"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
IainT said:
fluffnik said:
Poorest, least educated, most religious...
It's the latter two that cause the first IMO with poor education leading to reliance on religion. Both strive, one passive and one active, to keep people poor.TheHeretic said:
Using the term "realist" in relation to religious belief, is a bit odd.
Might mean in the philosophical sense as in believing there's really a God in some sense. Realist claims might be incapable of verificationAnti or non-realism views claims as being true in a particular community-so to borrow from another thread UK views life of a foetus as starting at 24 weeks (apart from extreme circumstances)
Although this is the D Wail though isn't it"!?!
fluffnik said:
It appals me that we allow religious institutions anywhere near education, faith is the enemy of learning.
Yeah 'cos all the Churh Schools are rubbish. Oh wait some of them are the best in the country results wise.Also it shows little grasp of education to lump all church schools in together-some RC schools might be seeking to inculcate that faith; most C of E schools aren't.
Although I have no ethical difficulty with the principle of abortion, I confess that for me the 24 week limit does seem a bit on the high side. What should it be? I don't have a fixed view. Probably 16 weeks or so, I guess.
But the important point is that I don't feel that I should be able to inflict this view on anyone else. To take this step requires the considerable support of a social consensus - and surely this is the whole point about having a legal framework in which the issue can be managed. It's not "My" view or "Your" view, it's "Our" view that matters.
Having an abortion isn't compulsory - if people think it's wrong for them to have an abortion, they they don't have to have one. But if a woman feels it's the right thing to do for her, and she is operating within the law, then who could possibly place themselves above the law and dictate to this woman how she should behave?
It's always the bloody religionists, isn't it? If only they were content with constructing their own sets of rules and living by them , it would be fine. But no, they have to force them on the rest of us too.
But the important point is that I don't feel that I should be able to inflict this view on anyone else. To take this step requires the considerable support of a social consensus - and surely this is the whole point about having a legal framework in which the issue can be managed. It's not "My" view or "Your" view, it's "Our" view that matters.
Having an abortion isn't compulsory - if people think it's wrong for them to have an abortion, they they don't have to have one. But if a woman feels it's the right thing to do for her, and she is operating within the law, then who could possibly place themselves above the law and dictate to this woman how she should behave?
It's always the bloody religionists, isn't it? If only they were content with constructing their own sets of rules and living by them , it would be fine. But no, they have to force them on the rest of us too.
standards said:
Might mean in the philosophical sense as in believing there's really a God in some sense. Realist claims might be incapable of verification
Anti or non-realism views claims as being true in a particular community-so to borrow from another thread UK views life of a foetus as starting at 24 weeks (apart from extreme circumstances)
Although this is the D Wail though isn't it"!?!
Realism has no bearing on hurt feelings of blasphemy. Anti or non-realism views claims as being true in a particular community-so to borrow from another thread UK views life of a foetus as starting at 24 weeks (apart from extreme circumstances)
Although this is the D Wail though isn't it"!?!
standards said:
fluffnik said:
It appals me that we allow religious institutions anywhere near education, faith is the enemy of learning.
Yeah 'cos all the Churh Schools are rubbish. Oh wait some of them are the best in the country results wise.Faith is incompatible with sceptical enquiry and it's not faith that pushes the boundaries of human knowledge forward...
standards said:
Also it shows little grasp of education to lump all church schools in together-some RC schools might be seeking to inculcate that faith; most C of E schools aren't.
They all present superstition as fact to some degree.gherkins said:
Your other point - you say it is illogical to say life exists elsewhere, suggesting it is a similar argument to my god is illogical argument. Well, life is indeed highly probable. This is not a fallacy. It is all a balance of probabilities. Apart from the fact that life on earth may have originated from space (bacteria have been shown to survive long periods in space), it is highly likely that somewhere else in the vast universe life exists or has existed.
It seems to me that life is a pretty much inevitable consequence of carbon chemistry around liquid water. I'd strongly suspect that many, if not most, of the low level processes would be the same too.There might be some dissimilar bio(equivalent)chemistries out there too but it's very unlikely that our carbon based biochemistry is a strictly local phenomenon.
TheHeretic said:
standards said:
Might mean in the philosophical sense as in believing there's really a God in some sense. Realist claims might be incapable of verification
Anti or non-realism views claims as being true in a particular community-so to borrow from another thread UK views life of a foetus as starting at 24 weeks (apart from extreme circumstances)
Although this is the D Wail though isn't it"!?!
Realism has no bearing on hurt feelings of blasphemy. Anti or non-realism views claims as being true in a particular community-so to borrow from another thread UK views life of a foetus as starting at 24 weeks (apart from extreme circumstances)
Although this is the D Wail though isn't it"!?!
fluffnik said:
standards said:
fluffnik said:
It appals me that we allow religious institutions anywhere near education, faith is the enemy of learning.
Yeah 'cos all the Churh Schools are rubbish. Oh wait some of them are the best in the country results wise.Faith is incompatible with sceptical enquiry and it's not faith that pushes the boundaries of human knowledge forward...
standards said:
Also it shows little grasp of education to lump all church schools in together-some RC schools might be seeking to inculcate that faith; most C of E schools aren't.
They all present superstition as fact to some degree.Whatever gave you the idea that people of faith can't be sceptical-doubts are important to thinking beleivers IMHO.
Superstition is your label and TBH quite rude when applied to the faith that informs much of our culture.
CommanderJameson said:
ChrisGB said:
If the time for a child isn't right, if an abortion is a certainty in event of pregnancy, they shouldn't be having sex. Otherwise, where is responsibility, where is facing up to consequences of your own actions? Should we just be infants where sex is involved? Is lust the only value?
Two questions.- What's other peoples' (consensual) sex lives got to do with you? (Trick question. The answer is "nothing whatsoever")
- What about pregnancy as a result of rape?
Other people's attitudes to other people obviously affect everyone. If you think of one person as a piece of meat, you will tend to think of others that way too. I don't want to be considered a piece of meat, thanks. Thinking of someone as a piece of meat and their happening to do the same towards you doesn't sound to me like a measure of civilisation.
2. Extreme cases make bad law, let's talk generally. Have you read Disgrace by J M Coetzee btw?
Only have a kid if you will be a good parent? So who is going to set up the good parent test? Oh, it's up to you? Well no-one goes into parenting thinking they know all about it do they? So no-one should have a kid? If you think you can't bring up a kid "properly", either re-assess your capabilities or don't be having sex then.
carmonk said:
Because Jews scream anti-semite and Muslims try and 'splode all over you.
t.Plucky old weak as milk CoE just nod and smile and get back to their embroidery.
Timsta said:
It's not rude at all. Do you have any evidence that it's more than superstition?
All right it's rude in being ignorant-they are different things.Superstitions are disjointed practices, attempts to control fate or nature-like a footballer always putting on kit in a certain order...
Faith is. Sorry should be, a way of life based on a commitment to live a certain way. Trying to be more fully human, to reflect on what you are, how to live, how to choose. How to face death.
I really can't accept the wisdom of centuries of various faiths in struggling with what it is to be human is the same as superstition.
No one I have ever met really lives their whole life dictated by superstition; many try to live their lives by faith. However misguided others might see them as being.
People study philosophy of religion; does anyone do this with footballers being last out of the tunnel carrying a ball?
Halb said:
If you don't like it, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with you, nor does the sex life of others..unless you're a voyeur.
Sorry, but how other people consider me affects me. Of course people's sex lives affect me.
We are not little islands, and how we act affects others.
If I am someone addicted to porn and tending to view others as potential objects for satisfying my lust, with their agreement hopefully, I will view people differently from the person who is very clear in their head that others are not a means to an end, or that a person is not an object, etc.
How you think of and act towards others in one particular situation (eg. the bedroom) will over time turn you into a particular sort of person who tends to do particular sorts of things. So what you do towards others will determine in some way what you do towards me.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff