Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ireland first course on Atheism to be launched in schooll
Comments
-
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.
Teaching how Christians celebrate Easter and the Resurrection really isn't going to offend Jews, I assure you.
Why? I did.
Epicurus in the classroom, I approve.
I also approve of Buddha in the classrom.
On what followers of a religion regard as sin, big difference.
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?
A State eductaion should be sub-standard? Really?
No. Not in primary school.
You really want unionised state employees educating the young on the lessons of sin and morality? I admire Yom Kippur a lot personally, but don't think it should be taught in school, same with the others.
I can kind of see where you are coming from, and having come from such a diverse place myself where I sat at many Passover meals, attended succoths, babysat for a Buddhist home, I, like many others learned about these ceremonies through osmosis, just from having peers from so many backgrounds,
and yes it does reduce parochialism, I just don't think it's ok to bring it into the primary classroom.
Puppet shows on appreciating difference and workshops. Let the time be used for a foreign language.0 -
-
I've had this debate before - with yourself I believe.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.
...
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.
I fundamentally disagree that simply because some people who share a belief also share certain other ideals that you can start changing the meanings of words. It doesn't reflect the reality which is that nothing other than what the word has always meant can be said to reflect all the people who self-identify with it - there is only one thing that all atheists have in common. Saying they are entitled to their personal beliefs about the definition is ludicrous. What they are entitled to is to not have secondary beliefs or ideals foisted on them by people who see modern culture as an excuse to rewrite the dictionary.
Of course having chosen the name in the first place, I believe Atheist Ireland have it in their interest to perpetuate the notion that atheism is not atheism any more, it's a worldview. It's always been the elephant in the room, and this redefinition is an attempt to throw a blanket over it. In fact it's only ever been Michael on behalf of AI and the more vociferous of the religious that I've ever heard proclaiming atheism to mean more than No Belief.
I'm all for teaching the options and history of non-belief to kids (along with an overview of the believer stuff), but a headline suggesting 'Atheist Ireland to develop a course teaching about atheism in schools' makes my teeth hurt. So yes, it's the use of the word, not the content of the lessons.0 -
-
-
I've had this debate before - with yourself I believe.
I fundamentally disagree that simply because some people who share a belief also share certain other ideals that you can start changing the meanings of words.{...}
Dictionaries seem to disagree unfortunately:Mirriam-Webster wrote:Definition of LITERALLY
1
: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2
: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
I don't think we should allow words to be changed simply because people use them incorrectly, but this is the world we live in.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Don't get me started on that travesty! Also, that's not a "label" someone would use to self-identify so there's no victim other than language itself.gaynorvader wrote: »Dictionaries seem to disagree unfortunately:
Here it's more a case of people advocating using them incorrectly. Also, see point one above.gaynorvader wrote: »I don't think we should allow words to be changed simply because people use them incorrectly, but this is the world we live in. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Yes, we’ve discussed it before, and I’m happy to discuss it again.I've had this debate before - with yourself I believe.
Well, I can't unilaterally start to change the meanings of words, and I don't want to. But whether or not you fundamentally disagree, the meanings of words change. It happens all of the time. Continuously. Dictionaries retrospectively record some of those changes, but dictionary definitions do not cause words to have meanings.I fundamentally disagree that simply because some people who share a belief also share certain other ideals that you can start changing the meanings of words.
“Some people who share a belief also sharing certain other ideals” is one of the ways that the meanings of words change over time, or at least is a contributory factor to such changes. How do you think words like left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, green etc got the political meanings that are part of their multiple meanings?
There is no such thing as “what the word (atheism) has always meant.” It has meant many different things over the generations.It doesn't reflect the reality which is that nothing other than what the word has always meant can be said to reflect all the people who self-identify with it - there is only one thing that all atheists have in common.- It has meant ‘without god' or 'without gods’ - note, not without 'belief in gods’, but without 'gods'.
- It has meant immoral or wicked
- It has meant rejection of god or gods
- It has meant rejection of belief in god or gods
- It has meant believing there is no god
- It has meant not believing there is a god
- It has meant the doctrine (i.e. belief or set of beliefs) that there is no god
What people who self-identify with a word choose to mean by it does not cause the word to have that meaning. People who self-identify as criminals do not determine what the word criminal means. People who self-identify as liberals do not determine what the word liberal means. People who self-identify as philosophers do not determine what the word philosopher means.
Whether or not something is the only attribute that certain things or people have in common does not cause that to be the only meaning that a word has. What causes a word to have a meaning is whether enough people use that word in a similar way to make it an effective tool of communication.
Also, there is no common thing that all people who self-identify as atheists have in common. Opinion polls commonly show a small number of people who self-identify as atheists who say they believe in a god.
It may be or it may not be. It depends on whether what they want to convey coincides with the meaning received by the person they are communicating with.Saying they are entitled to their personal beliefs about the definition is ludicrous.
Nobody is having beliefs or ideals foisted on them. Modern culture is not merely an excuse for, but is the recognised ongoing mechanism for, continuously rewriting the dictionary.What they are entitled to is to not have secondary beliefs or ideals foisted on them by people who see modern culture as an excuse to rewrite the dictionary.
Atheist Ireland has always been clear and transparent in our goals: to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism, and to promote an ethical secular state. We have always recognised that different people mean different things by the word atheist.Of course having chosen the name in the first place, I believe Atheist Ireland have it in their interest to perpetuate the notion that atheism is not atheism any more, it's a worldview. It's always been the elephant in the room, and this redefinition is an attempt to throw a blanket over it.
When you say “the notion that atheism is not atheism any more”, do you mean “the notion that atheism does not mean wicked or immoral any more"? I suspect not. I suspect that you are happy that that particular meaning has changed, and that what you want is for the changing to stop at whatever meaning that you prefer. But that is not how life works.
Here are some extracts from some organisations and websites. Some are translated by google translate, so follow the links for context. I am not arguing that these examples are the only meanings of the word atheism. I am demonstrating that I am not the only nonreligious person saying that atheism can mean more than No Belief.In fact it's only ever been Michael on behalf of AI and the more vociferous of the religious that I've ever heard proclaiming atheism to mean more than No Belief.
Toledo Guiding Principles
http://www.osce.org/odihr/29154- Convinced of the need of a human rights education which condemns and seeks to prevent all forms of violence based on hatred and intolerance, in relation with freedom of religion or belief; With understanding that freedom of religion or belief includes theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief...
- UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.22.48, The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion (Article 18), (Forty-Eighth Session, 1993) UN Doc. CCPR/C/21 Rev. 1/Add. 4 (1993), reprinted in UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 8 at 194 (2006). Para. 2 reads as follows: “Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.”..
- In what has now become recognized as a landmark decision of general application, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that: freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ [...]. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, skeptics and the un- concerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it...
- In this regard, the Court considers that, in a democratic society, only pluralism in education can enable pupils to develop a critical mind with regard to religious matters in the context of freedom of thought, conscience and religion [...]. In this respect, it should be noted that, as the Court has held on numerous occasions, this freedom, in its religious dimension, is one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned...
http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai- Atheist Alliance International's vision is a secular world where public policy, scientific inquiry and education are not influenced by religious beliefs, but based upon sound reasoning, rationality and evidence.
- Atheist Alliance International's mission is to challenge and confront religious faith, to strengthen global atheism by promoting the growth and interaction of atheist/freethought organisations around the world and to undertake international educational and advocacy projects.
Atheist Foundation of Australia
http://atheistfoundation.org.au/about-us/- Atheists find their motive for action in the needs and problems of their fellow citizens and consider that the worship of, or reliance on, imaginary supernatural beings to be a useless waste of time, energy and resources.
- Atheists reject superstition and prejudice along with the irrational fears they cause. We recognise the complexity and interdependence of life on this planet. As rational and ethical beings we accept the challenge of making a creative and responsible contribution to life.
Afghanistan Atheists Organisation
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Afghans-Atheists-Organization/290988360929383
Our view:- Important goals in Afghanistan Tysst creed is:
- 1. Trying to build a society based on reason and away from any kind of superstition and fool (of religion and tradition) that is worthy of humanity.
- Two. Trying to build a secular, non-religious and open to all citizens of Afghanistan, and access to natural and human rights.
- Three. Support, understanding, and promote the evolution of scientific theory (evolution) and other scientific issues in the field of training and education in Afghanistan.
Atheist Freethinkers of Canada
http://aft.atheisme.ca/manifeste_en.html
Atheist Manifesto- Atheism is the natural state of human beings once they have freed themselves of all mythologies, hoaxes, religions and supernatural spiritualities which may have previously encumbered their minds. Atheism favours our reconciliation with our own humanity by rejecting the alienation caused by baseless and dangerous beliefs. Despite its negative grammatical form, atheism is a positive force.
Dutch Atheist Covenant
http://atheistischverbond.nl/index.php/artikelen-sp-1021642985/91-introductie/67-over-de-vereniging-atheistisch-verbond-sp-1947422657- Not God created man , but man god .
- The above slogan is the premise of the Atheist Alliance . It is the essence of the difference between believers and non - believers : between theists and a- theïsten.De website of the Atheist Alliance has been operational since mid-2010 . This initiative runs parallel to the founding of the ' Association Atheist Alliance . The Atheist Alliance want with this site and the association initiative in a practical way to give meaning to the promotion and monitoring of the humanistic- atheistic ideology.
- The organization wants to wear, the atheist vote but also take into account the diversity and individuality among atheists . The Atheist Alliance also wants to be socially involved in several areas . Also, the Atheist Alliance solicited and unsolicited respond to social issues and events that go against the atheistic ideology . This can be done in various ways , such as with reactions in media or (public ) actions , but also by feeding ( if necessary legal ) procedures .
Minnesota Atheists
Positive Atheism in Action since 1991
http://mnatheists.org/information/public-policy-positions- Minnesota Atheists opposes these religious arguments. We hold that public policy decisions should instead address benefit to society and the rights of individual autonomy. We are a politically diverse community that welcomes as members everyone who opposes religious thinking in public policy, and who advocates consequentially for policies that promote the public good.
Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society
http://patas.co/patas/about-patas/- As atheists and agnostics, the Philippine Atheist and Agnostics Society promotes choice, responsibility, and acknowledgment of the unique self among citizens. We know that all human beings have the inalienable rights to choose and shape their lives. We know that every human being is responsible for his or her own decisions, and could solve personal problems by solution-based thinking. We know that all human beings, particularly Filipinos, should never have to acknowledge an elite class; each person is unique in intelligence and creativity.
- We have observed that the detrimental belief systems mentioned above are the fruits of an imposition of outdated religion-based ethics in the society. These organized totalitarian sects insist that God has the power to manipulate our fate, that we are always weak, and there is no one to trust but God and his messiahs. Worse, this kind of thinking does not just keep us off the truth, but affects our personal growth as human beings, as they lead us to laziness, blameable attitude, and fanaticism to the richest personalities in the Philippines.
Spanish Atheist Initiative
https://iatea.org/revista/spip.php?article10- Atea Initiative an international association legally registered (see data). Our main objectives (see our articles for more information) are:
- Promote discussion between us atheists and agnostics.
- Extend online atheistic ideas and all speaking countries in Spanish.
- Spread the news related to atheism, gods, religions, science, skepticism, and related topics.
- Develop a stable community of non-believers to be of support, discussion, self-improvement and entertainment as well as serve as a breeding ground for partnerships atheistic in all countries speaking in Spanish.
- Promote establishment of secularism and the defense of civil rights and liberties of atheists in the different countries, especially those speaking in Spanish.
- Atheists believe that there is no god, and that religions are an invention of man. Abhor ultraconservative ideas, reactionary and intolerant who preach most religions. We also believe that life has no purpose beyond that everyone wants to give, and that after death there is nothing. Atheists also are mostly skeptics do not believe in anything that can not be analyzed by the scientific method.
Atheism UK
http://www.atheismuk.com/about/principles/
The following key Principles inform our policies and decisions.- Humans have fabricated religion
- Religious texts are flawed and as fallible as the humans who wrote them. They must be criticized, challenged and, where appropriate, satirized or denounced.
- Religious organizations and communities must not receive privileges and immunities, such as tax benefits and protection from criticism or satire, which are denied to the non-religious population.
- God or gods do not exist
- Morality develops independently of religion
- Religion inhibits rational thought
Daylight Atheism website
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2006/06/atheism-as-a-positive-worldview/
It is in our power, if we so choose, to live lives of freedom, happiness and accomplishment free of the burdensome weight of religious superstition. With this in mind, I offer a set of talking points that concisely explain why atheism can and should be considered a positive worldview.
Atheism is a positive worldview because…- …it gives a deeper appreciation for and sense of spirituality toward the cosmos.
- …it imbues our lives with the knowledge that our goals really matter.
- …it offers the freedom to make up your own mind and choose your own direction in life.
- …it offers freedom from the fear of arbitrary divine wrath.
- …it offers morality superior to that of ancient texts.
- …it offers hope for the future.
That sounds like you need a dentistI'm all for teaching the options and history of non-belief to kids (along with an overview of the believer stuff), but a headline suggesting 'Atheist Ireland to develop a course teaching about atheism in schools' makes my teeth hurt. So yes, it's the use of the word, not the content of the lessons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks for the response, Michael.
"Left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, green" etc are all descriptions that are open to interpretation. They relate to ideals and have none of the simplicity of a definition that has always pertained to a lack of belief. All of those labels suggest a worldview in some shape, a positive agreement or disagreement with a societal issue which can be open to interpretation.Michael Nugent wrote: »“Some people who share a belief also sharing certain other ideals” is one of the ways that the meanings of words change over time, or at least is a contributory factor to such changes. How do you think words like left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, green etc got the political meanings that are part of their multiple meanings?
All of the above, bar the one in bold are variations on the same thing. None of them stray into the realm of suggesting a common code of ethics or agreement on worldviews. The one in bold is not a definition. Sure, people did and still do believe atheists are immoral and wicked - but this is because of what atheists are - which is without gods (specifically, theirs!) - and their perception of what someone without God is likely to be. A perception we know to be unfounded.Michael Nugent wrote: »There is no such thing as “what the word (atheism) has always meant.” It has meant many different things over the generations.- It has meant ‘without god' or 'without gods’ - note, not without 'belief in gods’, but without 'gods'.
- It has meant immoral or wicked
- It has meant rejection of god or gods
- It has meant rejection of belief in god or gods
- It has meant believing there is no god
- It has meant not believing there is a god
- It has meant the doctrine (i.e. belief or set of beliefs) that there is no god
A very small percentage of the population believe they are extra-terrestrials, too. But what they believe (incorrectly) doesn't change the definition of an extra-terrestrial to fit their delusion.Michael Nugent wrote: »Also, there is no common thing that all people who self-identify as atheists have in common. Opinion polls commonly show a small number of people who self-identify as atheists who say they believe in a god.
I don't have time to really dig into these, but my impression is that this is a list of organisations also using the world atheist in their name who espouse similar views to AI. Are any of them actually suggesting that atheism can now be defined as more than the traditional meaning, or are they just self-identified atheists who share common ideals?Michael Nugent wrote: »Here are some extracts from some organisations and websites. Some are translated by google translate, so follow the links for context. I am not arguing that these examples are the only meanings of the word atheism. I am demonstrating that I am not the only nonreligious person saying that atheism can mean more than No Belief.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I see in this thread there are a few atheist cats up in a tree, hissing and spitting at the cat-herd below
Meanwhile in the real world, a govt. Advisory Group has reported back to Ruairi Quinn with recommendations to set up a new program to be called Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB)
There's more on this in the "school patronage" thread.
Whether through accident or design (and I'd guess the latter) the new Atheist Ireland course seems to fit the bill quite nicely.Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB), and Ethics
The Advisory Group is of the view that all children have the right to receive education in ERB and Ethics and the State has the responsibility to ensure that this is provided. The Advisory Group requests that the NCCA, with assistance from the partners and mindful of existing programmes, should develop curriculum and teacher guidelines for ERB and Ethics, in line with the Toledo Principles, the RedCo, and the Cambridge Primary Review.
The Advisory Group has a particular concern for those children who do not participate in religious programmes in denominational schools. They may go through their primary schooling without any ERB and ethical education. For these children, the proposed programmes in ERB and Ethics are of central importance.
For other children, where programmes, already in existence, provide for some ERB and Ethics, the proposed NCCA programmes can be supplementary and the amount of the new programmes provided may be flexible within existing timetable provision.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement