nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What to tell kids when they ask?

Kenny Bania

Hi all,

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class amicably with the teacher & principal - no issues. She does not do the religion book - she does a colouring book instead. So all agreeable there.

However, she is obviously picking up some things through osmosis. I'm not worried about her being indoctrinated, as it's simply not a part of her life or her world outside of overhearing a few things in school - but when she makes (what she considers) throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - what exactly should I respond with?
I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc - but I do want to correct her as much as appropriate. At the same time, I don't want her shouting out in class that "my daddy says there is no god", etc.

Suggestions? It's a delicate balance. I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

Are you even aware of how aggressive that sounds?

frostyjacks

Samaris wrote: »

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

Clearly most parents are happy for their children to learn about religion, given the absence of any real opposition to it. I would rather children receive a well-rounded education, given that religion is an integral part of our identity in this country.

If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.

Any organisation can apply for funding through the patronage system, and off the top of my head, they're required to have an ethos, and to commit to teaching the national primary schools curriculum.

Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).

The thing is, parents aren't required at all to send their children to school, but they are required to provide their children with a minimum standard of education. Indoctrination (or avoidance thereof) already is optional, so parents already have the right to withdraw their children from religious instruction (faith formation, indoctrination, whatever you want to call it).

Children are already taught educational things in school and science has been on the national primary schools curriculum since I think about 2009. Schools with a religious ethos are allowed by the DES to set their own curriculum for religion and it's not a subject examined by the school inspector.

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

It's difficult to say tbh, and anyone who tried to answer that question would only be speculating. It's been mentioned in a couple of reports though that parental resistance is one of the most common barriers to introducing changes in the current situation regarding the education system in Ireland. Depending upon who you ask, every parent wants more of one thing or another, but they're generally unwilling to give up anything. Some parents have even suggested extending the school day to accommodate their working hours, but again that was met with apathy from some parents, and outright resistance from other parents.

It really would be nothing short of a miracle if there was a general consensus among parents for any particular idea, difficult enough to get enough parents motivated to lend their active support to co-operating amongst themselves in order to benefit the group as a whole, because as has been explained time and time again - most people just don't have the time to care about the needs of others. They're barely able to find time for themselves, which is understandable, even if it is frustrating.

It doesn't help anyone's case IMO to be passing judgement on other parents simply because they don't have the same priorities as we do. It doesn't encourage support if we're passing judgement on the people who we hope to support us (and I include myself in that because I have always supported a secular education system and giving people more choices in education).

Samaris

RainyDay wrote: »

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Bingo, absolutely that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

Gallagher1

Swanner wrote: »

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

Atheists have absolutely zero problem learning new ideas provided they contain a crucial ingredient.

Evidence.

If someone proved God's existence tomorrow there would be two certainities
1) We would all wholehearted accept this God
2) The person who proved it would be hailed as the greatest mind in the history of mankind.

Until then I refuse to believe in God and wouldn't want my future children to have sizeable chunks of their educational time taken up by indoctrination into a substance-less faith whether it be Scientology, Mormonism or, dare I say, Christianity.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child.

I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.

Still missing the point of a school with a Roman Catholic ethos then?

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

You're already aware on a small scale at least, how apathetic some parents can be as long as their children are receiving some form of education. They don't care enough to lend their active support to a change in the status quo, and so the status quo shall remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

I genuinely do appreciate your situation, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're consistently missing the most obvious solution to the problem IMO - lack of involvement and lack of support from other parents. They too have their own priorities just as much as you, or I, or anyone else here has.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities...

Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded?

It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities?

How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent.

You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it?

Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them?

You've got to be joking, surely?

I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child.

I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh.

Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

How about a link or something to back up your claim that plenty, or wait a minute, a handful, of atheists believe in ID and have developed theories in relation to ID which are compatible with atheism?

What makes them more 'nuts' than the teachings of mainstream religions, which are very nuts if you ask me?

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ?

It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven.

If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts.

That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in.

And while I might inwardly try and figure out your RC friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic.

That to me would feel like a major judgement.

Personally I do find religious belief a bit mental, not that everyone who believes in God is mental of course, if they were I couldn't claim to know many sane people!

I wouldn't call all opposing views nuts just because I find religious beliefs nuts, for me it depends largely on the topic being debated and whether or not it can be logically tested or confirmed.

The Bishop Basher

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ?

It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven.

If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts.

That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in.

And while I might inwardly try and figure out your friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic.

That would just feel like a judgement.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

And then you took a further shot at those who get a secular education by indicating that they will not be up to discussion such complicated issues as yourself - more cheap tactics.

My comments are solely directed at those who, like the OP, apply total censorship on anything to do with religion.

I would actually be of the opinion that the ideal would be a secular education with a balanced curriculum on world religions, theism. atheism, agnosticism etc.

Just not at the expense of faith based schools.

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm very curious as to whether the reverse applies - whether in your opinion those who are brought up with a religious education are less capable of discussing matters of atheism than those who are brought up with a secular education?

Yes absolutely. I thought i'd mentioned that earlier but may have edited it out. A child brought up in a theistic censored environment will also have an equally unbalanced view of Religion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that they can't grow up, learn about about the subject and gain perspective but they're starting out at a disadvantage.

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand they're thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand their thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

Well, I'm not actually telling an atheist anything...

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

It's certainly a contradiction to the offline reality where many atheists don't appear to have the confidence in their principles that they wish to prevent their children from being exposed to ideas which contradict their principles.

Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh.

Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so.

I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.

You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand their thought process better then they do.

I don't believe that's ever ok.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school.

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities...

Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded?

It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'.

It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities?

How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent.

You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.

You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it?

Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them?

You've got to be joking, surely?

Huntergonzo

looksee wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

In fairness looksee, you were pretty smug up on your high horse yourself the other day calling for my post to be censored (which thankfully it wasn't) when I was only pullin' legs, let's call a spade a spade here!

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

Who is proposing 'complete censorship of all religious knowledge'?

ET have an RE programme in their schools, heck, Atheist Ireland support the idea that all schools have an RE programme, they want it to be balanced and inclusive and not indoctrinating, but I am not aware of any group or body or campaign to remove all mention of religion from schools.
Forewarned is forearmed after all...

Swanner wrote: »

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

That's interesting, a few posts earlier you said it was 'plenty'

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID.

So which is it? And whether your claim is 'plenty' or 'a handful' you've provided no evidence for your assertion whatsoever. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to find 'a handful' of people out of 7+ billion who believe in any given position however illogical and inherently contradictory and frankly ridiculous that position may be.

looksee

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

I never said anything about anyone's intelligence.

I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion.

By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion.

FYP

Yes there is. Plenty of it.

You said that I 'didn't comprehend it' and you indicated that I wasn't part of your exclusive club that "continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues" - fairly cheap tactics to try to shoot the messenger instead of discussing the topic in hand.

And then you took a further shot at those who get a secular education by indicating that they will not be up to discussion such complicated issues as yourself - more cheap tactics.

I'm very curious as to whether the reverse applies - whether in your opinion those who are brought up with a religious education are less capable of discussing matters of atheism than those who are brought up with a secular education?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Please stop with that phrase "victim blaming". It's meaningless. You're not the victim of anything. People have differences of opinion all the time and not everything goes their way all the time. It doesn't mean they're the "victim" of anything.

Yeah it does, that's how people get what they want, they speak up and they get support from other people who feel the same way they do. That's how conditions improve for people. You know this because you've been on the PA, you've achieved things, you've made progress on some issues, you haven't on other issues. Being on the PA and the BOM myself, I know exactly what it's like - not everyone has ever agreed with policies I've tried to introduce into the school, but I've never claimed I was the 'victim' of anything, because that would be silly.

It's your "I'm a victim" approach which misses the central point IMO. You even miss it when you talk about how changes were implemented in the school, but when you moved on, the progress that was made slipped back into old habits. That's why people need to speak up, because while it should be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all the students in all activities, it's also the responsibility of all parents to get involved in the school and get involved in activities.

Parents that don't feel they should have to do anything shouldn't expect that the school will be all that bothered either. In an ideal world the parents could just do a stop 'n' drop and have no further interaction with the school, and the school would churn out well-rounded little geniuses and all the rest of it, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm trying to avoid being patronising here, but this is just common sense stuff - nothing changes unless something happens to change it.

If everyone dismisses it as someone else's responsibility, then nothing changes because nobody is complaining so the perception is that everyone is happy with the status quo.

Expecting parents to behave like parents? Shocking!

Meanwhile, how do you think every other parent with school-going children manages to do it without claiming "I'm a victim" and expecting the world to revolve around them because they feel they shouldn't have to do anything to change their circumstances?

Without again meaning to sound patronising, but you know all this stuff already - change doesn't happen in a vacuum and without people speaking up and cooperating with each other to achieve the aims that benefit the group as a whole.

The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school. It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'. You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.

silverharp

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)

it certainly wasnt designed for humans 99.999999999999 is a kill zone :pac:

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.

I think what they're doing, and certainly the way I read that article anyway, is that they actually are redefining the idea of "intelligent design", not so much to suggest the existence of a creator, but to suggest that there's some form of intelligence that remains undiscovered which forms the basis for the patterns they observe in the universe - extraterrestrial life, as opposed to existential deities.

Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.

I would have thought most atheists would simply be indifferent to the theistic beliefs, as for atheists these beliefs have no value. There are a small sub-group amongst atheists of anti-theists, who will focus solely on the negative aspects of theism.

*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.

Because my wife is non-religious, I explain things to our child in terms of principles, so for example when explaining about atheism, I explained it in terms of principles rather than 'beliefs', same thing with any of the other religions and religious denominations we'd talk about - there are certain principles peculiar to the various religions, and then there are the beliefs of that religion, and not all adherents who identify with a religion, will necessarily agree with all the principles or beliefs of whatever religion we're discussing.

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

Dangerous position that.

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully..

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.

Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.

*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so.

Dangerous position that.

Dangerous in what way? Adhering to accepted definitions is now dangerous?

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own

I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone.

Of course you are. It's one of the stock tactics used by anti-atheist commentators.

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

Dangerous position that.

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully..

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

Huntergonzo

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)

silverharp

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Ignorance? I'm an atheist because of what I've read. I have no inability in learning new ideas. Stop trying to belittle the regulars on this forum. Your perceived superiority betrays your own ignorance.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

It's sad to see you relying on the age-old tactic of 'You're not clever enough to understand this stuff, so leave it to me'. Many churches got away with this nonsense for years, but not so much these days.

I never said anything about anyone's intelligence.

I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion.

By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion.

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not subjective. There is no evidence showing that children can develop their own concept of God. It's just not there.

FYP

Yes there is. Plenty of it.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

If an atheist supports ID then they must accept that there is something causing the ID, i.e. a god, which would mean that they are not atheist. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your own agenda.

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..