>> "I find it incredibly ironic, the law of unintended consequences, that the current push by Atheists to remove religious education from State Schools, if successful, will only increase the drift away from the State system. In the church I attend, only one family that I know of has their children in State based education, the rest of the children (and we have a lot of them) are in independent or Christian schools or are being home schooled."
Posted by David Palmer, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:14:53 PM

That seems to be quite contradictory, David. If many church-attending families are already out of the state system, there cannot be an increased drift away. Besides, is half to one hour per week all that significant?

Moreover, if many or most religious families are already out of the state system, then the state system ought to be able to ditch religious education without much of a ripple.

There is no law of unintended consequences - it is a simple proposition ... for anthropology?? sociology??

I take issue with your "not morally-serious" assertion. A few comedians do not reflect atheist-associated human dimensions. I could go on ab out a number of things, but don't feel it would be appreciated.

salty is right/quote..""I have not seen others..suggesting that light may only 'appear' to travel at 'C'...*but rather have stated clearly that light*always travels at 'C'.""

i agree..the emmission speed/rate..of photons
must be regarded as a constant..[or else all that light years away stuff becomes nonsense]

""This would appear to conflict
with a potential theory/explanation...that 'red-shift'
in a beam of light""[photon stream]

""escaping a high-gravity object..suggests that the expenditure of part of the beam's energy..(to overcome gravity)..causes the beam to extend its wavelength,""

wooo there
not so fast

photons dont have much weight
''to overrcome gravity'? is missdirection
what of horisontal light beam..they dont bend..[by lol gravity]

""and hence reduce its frequency,""

ahhh now we are nearing another certainty
the frequency of the wave..of individual photons
is determinate by its cause[light bulbs releasing photons[light]
at the same rate as a wood fire...BUT

the quality of the light is different
cause light..isnt just a release of photons
but many other shorter/slower..vibrations..recombine..into 'the light'

to explain..that light beam..refracted..from a plane
scatters the sepperate light parts...but did each vibrational wave
travel at the same speed[who knows?]]

who knew..""but thereby maintaining
a transit speed of 'C'.''

the next bit isnt logical
so skip them

""My original question(s)re light speed and space-time
are yet to be adequately answered,..and I'm still waiting for a quantum physicist's response.""

yeah lol
good luck with that
how much money you offering them?

""My inquiry re..'the Way,,the Truth and the Light'
may hinge on that response""

why?

how does light go the same 'speed'
in both a vacume and in a gravitational vortex..
that may bend the light..but not stop...*all the light is revealing..*of the light

light to love
light sustains life to live
that via living in the light..enjoin the light to sustain life

that light..via logic
lead life to love

Tony/Glen

Actually Tony I do know of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

I was using the phrase colloquially to mean raising a question. Many people use the term that way, so criticising someone for it is just being a nit picking grammar nerd. You aren't one of those, are you? :-)

I suspect you may be largely correct in your summation, David Palmer.

>>This is the way I see it. The Atheists had their Convention and now they all go to their individual homes, saying, “well that’s over for another 2 years” and console themselves by writing pathetic anti religion entries on websites, or looking for the next offering from their puffed up Atheist clergy.<<

In all aspects bar one, very important, exception.

You say "the Atheists", as if the folk who attended this jamboree were actually representative of atheism. Let me assure you, they are not. You observed an unappealing fragment of the atheist population, who choose to define their atheism by taking juvenile potshots at religion in general, and targeting Islam in particular. In a way, not at all unlike the Southern Baptists, taking the Mickey out of Catholics and mumbling to themselves about the evil Muslims.

But as I pointed out to you before you went, you were looking for something that isn't there.

>>There was nothing at the Convention to build an ongoing visible community to do specific good and noble deeds<<

Atheism isn't a "community".

It is a simple, uncomplicated lack of belief in a deity. People who happen to be atheists do set up charities, of course - although I notice that you pigeonhole such people as "secular" - but they don't do it because they are atheists, they do it because they are people. Citizens. Families. Organizations.

And here you go again:

>>Atheism does nothing to help people make a success of their lives as citizen<<

That is because it is not a religion, or a self-help manual, or a community separate from other communities.

I know, when 4,000 of them get together for a weekend, it is tempting to give them that label, so that you can take a few free kicks and feel good about yourself. But take heart - Hillsong entertains 20,000 every Sunday. And their annual conference is a hundred dollars cheaper.

>>I was using the phrase colloquially to mean raising a question. Many people use the term that way, so criticising someone for it is just being a nit picking grammar nerd.<<

Who was criticising you? You're right that a lot of people do use the term that way: most of them don't know any better. But there is already a perfectly good phrase which means raising a question: raising a question. I could tell what you meant from the context but by using the most appropriate phrase you can avoid any risk of confusing anybody and communicate your ideas as effectively and efficiently as possible. A valuable lesson which seems to have escaped poor one under god.

Cheers,

Tony

Pericles, although I agree with most of what you write, you do yourself no favours by making the statement:

'You say "the Atheists", as if the folk who attended this jamboree were actually representative of atheism. Let me assure you, they are not. You observed an unappealing fragment of the atheist population, who choose to define their atheism by taking juvenile potshots at religion in general, and targeting Islam in particular. In a way, not at all unlike the Southern Baptists, taking the Mickey out of Catholics and mumbling to themselves about the evil Muslims.'

You then go on to make the correct statement that atheism isn't a community, it is simply an 'uncomplicated lack of belief in a deity'.

Please don't deign to take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of a community that doesn't exist