not as time consuming as you don't have to go into the back story of what they do believe in, and what traditions they follow.

As for Santa and the Tooth Fairy, once the presents arrive and the party goes on, I don't think most kids care. After all the self same kids dress up for halloween, and go from door to door, without worrying too much about the underlying pagan rituals or belief. Kids just want to have fun, and so they should.

clairefontaine

Why don't they just have puppet shows and workshops on appreciating difference.

End of.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yom Kippur? You want the eight year olds to think about who they have sinned against?

Is there any reason why 8 year olds could not reflect on things that they have done wrong to other people?

Easter, forget it. Totally offensive to Jews.

Well that depends if you go around pointing the finger saying "the Jews did it" Jesus was Jewish after all.

How about Rammadan?

What about it? Teach about Eid, the celebration at the end of fasting.

No way, its a pandora box.

If you don't teach about myths and legends no-one will understand that expression.

nagirrac

If atheists can't agree on what atheism is, how can you expect 8 year olds to understand what it is?

Leave them alone to be kids, they will have enough of a hard time dealing with these questions later in life anyway. Teach them what an 8 year old needs at that stage of their development, and stop trying to fight adult battles in a children's classroom. The focus in Ireland should be to promote a more pluralistic school system where everyone feels welcome and parents should not have to worry about their kids having opinions forced on them. Teach an ethics class with positive elements from religion and humanism, and leave it at that. Religious instruction should be an optional after school subject, or outside the school altogether.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Is there any reason why 8 year olds could not reflect on things that they have done wrong to other people?



Well that depends if you go around pointing the finger saying "the Jews did it" Jesus was Jewish after all.


What about it? Teach about Eid, the celebration at the end of fasting.



If you don't teach about myths and legends no-one will understand that expression.

Because the concept of sin is not straightforward, and many parents, don't want state employees instructing their children on the nature of evil. That's why.

Yes I know Jesus was Jewish, some also claim he was a malignant Narcsist who started the most successful cult in history thanks to Constantine. And many Jews believe their persecutions are due to Christians being taught they are Christ killers.

Pandora is a mythological figure of a religion that is no longer practised. I made the reference with ironic purpose. And obviously I did not learn about Pandora in primary school.

If I want my kids to know those references, then I will make sure they have a humanistic education, which includes classical studies. I will. To have state employees educating them on the concepts of sin and Jesus rising from the dead, or getting a public execution.

If you want that, go to private school.

swampgas

Funny how the atheist is still a bogey-man in 2013.

Lots of posters seem to be worried about the "Atheist" label (with all its implied negative connotations) being used here. Are parents going to run screaming from the schools as soon as the big "A" word makes its appearance? I doubt it somehow.

We need to help break the taboo about using the words "athiest" and "atheism" in Ireland. Running away from the issue by suggesting less threatening words is (IMO) a signal that atheism is something to be ashamed and embarrassed about.

smacl

MadsL wrote: »

If you don't teach about myths and legends no-one will understand that expression.

Not sure whether they'll learn it in school either. I picked up a BBC audiobook of Greek legends for kids which went down very well with our two.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

If atheists can't agree on what atheism is, how can you expect 8 year olds to understand what it is?

I think it's entirely possible to explain what an atheist is in terms that an 8 year old can understand.

You don't have a problem with 8-years olds being expected to understand all the contradictory nonsense that comes with Catholicism, like transubstantiation perhaps?

clairefontaine

smacl wrote: »

Not sure whether they'll learn it in school either. I picked up a BBC audiobook of Greek legends for kids which went down very well with our two.

I learned about mythology via Latin classes and Greek and Roman history classes in high school.

Maybe it's appropriate via Roman history in primary.

It's nothing a copy of Bullfinches mythology won't cover.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because the concept of sin is not straightforward, and many parents, don't want state employees instructing their children on the nature of evil. That's why.

You would hardly be banding about the word sin, or at the very least talking about it as a definition of breaking the laws of the religion you follow. No reason why that could not be a jumping off point for a class thinking about the things they did wrong that year and saying sorry to that person.

Kids know the difference between right and wrong already at that age, and class rules reinforce it if they are written and explained well.

Yes I know Jesus was Jewish, some also claim he was a malignant Narcsist who started the most successful cult in history thanks to Constantine. And many Jews believe their persecutions are due to Christians being taught they are Christ killers.

Teaching how Christians celebrate Easter and the Resurrection really isn't going to offend Jews, I assure you.

Pandora is a mythological figure of a religion that is no longer practised. I made the reference with ironic purpose. And obviously I did not learn about Pandora in primary school.

Why? I did.

If I want my kids to know those references, then I will make sure they have a humanistic education, which includes classical studies. I will.

Epicurus in the classroom, I approve. I also approve of Buddha in the classrom.

To have state employees educating them on the concepts of sin

On what followers of a religion regard as sin, big difference.

and Jesus rising from the dead, or getting a public execution.

Most scholars agree that he existed in some historical form, you are OK with kids being taught as much as we know about Hannibal but not what one of the most influential religions of the world believes about it's founder?

If you want that, go to private school.

A State eductaion should be sub-standard? Really?