Atheist Elite College.

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

couldnt agree more. this sort of educational system which weighs better education for those who can better afford it is really repulsive to me

And maybe a system where only the best drivers get Ferraris based on how well they drive not on how rich they are would be nice too!

This is not state education (which I agree should be based on merit), this is a private college offering those with money something that those without money cannot have - same as Yachts, sports cars, Island holidays, cosmetic surgery etc.

You can complain all you like, the fact is those with money can afford things those without money cannot. Are you really suggesting that rich people can buy Rolex watches, mansions and Bentleys, but somehow should be prohibited from spending their own money on their own (or their children's) education?

sensibleken

pH wrote: »

And maybe a system where only the best drivers get Ferraris based on how well they drive not on how rich they are would be nice too!

This is not state education (which I agree should be based on merit), this is a private college offering those with money something that those without money cannot have - same as Yachts, sports cars, Island holidays, cosmetic surgery etc.

You can complain all you like, the fact is those with money can afford things those without money cannot. Are you really suggesting that rich people can buy Rolex watches, mansions and Bentleys, but somehow should be prohibited from spending their own money on their own (or their children's) education?

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?

Rev Hellfire

sensibleken wrote: »

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?

Since its a resource which can be bought and paid for yes.

sensibleken

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Since its a resource which can be bought and paid for yes.

wow. I really have nothing to say to that other than 'can' is not the same as 'should'

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?'

I deliberately chose frivolous items, to highlight how silly it is to disapprove of someone spending money on education, while being entirely happy with the same person frittering away money on shiny bling.

So in your wonderful egalitarian world, what should the punishment be for someone who's misguided enough to spend 18,000 on a years education rather than a platinum watch from a trendy jeweller?

Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed pay for education? What about training? should companies not be able to send employees on courses either or have you managed this form of paid education is different?

sensibleken

pH wrote: »

I deliberately chose frivolous items, to highlight how silly it is to disapprove of someone spending money on education, while being entirely happy with the same person frittering away money on shiny bling.

So in your wonderful egalitarian world, what should the punishment be for someone who's misguided enough to spend 18,000 on a years education rather than a platinum watch from a trendy jeweller?

Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed pay for education? What about training? should companies not be able to send employees on courses either or have you managed this form of paid education is different?

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

diddums.

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

not done away with, changed so that anyone can get in based on merit and completely regardless of whats in their pocket.

for the record i dont know much of their admissions policy save what my OH went through to get into oxford. she passed the interviews but couldnt afford it in the end.

I dont accept your first arguement. The education system in england was far more equitable a few years ago, as it was here. making it worse is not inevitable but is instead because of the whims of politicians

I don't know much about the admission policies, to be honest, but what I do know is that people who have had 10's of thousands of pounds spend on their private education are considerably more likely to get in, a bit like this new college, just not spent directly. Same idea.

So we have a new college where it costs a lot of money to get in and we have two old colleges where it costs a lot of money to get in. I fail to see the difference.

MrP

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't know much about the admission policies, to be honest, but what I do know is that people who have had 10's of thousands of pounds spend on their private education are considerably more likely to get in, a bit like this new college, just not spent directly. Same idea.

So we have a new college where it costs a lot of money to get in and we have two old colleges where it costs a lot of money to get in. I fail to see the difference.

MrP

Im not saying there is a difference at all. Im saying theyre the same and that i disaprove of money taking over from merit in terms of education

CerebralCortex

sensibleken wrote: »

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

Strawmen?

Rev Hellfire

sensibleken wrote: »

i disaprove of money taking over from merit in terms of education

Don't worry I'm sure there's a points requirement for the courses so it would still be on merit.

robindch

AC Grayling talks about the college:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2011/jun/09/ac-grayling-new-college-interview

Galvasean

sensibleken wrote: »

wow. I really have nothing to say to that other than 'can' is not the same as 'should'

'Should' a billionaire be allowed to spend millions on a private yacht when the money could be used to help the poor?
Seems no more insidious than paying for education.

sensibleken

Galvasean wrote: »

'Should' a billionaire be allowed to spend millions on a private yacht when the money could be used to help the poor?
Seems no more insidious than paying for education.

I dont see the comparison between a yacht and education.

Places in college are limited. I think they should be allocated based on merit for a number of reasons. For example research in technology and medicine amongst others is done in universities. It is in everyones interest to have the cleverest people doing this research rather than the richest.

Is the arguement that its peoples money and they should be allowed do what they want with it?

Galvasean

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont see the comparison between a yacht and education.

Places in college are limited. I think they should be allocated based on merit for a number of reasons. For example research in technology and medicine amongst others is done in universities. It is in everyones interest to have the cleverest people doing this research rather than the richest.

That is a very fair point.
Perhaps food is a better example. why should rich people be permitted to buy more food than they could ever eat when poor people can't have any? What's to say people with more money are entitled to food more thhan poor people?

sensibleken wrote: »

Is the arguement that its peoples money and they should be allowed do what they want with it?

It's Capitalism in a nutshell IMO.

philologos

sensibleken: I think people should receive an education up until a certain point, but the idea that the State should pay for everyones phD's is a little absurd.

ghostchant

philologos wrote: »

sensibleken: I think people should receive an education up until a certain point, but the idea that the State should pay for everyones phD's is a little absurd.

In fairness the state is paying for my PhD, and plenty of other people's too.

philologos

^^ I would hope that your phD would be of some use to the State / greater society then :pac:

sensibleken

Galvasean wrote: »

That is a very fair point.
Perhaps food is a better example. why should rich people be permitted to buy more food than they could ever eat when poor people can't have any? What's to say people with more money are entitled to food more thhan poor people?

i certainly dont think that rich people are more entitled to food than poor people. fortunetely at the moment there is enough to go around. If it got to the stage where a rich person buying food means a poor person would get none then we have a problem. although the problem with this analogy is that you cant decide who gets the food on merit.

thats the problem with analogies, i always think its best to discuss the actual topic

Galvasean wrote: »

It's Capitalism in a nutshell IMO.

yet they cannot buy better jobs, influence or political power. opertunites increased by a university education

ghostchant

philologos wrote: »

^^ I would hope that your phD would be of some use to the State / greater society then :pac:

The initiative that funds me is based on investing in the person as much as the project. The idea being that I'll be of use in the long term rather than just for the duration of the project. Almost everyone I know doing a PhD is being funded by the state (or, if you like, the body that funds them is state-funded)

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This post? If we can account for every single thing we encounter with physical measurements, and no other kind of measurements can offer reliable, repeatable results, then the materialist/naturalist presumption is being tested.

Measurement is a word which has physical connotations. Of course we account for physical things with physical measurements and interactions. All you are saying is that physical things can be measured physically. This does not mean that there is nothing other than physical things.

Neither does it mean that measuring physical things "tests" the proposition that there are only physical things. What you are saying is:

-The only things which are physically measurable are physically measurable things
-Therefore, there are only physically measurable things

This is not a valid argument.

I've explained here what the term actually means and why it used. I've yet to see anything that contradicts it. Like I said, might as well call christians "new christians" every time they get a new pope for what it actually means.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From This post:
"There will always be new atheistic books with new arguments (well as long as religion exists), so people will always read them and use their arguments. Might as well call catholics "new catholics" every time there is a new pope."
I think I've covered this notion before. Before Dawkins there was Bertrand Russell, before Russell was Nietzsche, and so on back to Epicurus or even Socrates. There will always be popular thinkers on every subject and always people who follow them (and always a few who attribute the worth of the ideas to the personality presenting them). There is nothing remotely new in this.

There's a marked difference between Dawkins and Nietzsche, and Russell and Nietzche. I don't know particularly much about the sort of attitude russell has (so I don't know to what extent he differs from Dawkins, but I'll wager it's a damn sight more sophisticated), but I will say that this lumping of people together as though they are the same is actually a characteristic of new atheism and a symptom of how it is that people enter into this social category.

Anyway, we don't even have to get hung up on the word "new". It's not so much that the term is used to say "these are new atheists" but just that it is a term which can be used to describe a group of people and which is understood. For example, though you don't like it, you know that when I use the word I'm refering to people like you and other people who follow Richard Dawkins and those other fellows.

The empirical fact remains: The people who post here can be categorized as having a general set of views and sensibilities.

It's not necessary that they all are exactly the same, and there can be varying deviations from the general case, but the word is nonetheless useful to describe them.

After all, it is a trend amongst new atheists to say that atheism means nothing other than a lack of belief. And unless you are a new atheist yourself, you will not be labouring under the misconception that the general group of agreed upon principles that people on here hold all follow logically from nothing. (that is all follow logically from the absence of belief in God)

So, since "atheist" means nothing, how are we to describe this generalised group of people? Now, many "new atheists" are teenagers, and would like to think that they are all free thinking rugged individualists, but this is just childish. They can be described, and this term is one such way of doing so.

Simple confirmational bias. The type of atheist who bothers to post on an atheist/agnostic forum is more likely to be assertive in his/her lack of belief and more likely to have read B]new[/Batheistic materials. It would be a fallacy, though, to assume that every atheist here, or any atheists that doesnt have an inclination to discuss their atheism here, thinks the same of all atheistic writings and writers (some of us have never read Dawkins or Dennett or the rest).

Simple induction by enumeration actually. The fact is, those shared behaviours/opinions exist, and no amount of internet argument slang will change that.

I inputted the new there to show you the usefulness of this terminology. Atheistic materials, by the definition generally given in this forum, is a ridiculously vast thing. If atheism is merely a lack of belief, then these would be along the lines of anything which doesn't profess belief in god, which is alot of things. It could even be the likes of Camus, Sartre, Nietzche. We both know that these people are not so widely read here that everyone would be familiar with them or would agree with them. We also both know that when you said "atheistic materials" you meant Dawkins et al. Now, Dawkins is in the category of "atheistic" but he also fits very neatly into the category "new atheistic".

Its disingenuous to assume that we wouldn't have much in common with vocal atheists over the past 2000 years either. Yes vocal atheists general have overlapping opinions in terms of critical thinking, science and rational thinking, but this is not in the least bit new.

? You think I was pretending to have that opinion? It's extremely likely that a Dawkins reading teenager would have very little in common with the likes of Epicurus, who was a philosopher. It's extremely unlikely that any Sam Harris fanboys would have had anything in common with any of those past philosopers and thinkers.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

And unless you are completely deluded it's a name which you can apply from within the group to those other members who obviously share a lot more in common than just atheism.

Not really. This compulsive labelling is one of the less pleasant habits of the religious -- rendering the vast complexities of individual humans, with their heterogeneous collection of conflicting beliefs, affections and interests, into a single word or term which then defines the group to which the person belongs. And which is often thought to be a satisfactory substitute for understanding the individual.

raah! wrote: »

But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this is a forum full of people with nothing other than atheism in common.

I don't think there are any posters here, religious and non-religious alike, who are exclusively interested in atheism. And if there were, I would sincerely recommend that they go get a life

ShooterSF

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont see the comparison between a yacht and education.

Places in college are limited. I think they should be allocated based on merit for a number of reasons. For example research in technology and medicine amongst others is done in universities. It is in everyones interest to have the cleverest people doing this research rather than the richest.

Is the arguement that its peoples money and they should be allowed do what they want with it?

A private college does not impact on the states budget does it? So in theory you are removing some students from the pool of applicants to public colleges and therefore create more places.

Also on the merit thing, while I agree it would be nice if somehow the state could provide the best of education for the brightest in the country merit is very subjective. Take our merit system for example, if you are better at Irish and English than me by say 20% each and I'm better at math than you by 20% all others being equal, you are more likely to end up with more "merit" than me when applying for courses, even math focused ones.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

Not really. This compulsive labelling is one of the less pleasant habits of the religious -- rendering the vast complexities of individual humans, with their heterogeneous collection of conflicting beliefs, affections and interests, into a single word or term which then defines the group to which the person belongs. And which is often thought to be a satisfactory substitute for understanding the individual.I don't think there are any posters here, religious and non-religious alike, who are exclusively interested in atheism. And if there were, I would sincerely recommend that they go get a life

It's not a substitute for understanding the individual. But if you don't know the individual all you can do is make inferences about them from the social groupings of which they are a part. Anyway, it's not unique to religious people in anyway. See the brights nonsense. See sociology.

I didn't mean they are exclusively interested in atheism. But that they have more in common than the atheism as defined on here. This was in support of the usage of the term new atheist.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

all you can do is make inferences about them from the social groupings of which they are a part.

You missed the point -- we're not a group.

And as I said above, the fact that religious people think we are one, or that we might derive some part of our identity from the terms "atheists" or "new atheists" is simply part of their larger misunderstanding of what atheism is, and how we view it.

strobe

raah! wrote: »

It's not a substitute for understanding the individual. But if you don't know the individual all you can do is make inferences about them from the social groupings of which they are a part. Anyway, it's not unique to religious people in anyway. See the brights nonsense. See sociology.

I didn't mean they are exclusively interested in atheism. But that they have more in common than the atheism as defined on here. This was in support of the usage of the term new atheist.

What's the qualification criteria raah!?

Could you give a list of traits or beliefs that someone must posses to qualify as a 'new atheist' in how you would use the term?

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

not done away with, changed so that anyone can get in based on merit and completely regardless of whats in their pocket.

The government has been systematically destroying this. And there is a element of merit too. The article says the entry requirements will be at least 3 As at A Level.

sensibleken wrote: »

for the record i dont know much of their admissions policy save what my OH went through to get into oxford. she passed the interviews but couldnt afford it in the end.

I am pretty sure Oxbridge colleges cost the same as any other college in the UK.

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont accept your first arguement. The education system in england was far more equitable a few years ago, as it was here. making it worse is not inevitable but is instead because of the whims of politicians

I agree, it was better, but it is steadily getting worse. A large number of universities will start to charge £9000 next year to p up the money received from the government. My assumption here is this new college, being private, does not get any money form the government, and therefore has to be fully funded by the student. £18000 from the student instead of £9000 from the student and money from the government doesn't seem too bad to me.

MrP

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Nothing wrong with using the financial resources you have at your disposal to ensure your offspring get a better rung on the ladder.

Sounds like an excellent idea. As for it being a 'atheist' college it sounds more likely to be simply one grounded in science and reason. I'm sure theists who met the fiscal requirements would be welcome as well.

I'd be more sort of an "equality of opportunity" person. I don't think you should be able to buy yourself a better education, legal service or health service just coz you got a bigger cheque.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Measurement is a word which has physical connotations. Of course we account for physical things with physical measurements and interactions. All you are saying is that physical things can be measured physically. This does not mean that there is nothing other than physical things.

Reality is also a word with physical connotations. It would seem to me that if something can effect on physical reality, then it must be measurable in some physical way (most phenomena are measured in terms of their interactions with something else).

raah! wrote: »

Neither does it mean that measuring physical things "tests" the proposition that there are only physical things. What you are saying is:

-The only things which are physically measurable are physically measurable things
-Therefore, there are only physically measurable things

This is not a valid argument.

I'm saying that if every phenomena can be measured in a materialistic way, and anything that is claimed to be non-materialistic cannot be measured consistently in any way (materialistic or otherwise) then each and every phenomena is materialistic.

raah! wrote: »

There's a marked difference between Dawkins and Nietzsche, and Russell and Nietzche. I don't know particularly much about the sort of attitude russell has (so I don't know to what extent he differs from Dawkins, but I'll wager it's a damn sight more sophisticated), but I will say that this lumping of people together as though they are the same is actually a characteristic of new atheism and a symptom of how it is that people enter into this social category.

You are letting your evident dislike of Dawkins drive your arguments into empty assertions. Dawkins, Russell and Nietzsche are all the same, they all are popular atheist thinkers. Nothing here contradicts my point, "might as well call christians "new christians" every time they get a new pope for what it actually means".

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, we don't even have to get hung up on the word "new". It's not so much that the term is used to say "these are new atheists" but just that it is a term which can be used to describe a group of people and which is understood. For example, though you don't like it, you know that when I use the word I'm refering to people like you and other people who follow Richard Dawkins and those other fellows.

What makes you think I follow any of them? All I know is that when people use the word, they have usually stopped discussing the arguments and have moved onto petty and emotive nonsense.

raah! wrote: »

After all, it is a trend amongst new atheists to say that atheism means nothing other than a lack of belief. And unless you are a new atheist yourself, you will not be labouring under the misconception that the general group of agreed upon principles that people on here hold all follow logically from nothing. (that is all follow logically from the absence of belief in God)

Its a trend amongst theists to so massively misunderstand atheism as to mistake the usual set of characteristics that lead people to atheism (critical thinking, ration etc) and atheism itself. There is nothing new in this.

raah! wrote: »

So, since "atheist" means nothing, how are we to describe this generalised group of people? Now, many "new atheists" are teenagers, and would like to think that they are all free thinking rugged individualists, but this is just childish. They can be described, and this term is one such way of doing so.

Atheist doesn't mean nothing. Poor strawman.

raah! wrote: »

Simple induction by enumeration actually. The fact is, those shared behaviours/opinions exist, and no amount of internet argument slang will change that.

No-one is arguing that most atheists dont share other behavours/opinions. Another strawman. The point is that sharing these behaviours is nothing new. Atheists have also followed influential writers work, the only difference is that nowadays the internet allows more and more atheists to be vocal. The atheists aren't new, the world is.

raah! wrote: »

? You think I was pretending to have that opinion? It's extremely likely that a Dawkins reading teenager would have very little in common with the likes of Epicurus, who was a philosopher. It's extremely unlikely that any Sam Harris fanboys would have had anything in common with any of those past philosopers and thinkers.

Its unlikely that the average modern football supporter has much in common with George Best. You talk as if Epicurus and the other past philosophers didn't have their own fanboys, who would not be on the same level as the thinkers they idolized. Again, nothing new in any of this, the term is an emotive put down, in the same vein as "militant atheist".

raah!

robindch wrote: »

You missed the point -- we're not a group.

And as I said above, the fact that religious people think we are one, or that we might derive some part of our identity from the terms "atheists" or "new atheists" is simply part of their larger misunderstanding of what atheism is, and how we view it.

Well I've more than demonstrated that 'new atheists' are a group. And that this term 'new atheist' applies to most atheists these days. Now, I'm not sober, but your post here is ridiculous. First of all "we're not a group" is somewhat contradictory. So obviously you meant something more qualified than this. Like "we don't have shared views". I've already addressed this completely.

You haven't supported that you are not a group. I've given arguments. You've assumed you are not and then found reasons why someone would want to group you when it's you are not a group.

Anyway, atheists groups. Skeptiks. Atheist societies in colleges. All obvious examples of atheist groups. I really don't see how you can be so blind, sitting in this forum for atheists. But I think really you are just a politician. And I can tell you this: you derive some sense of identity from the fact that you are an atheist. If you'd like I could trawl through your posts and show you instances of this. I'm not going to though, because we both know it's true.

What the term atheist means to people here is very important. That is obvious. Read the forum. I find it hilarious that it is called the "Atheists and Agnostics" forum, and yet these days it is the trend to incorporate agnostics into the umbrella term of atheists, and then pretend this was always the case. The forum title would be ridiculous if that was the case. The shift in how the word atheist is used was a political one, and this was very clearly shown in another thread.