why are 'faith schools' legal?

Given that over a third of the Brit population have no religious belief at all (at least according to a Readers Digest Poll I read in the dentist waiting room), how come about a third of Brit state funded schools can legally refuse to accept the children of non-believers? Why isn't this banned by the european human rights act? Children of religious people have a much greater choice of state schools than the non-religious - surely this is state discrimination on the grounds of religion and should be illegal? Effectively most religious schools are selective pseudo-grammar ones.

At the very least, a third of state schools should be allowed to reject pupils on the grounds that their parents were once seen praying or attending a mosque! At least then it'd be an even playing field (though a very divided one, but thats a whole other issue). Another third would have to only accept those who nominally believe in God but only go to Church for weddings and funerals.

I think my views on this have been made abundantly clear on numerous ocassions.

in sort.... Why should you go to school to pray, you don;t go to church to think.

nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

religion is bollocks,there should be no faith schools simple as, really. and please dont whine on about freedom of choice ect,so you want people to have the freedom to belive and die for a lie. At the end of the bible it says "world without end" ,id like to see some daft twat waving his bible at the sun in defiance when it goes nova,explain that away.

I can't speak for England but the state funded Catholic schools in Scotland couldn't and wouldn't refuse any pupils on the grounds of their religon. However.....you need to declare yourself to be a Catholic if you want to teach in one!

My old school (state funded Catholic) is now full of all races and religions just cos it's recognised as being a good school with good facilities. Back in my day though it was 100% white.

Taking my rational hat off I f**kin loved the "us and them" divide when I was a kid! Still wouldnae want my kids mixing with Proddys.

mike powell wrote: religion is bollocks,there should be no faith schools simple as, really. and please dont whine on about freedom of choice ect,so you want people to have the freedom to belive and die for a lie. At the end of the bible it says "world without end" ,id like to see some daft twat waving his bible at the sun in defiance when it goes nova,explain that away.

Point of scientific order, as a perfectly normal class G3 star (main sequence currently), our sun will not go nova, but just puff up all fat into a red giant, vapourising the 3 inner planets and fucking mars over a treat too, then collapse to a brown dwarf.

Point taken though. These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

El Jarvo wrote: I thought the Cafflick 'faith' schools were still 'legal' so that all the racist Prodestant whitefolk could send their kids somewhere to stop 'em mixing with Asian kids at the CofE schools.

Or have I missed something?!

Totally different laws governing Education provision In Scotland from the rest of the UK. All I know is that there's tonne's of Asians at my old school and the one my wee sisters all went to. Bottom line is you don't have to be a Catholic to attend a Catholic school but you can't opt out of the two hours a week of Catholic RE. Plus, as I mentioned, you need to be a Catholic to teach in one.

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

fishguy190 wrote:

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion.

I think the science people are doing everything they can to prevent religion being taught as science. That's not even close to the same thing as "doing everything they can to stop religion."

I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

I have no problem with spirituality either; organized religion is a different matter.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator?

For a biologist, you don't seem to have a grasp on the scientific argument. I would argue that the scientific response is that there's no empirical evidence to support the supreme creator explanation. That's not the same thing as saying there is no supreme creator; it just means that belief in a supreme creator is a matter of faith, not of empirical evidence. From a scientific perspective, one can't teach "faith" as a scientific explanation for how the universe was created.

Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Fuckwits who don't get that faith is just that-- faith. It's not based on empirical evidence. If it was, one wouldn't need faith. The metafuckwits go one further: They discount any empirical evidence which contradicts religious explanations which they interpret literally as a matter of faith.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start?[.

They also argue that life didn't evolve, that it was created in 6 days 5 or 6 thousand years ago. Of course when we're talking about "religious people," we need to specify that we're talking about fundamentalist "christians," rather than followers of another belief system.

Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

Not quite what scientists argue. They explain what happened during the "big bang" and its aftermath, without bringing a supreme creator into the discussion, either for or against the proposition, because once again, they deal in empirical evidence, not faith. And yes, they do point to tons of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

As a scientist, you surely must know that one of the most basic requirements of science is that theories must be capable of being tested. No theory requires a "leap of faith." Religion, on the other hand, can't be tested, and thus, requires a leap of faith. The answer to your question, then, is religion requires a leap of faith, science doesn't.

^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

fishguy190 wrote:

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

Clearly you are an intelligent person.

I'm disappointed you place these earth shattering beliefs into convenient little boxes, such as 'Creator'.

Why do we need to have a 'Creator'? Is it some basic form of education for us to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and that a form/lifeform has to be the author of things?

What pisses me off about belief systems is there is always some 'HIGHER BEING'.. blah blah... Since the dawn of time, belief systems have evolved to stop us all topping ourselves, whilst shovelling shit for a lifetime. 'Dont worry son, all that shit-shovelling/bagel making/suicide bombing will earn you a place in heaven or wherever.

Bollocks.

Whats wrong with just being? Why cant we just have been an accident of nature?

Apart from high quality moral guidance on 'how to be a good human', i.e. dont kill anyone, I cant see the point in faith.

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Biology isn't just a messy jumble of phenomena that contradict the theories. If there are exceptions, they'll refine the rule, or point the way to a new theoretical understanding of phenomena.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty.

But if you really wanted to, you could test that theory yourself, if you took it upon yourself to gain the knowledge necessary to test and interpret.

And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong

That's the whole point, though, isn't it. Scientific explanation is not only capable of being tested, it must be capable of being tested. And as a general proposition, hypotheses are proven wrong far more often than theories, which tend to be modified rather than discarded.

and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

Except the theory of evolution is capable of being tested. Matters of faith are not capable of being tested.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version.

Your point is wrong. There is nothing in science that requires your faith; everything in religion does require your faith.

I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

Empirical evidence isn't "so-called." It's either empirical, or it isn't.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health.

Yes, results can be manipulated. That's not science, that's policy.

Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

You can test for the hypothesis that a tree comes from a seed that came from a parent tree. If the hypothesis can be proved, the tree can be taken as evidence that seeds produce trees.

You can't test for the hypothesis that a tree was created by a supreme being. There is no test for the existence of supreme being, so the tree can't be taken as empirical evidence of a supreme being. It's a matter of faith, not of science, that a supreme being created trees.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well).

No, it doesn't go for science. Religion and science are two very different fields. It is inappropriate to teach religion as science when it is not science. To state that simple fact-- that religion is not science, and should not be taught as science-- is not "forcing others to see their version."

Now, when the day comes that scientists get up in the pulpit and preach the theory of evolution at Sunday services-- the equivalent of what religious fundamentalists are attempting to do in the science classroom-- you'll have a point. Until then, you're dead wrong.

Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

Of course there's room for coexistence in life. But there's no room for religion as a theoretical explanation of phenomena under the guise of science.

What I find telling is that people who claim to have faith in a supreme being devote their entire energies to proving the existence of that supreme being and to proving that their literal interpretation of their scripture is literally true (and thus, science is "wrong."). I find that telling because if these people actually had any faith, they wouldn't need to prove anything, now, would they?

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read.

Based on your previous comments confusing science and religion, I'm skeptical about this claim. I'll have to-- ahem-- test this one for myself.

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

fishguy190 wrote: Science and religion can coexist

The scientific explanation for creation is "the big bang" theory. The Judaeo-Christian explanation is that God said "Let there be light."

Those two accounts are entirely compatible with each other, and it's not unreasonable to accept both accounts.

However, the "big bang" theory is capable of being tested; the Judaeo-Christian explanation is not capable of being tested, and so if one is to believe the Judaeo-Christian explanation, it must be accepted as a matter of faith.

If a scientist states the obvious-- that the Judaeo-Christian explanation can't be tested, and therefore shouldn't be taught as science-- that's not an attack on religion.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

Oh come on, you agree with me on almost everything. Almost.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Dang.. I hate agreeing with Comrade. But I do, on this one.

Oh come on, you agree with me on almost everything. Almost.

Well lets just let that one flare up again, when it does..

Anyways, I personally think 'Godsquad' shouldn't come into chatrooms. Stick with the evidence, IMHO. The great thing about scientific theories is that they can be challenged and changed, reinterpreted, re-evaluated from new evidence.

Religious mumbo jumbo can only be re-interpreted, because evidence has always been on the 'thin' side.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

Contradicted yourself just a bit haven't ya???

And by the way, theories can be tested in labs, in completely controled enviroments, and proven true.....but in real world terms they fail.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Because you read into what you wanted and missed my complete point in the past.

Your idea that if someone agrees with conservative thought has to believe in every far right wing idea is crazy. You talked a long time ago about how you don't see things as black/white, but yet you'll only see things in right/left???? Contradicting a bit, aren't ya?

And if I am completely off point, and this is about my "complete lack of understanding of science" than show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere. Which you still haven't done since our last discussion.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed.

That's the thing about science. It's tests must be replicable. If the test can't be replicated, the theory hasn't been tested. You or I or Joe Schmoe down the street can all test the theory for ourselves. We don't need to rely on somebody else's word. Of course, the reality is that some tests require more specialized knowledge and more specialized equipment than other tests. But there's no test in science that can't be replicated by another "scientist."

I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action.

Nor has anybody else.

Contradicted yourself just a bit haven't ya???

No....

And by the way, theories can be tested in labs, in completely controled enviroments, and proven true.....but in real world terms they fail.

Sigh....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

Because you read into what you wanted and missed my complete point in the past.

Missed your point? Your explanation of ecology was just plain wrong. Your confusing global warming and ozone loss was just plain wrong. What point did I miss?

Your idea that if someone agrees with conservative thought has to believe in every far right wing idea is crazy. You talked a long time ago about how you don't see things as black/white, but yet you'll only see things in right/left???? Contradicting a bit, aren't ya?

Right? left? We're talking science here...

And if I am completely off point, and this is about my "complete lack of understanding of science" than show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere. Which you still haven't done since our last discussion.

Your confusing global warming and ozone loss speaks volumes about your complete lack of understanding of science. Whether or not a cfc molecule has been found in the upper atmosphere doesn't change that.

And I have no idea whether or not a cfc molecule has been found. That changes nothing...

EdelBrock wrote: ...show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere...

Without wishing to spend hours researching this, I think the answer is here:

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's. They were used in air conditioning/cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1980s, and in the cleaning processes of delicate electronic equipment. They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds — their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned in the ozone cycle overview above, when such ozone-depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and can break down many thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.

CFC molecules aren't found in the stratosphere, because UV light breaks the molecules down into their constituent elements, including chlorine atoms. It's the chlorine atoms, and not CFC molecules themselves, that break down the ozone molecules into their constituent elements.

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

fishguy190 wrote:

These tards do all in their power to stop science....but unless we go to the stars, everything the human race has achieved, even NEW ORDER, will be lost forever, and have been for absolutely nothing, when the cradle is burned down.

Funny, seems every time I turn around, the science people are doing everything they can to stop religion. I'm a biologist and have no problem with religion, in fact I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I guess it all depends on which version of the truth you decide to believe in, the one from the guy in white robe or the one from the guy in the white lab coat.

Let's take creation for comparison:

One: Creationist: a supreme being decides to create the world from nothing. Scientists argue, what created the creator? Religious people, the creator just exists and evidence is all over the place.

Two: Big Bang/Evolution: a ball of whatever explodes to form the universe and eventually all life evolves from ooze on the ocean floor. Religious people argue, how did that start? Scientists argue evidence is all over the place.

So, what version requires a greater leap of faith since you have to believe someone else's testimony?

Well, I know which version is more _interesting_, and gives us more opportunity to use our 'God given' rational minds. Either 'er..God made it like that...that's it' or the huge intellectual enterprise that is modern biology, with all its practical applications.

404 error wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

ahm yes. i believe that private schools should be private thus get no funding from the state. same thing happens here. i think the the argument goes something like imagine the increased pressure of the public schools if private thus faith schools didn't exist. i do have a slight probem is supporting them through my tax dollars.

i do believe in freedom of choice. if the state system is so bad, then do something about that.

EdelBrock wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: ^^ Once again, as a "scientist" I deal in biology, never ever a hard and fast science, there's always an exception.

Once again, you are caught up in the evidence statement. Personally, the only real truth is one that I have personally observed. I have not experienced NOR have I personally seen the big bang in action. I rely on other scientists to interpret based on their knowledge of a specialty. And YES science requires a theory to be tested. That's why many theories have been proven wrong and why if you look into ONE part of evolution, you will probably find as many interpretations as there are interpretations of the Christian bible.

My point here is that one must trust another's version and believe in that version. I'm currently reading Richard Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" and at this time, I believe his version of evolution to be the most up-to-date and accurate. I'm sure, as in every other science, there will be another version along when more so called "empiracle" evidence shows up.

The biologist in me watches all the time how you can manipulate the same empiracle evidence. Different protocols for sampling, different statistics, different metrics for ecosystem health. Hell, I'm a consultant, so I need to use the best possible evidence to give my client the best possible answer and not look like an idiot in front of the review agencies.

As for religion not having the evidence, as a person raised Catholic, the pure existence of a tree is evidence enough for one who believes in a creator, no matter what religion you belong to.

Overall, I'd like to point out that hard core belief in version of the truth and forcing it upon others is really the issue here. The fundamentalists, whatever faith, are trying to force others to see their version (that goes for science as well). Well, us in the science world understand that diversity is healthy. Science and religion can coexist, provided both sides stop trying to discount the other and accept that there are other versions of the truth.

And before I go, Mr. Dawkins is probably the most anti-religion scientist I have ever read. But that doesn't discount his science for me.

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

frankly i'm amazed at what this thread has become. people are free to believe and do what they like as long as they don't force their beliefs on me.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: ...show me when they found a CFC molecule in the stratosphere...

Without wishing to spend hours researching this, I think the answer is here:

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's. They were used in air conditioning/cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1980s, and in the cleaning processes of delicate electronic equipment. They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds — their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned in the ozone cycle overview above, when such ozone-depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and can break down many thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.

CFC molecules aren't found in the stratosphere, because UV light breaks the molecules down into their constituent elements, including chlorine atoms. It's the chlorine atoms, and not CFC molecules themselves, that break down the ozone molecules into their constituent elements.

Your speaking lab science, and this is a leap of faith believing that this is happening in real world terms.

I already stated this about chlorine atoms are being the reason for ozone depletion, which also comes from ocean salt spray and volcanos. Also not noted in wikipedia is that there is a bacteria that has been found that decomposes the CFC molecule, which wasn't considered in the initial lab experiments.

Again, I'm fine with precautionary measures of getting rid of CFCs, but that everyone talks about it as if it were fact is what is disturbing.

C-Ro wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

Here Bush tried to institute the voucher system to remedy this problem, if I'm not mistaken. Seemed on the surface to be a good idea, but then I'm not well versed in the idea.

Is it that the religious schools get better education or is it that it is a private school? Mainly the rich can attend, and so they are willing to pay for better education....you get what you pay for?

Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

404 error wrote:

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

I'm curious, where are the only schools religious schools (in the modern free world, not including places like the ME)?

darran clarke wrote: Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

I think one of the issues with teaching religon at home is that people are too busy to even eat dinner with their kids, let alone teach them the religon.

Religious schools give a good foundation of the religon.

A couple people have posted the divisiveness of them, how so? A private school that isn't religious is just as divisive. Don't like that people with more money have better opportunities? Neither do I, but such is the way of the world.

NOOLigan wrote: frankly i'm amazed at what this thread has become. people are free to believe and do what they like as long as they don't force their beliefs on me.

Actually, that's the biggest part of my argument, I just thought I'd stir things up a bit.

EdelBrock wrote:

C-Ro wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

Here Bush tried to institute the voucher system to remedy this problem, if I'm not mistaken. Seemed on the surface to be a good idea, but then I'm not well versed in the idea.

Is it that the religious schools get better education or is it that it is a private school? Mainly the rich can attend, and so they are willing to pay for better education....you get what you pay for?

I think most people's problem with vouchers are that they takes away money from the public schools...and puts them into private schools and a lot of time religious schools. It's seen as tax money going to these schools instead of "keeping your school tax money and spending it where you want". So It's like an establishment clause thing...since a lot of the schools they end up at are religious and there's no way to ensure an equal distribution of government funds. They never got too far here though Santorum did champion them. Santorum is also a flaming fucking asshole.

Around here, parochial schools, which are catholic schools that welcome anyone based the parish they live in are "private" yes, aren't exclusive. they only charge about what you pay in school taxes...so they are doing it better with the same amount of money (though it DOES equal more per student)

There's Friends Schools (well this is Pennsylvania)and other religious private schools that tend to charge a lot of money and I think you're right there that that's a you get what you pay for type of thing

404 error wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

Yes, it is religious discrimination by the state.

It's why we have separation of church and state here. We're guaranteed freedom of religion (although tell that to Native American religions that are prohibited from using peyote in their ceremonies), which is a limit on the power of the state to discriminate against religion, But we also have separation of church and state, which is a limit on the power of the state to discriminate in favor of religion.

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

I think its more to hold the public schools accountable for their lack of proper education. Right now they don't have much competition, and if they are a failure of a school, the children are forced to put up with it. Plus religious schools here cost money that many lower income families aren't able to afford. It seems to me it would give better education to the children, and if people want their children to attend religious schools because they believe it is better, then that's their perogotive.

But I can see the issue if it was a public school was religious and the child was forced to attend.

When I was in Okinawa, I only went to Christian schools when I was in kindergarten and first grade since Dad was already retired from the military and that I could not go to a base (DoDD) school. Glad I only went up to the first grade (as far as faith schools go) before going to public schools after coming to the States. I looked up courses in the Okinawa Christian School catalog on the Internet one day, and was shocked to see what they got down for science courses, esp. with chemistry. The course was advertised along the lines of "we will look at the molecular level of God's creation."

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

I think its more to hold the public schools accountable for their lack of proper education.

Do you not read what these people have to say? It's not like they're hiding their agenda...

Right now they don't have much competition, and if they are a failure of a school, the children are forced to put up with it. Plus religious schools here cost money that many lower income families aren't able to afford. It seems to me it would give better education to the children, and if people want their children to attend religious schools because they believe it is better, then that's their perogotive.

At taxpayer's expense?

But I can see the issue if it was a public school was religious and the child was forced to attend.

And if they're not forced to attend, you don't see a huge, glaring violation of the separation of church and state which is a fundamental principle of the constitution?

EdelBrock wrote: Your speaking lab science, and this is a leap of faith believing that this is happening in real world terms.

Please don't take this as an insult, but you simply do not understand the basic principles of science.

1) A scientist observes a previously unobserved phenomenon such as a hole in the ozone layer, and also observes the presence of chlorine atoms in the upper atmosphere. That scientist will then attempt to develop an educated guess-- a hypothesis-- to explain the observed phenomena. Once that scientist has developed the hypothesis, the scientist must then test the hypothesis, to see if the hypothesis is accurate or not. If the testing supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes the best explanation-- a theory-- of the observed phenomena until another, better explanation displaces it. This is the scientific method.

The fact that testing of a hypothesis occurs in a laboratory instead of "the real world" is an irrelevant critique, and in fact, only highlights the basic scientific illiteracy of the critic. Laboratory testing is actually superior to in situ testing because the scientist can control all of the variables, thereby receiving far more accurate results than the scientist would receive where the variables are not controlled.

2) And as long as you raise the subject of lab vs. "real world testing":

Nevertheless, within three years most of the basic assumptions made by Rowland and Molina were confirmed by laboratory measurements and by direct observation in the stratosphere. The concentrations of the source gases (CFC's and related compounds) and the chlorine reservoir species (HCl and ClONO2) were measured throughout the stratosphere, and demonstrated that CFCs were indeed the major source of stratospheric chlorine, and that nearly all of the CFCs emitted would eventually reach the stratosphere. Even more convincing was the measurement, by James G. Anderson and collaborators, of chlorine monoxide (ClO) in the stratosphere. ClO is produced by the reaction of Cl with ozone — its observation thus demonstrated that Cl radicals not only were present in the stratosphere but also were actually involved in destroying ozone.

3) There is no leap of faith in the scientific method. Period.

EdelBrock wrote: I already stated this about chlorine atoms are being the reason for ozone depletion, which also comes from ocean salt spray and volcanos.

Well, as long as you're quoting from Wikipedia below, let's reference what Wikipedia has to say about chlorine from ocean salt spray:

Another objection occasionally voiced is that It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude larger than man-made sources. This falls into the "true but irrelevant" category as tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that matters. The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere. Even in the lower atmosphere there is more chlorine present in the form of CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere the organic source gases dominate overwhelmingly. This includes the CFCs and methyl chloride, which has both natural and man made sources (FAQ, Part II, section 4.3).

Another point to note when evaluating the contributions of various gases to stratospheric ozone is that methyl chloride molecules contribute only a single chlorine atom, but CFC molecules contribute multiple chlorine atoms. Very large volcanic eruptions can inject HCl directly into the stratosphere, but direct measurements (FAQ, Part II, section 4.4) have shown that their contribution is small compared to that of chlorine from CFCs.

EdelBrock wrote: Also not noted in wikipedia is that there is a bacteria that has been found that decomposes the CFC molecule, which wasn't considered in the initial lab experiments.

Are you talking about this:

In 1970 Prof. Paul Crutzen pointed out that emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a stable, long-lived gas produced by soil bacteria, from the earth's surface could affect the amount of nitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere. Crutzen showed that nitrous oxide lives long enough to reach the stratosphere, where it is converted into NO. Crutzen then noted that increasing use of fertilizers might have led to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions over the natural background, which would in turn result in an increase in the amount of NO in the stratosphere. Thus human activity could have an impact on the stratospheric ozone layer.

Because it doesn't support the point you were making.

However, it does support a claim that there is some background level of activity which can affect ozone depletion, and that increased fertilizer use could increase that background level of activity. That's not the same thing as saying CFCs don't deplete ozone.

EdelBrock wrote: Again, I'm fine with precautionary measures of getting rid of CFCs, but that everyone talks about it as if it were fact is what is disturbing.

You still don't understand what a theory is, which brings us right back to my first sentence: you simply do not understand the basic principles of science.

You know Comrade it is pointless for me to quote and paste at all the crusadic arguements you are trying to support.

1. I didn't get my info from Wikipedia, and I have not read the site on CFCs. There are far more credible places to get info and not all are on the web.

2. I never stated that CFCs had NO effect on the ozone.

3. I never stated that ozone depletion was a crock

I understand science; theory and hypothesis....but in the end that's all they are until concrete evidence proves that it is FACT. There has been no concrete evidence in the regards to CFCs, other than lab experiments, but there are many factors not being accounted for in the lab. Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???....it is a theory until something concrete is found.

The problem I have had all along is how science and "knowledgable" people spew lab findings and quote them as pure fact......when in actuality it is a hypothosis or theory on what is happening in the real world.

Get off your damn high-horse, scientists for centuries stated quite factually that the Earth was flat as well.

EdelBrock wrote: I understand science; theory and hypothesis....but in the end that's all they are until concrete evidence proves that it is FACT.

That conclusion is proof that you DON'T understand science.

There has been no concrete evidence in the regards to CFCs, other than lab experiments, but there are many factors not being accounted for in the lab. Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???....it is a theory until something concrete is found.

No, that is NOT how science works. A theory remains a theory.

The problem I have had all along is how science and "knowledgable" people spew lab findings and quote them as pure fact......when in actuality it is a hypothosis or theory on what is happening in the real world.

Once again, a theory remains a theory.

Get off your damn high-horse, scientists for centuries stated quite factually that the Earth was flat as well.

I rather doubt that. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere...

And, assuming for a brief moment that some scientist (or scientists) DID say the earth is flat, the fact that their "theory" (I put it in quote marks because I doubt any such "theory" was ever subjected to the scientific method) was replaced by a better theory, which is EXACTLY how the scientific method works.

What you refer to as "my high horse" is actually my education. Not to disparage you personally, but you are scientifically illiterate. Instead of wasting time disparaging those who DO have educations, you SHOULD be learning something about those subjects you wish to be conversant in.

EdelBrock wrote: Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???

And incidentally, you've misquoted (again) what the article actually states. It doesn't say that a molecule takes 15 years to "decompose." It states that it takes 15 years for a molecule to rise from the surface to the stratosphere. As for that "decompostion," it's a process that results from UV exposure. There's nothing in that process that contradicts the statement that it takes 15 years for a molecule of CFC (or perhaps it's elemental remnants) to rise to the level of the stratosphere.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???

And incidentally, you've misquoted (again) what the article actually states. It doesn't say that a molecule takes 15 years to "decompose." It states that it takes 15 years for a molecule to rise from the surface to the stratosphere. As for that "decompostion," it's a process that results from UV exposure. There's nothing in that process that contradicts the statement that it takes 15 years for a molecule of CFC (or perhaps it's elemental remnants) to rise to the level of the stratosphere.

Ah ha, a misquoter finds me misquoting. Touche'

If you haven't figured out by now I'm not putting full effort into this. But since we are quoting from websites, how about we do so with a bit better sources. Try this, I think he's a little more credible than Wikipedia:

"Professor S. Fred Singer is a well-known critic of the current ozone-CFC policy. An atmospheric and space physicist, he participated in the earliest ozone measurements in the upper atmosphere using rockets to carry his instruments aloft and later devised the ozone instrument in current use in satellites. He has held academic and government positions, among them as first director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, most recently, as the Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation. He now directs The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia."

This one is specifically on CFCs: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/stvincen.html

But these are good as well: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/misuse.html

Edelbrock, I apologize if my comments seem like a personal attack on you, because I don't intend them to be. You are, however, quite mistaken in your understanding of scientific method. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but the least you could do is read up on the subject so you could counter me with more than an obviously erroneous opinion.

EdelBrock wrote: Ah ha, a misquoter finds me misquoting.

Unlike you, I've pointed out where your quotes are misquotes. Merely calling me a misquoter doesn't make me a misquoter.

If you haven't figured out by now I'm not putting full effort into this.

Nor am I.

But since we are quoting from websites, how about we do so with a bit better sources. Try this, I think he's a little more credible than Wikipedia:

Tomorrow, OK?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Edelbrock, I apologize if my comments seem like a personal attack on you, because I don't intend them to be.

??????????

Considering you started off like this, considering I was only agreeing with FG on his thoughts on the thread's topic:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

If that wasn't a personal attack, then, ummm, what is????

EdelBrock wrote: If that wasn't a personal attack, then, ummm, what is????

I'm saying you have a completely erroneous understanding of science. That's a factual statement. However, I'm aware that it sounds like a personal attack, and I regret that it does.

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

just why is it so important to score points against less informed?

people will believe what they choose to. all a bit pointless.

Isn't science incredibly fucking dull?

Ally wrote: Don't most religious people - when challenged - jam their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and go "Lalalalalalala" when presented with evidence that their oh so precious faith might be a load of old bollocks?

At the end of the day how can you possibly have a reasoned discussion with somebody so blinkered they'll respond to every challenge with "Look, it's a leap of faith" and shake their head?

I have a friend from childhood who has a rather uncomfortable but non-life threatening illness and he is a Christian. He went through a brief period of questioning "Well if God created everything then presumably he created this illness and chose me to have it so I'd have all these hospital trips and all this misery. I'm a good Christian, why would he do this?". I was "Good on yer mate, question it!". Rather disappointingly he reached the blinkered conclusion of "He must be testing me" although he really didn't look like he was sure about that answer. He said precisely what would shore up his faith and put him instantly at ease.

My jaw hit the deck when I heard that as I would never be comfortable lying to myself in such a manner.

Where did I ever start comparing religious occurances with scientific fact????

My problem with science today is that government policy and the newsroom's constant desire to drive fear in the nation is what is controling science. (that has nothing to do with religon by the way)

Science has never been it's own entity, and has always been a handmaiden. However in this day in age, I believe science can and should be its own entity.

And the 'big bang' theory doesn't take a leap of faith to believe??? It can not be produced or mimicked, but yet its the main credible scientific explination for the begining of the universe. (again that has nothing to do with religon) "Leap of faith" doesn't have to be in religious contexts.

As for your friend. To each his own. If it gives him closure, than so be it.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

Is it errornous that religon and science can live in harmony together??? I don't see the reason that the two have to be opposed to each other.

The main similarity is that they both explain the unknown,but they ask two different questions,

Science: Why things are the way they are?

Religon: What is the purpose for the things the way they are?

The main issue I see with this is that is is terribly un-PC to do so, on either end of the spectrum.

NOOLigan wrote: just why is it so important to score points against less informed?
.

because it's fun.

i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: just why is it so important to score points against less informed?
.

because it's fun.

only for a while. then it gets very tedious.

AgentWood wrote: i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Religons and science have been at odds against at least since Plato and his demiurge (singular entity responsible for creation). The main arguement many have had is where science fits into religon or religon fits into science.

The main arguement between science and many Christians stems from Aristotle and Tempier Aristotle described the world not simply as it is, but as it must be Tempier declared, in 1277 in opposition, that the world is whatever it's omnipotent creator chose it to be.

Science still thinks with an Aristolian thought process, and these two thoughts are what have pitted them against each other.

Like you have mentioned, I think there needs to be revamping of the idea that religon and science can, in fact, compliment each other. Which is what I think FG was refering to.

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote: i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Religons and science have been at odds against at least since Plato and his demiurge (singular entity responsible for creation). The main arguement many have had is where science fits into religon or religon fits into science.

The main arguement between science and many Christians stems from Aristotle and Tempier Aristotle described the world not simply as it is, but as it must be Tempier declared, in 1277 in opposition, that the world is whatever it's omnipotent creator chose it to be.

Science still thinks with an Aristolian thought process, and these two thoughts are what have pitted them against each other.

Like you have mentioned, I think there needs to be revamping of the idea that religon and science can, in fact, compliment each other. Which is what I think FG was refering to.

if you're talking about classical european thought then, yes, there's been a science/religion gap off and on for centuries (see da vinci as an example). but during the european middle ages, the arab world and asia embraced both religion and science. there was the understanding that one could co-exist with the other. however, it seems that many fundamentalists want to return to the middle ages, unfortunately.

AgentWood wrote:

if you're talking about classical european thought then, yes, there's been a science/religion gap off and on for centuries (see da vinci as an example). but during the european middle ages, the arab world and asia embraced both religion and science. there was the understanding that one could co-exist with the other. however, it seems that many fundamentalists want to return to the middle ages, unfortunately.

While I agree with your overall conclusion, the Arab world fortunately saved Greek thought (mainly Aristotlian thought) after the fall of Rome. But this wasn't due to religon, but more to the loss of stable socities and civilization after the fall of Rome. The Arab world still was stable during this time period, and being gifted with being close to Greece, they were able to translate Greek manuscripts (which all greek thought was still being taught in Greek language in Rome) into their own language. In Europe, however, schools were lost and the use of Greek language fell off, and Greek thought surely would have been lost if not for the Arabs.

However, the radical Muslim religon did not take well with science. Fortunately the Christian Europe had stabalized to the point that they had a desire to translate the Arab writings into their language (which was easier than translating from ancient Greek texts). The science transfered to Europe and dropped of in the Arab world with a more radical Islam.

That Christianity was trying to keep down science is a misnomer. More correctly there were arguements in the Church as to what level of a handmaiden it served (and in every society science has been a handmaiden). There were those within the Church that were on both spectrums, and in the middle.

Pope Gregory IX - Who agreed with a coucil of bishops in Paris who believed aristotlian natural philoshophy should be banned (this ban went away quickly after Gregory's death)

Thomas Aquanis - Believed science (natural philosophy) and theology can exist together. That the two might find different truths, but that they are not contradicting truths. Both complimenting each other.

Siger of Brabant - Took theology out all together from science, and didn't give theology (or the impact upon theology) a second thought.

These arguements were nessisary for us to think the way we do today. The Middle Ages were times of great expansion of science, not condemnation.

But like I mentioned before, I'm being nit-picky, and I agree that there are radicals that still want to subdue science to a handmaiden status to fit thier needs, which is completely unacceptable.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

Is it errornous that religon and science can live in harmony together??? I don't see the reason that the two have to be opposed to each other.

No, it is not erroneous tp assert that religion and science can coexist. As you can read for yourself, I said they can coexist. What I took issue with is Fishguy's assertion that both require a leap of faith. Utter nonsense, as is his assertion that scientists are doing everything they can to stop religion.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Isn't science incredibly fucking dull?

Pah! Martin....

Just cos it aint got burning bushes, wailing walls, plagues of locusts, men that can walk on water, part the Red Sea, and rise from the dead etc.

Thrillseeker!

But then i spose that's reality. Fucking dull.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: No, it is not erroneous tp assert that religion and science can coexist. As you can read for yourself, I said they can coexist. What I took issue with is Fishguy's assertion that both require a leap of faith. Utter nonsense, as is his assertion that scientists are doing everything they can to stop religion.

If you mentioned religon and science can coexist, I missed it, my apologies on that.

Now I can't assert what FG was trying to say, but my take was not at all to the side of the spectrum you are seeing it.

As for the leap of faith issue you have, I think it might be that you are under the belief that to take a "leap of faith" you are jumping blindly into acceptance and not questioning anything. If that is what you are believing, then I agree wholeheartedly.

However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

FG used a good example on the creation of the cosmos. BigBang and Creation by God. Niether can be proven without doubt, both are ideas of how creation happened, neither can really be proven wrong or correct with full emperical evidence, and even the possibility arises that both are one and the same. To believe in either of these explinations requires some leap in faith.

As for science trying to stamp out religon, well that's been an arguement for a long time. Science itself is not, but there are individuals that do try to discredit religon with science, just as there are religious fanatics that try to discredit science with religon. As I posted above, this fight has been around since Plato and his demiurge. With a growing anti-religious society, so has the growing of individuals that try to discredit religon with science. Which to me is pointless since religon and science answer two completely different questions.

I'm so enjoying this debate. I must admit I'm learning a few things and having a nice discussion at the same time, minus a couple of personal attacks, whether intentional or not.

EdelBrock:

However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

Nice, you got the message. Comrade and others, please, take a step back and really just say it out loud:

Before anything happened there was this ball, and it exploded and the universe was formed. Prior to the ball, there was infinite nothingness. (simplified, but basic jist no?)

Before God said "let there be light" there was infinite nothingness and then God said "let there be light" and everything was formed.(simplified, but basic jist no?)

OK, so the big bang has evidence. That's the scientific argument and a tested method. But really, even with all of the evidence, can we really all come to the same conclusion? I don't know about you, but I need some kind of faith to accept the big bang theory and I do accept it. However, I can see the other part too.

AgentWood:

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

OK not all scientists are trying to destroy religion. In my own experience, many people who are of the scientific mind cannot accept the two realities, and like the fundamentalist religions, believe that it should be stopped. This goes both ways. As for the religious and the scientific coming together, I have heard of many different versions of this working, though yours is the first that I've heard that incorporates the Jewish religion. And, yes, I agree, fundamentalism is abhorrent, whether scientific or not.

Truly, I'd love to come back to this 100 years from now, I'm sure every one of us would have something different to say. Provided that we are all the thinkers that we appear to be.

Sorry if my explanations were flawed, I was simplifying things to be concise. Yes I do understand scientific method and argument as people have described it, I don't think anyone could have passed high school without that knowledge.

EdelBrock wrote:

404 error wrote:

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

I'm curious, where are the only schools religious schools (in the modern free world, not including places like the ME)?

Well in the UK a third of state schools are religous ones, and, apparently there are some rural areas where the local schools are all religous ones and hence if you are non-religious and are concequently rejected from them you have to travel a considerable distance out of the area to find a school you can attend. This isn't first hand knowledge though, given I live in London, just based on complaining letters from parents I've read in newspapers. It would stand to reason though, that it would happen in some areas, if 1 in 3 schools are religious.

EdelBrock wrote:

darran clarke wrote: Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

I think one of the issues with teaching religon at home is that people are too busy to even eat dinner with their kids, let alone teach them the religon.

Religious schools give a good foundation of the religon.

A couple people have posted the divisiveness of them, how so? A private school that isn't religious is just as divisive. Don't like that people with more money have better opportunities? Neither do I, but such is the way of the world.

Frankly some of us aren't very keen on private schools either, but I admit its a lot more difficult to argue for banning them than it is to argue against taxpayer funded religious schools. Most folk can't afford private schools anyway so there's a limit as to how much division they can create. They _are_ divisive though, as they aren't really about 'better academic standards' so much as avoiding your kid having to mix with the plebs they are going to be bossing around for the rest of their careers.

Ally wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: Truly, I'd love to come back to this 100 years from now, I'm sure every one of us would have something different to say.

You must really have some special arrangement with God if you'll be checking this thread in 100 years time

Surely there are internet cafes in heaven? Though they'd probably block this site.

404 error wrote:

Surely there are internet cafes in heaven?

You'd better hope so, it's the only way to keep in touch with the rest of us who are going the other way

fishguy190 wrote: Comrade and others, please, take a step back and really just say it out loud:

Before anything happened there was this ball, and it exploded and the universe was formed. Prior to the ball, there was infinite nothingness. (simplified, but basic jist no?)

Before God said "let there be light" there was infinite nothingness and then God said "let there be light" and everything was formed.(simplified, but basic jist no?)

Uh...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

fishguy190 wrote: Science and religion can coexist

The scientific explanation for creation is "the big bang" theory. The Judaeo-Christian explanation is that God said "Let there be light."

Those two accounts are entirely compatible with each other, and it's not unreasonable to accept both accounts.

fishguy190 wrote: I don't know about you, but I need some kind of faith to accept the big bang theory and I do accept it. However, I can see the other part too.

I haven't personally "tested" the theory either.

But I could, and so could you. That's the difference....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: However, the "big bang" theory is capable of being tested; the Judaeo-Christian explanation is not capable of being tested, and so if one is to believe the Judaeo-Christian explanation, it must be accepted as a matter of faith.

If a scientist states the obvious-- that the Judaeo-Christian explanation can't be tested, and therefore shouldn't be taught as science-- that's not an attack on religion.

fishguy190 wrote: OK not all scientists are trying to destroy religion. In my own experience, many people who are of the scientific mind cannot accept the two realities, and like the fundamentalist religions, believe that it should be stopped.

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

As in any explosion, the aftermath can be observed and tested.

Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

fishguy190 wrote: Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

Hey, a load of people believe in spiritual bodies too, but aren't Doctors of Religious Studies either....

fishguy190 wrote: Funny, my understanding of the big bang is that it is interpretation of what is happening using mathematical models proposed by PhD scientists. I also understand that a vast majority of the world accepts the big bang theory. Am I to believe that a vast majority of the planet has a PhD understanding of mathematics and can understand physicists like Stephen Hawking?

No.....

What I am proposing, and what you haven't addressed, is this:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other, the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: However, taking a leap, doesn't mean the person is jumping blindly into acceptance. To me it means more that the person is accepting an explination that is outside thier ability or knowledge. That the explination might not be fully proven, but that there is enough evidence to support the idea within their understanding.

I think it's more that the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their ability or knowledge.

There's a subtle difference. In one, (what you stated), the person is accepting an explanation that is outside their knowledge. In the other (what I stated), the person is accepting that the explanation is outside their knowledge. In one, the person doesn't know the answer, but could discover it through observation and testing. In the other, the person doesn't know the answer, and the answer can't be discovered through observation and testing.

And the big bang can be observed and tested??? Come on now, you're being one sided on this.

As in any explosion, the aftermath can be observed and tested.

The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

EdelBrock wrote: The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

I'm certainly no physicist, but it's my understanding that we have both the capability to observe the effects of the big bang as well as to test the theory to see if it's accurate. And both testing and observation have supported the theory to this date.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: The big bang theory isn't modeled after a regular explosion, and we do not have the capabilities to test it.

I'm certainly no physicist, but it's my understanding that we have both the capability to observe the effects of the big bang as well as to test the theory to see if it's accurate. And both testing and observation have supported the theory to this date.

I can't find anything that is a reliable source, whether either of us is right (without putting in too much time on this).

HOWEVER, the NASA website does state this, which is on the topic of leaps of faith:

"It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions. "

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

But again, religon and science answer two seperate questions. Science answers how the big bang happened; religon answers for what reason it did.

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

But isn't that mainly just Mr Dawkins himsel? a guy who is so ferociously anti-religion he goes a bit far even for an atheist like me. From what I've read about that book it doesn't sound like the strongest of anti-religion arguments.

Personally I dislike religion because it seems a bit arrogant to believe one knows what God wants. And a bit selfish to belive things without evidence simply to make oneself feel better, when it always seems to end up with someone else paying thge price for those beliefs.
As far as I can see iif there is a God he has given us our rational minds and what our senses tell us of the physical world and everything else should be left as a mystery. If we have a God shaped hole that's something we have to learn to live with instead of trying to invent things to fill it.

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

I read the reviews yesterday, after all of my previous posts. If the reviews are accurate, then yes, I see your point-- you're right about at least some scientists being anti-religion. From what I've read, most scientists who write on the subject don't take that adversarial stance, even if they themselves are agnostic or atheistic. One example would be E. O. Wilson's new one, The Creation.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

fishguy190 wrote:

Being an atheist and "trying to destroy religion" are not the same thing.

I didn't try to differentiate between the two, this is what I'm talking about:

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion

I was simply pointing out that there is a group of scientists who have as much intolerance for religion as there are religious people with intolerance for science.

I read the reviews yesterday, after all of my previous posts. If the reviews are accurate, then yes, I see your point-- you're right about at least some scientists being anti-religion. From what I've read, most scientists who write on the subject don't take that adversarial stance, even if they themselves are agnostic or atheistic. One example would be E. O. Wilson's new one, The Creation.

A new one by Mr. Wilson. On the "to be read" list. I've always liked his work.

404 error wrote:

But isn't that mainly just Mr Dawkins himsel? a guy who is so ferociously anti-religion he goes a bit far even for an atheist like me. From what I've read about that book it doesn't sound like the strongest of anti-religion arguments.

Personally I dislike religion because it seems a bit arrogant to believe one knows what God wants. And a bit selfish to belive things without evidence simply to make oneself feel better, when it always seems to end up with someone else paying thge price for those beliefs.
As far as I can see iif there is a God he has given us our rational minds and what our senses tell us of the physical world and everything else should be left as a mystery. If we have a God shaped hole that's something we have to learn to live with instead of trying to invent things to fill it.

I would say that your view on religion has been shaped by the fundamentalist Christian movement. I grew up in a very Catholic household. That being said, there is much that I don't agree with in the church and no longer practice. I do still consider myself a spiritual person. From my perspective on the Catholic opinion of God, he or she has given us rational minds and the power to think for ourselves. My family has never accepted the view that what humans do to each other is "allowed" by God to happen. Knowing what God wants? Well, that is something that is probably what causes so much turmoil in the church and the world.

That being said, I'm not here to turn atheists into Christians or Christians into scientists. The two can coexist and can work together.

Seems like a lot of worry about what other people think. This forum needs to be introduced to the phrase "Fuck 'em".

A Free-For-All On Science and Religion

give it a rest.

:rip:

*bump*

For the attention of Fishguy; if others ain't interested, you know the drill.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: For the attention of Fishguy; if others ain't interested, you know the drill.

yeah we do email, if its really that exciting.

*bump*

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: *bump*

haven't you got some 'grooming' to do or summink?

That's better...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: not until 'recess' is over

But Comrade would never say such a thing....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

But Comrade would say "need a ride? I've got the new Kid's Bop CD!"

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

But Comrade would say "need a ride? I got Fiddy Tent's "Candy Shop" CD!"

I can't stand the CDs you mentioned, unfortunately.

Hopefully, the debate ends here.

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I can't stand the CDs you mentioned, unfortunately.

So if he threw in another you might go for a ride then?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: A Free-For-All On Science and Religion

Thanks, enjoyed it.

Since people seem to be irritated about this and I can't get into your profile, email me and we can discuss amongst ourselves.

Unless anyone else would like to continue?

fishguy190 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: A Free-For-All On Science and Religion

Thanks, enjoyed it.

Since people seem to be irritated about this and I can't get into your profile, email me and we can discuss amongst ourselves.

Unless anyone else would like to continue?

Perhaps we should start a separate forum for it.

I'll email you after the holiday weekend, when I have more steady access to the internets.