HMHB
Outstanding Member
LGS - shouldn't you post your thanks to thetablet.co.uk for that original post
JohnG said:LGS - shouldn't you post your thanks to thetablet.co.uk for that original post
la gran siete said:I thanked the client who gave me the cutting in the foirst place instead. She has more where that came from
overkill said:Intelligent design? Please, here we will get into a row. This is a dangerous (due the lobbying behind it) theory based on faith, which is fine, but has NO basis in fact or been qualified by the scientific method. However, in the US, and then no doubt over here then soon, 'they' are trying to foist it in us as a 'science' and a challenge to evolution. It is neither.
It is this sort of approach that does lead to labelling, and frankly with justice.
For example, I may not want my children to have a 'religious education', but by law they have to. Doesn't that infringe on my beliefs?
To deal with the first point: Why should that happen? They have history lessons? These explain all they need to know, i.e. religious wars, burnings, corruption, bigotry (that still exists today from the same conflicts) division of society, cynical encouragement of ignorance, support for despots to keep the faith dominant, persecution, and of course in Britain, the civil war - a large part of which was down to religion. And all this fun without it being wrapped up in 'flummery'.Flimber said:Last point first: only if you believe that your kids should have a huge gap in their knowledge of history, culture and the society they're growing up in
You misunderstand something fundamental to the other side of the debate: 'they' (i.e., people with a faith-based belief) don't have any regard for whether or not their beliefs are "qualified by the scientific method". That's the whole point ! They don't seek proof in scientific terms.
And yet we all have faith in "unknown" scientific facts don't we ? Ever seen an electomagnetic wave ? Yet you know they exist. We have faith that the science behind them is right and yet few people personally 'prove' them. DYSWIM ?
And, don't worry, we will not be getting into a "row"
Mike.
overkill said:To deal with the first point: Why should that happen? They have history lessons? These explain all they need to know, i.e. religious wars, burnings, corruption, bigotry (that still exists today from the same conflicts) division of society, cynical encouragement of ignorance, support for despots to keep the faith dominant, persecution, and of course in Britain, the civil war - a large part of which was down to religion. And all this fun without it being wrapped up in 'flummery'.
overkill said:RE is purely about religion. All the 'nasty bits' (see above) are left out, which is fine. Leave that that to the historians.
I understand perfectly where the other side of the debate is coming from. The whole point is exactly that. So called 'intelligent design' is being foisted on us an alternative, a 'scientific alternative', to evolution. If that's what you choose to believe, and the theory itself is full of holes, then fine. But, as above, keep it as 'faith' not attempt to decieve by labelling it as a science.
We don't have 'unknown' scientific 'facts'. That's the whole point here. Until it's been proved by the scientific method it isn't a fact. Hence even Einsteins theories (and more recently Hawkins) have been re-evaluated. He never claimed they were iron clad facts. You cannot act on 'faith' in science, unless you want to be criticaly torn apart later that is.
Row, who's rowing?
Flimber said:And yet we all have faith in "unknown" scientific facts don't we ? Ever seen an electomagnetic wave ? Yet you know they exist. We have faith that the science behind them is right and yet few people personally 'prove' them. DYSWIM ?
Mike.
Flimber said:But "we" do have "unknown scientific facts". We, the people. Not the scientists. That's what I was getting at. Ordinary people have faith in science. And scientists have faith that people have faith in them
Mike.
Ethics Gradient said:...... Light is an electromagetic wave ......
Ethics Gradient said:The fact that we can create them .. detect them with equipement .... use them to transmit information like TV, Radio etc, diffract them, refract them, do a world of calculations on them that always give the same values .... do school experiements on them ... and with a bit of help repeat all the experiementation documented in the 'theories' makes it a tad bit more tangeable to say we believe in electromagnetic waves than in some relegious belief.
Ethics Gradient said:I think the flawed statement you made is a pretty good example of the mistakes people use to justify relegious beliefs as being credible.
Ethics Gradient said:
Ethics Gradient said:You may not understand the concepts envolved, but the data, experiements, observations are there for ANYONE to make. You could take a course, readup on the subject, talk to people in the field and with some help work through what is used to prove what ever is being put forward.
( there are a few rare exceptions where cost or practicallity are envolved, but pretty much everything can be checked and double checked )
Saying we have faith in science is down to our own lazyness at not actually going out and checking for ourselves ......
Ethics Gradient said:....... with is FUNDAMENTALY different from having faith in something that has NO evidence, NO proofs, nothing to test but the word of someone else ..... which is relegious belief.
Actually, history is again the best way to learn about Islam. That way you still get the facts without the flummery. You will also get an insight into why modern Islam has gone the way it has in so many countries.Flimber said:Learning about Islam is, arguably very relevant to how we live today. No other subject at school is going to cover that.
Well, I actually never said that I believed in I.D. and I'm not going to defend it . That's how I know we aren't going to get in a row
But "we" do have "unknown scientific facts". We, the people. Not the scientists. That's what I was getting at. Ordinary people have faith in science. And scientists have faith that people have faith in them
Mike.
Flimber said:YES
He's 76. Never done an experiment in his life. Left school at 16, did an apprenticeship etc. He flicks a switch. His electric fire comes on. If some professor tells him that's got something to do with electrons which we can't see is he going to put up an argument ? Or have faith that the boffin knows his stuff ? He could check but he doesn't; he feels no need to; he's got a little bit of faith in science
bjd said:Just a last point, to Ethics Gradient.....
The issue of the Catholic church and condoms in Africa is, I feel, a bit misleading. It is often cited as the way relgion can do damage. Firstly, I agree totally that Africans should use condoms to help prevent the spread of Aids, and I have no religious beliefs myself, nor do I think I believe in God ( though I haven't spent much time thinking about it), but the condom situation intrigues me. The theory seems to be that the Africans aren't using condoms because the Catholic church forbids it, yet they seem to feel free to indulge in the sort of promiscuous sex that leads to the spread of Aids. I just wonder why they cherry pick Catholic doctrine this? Could it be, perhaps, that not wearing condoms fits nicely with their cultural and sexual proclivities, while keeping sex within marriage does not? For that reason, I see the issue as a bit of a red herring.
Sorry mate, but that is pretty bad.Flimber said:Yes, but you should have realised that I was talking about the non-visible parts of the spectrum. In any event the illumination provided by the sun or by the flick of a switch doesn't prove electromagnetic waves.
Ethics Gradient said:... because a large portion of Africans are catholics ( aprrox 14% ) .... and there have been many reports, documentaries and articles showing the senior members of the catholic church in Africa states telling their flocks not to use them, and out and out lies like how condoms are more dangerous.
.... thats why.
"Could it be, perhaps, that not wearing condoms fits nicely with their cultural and sexual proclivities, while keeping sex within marriage does not?"
.... their cultural and sexual proclivities .... yes , because they obviously aren't as moral, upright and civilised as us Europeans ...... *cough* ... can any one say slippery slope to racism ....
People are pretty much the same the world over when it comes to sexual drives and needs .... what is different is poverty, education and religious influences.
In particular, the African Christain churches are seemingly far more orthodox in their approaches to their religion -- just look at the issue of female clerics and homosexuality in the Anglican churches .... it is the African churches that are primarliy the main opponents.
Try living in on a content that has 14% of its population being told not to wear contraception because it is a sin against God, where poverty is rife and education is poor, where religion is a powerful political force, and people are people when it comes to sex.
Games Guru said:Sorry mate, but that is pretty bad.
We use x-rays, we use nuclear power (gamma rays)
We listen to the radio (radio waves), obviously not directly, but the radio waves are recoded into sound by the radio receiver.
I don't understand what point you were trying to make there, but you have made yourself come across rather silly i'm afraid.
I don't really know what point you're trying to make, here, Flimber - there are so many wrong assumptions in what you're saying that I hardly know where to begin.Flimber said:None of the things you've mentioned prove anything about "waves" or demonstrate proof of electromagnetic forces to the average person !!! That's the point !!!
Practical example:bjd said:The theory seems to be that the Africans aren't using condoms because the Catholic church forbids it, yet they seem to feel free to indulge in the sort of promiscuous sex that leads to the spread of Aids. I just wonder why they cherry pick Catholic doctrine this? Could it be, perhaps, that not wearing condoms fits nicely with their cultural and sexual proclivities, while keeping sex within marriage does not? For that reason, I see the issue as a bit of a red herring.
Not sure entirely what you mean but I take your point that the artcle is a bit longwinded and maybe I should have summarised it a bit. Then again I wanted to see what people's reaction would be and so far it has been interesting .Ethics Gradient said:It's better not to post them verbatim - try and summarise your thought on it and post them, maybe a few quotes, and a link to the original material .... its more interesting haveing a dialogue between fellow posters and their take on things. Plus thats a hell of a lot of text that could be linked to either from source or from another webspace that isn't going to add to the band width overhead of these forums. ( I know sometimes it's not easy when you get them in an email or pasted to you )
NicolasB said:I don't really know what point you're trying to make, here, Flimber - there are so many wrong assumptions in what you're saying that I hardly know where to begin...
Well, yeah - and that is precisely why religion is so dangerous, and precisely why an adherence to the scientific method is so vastly preferable.Flimber said:Begin with reading and re-reading what I wrote until you understand that I am saying that 'religious' people do not have to conform to a scientific standard of 'proof' in order for them to believe something. Simple.