Bear Grylls and Scouting

[boatman]

Are you now going to call me a liar when I say that whatever that edit was which seems to have vanished the post I did not make it. Could a moderator have done so? If I could remember the text I would repost it but I believe that the bit you objected to was, as far as I can remember it, " With your attitude to minorites perhaps you would be willing to join another organisation. " Hope I got that right. You for whatever reason decided that I was referring to Nazis, was that guilty conscience or can you not conceive that other groups might have similar policies especially if they are overtly religious?

 

[boatman]

re the video: seems about right for the behaviour of religious people through the ages, neatly displayed, congratulations.

 

[darrenleroy]

1. Bear Grylls' real name is Edward. 'Bear' is the kind of stupid, upper-class nickname with macho associations used to bolster his image.

2. His stated military career is opaque at best. Was he in the full or reserve British army, and at what rank? And for how long? Look at the Wikipedia entry and the dates of his accident while parachuting. It just looks odd. Some clarity is needed and again it smacks of someone trying to make a name for himself through actions that may not be wholly attributable. We all know the pub bore who 'used to be in two Para' or 'was involved in special forces' when in reality he spent his two years' national service peeling spuds in the camp kitchen.

3. His shows owe less to an appreciation and understanding of nature and bushcraft and more to flashy attention grabbing stunts.

4. I have been told (although not proven) Grylls has kicked staff of set when filming if he hears them swearing.

4. On discovering I was a fan Ray Mears without prompting signed his new book on photography and gave it to my courier friend who was delivering plane tickets to his residence. That's a nice thing to do.

To me, and this is just a hunch Grylls just seems to be a bit of a fraud. All flash and self-promotion. I'll take the quiet approach of Mears any day and I think his methods are more suited to scouting and developing a lifelong love of nature. But I suppose Grylls grabs the headlines and that gets bums on seats (or cubs in scout huts.)

Regarding atheism in Scouting: it seems those in power have made a pig's ear of the situation. It has been allowed to fester and in our modern, multi-cultural world (God, I hate that term and everything it represents) disallowing atheists to lead is an anachronism that wouldn't be tolerated in almost any other scenario.

Having said that, Scouting always has had an element of spirituality at its core and if atheists don't agree I see no reason why they can't join the Woodcraft Folk or the Cadets. They are not compelled to join Scouts. Unfortunately having a specific belief, or no belief and determinedly following that path means that not all groups are open to you. If you're Muslim don't grumble about not being able to eat pork. If you're an atheist don't grumble about not becoming a Scout leader.

And public funds ie taxes used to support Scouting can't be used as an argument why one should be allowed to be a Scout leader. Yes, your taxes are being used to fund something you're excluded from but our taxes often are spent on things we fundamentally disagree with, but that's democracy.

 

[dasy2k1]

As a scout leader myself and being the next best thing to atheist (I believe in something, I'm not exactly sure what. And treat most religious teachings as metaphor. For want of a more accurate label I class myself as unanitarain universilist which as far as anyone has said is acceptable to the scout association)

I think many confuse atheism - not believing in God. With Atheism - the absolute surety and faith that God does not exist

Imho there is no reason why the first kind can't be leaders, (read up about UU... I would certainly rather be associated with their beliefs than with some of the militant Atheists I have met)

It's also my opinion that militant Atheists are just as undesirable as leaders as militant evangelical christians, extremist Muslims and any one else who actively tries to convert anyone they speak to



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[johnboy]

Are you now going to call me a liar when I say that whatever that edit was which seems to have vanished the post I did not make it. Could a moderator have done so?

Generally if a moderator amends a post they mark it up as amended stating a reason... Perhaps your comments raised their ire... Or perhaps it was Devine intervention.....

 

[boatman]

Sorry but atheism is not a faith, it is almost a cliche but an atheist or non-believer simply believes in one less god than a monotheist, I presume no hecatombs are sacrificed by them to Zeus nor a pinch of incense on the altar of a divine Caesar nor yet Old Man Coyote invoked as the creator of the world. There is the added dimension that the non-believer will also tend to be less superstitious in all matters, weeping staues of Mary or the Elephant God having no impact on them.

To state these views and to counter those of the Deists is to be accused of militancy because the mental effort to look afresh at what is essentially irrational tends to make the religious tetchy, as we have seen in these exchanges.

 

[Tadpole]

Sorry but atheism is not a faith, it is almost a cliche but an atheist or non-believer simply believes in one less god than a monotheist, I presume no hecatombs are sacrificed by them to Zeus nor a pinch of incense on the altar of a divine Caesar nor yet Old Man Coyote invoked as the creator of the world. There is the added dimension that the non-believer will also tend to be less superstitious in all matters, weeping staues of Mary or the Elephant God having no impact on them.

To state these views and to counter those of the Deists is to be accused of militancy because the mental effort to look afresh at what is essentially irrational tends to make the religious tetchy, as we have seen in these exchanges.

There is no scientific way to prove that a god does not exist, so you all you can say is you believe that he doesn't. you have no proof. You have to take the facts you believe in on faith.

 

[johnboy]

Sorry but atheism is not a faith, it is almost a cliche but an atheist or non-believer simply believes in one less god than a monotheist, I presume no hecatombs are sacrificed by them to Zeus nor a pinch of incense on the altar of a divine Caesar nor yet Old Man Coyote invoked as the creator of the world. There is the added dimension that the non-believer will also tend to be less superstitious in all matters, weeping staues of Mary or the Elephant God having no impact on them.

To state these views and to counter those of the Deists is to be accused of militancy because the mental effort to look afresh at what is essentially irrational tends to make the religious tetchy, as we have seen in these exchanges.

There is no scientific way to prove that a god does not exist, so you all you can say is you believe that he doesn't. you have no proof. You have to take the facts you believe in on faith.

Careful boys....

We're not supposed to discuss religion....

 

[Tadpole]

Careful boys....

We're not supposed to discuss religion....

I wasn’t, I was merely pointing out that stating as ‘fact’ something you cannot prove is relying on faith as much as a belief in something for which there is no proof.
I’m as atheistic as they come, but know that I don’t know, so I guess I that knowledge is enough to know what I do believe, without reliance on faith, in what I do know to be true.

 

[boatman]

Let us return to bushcrafting and the pleasures of nature. It is said that to be joyful you must have a faith but as an animal with a brain I can enjoy the outdoors at many levels. That first smell on the wind that says hello from Spring is wonderful, for example.

People have discussed being afraid of the dark and we are programmed to be wary when vision is limited but how nice to know (is that faith?) that there are no bugaboos, ghosts or vengeful gods out there. Or at least there is no, zero, zilch, evidence for them. Proving a negative is almost impossible but if something exists proving it does should be a piece of cake. Unless of course the god has retired to Prachett's "Dunmanifesting" home for dispirited ethereal beings.

I much prefer bannock now to Pie in the Sky.

 

[Prawnster]

Let us return to bushcrafting and the pleasures of nature. It is said that to be joyful you must have a faith but as an animal with a brain I can enjoy the outdoors at many levels. That first smell on the wind that says hello from Spring is wonderful, for example.

People have discussed being afraid of the dark and we are programmed to be wary when vision is limited but how nice to know (is that faith?) that there are no bugaboos, ghosts or vengeful gods out there. Or at least there is no, zero, zilch, evidence for them. Proving a negative is almost impossible but if something exists proving it does should be a piece of cake. Unless of course the god has retired to Prachett's "Dunmanifesting" home for dispirited ethereal beings.

I much prefer bannock now to Pie in the Sky.

I liked your first paragraph there. Not so much your second. YOU might not see any evidence of any God. Others, including myself, see plenty. Is it so hard to accept that people see life differently to you?

You seem intent on dragging everyone into a religious argument. You're on the wrong forum for that and I think you're hurtling towards an infraction or a ban.

 

[boatman]

Thought it was relevant to the afraid of the dark question. But if you prefer people to hang up garlic etc outside their tarps feel free to suggest it.

 

[Tadpole]

Let us return to bushcrafting and the pleasures of nature. It is said that to be joyful you must have a faith but as an animal with a brain I can enjoy the outdoors at many levels. That first smell on the wind that says hello from Spring is wonderful, for example.

People have discussed being afraid of the dark and we are programmed to be wary when vision is limited but how nice to know (is that faith?) that there are no bugaboos, ghosts or vengeful gods out there. Or at least there is no, zero, zilch, evidence for them. Proving a negative is almost impossible but if something exists proving it does should be a piece of cake. Unless of course the god has retired to Prachett's "Dunmanifesting" home for dispirited ethereal beings.

I much prefer bannock now to Pie in the Sky.

Love exists, but can you prove it? (not Just demonstrate it) should be a piece of cake...

 

[Huon]

Thought it was relevant to the afraid of the dark question. But if you prefer people to hang up garlic etc outside their tarps feel free to suggest it.

This seems to have moved a long way away from the thread topic.

Despite being an agnostic I was raised not to belittle the faith of others and it feels to me that this is what you are doing. I think it is rude of you to try to hijack this thread and doubly rude to poke fun at the beliefs of others.

 

[Prawnster]

Thought it was relevant to the afraid of the dark question. But if you prefer people to hang up garlic etc outside their tarps feel free to suggest it.

I'd suggest posting points that are relevant to a certain thread actually on that thread.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Some classic internet arguing here.
Three whole pages of FURIOUS (Grrrrr!) chubby-fingered keyboard mashing.
Excellent stuff!

 

[Huon]

Some classic internet arguing here.
Three whole pages of FURIOUS (Grrrrr!) chubby-fingered keyboard mashing.
Excellent stuff!

Stirrer!

 

[boatman]

And children are not affected?

Caroline Mason, whose daughter cannot join the Brownies because she is unwilling to make the promise to god – or pretend that she believes.Mrs Mason has written to the Girl Guiding Association (GGA) as follows:

I was very upset to learn that my daughter cannot take part in her Brownies enrolment this month. As a family I am bringing up my children with strong morals, but no religious belief. This is our choice as parents and I do not understand why my daughter should be excluded from something because of it. She made the decision, when given the choice just to say the words anyway, not to enrol as “I don’t believe in a God, so that would be a lie”. I will not encourage my daughter to make a false promise. No baby is born on this planet with an inherent belief in God. Belief in God is something that is encouraged by parents or schools. I was therefore offended to be informed by your headquarters that:
“You promise to ‘love my God’, which is our interpretation of the spiritual dimension of the journey that you go on throughout your life, asking the bigger questions of the world around you. We understand that for young people, as it is for adults at different times in their life, god can take different forms, which are not always about organised religion. For us, it’s about being open-minded, and incompatibility only comes about when someone is really and absolutely certain that spirituality is not a part of their approach to life. For many of our half a million young members, who are growing up and at a transformative time in their lives, they haven’t yet reached a final conclusion, so for most people it’s really a non-issue.”
My interpretation of ‘asking the bigger questions’ is working out your own set of values, this may or may not include a God, but is not exclusive to belief in a god.
Being open-minded is not asking a child to promise love of my God. Being open-minded would be asking them to promise to be true to their beliefs and values — of which my daughter has many — not asking her to love a God. Surely such a promise would far better reflect a child’s spiritual and moral development. Values and beliefs have many forms. My daughter’s moral values mirror the Brownie values completely, and surely this is what is important.
My daughter loves attending Brownies, and I have always encouraged it as I agree strongly with all of the Brownie values. I cannot understand why the Brownies cannot be flexible enough to allow children to promise to ‘love my values’ or ‘love my beliefs’. In the 1920s, Baden-Powell himself allowed six countries to have an alternative, non-religious version of the promise.France, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic still have a version where the God line can be left out. I know that she is welcome to continue with Brownies without enrolling, but it seems very unfair to not allow her to make a promise.

Every other aspect of society encourages equal access and opportunity for all. Indeed we have legislation which would now make the insistence of such a promise illegal in most other situations (work; school etc.). I look forward to hearing from you how you are going to stop my daughter from suffering inequality and discrimination at such an early age.

​

 

[Prawnster]

Some classic internet arguing here.
Three whole pages of FURIOUS (Grrrrr!) chubby-fingered keyboard mashing.
Excellent stuff!

I'll have you know my fingers are beautifully slender and delicate. I need to carve more spoons!

 

[Huon]

I'll have you know my fingers are beautifully slender and delicate. I need to carve more spoons!

You obviously suffer from a lack of faith then. Strenuous keyboard mashing brought about by righteous rage should have thickened those fingers up by now!