gwendes
-
Posts
1,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
News
20th
EduGeek EDIT Conference
Blogs
Everything posted by gwendes
-
Only in your opinion. Sure, there isn't a true Christian - it wasn't well put. The Christian thing to do is save the majority of lives - again, it's the question that's important. Why is this the case? Can Christianity be a source of morality with absolutes causing problems like this? You have to admit that it would be very likely that some people have had a very real Hell imposed on them. I know people that have - believe me or not. In your opinion. By your logic we should allow every culture to impose it's religious morality on it's own children. All religions consider themselves better than each other with a monopoly on truth. The only balance is an atheistic point of view. Why not support my ideal of no underlying agenda or bias. Even the poor people like me that live within your modern interpretation of Christian morals (which just so happens to be very similiar to the law) but that are spiritually dead? It's a valid critisism. If you read 'The Selfish Gene' you'll learn a lot about the work he was doing leading up to it's publication. It's easy to 'force' children. So easy you don't even need to force. I told my friend's kid last night that I was one hundred years old - no problem! (I corrected my 'mistake' and the intention was not to mislead - it was to educate!) Children are programmed to believe. Just look around you. I don't believe they are Jesus' stances. I believe they are innate human stances. An interesting argument but that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that 'Christian morality' isn't the best option simply because it is Christian. A much better approach, in my opinion is to reject the idea that there is a divine good and bad. An atheist and Christian individual could make equally good or bad teachers of morality - therefore it isn't a matter of faith. Therefore, as we need an external measure all schools should be without faith and morality should be derived from the world around us, discussion and questions.
-
I would agree that the logic is simple. You seem to miss the point that these are philosophical questions and they're not designed to have definate answers based on empirical proof - it's the questions that are important and the questions aren't designed to offend. What if God is a myth. What are the potential roots of this myth? For what purposes. We can't know, by your reasoning, if there is a God but we can ask if the attributes are compatible and if they aren't we can assess why this might be. I don't seek to wipe religion from history - it just happens to be my considered opinion that religion is not a force for good in the world and that leads to the question, why not? I don't believe in any God or gods and I live my life on that assumption. I don't believe that there is any divine justice or scales, no judgement, no sin. I believe that good and evil are human interpretations based on the society you happen to live in. I think that Jesus probably existed but was given the attributes of earlier gods at the beginning of Christianity - St Paul considered Jesus as mythical - or at least certainly not has having been alive during his lifetime. I think the Bible should carry an (18) sticker. Exactly right. There is no divine morality - different people, even those that are members of the same sect of church have different levels of right and wrong. I can answer a question based on instinct as a product of evolutionary drives - you, as you've stated, sometimes need to look for guidance from the Bible. In one room are twenty children, perhaps a class of kids at your school. In the other are your own children. You can only save one group - which do you save? The bible is very clear on this and any true Christian must answer the same. Hell is a very real place, or at least it was, to friends that went to RC schools. Religion in school is always force-fed. So morals we introduced to the UK when Christianity fought it's way to these shores? Innate morality shaped religion. Judaism is much, much older than Christianity - how can you accuse me of denying evidence - your religion is very modern and there was morality long before it was invented. Why do you think that being bad would be the default setting for a human and we need to have this behaviour corrected by religion? Trash? You mean that people are openly atheist? I don't think Richard Dawkins deserves a capital 'H' just yet! Of course, religion is non-profit. Defending what he has invested a lifetime working on and making money are two drives I'm sure. Nobody would be happier than Richard Dawkins if you could find evidence that he was wrong and had been wrong his entire life. You would defend evolution too though- you have just chosen not to see a conflict - your God coexists with evolution. That's a difficult God to teach about. Well, it is. You feel it's a moral duty to introduce faith. That is the height of irresponsiblity as far as I'm concerned. Ethics and philosophy provide guidance by asking questions - not by frocing children to accept the 'truth' I think it is completely possible. A single peice of legislation based initially on employment law - prevent schools from discriminating teachers based on religion. The same should apply to students. Completely reasonable. You can still tell kids it's a good idea to share (though I would argue they're completely aware of this) and be kind to others (this is learnt very early on!). Moral guidance does not need a super-being. I wouldn't want it any other way. We have quite a lot of freedom from religion here - the very fact that we can have this discussion, when not very long ago I would have faced prison or worse, is great. I'm just concerned as to why you would be offended - that isn't my intention. I'm not offended by anything you say I just hope that some of your ideas are never put into practice. Hey, it would be boring if we all agreed on everything! Schools being Christian from any other perspective of faith or atheism is immoral or simply wrong. I don't want you to think that schools should not be built around a whole education - but teaching your particular idea of morality because it has a large following is non-sensical. Children can learn through case-study, for example, current affairs - Gaza... Morality doesn't come from religion. Christianity (in part) was an attempt to write down what was moral (a couple of thousand years ago) - otherwise there would be no need to interpret - you'd just read the truth as it had always been and always will be.
-
You agree that the idea that religion is untouchable is wrong. Why are you offended?
-
Right. That's not a failing on my part. I don't understand a lot of things that people do and I'm glad that I don't. I don't take part in discussions at RDF. Help me to understand? I think I have a good understanding of what you consider to be misconceptions. Why do you find anything I say insulting? What have I said exactly? Because you said that you agree with Adrian Hawkes. He supports that 'system' - it is enforced - the children have no choice or balance. Why is this? Because there are many potential faiths at the moment and there will be new ones in the future. Faith has no place in schools - ethics and philospohy do. I'm not saying we should not teach any form of morality just that any single faith has very different ideas and there is no evidence to suggest that any are positive. I'd love to see even a single study that supported this idea. The difference is that you are still free to teach whatever you like at home. Indoctrination is much harder to reverse - if faith is compulsory (which it is) it leaves children very confused. Don't teach anything and make all schools open to all - how can you possibly oppose this attitude of tolerance? If Christianity is the best then children will find it by themselves - surely?
-
ATTACK? BELITTLE? I am not! I'm just asking questions and you've suddenly taken offence! I would only actively prevent your theology if it infringed on my rights - who wouldn't do the same? I need to have a good understanding of religions in order to disagree. Christopher Hitchens, for example, has better understanding of many scriptures than the leaders of those religions. I do not seek to restrict any freedom. Godwin's Law. Don't worry, I'll not get on my 'high-horse'. I seek to understand your (and anybody else that is prepared to discuss) faith - not destroy it. As I've said before, I don't confuse disagreement with dislike.
-
Doesn't seem like a very open or tolerant attitude tbh mark.
-
Sounds like a plan
-
I think I have a very good idea of the subject we are discussing. I've listened to many different points of view and am interested in the discussion more than reaching a conclusion. Flounder? I've asked several direct questions following a logical chain of thought and you simply dismiss my ideas as 'foolish'. I don't expect faith to be assessed as a science - if it were it would be called science! I do think it's reasonable to ask questions of a position of faith. High horse? Nursery child? Banality? The language of tolerance! I think I've been very respectful of your faith. In the other thread you said you didn't support creationism in the science classroom. Adrian Hawkes does and also supports the teaching of other aspects of the Bible across the curriculum including what some might consider a fundamentalist approach in combining health education and religion. You said you agreed with his position so I'm left a little confused, feel free to answer or not. You think that I'm lying? I do not have an attitude of intolerance - I'm just asking questions which I think are interesting. I don't share your ideas and I'm fascinated why you do - particularly as you've said that you share many other opinions with me. I've watched the video and others that argue faith should form the basis of education and I simply do not agree. For a start it is logical to ask which faith we should choose and why. If you think Christianity because it happens to be the most popular in the UK then we need to ask if popularity is a good measure of suitability. I think that education and faith should have a very high wall between them and society would benefit from all schools being open to all children and teachers regardless of faith- kids don't have prejudices until they are taught. Nazi insignia? Wooah. I think a little more Libertarian. I think it's important to ask who is choosing these perfect rights and wrongs. And why. I seem to remember hearing that the Fourth Bridge has only been painted a couple of times - technically. Since it takes so long it's ongoing... Anyway... Applying logic is the ideal as far as I'm concerned. If religion made for more a better society I would probably be in favour (whether I could be faithful myself or not). We can look at the worldwide statistics and observe that religion does not improve any aspect of society - health, wealth, education - anything. I think it's fair to ask why. We need to be open to the conversation. I think it's positive for both sides to listen to each other - ultimately I couldn't care less how you choose to live your life - I'm interested in why and will become much less 'tolerant' if your rights infringe on mine or those of my children. The idea that religion is untouchable, unquestionable because it might offend somebody is simply wrong. Nothing is above the question - that breeds dangerous certainties.
-
The simple question to make this completely meaningless is, which Christianity? I don't believe that there is any way to have this 'acceptance' without being told that it is the truth by another person - it strikes me as obvious that any divine truth and spirituality that potentially exists would also exist independently from human interpretation. That doesn't seem to make sense to you. Only when they present a direct challenge to the education of children or vunerable adults. You still haven't answered the question but your answers seem to support teaching of creationism as an alternative theory - I think this needs to actively prevented. Of course. As I've said I have friends that have many different faiths. I don't confuse disagreement with dislike! I think that schools are a place for education and faith is not part of that. How dare we label children by their parents faith and push them into single-faith schools. Education needs to be free, unbiased and open to everyone. Don't you find the children of Muslim parents being seperated from the children of Jewish parents disgusting? This isn't an issue with fundamentalists of atheists - it's the continuation of artificial barriers which are seperating people that might - without religion - talk to each other and get along, have dinner-parties etc etc... Some Christianity I'm sure does. Some doesn't - you seem to ignore the failings of your own particular faith. I, as an atheist, tolerate, and actually sometimes quite like, others until their idea of freedom infringes on my actual freedom. I cannot speak for other atheists.
-
Only thing that is immediately obvious is all the GoogleAds...
-
I simply don't agree with you. That doesn't make one of us ignorant. I think that there is too much evidence that Christianity relies on faith (belief without evidence) over doubt. Of course. My point was that any system based on a text like the Bible will result in fundamentalism. Can I see them? You can now make a 'charitable donation' and be handed control of the school. The ACE curriculum incorporates biblical stories into science - children are not taught RE, RE is literally interpreted and used in all subjects. The same happens in lots of 'faith' schools and it is indoctrination. Schools are not a place to teach the word of God - I would happily see all 'faith' schools abolished and make them free for anyone to attend or teach at. Why are we sitting back and accepting that it's ok to seperate children from each other on the basis that their parents were indictrinated with slightly different gods or texts. Religion is based on faith. Which video and at what time? I didn't say that. Myth is not by definition untrue - it's generally a story passed through generations - it would be miraculous if it didn't change but you have to admit that most of the bible is mythical - true or untrue. Strange that you're happy to accept this fact for earlier religions (Greek and Roman) but not your own. I didn't say I accept everything that scientists say. I embrace the model. Yes. However it was never something we really discussed. We've reached the same conclusions on our own. I'm also friends with many people that hold different beliefs - how amazing that they're not atheist. I would have to agree. You haven't explored every faith either. Not at all. I found out that I fitted the definition of the word 'atheist'. When I learned more about the world I felt it was important to be proud of this. It's important because he is teaching children these things - children that trust him. No he doesn't, he goes further and says that that must come from God. You've missed my point. He's the one that said it. He also refuses to answer the question instead reeling off an anecdote about how horrible it that a child in his care was given work, from school, mentioning finding your boyfriend in bed with another girl... I think if we're going to get morals from anywhere I'd prefer to avoid God - the bible says a lot worse than that. If you believe the same can you answer Dawkins, and my, concerns with an answer and not an unrelated statement? Hawkes immediate reaction actually scares me - he's covering a smile and then laughs. I think whatever is actually taught so be independently scrutinised. Thoroughly. It's a statement to clarify my reasoning. I don't want you do actually prove that God exists - you cannot and I cannot prove He doesn't... I wonder how people live day-to-day basing all actions on experience and when they look for help or guidance from a deity no evidence is required. Before I potentially wasted my time in prayer I'd want to know that something was listening - ideally something that could do something about it. There's no point in praying to the sun (to paraphrase)
-
wwwwwwwwwwwwww0000000000000000000000ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!1111!!!one!!!!11!
-
Theoretically? Will I be able to go to Moodle.org: Modules and plugins and make it good?
-
I don't accept what you're saying about Christianity placing importance on questionning and doubt. I think one is based on tradition and myth. This is culturally important but inflexible and results in forcing people to take a fundamentalist approach - we should all challenge this. Are you basing this on your personal opinion or the statistics? [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England[/ame] The UK is 31-44% atheist. Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic Great! Education should definately be based on the personal beliefs of the people with the most money! The majority of the funding for schools like Sir Vardy's is state. We are therefore paying for blatent indoctrination. Because religion is based on faith. Science is not a 'thing' it's a set of beliefs with doubt, logic and reason at the core. Modern, liberal religion might try to do the same thing but at the core remains faith - belief becuase it is true. Religion is myth. By definition. I went to a school where I was forced to sing hymms about creation, God and other myths contained in the Bible. I have chosen to trust the scientific model over any ancient myth. No one told me that this is the only way to get into heaven. No one told me that I would be in trouble if I didn't. No one invoked primitive ideas about the universe, distorting the facts, to try and convince me. I've read a lot of books, listened and watched a lot of TV and radio, spoken to friends and family with very different ideas, explored the internet, watched videos and independently reached the conclusion that God is a poor explanation. I found out that I was an atheist, and had been born an atheist - I wasn't told this was the case - I am by definition. 100%? He believes in literal interpretation of the Bible! Correct me if I'm wrong but the 'concept' we are unable to grasp is that the universe has a God. Why should I believe this over any other creation myth? You're the one that is accepting as fact what you have been told. A child is atheist by default, not Christian or any other religion - had you not been told about Christianity you would not have decided on it independently. Noah's Ark because it cannot be disproved. Facts can be proven to have happened because they are in the Bible. I hope you're not that simplistic. Mr Hawkes then goes on the justify the teaching of falsehoods on the basis that he was taught falsehoods himself. Mr Hawkes cannot find a reason to be moral if there is no super-being when almost every animal behaviour we observe favours co-operation and altruism... Mr Hawkes also supports the warping of health education to link HIV with sin. Why can't you see how dangerous this is? You can deny evidence but it doesn't make it false! Show me a single example of evidence for believing in God and I'm happy to come over to your side of the fence - I don't believe because I would like things to be true I believe things because, based on the best science we have, they appear to accurately represent reality.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece When? There are millions of otherwise perfectly normal people that believe in fundamentalist ideas. I am for education not destroying opposing ideas. I genuinely believe that given an education based on reality children will not choose religion. You mean that a minority, albeit a large minority, are finally free to reject their parents and elders ideas about the universe. You don't need to be told to reject God - it's the default for a baby. Science supports the idea that God is merely a human construct. The religious still vastly outnumber the atheists in this country. Ok, but it isn't nice. Sir Peter Vardy (an Evangelical) currently runs four educational institutions that teach creationism in the classroom. Emmanuel - The Foundation We are paying for the majority of this. Andrian Hawkes - here he supports ACE ( [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Christian_Education]Accelerated Christian Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ) and literal interpretations of the bible - Noah's Ark and Creationism, for example. [ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJ5KM9txkQ]YouTube - Richard Dawkins vs Adrian Hawkes 1/8[/ame] Those are Christian. There are thousands of 'faith' schools that teach myth and tradition as fact and science. It's very sad. That suggests that all atheists think the same and not that we've independently reached the same conclusions. I wasn't taught atheism!
-
WE are. Look around the world and it's a very different picture. Every person that enjoys a glass of wine in the evening is on the path to becoming an alcoholic sitting under a bridge with a bottle of meths. See above. These were not atheist causes and religion played an important role. I do not think that Dawkins can be accurately described as fundamentalist. LOL! We atheists need it to keep the devil out of our souls. Religion challenged science - if you read Dawkins earlier books he didn't even feel like there were people that supported creationism - science had won the battle already - in the 1970s. Religion has put itself in the firing line of a theory that has almost universal support from every sane and educated person. I think the people that have been brainwashed from childhood with ancient myths have the right to learn about reality. It's the 'power crazed fundamentalists' that need people that just believe to support them. Faith has given these people power - education is one way that power can be, slowly, gently removed. I hope. It only exists in response - nobody would define themselves as atheist if there were nothing to disassociate from. It's only negative if you assume that the thing that atheism challenges is postive. We agree that fundamentalist religion is negative and it would exist without atheism - If you want rid of Dawkins then we all need to support simple things like the teaching of science to children.
-
Sorry. I misread an earlier post. It doesn't really matter if I know your Bible - it's all down to interpretation anyway. Makes you wonder why He wouldn't just stop His own suffering? It's hard to rationalise. I suppose the premise of certainty of the existence of the thing that you are putting faith in is a start. I could prove that the person I put my faith or hope in actually exists. We would be able to agree on things like exact physical characteristics. That's a good starting point. Meetings? Yeah, sorry about that one... Leaders? Is that what maketh a religion? Brainwashing? I think that's against the point. Humanist, atheist and freethinking groups are usually interchangeable - I can think of real examples of brainwashing from many religions but not a single, for example, Atheist school. Brainwashing adults is actually quite tough and I don't think there is any idea to support your claim. Religion does this and I'm glad you pointed this out when comparing the two. Seeking charitable status? This is quite interesting. There are atheist charitable organisations already. Atheism is not looking for charitable status. Why did you raise this point? Have you got a problem with atheist charities or is it something that you associate only with religion? It doesn't and asking another question isn't answering mine. Genuine science is the process of attempting to disprove a theory based on doubt and reason. It is worldwide, peer-reviewed and embraced by almost all religions ('cept YEC and Scientology etc). It is fallible but is as good as is possible. Individual scientists may be biased or make mistakes but Science doesn't. He really doesn't think there is a God, so? The question is why he should even need to describe himself as an a-theist and be challenging primitive beliefs that are attacking the science that works for the benefit of mankind. Why don't physicists need to speak out against religion - because there isn't a conflict based on any ancient text. The Bible doesn't describe how angels push the planets. I think you'd feel very differently about the way he speaks if there was a direct conflict that challenged something you believed strongly in. It wouldn't make you a fundamentalist just because you were made a spokesperson by your peers. Dawkins wrote about biology and evolution - only very recently (2006) has he directly addressed the conflicts. I don't think I can make you understand this. Dawkins is the outspoken itelligent chap standing in the crowd calling foul. People generally don't like having their faith challenged. Hopefully our descendants will look back on these unenlightened times and agree on the absurdity of organised religion much like we do of the witch trials. I hold this hope because I don't think there can ultimately be freedom and peace with barriers like religion not because I want to remove human and civil rights. In that? I don't really understand. Sure, there are people that believe in Science but it's very different from believing in a God. A belief in science is something we all share. We all look at the world and attempt to disprove our own theories - all the time. We all believe in the method and have evidence of how successful that has been. Our jobs wouldn't be much with science! Only when the two conflict do people pick a side. Science doesn't KNOW anything. Science knows things! It's the model that holds disproving a long-held theory as the (sorry) 'Holy Grail'! We acheive more by finding out that we are wrong! Atheism isn't a religion. It is a number of people that are united by not sharing the beliefs of a group of people that would very much (for some reason) like them to believe the same. Atheism only exists in response to religion.
-
Self satisfied anacedotal evidence - just as I predicted. Until you've lived these kids lives it isn't very fair to make judgement. Sure there are lazy people but I'm proud that I live in a country where I have the freedom not to work if I don't want to and the chance to work and achieve if I do. Of course the system will be abused. What are you suggesting? We take it away? People that can work should, of course they should but you've got to see it as a complicated issue not as a Daily Mail headline.
-
Same here - although it wasn't 20 years ago! £40? You got a lot more than me! I'm just saying that there are areas where not only is a paper round not possible but it would, in fact, be dangerous. Just like there are places where people haven't been offered the opportunity that you have... nature plus nuture... It's easy to just get angry that some people are taking the p155. At the end of the day we live in a free society and we're all free to do the same as the people we get angry with. I'd love to stay in bed in the morning at the moment but I make a free choice that I want my house and my quality of life. It's also a fact that we need a certain amount of people to be unemployed for very good reasons (I think it's about 6%) This is a positive thing for society as a whole.
-
Couldn't agree more and I've been accused of being a raving Tory on occasion!
-
Perhaps, but that isn't the root of the problem. Working in a low end, unskilled job is not the solution. You might. I might. I think you'd actually need to live where these people do to make a decision about that. Couldn't agree more. That's not to say that there aren't (and I'm sure this thread will attract plenty of anacedotal evidence) people that pull themselves out of poverty with hard work but you can't take such a simplistic view of such a complicated problem. Having lived in a deprived area and worked in very poorly paid and low skilled jobs I know that it isn't something that you just 'pull your socks up' and fix. There's a reason that the term 'benefit trap' is used - people become trapped by a system that is geared towards unemployment. For the record I have never claimed any benefits or received financial support (other than my own credit card!) It is possible but I consider myself reasonably intelligent. I feel sorry for some of these people. Some.
-
I think you'd need to have been to their school, lived in their area etc to understand if that was as simple as it sounds. I've lived in a thoroughly rough area and done the agency work in factories that they have - it's soul destroying. Being sent home because there was a mistake at the agency, working double -shifts or night then afternoon for £100-150 a week... I agree there should be something for them to do - something to make themselves employable but that's a matter for government. Some people make their own success but living in a situation like that everyday can really make you feel like giving up.
-
I think that good teachers (not just ones that 'know their subject') are capable of doing amazing things with even the worst kids - I've seen it. £3000 a year is probably not enough though - these people are SMT and in special schools anyway...
-
How sad. They're lazy but I'm guessing there isn't much to be positive about in that situation.
-
[ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=quCVttW_Uhw]YouTube - James Randi and Richard Dawkins[/ame]
