Honest Answers.

[Lon]

In the UK, where they have an established church, there is a long history of church-provided schooling that has come to be funded by the state but has retained the direction of the church. Because this exists, other religions insist on also being allowed to set up so-called faith schools, also state-funded (and that is to ignore the private schooling that is also religious). The Jewish and islamic faith schools are always in the news for stretching the state rules about qualifying for funding. There have been many studies and reports on the negative effects on cohesion in society of faith schools, which often end up segregating communities along racial or ethnic lines. But the inertia of the whole history of schooling provision means politicians think there is no appetite for questioning it. Standard state schools are seen to be poor-quality so any alternative is seen as better, no matter that it is actually self-selection for attitude that gives better outcomes, not any positive religious effect.

What you are talking about is students being allowed to express elements of faith at school, which is a different thing of course. I still remain convinced that religious observance should be rated as unsuitable for people under 18 years of age. There is no way young people can comprehend the dark adult themes involved.

Interesting and thanks for kicking the tires. As far as mature subject matter, I agree as well. I guess we need to go look at the next vehicle when one comes around, but it seems you Brits had started tire-kicking well before I even thought of it. Is there anything in the current works that seems to be getting any headway? Here in WA state, school teachers are encouraged to traverse religious grounds whenever shared values are being taught, yet the nation's pressure, as a whole, is producing an agnostic curriculum. Imho, absent value is worse. I would that my children went to Mosque than heathenism left in the wake. There are other alternatives, I'm just saying well, that we need to keep kicking tires. Thanks for the information here. Reinventing is okay, but something beyond the blueprint stage is of value. :up:

The example of the UK shows that if you think a secular state is failing to foster understanding, try a non-secular one with an established church. If schools in the UK could encourage more mixing across society then that should be a good thing. A further complication is that christianity is dying in the West, and especially in Europe. So the justification for the established church and its influence is disappearing all the time. If the Church of England were to go out of existence then current policy would leave the government funding some pretty extreme indoctrination in Jewish and islamic schools, which would still no doubt continue to exist.

The difficulty is in discussing 'why' murder is wrong in such a group. Simply saying 'because it is an inconvenience to society' doesn't quite foster citizenship, nor does the void left in the wake of a Christian reason, or another religious reason' inhibit the action. There is a direct correlation in the U.S. between removal of Christianity from the classroom and a rise in all harmful vices and activity. Worse, imo, Hollywood also lost the restraints of 'values' at that time and 'we' (they) are influencing the world to think with little mores and relative self-serving values.

It could be seen that way. But the invention of the Jesus story by zealous Jews keen for a bit of prophetic fulfillment (that's too obviously the explanation for the New Testament) misses Hitchens's point about the questionable morality of a god that would have allowed human suffering (in whatever sense you like) to carry on for hundreds of thousands to millions of years, followed by the sudden, brilliant idea to intervene in the form of a human sacrifice in the Middle East, an MO sure to cause more trouble than it could solve for humans on the ground at the time.

I've seen this theory before but don't believe it does, or can hold up under scrutiny. It is as bad, imho, as James Cameron finding the 'tomb of Jesus.' Far-fetched rather than plausible. Of course I'm dedicated. Not only that, this 'Jesus' being (my Lord God and Savior) has done some incredibly miracles and given other specific answers to prayer, that He I couldn't possibly entertain the idea any more than one could convince me I'm "not really married." Neither fits facts and cannot, frankly. If such doesn't get one to rethink, then we have passed on to anecdotal pleasantries. Some facts are simply harder than supposed ones.

Stuart

Thanks Stuart, 1) for kicking tires with me (for free even). Can I give you gas money? 2) For taking a second look at what seems impossible or improbable to you, specifically because there is no point in sharing it (Him) if there were no true value. There is a resurgence of Evangelicalism in the UK, so I've not lost hope. I really do believe He is the answer.

 

[Stuu]

you Brits

Them Brits. I live in New Zealand...

The difficulty is in discussing 'why' murder is wrong in such a group. Simply saying 'because it is an inconvenience to society' doesn't quite foster citizenship, nor does the void left in the wake of a Christian reason, or another religious reason' inhibit the action. There is a direct correlation in the U.S. between removal of Christianity from the classroom and a rise in all harmful vices and activity. Worse, imo, Hollywood also lost the restraints of 'values' at that time and 'we' (they) are influencing the world to think with little mores and relative self-serving values.

I'm sure you have your data to support that. The US does not fit the kinds of correlation found in the rest of the world between religiosity and other social measures. The US is very religious for its wealth:

Here is what is happening to crime in the US:

And here is what is happening to religious belief in the US:

So those statistics don't seem to bear out your claim about removal of christianity from the classroom and harmful activity.

I've seen this theory before but don't believe it does, or can hold up under scrutiny. It is as bad, imho, as James Cameron finding the 'tomb of Jesus.' Far-fetched rather than plausible. Of course I'm dedicated. Not only that, this 'Jesus' being (my Lord God and Savior) has done some incredibly miracles and given other specific answers to prayer, that He I couldn't possibly entertain the idea any more than one could convince me I'm "not really married." Neither fits facts and cannot, frankly. If such doesn't get one to rethink, then we have passed on to anecdotal pleasantries. Some facts are simply harder than supposed ones.

I think I still agree with Hitchens. It is easier to understand if you discount the claim that it is a just god.

Thanks Stuart, 1) for kicking tires with me (for free even). Can I give you gas money? 2) For taking a second look at what seems impossible or improbable to you, specifically because there is no point in sharing it (Him) if there were no true value. There is a resurgence of Evangelicalism in the UK, so I've not lost hope. I really do believe He is the answer.

I appreciate that by using the UK situation as an example you might have anticipated I was posting from the (still just) United Kingdom. In the last New Zealand census the percentage of the population claiming identity as one or other christian denomination dropped below 50% for the first time since European colonisation. The 'nones' easily outnumber any one demonination, and we are maybe 20 years off a 'no religion' majority response. We form one of the most godless societies on earth. We are a developed western parliamentary democracy and quite well-off, although nowhere near the wealth of the UK or US. Yet we don't seem to need gods to be happy (we scored 8th in the recent international happiness survey!).

Not sure what the question was that evangelism has the answer for. Me and my fellow Kiwis have a natural suspicion of anyone who wants to talk about any god in public. It's a very different feel to your neck of the woods, even in marvelous Washington State, where my expat, now Canadian aunt often visits.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Them Brits. I live in New Zealand...

Spoiler

I'm sure you have your data to support that. The US does not fit the kinds of correlation found in the rest of the world between religiosity and other social measures. The US is very religious for its wealth:

Here is what is happening to crime in the US:

And here is what is happening to religious belief in the US:

So those statistics don't seem to bear out your claim about removal of christianity from the classroom and harmful activity.


I think I still agree with Hitchens. It is easier to understand if you discount the claim that it is a just god.


I appreciate that by using the UK situation as an example you might have anticipated I was posting from the (still just) United Kingdom. In the last New Zealand census the percentage of the population claiming identity as one or other christian denomination dropped below 50% for the first time since European colonisation. The 'nones' easily outnumber any one demonination, and we are maybe 20 years off a 'no religion' majority response. We form one of the most godless societies on earth. We are a developed western parliamentary democracy and quite well-off, although nowhere near the wealth of the UK or US. Yet we don't seem to need gods to be happy (we scored 8th in the recent international happiness survey!).

Not sure what the question was that evangelism has the answer for. Me and my fellow Kiwis have a natural suspicion of anyone who wants to talk about any god in public. It's a very different feel to your neck of the woods, even in marvelous Washington State, where my expat, now Canadian aunt often visits.

Stuart

Propaganda likely. I'll have to look, but the scale looks purposefully inverted. Prior to 63, divorce was an exception, teen pregnancy was compared to the ten thousands rather than one hundreds, and preteen pregnancy was unheard of. There were no Columbines, riots, etc. Naw, I think somebody purposefully is skewing data here and this is the first time I've ever seen data this direction. All data to date is against it.

As far as theft, it goes up and down with the economy. As far as violent crimes, I doubt that chart holds.

The 'Religious' decline chart is incomplete so worthless for this discussion. The only difference from when I was a kid, is that those who were Christian in name/identity only, now don't feel the pressure: no significant difference. -Lon

 

[Stuu]

Propaganda likely. I'll have to look, but the scale looks purposefully inverted. Prior to 63, divorce was an exception, teen pregnancy was compared to the ten thousands rather than one hundreds, and preteen pregnancy was unheard of. There were no Columbines, riots, etc. Naw, I think somebody purposefully is skewing data here and this is the first time I've ever seen data this direction. All data to date is against it.

As far as theft, it goes up and down with the economy. As far as violent crimes, I doubt that chart holds.

The 'Religious' decline chart is incomplete so worthless for this discussion. The only difference from when I was a kid, is that those who were Christian in name/identity only, now don't feel the pressure: no significant difference. -Lon

Teen pregnancy in the US:

Divorce rates:

Maybe you've locked up most of the bad guys:

Stuart

 

[quip]

Maybe you've locked up most of the bad guys:

Stuart

Maybe.

 

[Lon]

This is why Mark Twain called statistics worse than lies and damned-lies: The 'drop' in teen pregnancies coincides with a rise abortions etc.

There is an attempt to skew figures here that I've not seen prior. It is, imho, an attempt to 'rewrite' history.

It would seem that incarceration has led to less crime, if the stat holds but I always want to do my own stats, they really shouldn't be published without stringent scrutiny. -Lon

 

[Stuu]

This is why Mark Twain called statistics worse than lies and damned-lies: The 'drop' in teen pregnancies coincides with a rise abortions etc.

There is an attempt to skew figures here that I've not seen prior. It is, imho, an attempt to 'rewrite' history.

It would seem that incarceration has led to less crime, if the stat holds but I always want to do my own stats, they really shouldn't be published without stringent scrutiny. -Lon

By all means. Scrutinise your own stats. We await your publication of them.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

By all means. Scrutinise your own stats. We await your publication of them.

Stuart

Aren't you noticing that the stats are partials and thus skewed? :think: Again, this is why Mark Twain didn't like them. A manipulative person can and does get a hold of them and only presents the picture he/she wants us to see. My stats? At least you could trust them. I'd not use them politically to win at any cost. I just don't work that way. It is self-centered ambition. Shoot, I was an EXCELLENT salesman until closing, when I talked each and every purchaser out of buying what I just sold them (so really not a great salesman at all, but for my pre-sale ability). There are no trophies for pre-sales ability

 

[Stuu]

Aren't you noticing that the stats are partials and thus skewed? :think: Again, this is why Mark Twain didn't like them. A manipulative person can and does get a hold of them and only presents the picture he/she wants us to see. My stats? At least you could trust them. I'd not use them politically to win at any cost. I just don't work that way. It is self-centered ambition. Shoot, I was an EXCELLENT salesman until closing, when I talked each and every purchaser out of buying what I just sold them (so really not a great salesman at all, but for my pre-sale ability). There are no trophies for pre-sales ability

I've noticed that statistics are often a gathering together of factual data that can demonstrate real trends when plotted on graphs. Much of the data is collected by government employees who could be fined or charged with a criminal offense, or both, for being dishonest about the data in any way, so the main incentive is to collect unbiased data, analyse it for reliability, and publish the analysis alongside the data.

Is your data like that? Will you be showing it to us?

Stuart

 

[quip]

By all means. Scrutinise your own stats. We await your publication of them.

Stuart

Looks like the crime rate is going to rise in about 15 to 20 years. Source

 

[ok doser]

Looks like the crime rate is going to rise in about 15 to 20 years. source

what makes you think they'll be black?

 

[quip]

Looks like the crime rate is going to rise in about 15 to 20 years. Source

what makes you think they'll be black?

For the same reason I think they will be white.

 

[Stuu]

Looks like the crime rate is going to rise in about 15 to 20 years. Source

Indeed, although if the situation in South Korea is anything like the US, maybe the criminals aren't even being conceived anymore:

Stuart

 

[Lon]

I've noticed that statistics are often a gathering together of factual data that can demonstrate real trends when plotted on graphs. Much of the data is collected by government employees who could be fined or charged with a criminal offense, or both, for being dishonest about the data in any way, so the main incentive is to collect unbiased data, analyse it for reliability, and publish the analysis alongside the data.

Is your data like that? Will you be showing it to us?

Stuart

Agree, I tend to trust government data, when no skew is the subject. These particular graphs are skewed graphs. They are given to only favorably give an impression and I believe that impression is skewed and can prove the point. The curve is only presented between years that cause the most dramatic rise or fall in most of them. They do not represent at all, trends over greater time in many instances.
Next: As I said, a rise in in abortion rates 'coincides' with a drop in teen pregnancies, especially as society began to accept it as less than murder. Regan often gets blamed but it was the courts that made this blunder. The balance in powers in the US have horribly been unbalanced, imho. To balance? I'd make sure any SCOTUS ruling could only be passed with an impartial 12 man jury that represented all of US values. "Fair" is not just what the Constitution says, but how it 'best' serves the people. Without them, the Constitution is worthless. I believe 'this' is why there is polarization in America. The Court system need to realize they are not the kings, but servants of the people (a bit of a tangent).

 

[oatmeal]

Hello, I am a 17 year old male from the UK, and was brought up an atheist. I'm posting on here to ask a pressing question of mine. To me I don't feel I require faith, or religion however I'd like to try and understand why people do, so please, share your stories, why or how you have come to faith and why you feel you need it?

Please be as civil as possible.

Although I do not remember the details, I remember believing in God and wanting to believe God from maybe 6 years old. My prayers to him were answered when I asked for things God says He will do. However, I did not have fellowship available with like minded believers until about 14 years later so I did not have mutually beneficial support, thus my early experiences with God faded somewhat for those 14 years.

God is real and His word is true and truth. What God says He will do He does.

 

[ok doser]

halster's been awol since the 26th :idunno:

 

[Nick M]

Interesting that stuupid didn't notice the correlation between muslims and other heathens and those in liberty when it comes to wealth. And he even noticed the Christian nation and its great wealth. You just can't make this stuff up....

 

[Nihilo]

The US does not fit the kinds of correlation found in the rest of the world between religiosity and other social measures.

And any honest person, or anybody who knew statistics, would therefore know that "religiosity" has nothing to do with wealth.



The US is very religious for its wealth:

I think I still agree with Hitchens. It is easier to understand if you discount the claim that it is a just god.[/quote]That's because you and Hitchens are thoughtful, deep thinkers. Most people aren't. Most people are influenced by others and so are sheep-like, or fish-like.


In the last New Zealand census the percentage of the population claiming identity as one or other christian denomination dropped below 50% for the first time since European colonisation. The 'nones' easily outnumber any one demonination, and we are maybe 20 years off a 'no religion' majority response. We form one of the most godless societies on earth. We are a developed western parliamentary democracy and quite well-off, although nowhere near the wealth of the UK or US. Yet we don't seem to need gods to be happy (we scored 8th in the recent international happiness survey!).[/quote]I grieve for the terrible state of affairs that you expect in your country. It is a stark warning to us thoughtful, deep thinkers, to the plight on the earth right now. This decay means that thoughtlessness is getting more powerful. We know that religious thoughtlessness can be pretty bad, we're not sure if atheist sheep and fish are going to lead us in a better direction. Even c3po tips their tin hat to the Maker. Why aren't New Zealanders even as smart as a movie robot?

Not sure what the question was that evangelism has the answer for. Me and my fellow Kiwis have a natural suspicion of anyone who wants to talk about any god in public. It's a very different feel to your neck of the woods, even in marvelous Washington State, where my expat, now Canadian aunt often visits.

Stuart[/QUOTE]The Apostle Paul would take New Zealand over in a few years if your open forum is that vibrant. Paul found the public's weakness and cut their mental Achilles.

 

[Stuu]

Agree, I tend to trust government data, when no skew is the subject. These particular graphs are skewed graphs. They are given to only favorably give an impression and I believe that impression is skewed and can prove the point. The curve is only presented between years that cause the most dramatic rise or fall in most of them. They do not represent at all, trends over greater time in many instances.
Next: As I said, a rise in in abortion rates 'coincides' with a drop in teen pregnancies, especially as society began to accept it as less than murder. Regan often gets blamed but it was the courts that made this blunder. The balance in powers in the US have horribly been unbalanced, imho. To balance? I'd make sure any SCOTUS ruling could only be passed with an impartial 12 man jury that represented all of US values. "Fair" is not just what the Constitution says, but how it 'best' serves the people. Without them, the Constitution is worthless. I believe 'this' is why there is polarization in America. The Court system need to realize they are not the kings, but servants of the people (a bit of a tangent).

What is it like living in a Trump bubble where what you believe to be true is all you will consider whether or not it is actually true?

I can tell you it is really surreal for one looking in from the outside. You have not presented a single statistic in support of your own rhetoric.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

What is it like living in a Trump bubble where what you believe to be true is all you will consider whether or not it is actually true?

:nono: Nobody deals with reality as I do: Honestly. Your every discussion on TOL is politically driven. Mine? Just show me the facts. You guys toss this lame-brain accusation all over the site as if it were TOL gold. It isn't. Rather, anybody with half a brain is never duped by 'statistics.' lain:

I can tell you it is really surreal for one looking in from the outside. You have not presented a single statistic in support of your own rhetoric.

Stuart

:nono: You are one of 'them' so not outside. You throw your pennies thinking they're golden nuggets. :nono: Copper as a matter of fact. I just told you that they necessarily are skewed and why. You? Off in lahlah land not thinking critically. Be a dupe stuu. There aren't many of you atheists because Einstein said they were 'lame.' Brad Pitt? He's a confirmed stoner. Not your 'thinking' poster boy.
and by his own admission, only 80%. Now, if you want to stop trying to take inane jabs because you have no game: Great. I won't be participating further than to put you in your proverbial mindless place with mindless accusatory. "Starting to play the dumb card" is my exit and always will be. :wave:

(and here I was looking for an 'intelligent' conversation Why'd you de-evolve, Stuu? )