Comments by fides_et_ratio

Comment #68708 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 8:11 am

48. Comment #68700 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

I'd say he should be taken seriously because he's a well educated, intelligent man with a background in science, philosophy, theology, athiesm and theism, and he might challenge your strongly held beliefs. An argument is much more interesting when you listen to both sides. I'm also very grateful to the thread for bringing my attention to the Catholic response, I'll be buying it, as well as Francis Collins book which I found on Amazon as a result of looking for the book by Crean.

202. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68693 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 7:06 am

Try watching the cricket instead!

203. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68690 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject. It'd be handy to hear from those who have as the rest is just ignorance.

The 'flea' thing is also nonsense. The term flea seems to indicate a responder. Seeing as all athiesm is a response, surely RD et al are the real fleas.

204. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68676 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

26. Comment #68668 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

Were there many African Americans rising to the upper echelons of American society in the 19th century?

205. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68188 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 10:12 am

Debatable, the offer, promise or existence of privilege for belief would seem to be some sort of coercion that the Vatican explicitly speaks against.

'immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,'

206. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68164 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 9:21 am

14. Comment #68122 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 7:45 am

Come now Philip, you and I both know that you're much more intelligent than that. The use of man and men to mean humanity was commonplace in the sixties. In fact the Vatican showed its progressive approach to human rights in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which you appear to have selectively ignored. It refers to the gender neutral term of the human person.

As for the other posts, I merely pointed out that the entirety of the BHA's vision as stated on its website is contained in Catholic teaching. I wonder what part of that statement is untrue.

207. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68107 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 6:29 am

From the BMA's website:

'About the BHA

Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Our Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.'

From the documents of the Second Vatican Council;

' 2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.'

It seems that there is nothing in the BHA's vision that is at conflict with established Catholic teaching. Maybe this is how they also claim that there are 17 million humanists in Britain, (a statistic not supported by the last census) they're just borrowing a few Christians, as well as quotes, for their numbers.

208. The importance of doubt

Comment #67047 by fides_et_ratio on September 1, 2007 at 2:32 pm

34. Comment #66541 by Richard Dawkins on August 30, 2007 at 11:01 am

My apologies, my memory and spelling are both flawed. I've found the article, he was reviewing 'God is not great' by the other one. I've read so much on all of his I get a bit mixed up about the details sometimes.

I'll provide the link. As a well written piece of fact based rebuttal, it might be worth a look.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/346

Mark.

209. The importance of doubt

Comment #66519 by fides_et_ratio on August 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

2. Comment #66393 by Richard Dawkins on August 29, 2007 at 11:28 pm

In his defense, perhaps he didn't realise it was a joke due to the lack of any apparent hilarity in the statement. To be fair, it doesn't seem particularly amusing.

Also, I read an article a few months ago where John Cornwall was taking you to task for deliberately misquoting him in your book. If I remember correctly, his case was more compelling than you own.

210. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59785 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:11 pm

240. Comment #59775 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Maybe those books I suggested will help you understand this so-called M*me.

I do get it by the way, I just disagree (like some other posters on here if you look closely). Many posters on here say that religions are oppresive and try to stop people thinking. I find it interesting that when I've disagreed with you here, you've questioned not just my state of mind but whether it is complete or not. You're not trying to stifle my freedom of thought by insult are you. If you are, I think it's very childish!

211. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59781 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

232. Comment #59724 by Nails on July 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm

We agree that's what he means, with so much going on we'll have to agree to disagree about the rights and wrongs of whether faith is childish or not, or indeed bullying for that matter. My point was that RD says that faith is childish whilst at the same time maintains that it is not just wrong but wicked to say that a child has faith. To you, as to me this must seem at the very least inconsistent and at most contradictory.

233. Comment #59727 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm

As I think I made clear in my post, I'd encourage them to keep looking. Whilst RD and some fundamentalists (both theist and athiest) would like to set up a science versus religion situation, I'm not one of those. They both seek the truth, and are in that sense complimentary as far as I can see.

234. Comment #59729 by BillySands on July 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

You pasted a quote of mine where I was clearly talking about me and then used it to say I was talking about you. I wasn't by the way. Let me make it clearer, read back through the quote, when it says 'I', that means me, not you.

237. Comment #59747 by Northern Bright on July 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Careful reading of my original post and my reply would show that this wasn't the case but let me reiterate. When I said that I didn't share your experience of meditation what I meant was, I didn't share your experience of meaning. When I didn't write, 'this is why you lost your faith' the reason I didn't write that is because I have no idea why you are where you are on your faith/non-faith journey. Perhaps the reason why you think that I think like this is because, as you say, you used to think like it. I don't know anything about you except your experience of meditation, that's how I can say I don't share it.

238. Comment #59748 by Quetzalcoatl on July 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm

It didn't prevent RD from getting where he is today.

Also you haven't read I think the original posts and politeness. I was talking about a real situation, not an analogy. As for the well-behaved bit, I have the pleasure to say that sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.

Just one more thing on the supposed indoctrination issue. I see great benefit in continuing to challenge my children with questions such as, 'why are we here?', 'Does life have meaning?' etc. We live in a secular country (England), how can they choose if I don't teach them what I've learnt about faith?
The evidence seems to suggest that people are much more capable than you think of choosing their way out of faith, as of course they are of choosing their way into it. I think we agree though, RD was wrong to say wicked wasn't he?

212. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59718 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

207. Comment #59194 by Wrought on July 28, 2007 at 4:19 am

'Teaching a child religious doctrine insists that they take on beliefs which are not readily accessible to those who are not in their in-group and also segregates them from those who are partisan to other religions. For example, in teaching your child to pray to Jesus and, ultimately, to call himself a Christian, are you also warning him that much of society (people of other religions and atheists) will, in later life, consider him to be either a) likely to end up eternally damned or b) foolish (respectively)? No sensible person would call him damned or foolish for being poilte.

It's a double-edged sword, because if he fully accepts Christian views he must consider others damned and foolish, which compounds the problem.'

Are you saying that atheists believe in damnation? Surely whatever believe my child grows up in there will be some who think him damned. It's an irrellevance.

The other edge of a very blunt sword is just nonsense. My faith certainly doesn't teach that believers of other faiths or athiests or anyone is damned because of their belief. If you'd read through my previous posts you'd know that. My faith teaches that the most fundamental human right of all is the right of the individual to choose their relationship with God.

I too am aware of the differing definitions of the word childish. I assumed that RD was refering to the first because it is consistent with the Father Christmas/toothfairy analogies he is fond of using. I think if he thought it merely silly he wouldn't (nor would we) be engaging in it on such a serious level. I'm going to continue with that assumption for these reasons.

I'm also not sure that you followed the point of the politeness issue. I'll repeat myself. I originally asked if it was wrong to call my child polite when he had no understanding of what polite is. The point you've made is not a response to this but a response to the second straw man in your post (the first being your assumption on damnation).

215. Comment #59278 by Hobbit on July 28, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Yet again, more misquotes and convenient misunderstanding. I have no idea why NB made the decisions and choices she made about her faith, I wouldn't be so arrogant to presume. I was saying that I didn't identify with her description of meditation. Meditation is an exercise in letting go of supposed knowledge (things which aren't present), NB's description obviously wasn't the same as mine, considering the effort she'd gone to (and I accept she wrote well) I thought I should point it out.

Billy Sands,

'When you cant work out something you go "I dont know, but god does and I'm sure he has a good reason for not explaining it to me" This is mental slavery and it is not good for you.'

Like a field full of straw men, it's like watching Worzel Gummidge being on here. I wish some of you would screw your integrity heads on!

When I can't work something out and I need to, I ask someone to help me (for example a plumber with a plumbing difficulty, I don't start building an Ark). However, if I don't need to know (for example, how to build an aeroplane), I just accept that someone else does (and then I buy my ticket). It's called humility to accept that one doesn't know everything (and also that one cannot know everything).

218. Comment #59627 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 am

You raise some interesting questions. If you find that athiesm offers you some answers please start a thread, I would genuinely like to read what you say. Contrary to what you've understood about my stance, I do understand what you and many others have said, I just disagree with it. You can use that to question my mental faculties if you want, I wont react in kind though. If your search fails to supply you with satisfactory answers might I suggest a couple of authors who might help. Timothy Radliffe (especially his last book) and Victor Frankl.

Bon voyage.

213. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59187 by fides_et_ratio on July 28, 2007 at 3:23 am

It's difficult to respond to so many people at once.

This is the way I see it.

RD says that faith is childish.

Some on here say, he didn't really mean childish, what he meant was 'silly' or 'not adult'.

Others say, he did mean to say childish but childish doesn't mean childish it means...

I still mantain that it is logically inconsistant to declare that faith is childish whilst at the same time saying children can't have faith.

To Northern Bright, your experience of meditative prayer is not one I identify with. I suspect from what you wrote that your faith journey didn't bring you to someone called 'John Main', that's a shame. Meditative prayer is about letting go of what you think you know and developing an awareness of the present. Perhaps you were indulging in daily concentration rather than meditation.

To whoever it was who said that 'if I know there is a God then it isn't faith' consider this. I know that my doctor is well-qualified, I put faith in that knowlege when I allow him to operate on me with a sharp knife. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, remember the original point, RD says that to label one's child a Christian is wicked. He's not just wrong about this, he's mistaken too.

I wish there was a facility on here for one-on-one dialogue, it would be much easier to follow.

214. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58902 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:31 pm

166. Comment #58879 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Sorry, I must have missed it, haven't had time to read through all the posts. Which one is it?

215. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58901 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm

165. Comment #58867 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm

to form an educated opinion one has to be educated. This doesn't occur in a vaccuum.

216. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58900 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

161. Comment #58834 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 10:59 am

I wish you'd read through my previous posts leading up to the one you did read/ I think they would've answered your point.

As for reducing the knowledge of biblical scholars to just a 'guess' on a par with a guess about what RD might mean. I would agree with you if you'd spent a lifetime studying RD and an equivalent wealth of material on him. You don't have to agree with what they believe or say to have some sort of respect for their academic integrity.

217. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58831 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 10:38 am

149. Comment #58773 by the_assayer on July 26, 2007 at 4:33 am

158. Comment #58828 by Veronique on July 26, 2007 at 9:44 am

Going to have to leave this thread now as I can't follow it all and I know that you can't understand faith if you can't understand faith. I've experienced athiesm and theism, theism makes much more sense to me, I understand why it doesn't to you.

I must say though there are a couple of points which I feel have been addressed poorly.

I said that I thought it was valid for RD to explain what Einstein and Hawkins really meant when they said God, this seems to have been completely ignored. I don't actually think it's valid for people to say that RD didn't mean 'childish' when he wrote 'childish', he's an exremely intelligent man and an accomplished writer, if he didn't mean childish I really don't think he would've written it (furthermore, his use of the word childish is completely consistent with the annalogies he draws with tooth fairies, Father Christmas etc...). I must reiterate that I find it inconsistent for the same people to say 'what Hawkins means by God is...', and then say that biblical scholars of undoubted intelligence and learning can't say, 'what this passage in the bible means is...'

To those who say there is no proof, there is the question of the numinous. I know there is a God, I have a relationship with him and spend time in meditative prayer on a daily basis. As a result of this I have achieved a sense of peace, freedom from fear, and an awareness of the present that I didn't experience before. My faith teaches me to be of service and to look at what I can do for others, this I try to do in some small way. My faith treaches me to strive to view all people as children of God and to love them accordingly. My faith teaches me to respect the right of another to choose their faith or non-faith as they wish. knowing what I know and having experienced what I've experienced, I really think I would be a bad parent if I didn't try to show my children the same path to joy and freedom that I've found. I wont go as far as to say I'd be abusing them, just depriving them.

By the way, I only came on this thread to say that I thought that RD was wrong to say that people were wicked for labelling their children 'Christian'. He is wrong you know!

218. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58753 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:39 am

Just a couple of things, far too many points for someone with a four year pold to indulge in at once.

I find it interesting (and valid) that people are suggesting that 'what RD really means by childish is...', in much the same way that RD does when he says, 'what Einsteins and Hawkins really mean when they say 'God' is...'. What I find difficult is that when biblical scholars do the same about ancient documents that were written in different languages, in completely different social settings, they are lambasted by many on here for so doing.

Someone said I wouldn't label my child a Christian. I did, in some earlier post.

Hope you're having a good day, really do appreciate the quality of some of this dialogue.

219. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58560 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 am

I'm going to stick to the point by talking about faith in God specifically. I'm not prepared to indulge the Father Christmas/fairy toothmother etc analogies. I believe it is fatuous, I have outlined above my reasons for this.

220. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58555 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

Quite difficult to follow all the different threads here. It would seem the consensus is;

a) Richard Dawkins is mistaken to attribute arbitrarily the label of 'wicked' to those labeling their child 'Christian'.

b) Richard Dawkins has labelled religious faith childish. By definition then,

c) Children can have a childish faith. but,

d) Richard Dawkins says it's wicked to label children as having faith, even though 'b)'

Incidentally, the presumption seems to be that because I teach my children about the positives of my faith I am teaching them that other faiths are wrong. I am not. This view of people of different faiths constantly at war with one another is a caricature lazily subscribed to by many on here who put all their faith in the Oxford proffesor with the inconsistent stance on the childish/unchildish nature of faith. According to his sentiments and what I've read on here, faith is a childish position that only an adult mind can comprehend. Even if this contradiction were possible, it's surely incomparable to the tooth fairy, father christmas or the easter bunny.

221. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58485 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 2:58 am

I haven't asked him.

What about the dilema of labelling faith childish but then saying children can't have faith?

222. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58482 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 2:50 am

Just a couple of things. I haven't called my son a Christian on here (yet), I've refered to him as a child of faith. The evidence for this is that he chooses to pray (and says he enjoys it) and prayer is something only people of faith or people who want faith seem to do. Just to make it clearer though, I'll call him a Christian child because he prays to Jesus.

My earlier point I am disappointed has not been answered;

'Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Dawkins inconsistancies is to conclude that he doesn't understand faith.'

223. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58401 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:35 pm

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

But thank you for your graciousness in conceding that it is not wicked to label him a child of faith.

224. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58400 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I think you must have misread me, I've said it a few times here, my son is not coerced into praying, he chooses to pray and enjoys praying. Trust me, four years olds don't choose to do something on a regular basis unless they enjoy it, no matter how much they may seek their parents approval.

225. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58399 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm

38. Comment #58390 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

'Have you ever considered that your child finds that by paying he is pleasing you and derives pleasure from your approval?
If pleasure from praying really was innate, children of non-believers would do it and probably some other animals as well.....'

Interestingly he doesn't show the same inclination to seek my approval by; washing the dishes, washing himself, not crying when he doesn't get what he wants, eating his greens, not snatching from his brothers, watching the news, cheering for West Ham etc...

Just because we can gain an inate pleasure from something, it doesn't mean we don't have to be shown how to do it. I remember my first girlfriend only too well!

226. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58396 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:25 pm

The difference between faith and marxism is that prayer is a practice that only people of faith share, my son chooses of his own volition, without reward, to pray. If he chose to read the communist manifesto and pledged adherence to it's ideas I would label him a marxist. Faith is much more simple than that, so simple that even a child can grasp it.

Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Dawkins inconsistancies is to conclude that he doesn't understand faith.

227. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58393 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

35. Comment #58386 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I'm not sure I buy into Memes, I believe the scientific community is mostly sceptical about the whole thing. Nonetheless, the point I was making is, why is it 'wicked' to label a child who wants and chooses to pray as a child of faith and not wicked to label a child who has no understanding of politeness (but a good understanding of rewards) as polite.

As I repeat, I genuinely don't understand the arbitrary nature of the supposed wickedness of labelling. What is this moral judgement based on? is it merely the opinion of an Oxford scientist?

228. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58382 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I disagree, much as I love my child and hope that in some ways I am a good parent, I don't think his actions show that he is a polite child. I think his actions show that he likes to get things he wants and he knows that he wont get them unless he says please. I also think that he says please because I keep telling him to say please in an attempt to imbue him with my own morality. Interestingly to me is the fact that he asks to pray, and derives some inate pleasure from praying. I really don't think that he is polite (yet). Why then is it 'wicked' to label him a child of faith and not 'wicked' to label him a polite child?

229. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58378 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm

In addition. Is my son inherently polite or even actually polite, or does he act in this way becaus ehis parents tell him to? In which case is it not wicked to label my son because of the beliefs of his parents on manners? Why is my friend able to assume that my son shares my belief on manners?

230. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58376 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I disagree, I don't think my four year old understands the term or concept of politeness. He understands that when he says please and thank you he's more likely to get what he wants and he gets praised. He also enjoys saying his prayers before he goes to bed, in fact he asks to say his prayers. Why is it wicked then to label him a child of faith (something he chooses to do) and not a polite child (something he doesn't understand but does because of material reward)?

I ask because I genuinely don't understand Mr Dawkins position on the arbitrary wickedness of labelling.

231. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58372 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I keep reiterating to my four year old the need to say please and thank-you. He seems to be finally picking it up. I wonder if, whilst perhaps approving of my actions, Mr. Dawkins might label a friend of mine, who remarked that I had a polite child, wicked for doing so?

232. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56990 by fides_et_ratio on July 18, 2007 at 4:17 am

I'm surprised that Christopher Hitchens keeps reiterating the above challenge, although to be fair he has changed the wording (presumably because in its other form it was shown to be inadequate).

The challenge is far too simplistic showing a lack of understanding of psychology, sociology and certainly theology, I suspect Hitchins is aware of this but perseveres because he is aware that as a soundbite it impresses his fans. He asks, 'Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.'

Ethical statements and actions are the result of many things, not merely religious belief. To accurately compare the statements and actions of believers and unbelievers, all the other variables would have to be identical. Since this is not possible, the challenge is spurious. The only way to ensure this challenge make some sense is to ask if there is an ethical statement or action that an individual could do as a believer that they couldn't do as a non-believer.

233. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52418 by fides_et_ratio on June 27, 2007 at 2:06 am

Some good points here. Shame he has to dig out the Pope though. He's obviously just read a report of His Holiness' speech, rather than the speech itself. Probably a trait shared with rage-boy et al, selectively informing oneself to suit one's agenda.

234. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #51035 by fides_et_ratio on June 21, 2007 at 8:06 am

83. Comment #50932 by AdrianB on June 20, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I refer you to the comment I made above;

75. Comment #50840 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 am

If the author is not referring to Catholic and CofE, schools then his article is based on 'evidence' from at most .7% of faith schools. To damn all faith schools and indeed the whole faith-school system on such flimsy evidence is so ridiculous that I took the liberty of assuming that he was damning the faith school system based on a wider frame of reference. If I was correct in taking that liberty, he is wrong, if I was mistaken in taking that liberty, then the author needs to verify his facts or select better examples to base such wild assumptions on.

You are right though, this is getting tiresome. So far my experience of this thread makes this site seem less an 'oasis of clear-thinking' and more a murky-puddle of deception.

Bye for now.

235. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50855 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 8:01 am

Because Catholic schools are directed to teach this, and because the Catholic Church teaches that evolution is an acceptable idea. To resort to using a few hypothetical, renogade teachers to support the claim made in the article, seems to show that there is, as I say, no evidence for those claims in the first place.

Glad to hear that the Jewish schools are teaching evolution too, that makes about 99.6%.

236. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50840 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 am

Unlike the author, I thought I'd better stick to what I know, Catholic schools. Together Catholic and CofE schools make up 99.3% of faith-based schools. All of the Catholic schools will teach the genesis account of creation as a story and will teach evolution in science as the accepted and best explanation for mankind's development. Every teacher in a CofE school that I've known does the same. If the author damns all faith-schools on what is found in (at the very most) .7% of them, I would say this is both unreasonable and dishonest.

237. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50833 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 6:29 am

Comment #50829 by newatheist on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thank you. Lots I disagree with here, no surprise!

My point was that the author talks about the indoctrination of young people in faith schools and the only example he gives of indoctrination is Intelligent Design and Creationism. In my original post I was merely stating that based on my experience and knowledge of the National Curriculum and the guidelines for Catholic schools, it is factually incorrect to say that these things are taught in Catholic schools. In fact, the three Catholic schools that I've worked in have achieved much higher science results than non-faith schools in their LEA's

238. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50812 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 4:16 am

He said they're good. Just out of interest, is there anything in the document on the use of the roads that you disagree with?

239. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50805 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 3:07 am

61. Comment #50788 by Philip1978 on June 20, 2007 at 1:46 am

Yet another diversion.

240. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50786 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 1:29 am

56. Comment #50766 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:02 pm

AS I suspected, to detract from the original point, athiests have to create numerous diversions. If you read through this thread you'll see how it's happened.

I do understand it and accept it as true. What I said was, 'If however, I ever do meet a fourteen year old who fully understands both atomic theory and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I'll pray that I have the humility to leave them to it in the comforting knowledge that as their intellect is vastly superior to mine, they'll be able to make their own mind up about it.'

What in what I've said do you disagree with?

Be nice if someone could address my original point too.

57. Comment #50767 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:10 pm

'So, 3 = 1, but 3 = 3 at the same time. 3 is never 1, so trinity is bunk!'

Seeing as you will insist on creating distractions, is H2O exempt from the above conclusion?

241. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50785 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 1:26 am

242. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50707 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am

On this point, you might find it easier to accept if you realised that the Catholic Church doesn't teach creationism as you understand it and is accepting of evolution as an idea.

This was the point of the article above and of this thread.

On the point you made about transubstantiation and atomic theory, I would have to say, good question. Also (just trying to keep this relevant to the thread), not a question that I've ever heard in school. If however, I ever do meet a fourteen year old who fully understands both atomic theory and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I'll pray that I have the humility to leave them to it in the comforting knowledge that as their intellect is vastly superior to mine, they'll be able to make their own mind up about it.

243. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50634 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

39. Comment #50624 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:08 am

Firstly, science in Catholic schools (I refer specifically to them because I know about them), is taught in the same way as non-faith schools. You don't refer to any specific in the Mass which conflicts with science so I'll leave that. Your reference to Adam shows a normal lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bible and Christian teaching, by those who quote it on this forum. The eteymology of the word Adam points to it being a word that describes mankind, not a man. As the bible is a translation when in english, it is important to fully understand the words that one quotes.

Comment #50627 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am

Secondly, then why is it mentioned in an article with the sub-heading, 'Our children are being force-fed government endorsed religious dogma, and we have to launch a counter-offensive.'

Comment #50629 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:35 am

Hopefully, it'll be posted on here later. It involved Peter Hitchins pointing out the nonsense in Christopher's persistent 'challenge' to people of faith.

43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am

I think this may have been dealt with.

244. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50618 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 5:32 am

33. Comment #50606 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 4:24 am

I have read the above. I was talking specifically about the fact that creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and that in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.

By refusing to engage in the facts that I have highlighted, you are using the same tactic of avoidance that Christopher Hitchins used this morning on Radio 4 when he was confronted with an equally unpalatable truth by his brother. I enjoy curiousity, truth-seeking, an enquiring mind, and debate. By ignoring simple matters of fact, a trait that you share with many religious people, you make the aforementioned noble pursuits an impossibility.

Comment #50610 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 am

The claim made by your child's RE teacher seems to be shared by Richard Dawkins, as evidenced by his refusal to adopt the title of athiest for himself. Presumably because he can't discount the fact with complete certainty that at some time in the future the existence of God will not be proved empirically.

245. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.

246. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50597 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:03 am

As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.

Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.

Just a little fact to be getting on with. As you were.

247. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49494 by fides_et_ratio on June 12, 2007 at 6:02 am

I tried to post on here the other day and it seemed to get lost so here goes again.

The challenge that Christopher Hitchins set down was poorly constructed, with no grounding in reason. To attempt to answer it within the perameters he set down would've demanded adherence to the initial errors of logic.

Hitchins challenges members of the audience to give an example of a good action that could be done by a person because of their religious faith, that couldn't be done by a person with no religious faith. The answer to this of course, is none. The challenge is unreasonable though because its starting point is uneven. The presumption in the challenge is that you can get two individuals of an identical emotional, physical, and intellectual state, who have experienced an indistinguishable set of life-experiences and social conditioning, and then compare the actions of these carbon-copies based solely on their religious or non-religious affiliation. (Just a short aside here, if you could find two individuals of such uniformity who were religious and non-religious it already suggests the presence of an external force, God perhaps? but I digress).

The tone of the challenge suggests that to Hitchins what is relevant is the relationship between the act of goodness, the individual, and religious affiliation. Seeing as how it is incompatible with scientific study to examine this relationship in the way that Hitchins suggests, might I suggest a more logically consistent method. Take an identical person, the same person in fact, and ask the question, 'Is there any good act that this person has done because of religious belief that they couldn't have done without religious belief?' The evidence of the altered lives of many converts to religions of all types would suggest that the answer is yes. If you substitute the word good for bad, or swap the two variables around, you probably get even more interesting answers worthy of conversation. I'd be very surprised though if a study conducted wouldn't show the balance tilting heavily towards those whose actions have improved post-conversion.

None of this says that God is true of course, but it is a much more logical, reasoned, and scientigic way of looking at things that Mr. Hitchins adopts. Though I've noticed that in common with Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchins seems to think that reason, logic and the earnest search for truth, should in no way be barriers to the search for rhetoric or meaningless soundbite.