LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[Wookey]

It would depend on the nature of the diet.
Assuming there were no negative consequences for the welfare of the child, I think most people would expect the State to butt out.

Yep. You feed a kid a vegan diet of chips three times a day, that's abuse. Malnourishment of body is as abusive as malnourishment of the mind. Which is what organised religion is, in a nutshell.

 

[Wookey]

Are we worried that a pork chop would feel victimised by the vegan parents now? I don't think there's an equivalence here.

There isn't. It's a laboured misdirection from someone seemingly desperate to defend child abuse, for reasons I have yet to discern...

 

[8ball]

Yep. You feed a kid a vegan diet of chips three times a day, that's abuse. Malnourishment of body is as abusive as malnourishment of the mind. Which is what organised religion is, in a nutshell.

We really need a "not all vegans" type disclaimer for this conversation - most vegans are very meticulous about the balance of their childrens' diets and their developmental needs.

Where there have been cases of neglect, these have been cases where there have been other factors involved. Involving mental illness and (in a couple of cases) peculiar religious beliefs.

 

[Wookey]

We really need a "not all vegans" type disclaimer for this conversation - most vegans are very meticulous about the balance of their childrens' diets and their developmental needs.

Where there have been cases of neglect, these have been cases where there have been other factors involved. Involving mental illness and (in a couple of cases) peculiar religious beliefs.

Totally agree.

Science tells us that a balanced vegan life is not only healthier for the person, but for the world. Science supports it. Science does not support telling children that their inherent sexuality is a mistake.

It's an utterly false equivalence!

 

[Pickman's model]

Do I sense a latent antipathy towards the Scotch?

<gets coat>

By no means. My point is simple, there is nothing subtle here.

 

[Pickman's model]

Totally agree.

Science tells us that a balanced vegan life is not only healthier for the person, but for the world. Science supports it. Science does not support telling children that their inherent sexuality is a mistake.

It's an utterly false equivalence!

all hail the god science

 

[tim]

Biology, possibly.

We have a dynasty of decaying Victorian botanist fertilizing the burial ground/"lovely garden".

 

[tim]

Totally agree.

Science tells us that a balanced vegan life is not only healthier for the person, but for the world. Science supports it. Science does not support telling children that their inherent sexuality is a mistake.

It's an utterly false equivalence!

Scientists or at least psychiatrists said just that until 1987, when the homosexuality was officially declassified as a disease

Redirect Notice

And that's not saying that some and a fair dose of objectionable psychologists don't still think so. There are still medical professionals out there offering cures

 

[Pickman's model]

Scientists or at least psychiatrists said just that until 1987, when the homosexuality was officially declassified as a disease

Redirect Notice

Yeh all hail the omniscient god science

 

[Baronage-Phase]

Yep. You feed a kid a vegan diet of chips three times a day, that's abuse. Malnourishment of body is as abusive as malnourishment of the mind. Which is what organised religion is, in a nutshell.

You think belief in God is abuse?
There may be abusive people who are religious, as in priests etc just as in the rest of society...but you're saying that a belief in a creator is proof of a malnourished mind?
Some of the most famous scientists throughout history have malnourished minds if you follow your line of thought to it's conclusion.

Being open to all possibilities is the true meaning of a scientific outlook... and the possibility that there may be an intelligent creator is there...whether you like it or belief in it or not...because it has neither been proved nor disproved.

 

[8ball]

Being open to all possibilities is the true meaning of a scientific outlook... and the possibility that there may be an intelligent creator is there...whether you like it or belief in it or not...because it has neither been proved nor disproved.

The 'God' question is special because it cannot be disproved.
To scientists, this falls into a particular special category of question.

Also, scientists don't necessarily take a scientific approach to all matters - they're like everyone else in that regard.

 

[NoXion]

The 'God' question is special because it cannot be disproved.
To scientists, this falls into a particular special category of question.

Also, scientists don't necessarily take a scientific approach to all matters - they're like everyone else in that regard.

I suppose if you make the definition of "God" vague enough, then it becomes impossible to falsify. Although I think it's pretty obvious that God as described in the Bible cannot exist, since such an entity flies in the face of many things that can be demonstrated to be true.

 

[gentlegreen]

If there are any gods out there, they are determined not to be discovered.

 

[eoin_k]

Biology, possibly.

Dmitri Mendelev must have missed that memo, along with Kelvin, Marconi, Descartes, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Priestley, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Babbage, Hertz, Pasteur, Joule, Lister, Born, Heisenberg, Polanyi... and other assorted thick god botherers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Dmitri Mendelev must have missed that memo, along with Kelvin, Marconi, Descartes, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Priestley, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Babbage, Hertz, Pasteur, Joule, Lister, Born, Heisenberg, Polanyi... and other assorted thick god botherers.

Newton...

 

[8ball]

I suppose if you make the definition of "God" vague enough, then it becomes impossible to falsify. Although I think it's pretty obvious that God as described in the Bible cannot exist, since such an entity flies in the face of many things that can be demonstrated to be true.

Things that can be demonstrated to be true when and where we happen to be looking.

 

[Pickman's model]

Dmitri Mendelev must have missed that memo, along with Kelvin, Marconi, Descartes, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Priestley, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Babbage, Hertz, Pasteur, Joule, Lister, Born, Heisenberg, Polanyi... and other assorted thick god botherers.

Oh and mendel

 

[eoin_k]

Newton...

Sure he was as thick as two short... Plancks, who was a Lutheran as it happens.

 

[8ball]

 

[Spymaster]

Loads of scientists believe in god.

 

[NoXion]

Things that can be demonstrated to be true when and where we happen to be looking.

The Bible God isn't the sort to hide away, if you read the stories about him. He's very much a deity prone to acting openly. He's even supposed to sending his son back down, so we've got that to look forward to, apparently. Some day. Any day now. No really, he's coming soon. Within lifetime of Jesus' disciples. Whoops.

In any case, that just loops back to the point about falsifiability.

 

[8ball]

The Bible God isn't the sort to hide away, if you read the stories about him. He's very much a deity prone to acting openly. He's even supposed to sending his son back down, so we've got that to look forward to, apparently. Some day. Any day now. No really, he's coming soon. Within lifetime of Jesus' disciples. Whoops.

In any case, that just loops back to the point about falsifiability.

But he's not working on our timescale. He might have just popped out round the corner for some almond milk.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Bless your mum, but she's a misguided, superstitious relic. So is mine. Can't pretend otherwise.

You have proof of this, do you? Because it seems to me that you simply believe she's wrong, and you're taking your belief and making it science?
Your bigotry knows no bounds.

There isn't. It's a laboured misdirection from someone seemingly desperate to defend child abuse, for reasons I have yet to discern...

And there you go again, you fucking tool

 

[NoXion]

But he's not working on our timescale. He might have just popped out round the corner for some almond milk.

Jesus explicitly says he'll return within his disciples' lifetime, so this hand-wavy excuse doesn't wash.

Ignoring Jesus, there's the whole Genesis farce. We can demonstrate that the universe took way, way longer than seven literal days to form into its present state. "Alright, it's a metaphor, Biblical 'days' are much longer than 24 hours!" In which case, I wonder how exactly much longer, because God fucked up and created plants before there was any Sun to nourish them. D'oh!

 

[eoin_k]

Jesus explicitly says he'll return within his disciples' lifetime, so this hand-wavy excuse doesn't wash.

Ignoring Jesus, there's the whole Genesis farce. We can demonstrate that the universe took way, way longer than seven literal days to form into its present state. "Alright, it's a metaphor, Biblical 'days' are much longer than 24 hours!" In which case, I wonder how exactly much longer, because God fucked up and created plants before there was any Sun to nourish them. D'oh!

I hate to break this to you, but Jesus didn't write the gospels. Your seem to have a very Literalist reading of the bible. You wouldn't happen to be a Lutheran atheist by any chance?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Jesus explicitly says he'll return within his disciples' lifetime, so this hand-wavy excuse doesn't wash.

Ignoring Jesus, there's the whole Genesis farce. We can demonstrate that the universe took way, way longer than seven literal days to form into its present state. "Alright, it's a metaphor, Biblical 'days' are much longer than 24 hours!" In which case, I wonder how exactly much longer, because God fucked up and created plants before there was any Sun to nourish them. D'oh!

Don't his disciples still roam the earth?

 

[8ball]

 

[8ball]

Don't his disciples still roam the earth?

They'd need mobility scooters by now, surely.

 

[Saul Goodman]

They'd need mobility scooters by now, surely.

I'm fairly certain there are many millions of disciples, blindly following this faith.

 

[Wookey]

You think belief in God is abuse?
There may be abusive people who are religious, as in priests etc just as in the rest of society...but you're saying that a belief in a creator is proof of a malnourished mind?
Some of the most famous scientists throughout history have malnourished minds if you follow your line of thought to it's conclusion.

Being open to all possibilities is the true meaning of a scientific outlook... and the possibility that there may be an intelligent creator is there...whether you like it or belief in it or not...because it has neither been proved nor disproved.

I could regurgitate the words of Richard Dawkins but we all know them by now!

You think belief in God is abuse?
There may be abusive people who are religious, as in priests etc just as in the rest of society...but you're saying that a belief in a creator is proof of a malnourished mind?
Some of the most famous scientists throughout history have malnourished minds if you follow your line of thought to it's conclusion.

Being open to all possibilities is the true meaning of a scientific outlook... and the possibility that there may be an intelligent creator is there...whether you like it or belief in it or not...because it has neither been proved nor disproved.

You'll notice I didn't mention belief in God, that's too nebulous an idea. I said organised religion.

I have an arguably scientifically justified belief in global systemic interdependencies... That's Gaia theory, which is not too far from the concept of God if God is believed to be a higher organising power larger than the individual organisms it organises. That belief tells me that if you steal from one part of the system, another part of the system will inevitably suffer. See climate change.

But organised religion is retrograde. Especially ones that dictate genital mutilation of little boys, or enforced celibacy, or male superiority, or any of the other abuses that people believe in simply because their parents did.