The result is good news, in that the religious vote seems to be 
becoming more insignificant by the day:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm

A good quote, exposing the stupidity of religious thinking:

"Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's 
arguments were like those used by church leaders against the 
smallpox vaccine. 'They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,' 
he said. "

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:KaGdnQQPseHHKK_VnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> The result is good news, in that the religious vote seems to be becoming 
> more insignificant by the day:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
>
> A good quote, exposing the stupidity of religious thinking:
>
> "Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's 
> arguments were like those used by church leaders against the smallpox 
> vaccine. 'They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,' he said. "


I just look forward to the day when opinion is completely discounted - 
dis-allowed even! - when from religious groundings.
I am so tired of christian morality and its' self appointed spokespersons 
that assume they have a rational and intellectual platform to announce from.
The more we can marginalise christianity, the sooner we can bring about its 
absolute demise.
It's interesting that religion believes it, and it alone, can assess 
morals - it infers that morality and religion alone go firmly hand in 
hand... something that is absolute nonsense.
In difficult moral situations (..and its clear this type of research *could* 
be as much morally based as scientific, political or intellectual) non 
religious representatives (particularly those elected by the population) 
should be vociferous in the consideration of morality alongside all other 
considerations - we have to take away from the religious devouts this notion 
that morality is the preserve of faith, belief and religion alone.
We have to identify the complete bias in religious morality and its' 
arguments and counter that against free thinking morality and its 
consideration.
I wonder, at times, how some church leaders seemingly have instant access to 
the media even.....


Mark

"Ian Smith"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: KaGdnQQPseHHKK_VnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> The result is good news, in that the religious vote seems to be becoming 
> more insignificant by the day:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
>
> A good quote, exposing the stupidity of religious thinking:
>
> "Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's 
> arguments were like those used by church leaders against the smallpox 
> vaccine. 'They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,' he said. "

Yes, but I note a significant number of Conservative front bench 
spokespeople voted against or abstained.

Plus there was distinct annoyance on the part of scientists in one paper I 
read yesterday online about the way the Conservatives had distorted the 
facts over the issue of the maximum abortion limit.

Anyone catch the C4 Despatches 'In God's Name' last night? Both hilarious, 
and scary. It suggests the number of fundamentalists in the UK are growing 
in number and gaining influence, and backed this up by following a 
fundamentalist lobbyist around, including to her meetings with the 
Conservative front bench spokeswoman (for Family Affairs?). Unbelievable, 
especially when the fundie activist was asked how old she thought the earth 
was ... And more unbelievable, and scary, the fact that this fundie has the 
ear of top politicians such as Lord Tebbit.

There's a thread on the Dawkins forums that sums it up ....

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5mvytw

mark wrote:

> I am so tired of christian morality and its' self appointed spokespersons 
> that assume they have a rational and intellectual platform to announce from.
> The more we can marginalise christianity, the sooner we can bring about its 
> absolute demise.
> It's interesting that religion believes it, and it alone, can assess 
> morals - it infers that morality and religion alone go firmly hand in 
> hand... something that is absolute nonsense.

I'd go further. I don't believe that there is such a thing as 
religious morality. Morals derived from some superstitious mythology 
are just dogma - effectively false morals.

You can't have a group of people who effectively prevent condoms 
being distributed in Africa, which results in a huge number of 
unnecessary deaths, and then have them claim that this is some 
'moral' position being taken.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:K8mdnQY9k6lFQK_VnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> mark wrote:
>
>> I am so tired of christian morality and its' self appointed spokespersons 
>> that assume they have a rational and intellectual platform to announce 
>> from.
>> The more we can marginalise christianity, the sooner we can bring about 
>> its absolute demise.
>> It's interesting that religion believes it, and it alone, can assess 
>> morals - it infers that morality and religion alone go firmly hand in 
>> hand... something that is absolute nonsense.

> I'd go further. I don't believe that there is such a thing as religious 
> morality. Morals derived from some superstitious mythology are just 
> dogma - effectively false morals.

That's an interesting idea....



> You can't have a group of people who effectively prevent condoms being 
> distributed in Africa, which results in a huge number of unnecessary 
> deaths, and then have them claim that this is some 'moral' position being 
> taken.

It's certainly a moral dilemma for the RCC.
They have, as we know, erred on the side of perhaps an absolutist morality 
by insisting that life start should not be prevented - by birth control 
methods - but fail to see the reality of the wider issue surrounding this 
(fail to see may not be correct but ignore....) and it's impact on people 
dying as you say, from Aids.
A nice moral dilemma to keep catholics pinned back against perhaps..?



Mark

PG  wrote:
> Unbelievable, especially when the fundie activist was asked how old she
> thought the earth was ... And more unbelievable, and scary, the fact that
> this fundie has the ear of top politicians such as Lord Tebbit.

It is a characteristic of many fundamentalists that they have little or no
understanding of their faith or even their church.  There's a famous poll
taken in the USA showing that half of Americans can't name Genesis as the
first book of the Bible. The daft woman in the Ch4 program only had to
answer "I don't know," a perfectly reasonable answer when asked the age of
the Earth, but instead she went into meltdown, as if even having to concider
the question was some kind of challenge.

I'm beginning to believe that those extreme fundamentalists are actually
suffering from undiagnosed mental problems.  Their behavour would certainly
get them a visit from the local head-shrinker if it were not associated with
a "religious" belief.

-- 
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church

On May 20, 6:26 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> The result is good news, in that the religious vote seems to be
> becoming more insignificant by the day:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
>
> A good quote, exposing the stupidity of religious thinking:
>
> "Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's
> arguments were like those used by church leaders against the
> smallpox vaccine. 'They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,'
> he said. "
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  Atheism requires enormous FAITH amounting to 10^40,000 power
chance that life spontaneously arose , and the practice of FAITH
indicates a Religion.  Atheism therefore must be included in your
citation.    Welcome aboard !

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 20, 6:26 am, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>> The result is good news, in that the religious vote seems to be
>> becoming more insignificant by the day:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7407589.stm
>>
>> A good quote, exposing the stupidity of religious thinking:
>>
>> "Labour's Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, said Mr Leigh's
>> arguments were like those used by church leaders against the
>> smallpox vaccine. 'They were wrong and I think you are wrong today,'
>> he said. "
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> REPLY:  Atheism requires enormous FAITH amounting to 10^40,000 power
> chance that life spontaneously arose , and the practice of FAITH
> indicates a Religion.  Atheism therefore must be included in your
> citation.    Welcome aboard !

I take it from that, Dave, you couldn't actually think of anything 
to say that was related to the topic?

Oh, just an obvious comment on your statistical assertion above...

If you try something that only has a 1 in 10^40,000 power chance 
10^40,000 times then the probability of that event occurring 
approaches 1. Oh, and another - you're back to the argument from 
ignorance.

So, your posting is up to the usual standards again:
- says nothing about the topic being discussed
- makes completely unsubstantiated assertions
- omits critical and relevant data in order to mislead the reader
- uses flawed logic

I'm surprised you keep coming back to expose your beliefs for the 
superstitious nonsense they are.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Geoff Lane"  wrote in message 
news:lknbg5-u8a.ln1@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
> PG  wrote:
>> Unbelievable, especially when the fundie activist was asked how old she
>> thought the earth was ... And more unbelievable, and scary, the fact that
>> this fundie has the ear of top politicians such as Lord Tebbit.
>
> It is a characteristic of many fundamentalists that they have little or no
> understanding of their faith or even their church.  There's a famous poll
> taken in the USA showing that half of Americans can't name Genesis as the
> first book of the Bible. The daft woman in the Ch4 program only had to
> answer "I don't know," a perfectly reasonable answer when asked the age of
> the Earth, but instead she went into meltdown, as if even having to 
> concider
> the question was some kind of challenge.


I'm convinced the interviewer would have pressed her further..
The issue, of course, is that these bible literalists have to accept the 
earth as being around 6,000 years old - something dictated in the bible - 
but we all KNOW the earth and the universe is much, much older than that, 
running into thousands of millions of years.
The interviewer mentioned it elsewhere where the fundamentalist (who 
couldn't make his mind up whether he wanted to be filmed or not) said around 
6,000 years...   The nonsensicality of this is too obvious to comment upon 
but the interviewer wanted to press for that from the lawyer, in my view. 
Actually, she knew but was a bit too smart (media savvy at the very least, 
intellectually capable also) too blurt out the literal bible answer... 
because it is meaningless and shows up the whole ludicrous position that 
fundamentalists find themselves in......

> I'm beginning to believe that those extreme fundamentalists are actually
> suffering from undiagnosed mental problems.  Their behavour would 
> certainly
> get them a visit from the local head-shrinker if it were not associated 
> with
> a "religious" belief.

I'm also beginning to think that this is a question of psychosis.  Some 
recent research seems to indicate that also....

Mark

IlBeBauck@gmail.com  wrote:
> REPLY:  Atheism requires enormous FAITH amounting to 10^40,000 power
> chance that life spontaneously arose , and the practice of FAITH
> indicates a Religion.  Atheism therefore must be included in your
> citation.    Welcome aboard !

Only a belief in an undetectable god requires faith.  Not believing in
something that doesn't exist doesn't require any kind of policy position.

-- 
Pierre Laplace: The telescope sweeps the skies without finding God.

On May 22, 1:13 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:

> So, your posting is up to the usual standards again:
> - says nothing about the topic being discussed
> - makes completely unsubstantiated assertions
> - omits critical and relevant data in order to mislead the reader
> - uses flawed logic
>
> I'm surprised you keep coming back to expose your beliefs for the
> superstitious nonsense they are.
>
> regards, Ian

Dimwit-----------grasping at straws, hanging by a thread, as he goes
off to slay another quixotic windmill