Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

How would you know that we would want your wife?

It might be a deal breaker ...

What makes you think I have a wife?

Oh, I was just being whimsical in the general spirit of the thread!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
CS Lewis took to Christianity while at Oxford IIRC.

Mike, how in the name of all reason can comparing one man's adult experience compare with the untold billions (billions!) of small children being force fed pre dark age tosh?

Now perhaps if they were all left to make up their own minds when they were adults too......

quote:

Now perhaps if they were all left to make up their own minds when they were adults too......

...if that also applies to maths, physics, chemistry and biology, then count me in......

Cheers

Don

@ Mongo

I mentioned CSL as some earlier poster seemed to think that religion was only to be accepted by the young. Not the case, really.

@ Mike Dudley - more than one person indicating that your posts are a bit puerile, rude and pointless is not a "gang", its opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Now perhaps if they were all left to make up their own minds when they were adults too......

...if that also applies to maths, physics, chemistry and biology, then count me in......

Cheers

Don

Lo Don. In what sense are the mentioned disciplines related to religion?

Gravity, 3 plus four equals seven, the Hydrogen bond and sex all work whether you believe in them or not. If you make up your mind that you can fly out of a window flapping your arms you will die regardless how strongly you really, really believe you will soar to the clouds.

Teaching children these things can in no way be considered akin to telling them about virgin births and that prayers will change the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
@ Mongo

I mentioned CSL as some earlier poster seemed to think that religion was only to be accepted by the young. Not the case, really.

@ Mike Dudley - more than one person indicating that your posts are a bit peurile, rude and pointless is not a "gang", its opinion.

Their is a mountain of difference between indoctrinating new minds with dogma and an adult choosing for himself.

My point exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
My point exactly.

Mike you have ceased to make sense.

I think Mike Lacey makes point which I understand perfectly well.

Mongo on the other hand ceased to make clear points some time ago!

Fifteen - Love!

Get on with the games, as Dickie Bird used to say when umpiring cricket!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
I think Mike Lacey makes point which I understand perfectly well.

Mongo on the other hand ceased to make clear points some time ago!

Fifteen - Love!

Get on with the games, as Dickie Bird used to say when umpiring cricket!

ATB from George

Then perhaps you could explain how to equate
indoctrinating billions with an example of ONE man George?

.. as you say perhaps I could, but it would be a waste of time here!

Your view is paramount to you and nothing that has been written "in-contra" has been accknowledged by you are the view of sane men, or containing anything of value. I know some secularists who are rational and as kind as any Christian I know and more so than some, but they are at least broadminded enough to discuss as equals with respect for a different view this topic, whereas you seem to think anyone with a theist view point is a virtual idiot!

I know for a certain fact that Nigel, and JWM [both of whom I know a little outside this forum] are indeed sane men with civilised and sensible ideas!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
.. as you say perhaps I could, but it would be a waste of time here!

Your view is paramount to you and nothing that has been written "in-contra" has been accknowledged by you are the view of sane men, or conaining anything of value. I know some secularists who are rational and as lind as any Christian i know and more so than some, but they are at least broadminded enough to discuss as equals this topic, whereas you seem to think anyoneone wih a theist view point is a virtual idiot!

I know for a certain fact that Nigel, and JWM [both of whom I know a little outside this forum] are indeed sane men with civilised and sensible ideas!

ATB from George

I don't doubt it George. My posts began and continue in the vein that religion is a non starter imo. That bit is important. And in this particular thread that child indoctrination is entirely indefensible and belongs to what i sincerely hoped but do not believe to be a bygone age. Paul.

Beg pardon. I hadn't read the new version of your post George. I do not consider anyone on this (or the other) thread to be an idiot. If i did i would not harangue them, that would be not only mean but pointless.

I simply require solid facts and not unqualified statements, as does any meaningful discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
.. as you say perhaps I could, but it would be a waste of time here!

Your view is paramount to you and nothing that has been written "in-contra" has been accknowledged by you are the view of sane men, or conaining anything of value. I know some secularists who are rational and as lind as any Christian i know and more so than some, but they are at least broadminded enough to discuss as equals this topic, whereas you seem to think anyoneone wih a theist view point is a virtual idiot!

I know for a certain fact that Nigel, and JWM [both of whom I know a little outside this forum] are indeed sane men with civilised and sensible ideas!

ATB from George

I don't doubt it George. My posts began and continue in the vein that religion is a non starter imo. That bit is important. And in this particular thread that child indoctrination is entirely indefensible and belongs to what i sincerely hoped but do not believe to be a bygone age. Paul.

Beg pardon. I hadn't read the new version of your post George. I do not consider anyone on this (or the other) thread to be an idiot. If i did i would not harangue them, that would be not only mean but pointless.

I simply require solid facts and not unqualified statements, as does any meaningful discussion.

But religion is not a non-starter, just as civilised secularism is also not a non-starter!

Indeed religion offers the choice embracing it or not, which seems more generous to me than simply condemning people as at least fooish for not holding your secularist viewpoint ...

What more can I say. That seems to cover it really, unless you can begin to broaden your points a bit ...

quote:

Lo Don. In what sense are the mentioned disciplines related to religion?

They aren't, I didn't say they were.

But teaching kids about religion doesn't mean telling them that everything in the bible is litteraly accurate and true. You could cover a wide range of beliefs and religions, pointing out the limited evidence for the events described etc etc.

Denying them this knowledge IMHO is akin to denying kids knowledge about Newton (didn't quite get it right, did he) and gravity and quantum mechanics (about which we know bugger all and they don't sit too well together!) Why mention Darwin in school? evolution isn't fully understood, so best left until adulthood before springing this frightening concept on gulable minds?

The point i'm making is that we teach kids what we know, and in such a way that we hope they will make further progress that we did in our understanding of things. In this respect, I don't see the concept of a creator, or the idea of a god/religion as anything different to physics, chemistry, biology or any other subject. However, as I said above, we need to make kids aware of the limitations of our evidence - even if we do teach them that two Concords each flying at 1,200 kts on reciprical courses are closing at 2,400kts, when Einstein would probably claim this was just a close approximation.....we start with simple ideas and develop the subject as kids grow.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
.. as you say perhaps I could, but it would be a waste of time here!

Your view is paramount to you and nothing that has been written "in-contra" has been accknowledged by you are the view of sane men, or conaining anything of value. I know some secularists who are rational and as lind as any Christian i know and more so than some, but they are at least broadminded enough to discuss as equals this topic, whereas you seem to think anyoneone wih a theist view point is a virtual idiot!

I know for a certain fact that Nigel, and JWM [both of whom I know a little outside this forum] are indeed sane men with civilised and sensible ideas!

ATB from George

I don't doubt it George. My posts began and continue in the vein that religion is a non starter imo. That bit is important. And in this particular thread that child indoctrination is entirely indefensible and belongs to what i sincerely hoped but do not believe to be a bygone age. Paul.

Beg pardon. I hadn't read the new version of your post George. I do not consider anyone on this (or the other) thread to be an idiot. If i did i would not harangue them, that would be not only mean but pointless.

I simply require solid facts and not unqualified statements, as does any meaningful discussion.

But religion is not a non-starter, just as civilised secularism is also not a non-starter!

Indeed religion offers the choice embracing iit or not, which seems more generous to me than simply condemning people as at least fooish for not holding your secularist viewpoint ...

What more can I say. That seems to cover it really, unless you can begin to broaden your points a bit ...

Religion does not offer the choice of embracing it or not George. It indoctrinates children when they are far too young to understand the fact that adults may well be a little...er.. 'confused'.

It states it's tenets as facts and does not then say 'but here are some alternative takes on reality that you may also like to consider.'

And many, many believers do indeed condemn people as worse than foolish for being infidels or some such emotionally charged word.

Where is this taking place? In school or the home?

If it is widespread then it is clearly something of a failure as most people [in the UK] are more or less secular in any case!

In other parts of the world things may be a little or a lot different, but this is a UK based Forum and I am not going to get into what people in the Middle East [for example] do.

ATB from George

Religion survives by unexpected acts of charity.

In fairness to Paul, I'll chip in and state that I understand his concerns in this area. Adopting a faith is a serious, deeply personal, decision, and children are simply not in a position to understand what they're signing up to. The only problem is it would be next to impossible to do anything about this in a liberal democracy - though I guess it would be straightforward enough to eliminate the element of worship from school assemblies (is that still mandatory?).

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Where is this taking place? In school or the home?

If it is widespread then it is clearly something of a failure as most people [in the UK] are more or less secular in any case!

In other parts of the world things may be a little or a lot different, but this is a UK based Forum and I am not going to get into what people in the Middle East [for example] do.

ATB from George

George have you EVER heard anyone who believes, when teaching children, EVER say anything like 'but that's just my take, there are others who would not agree.?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
In fairness to Paul, I'll chip in and state that I understand his concerns in this area. Adopting a faith is a serious, deeply personal, decision, and children are simply not in a position to understand what they're signing up to. The only problem is it would be next to impossible to do anything about this in a liberal democracy - though I guess it would be straightforward enough to eliminate the element of worship from school assemblies (is that still mandatory?).

It's difficult to see how this can occur in a secular liberal democracy. Protection of the most vulnerable being one of the prime concerns of such. Vested religious interest still has much more weight than the number of adherents would seem to suggest legitimate. I don't know if 'worship' as such is still practiced in schools. By God i hope not.

quote:

have you EVER heard anyone who believes, when teaching children, EVER say anything like 'but that's just my take, there are others who would not agree

...errr, yes. Me!

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

have you EVER heard anyone who believes, when teaching children, EVER say anything like 'but that's just my take, there are others who would not agree

...errr, yes. Me!

Cheers

Don

Fair enough Don. But have you any influence on the teaching of religion in schools?

Oh, and do you believe such an attitude is the majority view?

Dear Paul,

I went to a boarding school where we had two formal Christian services each day [three on Sundays] - Prayers at 7.20 in the morning, and a Six pm Service. On Sunday the whole school also walked to late morning Church or on occasion was taken on a coach.

We had a weekly lesson in what was then called scripture, which was one hundred per cent studies of the Holy Bible. Never once was any of this delivered with the sense that if you failed to believe it that you went to hell or were somehow irregular.

Some of us came away with a faith and some [such as my brother] did not. Faith was encouraged if you like, but not enforced. Had my father made a different choice, no doubt he could have sent me to a school that was less obviously Christian without difficulty.

The Church in question was the Church of England. No doubt if a child is sent to a Jewish School, or a Muslim School the experience might have been different, but even then the number of faith based schools is small as a proportion of the whole, and it is easy enough to avoid faith based schooling ethos.

Interesting that you should suggest that the Christians in charge of the school or those including the local vicar who took the Sunday morning service as a rule [as well as teaching some of the scripture classes] would suggest that they were teaching on their own authority rather than the authority of the church as such. That is not how it is, but it was not indoctrination as such either.

I was hoping to avoid actual references in the Bible, and so I am straining here a little, but suffice to say that the implication is that one is invited to have faith - given the welcoming invitation, but still one that clearly could be rejected or ignored - and not somehow forced into a straight jacket.

The result of my schooling ethos has indeed coloured my attitude to morality - conscience, the questions of right and wrong, generosity of spirit, of being able to be magnanimous [think of the good Samaritan], avoiding false pride, and selfishness, and obviously the more serious things like untruthfulness, bearing false witness, and inconceivable acts such as murder ...

It is a good ethos, but my faith did not firm up in any real way till much later after I read the Dawkins book! Amazing the possibility of the unexpected consequence really!

As I say most of the people I know who underwent similar education and even those such as my mother who was educated in a strictly Lutheran way, did not generally produce a firm faith, but it did lay a very fine moral underpinning for life even so.

ATB from George