What of non religious world view should make it into RE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the context of the page, it seems quite clear: as part of the same subject.

We want a subject on the curriculum which helps young people to form and explore their own beliefs and develop an understanding of the beliefs and values different from their own; enriches pupils’ knowledge of the religious and humanist heritage of humanity and so supports other subjects...

Remember it is not my fault if the BHA statement contains apparent contradictions

You haven't satisfactorily explained this line from the BHA:
 ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''.....nor how it squares with what you have outlined?

[Stranger]

Remember it is not my fault if the BHA statement contains apparent contradictions

You haven't satisfactorily explained this line from the BHA:
 ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''.....nor how it squares with what you have outlined?

Like I said, you are free to make yourself look like an idiot, if you want.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like I said, you are free to make yourself look like an idiot, if you want.

I can see you are embarrassed by this line from the BHA:

'' atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''

[Stranger]

I can see you are embarrassed by this line from the BHA:

'' atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''

Not at all. Do carry on.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all. Do carry on.....

Well I've given my interpretation and you have decried that as being too sinister......How do you interpret it? I mean interpret this: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' rather than ignoring it and going on to another statement.

[Stranger]

Well I've given my interpretation and you have decried that as being too sinister......How do you interpret it? I mean interpret this: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' rather than ignoring it and going on to another statement.

Do try to pay attention: #24.

[Rhiannon]

......or the BHA statement is a drive for religion to be taught from an atheist perspective only which is highly Stalinist.

There is no more need in RE to hide that religious people derive there morality from religion, which would result from what you suggest, than there is to pretend atheists don't draw their morality from moral philosophy is there?

Why can't atheism occupy a place in the syllabus like Buddhism or Christianity so when themes are covered what atheism thinks about that theme are covered rather than it standing imperiously throughout the syllabus correcting other world views (which in any case is only the experience of an atheist)?

Atheism isn't a stand-alone faith position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do try to pay attention: #24.

Evasion noted.

[Stranger]

Evasion noted.

What part of

In the context of the page, it seems quite clear: as part of the same subject.

didn't you understand?

[Maeght]

......or the BHA statement is a drive for religion to be taught from an atheist perspective only which is highly Stalinist.

There is no more need in RE to hide that religious people derive there morality from religion, which would result from what you suggest, than there is to pretend atheists don't draw their morality from moral philosophy is there?

Why can't atheism occupy a place in the syllabus like Buddhism or Christianity so when themes are covered what atheism thinks about that theme are covered rather than it standing imperiously throughout the syllabus correcting other world views (which in any case is only the experience of an atheist)?

Atheism doesn't think about those themes. Individual atheist have their own views but there is no atheist philosophy. Therefor you present humanism, secularism etc but atheism's 'place' would be very small.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism isn't a stand-alone faith position.

I tend to disagree. Antitheism may not be a stand alone position.
When the BHA suggest it is taught then, what do they mean by it?

Do you subscribe to every theistic statement no matter from what religion it comes from be countered from the atheist perspective? Do you not see how that would make atheism the predominant idea?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What part ofdidn't you understand?

Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism doesn't think about those themes. Individual atheist have their own views but there is no atheist philosophy. Therefor you present humanism, secularism etc but atheism's 'place' would be very small.

Then do you agree that this statement from the BHA makes no sense
..........''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''?

[Stranger]

Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?

Of course. Your attempt to yank one sentence out of a page and turn it into one of your straw men is extremely silly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course. Your attempt to yank one sentence out of a page and turn it into one of your straw men is extremely silly.

You keep forgetting I didn't write it...and also it is possibly contradictory to the general thrust you are trying to portray (on what evidence you haven't made clear ).

Again it could be interpreted as having to qualify every statement made in RE with the atheist point of view and that is Stalinist.

You could of course give an interpretation which is not so sinister or take the line that Maeght has taken...that atheism has very little to say.

[Gordon]

Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?

Might it not simply be the case, Vlad, that atheism and various forms of theism are part of the same syllabus and that aspects of each will be covered over the period of time it takes to complete the syllabus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Might it not simply be the case, Vlad, that atheism and various forms of theism are part of the same syllabus and that aspects of each will be covered over the period of time it takes to complete the syllabus.

We can but hope so Gordon. But then why not make that clear?

[Stranger]

Again it could be interpreted as having to qualify every statement made in RE with the atheist point of view...

If you don't bother to give it a moment's thought or take the trouble to read the whole page, then yes, it could be.

You could of course give an interpretation which is not so sinister or take the line that Maeght has taken...that atheism has very little to say.

Atheism per se, doesn't have much to say. The only occurrence of the word on the whole page on RE was in the sentence you used.

[Rhiannon]

I tend to disagree. Antitheism may not be a stand alone position.
When the BHA suggest it is taught then, what do they mean by it?

Do you subscribe to every theistic statement no matter from what religion it comes from be countered from the atheist perspective? Do you not see how that would make atheism the predominant idea?

I used to be a school governor with responsibility for RE and as such I sat in on various lessons. Whenever a faith topic is taught the teacher has to say 'this is what some people believe about God; compare this with what some of you believe about God.' The predominant idea is that God exists and absence of belief is hinted at at best.

All this requires us the addition of 'and some people don't believe in God.' It's nothing for you to get frightened about unless you think the theist position can't stand up to that.

[Gordon]

We can but hope so Gordon. But then why not make that clear?

Perhaps they just assumed that theists who are sensitive or insecure wouldn't over-react at the mere mention of atheism in a syllabus: clearly they were wrong!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I used to be a school governor with responsibility for RE and as such I sat in on various lessons. Whenever a faith topic is taught the teacher has to say 'this is what some people believe about God; compare this with what some of you believe about God.' The predominant idea is that God exists and absence of belief is hinted at at best.

All this requires us the addition of 'and some people don't believe in God.' It's nothing for you to get frightened about unless you think the theist position can't stand up to that.

No, I think you make a thoughtful point.

I can't see how that ''teaches atheism clearly'' though which is what the BHA seem to want when God is covered.

[SusanDoris]

There should be one straightforward rule about teaching ABOUT religions - Do not at any time tell any child that any god is true.  A brief outline of how religious beliefs arose and have  changed, i.e. the history of religious beliefs and how they are known today is important as is the equally important information that many people do not believe in any god.

The bottom line should always be 'people have believed that there are gods. To tell a child that any god is true is to tell them a falsehood.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps they just assumed that theists who are sensitive or insecure wouldn't over-react at the mere mention of atheism in a syllabus: clearly they were wrong!

I refer you to my other thread inspired by the exclusion of consideration of non religious world views from discussion in a cross party committee on RE.

I am in two minds over that at the moment. One is why should non religion appear in RE, the other is that world views should be taught in RE. From my POV British humanism is not immune from cultural imperialism or politically engineering the elimination of religion in the same way that all majorities aren't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There should be one straightforward rule about teaching ABOUT religions - Do not at any time tell any child that any god is true.  A brief outline of how religious beliefs arose and have  changed, i.e. the history of religious beliefs and how they are known today is important as is the equally important information that many people do not believe in any god.

The bottom line should always be 'people have believed that there are gods. To tell a child that any god is true is to tell them a falsehood.

A fair and clear manifesto although I think you run into what you want to avoid in your last statement.

[Gordon]

I refer you to my other thread inspired by the exclusion of consideration of non religious world views from discussion in a cross party committee on RE.

I am in two minds over that at the moment. One is why should non religion appear in RE, the other is that world views should be taught in RE. From my POV British humanism is not immune from cultural imperialism or politically engineering the elimination of religion in the same way that all majorities aren't.

I suspect you are over-thinking it, Vlad.

After all if the aim is to review theism in historical, philosophical, cultural, social, legal and political terms then since you'd have to note that not all theists ascribe to the same religion (noting the differences between religions) then why wouldn't you also note that some people were atheists?