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

Comments by xmaseveeve

Go to: Refuting supernatural

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by xmaseveeve

Comment 54, Alan,

The Black Knight! Fabulous. 'It's just a scratch!'

Comment 55, Jos,

Great post and concise link - I hope Jay checks it out.

Comment 56, Vrij,

You know , I have not been here long but enough to notice a repeating pattern. As if it was the same person regurgitating the same thing.

I know! Their brains are pasteurised. Amazing when people become empty mouthpieces with prefabricated arguments, which spring back up no matter how many times we demolish them. I mean, rebuilding doesn't need a plan, just a basic realisation that you need to try a different approach.

This is an emperor's new knickers-juggling website. No matter how slick-ridden, they never get washed. They slide down your face when they throw them back. Oops, I'm going meta. Splat - 'How did we get here without 'God' then?' Splat - 'God is a necessary being.' Get the baby wipes handy and keep throwing when your arm gets tired. If we help one person to enlightenment, it's worth it.

Comment 57, Steve Zara,

I must say that is a suspiciously brilliant comment from a philosophical incompetent. God works in mysterious ways. Maybe you were put here in order to test the faith of the chosen. But then, God already decided who'll fail. Maybe Jay is right, and we're just not smart enough to be so foolish. The leap of faith is a leap backwards.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:38:20 UTC | #949252

Go to: Refuting supernatural

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by xmaseveeve

Alan (Comment 31, I think!)

The fallacy of begging the question is starting with the conclusion as a premise -

Jay. Please explain why Alan was wrong.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:34:53 UTC | #949249

Go to: Refuting supernatural

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by xmaseveeve

Please state the theistic definition of the impossible and contrast it with the atheistic one if you are able. And you'll need to back it up with some textual evidence (i.e. actual quotations from theist/atheist philosophers). I'll wager you will not be able to provide any such evidence.

Certainly. (Apologies for my previous response!) To a theist, the impossible is 'God could do it'. Impossible doesn't compute. No textual evidence required.

Comment 50, Alan,

twit and wizzdumb

Ha ha - because I was thinking about the derivation of the words, it took me a while to get that! That's WLC, exactly; a whizzdumb. All hot air and pig ignorance.

Comment 51, Vrij,

I wonder if we are perceived as crashing against a brick wall when we try to reason with their unreasonable beliefs.

Ha ha, I bet that's exactly how we are perceived by the less-educated believers. The sellers of gods know better. William Lane Craig has backed himself into a corner by justifying genocide on the grounds that we should feel more sorry for the soldiers who slaughtered the children, because they will have to live with the guilt, and, after all, the children went straight to Heaven, so what's the problem? I wouldn't want to share a stage with him. I don't want to share a planet with him.

People who (think they) get their morality from a god are only overriding their innate morality with the hideous morality of a divine dictator. Theist friends out there, you are claiming as your poster boy a man who defends biblical genocide and doesn't connect it to the Holocaust. When an ideology, political or religious, leads to mass murder in its name, you can't justify patent evil with a god trump card. Don't let this man's fancy footwork fool you. Few people can sound so eloquent and be so wrong. Or be so homophobic and look so gay.

Comment 41, jay,

This makes no sense: since the word "God" does not state a proposition how can it be a premise, hidden or otherwise?

Ah, William Lane Craig's party piece. The ontological argument, in both forms, treats existence as a quality. Think it through again, with that in mind, Jay. I hope you come back on, if you're still lurking. We're not hostile to you personally.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:16:18 UTC | #949248

Go to: Prayer at a working lunch?

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 67 by xmaseveeve

Comment 66, Mark,

Ha ha. I also think that sometimes people just don't get our sense of humour! My favourites are those who do.

Ha! Easy! The Day the Earth Stood Still! Please tell me what 'Jumping, jumping' is from? You got me. In keeping with the topic, 'I ain't dressed for no party'. (It's from my favourite film.)

None of us will ever hear the words, 'Do you mind if I pray?' again, without hearing it as 'prey' (on you)! This website is very instructional, like Oprah Winfrey's advice on what to do if you ever find yourself about to drown in a submerged car! It comes back to you when you need it. Thanks, Liebore.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:13:03 UTC | #949246

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 278 by xmaseveeve

Comment 277, alphcat,

If RC bashing is what it takes than be aware RC schools will also get free school approval and they will fit Alans and xmaseves and uncle tom cobley and alls stereotypes.

The BHA seemed to suggest still some time to stop it. So just pretend its an RC school if that helps! Shouldn't be difficult as they are the cause of all the worlds problems just because they don't seem to compromise the teaching of evolution in the way they should.

Hi alph. Once again, I can only say that I have never bashed Catholic schools! My family is lapsed Catholic. It's all faith schools I hate the very idea of. I've just watched a speech by Mitt Romney (on BBC Parliament) and I've still not calmed down. I've not seen much of him before. Wow, what a slimeball! A racist, homophobic, sexist, god-mongering slimeball. My ankles and feet are still flushing warm with licks of anger. Probably genetic memory of the stake. Cardinal Keith O'Brien makes me this angry too.

Listen, I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression, which was careless of me, but my pal Blaine is still living, as far as I know. He had a serious crack problem though, and was trying hard to get off it. His parents were from the Deep South and of a vile brand of Protestantism. He fled to Denver and became, you might say, a devout atheist.

He was either home-schooled, or sent to a faith school. Either way, he couldn't escape the ingrained, biblically mandated homophobia (although it isn't) wherever he went, and, being overweight and by nature as camp as a row of tents, he was an easy target for his community. His favourite song was 'Small Town Boy', by Jimmy Sommerville and he loved it that I was from his hometown!

Thanks for the kind words though. Another friend hanged himself a few years ago, and strangely your words helped with that. Maybe no kind thought goes to waste.

Do you not think that every child deserves a religion-free oasis where they can go each day to breathe clean air, and grow? The only way to ensure this is to remove religion (apart from comparative) from classrooms. The good schools would still be good without some batty evil book throwing a spanner in the works and marking innocent children out as different from those who are bashed with another batty book. Children need an inclusive level playing field in school, where they are not segregated from other children on the grounds of their parents' delusions. You can't re-sit life. Passing exams is only a part of education (a 'leading out').

Thank you Miss Jean Brodie. (And Muriel Spark was a devout Catholic.) Miss Brodie was an example of a dangerous teacher, and we can't legislate for them, but I'm talking about a dangerous system, of which Catholic schools are of course only a part.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:28:49 UTC | #949245

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 276 by xmaseveeve

Comment 65, alphcat,

just half of the film is factual and the other half not - cos the fact it is a coherent piece of scriptwriting means that ain't possible

Actually, this has been done many times, most often of course in drama documentaries, but also in feature films. For example, have you seen Warren Beattie's 'Reds'? I'm off to watch Henry IV Part II!

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:15:11 UTC | #949209

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 275 by xmaseveeve

alph, I am absolutely terrified of Islam. It worries me that it's growing, and some imams spout seriously scary anti-science garage. What a world.

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:44:18 UTC | #949207

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 274 by xmaseveeve

Comment 272, alphcat,

If A4D or you come up with bad examples or creationist ones than I will hate them, but for being bad schools that hurt childrens leaning not cos they're bad RC ones!

Why do you keep thinking we are picking on Catholics? I don't care what a person's religion is, if they have one, and of course I know that teachers are doing a very hard job. They will toe the line more now that there are no jobs. I'm looking at the bigger picture, which is that children are having religious labels slapped on them like jam jars ready to be filled. It's wrong.

As I said before, I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but we are at cross purposes here, as you're still arguing about the teaching of evolution, asking for evidence, and ignoring the links.

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:29:25 UTC | #949205

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 273 by xmaseveeve

Comment 260, alphcat,

And to answer all xmaseves requests to know why we have faith schools and what is the point - we have them cos when parents live near to failing sink schools

(and so on...)

That's not answering the question of why. That's saying how they cash in, like praying vultures.

That is why you have faith schools. That is the real point of them.

Twaddle. You've explained how, not why. Yet again, you sidestepped the question.

Comment 265, alphcat,

If you are talking about the scary movie The Last Exorcism

Yes, which is why I called it 'The Last Exorcism'. I didn't find it at all scary. Mind you, I'm from Glasgow.

Firstly it is a fictional scary film. Though it's filmed in a documentary/realism style as per The Blair Witch Project it is not actually a documentary.

No! Do you mean 'The Blair Witch Project' wasn't a documentary either?

the fact that the end of the fictional film is the girl actually being possessed by demons means you are claiming this is also factual evidence?

As a film fan, I must say there's nothing lower than a spoiler.

Secondly if you are citing that film as factual evidence for the existence of exorcisms,

You don't believe they exist?

So I suggest you choose your examples a little more carefully.

No, I mentioned a click on a website and a flight to London. Why does it matter to you that he was an evangelical and not a Catholic? Why would you feel the need to say that? You obviously didn't understand the film. At all. It was very interesting and raised a lot of questions. You didn't get the ending, which was similar to 'An American Haunting'. (Don't start me on movies!)

Alan rants a lot and a small proportion of what he says is right and relevant, most right but irrelevant and some wrong.

He does not rant, and my heart lights up when I see his name; he's one of my favourites. I wish I could be as wrong as Alan! Anyway, he's gorgeous when he's angry. Faith schools make some of us angry, alph, even just in principle, and you refuse to see why. You may say, 'Ah, Faith School Menace', as if you know better than Richard Dawkins, just as you dismissed Alan's expertise in this area. But wait - maybe you thought it was fiction? Unfortunately, its not, alphcat, it's so not.

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:02:19 UTC | #949203

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 268 by xmaseveeve

Comment 256, alphcat,

You are sharp, I did indeed. Sherlock must be quaking in his boots cos I've only said it four or five times! On a public forum. How on Earth did you guess.

That's not what it referred to. And I wasn't rude to you, although you have been, to a few people, which is fine. You accused me of calling you a liar before, and I hadn't. That's why I felt I had to say I wasn't meaning to be rude. You take things the wrong way rather a lot. I disagree with you but I don't need to be rude. It's your beliefs I don't respect, not you.

Well I was always taught we were in science. By a nun. More specifically we were apes, sharing a common ancestor with our ape cousins. Proved by various skulls which I do not remember but which utterly fascinated her as it had been part of her PhD.

Lucky you. I love Sister Wendy too. I knew a nun who was a brilliant classics teacher, and a one-legged tap-dancing priest (okay, I made him up). It doesn't justify faith schools. Once again, just as in your innocuous Catholic classrooms, anecdotal evidence of you having had a Supernun who knows humans are animals hardly helps all the other kids who didn't. Did she think animals had souls? Just curious. Don't suppose you gave it much thought.

Thats why we got it lock stock and barrel even tho we didn't need it.

Got what? Evolution? Why didn't you 'need' it? Sorry if I'm missing something, but is education only about passing exams, to you?

And I went to an RC school several years ago when they were catholic!

And what, pray, are they now?

[Last paragraph removed by moderator]

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:53:13 UTC | #949196

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 264 by xmaseveeve

Comment 255, alph,

I have yet to see a child from an RC school whose understanding of science has been in any way compromised. Nor who actually knows about so called theistic evolution or whatever.

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not say you went to one? Ha! (In a Sherlock Holmes tone.) 'Or whatever?' I don't mean to be rude, but have you tried a mirror? We are not animals. We gave names to them and we put them on an ark. You don't even see why Adam and Eve are kinda important to Christians, and how the original sinners slot into evolution.

That takes the time, not fretting about what biology teaches.

Oh well then, it's only a puny little gcse exam called 'Biology'. That doesn't connect to anything else, does it? Let's gloss over evolution in case anyone starts asking questions. Compromise science? Oh no, not in Catholic schools. Not in the ones you know of. Alan is right. You are not a Catholic apologist.

They do have mass once a term! they do teach a bit about the catholic hierachy and for christianity, which is a large component of RE, they subsitute catholic rites and rituals.

Oh, that's okay then; religious rites and rituals in a school classroom. Let's have black masses too. Oddly, you seem to imply, in the word 'substitute', that Catholics are not Christians. I'm confused. You say you essentially hate everything the Catholic Church stands for, but not their very seedbed, Catholic schools. You say you are an atheist. Could this be a chronic case of 'once a Catholic...'? Or can you be a Catholic atheist now? How modern. One of my favourite lines from Father Ted: 'Hello Father, I hear you're a racist now.'

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:15:10 UTC | #949185

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 262 by xmaseveeve

Comment 249, alphcat (to Alan),

Of all your comments this is the most nonsensical!

This was the comment to which you were responding (Alan);

I thought I made it clear, that a prime parental motivation is AVOIDING SINK SCHOOLS with poor reputations! That is what parents told me when I was sitting on admission appeal panels!

Then your next sentence is this;

And the fact of fake conversions is referred to on the faith school menace.

After 249 comments, you can pull this out again? Has anyone even disputed it?

Do you know many catholic familes in the UK where the woman is constantlly pregnant? Many who stay in unhappy marriages? Many who go to church very often? Disown their gay children? Stay virgins till married? Why make an exception for science exactly?

As already discussed, they are selfish hypocrites, and, crucially, their children don't know this yet. They trust their parents and teachers. Who cares if the boastful 'True Love Waits' morons are born-again virgins on their wedding nights? The other items on your little list cause real harm. When I was growing up (not that long ago!) the word 'divorce' was only ever mouthed, if uttered at all.

I thought my Auntie Bessie had committed a crime - murder, at least - and she'd actually caught her husband in bed with two Protestants!. (It's a long story, as most are, in my family.) Another aunt was battered for years, as, sadly was her daughter when she married, but would never have thought of getting a divorce - whatever next? What would the priest say? Her daughter was disowned by her two sons for divorcing her violent husband. This shit hurts people.

Yes, alphcat, I have known many gay people who were disowned by religious parents. A friend of mine was sexually abused almost since birth by both parents, who then disowned him because they were ashamed of him being in a loving gay relationship. They were ashamed of him. I have such memories of Blaine! He was wonderful, and I never saw a person hurt so much. Google 'gay suicide' before you talk such rubbish.

Lets try this. Everybody read the short blockquote again. Here it is:

Do you know many catholic familes in the UK where the woman is constantlly pregnant? Many who stay in unhappy marriages? Many who go to church very often? Disown their gay children? Stay virgins till married? Why make an exception for science exactly?

Now change the word 'Catholic' to 'Muslim'. Alph, don't you get it that the existence of one indoctrination guarantees the existence of another? Why do you think they keep sticking up for each others religious 'rights'?

Western Catholics don't really do non negotiable pillars anymore unless it suits.

Worse than that, their culture demands that they lie, and their religion feeds on guilt and self-loathing.

Thats why the RCC is flexing its muscles so much in the third world, where it can still destroy lives just to boost Ratzis fragile ego! It's a business.

And you say that so cheerfully. All is rosy in your local Catholic schools, so let the Catholic Church 'destroy lives' elsewhere. Saddle children with a misguided orientation towards science, and let them rot - I'm alright, Jack. When Catholic schools are academically successful, it is in spite of, and not because of, their smug lies, including lying by embarrassed omission. They sweep up funds, and cherry-pick obedient, respectful children with parents who'll push them to study.

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:48:58 UTC | #949180

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 258 by xmaseveeve

The bottom line is; to Christians (and others) we are not animals.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:11:59 UTC | #949139

Go to: Refuting supernatural

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by xmaseveeve

Comment 38, Jay,

Science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Why? Because one cannot specify, even in principle, an experiment whereby His existence/non-existence could be determined.

Oh well, why bother with trivialities such as the first rule of scientific experiment? He must exist then.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:07:54 UTC | #949137

Go to: Refuting supernatural

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by xmaseveeve

mment 5, adiroth,

But if the supernatural object only exists in the supernatural realm, then you can't apply the rules of the natural world to it.

You've just proved Steve Zara's point from Comment 1!

The supernatural can exist only in the supernatural world or another worlds that's separate from the natural world, one of which is our imagination.

Only 'one of which'?

Comment 15, Steve Zara,

Brilliantly put. People who believe in ghosts, Holy or otherwise, don't do logic. Especially those who think they do, such as William Lane Craig! Some things are impossible by definition, 'like the sound of one hand clapping'. Because religious people's definition of impossible is different, you go round in circles approaching it that way, so it's (marginally!) better to examine specific examples.


We weigh evidence in order to find the facts. Evidence can be disputed, or it can be laughable out of court, like the tomb trick. I'm quite sure that crop circles, although they exist, are made by drunk farmers and stoned students. They are not evidence of the existence of aliens. This is because we know how some of them were done, and there is no difference between some of those and the 'mysterious' ones.

I spoke to many people on both sides of the Rockies, who convincingly claimed they'd seen a sasquatch. I don't think the existence of such creatures is probable, but just because hoaxers have dressed up in furry suits does not convince me that it's impossible. I concede that I know nothing about scientific reasons for its impossibility, but, once I did, I wouldn't cling to faith, or even agnosticism.

'God' is the hidden premise used to justify His existence. His pals try to slip Him in through the tiniest cracks, even though we see them making the cracks, as they claim they're being logical!

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:35:49 UTC | #949133

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 235 by xmaseveeve

Ha ha, very good, Blitz. 'Red in tooth and claw', a bit like some priests.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:20:52 UTC | #949096

Go to: Prayer at a working lunch?

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by xmaseveeve

Comment 64, Terry,

''Thank you for asking but I would much prefer if you refrain.''

Excellent and concise. I like that. Some version of, 'I'd prefer not to', is assertive and poilite, and its emotionless expression of feelings takes you a long way (as in 'Bartleby'). It stops imposition in its tracks, and there's no comeback.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:14:54 UTC | #949095

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 232 by xmaseveeve

Comment 226, Blitz,

We should also make one thing absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong, in the RCCs view, with a Catholic believing in the literal story of creation as told in Genesis. The Church's stance on evolution is that evolution, or rather a tortured version of it, is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. But neither did it say that creationism is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

Dead right. If they didn't take Adam and Eve literally, the baw would be up on the slates (game over) like George Bailey's life unravelling because he'd never been born. Someone should write a parody of 'Dem Bones', connecting back to it was all Eve's fault! What a mess to make of the world, over a few old scrolls. What are we like?

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:35:14 UTC | #949089

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 231 by xmaseveeve

I find it amazing and fascinating that intelligent, agnostic people can defend heavy, guilt-ridden, self-loathing inducing religion - any religion - in schools. I kept thinking that alphcat was playing Devil's advocate, because I can't see what an atheist has to gain in wanting others to suffer the same cognitive restrictions which she has turned her back on?

It's a losing case when the church defends its own indefensible positions, because the church (of any colour) in the dock is the devil, and any man who represents himself has a fool for a client! Someone should've reminded Tommy Sheridan of that...

Keep challenging their power and make them keep talking. Their own petard is long hoist and ready. Don't let them get into it with a steel neck protector under the dog collar! Observe. Challenge! Empty the rabbits out of their silly hats and give them carrots! It's ridiculous that so much time is wasted on this. Richard Dawkins didn't ask to be the Master of Reality. We, my friends, are the reluctant James Randis of equivocation (a Catholic invention, incidentally).

alph, where are you?

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:21:12 UTC | #949087

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 230 by xmaseveeve

Comment 218, Blitz,

What will the new formulation be? That death and disease did indeed exist prior to the Cosmic Fuckup?

Or that Adam and Eve were framed? If you believe God is omniscient, then they were. But then 'God' has no court of appeal. The editor's decision is final. And I think it was Dorothy Parker who said, 'An editor sorts out the wheat from the chaff, and publishes the chaff'! Religion has knocked the stuffing out of humanity for long enough. Let's rescue what's left of the wheat.

Comment 222, Blitz,

The Protestant sects tend to cling to literalism because they maintain that the Bible is the sole source of revelation, which unfortunately does not come with handy guide for interpretation. The RCC has always maintained that the Bible is not the sole source of revelation, and furthermore that it should be viewed through the interpretive lense of the RCC.

Very interesting. Yes, I do agree that the Catholic church has deeper and more slippery roots, and I think this is why. Although it looks rigid, it's a bendy religion.

Some excellent posts here. I don't think the Catholic Church would swap their little child abuse problem for the obvious balderdash of biblically literalist Protestant sects. It's easier to believe that Satan possessed rogue priests than that the whole of science must be wrong and we must do battle against scientists. That's why the Young Earth Creationist types have to infiltrate schools - get 'em while they're young, make sure they won't join 'The Lost'. Failing that, keep trawling for people who look a bit down and bore them into submission.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:23:24 UTC | #949082

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 225 by xmaseveeve

Comment 211, RJ,

Yes, but in practical terms how does that affect how evolution is taught in a science class?

More importantly, is there any evidence that evolution is taught differently in science classes in CC schools?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrg! Sigh. (Oliver Hardy look, to camera.)

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:41:59 UTC | #949075

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 224 by xmaseveeve

Comment 208, Blitz,

I saw nothing in Ratz's comments on the matter that actually contradicted Catholic theology.


The Church's "solution" to evolution is to therefore ignore it. I attended Catholic schools. I was never told that evolution was "evil" or false like some of my fundamentalist friends were, but then again I was never taught anything about evolution either in biology class. I'm sure that would have begun the process of questioning my religion, a process that was deferred until I started learning about science on my own.

Yes, and I think this is key. This explains alphcat digging in her heels and insisting that posters provide evidence of teachers teaching against evolution. That's not what the way indoctrination works. The Pope is too clever for that. You might see the teaching of evolution in Catholic schools as lying by omission. Not that I'm saying they omit it completely - they can't, or much of science would make no sense, but they give the holy and holey authorised version. Science can have no authorised version.

I mean, does Benny Frill say that God evolved from a wee unicellular deity, via a fish god? No he doesn't say that. In a way, of course, He really did.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:31:30 UTC | #949074

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 217 by xmaseveeve

Comment 209, Rj,

What did I wriggle out of exactly?!

Ha haaa! Hi, RJ.

You wriggled out of Steve's point, at comment 202:

The criterion for Catholicism accepting evolution is not scientific evidence, but that evolution doesn't seem to get in the way of spiritual belief and core Catholic values.

You then listed the ostensibly positive changes in dogma, and side-stepped Steve's point that science has merely been shoehorned into the dogma, which has itself emerged unscathed.

Comment 203,


I think we should be very encouraged! It shows that the grip of faith is slowly but surely being loosened by science.

Steve's point was that it isn't. Sometimes you have to loosen your grip in order to tighten it. Each time they do, millions more get away! So, until we ban faith schools, millions more will replace the emancipated. Let's melt down the mind-chains and build a statue of Dick Emery. Why Dick Emery? Why not! Ooh RJ, you are awful. Awful. But I like you!

Keep religion in churches, and we can all believe what we like and still get on just fine.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:07:40 UTC | #949067

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 210 by xmaseveeve

Comment 202, Steve Zara,

The clearest evidence that Catholicism does have a problem with evolution is that it has to say that it doesn't.

Yes! Exactly right. They just squeeze it in with all the crap, like a bad repair job, and paper over it with, 'That'll do. Now, lets get back to bums...' When their behaviour is challenged, they can always say, 'But what's that got to do with evolution?' Or any other side-issue.

provisional acceptance of some areas of science.



For example, you'd find it hard these days to find a parish priest or curate who'd recommend an exorcism.

Not, for example, in the US. It's big business. See an interesting film, 'The Last Exorcism'. Even if what you say is true, all it would take is a click on a website and a flight to London. Apparently one can be the recipient of a casual exorcism, just by standing in Vatican Square. (I'd do a link if I could!)

Obviously there is still along way to go, but the degree to which most Catholics reject or ignore those traditions that contradict scientific discoveries shows that science is continually undermining faith.

But RJ, how can that be, when they won't accept that they do contradict science? Anyway, I'll let Steve answer for himself. Just my tuppenceworth. A thread which started off seeming like a narrow, local issue has digressed straight into the heart of the matter. The perpetrators depend on the silence and appeasement of good people. How do you get the heads out of the sand? State-sanctioned religious power is the same issue, wherever it happens.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:34:08 UTC | #949057

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 201 by xmaseveeve


I already explained about good scientists being able to compartmentalise their faith. You are being wilfully blind.

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:54:06 UTC | #949024

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 200 by xmaseveeve

Comment 194, alphcat,

Those that were RC said the most catholicism they had come across was when taking first holy communion and confirmation, the non RC ones would have missed these lessons and did colouring instead. Within that they had not come across any science denial at all, nor much in the way of convincing miracles.

What - 'convincing miracles' now? I wonder why there weren't many, and I wonder more that there was even one. You're having a laugh. So, the 'most Catholicism' they'd had was first communion and confirmation? Oh, is that all? Why didn't you say? (To what does 'Within that' refer?)

How would children learning about science even know science denial when they heard it? Phrases such as 'virgin birth' do seem to trip off the Catholic tongue. 'What's communion about, Father?' Answer: inevitable denial of science. Unless the priest says, 'Good point', and bins the biscuit.

You split so many pointless hairs, and yet, without turning a hair, you are saying that other children lost out on lessons? Nothing was taught to some students, during the in-depth indoctrination sessions of others? Yet, somehow, this wasn't time wasting and divisive? Or were the opt-outs 'colouring in' lurid holy pictures? Why not make the 'lessons' opt-in, and keep them in chapels? I just don't get your angle on this.

What's it all about, Alphi? (Oh, please yourselves.) Salute.

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:40:43 UTC | #949021

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by xmaseveeve

Comment 192, alphcat,

So explain how your friend manages science if RC schools are anti science? And have problems with it?

He compartmentalises.


a priest (who probably won't have an idea about creationism or the RC chruches take on it)

Projection?? Are you joking? Are these the priests the children never see? Or do you mean Father Dougal and Father Jack? Or the Dancing Priest? I certainly agree that they have no idea, but they can all drone on about what they don't know, in great detail. Do you think they gave up all sex (most of them) just to be take-it-or-leave-it about why?

Comment 191, alphcat,

Oh and perhaps it might be worth mentioning he is cherry picking what he presents as the RC churches take on evolution. It is a huge institution and as such has a number of views on everything - including science! .

Is that not good enough damn reason in itself to keep its insidious rubbish out of school?

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:29:19 UTC | #949010

Go to: Leafy Sea Dragon Fish

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by xmaseveeve


I love it! It comes with its own garnish!

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:56:30 UTC | #948988

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 190 by xmaseveeve

Comment 185, alphcat,

That may be a one off I'll check daily and notify you next time she's had to deny science. They will cover the creation story - because it is part of that exam. And they will cover it as part of the exam that all the non RC schools are taking as well. In exactly the same way. So if it is an issue, better start concerning yourself with all schools not just the RC ones.

First of all, why have faith schools then? And what do you mean by concerning myself? Am I a busybody for criticising Catholicism and its indoctrination of children? (Not that it exists, of course - any more than 'God' does?)

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:39:30 UTC | #948987

Go to: Three Developments in British Education

xmaseveeve's Avatar Jump to comment 189 by xmaseveeve

Comment 188, Blitz,

Hi Blitz, ha - you beat me to it - I edited the comment when I worked it out! You missed out 'sssssssssss' before the 'h'.

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:03:59 UTC | #948986