Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Many village primary schools and secondary schools as such there were once were church of England schools. Also I don't think they were called faith schools then and I wonder if your conception of a 60's school is based on present Humanist UK and NSS conceptions (i.e some kind of stern madrassas).

If my parents were doing some thing radical in the sixties by sending their Kids, not the youngest though, to sunday school you are suggesting that they were more zealous in their religion than most others.

There you go again with your tedious hyperbole.

Where have I ever suggested that your parents were 'zealots' or 'radical' - oh - I haven't, but your arguments are wafer thin unless you try to make out that I think your upbringing was some kind of extremism, which I never have. My point was that your upbringing was christian, which is hard to argue against if you went to faith school and, most specifically, Sunday School.

So let's actually get back to the facts shall we.

Back in the 60s the proportion of pupils going to a school with a religious foundation (call them faith schools, church schools, whatever) wasn't massively different to today. So approximately one third of primary school pupils were in faith schools (as we would call them now), the rest in non-faith schools. At secondary level the proportion in faith schools drops to about one quarter, with three quarter in non faith schools. The reason being that (for reasons I don't fully understand) the CofE focussed its schools at primary level so there was more CofE provision at primary than secondary level. RCC didn't do this so they had as many places at secondary level as primary level. In the 1960s faith schools that weren't CofE or RCC were so rare at to not be particularly worth discussing.

I accept that in some rare places the only available school was of one type or another. However this is typically in small villages with just a single school - and the vast, vast majority of the population (even in the 1960s) did not live in small villages. So for the vast majority of parents, living in larger villages, towns and cities there was some effective choice as to whether they sent their child to a faith school or a non-faith school. And then, as now, many faith schools required parents to demonstrate their commitment to that religion in some manner to be admitted. And of course, particularly due to the strange mismatch at primary vs secondary level for CofE schools there will be parents who chose to send their kids to a CofE school at primary level who did not have a CofE secondary within a reasonable distance.

So against that background - your parents chose to send you to a faith school (I think this was at primary level), unlike two thirds of kids.

Now for schooling - parents had to send their kids to one school or another (unless they were prepared to home learn which was very rare). So I get that sometime there was the situation of having to plump for something they didn't really want.

There is no such excuse for Sunday School which was then and is now, a completely elective, voluntary choice. There is no requirement for any kid to go to Sunday school or any equivalent religious instruction system. And even in the 60s most kids didn't go - numbers have been declining, of course, over the decades, but even at the start of that decade (1960s) I think only between 40-45% of kids went to Sunday School. Unlike most parents, your parents chose to send you to Sunday school.

So was your upbringing radical, zealotic or extreme - nope. But it was a christian upbringing unlike most children even in the 1960s who did not go to faith schools and did not go to Sunday school.

That's my point - that your parents chose to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school demonstrates that they chose a christian upbringing for you - they didn't have to, but they chose to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I have engaged with your assertions and provided reasons why I don't accept them.

They’re arguments (not “assertions” – way to poison the well though) and you haven’t provided reasons for not accepting them at all – you’ve just ignored them.

With very little hope that you’ll ever address the argument, here it is once again though: you cannot just conflate the character of a thing (ie, natural vs supernatural) with the degree of knowledge science (or anything else) happens to have about that thing (at all or on a given date). If did you want to demonstrate the property “supernatural” you’d first have to define and establish its existence at all, and then you’d have to argue the case for something populating it. “Science can’t explain it/can’t explain it yet” doesn’t even come close for that purpose.         

“supernatural”  This is where you make a fool of yourself where you try to compare a statement about the capital of France with your opinions on whether I have tied myself in knots or the meaning of the word supernatural. Here is a hint for you - the latter 2 can't be shown to be objectively true.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

I’m not sure whether you’re simply no understanding anything, or you do understand but you’re too dishonest to address the point. Slowly now: “being shown to be objectively true” is NOT a statement of epistemic certainty for the reasons I explained and you ignored (again). All truths rest ultimately on axioms, and there’s no way to test those – you just have to accept them as is. They could be wrong though. How for example would you know that the “I” you think exists isn’t in fact an avatar in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed only to think that Paris is the capital of France?   

Glad that your lack of certainty allows you to keep an open mind that you might be wrong in your opinion.

Repeating stupidities doesn’t make them less stupid, especially after they’ve been corrected for you.

[Dicky Underpants]

What difference would it make to you whether I am actually a Muslim woman or an atheist boy if you don't actually know which one I am?........

Anyway, now that I have given you my true background and area of expertise I am changing my name on here to The Accountant.

I think I would have a different attitude to you as a female convert to Islam, than I would by having to accept you were an atheist in a homosexual marriage at the age of 18, with a husband who suffers from diabetes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I have not done a survey  or verified the occupations of people I meet IRL. I check for references from tradesmen and check if people are on the gas safety register before hiring them to tinker with my boiler. I look up the background of doctors or go with personal recommendations before I see them privately but I would still ask for a 2nd and 3rd opinion from other professionals and friends who are doctors. After all, just because they tell me they are an expert in their field, it would be in my best interests to verify with others any information they give me.

Way to miss the point. In your examples you’re describing people who would provide a service or advice to you. If the good Prof was a potential tutor for your kids for example you might well do the same thing. That’s not the point though – all he’s actually saying is that in 30 years in academia he’s never seen the use of something.

To correct your false analogy, what then if the tradesman/doctor/whatever had also said, “in 30 years I’ve never seen an example of X” would you then say “ah, but are you really tradesman/doctor/whatever” or would you just assume on the balance or probabilities that they were who they said they were?

Next up, what you said I said:

ETA - How have you come up with the conclusion that people on message boards are as trustworthy as people you meet IRL? What research have you done on whether people act the same way on the internet as they do IRL? This is the only MB I am on - I don’t have time to be on others - I barely have time for this forum and - my family think I’m on here too much.

And now what I actually said:

“…and there’s no particular reason to think that ratio should be significantly different on a mb.” Reply #46140

Can you see the difference between these two statements?

I know you position yourself as a sort of “Vlad with an “O” Level”, but your straw manning and his are rapidly becoming indistinguishable.

For example, I have had different  doctors tell me I have/ don't have TB of the lungs in the past based on the same set of blood tests, chest x-rays and symptoms of persistent hacking cough and noticeable weight loss and extreme tiredness presented to them. A bronchoscopy at a London hospital did not pick up the TB in my lungs but a 2nd bronchoscopy about 15 months later did detect TB. Apparently this happens sometimes where a bronchial wash does not pick up TB cells, but none of the doctors seemed to be aware of this, so just breezily informed me the good news that the lab had not found TB therefore I did not have TB, leaving me free to go back to work to infect as many other people as possible. I had been taking medication to combat TB prescribed by a doctor in Sri Lanka based on an x-ray, blood test and my symptoms but the London hospital told me to stop taking the medication after the bronchoscopy as they were certain that I did not have TB.

Irrelevant – see above.

PD doesn't give me the reasonable impression that he is an expert in all situations where Occam's Razor might apply , so will have to reserve my judgement on this. This Prof https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/johnjoe-mcfadden on the other hand seems to have published a book on it so I can verify his credentials and also if I find the time, read the book https://johnjoemcfadden.co.uk/books/life-is-simple-how-occams-razor-set-science-free-and-unlocked-the-universe/

I am not going to blindly accept PD's claims of expertise on scientific research based on his say so, and am not persuaded of his expertise on the view that scientists have of Occam's Razor. I might have a discussion about PD's views on the issue once I have read Professor Johnjoe McFadden's book.

This is also an interesting read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44324576_Simple_or_Simplistic_Scientists'_Views_on_Occam's_Razor

Do you remember I just upbraided you on your straw manning? You’ve just done it again. PD doesn't claim to be “an expert in all situations where Occam's Razor might apply”. Far from it. He merely says that, in decades of academic life, he’s never seen it used. That’s it. No “expertise”. No “all situations” where it “might apply”. None of that. He’s just telling you that he hasn’t seen it used, and nothing more.

That’s why your “aha, but are you really a Professor?” is just as much as a type of ad hom as, say, “aha, but are you really a mechanic?” would be if the mechanic told you than in 30 years he’d never seen a mouse jump out of an engine.

Apart from all that though…       

[ekim]

I think I would have a different attitude to you as a female convert to Islam, than I would by having to accept you were an atheist in a homosexual marriage at the age of 18, with a husband who suffers from diabetes.

Perhaps that illustrates what may be behind Gabriella's post.  It can stir up an 'attitude' leading to multiple ad homina and egotistical comments rather than just focusing on the text and exchange of views.

[Udayana]

Perhaps that illustrates what may be behind Gabriella's post.  It can stir up an 'attitude' leading to multiple ad homina and egotistical comments rather than just focusing on the text and exchange of views.

Indeed. But it is not only "one way". Everyone needs to be aware and avoid the tendency to it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

They’re arguments (not “assertions” – way to poison the well though) and you haven’t provided reasons for not accepting them at all – you’ve just ignored them.

Incorrect - they are assertions, which has been pointed out to you before, so I haven't ignored them.

With very little hope that you’ll ever address the argument, here it is once again though: you cannot just conflate the character of a thing (ie, natural vs supernatural) with the degree of knowledge science (or anything else) happens to have about that thing (at all or on a given date).

I disagree with your assertion about what I can and cannot. The character or description of the thing as supernatural is because it is not testable using the current known scientific methods to observe, test and explain things in the natural world, therefore the subject of such concepts/ ideas/ thoughts are described as beyond/ outside/ above nature i.e. supernatural. Clearly, without having established the existence of the supernatural, people (and dictionaries) have used the adjective 'supernatural'. You can assert that they shouldn't, but I disagree as I find the term has been a useful addition to our language to differentiate things that we would describe as part of the natural world. 

If did you want to demonstrate the property “supernatural” you’d first have to define and establish its existence at all, and then you’d have to argue the case for something populating it.

No I don't, for the reasons given - it's use is to describe what it isn't i.e. it isn't part of the natural world because we don't have the methods to test for it and establish/demonstrate its existence as we can with the things we describe as part of the natural world. That doesn't mean that anything supernatural actually exists - since we can't demonstrate its existence. Hence people use faith to believe in the existence of something they would describe as supernatural as they cannot demonstrate it exists.

“Science can’t explain it/can’t explain it yet” doesn’t even come close for that purpose.

The scientific method, as we know it, can't be applied to it seems fine to me. Your opinion that it is not fine for you is noted.

I’m not sure whether you’re simply no understanding anything, or you do understand but you’re too dishonest to address the point. Slowly now: “being shown to be objectively true” is NOT a statement of epistemic certainty for the reasons I explained and you ignored (again). All truths rest ultimately on axioms, and there’s no way to test those – you just have to accept them as is. They could be wrong though. How for example would you know that the “I” you think exists isn’t in fact an avatar in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed only to think that Paris is the capital of France?   

Repeating stupidities doesn’t make them less stupid, especially after they’ve been corrected for you.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't shown it to be objectively true that I have tied myself in knots, painted myself into a corner, repeated stupidities or any of the other trite idioms you regularly trot out when stating your opinions. When we were discussing the certainty of some religiously or politically or culturally motivated people to kill due to the certainty they have in their beliefs, I was under the impression we were discussing their psychological / moral certainty. How have you established that such people have epistemic certainty?

[Outrider]

Let me just fetch me littlest violin.

Faith schools in large towns and cities, whilst still inherently problematic, don't pose the same sort of problem because there are enough school spaces in the area for people to be able to avoid them if they want to. In small rural communities, however, where the next primary school could be literally dozens of miles away, for the state provision to be formal indoctrination into one faith system is unjustifiable, even if you accept that faith schools are a valid premise in the first instance.

But you go fiddle with yourself whilst people try to fix this around you.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There you go again with your tedious hyperbole.

Where have I ever suggested that your parents were 'zealots' or 'radical' - oh - I haven't, but your arguments are wafer thin unless you try to make out that I think your upbringing was some kind of extremism, which I never have. My point was that your upbringing was christian, which is hard to argue against if you went to faith school and, most specifically, Sunday School.

So let's actually get back to the facts shall we.

Back in the 60s the proportion of pupils going to a school with a religious foundation (call them faith schools, church schools, whatever) wasn't massively different to today. So approximately one third of primary school pupils were in faith schools (as we would call them now), the rest in non-faith schools. At secondary level the proportion in faith schools drops to about one quarter, with three quarter in non faith schools. The reason being that (for reasons I don't fully understand) the CofE focussed its schools at primary level so there was more CofE provision at primary than secondary level. RCC didn't do this so they had as many places at secondary level as primary level. In the 1960s faith schools that weren't CofE or RCC were so rare at to not be particularly worth discussing.

I accept that in some rare places the only available school was of one type or another. However this is typically in small villages with just a single school - and the vast, vast majority of the population (even in the 1960s) did not live in small villages. So for the vast majority of parents, living in larger villages, towns and cities there was some effective choice as to whether they sent their child to a faith school or a non-faith school. And then, as now, many faith schools required parents to demonstrate their commitment to that religion in some manner to be admitted. And of course, particularly due to the strange mismatch at primary vs secondary level for CofE schools there will be parents who chose to send their kids to a CofE school at primary level who did not have a CofE secondary within a reasonable distance.

So against that background - your parents chose to send you to a faith school (I think this was at primary level), unlike two thirds of kids.

Now for schooling - parents had to send their kids to one school or another (unless they were prepared to home learn which was very rare). So I get that sometime there was the situation of having to plump for something they didn't really want.

There is no such excuse for Sunday School which was then and is now, a completely elective, voluntary choice. There is no requirement for any kid to go to Sunday school or any equivalent religious instruction system. And even in the 60s most kids didn't go - numbers have been declining, of course, over the decades, but even at the start of that decade (1960s) I think only between 40-45% of kids went to Sunday School. Unlike most parents, your parents chose to send you to Sunday school.

So was your upbringing radical, zealotic or extreme - nope. But it was a christian upbringing unlike most children even in the 1960s who did not go to faith schools and did not go to Sunday school.

That's my point - that your parents chose to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school demonstrates that they chose a christian upbringing for you - they didn't have to, but they chose to.

I'm of the informed opinion that my family follow a pretty average trajectory for the UK. Parents probably made to attend sunday school and joined religious youth organisations i.e. the boys brigade,
abandonment of  religious commitment of this type in adulthood had first Kids baptised as infants as the done thing sent first kids to sunday school non compulsoraly. Latter kid not subjected to sunday school. Youngest Kid sent to local non C of E primary school when one become available. And that background reflects the religious trajectory of the country I would imagine.....unless I imagined the whole thing and my life was the revisionist travesty emanating from yourself.

I have not been troubled by the validity of your qualifications as such but I find what authority you think they give you licence to say and order peoples lives quite disturbing, particularly it's operation in areas where you are not professor but properly just Mr Davey.

[ProfessorDavey]

Faith schools in large towns and cities, whilst still inherently problematic, don't pose the same sort of problem because there are enough school spaces in the area for people to be able to avoid them if they want to. In small rural communities, however, where the next primary school could be literally dozens of miles away, for the state provision to be formal indoctrination into one faith system is unjustifiable, even if you accept that faith schools are a valid premise in the first instance.

But you go fiddle with yourself whilst people try to fix this around you.

O.

Absolutely - whatever your overall view on faith schools to be, it sure has to be the case that if there is effectively only one school in a particular area that that school should not be tied to any specific religion, in other words must be a non-faith school.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm of the informed opinion that my family follow a pretty average trajectory for the UK. Parents probably made to attend sunday school and joined religious youth organisations i.e. the boys brigade,
abandonment of  religious commitment of this type in adulthood had first Kids baptised as infants as the done thing sent first kids to sunday school non compulsoraly. Latter kid not subjected to sunday school. Youngest Kid sent to local non C of E primary school when one become available. And that background reflects the religious trajectory of the country I would imagine.....unless I imagined the whole thing and my life was the revisionist travesty emanating from yourself.

None of which counters my only point in the matter - specifically that your upbringing was christian. That it was pretty standard (although faith school attendance and Sunday school attendance were minority activities even in the 60s) doesn't alter the point that your upbringing was christian.

I have not been troubled by the validity of your qualifications as such but I find what authority you think they give you licence to say and order peoples lives quite disturbing, particularly it's operation in areas where you are not professor but properly just Mr Davey.

I have said nothing about your life that you haven't confirmed - I don't believe we have disagreement over whether your parents chose to send you to a faith school and chose to send you to sunday school.

Our only disagreement is whether attending a christian faith school and sunday school is evidence of a christian upbringing. I think it is, which seems pretty obvious. You, for some reason, seem to think it isn't, which I find rather bizarre. Would you argue that someone who attended Hebrew school as a purely voluntary activity did not have a jewish upbringing?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Way to miss the point. In your examples you’re describing people who would provide a service or advice to you. If the good Prof was a potential tutor for your kids for example you might well do the same thing. That’s not the point though – all he’s actually saying is that in 30 years in academia he’s never seen the use of something.

Way to miss large parts of the recent conversation in this thread BHS - not sure if that is dishonesty on your part or just stupidity.

PD said a lot more than "I haven't seen it". NS responded to PD's claim that he hadn't seen Occam's Razor used by providing a link to an article about the use of Occam's Razor's in the field of science and PD responded with "Nice bit of googling NS.

So one pop-science article written by a freelance science writer (no idea whether this guy has ever actually been a professional scientific researcher) trumps 35 years of experience in conducting both personal scientific research at an internationally-recognised level, plus also having lead faculty-level research programmes in science at one of the UK's leading research intensive universities."

PD is claiming his views should be accepted over any other views based on his supposed credentials as a experienced professional. Are you suggesting he isn't claiming a level of expertise here?

PD then went on to say "Oh and by the way the article largely backs up my view - i.e. in actually scientific research tends to lead to simplification and over-generalisation, but in engineering design (whether physical products or computer engineering) can be a useful rule of thumb. Although even within engineering design (I spent a few years teaching this) it is never mentioned as such."

So PD has gone from I've never seen it to it never happens. Why would one anonymous person's views on a message board about his experiences be taken as evidence to support a generalisation that it doesn't happen? 
 

To correct your false analogy, what then if the tradesman/doctor/whatever had also said, “in 30 years I’ve never seen an example of X” would you then say “ah, but are you really tradesman/doctor/whatever” or would you just assume on the balance or probabilities that they were who they said they were?

I would think "are you really a ....." if they went on to say that because they have never seen it, it doesn't happen. Concluding that it doesn't happen is stupid. That level of stupidity in a statement might lead me to wonder if they were either some kind of fantasist or too stupid to be trusted with the job. 

Next up, what you said I said:

And now what I actually said:

“…and there’s no particular reason to think that ratio should be significantly different on a mb.” Reply #46140

Can you see the difference between these two statements?

Hmm - it seems PD's stupidity in making statements is catching as you seem to have asserted that there is "no particular reason to think" without giving any indication of why you concluded that there is no particular reason. What information did you look at about trusting people's personas on the internet vs real life in order to decide there is "no particular reason to think"?

I know you position yourself as a sort of “Vlad with an “O” Level”, but your straw manning and his are rapidly becoming indistinguishable.

My whole stock of irony meters has exploded - I suggest you worry about the level of stupidity being displayed in your own posts.

Irrelevant – see above.

Do you remember I just upbraided you on your straw manning? You’ve just done it again. PD doesn't claim to be “an expert in all situations where Occam's Razor might apply”. Far from it. He merely says that, in decades of academic life, he’s never seen it used. That’s it. No “expertise”. No “all situations” where it “might apply”. None of that. He’s just telling you that he hasn’t seen it used, and nothing more.

PD's reply #46453, 46067 "So if Occam is so important in scientific research, how come in over 35 years in scientific research I have never heard my scientific community mention it once.

Bottom line - it is not a feature of scientific research - it is a philosophical concept."

"if scientists don't consider it whatsoever during their scientific endeavours, which is my professional experience, then it isn't relevant to science, regardless of what your pop-science and wiki articles might say.

Sometimes NS, you just might want to recognise that some people on here actually have longstanding professional experience in some matters, and just might know better how things actually happen than some armchair warrior.

...But actually I wasn't talking about 'science' per se, but the approach of scientists. And yes VG, someone who has 35 years experience embedded in the scientific community is in a rather better position to talk about whether that scientific community uses, discusses, recognises as important, Occam, than someone who has probably never had a professional discussion (whether via publications, presentations, general discussions over a beer) with a scientist in their lives.

But hey, ho - who needs experts eh"

That’s why your “aha, but are you really a Professor?” is just as much as a type of ad hom as, say, “aha, but are you really a mechanic?” would be if the mechanic told you than in 30 years he’d never seen a mouse jump out of an engine.

Apart from all that though…       

Why lie bout it BHS. Actually what I said was "Given the huge amount of difference of opinion among scientists and how they keep getting things wrong (as is normal in science), why would the opinion of one person on an anonymous message board who claims to be "a professional, scientific researcher with 35 years experience of high level scientific research etc etc" be the only opinion worth considering?

Personally I think in order to determine who is more likely to be ignorant, we would first need proof that you are any of the things you claim you are. Without that proof, it's impossible to determine between 2 anonymous forum posters, which one of them is more likely to be more ignorant. We don't have any stats to calculate a probability."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Faith schools in large towns and cities, whilst still inherently problematic, don't pose the same sort of problem because there are enough school spaces in the area for people to be able to avoid them if they want to. In small rural communities, however, where the next primary school could be literally dozens of miles away, for the state provision to be formal indoctrination into one faith system is unjustifiable, even if you accept that faith schools are a valid premise in the first instance.

But you go fiddle with yourself whilst people try to fix this around you.

O.

I'm trying to work out what the problem you keep talking about is since there is no exclusion of children at C of E primary schools as there is in fee paying schools. You may have a case for church secondary schools but there is other selection at that level in parts of the UK. Formal indoctrination? How are you discriminating indoctrination from learning here there is no compulsory test of 'broad Christianisation' at the end of it or assessment and religion does not have nearly the same effort and impor
tance attached to it as literacy and numeracy. Against all of this Humanist UK and NSS efforts at influencing education look like active campaigns to promote religious ignorance and illiteracy...and yes I said those as if they were bad things.

[ProfessorDavey]

Parents probably made to attend sunday school and joined religious youth organisations i.e. the boys brigade, abandonment of  religious commitment of this type in adulthood had first Kids baptised as infants as the done thing sent first kids to sunday school non compulsoraly. Latter kid not subjected to sunday school. Youngest Kid sent to local non C of E primary school when one become available. And that background reflects the religious trajectory of the country I would imagine.....unless I imagined the whole thing and my life was the revisionist travesty emanating from yourself.

I'd argue that with the details you have no provided, this doesn't reflect a standard trajectory whatsoever.

I completely accept it to be commonplace for kids to be baptised in the 60s, and for the parents of a sizeable minority to send their kids to faith schools and sunday school.

But your convoluted 'difference between first and later kids' certainly doesn't seem standard to me at all. I think in terms of religiosities parents largely will do the same for all kids - so if one is baptised, so will the others be. Or all won't be baptised. If the choice is faith school for one, then it will be for all, particularly at primary level where the child will have limited input and there isn't the complexities of availability of single sex schools, selective schools etc.

Perhaps you are telling us about your own upbringing (do please be clear) but I doubt there would be many people, even in the 60s, that would have followed such a complex pattern for their different children.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think I would have a different attitude to you as a female convert to Islam, than I would by having to accept you were an atheist in a homosexual marriage at the age of 18, with a husband who suffers from diabetes.

That's my mother's friend's husband. Sorry to disappoint but I have no husband - but if I meet the right person and don't convert to an interpretation of Islam that prohibits homosexual marriage - you never know that could be on the cards .

By the way, I'm no longer 18 - it would be more accurate to say I'm 23. Studying to be an accountant and an expert in Shaolin kick-boxing, having spent many years in training and passed many gradings, and I am pretty handy with my fists, a sword and a stick. I also have experience with rifles too. I am a crime-fighting accountant. 

But in any case your attitude to me is irrelevant to whether the information I provide about the views of a Muslim woman I know is accurate or not. How would you determine if I am misrepresenting her views.? How would you determine if the information I provide about her interpretation of Islam is correct? How would you determine if the translated quotes from the Quran or information about Hadith or other snippets of information on the practices of some Muslims or the variation in interpretation of their religion is accurate or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know you position yourself as a sort of “Vlad with an “O” Level”, but your straw manning and his are rapidly becoming indistinguishable.

Have to own up to laughing at this.
In this argument about putting one's profession up as one's screenname are you worried ''A little bit of this an' a little bit of that'' doesn't look as impressive as ''The Professor'' or ''The Accountant''?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm trying to work out what the problem you keep talking about is since there is no exclusion of children at C of E primary schools ...

Yes there is - there are plenty (albeit not all) state funded CofE schools whose admissions criteria require a level of religious observance. So for example requiring children to be baptised, a record of parental and child church attendance in order to meet the higher categories of the oversubscription criteria.

Here is a pretty standard example from a school not too far from me:

Category 1: Children looked after and children who were previously looked after, including those who appear (to the admission authority) to have been in state care outside of England, and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order1 or a special guardianship order2.

Category 2 Children who have a sibling who will be attending the school at the time of entry (see definitions).

Category 3 Children whose families attend a church service at Christ Church or St Mary’s the Virgin, Ware, at least once a month, for at least a year before the application of places. (Please ask your minister to complete the attached SIF).

Category 4 Children of staff employed by the Governing Body of Christ Church School on a permanent basis: children will be allocated a place if either or both of the following conditions are met:
a. Where a member of staff has been employed by the school for two or more years at the time the application is made.
b. Where the Governors can demonstrate that the member of staff has been recruited to fill a vacant position for which there is a demonstrable skills shortage. (see definitions)

Category 5 Children whose families are practising Christians attending a Christian church within the ecclesiastical Parishes of Christ church or St Mary’s Ware, at least once a month, for at least a year before the allocation of places. (Please ask your minister to complete the attached SIF).

Category 6 Children who live (home address) within the parishes of St Mary’s and Christ Church.

Category 7 Any other children."

If the school is oversubscribed, in which case this policy kicks in, pretty unlikely they'd get beyond category 5. So that means non CofE (or non christian kids) are excluded unless they are 'looked after' (all schools are required by law to have this at the top of their criteria), have a sibling (but that sibling would need to have been admitted under the same criteria) or is the child of a member of staff (noting that this school will be able to restrict who they employ to christians due to Equality Act opt-out).

[Dicky Underpants]

That's my mother's friend's husband. Sorry to disappoint but I have no husband - but if I meet the right person and don't convert to an interpretation of Islam that prohibits homosexual marriage - you never know that could be on the cards .

By the way, I'm no longer 18 - it would be more accurate to say I'm 23. Studying to be an accountant and an expert in Shaolin kick-boxing, having spent many years in training and passed many gradings, and I am pretty handy with my fists, a sword and a stick. I also have experience with rifles too. I am a crime-fighting accountant. 

But in any case your attitude to me is irrelevant to whether the information I provide about the views of a Muslim woman I know is accurate or not. How would you determine if I am misrepresenting her views.? How would you determine if the information I provide about her interpretation of Islam is correct? How would you determine if the translated quotes from the Quran or information about Hadith or other snippets of information on the practices of some Muslims or the variation in interpretation of their religion is accurate or not?

Lots of nerds join the Territorial Army, too.
Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you are telling us about your own upbringing (do please be clear) but I doubt there would be many people, even in the 60s, that would have followed such a complex pattern for their different children.

Consistently Patronising.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes there is - there are plenty (albeit not all) state funded CofE schools whose admissions criteria require a level of religious observance. So for example requiring children to be baptised, a record of parental and child church attendance in order to meet the higher categories of the oversubscription criteria.

Here is a pretty standard example from a school not too far from me:

Category 1: Children looked after and children who were previously looked after, including those who appear (to the admission authority) to have been in state care outside of England, and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order1 or a special guardianship order2.

Category 2 Children who have a sibling who will be attending the school at the time of entry (see definitions).

Category 3 Children whose families attend a church service at Christ Church or St Mary’s the Virgin, Ware, at least once a month, for at least a year before the application of places. (Please ask your minister to complete the attached SIF).

Category 4 Children of staff employed by the Governing Body of Christ Church School on a permanent basis: children will be allocated a place if either or both of the following conditions are met:
a. Where a member of staff has been employed by the school for two or more years at the time the application is made.
b. Where the Governors can demonstrate that the member of staff has been recruited to fill a vacant position for which there is a demonstrable skills shortage. (see definitions)

Category 5 Children whose families are practising Christians attending a Christian church within the ecclesiastical Parishes of Christ church or St Mary’s Ware, at least once a month, for at least a year before the allocation of places. (Please ask your minister to complete the attached SIF).

Category 6 Children who live (home address) within the parishes of St Mary’s and Christ Church.

Category 7 Any other children."

If the school is oversubscribed, in which case this policy kicks in, pretty unlikely they'd get beyond category 5. So that means non CofE (or non christian kids) are excluded unless they are 'looked after' (all schools are required by law to have this at the top of their criteria), have a sibling (but that sibling would need to have been admitted under the same criteria) or is the child of a member of staff (noting that this school will be able to restrict who they employ to christians due to Equality Act opt-out).

Is this a primary School Professor?

[ProfessorDavey]

Consistently Patronising.

Consistently deflecting away from actually addressing the point.

So back on topic. Are you telling us about your own upbringing Vlad, or do you genuinely think this kind of 'do this for first kid, not for later kids' stuff is (or rather was) standard. Because if the latter, I just don't buy it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Have to own up to laughing at this.
In this argument about putting one's profession up as one's screenname are you worried ''A little bit of this an' a little bit of that'' doesn't look as impressive as ''The Professor'' or ''The Accountant''?

I laughed too - but felt the Accountant didn't quite cover all my expertise so have added some letters after my name. Presumably, based on PD's logic, I now trump PD in any legal argument on here especially if he got it from Google 

[ProfessorDavey]

Is this a primary School Professor?

Yes - it is a primary school Vlad. Now why not address the point.

You claimed that CofE primary schools don't exclude certain kids from particular backgrounds - the relevant groups being non christians. I've provided clear evidence that they (or some of them) do.

Address the point.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Lots of nerds join the Territorial Army, too.
Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Well done - that's an improvement. Makes sense to stick to focusing on the arguments presented here rather than my supposed backstory.

[Nearly Sane]

I laughed too - but felt the Accountant didn't quite cover all my expertise so have added some letters after my name. Presumably, based on PD's logic, I now trump PD in any legal argument on here especially if he got it from Google 

Shouldn't you be a KC?