Atheist and the nativity

The_One_Who

RazWaz wrote: »

I did it as a GCSE a few years ago and it wasn't even mentioned. We hardly even looked at other religions either. The exam was actually just about one of the Gospels.

I knew the curriculum in Scotland would be different, but never thought it would be so different.

At Standard Grade (equivalent to GCSE) I did Christianity (mostly about the differences between the Old and New Testaments, differences in the Gospels, and stuff to do with Pagan references), another world religion (I did Islam, but could have done Judaism or Hinduism) and a section on religion and ethics/morality and the world. So questions about how religion relates to the environment/global climate change and whatnot. This was a few years ago, so I'm sure there was a lot more to it, and it's probably changed now.

OrkneyStar

serious_saver wrote: »

Just tell her the truth. It is a story that is believed by Christians. She doesn't have to believe it herself but it doesn't hurt to make her aware that there are lots of people out there who believe different things and who have different religions.

This is exactly what I would do. No doubt they will discuss other religious festivals at some point.

Also the nativity is kind of cute!

make_me_wise

PoorCharleyBear wrote: »

She has just started school and came home yesterday telling me about 'Mary, Joseph and their specialist (sic) baby, Jesus'.

Lol, never heard Jesus referred to as a 'specialist' baby before. Dont sweat it is my advice. I teach year 3 and as part of the curriculum children learn about all faiths. It's not rammed down their throats or taught in a way that tries to influence them.

They are free to take from any teaching of faiths what they choose to. Having an understanding of religions and cultures is no bad thing. A general knowledge and respect of other peoples beliefs and practices is a useful thing to know, especially as we all live in such a multicultural society.

JC9297

_claire16c wrote: »

Yes they do have to teach RE, its even shown in the link I posted that they do.

How much the school actually does and what they teach is another thing.

Well presumably they count an odd mention of something related to religion in assembly, as they certainly don't have to have a time-tabled lesson.

JC9297

peachyprice wrote: »

They don't have to teach it as an individual subject after yr9 though.



Isn't it covered on the PSHE classes after yr 9? I'm sure it then they do it at my boys school, but no, definitley not a compulsory GCSE, but there is some sort of test in the PSHE classes.

In my son's school they don't have PSHE in year 9, they do Citizenship and start their GCSE. Their is definately no 'studying' of religion in years 10 and 11 unless they choose to.

erichamster

teddyco wrote: »

I don't think the word 'atheist' is viable. It supposes that God can be proven to not exist, and just as I cannot prove
God's existence 100% and must rely upon faith, an atheist cannot prove that he doesn't exist and also rely on faith,
so the term is a misnomer. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?

The term I would suggest is agnosticism.

It is true that it is impossible to disprove the existence of an invisible, inaudible, intangible thing that leaves no true effect or mark of its presence (such as the mythical unicorn or the god you speak of, or any other that people have ever believed in).

However as an atheist I don't believe in the existence of a god and I live my life as if there is not/never was one. I think it is a viable word. it comes from the original Greek "atheos" meaning "without god" and its meaning is now widely accepted as "one who denies or disbelives the existence of god" which is how I live my life and I feel applies quite well as a term.

I do however, like the trend for rebranding with terms such as freethinkers and the Brights movement, however atheist is just the most widely understood and easiest to use and really the most appropriate as it confers no other attributes to a person other than a lack of belief in god, atheism is not a religion.

peachyprice

teddyco wrote: »

I don't think the word 'atheist' is viable. It supposes that God can be proven to not exist, and just as I cannot prove
God's existence 100% and must rely upon faith, an atheist cannot prove that he doesn't exist and also rely on faith,
so the term is a misnomer. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?

The term I would suggest is agnosticism.

So what would you rename an agnostic, as there is a distinct difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

daska

surely the difference is simple? A theist chooses to believe in god/s. An atheist chooses to believe that there is no god/s. An agnostic accepts that there is a possibility that something might or might not exist but refuses to commit themselves because there is no proof.

PoorCharleyBear

I was thinking about how people who believe really feel the need to share their religious persuasion with others particularly atheists.

I wonder how many believers (of whatever persuasion) when they talk to their children about religion, say
'but of course there are plenty of people who don't believe in a god of any sort and these are valid views as well.
I am giving you the opportunity to make your own decision by being well advised on all counts, and whatever you decide is fine by us'

Why do I feel this would not be the case, yet we atheists are expected to teach our kids about religion to be fair and balanced.....

PoorCharleyBear

robpw2 wrote: »

Christ Mass ... do you not see the irony
you are celebrating an event for which you do not have any belief .. that my dear makes you a hypocrite

I would rather you did not call me 'dear'..it is either over familiar or too sarcastic, neither of which I appreciate. Christianity is meant to be about compassion (I was brought up as one).

I mark Hannukah with my Jewish friends- because it is important to them, not because I think I might suddenly become Jewish.

And in Singapore, everyone celebrates Eid, Divali, Christmas as it covers the main population groups. Not sure the Singaporean government is hypocritical.