|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » The Pagan 'problem' |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 13:39
|
||
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11457795 cough .
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 14:01
|
||
|
So the Charity Commission has accepted that druids' worship of natural spirits could be seen as religious activity. How generous of them. By adding the 'natural' descriptor, however, aren't the Charity Commission implying that all the other spirits and gods are not... i.e. that they are man made. I think we should be told.... I'm writing to the Daily mail to complain forthwith since this is a Christain Country with Christian values.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Edited Oct 02, 2010, 16:29
Oct 02, 2010, 15:27
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: .... I'm writing to the Daily mail to complain forthwith since this is a Christain Country with Christian values. ;), Come on they are only getting charity status after all, and I believe Druids already work in prisons as informal pastors.. I reckon we're terribly secular as a country anyway, and values whether secular, druidical or christian should be encouraged!
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 15:41
|
||
|
moss wrote: GLADMAN wrote: .... I'm writing to the Daily mail to complain forthwith since this is a Christain Country with Christian values. ;), Come on they are only getting charity status after all, and I believe Druids already work in prisons as informal pastors.. I reckon we're terribly secular as a country anyway, and values whether secular, druidical or christian should be encouraged! Guess it depends on whether you think the values in question have any value or not? It all gets terribly complicated, does it not? I mean, I was taught that those wonderful Romans brought civilisation to Britain and got rid of those nasty druids doing dodgy things in those groves .... but then wasn't it those barbarian hordes who finally eradicated human sacrifice from Roman custom?
|
|||
|
moss 2897 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 16:13
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: Guess it depends on whether you think the values in question have any value or not? It all gets terribly complicated, does it not? I mean, I was taught that those wonderful Romans brought civilisation to Britain and got rid of those nasty druids doing dodgy things in those groves .... but then wasn't it those barbarian hordes who finally eradicated human sacrifice from Roman custom? Your right, values and ethics should stand above religon, they should come from the logical perspective; humans on the other hand will relate their subjective perception to their own and others morality. I was defending the right of a small minority - the new druids - some recognition in a world that is a little contemptuous of a new 'religion', and who are on the whole fairly placid and peaceful in their beliefs.... Belief and religion are illogical but we have to judge the harm they may or may not do... The old druids and the romans were pretty horrendous, but we still do war under any old banner that suits us.... Its alright I'm always defending things ;)
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 16:27
|
||
|
moss wrote: Your right, values and ethics should stand above religon, they should come from the logical perspective; humans on the other hand will relate their subjective perception to their own and others morality. I was defending the right of a small minority - the new druids - some recognition in a world that is a little contemptuous of a new 'religion', and who are on the whole fairly placid and peaceful in their beliefs.... Belief and religion are illogical but we have to judge the harm they may or may not do... The old druids and the romans were pretty horrendous, but we still do war under any old banner that suits us.... Its alright I'm always defending things ;) I'm all for the druids, actually, since it's great to see the contempt they generate within the established religions who would be far better off analysing their own positions! 'But, but, can't they see there's only one true God. It says so in the Bible!!'........ hilarious. At least The Romans were savvy enough to (in the main) let the locals worship who they wanted by simply saying 'that Odin of your's is just your name for Mars, isn't it? Sorted. Carry on chaps. Just call him Mars when the principal pays a visit'.
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
Oct 02, 2010, 22:35
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Maybe Fred Hoyle, the emminent Astronomer/Cosmolgist was on to something when he posited that the random chance creation of life forms was similar to the chances of ' a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747'. It certainly makes one think. (Edited for typos and clarity). Hi Sea Cat, I love the comparison of chance,me, the 747 thingy. A fairly recent one I heard was that of the Euromillions lottery. The National Lottery has a 14 million to one chance of being won, but the Euromillions one has a few hundred million to one chance (can't quite remember the correct figure), but they compared it to picking up your phone, dialling a random number, and the Queen picking up the other end. Brings it home, eh? Best spending that quid on the horses, methinks. Or on a swift half, not being a gambling man. Regards, TE.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 03, 2010, 06:12
|
||
|
There's an analysis of Hoyle's claim here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy I think the crux is that for the tornado creating the 747 to be a valid comparison with evolution it would need to create it not all at once by chance but by a vast series of trials and errors culminating in a finished 747. On that basis, apparently, evolution is a viable theory as there is a believable possibility that the requisite number of trials and errors have happened in order to arrive at the life forms we see. Creationists use the same "impossible chances" argument to say evolution couldn't have produced an eye but I saw Prof Dawkins on telly the other day going through the known sequence of it's development via miniscule improvements providing survival advantages and it made perfect sense. ;) As for why people go mad at creationists I dunno why that is but I'm one of them. They just annoy me. Did you know there's a creationist museum in Plymouth?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Oct 03, 2010, 09:45
|
||
|
Agreed, but the anology of the 747 is even more suspect. Evolution is nothing but the result of 'random gene mutation', in that respect the anology is perfectly valid but nothing in life is that simple. Darwin wrote about the 'The evolution of the species by natural selection' meaning that other factors have to be taken into account. RGM alone cannot and will not cause speciation simply because it is a totally random process, but if other factors are taken into account and these factors have the effect of channeling RGM in a particular direction then speciation can and will happen. The evolution of the Giraffe is a very simple example, the Giraffe evolved into a creature with long legs and a long neck simply because of it's diet. When food was in short supply the ones that could graze higher in the trees survived and produced young while the short legged ones died. As all creatures inherit GNA from their parents it is easy to see why the Giraffe is as we see it today. The evolution of Homo Sapian is however a much more complex process, we have an extremely varied diet, can survive almost anywhere on this planet and during the course of six million years of evolution we have changed from prey into the most dangerous animal in the world. Why?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 03, 2010, 09:52
|
||
|
The Eternal wrote: A fairly recent one I heard was that of the Euromillions lottery. The National Lottery has a 14 million to one chance of being won, but the Euromillions one has a few hundred million to one chance (can't quite remember the correct figure), but they compared it to picking up your phone, dialling a random number, and the Queen picking up the other end. Regards, TE. The German lottery was won in 1995 and 1986 with an identical combination of numbers ;15-25-27-30-42-48 . It is perceived as being a coincidence but there was 25% chance of that two winning combinations would be identical over that period .
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
