egafd.com

[quote]You're saying that merit doesn't at all come into their appointment?[/quote]

I cannot be certain in every case but, generally, yes. How many Bishops would still be in the HoL if they weren't Bishops? Get my point?

[quote]Or even
that they represent the sections of the population that believe the same as
them?[/quote]

Then we have to have Rabbis, Imams and God (pun not intended) knows who else there too. Should we have supposed representatives for people who believe in ghosts, contacting the dead through mediums and paganism? We definitely should have more outspoken atheists given atheism is THE largest minority group in the UK (more atheists than Muslims, Hindus and Jews put together for instance). This 'representation' seems to only go one way, which is what I mean by the attitude of entitlement. At least if you take religious representation out of it altogether we're all treated equally.

[quote]'Hey let's throw the baby (religion) out with the
bath water and go secular!'[/quote]

We're a secular nation in all but name. Only 27% of the population attend any Church, Mosque, Synagogue or other religious building at least once a week. Take out the immigration from the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe and that drops. I think it was just under 50% of people in the UK consider themselves belonging to no religion.

[quote]In your 'Flat Earth' comment, you criticised my more philosophical outlook on
life. So I thought that I'd criticise your apparent adulation of Darwinism.[/quote]

I wouldn't call it adulation, but most definitely acceptance. It isn't a philosophical outlook. You could say my philosophical outlook is believing in things that are evidence-based. I think that's a more reasonable and accurate accusation. And my flat-earth comment was hardly a criticism. It was quite obviously a piss-take of you not believing in an established, thoroughly researched and scrutinised scientific theory that's backed up by fossil evidence, and genetics.

[quote]And if you don't like un-elected officials, then you're not going to like the
rest of the House of Lords anyway. They're not elected - That's the point.[/quote]

But they will be, for the most part, in future. And I've no real problem with appointed peers as long as the selection process has nothing to do with fairies and the like.

[quote]Speaking of the un-elected, I like the idea of the Monarchy (which has very
little constitutional power) and the House of Lords standing in the Government's
way of complete-and-utter control.[/quote]

I do too. I've said nothing against this.

[quote]If it's not broke, don't fix it.[/quote]

But they are 'fixing it'. Other religious groups are planned to be represented. Given the religious make-up of the UK has changed drastically this last 60 years then so does the HoL. The only real way of being fair is to stop giving people a say in how the country is run purely because they talk to some magic man in the sky, or have every religion represented, as I've already said.

Now I really must sleep.

In any general debate I don`t think you and me would get along, Sam, but
I do agree with your first point in your opening blog - do we not belong now
to a secular society, not a religious one (be Christian or any other faith) ?
You are right. Society is now strongly secular. People generally ignore the
Church and would only return in numbers if some peril threatened them
(amazing how our belief in God, like an old life insurance policy, becomes
important in such times).
I am proudly traditionalist. I make no bones about espousing values that
died out around between 1914 and 1960. I find modern cultural and most
artistic values leave me cold. All that said, it is clear politicians pay lip service
only to the Church and bishops are totally unimportant in the Lords or
modern society generally (the rot set in fifty years ago when one of their
number declared "God is dead"). This is a shame, in my opinion, but it is a
fact.
On the other hand, as Ken says, the H of L performs a very useful function
as a second chamber, controlling often the excesses of various governments.
Long may it continue.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]You're saying that merit doesn't at all come into their
> appointment?[/quote]
>
> I cannot be certain in every case but, generally, yes. How many
> Bishops would still be in the HoL if they weren't Bishops? Get
> my point?

But unless they become peers (like George Carey) they cease to be members of the House of Lords when they retire as bishops. So one must presume they had some talent to rise to the bishopric in the first place.



>
> [quote]Or even
> that they represent the sections of the population that believe
> the same as
> them?[/quote]
>
> Then we have to have Rabbis, Imams and God (pun not intended)
> knows who else there too. Should we have supposed
> representatives for people who believe in ghosts, contacting
> the dead through mediums and paganism? We definitely should
> have more outspoken atheists given atheism is THE largest
> minority group in the UK (more atheists than Muslims, Hindus
> and Jews put together for instance). This 'representation'
> seems to only go one way, which is what I mean by the attitude
> of entitlement. At least if you take religious representation
> out of it altogether we're all treated equally.
>
We have C of E bishops because the Church of England is the established religion of the state. How do you know what percentage of the Lords is atheist anyway? I would guess most Labour peers would veer toward atheism.



> [quote]In your 'Flat Earth' comment, you criticised my more
> philosophical outlook on
> life. So I thought that I'd criticise your apparent adulation
> of Darwinism.[/quote]
>
> I wouldn't call it adulation, but most definitely acceptance.
> It isn't a philosophical outlook. You could say my
> philosophical outlook is believing in things that are
> evidence-based. I think that's a more reasonable and accurate
> accusation. And my flat-earth comment was hardly a criticism.
> It was quite obviously a piss-take of you not believing in an
> established, thoroughly researched and scrutinised scientific
> theory that's backed up by fossil evidence, and genetics.

But we don't know for sure how we came to be here. All theories are just that theories.


>
> [quote]And if you don't like un-elected officials, then you're
> not going to like the
> rest of the House of Lords anyway. They're not elected - That's
> the point.[/quote]
>
> But they will be, for the most part, in future. And I've no
> real problem with appointed peers as long as the selection
> process has nothing to do with fairies and the like.

The selection seems to be based on giving retired cabinet ministers or Speakers no matter how useless (yes Mick Martin, I mean you) or dishonest they may have been a berth and access to more public money. What about a choice in the future? A peerage or a pension but not both.

[quote]But unless they become peers (like George Carey) they cease to be members of the House of Lords when they retire as bishops. So one must presume they had some talent to rise to the bishopric in the first place.[/quote]

I'm sure plenty of Imams, Rabbis, Gurus and leaders of other cults are seen as having certain qualities to rise to the top within their own religious hierarchy. What's that got to do with making important decisions on how a society is run?

[quote]We have C of E bishops because the Church of England is the established religion of the state. How do you know what percentage of the Lords is atheist anyway?[/quote]

An established Church that represents a smaller and smaller percentage of the population every year. I mean, really, how many people do you know who are regular church goers? I know one. And as for the percentage of atheists, I've no idea. What I do know is they're not appointed due to their atheism and do not represent some sort of 'atheistic values'. If you do not see the difference then it's a waste of time arguing.

[quote]But we don't know for sure how we came to be here. All theories are just that theories.[/quote]

We cannot be sure of anything....apart from your own existence. (Cogito ergo sum, anyone? Though even that is questionable but that's moving beyond our discussion here). Gravity is a theory. If you lie down and let someone stand over your head with a breeze block, you cannot be 100% certain it will cave your skull in if they drop it. There is mountains of evidence, however, that it will cave your skull in. It is helpful to believe that heavy objects dropped onto human skulls from great heights are hazardous to the victim's health. The germ theory of disease is also a theory and we cannot prove 100% that it's true. You wouldn't risk a blood transfusion with a someone with HIV though, right? You wouldn't like to be locked up in a room with someone with TB and have him coughing all over you, correct? Since we cannot be 100% sure of anything, yet have to live our lives nonetheless, we have to believe in things there is at least evidence for....and there is lots of evidence that evolution is true.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]But unless they become peers (like George Carey) they
> cease to be members of the House of Lords when they retire as
> bishops. So one must presume they had some talent to rise to
> the bishopric in the first place.[/quote]
>
> I'm sure plenty of Imams, Rabbis, Gurus and leaders of other
> cults are seen as having certain qualities to rise to the top
> within their own religious hierarchy. What's that got to do
> with making important decisions on how a society is run?
>
Well, there are only 26 lords spiritual (out of 775) so I would suspect that they have about as much influence as Plaid Cymru or the DUP or any other small party.
In addition, following the 2005 London bombings who did the police and government go to for advice on how to cope with potential reprisals? Imams.


> [quote]We have C of E bishops because the Church of England is
> the established religion of the state. How do you know what
> percentage of the Lords is atheist anyway?[/quote]
>
> An established Church that represents a smaller and smaller
> percentage of the population every year. I mean, really, how
> many people do you know who are regular church goers? I know
> one. And as for the percentage of atheists, I've no idea. What
> I do know is they're not appointed due to their atheism and do
> not represent some sort of 'atheistic values'. If you do not
> see the difference then it's a waste of time arguing.
>
No but they are (usually) appointed because of their support for a particular political theory which may be opposed to a view of the church, especially if they happen to sit on the Labour benches.

[quote]In addition, following the 2005 London bombings who did the police and government go to for advice on how to cope with potential reprisals? Imams.[/quote]

And who are mostly responsible for preaching the hatred that influenced young Muslims to try and kill innocent people in the 2005 bombings? Imams.

[quote]Well, there are only 26 lords spiritual (out of 775) so I would suspect that they have about as much influence as Plaid Cymru or the DUP or any other small party.[/quote]

And how much in tax-free donations do Plaid Cymru get per year? How many channels on TV does the DUP have? How many schools, youth centres and orphanages does either run? Their numbers may be similar but the influence on society as a whole is entirely disproportionate. Religion should be something personal and private.

[quote]No but they are (usually) appointed because of their support for a particular political theory which may be opposed to a view of the church, especially if they happen to sit on the Labour benches.[/quote]

Political theory is fine as long as there's balance. I'd expect strong political leanings in political matters. I do not see how believing in one particular magic man in the sky or the other has to do with it. AGAIN, should we have representatives for Paganism, Star Trek fans and the national Steam Engine Society? I know more Doctor Who fanatics than regular Church attendees.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]In addition, following the 2005 London bombings who did
> the police and government go to for advice on how to cope with
> potential reprisals? Imams.[/quote]
>
> And who are mostly responsible for preaching the hatred that
> influenced young Muslims to try and kill innocent people in the
> 2005 bombings? Imams.

Probably a good idea then NOT to have imams in the House of Lords, then.

>
> [quote]Well, there are only 26 lords spiritual (out of 775) so
> I would suspect that they have about as much influence as Plaid
> Cymru or the DUP or any other small party.[/quote]
>
> And how much in tax-free donations do Plaid Cymru get per year?
> How many channels on TV does the DUP have? How many schools,
> youth centres and orphanages does either run? Their numbers may
> be similar but the influence on society as a whole is entirely
> disproportionate. Religion should be something personal and
> private.
>
I agree with your last sentiment but I'm wondering how many TV channels does the Church of England have?

[quote]Probably a good idea then NOT to have imams in the House of Lords, then.[/quote]

Only a minority of Imams are hate-preachers so why not? The religious make-up of our society has changed dramatically so if you want more religious influence in government then all religions should be represented. That's why I'm for removing ALL religious influence. That way no religion can complain of special treatment to others.

As for the CofE channels: you've got me there, but I bet they're on our TV more than minor political parties.

So many posts. In every day life, when you come back from a holiday (I'm sorry I didn't bring you all something), you come back to a mountain of post, I suppose it's the same in forums too.

I think Essex Lad made some very good points, especially mentioning the Labour peers. It made me wonder why we're arguing about the merits of the House of Lords' bishops, and ignoring the likes of Prescott and Mandelson. I don't usually get party political, but it's obvious that they were only appointed in return for services rendered to the Blair/Brown government. What are their merits?

Sam, so much has been covered in my absence, I really wouldn't know where to start in replying to all the points made. I would like to say two things though, Sam. The first is that I genuinely feel sorry that you can't be 100% sure of anything. I can't see life in those terms. There are some things in life that I just can't help being certain of.
The second is about points of view. You keep jokingly referring to a 'magic man in the sky'. Fair enough, you're an atheist, the idea of a creator seems unlikely to you. That's your opinion, and of course you're entitled to it. But the idea of a single cell organism inexplicably coming into existence, growing and changing over millions of generations (somehow developing consciousness and, among other things, intelligence, emotions and a conscience) into a creature so sophisticated that it can accurately guess exactly how he came about - That just might seem unlikely to some too. It all depends on your point of view.

There, I've had my say, someone else have a go....

[quote]Sam, so much has been covered in my absence, I really wouldn't know where to start in replying to all the points made. I would like to say two things though, Sam. The first is that I genuinely feel sorry that you can't be 100% sure of anything. I can't see life in those terms.[/quote]

I don't know why you're sorry. It's not as if I live my life in a way where I'm uncertain of everything.

[quote] There are some things in life that I just can't help being certain of.[/qutoe]

Like what?

[quote]The second is about points of view. You keep jokingly referring to a 'magic man in the sky'. Fair enough, you're an atheist, the idea of a creator seems unlikely to you. That's your opinion, and of course you're entitled to it.[/quote]

Cheers. And if there is a God, he made me this way. Blame him/her/it. !tongueincheek!

[quote]But the idea of a single cell organism inexplicably coming into existence, growing and changing over millions of generations (somehow developing consciousness and, among other things, intelligence, emotions and a conscience) into a creature so sophisticated that it can accurately guess exactly how he came about - That just might seem unlikely to some too. It all depends on your point of view.[/quote]

But you have nothing that contradicts the evidence. It's not that you cannot believe, but that you don't want to. That makes you more arrogant, stubborn and fundamentalist that I can ever be. My mind is open to evidence and if that changes so will my views. You're putting your fingers in your ears and screaming 'La-la-la-la-la-la!'

This is what you have to explain, to be taken seriously:

You question the theory Human's share a common ancestor with today's Chimpanzees. Out of all the animals on the planet we resemble Chimpanzees the most. Looking at the skeletal structure of animals ours resembles the Chimpanzees the most. On testing animal self-awareness and intelligence, the Chimpanzee comes closest to Human levels. When studying social hierarchy and bonding Chimpanzee groups resemble small Human groups than any other animal. And when looking at DNA, we have the exact same genes and chromosomes in all but around 2%. We are more closely related to Chimpanzees than a donkey is to a horse. And horses and donkeys can produce offspring.

You'd have to explain all that away.

To deny evolution you have to at least have a few answers to explain the above. Why would a supreme creator make chimpanzees 98% human? Why are we genetically closer to apes compared to other mammals if we are not an ape? Why are we genetically closer to other primates like monkeys, lemurs and baboons than non-primate mammals like cows, sheep, dogs and cats if we are not a primate? Why are we genetically closer to mammals like a shrew, or goat than reptiles if we are not a mammal? Why are we genetically closer to a fish or bird than a scorpion or lobster if we are not vertebrates? And why are we genetically closer to animals than plants, if we are not animals? And we, of course, are genetically closer to a beech tree, or mushroom than a rock because we are a living organism.

You'd have to explain all this away.

You see, all evidence suggests your 185 millionth grandfather was a fish. As was the chimpanzees', cats' and Red Rums' 180odd millionth grandfather. You need look no further of evidence of this with some little things called the Pharyngeal arches.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Gray41.png[/img]

They end up developing into your palate, jaw, ear bones, facial muscles hyoid bone, the cartilage supporting your larynx and the muscles that enable you to speak. Now, fish don't have muscles that enable them to speak, a larynx, hyoid bone or ear bones and facial muscles. Yet they have these same pharyngeal arches during their foetal development. They develop into gills, my friend. That's right. Gills slowly developed into jaws, ear bones, cartilage for bobbing larynges and the muscles that let you smile when you're enjoying one of your poems.

Of course, I don't need the pharyngeal arches. The genetic similarities would be enough, but that's a little harder to convey in a post.

You'd have to explain that all that away. I'd take a guess that you can't. I'm pretty confident you can't, actually. Why? Because I think that if you could, by now you'd have posted the pictures from when you was presented with your Nobel prize, just to shut me right up. Alas, I don't think you have a Nobel prize. I think you're just a denier of evolution because you're either too ignorant of it (in which case I'd advise you to enrol in a biology night class at a local college), or you're prejudiced to start with for religious reasons (which still means you'd have to explain all I've said away).

I look forward to your refutations.

Oh, and here are some embryos for you to peruse and compare.

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IkuFjfADpKc/T ... risons.jpg[/img]

Look at how similar the reptile and bird foetuses are (birds are just warm-blooded reptiles with feathers, really). Could you really tell the difference between a rabbit and a human in it's early development if there were no labelling? Can you see how the pharyngeal arches develop into gills in fish and the whole pharynx in mammals?

You have to explain all this away, Ken. I'm serious. Enrol in a biology course. It's only an hour a week and about ?50 for the year.