Anyone who has received their Census form

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

No mate. You just found the button marked 'confusion'.

 

Normally when someone attempts to push someone's buttons with words they actually try to make some kind of sense. But then again, maybe this is your best effort at coherence.

 

I do wonder if RoyleArmy were here whether he could translate for me.

 

Listen junior: RoyleArmy was until recently my only friend on this board, and I won't have his good name besmirched and if you want me to tell Dickov i will and Macken.

 

Right. I've got a question for all ye heathens. Which of the universe and God is biggest?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I think you are getting confused by me talking generally about some of the usual candidates for moral / religious discussion. I am pro contraception, pro choice on abortion, and gay people can do what the hell they like as far as I care.

 

BUT I can see what people are getting at with their objection to these things. But simplistic thinkers like yourself just respond with the usual simple thinking.

We disagree. Therefore in your world that makes me a simple thinker.

 

Contraception is a simple one. If everyone followed the Christian moral code then there is simply little need for contraception. What is the chance of spreading aids if two people only had sex within wedlock etc et etc? Extremely small...

You cannot possibly sympathise with this position unless you also sympathise with the position of disregarding liberties. For myself, I find that if two consenting adults make a choice that affects themselves only, then no immoral act can take place.

 

 

What you do though is, you cherry pick that the Catholic faith says contraception is bad and blame it for the spread of aids.

I never even brought that up. But since you have, I find that there is no cherry picking necessary to point out that this particular meme is a highly destructive concept.

 

While TOTALLY ignoring that these so called "followers" are themselves ignoring VASTS chucks of the very religion they claim to follow which also offer them a high probability of contracting aids. Even if a girl is raped, or has a blood transfusion gone wrong. If she is only having sex with her husband and not multiple partners than the risk of spreading it is minimised.

The question is what is the rational defence for preaching that contraception is wrong or spreading the lie that it condoms spread aids? You haven't addressed that by stating that non marital sex must accompany it. How is non marital sex an immoral thing outside of faith?

 

 

So ultimately while I come down on the side of contraception being a good thing, the stance of the Catholic church is also grounded in a great deal of sense.

What sense? I can't believe that you think you have justified anything here.

 

Your cherry picking is mind boggling, but the cherry picking is what the anti-religious crowd do best!

What am I cherry picking?

 

Religion, generally speaking, offers a total solution to how to live your life. If you want to attack it, you have to look at the whole message, not just a part of it.

This whole conversation started by you proposing that without religion, certain countries would be a lawless chaos. I questioned this. And in addition to this I have NOT attacked religion as a whole, I have only attacked individual acts of irrationality and the notion that faith is a credible means to forming a moral compass.

 

What I get in return is constant flaming and baseless accusations about my character or of my reasoning skills. Conversing with you always turns into a futile exercise, since you are far more interested in doing these things than actually addressing the points I bring up. You are the most dishonest and aggressive debater i've ever encountered and i'm finally tired of you. I always appreciate differences of opinion if accompanied by civil discourse, but you can never keep it civil.

 

What I see from you Phil is someone who can't see someone's point of view, unless it conforms totally to yours.

Then you are blind. Disagreeing with a point of view does not mean I don't "see" it.

 

And do you really think i'm called Phil?

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Right. I've got a question for all ye heathens. Which of the universe and God is biggest?

Since, as a heathen, I don't believe in any gods and self evidently the universe DOES exist, i'm going to have to go with "universe" as the answer.

[Matt]

I obviously don't buy the argument that religious affiliation or instruction is necessary in order to teach good ethics in children.

Can I just point out again, for the sake of my sanity: My children go to a local school because the schooling is one of the best in the district, and it channels into better senior schools - I'm sure some of the board members will know which schools I am talking about. Amongst a fantastic term report, my eldest science report was standout as always, and I have supplimented that by making sure he has the right text books in school, the school isn't feeding him woo-woo, and I've promoted science and critical thinking at home (The Father Christmas thing was nearly blown last year with some very, very well place questions from my 8 year old). The fact that the school is Catholic is by-the-by. Clearly religion has nothing to do with the selection of my child's schooling.

 

The product is that I've got my lads into a decent loacl school, and I pull my face when I have to go to confimation/sacremantal and what-not to see them in their shirt and tie. They are not interested in hard core religion, nor are they taught that in their school. This Easter they couldn't give a rats ass about who-killed-what and rose on the whatever. Easter=Chocolate Eggs, these are children.

 

I'm a strong Atheist - but I can still go about my day and tolerate this kind of infants-only watered down Religion Lite. It's no big deal.

[oafc0000]

We disagree. Therefore in your world that makes me a simple thinker.

 

 

You cannot possibly sympathise with this position unless you also sympathise with the position of disregarding liberties. For myself, I find that if two consenting adults make a choice that affects themselves only, then no immoral act can take place.

 

 

 

I never even brought that up. But since you have, I find that there is no cherry picking necessary to point out that this particular meme is a highly destructive concept.

 

 

The question is what is the rational defence for preaching that contraception is wrong or spreading the lie that it condoms spread aids? You haven't addressed that by stating that non marital sex must accompany it. How is non marital sex an immoral thing outside of faith?

 

 

 

What sense? I can't believe that you think you have justified anything here.

 

 

What am I cherry picking?

 

 

This whole conversation started by you proposing that without religion, certain countries would be a lawless chaos. I questioned this. And in addition to this I have NOT attacked religion as a whole, I have only attacked individual acts of irrationality and the notion that faith is a credible means to forming a moral compass.

 

What I get in return is constant flaming and baseless accusations about my character or of my reasoning skills. Conversing with you always turns into a futile exercise, since you are far more interested in doing these things than actually addressing the points I bring up. You are the most dishonest and aggressive debater i've ever encountered and i'm finally tired of you. I always appreciate differences of opinion if accompanied by civil discourse, but you can never keep it civil.

 

 

Then you are blind. Disagreeing with a point of view does not mean I don't "see" it.

 

And do you really think i'm called Phil?

 

Phil is heck of a lot shorter than typing your full username... I have no interest in your real name...

 

The rest of what you write... simple dribble... Can't arsed... Will leave you to your anti-religious rants for a while until I get interested again...

[garcon]

Right. I've got a question for all ye heathens. Which of the universe and God is biggest?

bigger, Philistine.

 

I'm not a heathen, but I'll answer anyway.

 

Neither. They're the same thing.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Can I just point out again, for the sake of my sanity: My children go to a local school because the schooling is one of the best in the district, and it channels into better senior schools - I'm sure some of the board members will know which schools I am talking about. Amongst a fantastic term report, my eldest science report was standout as always, and I have supplimented that by making sure he has the right text books in school, the school isn't feeding him woo-woo, and I've promoted science and critical thinking at home (The Father Christmas thing was nearly blown last year with some very, very well place questions from my 8 year old). The fact that the school is Catholic is by-the-by. Clearly religion has nothing to do with the selection of my child's schooling.

 

The product is that I've got my lads into a decent loacl school, and I pull my face when I have to go to confimation/sacremantal and what-not to see them in their shirt and tie. They are not interested in hard core religion, nor are they taught that in their school. This Easter they couldn't give a rats ass about who-killed-what and rose on the whatever. Easter=Chocolate Eggs, these are children.

 

I'm a strong Atheist - but I can still go about my day and tolerate this kind of infants-only watered down Religion Lite. It's no big deal.

I'm glad it works out well for you rummy, I really am. The question is of course how necessary is the religious instruction that they recieve, or the religious segregation that your kids have to live with in order that they go to the best school. Would the same school be run just as well if it was officially secular?

 

It may work out well in your case and in the case of many others, but should it be right for government funded school to be so selective and divisive based purely on the perceived religion of the parents?

Edited March 23, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

The rest of what you write... simple dribble... Can't arsed... Will leave you to your anti-religious rants for a while until I get interested again...

True to form. I expected nothing less from you.

 

You are of course free to respond to whatever you want from my posts. Just don't expect anything back from me. I have more constructive ways of wasting my free time than replying to someone with your attitude.

[leeslover]

Mr tulsehill will recognise the question, "does the King of France have a beard?" unless he wasnt saying attention during the lectures at his middling philosophy department.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

bigger, Philistine.

 

I'm not a heathen, but I'll answer anyway.

 

Neither. They're the same thing.

 

Listen junior: if I say biggest, I mean biggest. Okay?

[garcon]

Listen junior: if I say biggest, I mean biggest. Okay?

 

Whatever you say, big boy.

[Matt]

I'm glad it works out well for you rummy, I really am. The question is of course how necessary is the religious instruction that they recieve, or the religious segregation that your kids have to live with in order that they go to the best school. Would the same school be run just as well if it was officially secular?

 

It may work out well in your case and in the case of many others, but should it be right for government funded school to be so selective and divisive based purely on the perceived religion of the parents?

Thanks.

 

1.It is not necessary. 2.What segregation. 3.Who knows. 4.Did I mention you don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic school?

 

It helps to be of course, however they take in anybody - I think (I may be wrong and I appeal to anybody who knows more) they have to take on a certain percentage of non-catholics by law. I may have made that up, but I'm pretty sure their policy is something similar to that.

[oafc0000]

True to form. I expected nothing less from you.

 

You split my post into 10 or so sections.. I wasn't going to split your dribble into 20+ sections just to respond. I really have better things to do

 

You are of course free to respond to whatever you want from my posts. Just don't expect anything back from me. I have more constructive ways of wasting my free time than replying to someone with your attitude.

 

LMAO... Well see

[oafc0000]

Thanks.

 

1.It is not necessary. 2.What segregation. 3.Who knows. 4.Did I mention you don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic school?

 

It helps to be of course, however they take in anybody - I think (I may be wrong and I appeal to anybody who knows more) they have to take on a certain percentage of non-catholics by law. I may have made that up, but I'm pretty sure their policy is something similar to that.

 

I think its 25%....

[help_shiny]

I dont think there is any such quota

[Matt]

I dont think there is any such quota

I think you're right, however there are non-catholics at the school. It's not really important anyway I suppose.

[garcon]

I have some vague memory of faith schools having to open up their selection criteria to retain LEA/government funding. However I'm not sure it is as specific as requiring a quota - more that a number of non-faith pupils have the opportunity to apply and be considered equally.

[rudemedic]

I have some vague memory of faith schools having to open up their selection criteria to retain LEA/government funding. However I'm not sure it is as specific as requiring a quota - more that a number of non-faith pupils have the opportunity to apply and be considered equally.

 

Think this is likely to be right, but only if you are in the catchment area for that school (i.e. in the same LEA at a minimum), if not I think parents need to turn up at the respective house of worship. I wonder if this will skew the census stats, since those who are going to "church" to get little jimmy into the good faith school nearby are probably more likely to call themselves religious when they aren't. In many ways that says more about the state of our wholly public education system.

[jimsleftfoot]

It may work out well in your case and in the case of many others, but should it be right for government funded school to be so selective and divisive based purely on the perceived religion of the parents?

 

Yes, as someone who is agnostic I think that choice should be there.

[oafc0000]

Yes, as someone who is agnostic I think that choice should be there.

 

I don't get why people have a problem with choice...

 

If your not religious or disagree with these schools, send your kid to a normal state school... The people who choose to send their kids to these schools are also TAX PAYERS and deserve to have their wants and needs catered for as well.

 

I find it funny when people say I don't want "my" money going towards paying for your kid to have a religious education. Well it all depends how you view it. I would imagine the majority of the taxes paid out by the parents (or the business they run etc) of these children is covering their education. So you can sleep easy knowing your contributions are funding other types of schools.

 

To flip the argument... Why should religious parents fund the unholy education for your children

Edited March 24, 2011 by oafc0000

[leeslover]

 

To flip the argument... Why should religious parents fund the unholy education for your children

There is a fair case to be made that I shouldn't have to pay for anyone's children, but if I do so it's not unreasonable for me not to want my money spent on teaching them superstition. Religious and non religious educations are not like preferring red or blue, as one involves teaching children things that there is no reason to believe to be true and the other doesn't.

[oafc0000]

There is a fair case to be made that I shouldn't have to pay for anyone's children, but if I do so it's not unreasonable for me not to want my money spent on teaching them superstition. Religious and non religious educations are not like preferring red or blue, as one involves teaching children things that there is no reason to believe to be true and the other doesn't.

 

I am well aware of your stance on public services from previous threads...

 

As a country we either operate the old I'm alright jack mentality and look after our own interests and don't pay taxes towards public services. Or everyone supports each other pays taxs so everyone gets the opportunity to have education, health care etc...

 

If you think about it logically, you are being entirely unreasonable by saying there should be no choice and everyone should be educated in the way you personally view is correct. The system offers choice and options... Choose what works for you... I don't see why millions should lose the choices they want...

[Crusoe]

Why should millions be denied their choice not to pay for faith-based education?

[oafc0000]

Why should millions be denied their choice not to pay for faith-based education?

 

Why should millions be denied their choice not to pay for non-faith-based education ?

 

Compromise ?

[Crusoe]

It isn't though, is it? It's one or the other. My choice infringes yours, and vice versa.