Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[ippy]

http://tinyurl.com/pjbaymd

Agree or not it's an interesting read.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Interesting article. Yes, she is right of course, but, with the news yesterday from the Chief Inspector of schools of the indoctrination of children in private schools and after-school groups, with some in appalling conditions, it is clear that there is still such a long way to go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://tinyurl.com/pjbaymd

Agree or not it's an interesting read.

ippy

Does she go the full ''Trump'' on this?

[john]

"Faith" is a private, personal thing for individuals to treasure in their own way.

It should not be sponsored by society in general, subject to special privileges, tax relief/grants or promoted by state education.

"Faith" is personal full stop. Not everyone has the same "faith" and the overwhelming majority of course have non.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes the article did have that Trumpesques tone that indeed most secular humanist appeals seem to have.

It seems to be taken as read that religious people are evil swivel eyed with invariably the worst intent.

We are a post Christian society but are we yet a New atheist society? I think not.

In terms of Nicky Morgan she is first and foremost a Conservative minister of Education
which means that she uses the case for faith schools (established popular schools with a local connection) and extends it to justify whole chains of schools sponsored and run by big business which I would move have far less of a case to run schools( No expertise, shifting and inappropriate imposition of business models and no local connection). So it's a case of support Cameron get Morgan.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Faith" is a private, personal thing for individuals to treasure in their own way.

It should not be sponsored by society in general, subject to special privileges, tax relief/grants or promoted by state education.

"Faith" is personal full stop. Not everyone has the same "faith" and the overwhelming majority of course have non.

That is sentimental secular humanist dogma. Reality tells us that faith is no more private than the new atheist movement or secular humanism which is the prevailing world view of this country.

If The full gamut of the secular humanist agenda was to be enforced and there was no representation of religion there could not, with regards to no representation no taxation be any tax on religion. There would then be the spectacle of greedy atheists and businesses rushing to declare themselves as religions.

[john]

OSBIWO....(good acronym) said;

If The full gamut of the secular humanist agenda was to be enforced and there was no representation of religion there could not, with regards to no representation no taxation be any tax on religion. There would then be the spectacle of greedy atheists and businesses rushing to declare themselves as religions.

Still trying to work out what that means, can anyone (fluent in gibberish) help?

[Gordon]

OSBIWO....(good acronym) said;

If The full gamut of the secular humanist agenda was to be enforced and there was no representation of religion there could not, with regards to no representation no taxation be any tax on religion. There would then be the spectacle of greedy atheists and businesses rushing to declare themselves as religions.

Still trying to work out what that means, can anyone (fluent in gibberish) help?

It is actually written in Vladdish (which is an excitable variant of gibberish), John, so it is immune to understanding - all you can do is treat it as a word collage (albeit a badly executed one).

[SqueakyVoice]

OSBIWO....(good acronym) said;

If The full gamut of the secular humanist agenda was to be enforced and there was no representation of religion there could not, with regards to no representation no taxation be any tax on religion. There would then be the spectacle of greedy atheists and businesses rushing to declare themselves as religions.

Still trying to work out what that means, can anyone (fluent in gibberish) help?

Chunsty is trying to pretend that it would be terrible if religions didn't  have to pay tax (despite the fact that many religious organisations don't currently pay tax), because then religions wouldn't be entitled  to representation  (despite the fact that religion is currently represented in the House of Lords).

Because then 'greedy atheists' would declare themselves religions to avoid tax (and one must assume voting); despite the fact that if they wanted to do that they could do it now.

If this still doesn't make any sense that's because the concept of meaning and reason mean something completely different in Chunstyland to their common meanings in what the rest of us like to call reality

[Gonnagle]

Dear John and Gordon,

If The full gamut of the secular humanist agenda was to be enforced and there was no representation of religion there could not, with regards to no representation no taxation be any tax on religion. There would then be the spectacle of greedy atheists and businesses rushing to declare themselves as religions.

Vlad at his best, although I think greedy atheists is a cheap shot.

To understand Vlad you must first understand the mind of Vlad.

Hello Playmates.

http://tinyurl.com/hp9shpc

Gonnagle, A true fan of all things Vlad.

[john]

Thanks for your help chaps.

I don't suppose we can expect too much from someone who can't even make up his mind who he actually is  !!!

[Gonnagle]

Dear John,

I don't suppose we can expect too much from someone who can't even make up his mind who he actually is  !!!

Billions of universes — and of galaxies and copies of each of us — accumulate with no possibility of communication between them or of testing their reality. But if a duplicate self exists in every multiverse domain and there are infinitely many, which is the real 'me' that I experience now? Is any version of oneself preferred over any other? How could 'I' ever know what the 'true' nature of reality is if one self favours the multiverse and another does not?

In another universe you are Vlad and Vlad is you

Hey!! don't blame me, it's Nearlysane wot dunnit.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear World,

As this is another "we love Vlad thread"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_UWMYbT6YY

Fifty seconds into the video.

My thanks again to Nearlysane, it is not a great leap from Spike Milligan to Tommy Cooper, hell!! it is not a great leap from Spike Milligan to Tommy Cooper to our very own Vlad, they should all be issued free on the NHS.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear John and Gordon,

Vlad at his best, although I think greedy atheists is a cheap shot.

To understand Vlad you must first understand the mind of Vlad.

Hello Playmates.

http://tinyurl.com/hp9shpc

Gonnagle, A true fan of all things Vlad.

Thanks Mr G.

I'm afraid that's me........ a laugh, a song and then me letting meself and everyone down badly....... I theng you!

[Hope]

"Faith" is a private, personal thing for individuals to treasure in their own way.

It should not be sponsored by society in general, subject to special privileges, tax relief/grants or promoted by state education.

"Faith" is personal full stop. Not everyone has the same "faith" and the overwhelming majority of course have non.

OK, so we will stop all public funding of any form of 'faith'.  Not sure how political parties would take this     Perhaps we ought to stop all funding of any group that teaches anything to do with 'belief systems'.

[john]

Hopey said

 "Perhaps we ought to stop all funding of any group that teaches anything to do with 'belief systems'."

I think you are finally getting the point mate.

We need to deal in facts!

[Hope]

I think you are finally getting the point mate.

We need to deal in facts!

So, no science, because that isn't fact, that is what we believe to be the case, today, and it may change tomorrow.  That is the underlying problem, john.  There is no such thing as fact when one gets down to the reality of life

[Gordon]

So, no science, because that isn't fact, that is what we believe to be the case, today, and it may change tomorrow.  That is the underlying problem, john.  There is no such thing as fact when one gets down to the reality of life

Therefore, claims such as that Jesus was resurrected from being dead aren't historical facts - works for me.

[Hope]

Therefore, claims such as that Jesus was resurrected from being dead aren't historical facts - works for me.

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that that is a irrefutable fact, Gordon.  What they have argued is that given all the evidence on both sides of the debate, they believe that it is more likely than not.  After all, all you and others like you have been able to do is produce 'normal' evidence, and we all know that for normal to be where it is on a spectrum, there have to have been 'extremes' as well.

[Gordon]

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that that is a irrefutable fact, Gordon.

I think some of your fellow Christians do, but for those who don't then their faith is really just opinion, so that their justification for holding this opinion should surely be amenable to assessment, and this requires a method that can provide a meaningful basis to accept or reject what is claimed - this method seems to be unavailable in spite of Christians claiming they have supporting evidence for their opinions.

What they have argued is that given all the evidence on both sides of the debate, they believe that it is more likely than not.

Then 'they' are naive or are liars, probably more the former since 'likely' implies probability, and since probability is naturalistic then their claims should be amenable to the scientific method, which is based on the assumption of naturalism. It isn't though, and since the 'other side' (theists) have no comparable method that is specific to non-naturalistic claims involving what is 'likely' then they have no evidence that is amenable to a methodological review: however, their claims of evidence fall neatly into the variety of fallacies upon which all their arguments depend.

After all, all you and others like you have been able to do is produce 'normal' evidence, and we all know that for normal to be where it is on a spectrum, there have to have been 'extremes' as well.

Normality undoubtedly has its known 'extremes' that are quantifiable (hence they are considered to be 'extreme' based on stated characteristics): weather is a good example, especially given recent rainfall levels in parts of the UK - but here you seem to be conflating evidence-based 'extremes' with 'supernatural' claims, which is a non-sequitur in the absence of comparable methodologies.

You guys do love your fallacies!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think some of your fellow Christians do, but for those who don't then their faith is really just opinion, so that their justification for holding this opinion should surely be amenable to assessment, and this requires a method that can provide a meaningful basis to accept or reject what is claimed -

If we use the historical method I.e. The study of history based on account then alternatives to the standard understanding of history... That whatever else the earliest Christians believed the gospel narrative have less evidence.

That twenty centuries on some can,t believe it is not actually a scientific or therefore nota methodological argument.

[ippy]

If we use the historical method I.e. The study of history based on account then alternatives to the standard understanding of history... That whatever else the earliest Christians believed the gospel narrative have less evidence.

That twenty centuries on some can,t believe it is not actually a scientific or therefore nota methodological argument.

Have a listen to "Any Answers" BBC radio 4 Saturday 12-12-15 1300, you'll love it Vlad.

ippy

[Hope]

I think some of your fellow Christians do, but for those who don't then their faith is really just opinion, so that their justification for holding this opinion should surely be amenable to assessment, and this requires a method that can provide a meaningful basis to accept or reject what is claimed - this method seems to be unavailable in spite of Christians claiming they have supporting evidence for their opinions.

And there is a methodology that you have yourself outlined - that when all the various elements and evidences are taken into account (the 'physical' natural explanations, and the more spiritual, 'supernatural' ones) I find thast the natural explanations given by you and those on your side of the debate don't fit the situiation.  For instance the oft-repeated example of Chinese Whipsers which is only ever exemplified from within the context of a highly-literate society as we are today, as opposed to a largely oral society that would have existed in 1st Century Palestine.

In that sense, I find your arguments actually argue against the very points you seem keen to make.

Then 'they' are naive or are liars, probably more the former since 'likely' implies probability, and since probability is naturalistic then their claims should be amenable to the scientific method, which is based on the assumption of naturalism. It isn't though, and since the 'other side' (theists) have no comparable method that is specific to non-naturalistic claims involving what is 'likely' then they have no evidence that is amenable to a methodological review: however, their claims of evidence fall neatly into the variety of fallacies upon which all their arguments depend.

Sorry (well, not really!! ) to labour the point, but the problem with your 'naturalistic' arguments is that they are often made from within a context that assumes that modern thinking applies across time (again, my reference to the oral/literary tradition is an example of this; as is, for instance, Floo's oft-repeated presumption that for a young teen-aged girl to have become pregnant, child abuse must necessarily have been involved).  So not only are you limiting one's arguments to a naturalistic one, one is limiting that naturalistic argument to a specific time period and its practices.

You guys do love your fallacies!

I could say the same about you guys.

[Shaker]

I could say the same about you guys.

Not only could you say it but you have said it.

But of course, when we ask for evidence of the same you do a runner, also of course.

Examples provided on request.

[Gordon]

And there is a methodology that you have yourself outlined - that when all the various elements and evidences are taken into account (the 'physical' natural explanations, and the more spiritual, 'supernatural' ones) I find thast the natural explanations given by you and those on your side of the debate don't fit the situiation.

If you are proposing there are 'supernatural' explanations then you are proposing an oxymoron.

For instance the oft-repeated example of Chinese Whipsers which is only ever exemplified from within the context of a highly-literate society as we are today, as opposed to a largely oral society that would have existed in 1st Century Palestine.

Presumptive assertion - you are not in a position to describe in any detail how much, or little, change in re-telling is involved since you have no idea of what was circulating at the time, say, of the death of Jesus - your start point of the NT text is decades post-hoc: this argument, that you often advance, is a red-herring.

In that sense, I find your arguments actually argue against the very points you seem keen to make. Sorry (well, not really!! ) to labour the point, but the problem with your 'naturalistic' arguments is that they are often made from within a context that assumes that modern thinking applies across time (again, my reference to the oral/literary tradition is an example of this; as is, for instance, Floo's oft-repeated presumption that for a young teen-aged girl to have become pregnant, child abuse must necessarily have been involved).  So not only are you limiting one's arguments to a naturalistic one, one is limiting that naturalistic argument to a specific time period and its practices.

All verifiable explanations of events (like claimed resurrections, as opposed to the moral climate of the time and place) are naturalistic: in that they involve cause and effect, probability etc, so any 'supernatural explanation', apart from being an oxymoron as things stand, are indistinguishable from fiction without a suitable method to do the distinguishing with - any luck with that yet?