This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Wezzock's Profile

Wezzock's Avatar Joined about 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Wezzock

More Discussions by Wezzock

Latest Comments by Wezzock

Go to: John Sweeney revisits Church of Scientology

Wezzock's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by Wezzock

It was an interesting second film.

It's understandable that Sweeney spent a while retreading the original film, in light of the revelations of the exiled members. I would, however, have liked to have the people who have joined the break-away group probed a little further as to why they would still believe the teachings. I mean, is it just their methods to become 'clear', or do they also believe the Zenu, Thetan volcano bollocks?

There's no doubt it's a cult, but I suppose we are in a sadly enviable position to see first hand how a cult evolves into an established religion. Let's hope it fails to flower completely, and withers before achieving the level of established, acknowledged nonsense that other religions enjoy. Otherwise, headshrinkers beware!

Wezzock

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:19:48 UTC | #526647

Go to: Atheists excel in religious knowledge

Wezzock's Avatar Jump to comment 167 by Wezzock

Shameful scoring on my part.

I got 12 out of 15 - does that make me agnostic? Or Buddhist, perhaps?

If I have to take a retest and get worse, is that like being born again?

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:11:00 UTC | #526644

Go to: Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

Wezzock's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by Wezzock

Blockquote

Go to: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

Jump to comment 11 by Wezzock

Their religious beliefs, if literal, are certainly moronic. Their tactics for pushing their agenda onto, at times, unsuspecting students, certainly aren't.

We need to be careful that by pouring scorn on Creationist beliefs, we may inadvertently underestimate them. Give them a chance, and some carefully packaged and obscured inclusion in a textbook, or some initially unrelated change to the educational process, may result in some ancient nonsense gaining credibility in our classrooms.

Permalink Friday, 05 March 2010 at 12:19 PM | #466670

This is exactly the kind of thing I am wary of. We need to remain vigilant. Get caught snoozing and the next thing you know, 'well, we've had this specific text in this book for the last two years, and no-one complained (noticed).' It's insidious and malign.

BTW, k docs, I think you know you're talking a complete load of tosh, don't you. I picture you with one of those knowing smiles, playing devil's advocate...

If not then you're a nincompoop.

Also,from John Jones:

Therefore, there are no "key" differences between Christianity and Dawkinism. The differences are merely incidentals, arguments over what particular things populate the non-physical world. It is just regrettable, and a calculated distraction, that these minor differences are presented as "key".

There are. There clearly are. To begin your illogical semantic babbling with Dawkins' use of metaphors and to end up with this? Talk about a giant, curly, steaming leap of faith on your part.

Having said that, I think we need a healthy dose of religious twattery to curtail the bitch slapping (rationalist forum users vs religious apologists), back slapping (forum users revelling in their superiority), and back stabbing (violently escalating arguments on whether it should be 'who or whom') on this forum.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:20:15 UTC | #524261

Go to: Is science teaching undermined by religious instruction in faith schools?

Wezzock's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by Wezzock

Comment 12 by Ardiem :

Comment 10 by Wezzock :

Why should this be the case? Surely a fair and balanced education in religion should mean that, whatever non/religion you are part of, you should still have equal time given to all religions.

I see through your cunning plan. With literally millions of different religions throughout the world, past and present ranging from Norse gods to Jedi knights the amount of time that can be spent on each one (equally) would by tiny. Nothing would be learnt and thus the RE class would be pointless (even more so than they already are).

I suggest dumping RE classes altogether and creating a new class called 'Culture Studies'. After all, is that not what comparative religious teaching should be about anyway? Richard mentioned the value of religion from a cultural and historical perspective in his faith schools programme. So let's just call it what it ought to be and remove the opportunity for a specific religious agenda and allow a proper syllabus to be taught with appropriate context.

I like it! Had no idea I was so sneaky!

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:19:38 UTC | #510903

Go to: Is science teaching undermined by religious instruction in faith schools?

Wezzock's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Wezzock

I admire Evan Harris for sticking his neck out on this and making some really constructive and interesting comments. I agree that Religious Education should continue to be taught in school - like it or not, religion is pervasive and as such should not be ignored. To do so would work against a curious mind. Hide it from pupils and they will simply want to know more about it.

However, I disagree on three points:

6) In those communities with a high proportion of children whose parents are of a particular religion, the curriculum can be skewed towards more coverage of that – but not to the exclusion of other religions and world views.

Why should this be the case? Surely a fair and balanced education in religion should mean that, whatever non/religion you are part of, you should still have equal time given to all religions.

8) Offer optional religious instruction classes after school if parents want that from a particular school.

Religious instruction should be completely removed from schools. A clear and unbreachable distinction needs to be made between educating and instructing.

10) Worship opportunities made available on an optional basis for children if they or their parents want it.

See thoughts on 8).

PS - Is unbreachable a word?

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:30:36 UTC | #509670

More Comments by Wezzock