Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Kafria]

Genetic tests for conditions that can be passed on to future generations should be more widely available before pregnancy, says the government's advisory body on genetics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12983866

Thin edge of the wedge before GATTACA becomes reality or responsible behaviour to reduce life limiting diseases?

[Pettytyrant101]

Mmm a tricky one. Out of all the handicapped and mentally ill I have looked after over the years there is not a single one I would wish had not been born. But that's largely because they are already there. Looking at the other side of it, the strains on family, the pressure on the parents and the sheer work involved (and to be harsh about it, the cost to the NHS) I can see why some conditions it might be better not to go there in the first place than to knowingly have a child that would suffer that way.
As I say, a tricky one this.

[Saradoc]

I take "widely avliable" as meaning they will publicise more of these pre-pregnancy genetic tests, so more people have access to them, but as long as it decision remains with the family, and it's personal choice, it think it's alright.

[Kafria]

I agree, I know in this context they are potential lives, but having taught kids with some life affecting conditions - how do you say they shouldn't be here?! or that their future counter parts don't have the same right to life?

[Kafria]

The unions say pupils' behaviour includes challenging teachers to fights, pushing and shoving staff, pupils making malicious allegations, constant swearing, and filming lessons on mobiles and threatening to post them online.

There have also been problems of cyber bullying and pornography, it is claimed. And it is alleged that when teachers confiscated pupils' phones they have then been returned by management, leaving staff "totally undermined".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12987266

Also saw this, scary thing is I have known all this to happen!

[Saradoc]

The unions say pupils' behaviour includes challenging teachers to fights, pushing and shoving staff, pupils making malicious allegations, constant swearing, and filming lessons on mobiles and threatening to post them online. so

There have also been problems of cyber bullying and pornography, it is claimed. And it is alleged that when teachers confiscated pupils' phones they have then been returned by management, leaving staff "totally undermined".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12987266

Also saw this, scary thing is I have known all this to happen!

Well, I've never had any teachers strike because of bad behaviour, though I highly suspect some teachers left my old school because of the behaviour of some pupils there. I was in middle set, and my class was always misbehaving, so I can't imagine what was like lower down in my school & worse schools throughout Britain. The question is, I suppose is it the schools fault- have they mismanaged their ways of dealing with their pupils, and if they have not, striking is fully justifiable. It may well be a case of lack of resources and backup for dealing with their kids, and I do feel sorry for teachers sometimes!

[Pettytyrant101]

"how do you say they shouldn't be here?"- Kafria

And right there I feel is the crux of the matter. If people choose not to have a child because of the likelihood of such conditions are they simply making a choice or is a life that would have been denied?
Like I said, tricky. But on the other hand if you are a farmer and you have an animal that continues to produce handicapped offspring you would stop breeding it. The difference there is not life, as I believe life is life, we are nothing special, but that there is a farmer. Do we want to start 'managing' the human race. Because I am not sure that's a good idea, nature produces abnormalities, and whilst you might get a poor child with little ability to reason or act physically, you might get Stephen Hawking.
Another thing to consider is that one of the things which marks us out among the animals (though not quite exclusively) is that we care and have compassion for others without requiring a benefit from it. We take care of our sick, our hurt, and our handicapped. I mean from a purely self interest point of view why keep people with dementia alive? They are never going to add to society, they are no good for labour, and they cost a lot of money. But humans do.
Might we not lose something if we have fewer, or no one left to feel compassion towards?

[Pettytyrant101]

As Japan is hit by another tragic earthquake today I found this from Glen Beck, scourge of the human race, saying in essence Japan was punished by God for not following the 10 Commandments. This is the best link I could find, audio only, FOX seems to have tried quite hard to scrub this one and no wonder.
A god who would act in such a way to 'teach' is a monster, why would anyone worship such a being?

http://vodpod.com/watch/5770686-glenn-beck-japan-earthquake-might-be-a-message-from-god-audio

[Ringdrotten]

I'll never be able to understand religious fanatics

Speaking of religion, I got into an argument with a teacher the other day. She was saying that Atheism was as much a religion as Christianity, Islam etc, and I disagreed. My main arguments against her statement were that Atheists don't believe in a god or a godess, their lack of rituals, holy texts, divine this, holy that, and the fact that no Atheist I have ever met has thought of himself/herself as religious. There are religions without deities, like Buddhism (although I believe certain branches of Buddhism belive in some sort of a Godess?), but Buddhists have beliefs and rituals that make them more or less religious anyway.

Her only argument for saying that Atheism was a religion, was that they too believed in certain things (I take it she meant science, big bang, evolution etc). So I said "If the only requirement for being religious is believing in something, I must be a very religious person myself, because I strongly believe I'm going to eat dinner today". At this point she seemed rather pissed off and the discussion sort of ended there

Now, to the question: Was I wrong? Or was she? Well, she was, obviously, her argument wasn't worth s***, but after some googling on the subject I have found that there are those who give good arguments that Atheism is a religion. I am still of the opinion that it isn't, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Is Atheism a religion as much as any other, or is it not?

[Pettytyrant101]

Oddly enough I was accused of very much the same just last week. That my defence of secularism was just the same as a belief in religion. Like you I don;t buy the argument.
I don't meet up with other like-minded people to debate secularism or try to convert others to secularism I don't believe in science any more than I do in a God, believing in science would be stupid as well as pointless, like believing in tables. Its just there. And of course the whole point of science is its never definitively right, just the best solution derived from observation and testing which might change if new information becomes available.
Secularism is not rooted in sticking to believing anything, if facts change so does the world view, religion on the other-hand seems to have a very hard time with new facts. Look at the whole ridiculous Creationism thing just to avoid having to alter their ideas.
No you're teacher is in the wrong I would say Ringdrotten. A lack of religion cannot be the same as religion. By that thinking no planet earth is the same thing as a planet earth. Makes no sense.

[Kafria]

Now I wouldn't say atheism is a religion, but I can see some of the point being made here. (interestingly enough I would argue that to be a religion there has to be some form of deity, otherwise it is just a belief system or code of conduct, that can alter to some degree as new facts arise!)

One of the hardest things to discuss with none religious scientists is this idea that science itself is as much a way of seeing and understanding the world as any other form of understanding, there is a real resistance to this despite the understanding that any theory is only as good as the last set of experimental data. Many scientists are stuck on the imperical fact and undisputed truth model of science.

So onto atheism, if a religion is a way of seeing and interpreting the world, then a belief (and as there is no proof one way or the other it is a belief) that there is no deity is or other force controlling destiny or even overseeing our souls is still a way of seeing and interpreting the world, based on the idea that things happen because of the fundemental rules of nature, not least our selfish and self interested human natures.

(playing devils advocate a bit, but in the mood for a philosophical debate! )

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes but religion is more than a model of the universe. It says there is a definitive view of the universe which must be adhered to. Atheism or secularism or science without a deity is a model which you are not required to adhere to- as the constant debate and argument amongst scientists shows. Its flexible therefore I would argue it is not belief I have in a lack of God, just a lack of evidence for a god. (That and if there is one I don't like Him- what sort of a universe is this to deliberately create?- one in which to survive you have to kill and consume other living things, and a planet which is geologically unstable and when not being hit by meteors and everything wiped out its a frozen ball!)

[Kafria]

I don't know, scientists are pretty definitive in their view of the earth and our explanation of it! There are basic principles that everything in the universe has to adhere to and the only knowledge that is worth anything is that which can be weighed, measured and analysed in carefully constructed experiments that adhere to their own set of rules and explanations.

Equally, blind insistance on no deity is a belief! scientists often say you can't prove a god, neither can you disprove him, so belief or disbelief are still flip sides of the same idea.

It says there is a definitive view of the universe which must be adhered to.

Not sure what you're getting at here - it may be the buckie making me slow!- as I stated religion for me is about a deity, one who has suggested a way for me to live, who gives me the choice to follow, dosen't meter out the just deserts of my baser human nature and actually gives me a gift I don't deserve, The differences within the way christians, muslims or jews interpret their faith shows it is not a fixed world view! (and creationists, intelligent design and god made the world look older than it is seem to believe in a decietful god! and be determined to bury their heads in the sand!)

[Saradoc]

Never gotten the whole "atheism is a religion" argument. Atheism. I mean who would say such things, stating that Atheism is a religion, when it embraces the absence of religion. Relgion is a set of beliefs while atheism is a lack of beliefs- they are completely the opposite of one another!

[Kafria]

On a side point I have a uni friend that i always had an iincredible amount of respect for. I believe, and if i am honest that is easier for me than not believing. She would find it easier to believe, but came to the conclusion that she didn't and stayed strong in this, despite attending a christian college at uni.

Saradoc, it depends how you define religion, if religion is a belief system, to be an atheist you have to believe there is no good, don't you?

[Eldorion]

I'm with Saradoc. Atheism is literally just the lack of theism and it encompasses a huge range of different opinions. I could at least understand someone trying to say that humanism is a religion (though I'd still disagree), but atheism isn't a belief system at all.

I don't know, scientists are pretty definitive in their view of the earth and our explanation of it! There are basic principles that everything in the universe has to adhere to and the only knowledge that is worth anything is that which can be weighed, measured and analysed in carefully constructed experiments that adhere to their own set of rules and explanations.

Scientists try to avoid being dogmatic. They think they understand a number of the basic principles of the universe, but the underlying philosophy of science is that nothing can be proven beyond any doubt, and if the weight of evidence shifts enough a theory or hypothesis should be abandoned. It doesn't always work perfectly, since scientists have egos and pride just like everyone else, but it does happen more often than you might expect that scientists will abandon a theory because it has become untenable. Science, when done properly, is about skepticism and abandoning dogmatic views of the world.

Equally, blind insistance on no deity is a belief! scientists often say you can't prove a god, neither can you disprove him, so belief or disbelief are still flip sides of the same idea.

Saying that you can't prove or disprove God doesn't have any impact on belief. People can and do have faith in God without any proof. Besides, the whole "science can't prove or disprove God" line is actually more popular among religious scientists trying to create a distinction between religion and science as separate intellectual traditions.

[Kafria]

As stated earlier I am provoking delibrately.

(and as for scientists you do get the full range, including those who are pretty dogmatic)

[Ringdrotten]

Ah, now this is why I love this forum - sensible arguments for and against Not some lame "believing in something, whatever it is = religion" sort of argument.

"I don't know, scientists are pretty definitive in their view of the earth and our explanation of it!" - Kafria

That's very true, and it's not just scientists. Some non-religious people are just as fanatic about their view that science = truth as some religious people are fanatic about their view that their religion = truth.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think Eldo put it well.
You can have someone who is a scientist and who defends their world view as dogmatically as a religious person but the difference is the underlying institution. Individual scientists don't really count in the long term, its the culminate effect of knowledge that pushes science in one direction or the other, if the knowledge changes sufficiently so do does the direction.
Whereas apart from minor alterations the broad themes of religion, such as their is a God, will never change and cannot change regardless of new ideas or developments.
The difference is religion is dogmatic and science is only temporarily dogmatic and only as a side effect of it being practised by humans, not by design.

Also like to echo Ringdrotten's point- best thing about our forum, real debate no unpleasantness!

[Pettytyrant101]

Was on youtube and saw a thing about faith which led me to this;



What the *#**! Americans do know the reason its in America is he could never get away with that **** in the UK.
This is why I think politicians should have to state their religious beliefs. We had Blair committing war crimes in our name and doing it secretly on his faith. It was only after he left office he started talking about how he felt he was doing God work how his faith affected his decisions. \if he had come out with that stuff before the election he would have lost. And a monkey in a red rosette could have won that election, but he'd still have lost. Britain and most of Europe learnt the hard way you don't put the deeply religious in charge.

[Kafria]

Okay?

Are you saying that those with faith should not be allowed into politics? Does this inhibit their abilitiy to make the right decision?

We all make decisions based on the way we see the world, that is true for those with faith and those without and in the end they are still our own decisions.

Do you think those with faith will go further than they should as they feel justiied by 'a higher power?' Or is it not the case that someone who is determined to do something will find a way to justify it no matter what and faith is just one example?

[Pettytyrant101]

"Are you saying that those with faith should not be allowed into politics?"- Kafria

No. I am saying the electorate has a right to know before they elect someone if they have strong religious views likely to affect their decision making. I firmly believe in the UK that if Tony Blair had come out with all the religious stuff he has since he left office he would never have got in. The people have a right to know.

"Do you think those with faith will go further than they should as they feel justified by 'a higher power?"
Tony Blair said in an interview that he did feel that he and George Bush were acting on behalf of a 'higher power'. I would like to know if thats how my political leaders think- as I would prefer to be able to choose between such a means of making decisions and a rational approach. But if politicians keep these things quiet deliberately they are deceiving the electorate. Blair has also said he did not speak of his religious views whilst in office because he thought 'the people would not go for it.' Which says it all really.
If a politician running for office has a belief in communism I would expect to know before I voted not after. Why should religious beliefs, which many people believe to be false and not rational, be exempt?

[Pettytyrant101]

'Tony Blair has sparked controversy by claiming that people who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters".
The former prime minister's comments came as he admitted for the first time that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions during his decade in power at Number 10, including going to war with Iraq in 2003.
Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President George W. Bush, in being open about his faith because people in Britain regarded religion with suspicion.
"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter. I mean … you may go off and sit in the corner and … commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."
Even Alastair Campbell - his former communications director who once said, "We don't do God" - has conceded that Mr Blair's Christian faith played a central role in shaping "what he felt was important".
Peter Mandelson, one of Mr Blair's confidants, claimed that the former premier "takes a Bible with him wherever he goes" and habitually reads it last thing at night.'-The Telegraph.

edit add- "To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time. Which doesn't mean to say … that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.
If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job, which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that"- Tony Blair

So important he refused to let the public know about it whilst in power.

"Mr Campbell, in the same TV programme as Mr Blair, said the British public were "a bit wary of politicians who go on about God".

'Wary'- if by that he means we would never elect such a politician he is almost certainly right.


And lets not forget he is now invovled for the UN in the mIddleeast. Heres some of his thoughts on that;

'I spend much of my time in the Holy Land and in the Holy City. The other evening I climbed to the top of Notre Dame in Jerusalem. You look left and see the Garden of Gethsemane. You look right and see where the Last Supper was held. Straight ahead lies Golgotha. In the distance is where King David was crowned and still further where Abraham was laid to rest. And of course in the centre of Jerusalem is the Al Aqsa Mosque, where according to the Qur’an, the Prophet was transported to commune with the prophets of the past.'

In this one statement he speaks of unproven places and people as if they were fact. And really is what the ME needs another religious zealot?

"When I was Prime Minister I had cause often to reflect on leadership. Courage in leadership is not simply about having the nerve to take difficult decisions or even in doing the right thing since oftentimes God alone knows what the right thing is."

Sorry but this sort of thinking in a person leading my country scares the s**t out of me.

[Kafria]

You've got me a bit torn here, and before we begin, I could not listen to the man without needing to swtich channels in 30 seconds.

But to me you have just proved his point. You expect to know before hand what he believes, but believe he would never have been elected if he had been truthful, would not have given him the chance or judged him on his policies and actions. Just because he has faith does this mean he made the wrong decisions? (and I was at the front of the queue feeling that George W used his faith to justify doing whatever he wanted!)

Of course there is a world of difference between allowing the morals underpinning faith (honesty, looking after those who can't help themselves, empathy etc) to guide decisions and doing things because god said so!

There is a point here that christians that talk about faith in this country are made to feel like nutters, it is alright for folk to believe as long as they don't talk honestly about what they believe and feel, it's just not the done thing! And it permeates throughout life, I am very wary of telling people of my faith until I have known them a while, as otherwise people see the label and not me! Why should I not be able to be honest with people upfront without them treating me as some kind of looney tune? (and I hope I have said enough on here to suggest I do think a little logically, although I admit knowing about my faith probably explains some of my views.) Yes I am aware of how hiding faith does not chime with it's basic principles (and while I don't believe he hid his faith TB certainly did his best to disguise the extent of his faith and how it shaped his daily life!) and have found the strength not to hide it, but I don't volunteer the info till I know someone better!

On the flip side, the comments you have quoted do make me uncomfortable. We rightly have a secular government and went through long struggles to reduce the power of the church over daily life, I am not for one minute suggesting otherwise, I am just wondering if it is possible for someone with faith to do the job right (as in take the right decision for all,) and if the british public would allow them to try if they were open?


Edit: have read this back and realise that I sound a little like a religious nut . I wanted to just add that one of the things I appreciate about this forum is the respectful discussion and the fact that we can talk about anything with opinions being shared, not rammed down each others throats, that is not what I am trying to do, but this struck a personal chord. I'll stop now personal demons aired!

And petty I respect your right to think I am a nut for believing what I do

[Eldorion]

I respect the right of people to have faith, and if they want to keep that private that's their prerogative, but I think public figures and national leaders should be subjected to a closer level of scrutiny. The electorate has a right to know certain things about the people they vote for, including personal matters, since these people will end up making extremely important decisions (even life and death decisions sometimes) that affect the entire nation. If that alienates voters, that's too bad for the would-be politician, but voters have the right to make informed decisions.