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
Mary says YES!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I said I had gone away, but really! Ok, non bible religious belief.
Hell if Jesus can do it...
My daughter (5 or 6ish) came home from school one day and said 'Sister says there are devils living under the ground.' She seemed to be under the impression this was a fact, however Sister had phrased it.
On another occasion (different school) they both came home and said 'Mrs X says that if people marry people who are not Catholics, the person who is not a Catholic will go away and leave them (the family). You're not going to leave us, are you mum?'
I'm sure you're already more than aware of the problems with anecdotal evidence in fairness, but for those that aren't -Anecdotal evidence (also proof by selected instances, or, more pejoratively, anecdata) is use of one or more anecdotes (specific instances of an event; stories) to either support or refute a claim. The use of anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion is like using the NBA all-star teams to estimate the average height of Americans.
Whereas anecdotal evidence is sometimes the starting point of a proper scientific investigation, it is all too often the ending point and every point of a pseudoscientific investigation. In the world of pseudoscience, an anecdote is the equivalent of a peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent results. In other words, the true believers accept that just because something once seemed to work for someone then it will work for everyone, everywhere, every time!
Anecdotal evidence is often used in politics, journalism, blogs and many other contexts to make or imply generalisations based on very limited and cherry-picked examples, rather than reliable statistical studies. A classic instance was Ronald Reagan's story of a "welfare queen" who was abusing the system, who Reagan attempted to portray as indicative of the average welfare recipient. It turned out she didn't even exist when some reporters finally decided to look for her.
Anecdotal evidence is especially vulnerable to confabulation.
Remember: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Source: Anecdotal evidence, RationalWiki.Then there are all the bible stories. Do teachers start the story of the Nativity with 'now we believe that Jesus was born ...etc'. No, they start with 'Jesus was born...'
And finally, just read the infrmation page about the annunciation on the first page of this thread. It clearly and unambiguously states as fact the story of the annunciation. The only place it wavers from fact is when it talks about belief in original sin - Catholics believe....
Both are examples of faith formation.
We don't start fairy tales with the All persons fictitious disclaimer either -All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
In introducing the new religious education curriculum for Catholic primary schools, it's quite clear that the focus is on faith, as opposed to trying to pass faith off as factual -The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015) was approved by the Irish Episcopal Conference and granted the Decree of Recognitio by the Holy See in 2015. It is the curriculum from which Grow in Love, the new Religious Education series for Catholic primary schools, is written.
The aim of the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum is: ‘To help children mature in relation to their spiritual, moral and religious lives, through their encounter with, exploration and celebration of the Catholic faith’.
The content of this curriculum is divided into four interrelated strands: Christian Faith; Word of God; Liturgy and Prayer; and Christian Morality. Together, these four strands outline the knowledge and understanding, skills and processes that make up the learning to be achieved at each level of the curriculum. The curriculum also outlines skills of religious literacy which should be developed in students from preschool right up to Sixth class/P7. These are divided into five categories: understanding, communicating, participating, developing spiritual literacy and developing inter-religious literacy.
Conscious of the needs of teachers working with children with moderate, severe and profound general learning disabilities, the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum also includes Guidelines for teachers in Special Schools. The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland is an important document for every primary school teacher.
Source: Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015)But we cannot outsource education in Christian faith to teachers alone. Family involvement is crucial. I make my own words spoken in an important address at the weekend by Archbishop Eamon Martin at the National Eucharistic Congress: “A school catechetical programme alone, no matter how rigorous, will not secure the handing on of the faith. It will succeed only insofar as it builds upon the lived faith experience of the young people in their homes and family.” The new programme, Grow in Love, has taken great care to emphasise the role of the family, offering a simple and attractive book to be brought home so that the family can continue what has done in school. This book offers opportunities for parents to review and chat with their children about the themes that have been covered in school.
Source: Launch of new Catholic religious education curriculum and programme
I see no evidence there of any attempt to teach religious beliefs as fact. The Irish Catholic Bishops are responsible for the religious education curriculum in Irish primary schools, and if they're making no mention of religious beliefs to be taught as facts, well, I would be quite eager to see anyone present any irrefutable, non-anecdotal evidence, for their claims that religious beliefs actually are taught as facts, in Irish Catholic ethos primary schools.
I can't find who said it in the thread now, but there was mention of the RCC being unable to admit that they may have got it wrong. It appears evident that one doesn't have to be a member of an organised religion to be unwilling to admit when they may have got it wrong. At least volchista to her credit, when I corrected her on her claim that I had at some point claimed to be atheist, came so far as to admit it was an easy mistake to make.
It wasn't really. It was an easy mistake to make if one is in the habit of forming judgements without evidence based upon their own preconceived ideas. That's the very definition of prejudice -an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm only seeing this now as I went back through the thread -It's noticeable that none of the posters giving OEJ likes for his dogged defence of the Catholic Church
If I actually gave a fiddlers for validation from strangers on the internet (as you seem to do, which is as I said earlier something I discourage in children), I might be worried about who does or doesn't like my posts (or anyone else's for that matter).
Second part in bold there, too much to ask you to present evidence to back up that claim?have gone as far as supporting him in his claim that theological basics such as the Annunciation, the Virgin Birth and transubstantiation are not meant to be taken literally, by adults or by children.
And again, evidence to back up your claim?I wonder why that is?
I'm sure you're more than aware by now of the difficulty in supporting something that simply doesn't exist outside your own imagination. Perhaps that's why they cannot seem to support claims I never made, claims that you claim I made, but nevertheless I shan't hold my breath for any evidence at this point.Presumably because they all know he's lying
That's a couple of times now you've accused me of being a liar, unfit to be a parent, accused me of child neglect, accused me of being ignorant of my own religion, accused me of not knowing what children are taught in religion classes and posting falsehoods about what it consists of...
Is there anything else you'd like to add to that list?The funny thing is that he can't see that repeating this sort of nonsense only makes him less credible, because we've all been to religion class! (Well I have anyway).
What's funny about that? You've shot your own credibility to shít with nothing but ad homs, personal insults, snide remarks, baseless accusations, and quite frankly, your arrogance is so almighty that I haven't seen anything like it since... well, I've never seen anything like it if I'm being honest, not even in religion class!
At some point volchista, you're going to have to produce evidence for your claims, so any time you feel like doing that, I'd really appreciate it, instead of you trying to take another adultish swipe.
(I say adultish, because that kind of arrogance fuelled prejudice is something I don't often witness among children, and even then it can usually be traced back to their parents)0 -
Look, OEJ, I know, and you know, and everyone here knows, that the Catholic Church teaches a certain number of things as FACTS. Transubstantiation is one. The virginity of Mary is another.
If that wasn't the case you wouldn't be so alone in saying so, some of your supporters who e been thanking you would be sure to have confirmed what you say. None of them have done. And none of them will.
Now I've already linked to official catholic sites that said so, and you've both dismissed them because, you said, Irish schools don't teach that (so you're the one making the assertions without bringing any evidence, not me) and yet also accepted that what they said was correct.
I realize that you think you're making some clever play on words that allows you to claim that, for example, transubstantiation is now a "truth" and not a "fact" but in doing so, you are not being true to catholic theology.
And everybody here knows that. For someone who claims to be a Catholic, being seen to dissemble so transparently in order to defend a stupid misstep by the publishers of the new program, presumably just because anything that has the official imprimatur gets your dogged defense no matter how unfortunately put, really doesn't help the image of the Catholic Church in terms of its approach to child protection.
I began by assuming that this was an unfortunate example of cloth ear. But your refusal even to be honest about what children are being taught makes me wonder if there isn't more going on than I first thought.
And now I really have finished. Yes, you're lying. Sometimes, just occasionally, it does need to be said.
Just one last thing though : if you don't "need validation" from others, as you keep repeating, why are you even still here arguing the point? Bit contradictory, surely? 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Look, OEJ, I know, and you know, and everyone here knows, that the Catholic Church teaches a certain number of things as FACTS. Transubstantiation is one. The virginity of Mary is another.
Please don't try to speak for me or what I know and don't know, you've done enough of that already and you've "made mistakes" a number of times now. Your ignorance of Roman Catholicism is not my problem.If that wasn't the case you wouldn't be so alone in saying so, some of your supporters who e been thanking you would be sure to have confirmed what you say. None of them have done. And none of them will.
Just leave this here, shall I?ad populum fallacy
The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.
The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.
The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.
The ad populum fallacy is seductive because it appeals to our desire to belong and to conform, to our desire for security and safety. It is a common appeal in advertising and politics. A clever manipulator of the masses will try to seduce those who blithely assume that the majority is always right. Also seduced by this appeal will be the insecure, who may be made to feel guilty if they oppose the majority or feel strong by joining forces with large numbers of other uncritical thinkers.
Source: The Skeptic's DictionaryNow I've already linked to official catholic sites that said so, and you've both dismissed them because, you said, Irish schools don't teach that (so you're the one making the assertions without bringing any evidence, not me) and yet also accepted that what they said was correct.
Ease up there before you lose the run of yourself. You made a claim that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish Catholic ethos primary schools. I asked you for evidence of your claim. You linked to this website -
http://www.newadvent.org/
claiming it was an official website of the RCC, and claimed that it backed up your claim that religion is taught as fact in Irish Catholic ethos primary schools. There's a few problems with your claims there -
1. New Advent is maintained by a Catholic layman named Kevin Knight.
and
2. It doesn't mention anything about how religion is taught in Irish Catholic ethos schools.
and
3. I said no such thing as "Irish schools don't teach that" in response to your "evidence". I pointed out the fact that your evidence does not back up your claims.I realize that you think you're making some clever play on words that allows you to claim that, for example, transubstantiation is now a "truth" and not a "fact" but in doing so, you are not being true to catholic theology.
I never made any claims about catholic theology (it's like you're reading words that aren't even there?), and I've already told you that I detest weasel worded behaviour, and what you actually think you realise, and what I know, are two very different things. You may think you can read my mind, but unless you have some unusual telepathic abilities I'm unaware of, you're really only guessing and making assumptions, and your judgement so far has been shown to be poor, since we're both being honest with each other.And everybody here knows that.
See ad populum fallacy explanation above.For someone who claims to be a Catholic, being seen to dissemble so transparently in order to defend a stupid misstep by the publishers of the new program, presumably just because anything that has the official imprimatur gets your dogged defense no matter how unfortunately put, really doesn't help the image of the Catholic Church in terms of its approach to child protection.
Sorry, what? Someone in Atheist Ireland publishes that shít, and you think the issue is with who exactly? And you think I'm defending who exactly?
Seriously, you really need to start reading my posts. I have not once defenced the RCC, I have attacked that article linked to in the OP for it's claims, and I have atttacked your quite frankly ridiculous claims. That's not defending the RCC, that's asking you to provide evidence for your claims instead of attacking me. Play the ball, not the man, you know how an ad hom works. This is bloody basic 101 logic and critical thought.I began by assuming that this was an unfortunate example of cloth ear. But your refusal even to be honest about what children are being taught makes me wonder if there isn't more going on than I first thought.
Makes me wonder what you mean by that statement? I am being honest about what children are taught in school. You just don't like the answers you're hearing as they contradict your long held prejudiced misguided beliefs.And now I really have finished. Yes, you're lying. Sometimes, just occasionally, it does need to be said.
Please, by all means, if you think I'm lying, I'd like to see what evidence you have to make that claim. You haven't been doing so well in producing any evidence so far, perhaps because you've been too busy attacking me personally instead of actually reading my posts.Just one last thing though : if you don't "need validation" from others, as you keep repeating, why are you even still here arguing the point? Bit contradictory, surely?
Are you being serious? In the same bloody post, you say you've finished, and then you come back with one last thing, and then you call me contradictory?
Jesus fcuking wept!
No need for any inverted commas btw, I'm here because I am interested in the discussion, as I have explained to you numerous times already, but it seems you've been paying about as much attention to the ongoing discussion as you did in religion class, which is to say - not a whole bloody lot.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement