LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[tonysingh]

I'm a religious person, albeit with a small r.

My faith is right for me but I don't give that much of a toss about yours (or lack thereof). My path is mine alone as is yours and are both are valid, assuming neither of us are dickheads.

Some of my closest friends are atheists just as some are Sikhs, Rasta and even Satanists.

 

[A380]

And considering China, which is the most populous country on earth, religion is basically banned. You have to worship whoever is at the helm of the party, or simply the party itself. So there’s some forced atheism to account for.

You’ve never actually been to China or met any Chinese people have you? Although I imagine you will say you once watched Kung Fu Panda and so are a sino-expert.

 

[A380]

The CPC can’t see them as a threat then. Unlike the Uygurs who have been rounded up and sent for re-education.
Out of interest, what religion are you?

But there are far more Han Chinese who are Muslim. Most Chinese cities and many towns. have a Moslem quarter with shops and restaurants. The uygur genocide is about much wider things.

Taoism and Buddhism were the main religions in China,. Figures suggest that may well be more Moslems now than Taoists, most of whom wil be Han. (although many Buddhists also say there is no god, depending on the flavour) . And a massive oversimplified is that Taoism deals with ancestors. There are also significant numbers of people following folk traditional religions and millions of Christians.

But JimW will know more

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What they all have in common is that they posit things about the universe that people believe without any evidence. They believe them because they were born to people who told them that these were things to believe, or maybe they heard about them later in life, and thought that they sounded nice. Unless they think they've had some sort of message, and even then you'd think it would enter their heads that they might be delusional, because others have claimed to receive similar messages, but they are radically different in content

That's true of religions that assert stuff about their god, attributing to it desires or opinions, or better, giving people's desires and opinions a divine sheen. Especially in their monotheistic forms, these are the organised religions that seek to exert control. I detest pretty much every organised religion for that reason. Wherever there is 'revealed' truth, there is someone seeking to exert control.

But it's not true of deism or Spinoza-style pantheism. Deism is something I've never seen the point of as it doesn't answer any question about anything. Spinoza himself, for example, writes lots of words that have very little meaning for me. But as far as I can grasp it, it is the idea that the existence of existence itself is proof of god, otherwise nothing could be. It seems like a 'god of the gaps' more than anything else. Far better imo to simply say about certain questions 'I don't know' and leave it at that. But in the hands of many, such as Einstein, deism is functionally equivalent to atheism in that it makes no claims for its god. It doesn't assert belief without evidence.

(In past centuries, there is a history of 'deism' as a proxy for atheism. If you valued your liberty, it was wise to couch your disbelief in terms that suggested belief. At a certain time and place, deism was the way you expressed atheistic ideas.)

 

[Magnus McGinty]

You’ve never actually been to China or met any Chinese people have you? Although I imagine you will say you once watched Kung Foo Panda and so are a sino-expert.

Yes, you ‘imagine’ I’d say something that I’m not actually going to say.

 

[ouirdeaux]

Far better imo to simply say about certain questions 'I don't know'

As Wittgenstein said, Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. But people don't. This has wider application to the internet, and human discourse generally.

 

[tonysingh]

As Wittgenstein said, Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. But people don't. This has wider application to the internet, and human discourse generally.

Sorry, I know you were raising an important point but all I can think of is....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As Wittgenstein said, Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. But people don't. This has wider application to the internet, and human discourse generally.

I've always been puzzled by Wittgenstein. I read the Tractatus years ago in one of my sporadic fits of philosophy, and it is a thoroughgoing atheistic work. He goes into excruciating detail to explain why there is nothing to say. And yet he was a religious nut who was appalled by Russell's atheism. It's very odd.

 

[Santino]

But it's not true of deism or Spinoza-style pantheism. Deism is something I've never seen the point of as it doesn't answer any question about anything. Spinoza himself, for example, writes lots of words that have very little meaning for me. But as far as I can grasp it, it is the idea that the existence of existence itself is proof of god, otherwise nothing could be. It seems like a 'god of the gaps' more than anything else. Far better imo to simply say about certain questions 'I don't know' and leave it at that.

Spinoza essentially accepts a version of the ontological argument, that there MUST, by definition, be a perfect being that is uncaused by any other being. Where he goes further than other thinkers is believing that this entity - which he equates in some ways with God - must be infinite in all possible ways. Nothing other than God can exist, because the existence of anything else would be a limitation on God, which can't happen. So God and Nature and the Universe are all the same thing and the only thing that exists. (The existence of something as proof of God has a different name, usually the cosmological argument.)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Spinoza essentially accepts a version of the ontological argument, that there MUST, by definition, be a perfect being that is uncaused by any other being. Where he goes further than other thinkers is believing that this entity - which he equates in some ways with God - must be infinite in all possible ways. Nothing other than God can exist, because the existence of anything else would be a limitation on God, which can't happen. So God and Nature and the Universe are all the same thing and the only thing that exists. (The existence of something as proof of God has a different name, usually the cosmological argument.)

Fair enough. I'm happy to be corrected. They're kind adjacent arguments, I would say, but the Spinoza argument as you present it here is more dogmatic than a simple cosmological argument in that it asserts the existence of infinity. So it does make an empirical claim.

It's far from obvious that the universe is infinite or indeed that anything can be infinite, or even that infinity is a meaningful concept. You can state truthfully that there is an infinite number of prime numbers, for example, but only within the abstract formalism of mathematics. And unless you posit some kind of Platonic realm in which mathematical truths exist in some sense 'out there' (which some do - Roger Penrose thinks this), 'out there', there may not be an infinite number of anything. It's an open question in physics. And I would argue that it certainly isn't something you should be asserting from the off as an argument you can make from reason alone.

 

[Santino]

The ontological argument itself does not make the claim that anything is infinite, it's limited to the argument that a necessary being must exist, because it's necessary.

 

[Pickman's model]

if we're going to discuss proofs of god, persuasive or otherwise, then surely phildwyer should be invited to take part. he has after all given the matter some thought in the past

 

[A380]

if we're going to discuss proofs of god, persuasive or otherwise, then surely phildwyer should be invited to take part. he has after all given the matter some thought in the past

I bet you stand in front of the mirror at midnight and say the Lord’s Prayer backwards too….

 

[kabbes]

The ontological argument itself does not make the claim that anything is infinite, it's limited to the argument that a necessary being must exist, because it's necessary.

It’s based on the notion of transcendent reason, though, which in turn depends on the notion of universal categories. Everything we now know about cognition being embodied would tend to suggest that actually there’s no such thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I bet you stand in front of the mirror at midnight and say the Lord’s Prayer backwards too….

you're the rishi sunak of these board, making bets you've no chance of winning

 

[A380]

you're the rishi sunak of these board, making bets you've no chance of winning

So does that make you Peter Bottomley?

 

[ddraig]

In an attempt to get back OT
A disgusting leaflet that was being given out at an event last year with lots of parents and children. Children even handing these out. The group had a load of people and merchandise even

TW - sick leaflet of lies

Spoiler: Grim leaflet

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It’s based on the notion of transcendent reason, though, which in turn depends on the notion of universal categories. Everything we now know about cognition being embodied would tend to suggest that actually there’s no such thing.

It's a basic problem with any of these arguments imo, including deist ones. Same goes for arguments invoking 'first causes' and the like as proofs of god. It's breaking the dictum of Wittgenstein quoted above. It's an attempt to take a perspective on existence in some sense 'from the outside'. But we're inside the thing. We need to show some humility about our position.

 

[tonysingh]

In an attempt to get back OT
A disgusting leaflet that was being given out at an event last year with lots of parents and children. Children even handing these out. The group had a load of people and merchandise even

TW - sick leaflet of lies

Spoiler: Grim leaflet

View attachment 411879
View attachment 411880

That's.....fucking hell.

I've been researching stuff around homosexuality and public attitudes from later Victorian times until 1950s. This leaflet wouldn't look out of place then tbf, all the way down to the people writing it.

 

[A380]

That's.....fucking hell.

I've been researching stuff around homosexuality and public attitudes from later Victorian times until 1950s. This leaflet wouldn't look out of place then tbf, all the way down to the people writing it.

Christian Voice innit. Three sad blokes working out of their mums’ spare rooms. Doesn’t make it less hateful though.

 

[ddraig]

That's.....fucking hell.

I've been researching stuff around homosexuality and public attitudes from later Victorian times until 1950s. This leaflet wouldn't look out of place then tbf, all the way down to the people writing it.

It was really fucking sad mate, the kid who looked 11/12/13 had swallowed it whole and was even coming out with "antifa are the real fascists", tried talking to them but it was going round and round, they'd taken what they'd been told as fact

 

[tonysingh]

Christian Voice innit. Three sad blokes working out of their mums’ spare rooms. Doesn’t make it less hateful though.

It'd blow their tiny minds to know but some of the loudest voices in support of the Wolfenden Report were Christian based organisations.

 

[Pickman's model]

So does that make you Peter Bottomley?

not at all.

 

[tonysingh]

It was really fucking sad mate, the kid who looked 11/12/13 had swallowed it whole and was even coming out with "antifa are the real fascists", tried talking to them but it was going round and round, they'd taken what they'd been told as fact

That shite is tantamount to child abuse imho. Bringing a child along to a hate demonstration? Nah mate.

 

[ddraig]

Another one they were handing out

Spoiler: Shit leaflet

 

[ddraig]

That shite is tantamount to child abuse imho. Bringing a child along to a hate demonstration? Nah mate.

There were quite a few children there
The adults had branded t shirts and jackets, not hiding and out in force

 

[ddraig]

Last bonkers bullshit leaflet they were giving out

Spoiler: Shit sick leaflet

 

[tonysingh]

There were quite a few children there
The adults had branded t shirts and jackets, not hiding and out in force

Because we've normalised not confronting hate. Counter demos and such need to mobilise imho. You've already started that by challenging their hate speech when you've seen it. More people need to follow your lead. We need to make this kind of thing so uncomfortable for them that they skulk back under the rock they slithered from.

 

[A380]

Because we've normalised not confronting hate. Counter demos and such need to mobilise imho. You've already started that by challenging their hate speech when you've seen it. More people need to follow your lead. We need to make this kind of thing so uncomfortable for them that they skulk back under the rock they slithered from.

This kind of stuff gets my vote:

 

[tonysingh]

This kind of stuff gets my vote:

View attachment 411888View attachment 411889

I'm giving genuine thought to putting out literature that countermands the hate speech with those unfortunate things known as facts and reason.