Author Topic: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'  (Read 1755 times)

Questions to Christians

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19117
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2015, 07:49:41 PM »
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.

What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.

Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.

ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.

It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.
wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhh.......I FEAST on Sh*te New Atheist argument.

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9575
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2015, 09:09:39 PM »
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.

They  don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam  from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.

ippy  is just wrong.
Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?

If people who have given up smoking are anything to go by . . .

I've never have been a religious person, tried a ciggie once thought it tasted horrible never smoked again, mind you have you noticed that most smokers don't even realise how much they actually stink?

ippy


Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4852
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2015, 05:20:54 AM »



I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write  books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things.  I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue. 

We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9575
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2015, 06:52:02 AM »
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.

What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.

Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.

ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.

It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.

Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.

You say:  "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".

This is the part of my post you were addressing:

 "So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====

You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".

Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
 " There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====

You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".

Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
 
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.

I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.

I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.

I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children. 

ippy

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9575
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2015, 07:33:48 AM »



I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write  books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things.  I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue. 

We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.

Bring your magic carpet down to earth Sriram, park it for a mo and say to yourself several times, so that it sinks in to your airy fairy head, atheism isn't a belief, in fact atheism isn't the word for people that are non-religious, how can any non-religious person which by definition doesn't include god or gods be measured by presenting against a datum that for us doesn't exist? 

I can live with being called an atheist although I'm not an atheist, I suppose it's a bit like people call a car radio, now days, a stereo, they were never called a mono in the early sixties before stereo broadcasting started, I can live with either although they are both completely wrong. 

ippy


Owlswing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5147
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2015, 07:46:40 AM »



I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write  books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things.  I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue. 

We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.

Bring your magic carpet down to earth Sriram, park it for a mo and say to yourself several times, so that it sinks in to your airy fairy head, atheism isn't a belief, in fact atheism isn't the word for people that are non-religious, how can any non-religious person which by definition doesn't include god or gods be measured by presenting against a datum that for us doesn't exist? 

I can live with being called an atheist although I'm not an atheist, I suppose it's a bit like people call a car radio, now days, a stereo, they were never called a mono in the early sixties before stereo broadcasting started, I can live with either although they are both completely wrong. 

ippy

If not an atheist what?
If there must be trouble let it be in my time that my children may have peace. Thomas Payne

An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some do what you must!

Questions to Christians

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19117
  • Science is a tool.
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2015, 10:02:37 AM »
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.

What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.

Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.

ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.

It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.

Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.

You say:  "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".

This is the part of my post you were addressing:

 "So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====

You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".

Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
 " There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====

You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".

Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
 
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.

I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.

I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.

I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children. 

ippy
Well let's see:
Lord's spiritual: These are a legacy from an established church. Established because it was known that Government needed a moral and spiritual dimension and the clergy provided it independent of temporal ambition.
In my view that is probably the best reason there has ever been for having a house of Lords in the first place!!!!!!!!!

They aren't in the majority. To say they are stopping secular people from having power and influence and the final veto is just plain rubbish.

If public/civil servants get into power then there is no justification for not having a bit of representation from the churches.

The Lords is problematic but to have Lords like the bishops is probably the best argument for it.

Faith Schools. This is a legacy from when the church provided education in this country..... I have said I agreed that schools should be fully integrated. But then we know what secular means grammar segregation, freeschools segregation, academies segregation, the higher social value public school education.

Charity work. Humanists want this banned because it is religion in the public forum.....but secular giving and sense of community is proving to be a mixed bag.
The charitable and sacrificial aspects of Secular Humanism are giving way to acquisitive materialism, economic survivalism and a spiteful attitude to the poor. OF COURSE when it all goes really tits up and secular Britain has cut those Tax credits it is most likely to be the churches which step in.

 
wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhh.......I FEAST on Sh*te New Atheist argument.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10857
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2015, 10:13:12 AM »


And that elephant just stampeded through Paris and Beirut. It stampedes through medical care in the US. It stampedes through gay rights in Africa. It stampedes through women's rights all over the world.

Who knows where it's going to stampede next?

O.
This is just another theory of anything.

And that's just another failure to include a point in your point.

O.
[/quote]
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10857
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2015, 10:15:12 AM »
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

If you can identify particular philosophies that are feeding into these atrocities then by all means suggest them. If you could suggest what some of these non-religious atrocities were we could even help.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9575
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2015, 11:25:31 AM »
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'

I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.   

The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.

When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.

There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?

Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.

So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.

ippy

Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!

Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?

I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.

I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.

Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.

What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.

Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.

ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.

It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.

Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.

You say:  "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".

This is the part of my post you were addressing:

 "So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====

You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".

Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
 " There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====

You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".

Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
 
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.

I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.

I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.

I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children. 

ippy
Well let's see:
Lord's spiritual: These are a legacy from an established church. Established because it was known that Government needed a moral and spiritual dimension and the clergy provided it independent of temporal ambition.
In my view that is probably the best reason there has ever been for having a house of Lords in the first place!!!!!!!!!

They aren't in the majority. To say they are stopping secular people from having power and influence and the final veto is just plain rubbish.

If public/civil servants get into power then there is no justification for not having a bit of representation from the churches.

The Lords is problematic but to have Lords like the bishops is probably the best argument for it.

Faith Schools. This is a legacy from when the church provided education in this country..... I have said I agreed that schools should be fully integrated. But then we know what secular means grammar segregation, freeschools segregation, academies segregation, the higher social value public school education.

Charity work. Humanists want this banned because it is religion in the public forum.....but secular giving and sense of community is proving to be a mixed bag.
The charitable and sacrificial aspects of Secular Humanism are giving way to acquisitive materialism, economic survivalism and a spiteful attitude to the poor. OF COURSE when it all goes really tits up and secular Britain has cut those Tax credits it is most likely to be the churches which step in.

All very interesting Vlad but let's get where you've misread my posts out of the way and then when you've addressed my post that you have grossley misunderstood, it would be a good idea to go on to these fresh points for discussion you've brought up, for reasons of your own?

ippy

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11815
Re: Wider Aspects of 'Terror in Paris'
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2015, 08:36:21 AM »
Moderator:

This thread has been created from the transfer of posts in the 'Terror attacks in Paris' thread:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11165.msg570004#new

Whereas the above thread was mainly about the immediate news aspects the posts in this thread deal more with the wider issues involving religion and terrorism. 
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 08:38:43 AM by Gordon »