Mary says YES!

Fleawuss

It is very clear that there is nothing to be said to supernaturalists and the specious self serving bilge which is posted here except this: the sooner Irish education is set free from this stuff being imposed on all the better. Certainly teach all this stuff to your children but no others.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So obviously that is why parents tell their children about Santa - because the child will clearly see straight through the story that the adult still believes. :rolleyes:

I don't understand the point you're attempting to make there. Is there any chance you could make it a bit clearer what you're trying to say?

It's relevant because you dismissed an official RCC website, claiming that what it said wasn't what was taught in Irish schools.

Again, when did that happen? I didn't dismiss anything you linked, and it was your claim that what is written on that website is taught in Irish schools as fact. That's your claim I countered and I explained why, numerous times. You have yet to provide anything beyond anecdotal evidence, a policy document of some sort, anything, that would back up your claim that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish schools. The website you linked to didn't show anything like what you claim, and like I already said - I'm really not that fussy. I think I'm being more than fair to you in giving you some serious leeway here, and yet you've consistently failed to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

Be honest with me just this once - is that because you won't, or is it simply because you can't, provide any evidence to back up your claims?

Of course you then went and used it to avoid answering the question about why you seemed to think that things that are taught as true as part of standard Catholic teaching will be understood not to be literally true by 6 year olds, but never mind, what's one more inconsistency in the web you've been weaving here?

You asked me the question twice, and I gave you the answer twice, and then you tweaked it again, and I answered you again, I even linked to evidence for my answer and you then used that evidence to make yet another claim that you were refuting that I had never even claimed? As inconsistencies in web weaving go, you've got yourself all tied up in knots trying to be clever rather than actually listening to what you're being told, because what you're being told contradicts your own prejudices and biases. You're being given honest answers, you're being given evidence, you're being given sources where you can check for yourself and not just take my word for it, and yet you're still not satisfied?

What more do you want exactly? Blood?

I have some wine here, give me a minute and I'll see what I can do...

volchitsa wrote: »

And it's a bit late now to complain about something that was said - and discussed - way back. If you didn't want to engage, back then was the time to take the hump. Not now that you've been shown up so thoroughly. It just looks like you throwing your toys out of the pram at this stage. But sure, whatever, go ahead.

It's never too late to complain about something that was said and discussed way back volchista, just ask people who are willing to come forward about clerical sexual abuse 20 years later. The RCC has tried to fob them off with the "it's a bit late now" excuse, but they're having none of it, and neither am I, certainly not from someone who has made the accusations you have anyway. The RCC also tried to shame their victims into submission by making them go through lengthy trials to get justice, tried showing them up. You're not even off the starting blocks in that regard, I haven't been shown up at all, but if it comforts you to believe that, well, you go right on ahead.

There's nobody throwing toys out of the pram here only the person who has made baseless, ill-informed accusations, consistently failed to provide any evidence for their claims, expected people to take what they are saying at face value without question, and then, when all else failed, you decided to try and question what I do with regard to child welfare in an attempt to turn the thread into a pissing contest.

Honestly, you can keep your toys (and your misguided beliefs, prejudices, and misunderstandings) if they're that important to you.

Baggy Trousers

Fleawuss wrote: »

It is very clear that there is nothing to be said to supernaturalists and the specious self serving bilge which is posted here except this: the sooner Irish education is set free from this stuff being imposed on all the better. Certainly teach all this stuff to your children but no others.

Give it time I reckon, the next generation (kids in school today) will eradicate religion from schools. They don't have the baggage and brainwashing that we had and they are also fully informed via internet, more questioning and less afraid in general etc. I am absolutely certain that they will abandon the nonsense we have to put up with today. Call it evolution

La Fenetre

ABC101 wrote: »

Many thanks for your point.

I've checked up on the Catechism reading and the 1975 Persona Humana.

The Homosexual act...is describes as "intrinsically disordered" in both documents as you correctly pointed out.

However the homosexual inclination of a person while not described as "intrinsically disordered" is described as "objectively disordered" in the Catechism document.


Catheism link here




Persona Humana link here



So in conclusion, one is intrinsic, one is obtective and both are disordered

Yes, their classification is the act and inclination is discorded, not the person, as is often claimed by some. That is the best place to go to get the actual and accurate teaching. And all credit to you for genuinely seeking and valuing accuracy. It makes a nice change.

Kiwi in IE

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Give it time I reckon, the next generation (kids in school today) will eradicate religion from schools. They don't have the baggage and brainwashing that we had and they are also fully informed via internet, more questioning and less afraid in general etc. I am absolutely certain that they will abandon the nonsense we have to put up with today. Call it evolution

I think it will happen a lot sooner than that. When today's 18-25 year olds are the main group parenting primary school children.

Baggy Trousers

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think it will happen a lot sooner than that. When today's 18-25 year olds are the main group parenting primary school children.

I hope so, would like to see it in my lifetime. It's a crime filling innocent kid's heads with BS. There so much wonderful stuff we could teach them about the real world. Healthier stuff.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

The mixed messages in school from this textbook are perfectly clear. Relying on the teacher to correct them reveals the deep flaw in the message in them. The lengths gone to in this thread to obscure and obfuscate show again the utter bankruptcy of the RCC and its idiotic beliefs.

That's not true though. There is no mixed message in the lesson; what's being offered by the OP is that the message could be construed in a particular fashion. A construal which is not going to come naturally to a child, so it will necessarily have to come from a teacher or whoever is guiding the child through the story.
No one is relying a teacher to correct it; we are relying on teachers not to create it. As for obfuscation... well, you're obviously fond of the word but I'm not seeing anyone trying to obscure the intended meaning being communicated, or making the message confusing, or even willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand, other than those objecting to the passage in question. Mote, eye, etc etc?

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

That's not true though. There is no mixed message in the lesson; what's being offered by the OP is that the message could be construed in a particular fashion. A construal which is not going to come naturally to a child, so it will necessarily have to come from a teacher or whoever is guiding the child through the story.
No one is relying a teacher to correct it; we are relying on teachers not to create it. As for obfuscation... well, you're obviously fond of the word but I'm not seeing anyone trying to obscure the intended meaning being communicated, or making the message confusing, or even willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand, other than those objecting to the passage in question. Mote, eye, etc etc?

Its both obvious and true. You are asserting that it would not be so construed by a child. Others have asserted differently. A textbook should not give rise to such confusion on such an important area. The charge of obfuscation is very well founded but not visible to you. I have no fondness for the word: its repeated use does not indicate such and is indicative of you simply jumping to a conclusion. There are pages of waffle here in defence of the RCC: your attempt to pass the point on to the teacher "not to create" an already extant confusion is a wonderful example of same: pure sophistry and obfuscation. The only purpose it serves is the same old fig leaf for the RCC to try to weasel its way out of a mess. It is tiresome, embarassing and cringeworthy to see this stuff posted constantly and regarding itself as a substantial contribution.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have yet to provide anything beyond anecdotal evidence, a policy document of some sort, anything, that would back up your claim that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish schools.

This is ridiculous. You could as easily pretend geography or history are not asserted as facts by primary school textbooks, just possibilities to be considered by the pupil.

Fleawuss

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You could as easily pretend geography or history are not asserted as facts by primary school textbooks, just possibilities to be considered by the pupil.

The point that is trying to be established is based around the distinction in theology and philosophy of religion between belief and knowledge. A teacher may never have been given an instruction to teach religious beliefs as facts to small children or other children but neither do they teach them as myths. They may have a "cover word" in "story" which allows all sorts of material to be introduced as having a "truth" hidden in it to the same extent the Little Red Riding Hood has a "truth" about appearances being deceptive etc. etc.

But it is the tiresome nit picking about philosophical niceties like this which is simply an evasion of facing issues squarely. Stories being presented as if they were facts and not presented as "let's pretend" show up what is going on: in primary school it seems that RE is embedded throughout the curriculum and the "ethos" of the school: all done to normalize the acceptance of myths as if they were facts.

In fact, "let's pretend" would be a great way to introduce children to First Communion: let's pretend this turns into the body and blood of a 2000 year old Palestinian and really really believe it. And so on.

pauldla

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You could as easily pretend geography or history are not asserted as facts by primary school textbooks, just possibilities to be considered by the pupil.

Indeed. The RCC built a sodding basilica at the site of the Annunciation in Nazareth, ffs. Is our esteemed correspondent suggesting that the RCC regards the Annunciation as being anything other than fact?

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

Its both obvious and true. You are asserting that it would not be so construed by a child. Others have asserted differently. A textbook should not give rise to such confusion on such an important area. The charge of obfuscation is very well founded but not visible to you. I have no fondness for the word: its repeated use does not indicate such and is indicative of you simply jumping to a conclusion.

The only people that appear to me to be confused about this specific story are adults. Specifically those adults who are examining a story from an adult's perspective and reading rather nefarious intentions into what is written on the page, and then seeing something in the illustration that would make Rorschach scratch his head.

If anyone is jumping to an unfounded conclusion here, it is the author of that article, which to me is one big begging the question fallacy that expects the reader to draw their own conclusions based upon their own prejudices.

Fleawuss wrote: »

There are pages of waffle here in defence of the RCC: your attempt to pass the point on to the teacher "not to create" an already extant confusion is a wonderful example of same: pure sophistry and obfuscation.

Too much to ask you to provide evidence of that claim? I see people disagreeing with Atheist Ireland's interpretation of that particular story. I see no evidence of any defence of the RCC. As sophistry and obfuscation go, the author of that piece seems to present a masterclass with that article.

Fleawuss wrote: »

The only purpose it serves is the same old fig leaf for the RCC to try to weasel its way out of a mess. It is tiresome, embarassing and cringeworthy to see this stuff posted constantly and regarding itself as a substantial contribution.

The only purpose of that article is to try and fuel some of ye good old moral outrage. It's tiresome, embarrassing and cringeworthy to see anyone in Atheist Ireland come up with this stuff (I normally expect much better from them as I do admire Michael Nugent for his work) that would be more suited to the Waterford Whispers. As a satirical piece it's almost believable enough to be taken seriously.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You could as easily pretend geography or history are not asserted as facts by primary school textbooks, just possibilities to be considered by the pupil.

You could if you wanted to set up a strawman.

In the meantime however, do you normally accept unsubstantiated claims without so much as a shred of evidence beyond personal anecdotes based upon misunderstood beliefs which fuel opinions presented as fact?

This could be one of those times I mentioned earlier, when a conversation becomes awkward...

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the meantime however, do you normally accept unsubstantiated claims without so much as a shred of evidence beyond personal anecdotes based upon misunderstood beliefs which fuel opinions presented as fact?

Are you implying that people don't do this? If that were the case there would be no religion!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you implying that people don't do this? If that were the case there would be no religion!

Exactly.

I don't mind at all when someone wants to critique religion and so on (I do plenty of it myself). I welcome it, because often they come out with something insightful that may give me pause for thought (children are particularly adept at this because they are natural critical thinkers IMO), but, when an adult criticises religion, yet fails to realise the error in their own thinking, then they're not thinking critically.

I'd be a dick if I spoonfed them the error though, so I usually try and point it out in a way that might have them think about their opinion and spot the error for themselves. I've found it a good way to help people learn and understand themselves better, than me attempting to shove my opinion down their throat. That's just rude.

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly.

I'd be a dick if I spoonfed them the error though, so I usually try and point it out in a way that might have them think about their opinion and spot the error for themselves. I've found it a good way to help people learn and understand themselves better, than me attempting to shove my opinion down their throat. That's just rude.

To be brief, you are failing spectacularly.

Fleawuss

"The only people that appear to me to be confused about this specific story are adults. Specifically those adults who are examining a story from an adult's perspective and reading rather nefarious intentions into what is written on the page, and then seeing something in the illustration that would make Rorschach scratch his head."

Everyone here is examining it from an adult's perspective. I don't think there are any 6 year olds posting. Your claim that those adults with whom you disagree are reading into it is simply your assertion. The fact that intelligent adults can see that the thing gives rise to confusion is very clear and indisputable. Of course, trying to generate dispute about that is what we might call a smoke screen.

frostyjacks

Ultimately, why are atheists getting their knickers in a twist over what Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools? Seems like the sort of people who go out of their way to be annoyed by something.

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

To be brief, you are failing spectacularly.

To be just as brief - it would be rather foolish of me to expect miracles when talking to adults. I find that far too often, in my experience at least, the more closed minded adults are unwilling to give the more open minded children any credit.

Children inherit their biases and prejudices, they sure as hell aren't born with them.


Ok that wasn't very brief at all :pac:

volchitsa

Fleawuss wrote: »

To be brief, you are failing spectacularly.

It's noticeable that none of the posters giving OEJ likes for his dogged defence of the Catholic Church 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.

I wonder why that is? Presumably because they all know he's lying, albeit lying for Jesus. 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).

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ultimately, why are atheists getting their knickers in a twist over what Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools? Seems like the sort of people who go out of their way to be annoyed by something.

Well now.

When priests were abusing catholic children, do you really think that was no-one else's business? (Maybe you do).

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the meantime however, do you normally accept unsubstantiated claims without so much as a shred of evidence beyond personal anecdotes based upon misunderstood beliefs which fuel opinions presented as fact?

This could be one of those times I mentioned earlier, when a conversation becomes awkward...

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you implying that people don't do this? If that were the case there would be no religion!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't mind at all when someone wants to critique religion and so on (I do plenty of it myself). I welcome it, because often they come out with something insightful that may give me pause for thought (children are particularly adept at this because they are natural critical thinkers IMO), but, when an adult criticises religion, yet fails to realise the error in their own thinking, then they're not thinking critically.

I'd be a dick if I spoonfed them the error though, so I usually try and point it out in a way that might have them think about their opinion and spot the error for themselves. I've found it a good way to help people learn and understand themselves better, than me attempting to shove my opinion down their throat. That's just rude.

I'm confused here OEJ. What are you agreeing with in what I said? That humans are susceptible to believing unsubstantiated stories and ideas for which there is no evidence? If you agree with this statement, then surely you would agree that unsubstantiated ideas and beliefs should not be presented as factual information in schools.

You seemed to be implying that it was unusual that people believe in phenomena for which there is no evidence and I pointed out that it is not unusual, otherwise religion would not exist.

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

Everyone here is examining it from an adult's perspective. I don't think there are any 6 year olds posting. Your claim that those adults with whom you disagree are reading into it is simply your assertion. The fact that intelligent adults can see that the thing gives rise to confusion is very clear and indisputable. Of course, trying to generate dispute about that is what we might call a smoke screen.

Are you familiar at all with the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ultimately, why are atheists getting their knickers in a twist over what Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools? Seems like the sort of people who go out of their way to be annoyed by something.

Possibly because around 90% of state funded schools are Catholic, therefore in many cases, non Catholic children have to use them too?

Wouldn't it make more sense if Catholic parents indoctrinated their 'Catholic children' in their own time?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you familiar at all with the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

Umm. You do realize that's fiction?

There's no actual instance where a small boy realized what all the adults were unable to see. Oh, and also, the adults all knew it really too, but were just too polite, or possibly afraid of the Emperor's security staff, to say so.

So you appear to be saying is that adults who claim to believe that the Mary remained a virgin all her life are either lying or stupid. I know the first is not true, I know lots of adults (now mostly old or dead though) who literally believed that all their life. Perhaps they were all just stupid then, in which case according to your theory Ireland's average IQ must have shown a staggering rise in the last 20 years. Since most people stopped believing in religion in fact.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ultimately, why are atheists getting their knickers in a twist over what Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools? Seems like the sort of people who go out of their way to be annoyed by something.

Why is a catholic caring what atheists talk about in an atheist forum?

Then you have to consider someone has to look out for the catholic children.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children inherit their biases and prejudices, they sure as hell aren't born with them.

Ditto for religion. Hence why non religious people don't want religion presented to their children as fact, as currently happens in state funded educational institutions.

frostyjacks

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Why is a catholic caring what atheists talk about in an atheist forum?

Then you have to consider someone has to look out for the catholic children.

Well, there's no point in preaching to the converted is there?

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be just as brief - it would be rather foolish of me to expect miracles when talking to adults. I find that far too often, in my experience at least, the more closed minded adults are unwilling to give the more open minded children any credit.

Children inherit their biases and prejudices, they sure as hell aren't born with them.


Ok that wasn't very brief at all :pac:

Our experience coincides. The most closed minds in my experience are those who base themselves in faith before reason.

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you familiar at all with the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

Another fairy tale. :pac:

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, there's no point in preaching to the converted is there?

Well an atheist forum is not really the place for that either. You won't find anyone gullible enough to convert. That is why primary school children are targeted before they develop the ability to think critically.