Comments by epeeist

351. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202928 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #202922 by Robert O'Brien

Good for you. Now, explain to us the difference between efficient and material causes. Then move to interpretations of QM that preserve causality.

So I am not wrong about virtual particles and neither is Brian.

I don't think I need to go any further. If you want to claim that the first cause argument is not negated then the burden of proof is on you.

352. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202923 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #202919 by Robert O'Brien

It's not a quote-mine because I did not claim to be representing what Emerson originally wrote.

It is a quote mine because your ripped a piece of someone else's writing out of context to support your own thesis.

And the bit you absolutely missed out was word "divines".

353. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202911 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #202908 by Dr Doctor

Thereby ruining a perfectly good copy of the Daily Mail.

There is such a thing?

Standing joke, paying back irate_atheist for...

Fuck it, I have forgotten what I was paying him back for.

354. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202907 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #202888 by irate_atheist

You are sadly mistaken. It did, however, leave a message in the litter tray last night.

Thereby ruining a perfectly good copy of the Daily Mail.

355. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202904 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #202898 by al-rawandi

You think Marx was right on about Victorian times?

His analysis, yes.

You mean like the forced transfer of populations out of urban areas?

His systemisation following Hegel, no.

Try "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844" by Engels if you can get hold of a copy. You might also want to read "The Making of the English Working Class" by E.P. Thompson.

EDIT: I was already moving away from the likes of the Socialist Labour League, but one of the things that crystallised my thoughts was Popper's "The Open Society and it's Enemies". Also worth a read.

356. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202861 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 4:26 am

Comment #202811 by decius

I totally agree with you about Marx, and I will check those links. BTW, "comrade" was just a joke, I hope that it didn't offend you.

I saw the smiley, it wasn't a problem and wouldn't have been even without it.

I find the argument that [socialism, capitalism] (delete according to taste) is historically inevitable and will be the end of political, social and economic development to be simplistic in the extreme.

I suppose the nearest ideology to the one I follow would be social democracy, though I have a fondness for the anarcho-syndicalists.

357. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202843 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 3:52 am

It's the poor old Archbishop of Canterbury I worry about -

Read Ann Atkins in the Grauniad to see what GAFCON could mean to the dear old CofE (and all the schools it runs) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/29/anglicanism.religion

358. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202836 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 3:42 am

Comment #202814 by Iftikhar

British school system has been failing large number of Muslims children for the last 60 years.

I was brought up in an area of Leeds where there was a substantial Polish Jewish population who came across during and after WWII. In the 1960's we had an influx of Asians from Uganda, mostly Hindi and Sikh. In Manchester there is a large Hong Kong Chinese population, many of whom are Catholic.

You have to ask yourself why these people have been more successful within British society than Muslims. All have had the same educational opportunities, the same job opportunities. So why is the Muslim population almost unique in not having moved onwards and upwards?

There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

So if a Muslim school wants a biology teacher then it automatically discriminates against a large proportion of possible applicants.

What you are effectively saying is that it isn't the adoptive society that builds a wall to keep you out. It is you that builds the wall to avoid having to deal with anything other than your particular mythology.

359. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202808 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #202675 by Robert O'Brien

Do you have even one textbook on QM in your library?

I raised the same argument as Brian, but it got lost in the follow ups.

I have lots of books on QM in my library, because that's what I did my Ph.D. in. So, want to tell me I am wrong about quantum vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles?

360. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202805 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #202659 by Robert O'Brien

Oh, and a narrow empiricism is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Ooh, a bastardised piece of quote mining:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
Adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines

361. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202797 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #202440 by decius

I was waiting for Comrade epeeist to intervene. :)

I ceased to be a member of the Socialist Labour League decades ago, for reasons I have revealed before.

Personally I am not particularly fond of systematisers and I definitely don't like big power blocs like governments, corporates, unions and the like especially when there is collusion between them.

Marx was right in his analysis of the state of British society in Victorian times, he was wrong when he was in prophetic mode. He did spark off a number of changes which led to reform of the laissez-faire capitalism of those times.

And contrary to the received opinion by some posters the aim of organisations like the Rochdale Pioneers (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~laurel/cooproots/history.html ), the Workers Educational Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Educational_Association ) and Bradford Mechanics Institute (http://www.independentlibraries.co.uk/dir_bradford.htm ) wasn't to allow skiving workers to sit on their backsides all day. It was to allow the working classes to improve their lot in life.

362. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202777 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #202770 by oriole

"Atheists should be less dogmatic" means we shouldn't insist on thinking and speaking clearly ALL the time.

Yes, gets us a bad name doesn't it

363. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202758 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 12:13 am

Comment #202338 by hungarianelephant

Actually your assertion was that there was religious iconography / scripture "all over the place". I'll give you two:

St. Mary's, Astbury
St. Peter's, Prestbury

I will give you a contrary - Alderley Edge School for Girls, which used to be Mount Carmel.

I would largely agree with you about the CofE schools in the UK, they are free from iconography. I don't think you can say the same for Catholic schools though.

364. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202755 by epeeist on July 2, 2008 at 12:09 am

Comment #202747 by mordacious1

You know I was only half kidding with the megalomania post. If you read some of his statements about himself and his put downs and contempt of others... Some may think he's full of himself, others that he's full of something else, I think both.

A sort of theist version of Henri Bergson you mean ;-)

365. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202435 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #202405 by al-rawandi

And socialism wasn't about people being equal, it was about forcing them to all be equally poor.

In all my beginners classes everyone gets treated equally. I don't expect equality of outcome.

As my pupils split into different levels of achievement each gets treated appropriately to that level and to their aspirations.

366. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202300 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 8:52 am

Comment #202280 by fides_et_ratio

Rather than giving evidence of the harm that faith schools do, you seem to be saying they will do harm in the future if they follow a path set down by the Guardian commentariate. Pass me one of those straws when you manage to grab hold of them please.

Oh give me a break, are you being purposely obtuse?

Have a search on Google News and see what GAFCON is aiming to do. Would you want schools under their governance without any democratic control?

This whole assault on the media (the Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail and This is London) by the likes of Odone is for a specific reason. They broke the admissions rules and now they are wriggling trying to get out of it. You have had schools asking for up to £900 per term off parents though they are state funded, you have had schools inquiring into the marital status and occupation of parents, of discriminating against children in care, of refusing to accept quotas on children of other faiths or no faith.

This despite the fact that they over 90% of funding from the state and that academies have had the up front donation waived.

As is usual they are prepared to take the money but they want it on their terms.

367. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202275 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #202253 by fides_et_ratio

There's a lot of rhetoric flying about on this thread but very little evidence of any harm that faith schools do.

Let's suppose we don't like what NuLabour have done to the schools system. Now we may not have very much power, but we can vote them out.

Now if Theo Hobson is right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/religion.anglicanism ) the warm and fuzzy CofE is at risk of being taken over by the Evangelicals. Do you want the ethos of the school to be dictated by misogynistic, homophobic and probably anti-science fundamentalist governors? If not, what can you do about it?

368. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202174 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 2:14 am

Comment #202160 by Steve Zara

You are just a minute bit taller (and fatter) than you would be if space was static.

Now there's an excuse I hadn't thought of...

369. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #202172 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #202168 by Philip1978

EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT CHANCE, THE ONLY SODDING THING THAT IS RANDOM ARE THE GENE MUTATIONS!

Philip, he has only been told this about 153 times. He chooses to ignore it. This could be for one of several reasons:

He is a complete bigot and simply will not acknowledge anything that contradicts his creationist views (nothing exceptional there then)
He is terminally stupid
He is somebody's sock puppet and his posts are a complete wind up

Whichever it is I can't think of any good reason to respond to him any more. Whatever he is, he is definitely a dullard.

370. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #201918 by epeeist on June 30, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #201907 by Ophelia Benson

Tut tut, what strident secularism. We should all take a leaf from Cristina Odone's book and learn not to be so dang strident.

Err, no.

We should take a leaf from your book "Why Truth Matters" and learn to recognise special pleading when we see it.

A cracking good read by the way and a lot cheaper than some of the books that MPhil ~~is getting a cut on~~ is recommending.

371. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #201917 by epeeist on June 30, 2008 at 12:09 pm

That's all very well - but who is going to pay for the hot water?

I put comments on the "Daily Mail" and "This is London" sites (not published yet). Now I need to disinfect my keyboard and have a bath.

372. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201775 by epeeist on June 30, 2008 at 8:55 am

Were we expecting David Robertson to appear on this thread whining about the exposure that RD has been given while nobody (and he in particular) was shown praying for the Earth to be put back where it was?

373. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201762 by epeeist on June 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

There a couple of opinion pieces in other papers today. A typically ill argued piece from Christina Odone in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/30/faithschools.education )and an absolutely scathing attack on her position in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/ ) by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

EDIT: You will note that Christina Odone is a) Catholic and b) probably a member of Opus Dei.

374. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201252 by epeeist on June 29, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #201205 by Mark Smith

I agree that everything I have ever encountered which had a beginning appears to have had a cause, but doesn't going any further than that beg the question?

Personally I would say it is the second part of Hume's problem of induction. Our observation shows that events have causes, it is merely custom and habit that we assume that this is so for things of which we have no experience.

Alternatively, since Craig is claiming that causation is universal then all we need is one counter example to disprove his hypothesis.

Candidates for such counter examples are radio active decay or the creation and annihilation of particles due to quantum vacuum fluctuations.

375. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #201070 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Comment #201067 by Brian English

Nah, just messing with the program. Normally he comes in, drops a few incendiary remarks. We reply to his hostility, he drops in again and uses our replies as proof of how bad we are. Maybe changing it up a bit might reduce the visceral payoff he gets when he comes here, sword a flailin'. Or maybe not.

You might get an opportunity to try it. "The Sabbath" is usually one of the days he drops in.

Perhaps he needs a brace before he can face his flock.

376. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200870 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:13 am

Comment #200844 by Layla Nasreddin

Incidentally...what happens when a Jewish woman marries a Muslim man, what are their children supposed to be?

I know a Jewish man who married a Muslim woman. While they were away the eldest of their three sons married a Catholic girl.

Not sure what particular sect any children from that liaison will be.

377. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200868 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:10 am

Comment #200865 by Steve Zara

I hope you are your wife don't "fight" over breakfast the way me and my husband do!

Slightly worse than that. My elder daughter fences epee, my younger one fences sabre ;-)

378. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200863 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #200762 by BillySands

I wonder if Wee free sunday fundy school discusses whether jesus is the son of god, and whether that god actually exists.

Billy - I was pontificating early that the wee free's were having some kind of internecine squabble. Quetz seems to think that might be so, given his reading of their monthly bulletin.

Are you aware of anything on that front?

379. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200860 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:48 am

Comment #200850 by Steve Zara

I would like to add that I think epeeist looks rather dashing, in a middle-aged Errol Flynn kind of way (if he and his wife don't mind me saying so)

I don't think there should be a problem.

Any comments about men and long weapons are probably inappropriate

Or women come to that matter - my lady wife at the World Vets championships in 2006 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/2547356243/in/set-72157604114612772/

theIdiot is clearly a troll, and should be ignored.

I had thought he was taking his name from Dostoevsky. However since he didn't pick up any of my literary illusions then I think I am probably mistaken.

380. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200849 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #200717 by theIdiot

But what can one expect from a loser in his fifties or so, who attaches a picture of himself to his forum profile, in hopes that some forum chick finds him attractive and wants to sleep with him. Yea, I'm sure you live the epitome of a meaningful life. I'm sure your life is quite empty, or at least cheaply filled.

Ooh, that wouldn't be an ad hominem would it? And such a strong one at that. I am suitably chastened.

Enough people here know who I am, what I do and my achievements. I really am not interested in justifying them to you.

381. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200814 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #200808 by TeraBrat

Why take the bait? Why not just let him spout and ignore him and he'll go away.

Personally I don't engage with him any more. I am quite happy to let others do so.

He does need to be challenged, but it needs to be done carefully. If he isn't challenged then he will go away claiming that atheists are unable to defeat his "arguments". If people become angry it becomes counter-productive and he is able to take away lots of quotations to show that we are "fundamentalists" and now "fascists".

Steve Zara and Billy Sands both have a good tactic (at least as far as I am concerned) and, despite what Steve says, this is partially based on ridicule.

382. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200801 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #200718 by TeraBrat

I hope everyone else has noticed this particular aspect of your character. Your need to be right all the time and your imperviousness to argument.
You ridicule and put down what you can't argue against.

See, worked perfectly. I raise a fairly mild piece of ridicule and you immediately went all huffy and started shouting. Makes you look even more ridiculous ;-)

As Cartomoncer and others can tell you, the first part of the medieval university syllabus was the Trivium. This included grammar, logic and rhetoric. The latter includes persuasion, and making your opponent looks ridiculous can play a part in this.

But as I said (a point which you completely ignored), it has to be done both objectively and judiciously.

Clearthinker comes here, uses ridicule as almost his only tactic and is completely emotional about it.

You have to learn to distinguish between the two.

383. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200716 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #200687 by TeraBrat

Please give me an example of something you were convinced of by being ridiculed.

Where do you want me to start? Back in primary school with the type of incident described by mordacious1. In a state school arguing for transubstantiation (though I didn't know the word then) and being laughed at after I had moved from a Catholic school. Dressing in absolutely the latest fashions as a teenager even though I wasn't particularly comfortable in the clothes but fearing ridicule if I didn't keep up.

But if there were twenty kids in the class who picked their nose and twenty who didn't it would have no effect on him.

mordacious1 gave you a definitive situation where a change had occurred. You obviously didn't like that so you try to raise a hypothetical in order to wave it away.

I hope everyone else has noticed this particular aspect of your character. Your need to be right all the time and your imperviousness to argument.

384. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200656 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #200655 by Steve Zara

And, the juggling analogy is very good.

Speaking as someone who still can't do a Mills mess. Though I do have balls that glow in the dark ;-)

385. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200646 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #200641 by Quetzalcoatl

I think you've hit the nail on the head in comment 61.

Whereas I would say it is close, but not in the gold.

As you imply the FCOS is probably not, shall we say, a unified whole. I don't think (personal opinion alert) it is a matter of keeping it within bounds, I think it is more stopping it from undergoing schism. As I say in another thread, I rather think DAR has got a large number of balls in the air and has to work very hard to stop them falling to the floor. Committing to a position could effectively make him lose control of one of the factions.

I note Quetz is poster on the FCOS site. I would appreciate comments on my suppositions (I suspect SG and Billy Sands have views too).

386. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200643 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 2:50 am

Comment #200637 by Quetzalcoatl

Wow, Clearthinker's visiting a lot at the moment. Perhaps there are troubles in the FCOS and he's looking for somewhere to vent?

Does anyone here juggle? Do you know that feeling when you are at the limit of what you can do and a minor distraction will make everything collapse?

387. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200619 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:52 am

Comment #200618 by scottishgeologist

They cant

You are missing an apostrophe, or perhaps you aren't.

EDIT: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cant_1?view=uk

388. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200617 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #200480 by TeraBrat

Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything. It's not only pointless it's detrimental and counter productive. It makes people dig in and entrench themselves in their arguments.

It depends on how you use it. As Barry has pointed out reductio ad absurdum is one way of using ridicule productively.

You can find another one here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2785,A-secular-world-is-a-sane-world,Pat-Condell,page1#200608

Do you think that Steve actually expects an answer from David Robertson? Or do you think he is exposing him to ridicule by pointing out that he never answers questions asked of him.

Abusive ad hominem of the type so eloquently exemplified by Irate_atheist and Diacanu can also be useful when "something just needs to be underlined".

Objective aggression is fine if used judiciously. Subjective aggression doesn't have any place in argument.

389. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200600 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #200596 by mordacious1

When is Josh going to get this site back to automatically posting links? It is annoying.

My previous post was parsed correctly and the link inserted automatically. So it is probably down to your set up rather than the site.

It might be worth deleting any cookies associated with the site and trying again.

390. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200597 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #200595 by decius

Mussolini, the father of fascism signing the infamous pact with the Vatican.

But as Billy Sands will remind you, DAR signed the Westminster Declaration of Faith - http://www.freechurch.org/resources/confessions/westminster.htm

391. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200585 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 12:21 am

Comment #200577 by clearthinker

In the Brave New World of Atheist facism

Newsflash: In a clip today David Robertson used the phrase "atheist fascism".

When asked why he stated "Well, 'atheist fundamentalism' seems to have been losing its impact. I needed to find something else to infuriate people on the Dawkins web site and hide the fact that I am a drive by poster with no arguments."

392. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200575 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Comment #200521 by TeraBrat

And what's hers is yours ;-)

It doesn't work like that.

To use a Yorkshire'ism. "What's thine's mine and what's mine's me own".

You might want to look at the history of matriarchal societies. If you go back to mythology there are often hints that many societies were matriarchal before becoming patriarchal.

393. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200569 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Comment #200395 by theIdiot

I say I'm half a christian because I desire for the Christian Gospel to be true, I'm a half an atheist because I have my doubts. I'm unsure if its a beautiful reality, or a beautiful delusion. If someone thinks they have a better classification for me, they are welcome to express it.

Is this existential angst or Russian lugubriousness? Someone looking for belief in belief? Which former regular contributor does that remind me of (hint: he lives in France and occasionally pops back to bless us all).

You would like to think it real but then realise it would mean believing that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father could make you live forever if you symbolically ate his flesh and telepathically told him you accepted him as your master, so he could remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky. Waking up after being transformed into a monstrous vermin sounds rather more likely.

Here's a hint: you are not a steppenwolf. Goldmund is a much better model if you want a life that has meaning.

394. Psychiatrists: Least Religious But Most Interested In Patients' Religion

Comment #200567 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #200555 by Dr Benway

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me...

To complete the joke for those who don't know it.

Than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

395. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200296 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 9:16 am

Comment #200262 by Apathy personified

As far as I understand it;
No, if it is a government funded school (non-academy) it would have to rigidly follow the national curriculum - So no ID allowed. Also, if it isn't on the exam, the teachers probably wouldn't bother teaching it.

ID/Creationism isn't on the syllabus and won't be going on the syllabus. So my lady wife tells me, and she sits on various committees that decide on the syllabus.

In some respects the national curriculum protects us from this kind of lunacy (though I suspect Blair and the religious cohort in his cabinet would have changed this if he could). Is there a national curriculum in the States, or do individual states set their own curricula?

396. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200249 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #200246 by phasmagigas

i see what the shagfly and his ilk are upto. they see lenski doing 20 years of serious graft, then they sit back, put up their feet and say 'nope, you got it all wrong, goddidit because i say so, your work is invalid, i know better, next....'

Cue Steve Zara in his latest incarnation. The arrogance of these people is absolutely astounding.

It's worthwhile repeating this since we haven't seen it for a while:

The Bible: Because all the work of science and philosophy is as nothing to the wisdom of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives.

397. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200225 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 am

Comment #200214 by Gregg Townsend

I find this a curious statement; why would it be 'difficult' to defend? Government isn't in the business of advocating for faith.

There are a whole stack of difficulties. There are hysterical raisins, faith schools have been about for a long time in the UK and there are a substantial number of them. The shear amount of inertia in the situation would be difficult to oppose.

The second thing is the political situation. Arch-loony Blair and arch-creepy Kelly essentially opened a Pandora's box when it came to faith schools. Son-of-the-manse Broon doesn't seem to be interested in trying to close it back up again. Indeed the current education secretary Ed Balls seems keen on privatising the whole education system. Second-hand car salesmen are particularly in favour in this.

The probable next government is unlikely to make any changes. The CofE has always been associated with the phrase "The Conservative party at prayer". As you can see from David Cameron's wikipedia page he claims to be CofE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_cameron

If we are talking about the art of the possible then the simplest way to start the dismantling of faith based schools would be to make them follow the same entry procedures as other state funded schools.

398. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #200205 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 4:32 am

Comment #200200 by Vaal

Clearmind, I don't mean to be rude, but where on Earth were you educated?

He says he is Romanian and has BA and MA degrees. He hasn't revealed the subjects though.

He also claims to teach primary school children.

399. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200198 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #200191 by hungarianelephant

I'm sure even he wouldn't sanction a free-for-all which allowed publicly funded Satanist schools.

Assuming they had the all the ticks in the boxes, followed the national curriculum etc., then on what grounds could he object?

Here in Ireland, some of the most oversubscribed schools are "Educate Together" schools

So the schools that do well are the ones that are associated with parents who are interested in the education of their children rather than merely their religion? Strange that.

And his point about religious schools getting the better results doesn't really hold up anyway - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results (this doesn't include independent schools).

400. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200165 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #200158 by Mark Barratt

The best argument against critics of secularism has been made excellently on this thread, but I think it always bears repeating as much as possible: to wit, if you are against secularism you are taking a huge risk. There are many, many sects of many, many religions, each with poorly-hidden wishes for theocratic rule, and if secularism is defeated there's no guarantee that YOUR sect will be the one that ends up in charge.

Meaning no disrespect, but a theist probably said it better than you.

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.

Now given that David Robertson is quite the one for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy I am unsure whether he would accept that C.S. Lewis was a real Christian. However, this doesn't detract from Lewis's argument.