Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on December 27, 2016, 09:41:47 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38030302
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38030302
What ?
-
Usual ill-thought out bollocks.
As shown below it is the booze that's the problem.
"The misuse of alcohol has a significant impact on violence within emergency departments and it is clear that more needs to be done, outside of medical settings, to reduce rates of alcohol abuse," he said.
Now can you show a causal link between the misuse of booze and secularism?
Thought not.
Now piss off and have a Happy and sober New Year.
-
Usual ill-thought out bollocks.
As shown below it is the booze that's the problem.
Now can you show a causal link between the misuse of booze and secularism?
Thought not.
Now piss off and have a Happy and sober New Year.
I was referring to Secular Humanism not secularism but it is interesting how SH seems to absorbed secularism.
I'm afraid if SH claims moral improvement through itself(Pinker/Dawkins) and guff such as ''religion makes good people bad''(Every new atheist going) then it must also take responsibility for the level of violence in a society it claims to be converting to itself...unless you are suggesting that all of these acts of violence were perpetrated by the religious?
-
Usual ill-thought out bollocks.
And there, indeed, we can leave Vlad's latest car crash :)
-
And there, indeed, we can leave Vlad's latest car crash :)
Shaker again providing the Christmas entertainment. Die Hard 3. Turdpolish with a vengeance.
-
As trent said ...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38030302
what the........?
-
what the........?
See #2.
-
The question to ask is "is that a lot?"
According to the statistical report I downloaded (NHS Wales Statistics 2016) there are over 900,000 visits just to A&E every year in Wales. So that means around two out of every hundred visits to A&E result in a physical assault (and that assumes all the 18,000 are in A&E, there are also around a million other treatments, each of which can have more than one visit). That doesn't strike me as a big number (obviously it is big compared with zero, which is the ideal).
Furthermore, Vlad's story has a table showing the history of assaults over five years for some areas. In only one case was the 2015-16 figure the highest. That suggests we could be on an improving trend. As secularism increases, hospital assaults decrease.
-
...unless you are suggesting that all of these acts of violence were perpetrated by the religious?
Actually, Vlad, since you're bizzarely trying to pin assaults on hospital staff to secular humanism in some fashion, surely you're the one implying that those carrying out the assaults are secular humanists?
-
Actually, Vlad, since you're bizzarely trying to pin assaults on hospital staff to secular humanism in some fashion, surely you're the one implying that those carrying out the assaults are secular humanists?
If Dawkins and Pinker declare a reduction in violence on the growth of humanism and you guys nod why not an increase in violence on the growth of humanism?
-
The question to ask is "is that a lot?"
According to the statistical report I downloaded (NHS Wales Statistics 2016) there are over 900,000 visits just to A&E every year in Wales. So that means around two out of every hundred visits to A&E result in a physical assault (and that assumes all the 18,000 are in A&E, there are also around a million other treatments, each of which can have more than one visit). That doesn't strike me as a big number (obviously it is big compared with zero, which is the ideal).
Furthermore, Vlad's story has a table showing the history of assaults over five years for some areas. In only one case was the 2015-16 figure the highest. That suggests we could be on an improving trend. As secularism increases, hospital assaults decrease.
What were the figures in 1968?
-
If Dawkins and Pinker declare a reduction in violence on the growth of humanism
Do they?
and you guys nod why not an increase in violence on the growth of humanism?
Do you know anything about statistics, Vlad? Correlation? Causation?
-
Do they? Do you know anything about statistics, Vlad? Correlation? Causation?
Yes. I am couching this in the claim that a secular society is a better society because religion is the root of all evil....are you suggesting that these claims have not been made?
-
Yes.
Plenty of people say that a secular society is better than a religious society. I've said it myself many a time, not merely because I think it true but because I hold that there's demonstrable evidence that bears it out.
I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever claim that a secular society is better than a religious society because religion is the root of all evil, as per your post.
If you know otherwise, by all means, let's see it.
-
Do they? Do you know anything about statistics, Vlad? Correlation? Causation?
Hi Shaker
I have found the mathematical formula that demonstrates Vlad's knowledge of statistics
The cube of its rate is pi minus 8 = two-thirds of three-fifths of F-All!
I was going to try to polish one of Vlad's turds but it seems that the reason he is so full of shit is that he never actually passes any.
TAXI!
-
Yes.
Plenty of people say that a secular society is better than a religious society. I've said it myself many a time, not merely because I think it true but because I hold that there's demonstrable evidence that bears it out.
I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever claim that a secular society is better than a religious society because religion is the root of all evil, as per your post.
If you know otherwise, by all means, let's see it.
The trouble is though is that increases in modern slavery, violence against public servants, increase in inequalities, food banks, homelessness seem to coincide with New Atheism despite the claims. Also by secular society I meant to mean Secular Humanist society.
In any case the aforementioned things aren't meant to happen with increasing secular humanism but underline the notion of sin.
-
I was going to try to polish one of Vlad's turds....
I'm not accustomed to donating to the already wealthy.
-
The trouble is though is that increases in modern slavery, violence against public servants, increase in inequalities, food banks, homelessness seem to coincide with New Atheism despite the claims.
They seem to coincide with a fast-expanding population.
Also by secular society I meant to mean Secular Humanist society.
Where did you have in mind?
In any case the aforementioned things aren't meant to happen with increasing secular humanism but underline the notion of sin.
Firstly you haven't demonstrated that our society is any more positively humanistic (as opposed to merely negatively non-religious) than it has ever been. All your work is ahead of you; you haven't even offered up any evidence for that, let alone your insinuation/implication that these things are the result of humanism (which I'd put money on your not understanding any more than you do the concept of secularism). Where's the causal link between the two things?
Needless to say, I'm still awaiting not only the evidence for these things but for your claim (as per your post #14) that anyone has ever claimed that a secular society is better than a religious society because religion is the root of all evil.
-
They seem to coincide with a fast-expanding population.
Where did you have in mind?
Firstly you haven't demonstrated that our society is any more positively humanistic (as opposed to merely negatively non-religious) than it has ever been. All your work is ahead of you; you haven't even offered up any evidence for that, let alone your insinuation/implication that these things are the result of humanism (which I'd put money on your not understanding any more than you do the concept of secularism). Where's the causal link between the two things?
Needless to say, I'm still awaiting not only the evidence for these things but for your claim (as per your post #14) that anyone has ever claimed that a secular society is better than a religious society because religion is the root of all evil.
One only has to look at the founding and continuous principles of the new atheists many of whom are BHA and the NSS to detect your final suggestion.
-
Can you rephrase that into clearer English please?
Are you claiming that the BHA and NSS claim that a secular society is best because religion is the root of all evil? Can you quote or link to this?
-
Can you rephrase that into clearer English please?
Are you claiming that the BHA and NSS claim that a secular society is best because religion is the root of all evil? Can you quote or link to this?
Was it not Dawkins who talks of the Virus of faith and that religion makes good people do evil things? And is he not feted in the afore mentioned circles and are there those who think religion has no place in the public forum or in cinemas and are there not characters in New atheist circles who see religion as worse than depravity? If not all evil then obviously the implication is nearly all.
-
Was it not Dawkins who talks of the Virus of faith
He has used that comparison, yes, as have many.
and that religion makes good people do evil things?
That was Steven Weinberg.
And is he not feted in the afore mentioned circles
He's admired, if that's what you mean.
and are there those who think religion has no place in the public forum or in cinemas and are there not characters in New atheist circles who see religion as worse than depravity? If not all evil then obviously the implication is nearly all.
I've seen no one argue in this vein. Yet another claim you can't substantiate, Vlad? Really, must we? It's no surprise to me that you spout rubbish that you can't hope to back up, but it's tiresome to say the least.
-
He has used that comparison, yes, as have many.That was Steven Weinberg.
Can you direct me to Dawkins critique of what Weinberg said?
-
Can you direct me to Dawkins critique of what Weinberg said?
Nope. I don't know if there's such a thing. How does this irrelevance help you to shore up your statements thus far? Looks very much like sheer evasion and distraction to me. Can you substantiate any of the claims or insinuations you've made on this thread? Also nope.
-
Nope. I don't know if there's such a thing.
Probably not.
Dawkins irrelevant? When the lead New Atheist is provided by a national TV company with a huge shot at religion......a massive B29 bomber of a thing which only had the name Root of all evil plastered up it's side, irrelevant?
-
Probably not.
Dawkins irrelevant?
Dawkins's critique of Weinberg's quote is irrelevant to your substantiation of your claims. For which, you'll notice, we're still waiting.
It's a dodge, a swerve, a distraction tactic.
When the lead New Atheist is provided by a national TV company with a huge shot at religion......a massive B29 bomber of a thing which only had the name Root of all evil plastered up it's side, irrelevant?
Yes. Not even his choice of title.
-
Dawkins's critique of Weinberg's quote is irrelevant to your substantiation of your claims. For which, you'll notice, we're still waiting.
It's a dodge, a swerve, a distraction tactic.
Yes. Not even his choice of title.
He didn't mind that much though.
What has secular humanism got to offer if society doesn't get any better under it?
If it, as it seems, that people aren't basically good after all in the way SH suggests?
Do you agree with Weinberg?
-
What has secular humanism got to offer if society doesn't get any better under it?
Isn't it better now than at some (unspecified) point in the past when religious belief was more widespread? (Which point specifically?). I think it is. Why is it not, in your opinion?
If it, as it seems, that people aren't basically good after all in the way SH suggests?
Where does humanism state this? Certainly not on Wikipedia:
Contemporary humanism entails a qualified optimism about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help.
Your sample size of 18,000 is doing a hell of a lot of work here isn't it? Bearing in mind that your link adds:
... assaults can occur when treating frail, older dementia patients or in those with severe mental health conditions.
What do these examples have to do with secular humanism? Again, where's your evidence of a causal link? It appears in the title of your thread so presumably you must think there's some sort of relationship. What is it and on what evidence do you base this belief?
Or is it just faith?
-
Isn't it better now than at some (unspecified) point in the past when religious belief was more widespread? (Which point specifically?). I think it is. Why is it not, in your opinion?Your sample size of 18,000 is doing a hell of a lot of work here isn't it? Bearing in mind that your link adds:
What do these examples have to do with secular humanism? Again, where's your evidence of a causal link? It appears in the title of your thread so presumably you must think there's some sort of relationship. What is it and on what evidence do you base this belief?
Or is it just faith?
Sample size.? That's just in NHS wales.
-
Sample size.? That's just in NHS wales.
Yes I know. And?
-
Yes I know. And?
...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...
-
...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...
Well it's the only sample you've provided thus far.
So clearly you're taking the piss.
-
...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...
Well it clearly is because you provided a link to a particular news story with that sample as the headline.
Further, in the thread title you state that this news story is "bad news for secular humanism's 'good bloke' theory."
This of course begets several questions.
1) What is secular humanism's "good bloke" theory?
2) Who has defined or expressed this theory?
3) Where did you pick up on this theory? On what grounds do you link this to secular humanism?
4) What in your opinion is the causal link between assaults on NHS Wales staff (often provoked by alcohol but also including patients suffering from dementia and other serious psychiatric conditions) and secular humanism, such that secular humanism in the thread title is justified and relevant to assaults on NHS staff?
5) How much longer do you plan to dodge, bluster, distract and evade before you flounce off this thread only to repeat exactly the same behaviour (i.e. never answering questions about your claims, assertions and insinuations) on another sub-forum?
-
Well it clearly is because you provided a link to a particular news story with that sample as the headline.
Further, in the thread title you state that this news story is "bad news for secular humanism's 'good bloke' theory."
This of course begets several questions.
1) What is secular humanism's "good bloke" theory?
2) Who has defined or expressed this theory?
3) Where did you pick up on this theory? On what grounds do you link this to secular humanism?
4) What in your opinion is the causal link between assaults on NHS Wales staff (often provoked by alcohol but also including patients suffering from dementia and other serious psychiatric conditions) and secular humanism, such that secular humanism in the thread title is justified and relevant to assaults on NHS staff?
5) How much longer do you plan to dodge, bluster, distract and evade before you flounce off this thread only to repeat exactly the same behaviour (i.e. never answering questions about your claims, assertions and insinuations) on another sub-forum?
1: That humanity is intrinsically good
2: Philosophers such as Rousseau and Mill
3 and 4: That poor behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism is part of the territory that goes with the claim of increasingly good behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism. What evidence do you have that the violence is all down to dementia patients?
Secular Humanism cannot avoid the insinuation that a secular humanist society is better than a religious one.
Still, perhaps you can tell us how you can hold a moral irrealist view and talk about being as good or better without religion.
-
Well it's the only sample you've provided thus far.
So clearly you're taking the piss.
So, violence only occurs in the welsh NHS does it?
-
1: That humanity is intrinsically good
Contradicted by the quotation I provided earlier.
2: Philosophers such as Rousseau and Mill
Rousseau I will concede. Where in Mill's writings do you claim to find this sentiment?
3 and 4: That poor behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism is part of the territory that goes with the claim of increasingly good behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism.
Is it? That looks like a poorly camouflaged non sequitur to me.
What evidence do you have that the violence is all down to dementia patients?
Are you totally deficient in comprehension? Where did I supposedly assert this? (Good luck).
Secular Humanism cannot avoid the insinuation that a secular humanist society is better than a religious one.
Already covered (#15), so this is repetition, not explanation or clarification.
Still, perhaps you can tell us how you can hold a moral irrealist view and talk about being as good or better without religion.
Besides being a Vladism, what's "moral irrealism"?
-
So, violence only occurs in the welsh NHS does it?
Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?
-
Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?
Shaker didn't say that all NHS violence is down to patients with dementia, either.
So it goes.
-
Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?
He's saying I provided it as some kind of study sample which I didn't.
Would you say he is mistaken and not ''shooting the shit'' as they say?
Secondly I am asking him to clarify. The key is in that my statement is a question.
-
Shaker didn't say that all NHS violence is down to patients with dementia, either.
That's true. My apologies.
-
Wow still bothering with this wum, -add to ignore.