Faith schools

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

some very interesting points YF, and time is a very interesting concept, especially for someone who hates to be late for things. i think time is both a forward linear and a backward linear concept as well as a sideways in any direction concept depending on how you want to observe it. The easiest way to imagine time, imo, is to imagine the surface of a sphere where there is no beginning and no end. However, if you were to place a dot somewhere on the surface of the sphere you have created a here and now concept, and if you were to trace a line it would disappear into the future but eventually would come round to the past and end up back at the starting point. so in that way time is both forward and backward looking and things are the same whatever way you go. Another interesting feature of this model is that every other single point in time is potentially available to the start point and just requires a change in direction to reach it. so for me this covers the possibility of omniscience. As far as I can tell, the creator kicking off the big bang to begin creation also kicks off time as well.

I wish I could give you an answer about the behaviour of time around black holes and gravity but i'm afraid I don't know enough detail about the subject.

some say it takes a leap of faith to believe in a God. i prefer not to use the term 'God' as it comes with several thousands years of baggage and precluded beliefs not based on a god. i much prefer to think in terms of a creator, and i think looking at the evidence of a creation which I can see and am part of, and knowing that creation is an ongoing daily scientific-based process, and then knowing that a creation requires a creator, putting two and two together suggests to me there is a creator that created everything we eperience and that creation started with a big bang

A finally we come to the beginning - In the beginning was the word - and just like you say, the beginning was all the algorithms that  hold true in science. and once we got the scientific blueprints the creator got busy with their creation. I don't see a conflict between science and the religious belief in a creator. But nobody should be forced or manipulated into believing in a creator.

Although I'm extremely doubtful about the existence of a 'conscious' creator (I think deism is your view - a Creator who knowingly started things and then buzzed off) I'm more than happy for people to have religious views if it helps them providing they don't try to force them on anybody else. i.e schools!

I suppose the answer to your need for a creator is that the universe (this one with what is often described as with finely tuned constants to create stable elements, stars etc suitable for 'us' - perhaps just one of almost an infinite number) and is just so large that then just by the laws of statistics life will start / exists and indeed become conscious and eventually question its reality.

But how does a God help creation question - who created him/her/they? 

However - Finally to throw a spanner in the gubbins - we ourselves could already be Gods - The LHC may well in some theories create mini-Universes that bud off our own. Cosmic ray particles would also be doing it all the time! Quantum fluctuations. Don't worry - What we cant do is visit/interact with these Universes.

Edited April 18 by Yellow Fever

[ricardo 7,396]

48 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Agree with Ricardo here!

Now - There are however footballing Gods - What do we need to sacrifice to make sure we dismiss Ipswich at Wembley play-offs. What do I need to do?  Ipswich already know there is a Yellow & Green God. Can anybody prove I'm wrong?  

Well, according to Nietzsche, all us atheists need to do is put our faith in the non existence of those footballing God's.😁

[Barbe bleu 832]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

Well, according to Nietzsche, all us atheists need to do is put our faith in the non existence of those footballing God's.😁

If I did would I wake up tomorrow to find that Snodgrass let Rickie take that penalty, or it that a miracle/multiverse/timetravelling neutrino too far?

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

I thought I'd give a final answer on this thread.

I don't like any 'faith' schools including the traditional state Christian ethos. Faith is used to simply divide us (especially the more pliable) from one another - to make some feel superior and denigrate others. Children should not be brainwashed into any of it just to suit the parents.

I well recall in my late teens how difficult it was to abandon the religion to which I had been born - the soul searching - the defiance needed to say no to 'confirmation' in the C of E . I'm much the better for it.  

Faith should be a personal and private matter - something that an individual comes to if at all in their own time and manner.

Edited April 19 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I thought I'd give a final answer on this thread.

I don't like any 'faith' schools including the traditional state Christian ethos. Faith is used to simply divide us (especially the more pliable) from one another - to make some feel superior and denigrate others. Children should not be brainwashed into any of it just to suit the parents.

I well recall in my late teens how difficult it was to abandon the religion to which I had been born - the soul searching - the defiance needed to say no to 'confirmation' in the C of E . I'm much the better for it.  

Faith should be a personal and private matter - something that an individual comes to if at all in their own time and manner.

Politics is divisive. Should that be banned?

Kids are being brainwashed to entertain left wing ideology that their birth sex might be 'wrong'. Religion seems harmless in comparison.

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,971]

30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Politics is divisive. Should that be banned?

Kids are being brainwashed to entertain left wing ideology that their birth sex might be 'wrong'. Religion seems harmless in comparison.

"Religion seems harmless in comparison" 

That's absolutely laughable. Religion has historically been the root cause of millions of deaths. At the moment the Jews and the Muslims are killing each other in huge numbers in the Holy Land. Perhaps it will be renamed the Hatred Land. 

Add to that the life changing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church which has affected an enormous number of people and the continued ill treatment of women of Muslim faith. 

All this over what? A totally unnecessary imaginery friend in the sky. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

"Religion seems harmless in comparison" 

That's absolutely laughable. Religion has historically been the root cause of millions of deaths. At the moment the Jews and the Muslims are killing each other in huge numbers in the Holy Land. Perhaps it will be renamed the Hatred Land. 

Add to that the life changing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church which has affected an enormous number of people and the continued ill treatment of women of Muslim faith. 

All this over what? A totally unnecessary imaginery friend in the sky. 

No it hasn't; people arguing about it has. And people argue and kill each other over all sorts of things, including politics, resources, skin colour, you name it.

Hitler wasn't religious, but criticised lots of religion and killed off  6,000,000 Jews in the name of disliking that one in particular, so that clearly wasn't actually about the existence or non-existence of a deity.

The mistreatment of women in Islam is more to do with culture than religion. A friend remarked of a giant poster of a smiling female fighter pilot at Jordan airport (Princess Salma apparently), underlining that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a bolt on to the religion rather than a core part of it and some Muslim countries don't force women to wear niqabs, burqas or head wear.

A growing number of Muslims support secularity and feminism; oddly, Western liberal progressives pay them little heed, in favour of generally favouring the rights of Islamic Conservatives.

And much more sexual abuse happens that has nothing to do with religion. It happens in families, with carers, all over the place.

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,971]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No it hasn't; people arguing about it has. And people argue and kill each other over all sorts of things, including politics, resources, skin colour, you name it.

Hitler wasn't religious, but criticised lots of religion and killed off  6,000,000 Jews in the name of disliking that one in particular, so that clearly wasn't actually about the existence or non-existence of a deity.

The mistreatment of women in Islam is more to do with culture than religion. A friend remarked of a giant poster of a smiling female fighter pilot at Jordan airport (Princess Salma apparently), underlining that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a bolt on to the religion rather than a core part of it and some Muslim countries don't force women to wear niqabs, burqas or head wear.

A growing number of Muslims support secularity and feminism; oddly, Western liberal progressives pay them little heed, in favour of generally favouring the rights of Islamic Conservatives.

And much more sexual abuse happens that has nothing to do with religion. It happens in families, with carers, all over the place.

Oh right. That's OK then, my mistake. I thought it was religion that killed all those people bit it's not. It turns out according to LYB that it's people arguing about religion. 

I am going to join several others in simply not bothering with you anymore. 

[horsefly 4,310]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Politics is divisive. Should that be banned?

Kids are being brainwashed to entertain left wing ideology that their birth sex might be 'wrong'. Religion seems harmless in comparison.

Of course, no one has ever heard of a single case of a gay child being psychologically damaged by religious conversion therapy. Nor a gay person being beaten up, imprisoned, or sentenced to death in countries run by religious zealots. FFS!

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

underlining that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a bolt on to the religion rather than a core part of it

I take it you haven't read the Bible or Koran then. Perhaps start with Leviticus and then return to tell me that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a "bolt on" rather than core to the religious doctrines. 

[TheGunnShow 5,987]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

"Religion seems harmless in comparison" 

That's absolutely laughable. Religion has historically been the root cause of millions of deaths. At the moment the Jews and the Muslims are killing each other in huge numbers in the Holy Land. Perhaps it will be renamed the Hatred Land. 

Add to that the life changing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church which has affected an enormous number of people and the continued ill treatment of women of Muslim faith. 

All this over what? A totally unnecessary imaginery friend in the sky. 

Is that due to religion, or is that due to land/power/resources where religion's used to pick sides? I suspect it's more the latter, although I agree with YF in having a general unease at the notion of faith schools in general, regardless of religion involved.

Totally agree with the paragraph re. sexual abuse though.

Essentially I'm not sure religion's the underlying casus belli in a conflict unless we're talking the Crusades.

Edited April 19 by TheGunnShow

[horsefly 4,310]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Is that due to religion, or is that due to land/power/resources where religion's used to pick sides? I suspect it's more the latter, although I agree with YF in having a general unease at the notion of faith schools in general, regardless of religion involved.

Essentially I'm not sure religion's the underlying casus belli unless we're talking the Crusades.

It is often impossible to disentangle the motives. For example, it may be true that a fight over resources motivates conflict, but often that is because the proclaimed right to those resources is based on religious claims that the land concerned was promised to them by God. 

You can certainly add a few more wars to the Crusades as being fundamentally religious in motivation, not the least of which have involved the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Oh right. That's OK then, my mistake. I thought it was religion that killed all those people bit it's not. It turns out according to LYB that it's people arguing about religion. 

I am going to join several others in simply not bothering with you anymore. 

You're suggesting religion causes child abuse, which is ridiculous.

You telling me there have been no deaths in the world because of politics, race, supporting different football teams? Should we get rid of those as well?

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

42 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Is that due to religion, or is that due to land/power/resources where religion's used to pick sides? I suspect it's more the latter, although I agree with YF in having a general unease at the notion of faith schools in general, regardless of religion involved.

Totally agree with the paragraph re. sexual abuse though.

Essentially I'm not sure religion's the underlying casus belli in a conflict unless we're talking the Crusades.

You're right; the religion's just a pretext for a conflict, just like politics and race can be. 

But you're all deluding yourselves anyway. The vast majority of the world is religious, and what's more, your laissez faire attitude to uncontrolled immigration and not deporting undocumented migrants will ensure that the atheists like yourself will be replaced by believers of some variety or other, because they also tend to breed more.

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It is often impossible to disentangle the motives. For example, it may be true that a fight over resources motivates conflict, but often that is because the proclaimed right to those resources is based on religious claims that the land concerned was promised to them by God. 

You can certainly add a few more wars to the Crusades as being fundamentally religious in motivation, not the least of which have involved the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So how do you explain Europe being one of the most war-torn continents of the early 20th century when almost everyone was Christian if getting rid of religion is a magic bullet for peace and prosperity?

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[ricardo 7,396]

17 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If I did would I wake up tomorrow to find that Snodgrass let Rickie take that penalty, or it that a miracle/multiverse/timetravelling neutrino too far?

Console yourself with the knowledge that in some other universe he did take that penalty and  probably still missed😀

[TheGunnShow 5,987]

34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're right; the religion's just a pretext for a conflict, just like politics and race can be. 

But you're all deluding yourselves anyway. The vast majority of the world is religious, and what's more, your laissez faire attitude to uncontrolled immigration and not deporting undocumented migrants will ensure that the atheists like yourself will be replaced by believers of some variety or other, because they also tend to breed more.

Considering that for the first time in history, as many countries worldwide have a birth rate below 2.1 as do those above it (and pleasingly, birth rates are continuing to fall in practically all countries), the notion of replacement may not be all that accurate and on top of this, belief systems are not genetic. 

To put into perspective, in 1950 the average woman worldwide had 4.7 children, but now it's at around half of that - and as most of this is due to the education of women as well as advances in contraception, meaning women can better choose if they want kids or not. Even a theocratic hellhole like Iran is still below replacement rate. The real difference is that in the First World, said birth rates have fallen quicker than in the Third World since the end of WW2 - but even there, they're still making some progress in practically all cases.

You may be unwittingly making a very cogent argument for further foreign aid that focuses on the education and emancipation of women in Third World countries, as well as further increasing access to contraception and quality sex education in those countries. As much as I tend to agree with Dambisa Moyo more often than not, local-level charities that focus on these would be very deserving of support.

Fertility Rate - Our World in Data

(Incidentally, it's an absolute disgrace IMO that it is so difficult for adult women to get sterilised on request, as the likes of Holly Brockwell and Faith Roswell intelligently noted when they wrote about their travails).

Edited April 19 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Considering that for the first time in history, as many countries worldwide have a birth rate below 2.1 as do those above it (and pleasingly, birth rates are continuing to fall in practically all countries), the notion of replacement may not be all that accurate and on top of this, belief systems are not genetic. 

To put into perspective, in 1950 the average woman worldwide had 4.7 children, but now it's at around half of that - and as most of this is due to the education of women as well as advances in contraception, meaning women can better choose if they want kids or not. Even a theocratic hellhole like Iran is still below replacement rate. The real difference is that in the First World, said birth rates have fallen quicker than in the Third World since the end of WW2 - but even there, they're still making some progress in practically all cases.

You may be unwittingly making a very cogent argument for further foreign aid that focuses on the education and emancipation of women in Third World countries, as well as further increasing access to contraception and quality sex education in those countries. As much as I tend to agree with Dambisa Moyo more often than not, local-level charities that focus on these would be very deserving of support.

Fertility Rate - Our World in Data

(Incidentally, it's an absolute disgrace IMO that it is so difficult for adult women to get sterilised on request, as the likes of Holly Brockwell and Faith Roswell intelligently noted when they wrote about their travails).

Our own birth rate is about 1.5. All else being equal, population should be shrinking, easing strain on infrastructure, resources and biodiversity in an overpopulated country, but instead everyone's topping up with immigrants for economic reasons creating a more fragmented society in the process. In Gillingham, you'll hear more foreign languages on the high street than English.

The Japanese are tackling population shrinkage with automation.

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,987]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Our own birth rate is about 1.5. All else being equal, population should be shrinking, easing strain on infrastructure, resources and biodiversity, but instead everyone's topping up with immigrants for eoncomic reasons creating a more fragmented society in the process. In Gillingham, you'll hear more foreign languages on the high street than English.

Similar for the whole of the EU, that. Remarkable is that devoutly Catholic Poland and Italy have two of the lowest rates (although the Faroes have the highest, which isn't that surprising - it's pretty religious by Scandi standards). Even in largely Muslim Albania their rate is at the bottom end of the table too.

Total fertility rate Europe by country 2023 | Statista

Difficult to look past increased retirement ages and learning how to manage economies with decreasing populations. The likes of Iran show that even when you have a theocratic ****hole, women are still thankfully loathe to give their reproductive freedom up. Have heard unfortunately that in Iran (and also in Hungary and italy) governments are pushing hard to get women into having kids again, so let's hope those who don't want them stick to their guns.

Back to Africa and the Third World though, as this chart shows, they are slowly getting there.

Total Fertility Rate of Africa 1950-2024 & Future Projections (database.earth)

Edited April 19 by TheGunnShow

[dylanisabaddog 4,971]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

I take it you haven't read the Bible or Koran then. Perhaps start with Leviticus and then return to tell me that misogyny and mistreatment of women is a "bolt on" rather than core to the religious doctrines. 

Hello @horsefly

I'm a bit baffled by the quote that you have attributed to me. Not something that I wrote! 

Perhaps someone is having a silly game? 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

"You gotta have Faith"....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,583]

26 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Hello @horsefly

I'm a bit baffled by the quote that you have attributed to me. Not something that I wrote! 

Perhaps someone is having a silly game? 

No, that was me, but Horsefly's point is a bit vapid seeing as that's merely a reflection of social attitudes when they were written, so more a reflection of that than the religions themselves. Misogyny is not inherently built-in to religion, nor shoud it be considered a part of it The C of E has reformed to include women priests and I'm sure other religions will adapt as well.

In fact, it's unhelpful to women to insist on bundling in misogyny with religion; that's the whole reason we have misguided lefties acting as apologists for misogyny in Islam by declaring criticism as 'Islamophobic', basically leaving Women's rights in Islam in the hands of the Islamic communities in the hands of religious conservatives.

Religion must adapt to fit into wider society, but it's stupid and futile to try and push it out.

Edited April 19 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Hello @horsefly

I'm a bit baffled by the quote that you have attributed to me. Not something that I wrote! 

Perhaps someone is having a silly game? 

Sorry old boy! I have absolutely no idea how that could have happened as the quote was taken straight from LYB's response to you (see above). I really can't explain how the system then attributed it to you as I certainly didn't. Would you like me to delete it so people don't get confused?

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No, that was me, but Horsefly's point is a bit vapid seeing as that's merely a reflection of social attitudes when they were written, so more a reflection of that than the religions themselves. Misogyny is not inherently built-in to religion, nor shoud it be considered a part of it The C of E has reformed to include women priests and I'm sure other religions will adapt as well.

In fact, it's unhelpful to women to insist on bundling in misogyny with religion; that's the whole reason we have misguided lefties acting as apologists for misogyny in Islam by declaring criticism as 'Islamophobic', basically leaving Women's rights in Islam in the hands of the Islamic communities in the hands of religious conservatives.

Religion must adapt to fit into wider society, but it's stupid and futile to try and push it out.

Oh dear! The misogyny is written in the BIBLE, ffs!. The BIBLE is THE authoritative text for the Christian religion. Try actually reading the "Rules for Priests" in Leviticus. You will find instructions for denying menstruating woman access to church because of their impurity. You will find women being described as a threat of contamination. You will find instructions calling for adulterous women to be stoned to death, etc, etc, etc. These religiously inspired misogynist attitudes have contaminated societal attitudes for ALL the succeeding centuries. And you only have to look at the USA to see that they are on the rise again. Evangelists throughout the US are securing draconian restrictions on women's rights. Their arguments are ENTIRELY based on their religious beliefs. Misogyny can take many forms, not all of which are religious, but it is utterly absurd to deny that religion is major source of misogynist attitudes.

As for this absurd an unintelligible comment: "it's unhelpful to women to insist on bundling in misogyny with religion; that's the whole reason we have misguided lefties acting as apologists for misogyny in Islam by declaring criticism as 'Islamophobic'," Firstly, it makes no sense. Secondly, find me a "leftie" who says misogyny is OK as long as it happens within Islamic culture. As is common in your posts you're simply making up totally nonsensical positions that no one holds in a ridiculous attempt to lend your own views some plausibility. It doesn't work.

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Console yourself with the knowledge that in some other universe he did take that penalty and  probably still missed😀

Regret to inform you that my prayers to the Gods failed.  When I woke up snodgrass had still pulled rank on the penalty.

However, this has confirmed my belief in God.  Like 137% of norwich supporters I know that snoddy was the devil incarnate against villa and that he single handedly destroyed Rickie's career that day.  And as we know the existence of the devil surely implies the existence of the other fellow.

 

[ricardo 7,396]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Regret to inform you that my prayers to the Gods failed.  When I woke up snodgrass had still pulled rank on the penalty.

However, this has confirmed my belief in God.  Like 137% of norwich supporters I know that snoddy was the devil incarnate against villa and that he single handedly destroyed Rickie's career that day.  And as we know the existence of the devil surely implies the existence of the other fellow.

 

Since we live in a universe where free will does not exist we cannot blame Snodgrass for his actions. Therefore God and the Devil are merely constructs that bolster your self delusion.😉

[dylanisabaddog 4,971]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Sorry old boy! I have absolutely no idea how that could have happened as the quote was taken straight from LYB's response to you (see above). I really can't explain how the system then attributed it to you as I certainly didn't. Would you like me to delete it so people don't get confused?

That's OK! I think it's best left as a lesson to us all. But I'd imagine not many people will have read it. 

The system allows you to quote someone then change what they have said!

[KiwiScot 1,460]

On 19/04/2024 at 18:29, Mello Yello said:

"You gotta have Faith"....

The Church of Wham?