Back on topic and the bat[is[/ihit loons are out in force again.

This time NARIC, the UK Agency responsible for providing information and opinion on examinations and courses, has found that [url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/27/government-agency-approves-christian-fundamentalist-exams-as-comparable-to-a-level/Christian Fundamentalist ICCE is equivalent to 'A' Level[/url

Here's a selection from the history module:

[i“True or false: Our peace – as Christians – is in Jesus Christ.”

“The very next event on God’s calendar is the __________ Coming of Jesus Christ.”
a. First b. Second c. Sixth

“The leader of the Katanga Province was _________________.”
a. Patrick Henry b. Mohammed Ali c. Moise Tshombe[/i

Remember, these are the people who reckon that the Loch Ness monster is proof that evolution theory is rubbish

I thought you were having a laugh until I googled it.
My jaw hit the desk.

I want to know how these people manage to switch off their logic circuits when they "think".
a) They say that the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur despite there being no proof that any monster exists at all, never mind a plesiosaur.
b) They say that the existence of such a plesiosaur disproves evolution theory ... quite how they conclude that an animal having not evolved disproves evolution is beyond me ... their assertion merely leads one to suspect that they either can't (or won't) reason logically or that they haven't actually understood what is meant by the term "evolution".

I'm not saying that I would have my children take the ICCE qualification, but what exactly is your problem if the course is suitably rigorous?

It's not 'brainwashing' small children. It's essentially an A level in Christian theology. You might disagree with some other things the administrators think, but that's not really relevant, is it?

Its been spotted on sonar and its been followed by a small submarine.

Apparently, according to that previous link.

Its also true that far too many Americans learn their history through watching Hollywood films without the important question "Is this fiction or not" being asked.

What do you mean "It's not 'brainwashing' small children"?

To have got that far, they must have started by brainwashing small children. There isn't a rational human being on earth that could seriously consider those questions to be bona fide unless they had been previously brainwashed.

So, if I advocated that all black or gay people were evil, would you be happy with me receiving tacit approval for an examination, aimed at furthering my prejudices, simply because I made the course suitably rigorous, that the opnly conclusions to be drawn was that I was correct?

And if you consider the questions posed, to be an indication of a "suitably rigorous course", then you really are away with the fairies.

That possibly accounts for many of them being disappointed when they discovered there would be no "Titanic II"

I became a Christian a few years ago, in my early 30s. I wasn't brainwashed.



The new Godwin's Law appears to be the invoking of blacks and racism in every single debate.

The course is set from a Christian perspective. In order to attain the qualification, students must study a wide range of Christian theology, competing doctrines and Christian history. Why can't you see the academic merit in that?



I'm no expert on what is considered suitable for Key Stage 5. That is NARIC's job.

What's the point in studying any theology?

The only benefits I can see is 'arming' people in for debates and 'spreading the word'.

Are they making the A level equivalent easy so entice lazy students in?

Factually incorrect.

It is set from the perspective of a particular, fundamentalist strand of Christian belief. The vast majority of Christians – and I'm talking the practising variety – in the UK and the West in general, do not believe such utter and complete idiocy.

Just as Darwin's original findings did not cause mass upset, because they could be fitted into what was known as 'old world' theology.

It's only in recent years that the import of US-style fundamentalist wittery has seen such cretinism gaining traction in the UK.

I know you have difficulty with facts and logic and reasoning, but just try, for once, to get it into your skull that there are many, many different strands of Christian belief and theological interpretation – just as there with any and every other religion.

You might be such a fundamentalist reactionary extremist that you're ready to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you as "an apostate", but that does not change reality and facts.

Weren't they celebrated by the catholic church until they found out it had no will?

Ah ... OK, fair enough, seeing as they have such solid evidence.
Can't stop now though, I've got to go and report the portrait of Mother Teresa that has just formed on my slice of toast.
It's a miracle I tell you.

I'd have to look that up. But certainly there was no general outcry or hand-wringing etc.

Even my father, who himself was on the fundamentalist wing of the Methodist church (although he has mellowed somewhat over the years), never used to preach Creation as being literally what was laid down in [iGenesis[/i: the seven days for him could have represented 7,000 or seven million, so evolution was, in many ways, no great 'problem' in the sense of species developing over time.

And that was essentially the 'old earth' way of viewing things.

As I said, it's only in relatively recent years that US-style Creationism etc has gained a foothold in the UK. And while it's not the sole reason, it's a part of what has been kicking atheists into actually 'coming out' and hitting back against such attitudes. The question of teaching this utter tripe in schools – again, a recent development – is a large part of what got Dawkins active, for instance.

Heheh, he's back, the brainwashed man who will never answer any question.

The fact is the first two questions will be marked "wrong" (nul points) unless the candidate parrots the answer that only brainwashing can instil.

The proposition is objectively a meaningless nonsense anyway.
The question
“[iTrue or false: Our peace – as Christians – is in Jesus Christ[/i”
could only have any academic validity whatsoever if it asked
“[iTrue or false: The religion of XYZ propounds that 'Our peace – as Christians – is in Jesus Christ'[/i”

Though it would beg the question as to why, if we're made in God's image, he waited until a maximum of 200,000 years ago to oversee the completion of our evolution, when his Earth has been around for 4.5 bn years. It also begs the question as to why he only bothered to create the Earth 4.5 bya, when he created the rest of the universe 13.5 bya.

Whilst some of the more 'enlightened' Christians may pretend that science and scripture can co-exist without a problem, they're quite obviously deluding themselves.

Well, as he's omnipotent, I guess he can change time as well.

Anyway, how many times do you need to be told that ...
a) God moves in mysterious ways
b) You must not question God
c) He has his reasons, who are you to question him/her?

Pfft, this fundamentalism is easy innit?

Indeed. But frankly, they're preferable to the nutters who peddle the other version.

that's a contradiction

How so?

The thing about being brainwashed is you never actually [iknow[/i you've been brainwashed. Were this not the case, brainwashing would be hugely ineffective.

So, we can say kirkstaller is brain washed, but we can't really prove it and he won't know he's brain washed, even though he is, because if he knew he had been brain washed he wouldn't be brain washed?

I think you've just summed up religious fundamentalism in one sentence

So could we [iall[/i be brainwashed?

evidence suggests it's more likely in your case

explain to us how you can believe something that has no factual basis?

Nothing like loading the question.

I don't want to go over old ground but I consider there to be a factual basis for my beliefs, as well as a spiritual basis.

yes, and as has been said, that is the evidence of brainwashing that we can all see.