Jump to content

Recommended Posts

reading this at the moment

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Transformation-Socrates-Confucius-Jeremiah/dp/1843545071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214395863&sr=1-1

Very interesting if horribly naive in places, but the strands of development in comparative religion is fascinating reading, especially when the myths and histories are teased apart (something she's better able to do in some places than others)

I've promised it to McGabhann, but further borrowage if people would like.


ooh, I you a book anyway don't I brendan.

Doesn't that hold some sort of proof that religion is a mind-virus / mental illness?

Not saying I think that, of course, though I am a paid up member of British Humanist Association.


Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Terry Pratchet was, until recently, a confirmed

> atheist. He is now diagnosed with early onset

> Alzeimhers. He announced last week that he has

> since had a spiritual experience and now believes

> there is a "higher being".

>

> Has he swapped one religion for another or has he

> given up on rationalism for superstition?

I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that some people see atheism almost as a religion in itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people would view atheism as an entirely rational thought process compared to the jingoistic, superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.


I'll let you decide for yourself, Kel.

Haven't brain surgeons been able to recreate that final visitation and white light effect some people claim to see on their deathbed, by poking around* in the relevant bit of a conscious person's brain? It's all chemicals and synapses. I think Mr Pratchett is merely very ill, and it is a very sad thing.


*very delicately with a tiny stick, of course.

Anthony Grayling answers the question - Can an Atheist be a Fundamentalist with the following:


"Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory or, at worst, an ideology. If it is either of the first two, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out or burnings conducted at the stake over rival theories in biology or astrophysics."


to which Chris Hitchens adds:


"Clear? It's not a matter of "room" for doubt. The whole analytical method of humanist materialism is based on scepticism. We take nothing on faith. Imagine what a fortune could be made by a palaeontologist who unearthed human bones and dinosaur bones in the same layer of sediment. I will bet my house that this discovery will not be made, but my bet is not entirely, or at all, an article of belief. It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.


As to the manner in which I express myself, it rather depends on the antagonist. I'm normally renowned for my patience and good humour, but I admit to being easily bored and, when I come up against, say, a self-righteous rabbi, can be tempted to succumb to sarcasm. I think that may be where your confusion arises. Oh, and I do not "profess" to despise religious extremists. I really do despise them."

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that

> some people see atheism almost as a religion in

> itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature

> of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins,

> Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people

> would view atheism as an entirely rational thought

> process compared to the jingoistic,

> superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.


Or that the following of a certain thought process which denotes a certain way of approaching things and is championed by prominent figures bears a similarity to religion and often elicits a fanatical reaction in its followers which is akin to fundamentalism.


Anyway stop dragging me into this 2 dimensional, inelegant aspect of it all. Next thing I?ll be discussing soccer.

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> lol I already have my own views and opinions of

> the subject of "religion" but always take an

> interest in others thoughts so I was just

> wondering what angle MM was on :)



I have just checked this thread and pleased to see the question has elicited a series of considered and balanced responses, mostly in favour of atheism. I posited the qestion equating atheism to a religion deliberately to provoke a response or two. David Carnell sums up my position rather well.


I am an atheist and, I like to think, a humanist. I believe the concept of a greater being to be fanciful and illogical, especially in the face of ever growing scientific knowledge that came about through testing hypotheses rather than wishful thinking.


I am not a militant / fundamental atheist - by which I mean I don't proselytise but do consider atheism to be a rational respone to the world about us. This, logically, means I do not consider religion in any form to be sensible and therefore class it with superstition.


I am thus disappointed that an individual has moved from a state of rational thought and thinking to a less logical position. However, I note the quote by Terry Pratchet and a glad to see that firstly the reports of him giving up atheism seem to be exagerated and secondly that he has not lost his sense of humour.

?It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.?


When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different.


Anyway it all has to do with semantics. By defining ?atheism? as an entity which people can adhere to you just prove my point that it is a tangible view point from which to consider the world and therefore, for many people who can?t see the wood for the trees, fulfils the same human need as religion does in others.

I only found about about "practical atheism" because I sat next to an Opus Dei chap for many years and that's what he said the church would label me.*


I don't consider myself an atheist, merely one who considers these matters and has come to no conclusion.

I am not atheist in the sense I deny God(s) or even in that I have no place for spirituality im my life, just that nothing on offer makes much sense, so I'm happy enough to pootle along without the need for 'answers', leave alone a tick list of things to do or avoid.


I don't know if there's a political equivalent. I've seen what the parties have to offer, and they are institutional and limited. I've looked a the various political tenets and much makes sense, and a lot of it doesn't.


It's not that I deny politics, I'm just not going to draw my mark in the sand and say I'm Socialist or I am Libertarian though I certainly have leanings politically, just as I do morally.


Whether this is a cultural thing, my upbringing, my nature, my divine nature or predestination, it's not for me to say.


Good luck to everyone in whatever you do I say, but if you disagree with me I might you are clearly a heretic and I'm off to get some sticks and a match ;)


*Thoroughly nice chap as it happens. I've no idea whether or not he wore a cilice, but I certainly never saw him assassinate anyone.

Yeah D_C,why not, is God unknowable, probably, but then if we can look in and out and see wonder and music and perhaps echoes of the divine, then spirituality itself isn't completely unknowable. Perhaps ignostic is better in htat the parameters of the debate are a bit pointless because without any idea of what the nature of 'god' is then the starting point of the whole debate is rendered somewhat moot.


Of course those with strongly defined faith would claim that that is the case. I'd argue that the great religious personalities would probably have argued strongly against that.

Andy Partridge of XTC covered this subject well in the song Dear God.


He writes to God telling him he doesn't believe in him.


To my probably mentally unbalanced mind, we made Gods up. The existence of rainbows and thunderstorms coincided with human's needs to make stories, to fill in the gaps, so we made up Gods to explain those natural phenomena, and in turn those stories of Gods help control other humans. And it works beautifully. It's brilliant.

Brendan: "When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different. "


Really? Really really? Or was mankind barely out of diapers and prone to making stuff up. Say what you will about science/intellectual argument.. it acknowledges every single day it's limits, learns new things, adapts and moves the argument on


My issue with religion (as opposed to "does God exist") is that it hasn't changed one iota. Ever. Sure, concessions are made (albeit againstnumbing opposition) re: women priests, vatican 2 etc, but the text books, the teachings, the things you are given AS A CHILD are as flawed as they were when first published.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...