Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Census 2011


Guest MrZigster

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Just spotted this - you seem to be claiming that church attendances falling off the edge of a cliff is indicative of many parents only pretending for cultural reasons yet you read somewhere that their children are increasingly turning to creationism over evolution ( and it was a genuine request for a link cos there is nothing on google or google scholar to support the assertion). The teaching in schools is so good that it subverts athiest parents but not good enough that it converts those of other faiths to christian evolution.

No, I wasn't claiming that at all.

I said in an anecdotal way there is a massive gap between claims of having a religion and the practising of religion, as shown by Church attendences. This is, by itself, a very strong suggestion that the box ticking in a census is culturally led and not religiously led. Further, there is solid evidence of this happening: I know this, because it's something I've done myself on a variety of occasions and for a variety of different reasons (tho mostly long ago) - and I'm not the only one.

Separately, I've seen reports of an increasing number of schoolchildren who reject scientific teaching - specifically evolution theory - in preference of religious dogma. The greater emphasis on religious teaching in schools as enshrined in law in recent decades is not an irrelevance to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

The most obvious post, and one that completely negates your stance on evolutionary theory being truth due to evidence. It's apparent due to intellect.

It's apparent to an intellect only because there's something (evidence) to be intellectualised over.

Without a thing to intellectualise over, there is nothing - not even intellect. :rolleyes:

The intellect is dependent on evidence. Evidence - the physical kind, at least - is not dependent on intellect. Only the acceptance, the belief, that it *is* evidence is dependent on intellect. And this scenario shows that intellect is secondary to evidence.

But anyway, none of what you're drivelling here is about what I said. You seem to be having the same problem as you always do - that you want all discussions to be on your terms only, and not on the terms of what was actually said. ;)

Which probably explains why you never ever actauly start any discussion. You don't actually have anything of substance to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Evidence is evidence of something.

Very well done. You've caught up, and stopped being wrong.

Shame you decided to be wrong initially.

A person sees the world and takes it as evidence of God

This where it all falls down.

"Evidence is evidence of something". You cannot have evidence of a thing of nothing.

There is no evidence of god, there is only FAITH that there is a god.

Any 'evidence' is not of god, it is 'evidence' that that faith might not be misplaced.

So, I'll try again, on what grounds does accepting a standard religion over a belief in the Spaghetti Monster have no intellectual validity, but choosing evolution over creationism has.

for the first: they have an identical intellectual basis. In summary, a person chooses to believe either one simply because they want to. Neither has greater substance than the other.

For the second: one has greater substance than the other. There is evidence of evolution; there is no evidence of creationism.

But if you want to try and tell me that there is, then that gets to explain an awful lot of why you talk so much shit. :)

I never intended to get into another god debate, particularly with a half life. I'm done here. :)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil, you're assuming that there is evidence of evolution. There isn't. It's a theory. One person sees genes mutate and thinks that there is a religious purpose to it (God), while another sees it as a series of events that are driven by a metaphysical force of some kind, such as surivival (evolution).

I personally see it as pointless absurdity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No, that's what I've been saying all along. You said that evidence can be used to determine intellectual validity, when in fact it can't as you've just confessed.

Make it up, why don't you. :lol:

Evidence AND consistency CAN be used to determine in intellectual validity. It ceases to be valid when a different set of rules is used for evaluating identical evidence. It was ONLY that part I was commenting on, nothing else.

Meanwhile, you've decided to have an argument over something completely different. It appears that that 'd;' word that you used to love so much has gone right out of fashion for you - hardly surprising tho, as you're so very shit at it. :lol:

There is no evidence of evolution either, only an intellectual theory that inteprets stuff as evidence.

There's no evidence you're a thick twat either. Way to go, smart lad. PMSL. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Neil, you're assuming that there is evidence of evolution. There isn't. It's a theory. One person sees genes mutate and thinks that there is a religious purpose to it (God), while another sees it as a series of events that are driven by a metaphysical force of some kind, such as surivival (evolution).

I personally see it as pointless absurdity.

I personally see you as pointless absurdity. :)

There *IS* evidence of evolution; things very definitely - and literally - evolve.

Whether it's one or the other theory behind can be disputed, but there's evidence of evolution. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence AND consistency CAN be used to determine in intellectual validity. It ceases to be valid when a different set of rules is used for evaluating identical evidence. It was ONLY that part I was commenting on, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You need intellect to see something as evidence.

Correct. It's not something I've disagreed with.

None of the rest of what you've said is anything to do with my initial point, and is all worthless and irrelevant bollocks to that initial point.

I'll leave you to carry on talking that worthless and irrelevant bollocks. I'm sure you'll manage very well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally see you as pointless absurdity. :)

There *IS* evidence of evolution; things very definitely - and literally - evolve.

Whether it's one or the other theory behind can be disputed, but there's evidence of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. It's not something I've disagreed with.

None of the rest of what you've said is anything to do with my initial point, and is all worthless and irrelevant bollocks to that initial point.

I'll leave you to carry on talking that worthless and irrelevant bollocks. I'm sure you'll manage very well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Only because you can't understand it.

PMSL. :lol::lol:

You're saying nothing I don't already know.

But more to the point, you're saying nothing at all about what I actually said. Which part of this are you failing to get, not just once, but continually? :lol:

To put it another way: there is no evidence for evolutionary theory being correct in exactly the same sense as there is no evidence of God existing. They are two theories that use the exact same evidence.

as ever, you couldn't be more wrong. :lol::lol:

That is, unless you're going to show me heaps of people who got their belief in god thru things such as fossils ... rather than via simple indoctrination, which is the basis of the vast majority of religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is, unless you're going to show me heaps of people who got their belief in god thru things such as fossils ... rather than via simple indoctrination, which is the basis of the vast majority of religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Not the fact we have fossils, no. But the changes we have observed in fossils collected from different periods of history is evidence, as is the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

all evidence of evolution. It doesn't prove the theory of evolution, but its evidence that the theory is correct.

Nicely put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So the belief in God has just as much scientific validity as the belief in evolutionary theory. I don't think that you believe that at all.

What you're effectively saying is that anything without an empirical basis is to be distrusted if it is to be considered valid. So what about the theory of space, gravity and economics? There's no empirical evidence of those either.

What you're effectively saying is that anything you've not first said yourself is to be distrusted, because only you can be right. :rolleyes:

Shame you've shown thru-out this attempt to pick an argument about nothing I've said that you're not, eh? :lol::lol:

At some point you might cotton on that I'm not playing ball. I've said what I've said, and that stands. Post as much drivel about something entirely different as you fancy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So, are we going to write "Stop Selling Arms" somewhere on our census returns or not then?

That's probably even more pointless than writing 'Jedi' into the religion box. After all, it's not like it'll be collated and presented to anyone who is able to stop selling those arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...