Correlation

[Rhiannon]

Support for the anti welfare self interest party.

The Brexit result was apparently a punishment vote.........all very dark, cynical with a tang of cruelty.....a bit like your posts.

The Brexit vote and Trump's victory both come out of fear. Thinking that God will get us out of the shit is the worst kind of fantasy - Christianity was far stronger in the thirties and then we saw religious genocide, the slaughter of millions in combat and in civilian life and the deployment of weapons that could destroy us all. Forgive me if I don't look to religion to fix things this time.

[Rhiannon]

Trump I don't know .Britains love for the anti welfare self interest party is undeniable.

Right. And Christians don't vote Tory?

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously one hates to interrupt random word generation with some numbers


http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-2015-general-election-religious-affiliation-and-party-vote-share-across-constituencies/#.WHtSnXrLdoM

[Aruntraveller]

Trump I don't know .Britains love for the anti welfare self interest party is undeniable.

Oh yes - that's right. A country that always (ok nearly always) returns a majority government on a MINORITY share of the vote.

Your arguments are all over the fucking place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right. And Christians don't vote Tory?

That doesn't account for the overwhelming love for the party of anti welfare and self interest. How can it in a largely and increasingly secular society.

14 points ahead in the polls.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Brexit vote and Trump's victory both come out of fear. Thinking that God will get us out of the shit is the worst kind of fantasy - Christianity was far stronger in the thirties and then we saw religious genocide, the slaughter of millions in combat and in civilian life and the deployment of weapons that could destroy us all. Forgive me if I don't look to religion to fix things this time.

In my view secular humanism is well meaning but it is overly sentimental and too focus send on being anti heavenly to be any earthly good. On the other hand Dawkins either deliberately or inadvertently provide part of the intellectual basis for Thatcherism.

Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.

[Walter]

In my view secular humanism is well meaning but it is overly sentimental and too focus send on being anti heavenly to be any earthly good. On the other hand Dawkins either deliberately or inadvertently provide part of the intellectual basis for Thatcherism.

Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.

You don't need EVIDENCE for anything you say or believe do you ?

[Shaker]

Paganism to me seems to be just middle class dressing up at the weekend like nominal Christianity and both, like humanism seem to have no real agenda for social responsibility.

Perhaps it seems that way to you because you don't know much about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps it seems that way to you because you don't know much about it?

They themselves would say they don't advertise what they believe in. It's all secret rites though isn't it and one has to be specially predisposed.

The pagans I know claim special powers that us muggles don't or can't possess....that is natural abilities rather than gifts

I remember a pagan laddy on this board saying he would answer my questions.....but on another board. He never did.

[Shaker]

They themselves would say they don't advertise what they believe in. It's all secret rites though isn't it

Secret enough to be in umpteen books and all over the Webernet, sure

and one has to be specially predisposed.

What does that even mean? That you pursue something you're interested in? Not exactly stop-the-presses stuff, is it?

The pagans I know claim special powers that us muggles don't or can't possess....that is natural abilities rather than gifts

Right ... and?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't need EVIDENCE for anything you say or believe do you ?

It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.

[Shaker]

It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.

That sounds a lot like the way the (assumed) Christian message of love, peace and mercy has been used to enslave, oppress, persecute, torture and kill for two thousand years. Whose fault is that, I wonder?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secret enough to be in umpteen books and all over the Webernet, sure ::)What does that even mean? That you pursue something you're interested in? Not exactly stop-the-presses stuff, is it?
Right ... and?

Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.

Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.

In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like  are likely to make a meal of theists like him.

Mind

[Walter]

It's a considered opinion walterPPK. Dawkins was a populariser. His universal Darwinian ideas chimed exactly with Thatcherism. There is not a Dawkinsian conclusion which cannot be harnessed to anti welfare self interest.

Dawkins is a scientist, he also writes books some of which are very popular. One in particular sold very well and raised much criticism .
I don't know what you mean by 'his universal Darwinian ideas' , please explain. and the rest is just bollocks .

[Shaker]

Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.

All religions pick up bits and pieces from other cultures and traditions as a boat's hull accretes barnacles. Problem?

Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.

Which ones are those, specifically?

In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism

There are non-theist pagans for sure, if that's what you mean.

although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like  are likely to make a meal of theists like him.

No, sorry ... you've lapsed back into Vladese again.

[Aruntraveller]

Shakari ..........There are as many paganism so as there are pagans. Modern Paganism is a trolley being filled from the shelves of today's spiritual super market.

Therefore the usually accusations which atheists love to throw at Christians are going unthrown when it comes to paganism.

In fact even atheism it seems can be turned into paganism although, as I have told Owlswing.....if there are no Christians available atheist 'fellow travellers" like  are likely to make a meal of theists like him.

Mind

But there is a crucial difference - it is not part of their religion to go out and convert people, or as far as I can see to try to persuade law makers that they should get some special recognition and priviledge based on their unevidenced beliefs.

Quite frankly, no matter how ridiculous a religion/belief is provided it is not harming the participants or other members of society I don't care.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That sounds a lot like the way the (assumed) Christian message of love, peace and mercy has been used to enslave, oppress, persecute, torture and kill for two thousand years. Whose fault is that, I wonder?

None of that in the gospels or scripture or even Jesus reported there in.

Dawkins on the other hand preaches a bleak, universal Darwinian harshness.

Karen Armstrong had it when commenting that Dawkins world was ok for people with absorbing employment and conditions like er, Dawkins.

[Shaker]

None of that in the gospels or scripture or even Jesus reported there in.

Excellent. So you're agreeing, then, that a message can be misrepresented by others for their own ends in ways that the author of the message never intended. Capital - glad we got there so soon.

Even to say this much is to dignify your "case" with being true, i.e. that somehow a book on evolution formed the ideological footings of Thatcherism, which is some going for a man who once expressed mild support for the Lib Dems IIRC. Not a whisper of Friedmanian economics in this analysis, no - it's all down to devil in disguise Dicky again

Dawkins on the other hand preaches a bleak, universal Darwinian harshness.

Nope. It might be your opinion that that's the case, but that doesn't make it fact. Dawkins is a scientist and predominantly writes about his specialities, namely ethology and evolutionary biology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dawkins is a scientist, he also writes books some of which are very popular. One in particular sold very well and raised much criticism .
I don't know what you mean by 'his universal Darwinian ideas' , please explain. and the rest is just bollocks .

He is also an antitheist.
Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology. He also applies darwinianism in philosophy but we'll give him a bye on that.

[Walter]

He is also an antitheist.
Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology. He also applies darwinianism in philosophy but we'll give him a bye on that.

Ive had enough of this shit , I'm off.

[Shaker]

Universal darwinianism is when you take tried and tested Darwinian principles which occur in biology and apply them where there is no such evidential basis or basis of application.
Dawkins has done this twice at least.....once in memetics and in his advocacy of Smolin's evolutionary cosmology.

Shouldn't the target of your ire here be Lee Smolin, a physicist applying a biological principle to cosmology ("where there is no such evidential basis"), rather than Dawkins?

Or would that deflect too much attention away from your nemesis?

[jeremyp]

UK polls

Which ones?

Brexit result

In what way does the result of the Brexit poll show that people are more likely to act in a way that makes others worse off? What are you comparing it to? How do you tell the difference between somebody who voted Brexit for selfish reasons and those who voted for Brexit because they genuinely (misguidedly IMO) thought we'd be better off?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which ones?In what way does the result of the Brexit poll show that people are more likely to act in a way that makes others worse off? What are you comparing it to? How do you tell the difference between somebody who voted Brexit for selfish reasons and those who voted for Brexit because they genuinely (misguidedly IMO) thought we'd be better off?

Nobody was able to make a case that we would be better off then let alone now. It was done apparently to teach people a lesson ......the metropolitan elites.......it was done in conjunction with the newspapers......and that is both well recorded and the consensus report.

[Shaker]

Just to remind you, Vlad, that even in two pages there's rather a large backlog of questions you still haven't answered, the most fundamental of them being jeremy's in #6 - what are your sources that the "will to act in a way that makes others lives worse increases" is true?

[jeremyp]

Nobody was able to make a case that we would be better off then let alone now. It was done apparently to teach people a lesson ......the metropolitan elites.......it was done in conjunction with the newspapers......and that is both well recorded and the consensus report.

Where's your evidence that everybody who voted Leave was doing it "to teach people a lesson"?

What historical data are you comparing the result to?