You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The school is supposed to educate and should have had the balls to stand up to these idiots.
I presume if enough Jewish and Muslim kids parents complain, the Chritian parents will circumcise their kids so they’re not “unclean”.
Poisoning everything?
Divine intervention seems to have taken that website down. EDIT: It rises again!
I wonder if the other 32 sets of parents should object to this year's Nativity play, and get that cancelled too?
Does seem rather cowardly of the school not to call the bluff of the few who moaned.
Poisoning everything?
Not everything.
Just Woppit.
Halfwit.
I could make an obvious list to add to education, but if you can’t figure it out for yourself...
The school said the parents objected to the play's portrayal of Samuel Wilberforce, a 19th century Church of England bishop who denigrated the theory of evolution.
So really not a religious objection at all, but a complaint that a play for small children paints a bishop from the 1800s in a deliberately bad light becuase he disagreed with a very recent and at the time contentious theory and today we largely think his ideas were daft and the theory is right.
Now I've not seen the play but it sounds like it ridicules someone for their religious beliefs. Yep we should definitely encourage kids to do that and defend their secular right to be bigoted.
Yep. There it is. Religion. Still busy poisoning everything…
Wait, so someone used religious privilege to cancel a play discussing religious privilege?
😆
They were probably “offended” and you know how you just mustn’t offend, just in case there’s an offence. 🙄
So really not a religious objection at all, but a complaint that a play for small children paints a bishop from the 1800s in a deliberately bad light becuase he disagreed with a very recent and at the time contentious theory and today we largely think his ideas were daft and the theory is right.
We'll have no facts in Woppit's montly religious bash thank you very much. You're not from Blyth are you?
That isn't about religion - that is about a poor headteacher being hounded by some extremists and feeling like it is one more argument that she/he can do without.
If man invented God, then surely the faults we attribute to religion are inherent in humanity?
I read the third sentence as
A parent told the NSS the objection was made on religious grounds by a small group of individuals with a Cretinist agenda.
now that would be an ecumenical matter
If man invented God, then surely the faults we attribute to religion are inherent in humanity?
Of course they are. That's apparent isn't it?
A parent told the NSS the objection was made on religious grounds by a small group of individuals with a Creationist agenda
Given the parent wasn't party to the complaint and contradicts not only the school's account but their intention to re schedule the play after editing bits of it, I'd read that as "a parent [in contact with the NSS so probably a militant anti religious type] with an extremist atheist agenda blamed parents with a religious point of view becuase it was another opportunity to blame the exclusionist, intollerant bigoted God botherers."
You’re not from Blyth are you?
Sorry i must have missed that meme, or I'm just blithely ignorant.
The Independent broke the story and says:
As well as complaints around the portrayal of the English bishop Samuel Wilberforce, a number of Christian parents also had concerns about a song in the show about “bumping and grinding”.
Seems much more likely (to me) that a smutty song was a big factor here and it's been reported as a crazy Fundamentalist Christian story to jazz the story up a bit.
A complete lack of direct quotes from the objectors suggests that either what they said was reasonable or that the paper has no idea what they said.
Also, I wonder if someone might write a childs play about Darwin, and then put a smutty song in to get it banned and thus ensure maximum publicity?
As with most newspaper output, I'd want to see a some detail before drawing any firm conclusions.
If course they are. That’s apparent isn’t it?
Apparently not. 🙂
Stephen Evans, CEO of the National Secular Society, said: “We’re seeing a worrying trend of parents pressuring headteachers and threatening to withdraw cheers when teaching doesn’t fit their, often narrow, worldview.
Some what ironic I really do think.
We were having this discussion the other day about sending people to colonise other planets
Would you send religion
Be interesting to see if different guide books were sent what the outcome would be in 2000 years time
Who on earth reads secularism.org ?
We were having this discussion the other day about sending people to colonise other planets
Would you send religion
The fact anyone's even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind's enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?
That should do it.
Trailrider Jim has it, why no like button?
Did anyone else open the thread just to confirm their guess about the OP...
Gods are not real, ok?
But you would impose a ban on believing that they are?
The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few.
So a no from her then
On a positive though it's proven religion...can get a party started.
Maybe a good start would be to stop using religion or god as a convenient excuse - why not just cut to the chase and start with the premise that humans poison everything they touch...
Who on earth reads secularism.org ?
You have religions and a small number of people in those religions who are nutters. You have non religious people and a small number of non religious people who are nutters. The latter nutters are reading secularism.org
Who on earth reads <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">secularism.org</span> ?
Those with a very narrow minded view.
Surprised it wasn’t happening in Blyth, TBH.
You know, where drec, sorry cac, sorry, er, drac ... or something... comes from.
Evidently.
Not Blyth.
Thanks for the message by the way very thoughtful.
Mr Woppit, I agree 100% with you when it comes to the absurdity of fundamentalist approach to religion. And with the idea that religion should have any sway over the teaching of good science.
BUT, it seems to me, fundamentalism in anything is destructive. A fundamentalist Tory; a fundamentalist Socialist; a fundamentalist Christian; Muslim... It doesn’t matter. The real enemy is an unwillingness of people to engage, to learn, to be challenged. It’s that that leads to conflict, violence, ignorance, and stupidity.
Which is all to say that the school in question should not give in to creationist parents.
I vote for Trailrider Jim
There’s no fun in fundamentalism
but there is a mental.....errr, or something...
In support of Woppit.
Heres LINK an area that religion wandered into and poisoned that was hidden for years. (I'm surprised its not still front page news today, weeks later, but I guess thats the times we live in)
An apparently small decision taken by a person with 1) the best intentions but also 2) an unfortunate fetish for elderly virgins and jewish zombies.
Result: monthly pain for countless women for 40 (?) years.
When you're living in an environment where something like religion is the accepted norm, its hard to see all the little ways in which it influences things and all of the knock on effects.
Attitudes towards gay people, women, medical advances, politics, the right to live for some, the right to die for others.
All buggered about with, by idiots, on behalf of "beings" that don't exist and don't matter.
I agree with others that religion is not the only area where fundamentalism or dogma, can be a malign influence. But those other areas don't claim extra special protection for their proclivities.
I'm free to go to school and tell teacher that I don't want little jimmy taught about about "no damned queers" or whatever.
But it probably won't result in worthy understanding articles in newspapers about the conflicting rights of bigots and teachers.
Why is religion different?
edited to correct parents to bigots 🙂
so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?
extremist atheist
Count me in whatever that is. I was happy being a Fundamentalist atheist (once I knew it was a thing) but extremist sounds well cool
Second vote for becoming an extremist atheist. Does it mean I get to not believe whilst partaking in extreme sports?
The real enemy is an unwillingness of people to engage, to learn, to be challenged
..... to read the article properly before getting on their high horse?
🙄
Gods are not real, ok?
So you say
There's some real nonsense on this thread, and it betrays the ignorance of those who seem to blame religion for every wrong in the world.
I should preface this by saying that I am not a theist, and have a healthy dislike of many of the organised branches of religion. However, to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.
JP
There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, including the Catholic church.
I would argue simplistic generalisations poison everything.
There's plenty who don't too, but evolution is broadly accepted by the majority of modern Xtian religions, yes.
I've said this many times before, but with any demographic it's a shouty extremist minority that give the rest a bad name.
so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?
Um... yes?
Evolution is a well-established, observable and demonstrable scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of rigorous research trying and failing to prove it wrong, and the bible is a book made from a collection of fables written several hundred years after the events they purport to document at a time when most of the populace was illiterate.
Anyway. Modern thinking is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. As far as I can see, this is by dint of revisionism saying that the bits which don't align with science are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. Which will come as a great posthumous comfort to people like Galileo I'm sure.
Which will come as a great posthumous comfort to people like Galileo I’m sure.
Figaro magnifico.
jj,
to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.
You realise that you're decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?
(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)
These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:
Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.
This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.
Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.
This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.
Makes perfect sense to me.....
I read this on another thread on here, roughly, ‘there are 2400 religions in this world, each of them believe that the other 2399 are wrong’
jj,
to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.
You realise that you’re decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?
(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)
These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:
Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.
This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.
Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.
This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.
Makes perfect sense to me…..
I don't think I'm factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism with the kind of zeal that is just as excessive and negative as the theists he despises for doing the same. He also has an unwillingness to accept the limitations of empirical science (read Popper for a nice summary of these limitations) and a purely materialist philosophy, that is, perhaps, typical of biologists, who believe that they have answered most of the larger questions of their area of study, and, who seem to extrapolate from this that they understand everything. I doubt you would find many astrophysicists, or particle physicists with the same degree of unshakeable belief.
I think this review provides some interesting points on the "New Atheists":
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens
JP
I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism
I'll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.
In any case, he doesn't represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He's a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.
I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism
I’ll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.
In any case, he doesn’t represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He’s a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.
The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself. It's a funny kind of agnostic who devotes so much of his energies to the task of decrying theists.
Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins, not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.
JP
The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.
It's still irrelevant as you're
not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.
N'est-ce pas?
The "attitudes displayed on this thread" will be fewer in future thanks to one poster's decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW's owners don't have many red lines but that's one of them, it's a zero-tolerance policy.
Trailrider Jim
Gods are not real, ok?
Of course they're not.
Apart from Odin and his crew that is.
The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email.
And as if by magic a new poster appears , coincidentally named after a moistened teddy bear
Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.
I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word "shrill". Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.
AdamW
Member
Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.
I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”. Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.
Did you read my post at all, or are you just making assumptions?
JP
The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.
It’s still irrelevant as you’re
not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.
N’est-ce pas?
The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW’s owners don’t have many red lines but that’s one of them, it’s a zero-tolerance policy.
I really don't understand what you're arguing here - if it's a point of semantics, please look up the list of fallacious arguments.
JP
So, describing Richard as “shrill” isn’t part of your complaint about how he “conducts” himself?
What’s wrong with the way he “conducts himself”, then?
Yawn. I don't want to reiterate what has already been written before, but read the Guardian article I posted. It provides the main case against him. He's quite a poor thinker, really - his God Delusion is a bad imitation of Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian.
JP
I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here
Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?
It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really
So he's a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of "yes, but Dawkins says..." It's a straw man.
I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here
Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?
It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really
So he’s a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of “yes, but Dawkins says…” It’s a straw man.
If we're going down the pedantic route here then I have to call you out for being factually incorrect - I'm not a theist, as clearly stated in my original post, nor am I using Dawkins as a straw man. I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.
JP
Who on earth reads secularism.org ?
Members of a secularist organisation?
so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?
What do you think?
Here’s a clue:
Evolution is a well-established, observable and demonstrable scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of rigorous research trying and failing to prove it wrong, and the bible is a book made from a collection of fables written several hundred years after the events they purport to document at a time when most of the populace was illiterate.
I have to call you out for being factually incorrect – I’m not a theist
I didn't say you were - I'd be daft to assume that unless for some reason I thought you were lying as you said you weren't a few posts earlier. Factually incorrect again. (-:
I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.
To what end?
If you don't like "straw man" maybe "non-sequitur" is more appropriate? Or "whataboutery"?
Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?
6 pages and 2 bans?
I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”.
“Shill” surely?
I've completely lost track of wtf this thread is on about. But what I can accurately comment on is that I know normal people of almost every faith, and normal atheists, normal agnostics too. Not one feels the need to try and preach/convert/disprove/prove/evangelise. For 99.999999% of people their faith (or lack of) is a personal belief that's part of the framework they live their life by, and a private thing that guides them in just being a decent person.
There's then a tiny but noisy minority in each group that needs to try and prove themselves "right" and everyone else "wrong".
A bit of live and let live is probably the sensible way forward. Dicks doing dickish things in the name of religion aren't generally representative of the religion they claim to represent, they're just hanging their dick coat on a convenient peg. The sooner we separate the acts of the individual from the faith (or otherwise) they are connected to (or claim to be connected to), the better. Just as an ISIS bomber isn't representative of most normal Muslims, or an IRA bomber of normal Catholics, neither is one of the new wave of angry atheists representative of any of the atheists I know.
The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?
@trailriderjim, brilliant sir. Respect.
Teal'c sums it up properly....
Gods are false
And from me:
Religions are a nasty evil control.
Trailrider Jim
The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?
This was your response to someone having a philosophical and 'enlightened' debate about whether to send religion to other planets if we colonised them.
Your reply is anything but enlightened. I am in no way religious but I am not minded to pick a fight with the substantial number of humankind that does believe in a god. I get angry about many things but people's religious beliefs is not one of them. Anything I say to try to convince them of the error of their ways will be about as successful as your attempts through telling them they are brainwashed. Be angry with creationists by all means but it will get you nowhere.
The fact that fact that so many people believe in god in so many forms means that perhaps we need religion as a species.
The promotion of good evidential based science and technological development should not go hand in hand with a denigration of other people's deeply held religious beliefs.
To be fair evolution is just a theory. There is good documented evidence for adaptation of species, but not evolution which is where a species grows or develops an entirely new characteristic which makes it become a totally different species. Added to the fact that science has only determined
what around 4 percent of the universe is made of would mean 96 percent is still unknown.. so on that basis it is impossible to rule out whether God exists (unless you can prove what the other 96 percent is made from?). And the argument that 'well if God exists then who created God?' (i.e he can't exist as no one could create him) holds no water since scientist would have us believe that the universe created itself randomly out of nothing, a question Dawkins failed to answer in debate. My point is that God or evolution both involve a degree of faith so we shouldn't denounce people for believing what they want to believe, whatever it is that they choose to believe. There are many "religious" people who could and do give "religion" a bad name but to the same or greater extent there are many scientists, atheists and evolutionists who would do the same, pol pot, Hitler etc with their views on the master race - I don't judge every evolutionist based on their atrocities so why then judge every religious person based on the actions of a very small minority? The real issue is intolerance to other people's views and beliefs and unfortunately for the unbelieving non religious this works both ways, you expect your views to be respected but then don't show the same respect to anyone who has a different view or opinion- as I have said, everyone ultimately has a faith, whether it be science or religion and everyone is entitled to their faith without having someone else telling them they are wrong and trying to force another faith down their necks.
Awaits Godwin....
The latter nutters are reading secularism.org
Whether someone is secular or not has no relation to whether they are religious or not. Outside of extreme religious zealots anyone sensible would be in favour of secularism (just in case their religion loses out if not any better reason).
who accept evolution, including the Catholic church.
They dont. At best they go for Theistic Evolution eg evolution is broadly correct but god intervened to make it happen.
Gets crisps ready.
Didn’t yer dads give you that helpful advice not to talk politics or religion in the pub 🙂
Catholic church.
They dont. At best they go for Theistic Evolution eg evolution is broadly correct but god intervened to make it happen.
Not convinced about this in a practical setting - I went to a Catholic school in the 80s and 90s, we learned evolution, just like my mates at non catholic/non denominational schools.
Without wanting to seem argumentative to anyone on this thread, it seems there's a chasm between what people "think" is taught/goes on, and the real life reality of it. My theory (and it's only a theory - I've neither the time, inclination or brain bandwidth to devote any significant effort to it) is that most normal people of faith/no faith aren't the card carrying evangelists for their cause that some on the other side of the fence think they are. It's just a small cog in the machine of their decision making process and how they live their life. But I've been exceptionally lucky to have grown up in a town and environment where I mixed with lots of different people, so saw the reality rather than the portrayal.