[Closed] Right to be peeved? Kids nativity content

^^^This.

SaxonRider has nailed it.

Edit:

As above, +1 for Saxonrider.

Well said. Like me, my son goes to a CofE school, becuase although we are not practising Christians thats its one of the best in our area. And the school openly advertises it affiliation with the local Christian church. So anyone who went there moaning about the Christmas play would be quite hypocritical.

The OP sent his child to a non-denominational school, so I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is.

It seems to be primarily the radical [note: NOT all] atheists that get most bothered by any of this stuff.

You will likely find that most faiths don't mind other faiths being and doing what other faiths are and do.

All this talk of 'radical' atheists make me lol too. Seriously; there would be literally NO point in being a 'radical' atheist if there weren't far more completely BATSHIT MENTAL radical religious types. The 'radical atheist' thing is a direct result of overbearing religion just presuming that it has a right to institutionally impose itself on people. Which sadly, it still actually does in this country.

The nativity is very much the bibles own "Phantom Menace" anyway

The nativity is very much the bibles own "Phantom Menace" anyway

Meeesa bringin' Frankincense Oakily Doakily!

What is a radical atheist?

Don't be so semantic. You know that I am referring to those atheists who have made the conscious decision in the last decade or so to speak out more, not so much as atheists, but as anti-theists.

Dawkins, (the late) Hitchens, Dennett, et al., are all prominent representatives of this sort of atheism. Call it 'new', or 'radical', or whatever, the term denotes a social phenomenon that is widely recognised for its belligerence.

Think Derren Brown compared to Stephen Fry.

But I know you knew that.

I believe his exact words were: 'If someone is going to get offended by a prayer, then they deserve to be offended.'

Whilst I agree wholeheartidly with your sentiments, you've been on this site long enought to know that certain posters take offence at every possible opportunity...

i think saturnalia ended on the 23rd dec the xmas celebration the western Christians nicked was sol invictus/Mithraius they also nicked Sunday from him and arguably a lot of his temples hence Christian churches tending to have crypts . I do love the argument atheists should not take next Friday off as there is much more evidence to suggest atheists and pagans get 19th dec to 1st jan off and should have booze and presents Christians should only get 6th? jan off only and should spend it fasting and preying on their knees.

And Easter eggs have naff all to do with Jesus.

Possibly the most ridiculous assertion I've read for a VERY long time. History would STRONGLY disagree with you.

I am not talking about history. I am talking about modern Britain, FFS.

Forget the tiny minority of radical Muslims or fundamentalist Christians, or whomever. I am talking about the normal parents from Iraq or ****stan who have chosen to send Ishaq or Ahmed or Sairah to the local C of E school or Catholic school because they want 'faith values' (however you define that).

Such people are not offended by Away in a Manger.

Don't be so semantic. You know that I am referring to those atheists who have made the conscious decision in the last decade or so to speak out more, not so much as atheists, but as an anti-theists.

Ah, so when you say "radical atheists" you mean something else. Thanks for the clarification.

Anyway, to recap: the OP is a bit peeved that a non-denominational school invited a minister to preach, apparently in contravention of its own guidelines. If you think that's radical, then I can only point out that such an assessment is relative to the point of the observer.

Such people are not offended by Away in a Manger.

you've been on this site long enought to know that certain posters take offence at every possible opportunity..

But it is important that it is expressed so we can celebrate in their **** wittery.

I'm Interested to know whether atheists "indoctrinate" their children in atheism, or allow them to experience religion for themselves and make their own minds up - i.e. based on informed decision.

I'm Interested to know whether atheists "indoctrinate" their children in atheism, or allow them to experience religion for themselves and make their own minds up - i.e. based on informed decision.

Indoctrination into an absence of faith? An informed decision on whether to have faith or not?

WTF?

I am not talking about history. I am talking about modern Britain, FFS.

Glad we cleared that one up 🙄

I'm Interested to know whether atheists "indoctrinate" their children in atheism, or allow them to experience religion for themselves and make their own minds up - i.e. based on informed decision.

vickypea, we are atheist and hypocritical-vegetarian we tell our son some people think x some people think y, so cranbrat currently is part Buddhist in so far as he wants to be reincarnated not return to stardust or live on a cloud , and currently part meateater in so far as he points at it in the supermarket and says he wants to try it and gets to try it at parties he tends not to like it.

We send him to a C of E school , we were clear about our beliefs on the application.

And Easter eggs have naff all to do with Jesus.

Religious education in school says different, I'm pretty sure they don't teach kids about fertility and rebirth.

[url= http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/12/16/pure-and-utter-shite-wwn-reviews-local-school-nativity-play/ ]school nativity review.[/url]

@ ransos - WTF yourself!!

'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.

Teaching your children that some people have religious beliefs and some don't, and leaving them free to make their own mind up is not indoctrination (obviously). However, teaching them that there is definitely no god and that religious people are deluded and believe in fairy stories is a form of indoctrination.

Well done, OP.

This is some stellar work.

Jesus would be proud.

everyone know Christmas is about the baby jesus, that's what kids are taught in school

Religious education in school says different, I'm pretty sure they don't teach kids about fertility and rebirth.

...Said no atheist ever, militant or otherwise 😉

Teaching your children that some people have religious beliefs and some don't, and leaving them free to make their own mind up is not indoctrination (obviously). However, teaching them that there is definitely no god and that religious people are deluded and believe in fairy stories is a form of indoctrination.

Crazy talk, you can only indoctrinate people to believe something that's not the same as my opinion 🙂

And Easter eggs have naff all to do with Jesus.
"Religious education in school says different,"

Is that the ones who say it symbolises the rock from Jesus' tomb.

'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.

Atheism is an absence of a belief, so there is nothing to accept.

Next!

[i]Gary M, you don't even sound convinced by your words[/i]

Right, in what way? No forget it, I couldn't care less. I'm not even interested enough to call my self part of any group, atheist or otherwise.

It's nothing to do with religion for people that aren't bothered, but if you're a bit, you know, radical in you're anti god/anti religion stance then I would have thought you would be bothered.

I suppose a "militant atheist" might object to Christmas, assuming that Christmas is actually a religious celebration in any sort of practical manner for most folk these days.

Which is sort of what I was getting at. The vast majority of folk in the UK celebrate Christmas, and I'd hazard that the vast majority of those aren't regular church-going True Believers, not really. Christmas in the UK might well once have been a celebration of the birth of some blue-eyed white bloke in the Middle East, and for some people it still is of course, but it's grown to encompass far more than its religious beginnings for people. If you switched on the TV what do you reckon you'd see first, Jesus or Father Christmas?

This is why "why do atheists celebrate Christmas, bunch of hypocrites" is fallacious. We atheists don't celebrate Christmas because yay Jesus, we celebrate it because it's a national holiday. And because, y'know, it's nice to give gifts to people and remind our loved ones how much we care about them, we just don't require to get our moral guidance from a book.

Thinking about it, after centuries of religion sticking its beak into matters of state and politics, isn't there a delicious irony in that the atheists are quietly and successfully removing religion from religious festivals? (-:

On a seperate but related note; why is there never an atheist on 'thought for the day'? Is it that spiritualists have the monopoly on moralising and 'makes you think' moments?

The cynic in me would suggest that the atheists don't need the advertising. (-:

There's no reason why there [i]shouldn't[/i] be an atheist Thought for the Day of course, though I do wonder what they'd use for authority. That is to say, a Reverend speaks from (arguably) a position of power because of the weight of the Church behind him. I doubt that people would pay much attention if Chris Evans announced, "and now, today's Thought for the Day comes from Dave, a retired plumber from Sheffield."

Atheism is an absence of faith, not belief.

From the religious observance policy:
"An approach seeking to convert an audience to one faith or another is not appropriate in the non-denominational sector"
You'll have to explain how a minister leading the children in prayer does not constitute "seeking to convert".

Basically, this whole thread is predicated on a fallacy: that OP sends his kids to a secular school. He doesn't, as he would have realised if he'd read his own guidelines or possibly if he'd thought about what the kids [i]doing a nativity play means.[/i] "you know, it's funny, I knew the kids had been sacrificing goats but I never realised this was a pagan after school club before".

The guidelines set out by Glasgow Council for these matters are [url= https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12233&p=0 ]here[/url]. The Headteacher has done nothing which contravenes these guidelines - you may wish the guidelines were different, but that is a completely different beef.

Gary M - member, preached; No forget it, I couldn't care less. I'm not even interested enough to call my self part of any group

Only because iLike winding up hypocrites.

I'm Interested to know whether atheists "indoctrinate" their children in atheism, or allow them to experience religion for themselves and make their own minds up - i.e. based on informed decision.

How do you "experience" religion? Teaching kids that some people believe in a person called Jesus, and that he was the son of this other deity they believe in called God, that's sensible and it's called religious education. But is that "experiencing" religion? To experience it, do you have to actually meet a true believer who believes every word of it and will try to convert you?

If so, then why does that only apply to religions, especially Christianity? Why shouldn't a Star Wars uber-fan have the chance to convince children that it's absolutely true that there's a little green bloke who lives in a swamp who can levitate things and talk backwards he does?

Informed decision is a contradiction in terms when it comes to religion - religion only works if you don't let people reach informed decisions.

'Indoctrinate' means to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs without criticism, so yes it is possible to indoctrinate someone in atheism.

And you've answered your own question right there.

There's no need to provide atheist indoctrination as, unlike theism, they're already born with it. And in the hypothetical event that I reproduce I would be teaching my child critical thinking; I would be teaching them to question the world rather than believing everything they hear.

If I'm successful there then I won't [i]need[/i] to tell them religion is a set of stories and superstitions, they'll work out for themselves whether it is or not.

Atheism is an absence of faith, not belief.

No, it's an absence of belief (in the existence of god or gods)

Because the non-Christian kids weren't required to pray with him

Yeah, I'm sure that was made clear to the attendees at the time.

The same way that going to a mosque and having someone pray in front of you isn't trying to get you to convert.

@Cougar, +1,000,000. Beautifully put.

@ben, apologies I haven't read the whole 6 pages just the first one. Its the nativitey so seems reasonable for a Christian to comment that the story is true (or certainky that he believes it) and to [b]invite[/b] people to pray. Its wasn't compulsory and imho it wasn't an attempt to convert anyone.

I'd observe that the most strongly argued threads on STW are from atheists against those that do chose to believe (not referencingyou @ben), this I find quite odd as thats hardly an inclusive and accepting stance.

@Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving

The guidelines set out by Glasgow Council for these matters are here. The Headteacher has done nothing which contravenes these guidelines - you may wish the guidelines were different, but that is a completely different beef.

The headteacher hasn't, but the minister clearly crossed over from a Religious Observance into an Act of Worship. I guess the argument is that that is what ministers will do, so either you don't invite them, or tell them to tone it down.

Oh for God's sake you lot.........

Or should that be "for a god's sake"?

Or is it just "for anything or nothing that you call a belief's sake"?

These first world problems are so confusing.

This priest need to be named because if he is converting people with one prayer, he will be very in demand.

This priest need to be named because if he is converting people with one prayer, he will be very in demand.

From the document you linked to:

"An approach [u]seeking[/u] to convert an audience to one faith or another is not appropriate in the non-denominational sector"

I've highlighted the important bit.

A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.

A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.

He wasn't praying by himself, he gave a sermon then invited everyone to pray with him.

Or, actually, just assumed we all would. It wasn't "would anyone like to pray with me", it was "let us pray".

Just for the record:

Atheism isn't the absence of belief in anything. Its a very definite position saying there is no god.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a position saying, there is no proof for the existence of god and no proof that he doesn't exist either. Which is much closer to an absence of belief.

Its perfectly possible to indoctrinate (i.e. teach) someone into either position if you exclude the others.

FWIW most atheists are agnostics, they just don't realise it!

A prayer is neither an act of worship, nor is it seeking to convert people.

[i]worship
/?w????p/

noun

1.

the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.[/i]

I'll leave others to judge whether or not prayers include expressions of reverence or adoration of a deity.

Well, really, atheism is saying "there is no god" in the same way as saying "there's no chocolate teapot in orbit around Saturn".

It's microscopically, infinitesimally theoretically possible, but all reason and logic goes against it.

It's not saying there's no god as a belief without facts.

Atheism isn't the absence of belief in anything. Its a very definite position saying there is no god.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a position saying, there is no proof for the existence of god and no proof that he doesn't exist either. Which is much closer to an absence of belief.

No, that's completely wrong. The etymology of "atheism" is a strong clue...

Bencooper,
Good on you; I'd like to think I'd have done the same, if it wasn't for my highly-developed level of apathy. I hope the result isn't low-level ostracization of you or your child(ren).

[i]It wasn't "would anyone like to pray with me", it was "let us pray".[/i]

But the let us pray thing is a turn of phrase, saying 'would anyone like to pray with me' would be daft as some would say yes, some would say no and mass confusion would break out. By saying 'let us pray' the fella just meant 'let those that want to pray with me crack on and do so'. His way was much quicker and less confusing (for most).

Jambala - member, preached; Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving

Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know for certain whether a god or gods exist. Babies are born without beliefs. Therefore, since atheism merely requires the lack of a belief, while agnosticism requires the presence of a belief, babies automatically meet the definition of atheism but not of agnosticism.

I'm confused, and can no longer be bothered to catch up with the various points being made in this discussion.

A few final comments from me, though...

@cougar:

This is why "why do atheists celebrate Christmas, bunch of hypocrites" is fallacious. We atheists don't celebrate Christmas because yay Jesus, we celebrate it because it's a national holiday. And because, y'know, it's nice to give gifts to people and remind our loved ones how much we care about them

100% agreed. I didn't read through the whole thread, but I have never bought into the idea that atheists or anyone else should not be able to celebrate what they see Christmas to be. So please do have a very happy one.

And the same goes for all of you.

There's no need to provide atheist indoctrination as, unlike theism, they're already born with it. And in the hypothetical event that I reproduce I would be teaching my child critical thinking; I would be teaching them to question the world rather than believing everything they hear.

If I'm successful there then I won't need to tell them religion is a set of stories and superstitions, they'll work out for themselves whether it is or not.

Devils advocate:
Doesn't that make the huge assumption that they will come to the same conclusion as you, and you are irrefutably correct.

There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.

Regarding Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it [b]Christ[/b]mas; and not the winter break like some US companies

There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works, if someone came to you and said I know <5% about something, but I don't need to know the other 95+% as I already know the answers you would laugh at them or assume they were a teenager.

The usual "atheist" position would be we still have a lot to learn. The position that we only know 5% and the rest is the work of a sky fairy is much more laughable.

@Cougar, not believing anything (ie as you where born) is not atheism, athiesm in my belief meams positively disbelieving

Somewhat appropriately perhaps, what you believe is irrelevant.

First hit on Google for Atheism, "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

FWIW most atheists are agnostics, they just don't realise it!

We've done this before, it's a popular tool amongst some theists used to gain what small bit of concession they can from the non-believers. The argument goes something like, "it's not possible to know, therefore you must be agnostic by definition." IIRC, poster boy atheist for (theists and almost no-one else) Richard Dawkins agrees with this and identifies as agnostic.

Whilst the position is sound, it's a technicality. Whilst I cannot disprove the existence of a god or gods because it's impossible to prove a negative, there is little compelling evidence that such a thing exists for all practical purposes. We're back to Russell's teapot again, or invisible tiny unicorns living in my skirting board. Ergo I'm certain [i]beyond reasonable doubt[/i] that there is no god, and I identify as atheist. The burden of proof is not mine, anything else is special pleading.

Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies

Spot on, Cougar, again.

Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies

Why do Christians call Easter Easter?

Cougar, if this were a real pub, I'd buy you a drink.

A lot of this thread and the definitions of agnostic / atheist etc are a bit in depth for me.

However, I do know a lad who went to a wedding in a church where a lot of the regular congregation attended weddings. When the bit came to exchange a sign of peace (with the handshake and 'peace be with you') he started to do the Vulcan sign and saying "live long and prosper".

Doesn't that make the huge assumption that they will come to the same conclusion as you, and you are irrefutably correct.

Not at all. They may grow up to disagree with me. That's fine, I'd rather have free-thinking kids (even if they're wrong) than kids who blindly believe any old pish they [s]read on the Internet[/s] are told by people in positions of relative power.

There's a huge amount of things we can't explain yet as we only understand a tiny amount of how the universe works,

Absolutely. So? Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we get to make up any old horseshit and parade it around as fact. That's the sort of wooly thinking that gets people eaten.

Regarding Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas; and not the winter break like some US companies

Because that's what it's called. Renaming it "winter break" is a liberal way of trying too hard not to offend people who almost certainly wouldn't have been offended in the first place, and if are offended can bloody well be offended. What's next, renaming Easter "Eggmas"? Insanity of the highest order, get in the sea.

I can't handle more than one big-hitterthon today, sorry folks. Too much work to do. But:

What's next, renaming Easter "Eggmas"?

Easter is already its pagan name 🙂

However, I do know a lad who went to a wedding in a church where a lot of the regular congregation attended weddings. When the bit came to exchange a sign of peace (with the handshake and 'peace be with you') he started to do the Vulcan sign and saying "live long and prosper".

Damn it, that's genius, I wish I'd thought of that when I was writing my vows last year.

I have never bought into the idea that atheists or anyone else should not be able to celebrate what they see Christmas to be. So please do have a very happy one.

Amen!

Oh, shit.

The usual "atheist" position would be we still have a lot to learn. The position that we only know 5% and the rest is the work of a sky fairy is much more laughable.

To make any definite conclusion with 5% knowledge is laughable isn't it?

[i]Renaming it "winter break" is a liberal way of trying too hard not to offend people who almost certainly wouldn't have been offended in the first place, and if are offended can bloody well be offended.[/i]

I'm not so sure of the 'wouldn't have been offended bit', is that not what started the thread in the first place 🙂

@Gary M, I don't think Ben was offended, I think he was a little concerned. I certainly would be if I thought that my boys were in danger of indoctrination. I'm sure he'll clarify.

To make any definite conclusion with 5% knowledge is laughable isn't it?

And yet, some people believe [i]absolutely [/i]that god did it. Laughable, did you say?

And yet, some people believe absolutely that god did it. Laughable, isn't it.

Personally I have no ****ing idea, however I'm not completely happy with 'we just happened' and the laws of thermodynamics seem to imply that's not possible (however googling for rational debate on that sends you to some crazy right wing US sites) unless the universe is infinite which is a huge leap of faith of FSM levels.

A long one, but this video is a helpful reference point when trying to remember the difference between theism, agnosticism, and atheism:

This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Concepts - really is interesting stuff. All the different flavours of Atheism in one easy article...

If I hadn't been hanging out the back of the bike sheds with all the other cool kids I might have done GCSE RE.

This is as relevant as half the posts so:

[img] [/img]

Merry Christmas, whatever it means to you all, & don't f*ck with the Jesus.

@Gary M, I don't think Ben was offended, I think he was a little concerned. I certainly would be if I thought that my boys were in danger of indoctrination. I'm sure he'll clarify.

Yes, I wasn't offended in the slightest. Just peeved that we might have to unbrainwash the offspring.

Edit: that's brilliant 😉

Yes, I wasn't offended in the slightest. Just peeved that we might have to unbrainwash the offspring.

That priest must have been [b]awesome[/b] if he can convert a room in a single short sermon... are you sure it wasn't Darren Brown in disguise?

Personally I have no **** idea, however I'm not completely happy with 'we just happened'

Sure. But the problem with "god did it" as an answer is that it's not actually an answer, it's just a diversion. Look.
[list]
[*]"I can't believe we 'just happened', there must be more to it than that, where did we come from?"[/*]

[*]"Well, we were created by an invisible supernatural being we like to call 'God'."[/*]

[*]"Ah, that explains it, cool. But where did this 'God' fellow come from?"[/*]

[*]"Oh, he just happened."[/*][/list]

You see? We've not actually answered the question, we've just moved the goalposts. If design is a prerequisite for intelligent life (and that's a whole other can of billy bollocks, why would any intelligent designer give us an appendix for a start?) then surely by that argument god must have been designed also. Maybe your gods have their own gods who created them? Is it turtles all the way down?

And of course, if design [i]isn't[/i] a prerequisite for intelligent the whole argument is moot anyway. If god can 'just be' then so can we.

Loving that the phrase 'let us pray' was so shocking and divisive it caused a sanctimonious email.

Also loving the cougar and his dialectical diatribes. Short story: I like going to church occassionally, dont believe in a sky fairy. Vicar (Anglo Catholic so no c of e milquetoast) once delivered a sermon where he stated that it was only his recent retirement that had triggered his movement from ear atheism to agnosticism. Summary: the people you are setting yourself against aren't who you think they are.

I'm not completely happy with 'we just happened' and the laws of thermodynamics seem to imply that's not possible

There is only misunderstanding/confusion of the laws of thermodynamics, because creationists try to represent them as open systems.

"Atheists and Christmas, only curious thing is why they call it Christmas"
Probably the same reason Christians refer to "the lords day " as Sunday even though they don't worship the God it is named for.

And yet, some people believe absolutely that god did it. Laughable, did you say?

They call it 'faith' for a reason. They call themselves believers, not knowers.

Is believing in Intelligent design a prerequisite to believing in god?

Could you not believe 'something' started the big bang, and then we are just a happy coincidence and the result of evolution/selective breeding.

There is only misunderstanding/confusion of the laws of thermodynamics, because creationists try to represent them as open systems.

What confusion? I thought the issue was we don't live in an open system unless you are happy with the concept of infinite.