"Currants Bw..."

[Mac76]

Im sorry but religious schools are not an example of how both faiths are just as bad when it comes to intolerance and pushing their beliefs on you.

Taking this “well they’re all bad actually” view is just cowardly.

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs - plus as you say Catholism has a pretty violent and intolerant history plus of course cases of abuse which go up to very recent times, if not the present day


if NQ is saying people with beliefs should just follow them quietly and not within institutions, or seek to indoctirnate others, then I've some agreement with that

and they should absolutely get the bishops out of the Lords, the idea that laws which govern all of us are influenced by such people is plain wrong

[Mac76]

I'll be honest, I worry that we are indoctrinating the kids a bit, but don't all parents do that, up to a point? All parents pass on their beliefs and attitudes to their children - or attempt to.

We take the kids to church, they learn what we believe in Sunday School. But in school they're getting exposure to other religions - just today actually, the boy's class is visiting a mosque! And as the kids get older we'll encourage them to make their own decision about what to believe. Churches I've been in don't baptise children - we recognise that as a step someone takes if and when they're ready to.

Of course I'm going to tell my kids what I believe. I'm going to tell them I think it's true - as you will with your kids. So long as you balance that with their right to make up their own minds as they get older and develop more understanding then I think that's fine.

all good and respect the honesty

the irony is that i know a few non-religious people with kids who even went to church in order to get their kids into their nearby Catholic school, simply because it had the best reputation, so it's all a bit messed up.

[HCZ_Reborn]

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs - plus as you say Catholism has a pretty violent and intolerant history plus of course cases of abuse which go up to very recent times, if not the present day


if NQ is saying people with beliefs should just follow them quietly and not within institutions, or seek to indoctirnate others, then I've some agreement with that

and they should absolutely get the bishops out of the Lords, the idea that laws which govern all of us are influenced by such people is plain wrong

We are talking about what happens in actuality. No one is denying that religion is based on proselytisation. I get that’s the point you’re making. The point I’m making is that in reality, Islam is the worst for it because of the way it’s prepared to use violence and intimidation in a way other faiths currently are not to instill acquiescence from non believers

[Mac76]

We are talking about what happens in actuality. No one is denying that religion is based on proselytisation. I get that’s the point you’re making. The point I’m making is that in reality, Islam is the worst for it because of the way it’s prepared to use violence and intimidation in a way other faiths currently are not to instill acquiescence from non believers

Sure, although even then it's important - as you sort of do - to point out there's Islam and Islam - the Wahabi variety pushed by the Suadis is particularly dangerous

btw I am the proud owner of an original copy of the Satanic Verses, published by 'The Consortium', so no one publisher was targeted by extremists.

[Letters]

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs

I suppose my question would be "what's wrong with that?".
I mean, if you believe something has eternal consequences - and the dude who said it did told you to tell others about it - then why wouldn't you do that?
The key thing to me is that you teach what you believe but leave it to the other person whether they accept it.
I generally don't involve myself in debates these days about "this sort of thing". I used to but I've learned that generally the people who seek out those debates are just looking for an argument rather than seeking the truth.

What do you make of Dawkins, out of interest? He seems pretty hell-bent (pun intended) on trying to stop people to believe in God.
Are you OK with that because you agree with his beliefs? I sometimes wonder about him - most people who tend towards atheism are happy to live and let live. They may think I believe a load of nonsense, but they're generally content to let me get on with it. I wonder what happened to him to make him so bitter about it. It's not enough for him that he doesn't believe, he doesn't think anyone else should either. To me that's the exact sort of indoctrination you're talking about.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Sure, although even then it's important - as you sort of do - to point out there's Islam and Islam - the Wahabi variety pushed by the Suadis is particularly dangerous

btw I am the proud owner of an original copy of the Satanic Verses, published by 'The Consortium', so no one publisher was targeted by extremists.

The Wahabi variety is Islam. The vast majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and that is Wahabist. The difference in degrees is on the more shallow end you have a conservative Islamic faith which believes a woman’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man. That believes that homosexuality deserves the death penalty as does apostasy. That teaches children even in African countries like Sudan where they’ve never even met Jews that Jews are the devil.

On the more extreme end you have Islamism (the desire for an Islamic state) and jihadism (prepared to engage in acts of war and terrorism to bring it about). Islam does not need to be either of these extremes to represent a very grievous threat to western society


Moderate Islam doesn’t exist, it hasn’t for decades. Do you get Muslim reformers? Yes but they are largely ostracised both by their own community and by mainstream media. Which on one hand does what you’re doing now and tries to minimise the extent to which Islam in its current form is utterly toxic, on the other hand willingly gave a platform to Anjem Choudhury, Roshan Salih and Dilly Hussein.

No but outside of WH Smith’s, no other book wholesaler would stock it. And vast numbers of Muslims in this community bought copies of the book just to burn them.

The fact is until this babyish behaviour is no longer tolerated either in the west or Muslim majority countries as well as an end to all the other barbaric practices prescribed by Islam…it stands head and shoulders as by the far the most pernicious faith in existence.

[Mac76]

I suppose my question would be "what's wrong with that?".
I mean, if you believe something has eternal consequences - and the dude who said it did told you to tell others about it - then why wouldn't you do that?
The key thing to me is that you teach what you believe but leave it to the other person whether they accept it.
I generally don't involve myself in debates these days about "this sort of thing". I used to but I've learned that generally the people who seek out those debates are just looking for an argument rather than seeking the truth.

What do you make of Dawkins, out of interest? He seems pretty hell-bent (pun intended) on trying to stop people to believe in God.
Are you OK with that because you agree with his beliefs? I sometimes wonder about him - most people who tend towards atheism are happy to live and let live. They may think I believe a load of nonsense, but they're generally content to let me get on with it. I wonder what happened to him to make him so bitter about it. It's not enough for him that he doesn't believe, he doesn't think anyone else should either. To me that's the exact sort of indoctrination you're talking about.

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'

He has a scientific and academic background so is a good example of practising what the tweet you quoted said about sticking to evidence

Calling what he says 'beliefs' is like those people who say climate change is a 'belief' when in fact it is scientifically proven to any logical person's satisfaction

It's an attempt to bring atheists and those who espouse climate science down to the level of 'believers', in an attempt to undermine their arguments

can i prove god doesn't exist? i guess not although in the 100% absence of any proof otherwise i think that in itself is significant

re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about imporant issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too

[HCZ_Reborn]

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'

He has a scientific and academic background so is a good example of practising what the tweet you quoted said about sticking to evidence

Calling what he says 'beliefs' is like those people who say climate change is a 'belief' when in fact it is scientifically proven to any logical person's satisfaction

It's an attempt to bring atheists and those who espouse climate science down to the level of 'believers', in an attempt to undermine their arguments

can i prove god doesn't exist? i guess not although in the 100% absence of any proof otherwise i think that in itself is significant

re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about imporant issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too

I have to challenge that, apart from anything the existence or non existence of God is unfalsifiable. Where as Climate change is a theory…in that there is finite evidence that can either prove or disprove it. Dawkins uses what he knows about science to hypothesise. Plus Even Darwinism does not disprove God’s existence (it never sets out to do so) it’s just that Evolution and natural selection have rendered the Christian creationist explanation meaningless.

But then scientific understanding is always subject to change, Darwinism is accepted but so was a Geocentric model of the universe which itself superseded the Heliocentric model.

So although Dawkins isn’t relying on guesswork and revealed truth….he’s still operating from belief.

[HCZ_Reborn]

To be guided by facts and evidence is in itself a bit of a wooly statement. Facts and evidence can tell you what’s happening it’s not necessarily any good at determining a solution.

You mention climate change for example, looking past those who either conveniently believe it a myth or take a contrarian approach.

This does nothing to stop the rise of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil activists who take a fanatical stance and reveal that they have the answer for how human civilisation should respond to this. You can say they have scientific backing but they don’t, scientists deal with fact and evidence which again doesn’t tell you how to deal with something.


There’s no consensus even amongst a small group of misfits like us. I for example think alternative energy is a nonsense and is dependent on where you live and the ephemeral weather conditions for how much practical application it can have. And think apocalyptic handwringing and scare stories based on past events have ordinary ignorant people scared, despite it being fairly obvious the answer is short term use of nuclear fission and funding towards the fusion project as being the only realistic way forward.

Also think of what a vapid and ultimately meaningless term Follow the Science was with Covid.

[Letters]

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'

HCZ has dealt with some of this but of course he has beliefs.
He will claim they are based on evidence, I'd say the same about my religious beliefs. I'll come back to that.
Evolution is very well evidenced but it's pretty arrogant of us to think that current scientific theories are "correct" when historically scientific theories have been repeatedly replaced by better ones as new evidence emerges. HCZ mentions geocentricism, in the 20th century Einstein transformed our understanding of gravity.

I roll my eyes a bit at my father in law who is on some young earth creationist FB group and occasionally shares some utter nonsense on there. I actually did a sermon at my church on science and Christianity, it's a subject I believe a lot of Christians get wrong so I thought it needed addressing. The headline is I don't see science and Christianity as being in opposition to one another, more complimentary. "Science asks how, religion asks why" is simplistic. Sometimes they both ask "how", but in different ways. As a Christian I believe that God created the universe. Science gives me an insight into some of the detail and mechanisms behind that. I don't see those two things as a contradiction.
What science will never do is answer questions about whether there's life after death in any sense or whether there's a purpose to life. Those questions are just not in the scope of science.

I can't prove God exists, no-one can prove He doesn't. But I do believe my faith is evidence based. There's good evidence that Jesus existed, for example. The places He taught in exist, you can still visit them today. If the Bible talked about someone who there's no evidence outside the Bible even existed, and talked about places which don't exist then that would be a big red flag. Then there's the more personal level of evidence - one example, I remember at church one time two separate people said they felt prompted to tell me I should get prayer about something. I don't believe those two people spoke to each other or colluded and it was such a niche thing I don't believe it was a coincidence. It could have been of course, but I regularly hear other people at church tell me about things they've experienced and it builds my faith. I may be wrong of course, but I don't believe my faith in blind. Which brings me on to...

re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about important issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too

I sympathise with some of that frustration, I mentioned my father in law above. I get annoyed by Christians who I think have silly views, taking parts of the Bible as literal scientific truth when to me they're clearly poetic. I think it makes us look silly. But I would note this - the "post truth" world we now live in has arisen at a time when the country has got less religious. So religious thinking hasn't been replaced by clear, logical thought (not that I think you have to make a choice between those two things!).