rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:Why have you been sent email notifications? Did you tick the, "Notify me when new comments are posted" box? If so, them I,m afraid it was self-inflicted. There are those who still have wish things to be explained on this thread. If you personally, find the discussion boring, then don't read the thread, simples : )
Yes, I did (or rather, I left the option ticked), but that seems like a long time ago now. And the title alone of the notification emails you get doesn't give you a clue as to which topic they are for. So if I delete them in bulk without at least glancing at them I may delete something for a topic I want notifying about.
steve colborn wrote:I find your comment above, very uncomradely. Others do not share your opinion, thankfully!Oops – I didn't have you in mind Steve, nor Vin. And of course the subject matter of the thread is serious. I should probably have kept my electronic trap shut.But an unsubscribe or unfollow feature for when you're fed up of getting the notifications for a specific thread would be useful.
I certainly do hope this topic wraps up. I made an early contribution to it and ever since I've been bombarded with email notifications. It's got really boring.
Ok thanks – with a bit of luck, the thread in question will be locked soon anyway as one of the mods has commented.
I have the same problem. I want to stop receiving emails when a new message is posted to the 'Why would membership of the SPGB be refused' topic because it's got really boring and is going round in circles. I get the messages because I made an early contribution to the topic.I've unchecked the box to receive these notifications in my account settings but I'm still getting them.Can they be stopped? Or do I have to post to the topic again and uncheck the notification box at that time?
I've sent him the email below with a link to the online pamphlet, but not to the DVD because the link posted above is just to a description of it with price details.Dear Mr. Hamilton James Watching the first part of your series ‘I Bought A Rainforest’, I was struck by your obviously genuine concern for the future of both the rainforest itself and the local population who necessarily have to continue doing damage to it in order to maintain their livelihoods. I was also interested in your comment that you were taught at school that we needed to look after the environment, and that now, decades later, nothing has happened. Can I suggest that the answer to the problem is to be found in common ownership, not just of sections of rainforest, but of all the world’s resources. Only by removing the forests, farms, factories and other major resources from the ownership of a small, profit-minded, private minority and making them democratically owned and controlled by all can we hope to serve the interests of both local populations and the world as a whole. You may be interested in this online pamphlet: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/inconvenient-question-socialism-and-environment which sets out the problem and the suggested worldwide solution in more detail. Kind regards Rod Shaw
Just for clarification, which of the following comments, as partial or complete answers to the the religion question, would cause an application to be rejected?I don't believe in a god.I don't know whether there is a god.Belief in a god is irrelevant to my socialist understanding.Religion is a personal matter.I don't believe in a god but I believe we live on in some way when we die.There is no god or heaven but I have a soul.There may be a god but its existence is irrelevant for describing and understanding how the world works.God is unknowable.The existence of a god and/or an afterlife can be neither proved nor disproved.I don't believe in a god but I believe in reincarnation.I have a memory of a previous existence.God has revealed himself to me and there's nothing you can do to disprove it.
Mike McDade wrote:"At this stage, I am still of the opinion that atheism should not be a pre-requisite for membership. I suspect that this stumbling block may be holding a significant amount of people back from becoming members."It would be interesting if the party had any statistics on how many applications to join, or refusals to apply, say in the last five years, have been because of disagreement on religion alone. It's interesting to me that the people who want us to relax the rules on religion always seem to say "I'm not religious but…"
I must say I don't understand why this particular person's views on religion have been posted, it's not usual. Unless, of course, it was exactly to spark this debate. But their views clearly don't impede membership.The people who think we should soften our approach should propose exactly how we are supposed to do that without being mealy-mouthed or contradictory about it.Do we admit members of some religions but not others? Do we just admit members who think there 'must be something out there', rather than having a firm belief? Do we say they can be members as long as they don't bring the subject up? Or do we just drop the question on the form and not ask at all?What then would be the party view on religion itself – that it's a personal matter after all? And what if religious members wanted to write articles for us introducing the G-word or notions of a creator (such as in Alan's scripture example above), contradicting the materialist approach?
I thought the 'Daily Politics' presenter treated Danny Lambert with supercilious disdain. And the woman sat next to her was glowering at him as if he'd just crawled out of a swamp. Very difficult to present our point of view in those circumstances. She put him on the back foot from the beginning and he coped very well.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi rodshaw,I already have that one in the bag, so to speak. What I was looking for, and it may not be available, was some sort of actual historical, anthropology based explanation or addition.There is a danger that this thread may end up tangled with the one on socialism, morality and logic, and I'd rather it not as my enquiry was specifically about the religious view that morality, ethics, values etc came from a creator. Simply telling them that their belief is based on their cultural, political system is generally not enough explanation of itself, so any evidence based info would be beneficial. Whether that exists is another matter and is the reason for my post.Sorry to see you've had no direct replies to your question. I'd have been quite interested myself.I suppose the kind of evidence you need depends on who your target religious person is. Some of them may be won over quite easily by pointing out some no-brainer condradictions inherent in belief in a creator (e.g. If God made man to love and worship him, why did it take so long for humans to appear?; are the people who died before Christianity saved?; are Vikings still in Valhalla or did they move to heaven? at what stage of evolution did the soul appear?..etc.). Some will stick to their beliefs whatever evidence of an alternative source of morality you have, and some (I suppose the ones you have in mind) will be up for a right good philosophical debate, and may or may not be open to persuasion.But in my mind is the fact that whatever evidence you have, you can’t prove a negative, at least not here, i.e. that morality doesn’t come from a creator. All you can do is present some evidence that it may not be so. Which leads us back to science (using the word in its broad sense of knowledge) – i.e. what do we know (the science bit) and what is speculation or wishful thinking (the religious bit)?
