Frank's cousin

Fair enough - perhaps I am not the best to explain it, but Dawkins Meme thoeries do a good job - we need to seperate out whteher the outcome is good or bad from whether its right that a true free choice is possible or not if we have that legacy - most kids see miracles and the bunkum stories for what they are thats teh easy bit, its the concept of the devine being that may or may not be able to influence us even if the chance of existnece is 0.9 x 10 (power 64 or whatever) - does it ever really go away?

All true, and decent folk doing decent things as a result of religion can not be argued against - any power for good is a good thing - but I guess the question is about whether we can make a free choice if we have the legacy of a religeous teaching or is it always in the back of your mind?

To be fair, he is up against it given the way religion usually gets more air time

... wuld add as well, one legacy of my upbringing which was fairly normal catholic (lapsed type), is that there is always some truth in the 'never see an atheist in a foxhole' - the legacy it left with me, despite being a non-believer, is at the very worst times when all rational thought is overwhelmed by emotion, (when my wife was diagnosed with leukaemia for example - dont worry long time ago and all fine and dandy for last 15 years) - I did find myself pleading to a 'devine being' to get us through this even though I dont believe in one - which I cant explain beyond the fact that my childhood must have provided this subcncious legacy.

Good question - Most parents will bring up their kids to a set or values - some will assign these values as having been laid down by their religion or even demanded by God - I guess its a sliding scale of how much is associated with religeous belief versus basic human values - In the example above Dawkins talks more about the extreme cases - the more othodox or fundementalist parents, but also talks about the more subtle forms - it all depends on whether we consider it likely that an environment in which god or a religeon is credited for the the 'good' values - influences our choices in later life and whether it actually matters or not - no right answersI guess but an interesting point - are we able to make a triuely independent choice if we have always been led to believe that good and god are intrinsically linked?

That is an interesting one - but probably less to do with religion and more to do with the demographic of the intake - if you are the kind of parent that that takes a huges interest in your childrens education, to teh poiint where you actually move house and go to church a few times to get you kids into a certain school, chances are the value you place on education has been instilled in our kids - probably a chicken and egg situation, but the 'quality' of the learning environment is enhanced or created by the willingness to learn of the students and less about the issue of it being a 'faith school' (certainly the CoE and Catholic schools)

I see, went back and re-read - see what you mean - but I can see the point even if it was not so subtly expressed - Dawkins asks the question in The God Dillusion as to whether bring children up within any religious doctrine could be considerd abuse - more subtle than the post above and more posed in light of the long term and sub concious influence such teachings can have - see my point on whether this means we are ever truely free to make up our minds later.

Be careful - Read 'The God Dillusion' on a flight to New York several yaers ago and was nearly spat at by an old crone who called me blasphemous and in league with teh devil or something equally absurd!

Arn't they and and if not why not! ? Seriously though, The problem I have is we all develop our sense of self and independent thought at different rates - and some of us are naturally more suseptable to the power and influence of others - it does not necessarily demand extreme forms of teachings, but often the very subtle elements (which as Hypo points out are usually harmless and good values) are transferred - in many respects we dont consider these subte things at all as in the majority of cases they are positive reinforcements of good values, but in others as Bletch mentions with Dawkin's Meme theories, can this subtle almost subconcious transfer, mean athat in later life we are truely free to make an informed choice, or does the legacy of these subtle if good teachings contribute to why so many feel the need to keep teh 'door open' with respect to faith and belief even if not practicing? Interesting stuff. Thanks Bletch for bringing up Memes - had forgotten about that and it must be 20 years since I read the Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype and Blind Watchmaker - all good stuff, even if some have accused Dawkins (rather disengenously IMHO) of a zealot like approach to evolution - but as you have stated, he like all scientists is happy to acknowledge that some day evidence may make him change his mind as unlikely as that may be.

A classic Urban Myth - created at a time when 80's TV comics used to attract 20 mil viewers on ITV on a saturday evening and wow the nation with their own brand of bigotry - As I recall, the act of reserving a sun loungers was popular amongst all europeans - just smart thinking etc - but the Germans as culprits played better with the British need to constantly try and belittle a nation that we had defeated in war only to watch their economic miracle and evolve a modern society whilst we stagnated in the 60s and 70s....

Dont think anyone has said this Hypo - I would happily admit that most religious parents are probably decent ones. The issue is whether its right that children should be brought up to follow the religious desires and beliefs of their parents from a young age when they are still incapable of rationalizing this or are not taught that its only one of many belief systems. If we want to advocate an individuals right to believe what they want to believe - then that surely must start from a young age when they absorb what is told to them by parents they trust as 'gospel' - therefore if we believe its their right to chose, they should be left alone until they reach an age when they can learn about all belief systems and determine what is right for them? The problem for the institutions is that under those circumstances, I believe such beliefs would be gone within a couple of generations.

Thats a tough one as it takes me back to Uni days ...some 20+ years ago (Ouch) - the evolutionary stuff can be found an any decent behavioural ecology text book - 'Evolutionary Biology' Douglas Futuyama and Behavioural Ecology by Krebs an Davies - but be prepared for a lot bird pair bonding, and heavy on the science rathyer than the philosophical questions if you read cover to cover - and there are probably more recent texts - the anisogamy stuff can be found in most under 'evolution of secondary sexual characteristics' chapters - interesting stuff and is where it moves form biology into anthropology. The evolution of society (from a biological/evoultion perspective - or the influence of 'The Selfish Gene' (Darwkins) on society as a whole) - that I cant really help you with Im afraid as most the the stuff I read was individual papers from various journals when following up tutorials on the subject and tasked with the essay chore... interseting stuff but still got in the way of drinking and other 'sins' - The ideas that we formed societies due to the biological need to raise children in a safer enironment - built originally on the family unit are nothing new - nor that as these communities grow, rules and order was needed to ensure it functioned correctly is also pretty self explanatory - but making the link to this creating a receptivity for religion to flourish - a form of early control if you like is where it gets a bit contentious as you can imagine - personally I see it as a very obvius and logical step - especially when you understand th true power and influence that natural selection had on our evolution of behaviour and emotion, but you will find plenty who would disagree.

Think everyone now recognises that Crouch and even Wilde to some extent were well intentioned and 'good guys' - that maybe lacked the experience to bring it all together. The mistake was in not being able to work together and the blowing of the 7mil cash we had in one attempt to get back up - but football is like that - had it worked they would be heralded as geniuses, because it failed it sowed the seeds of financial melt down. Despite not wanting them around at the time, the benefit of hindsight clearly demonstrates Crouch was a decent bloke who lost money simply to 'as you say' keep folk in their jobs - I would suspect he knew that pinnacle were probably tyre kickers but his 500k deposit kept us going long enough for ML/NC to get their deal done... As I look back on it all, remmember all the bitterness, factions and firece divisons it caused and as a pretty hideous time - and it seems that alot of that is still around under the surface whenever these threads show up. It was teh volume of misinformation and made up stuff, gossip etc that painted Lowe as the baby eating devil that I had a problem with - huge number of mistakes made, attitude stank and ego/arrogance made him unlikelable, but the principles by which he operated (whether for selfish reasons or not - and that is just speculation) were as others have pointed out not disimilar to what we are doing now - financial stabilty, (eventually) living within our means and a desire to drive youth into the first team ranks - but now we have cash to back it up. The legay of teh success of the 70s and 80s gave us the foundation on which to enter the sky era with confidence, the Money allowed us to plan and build/improve infrastructure if we did not get carried away like those down the road - but a couple of seasons of standing still and major blunders nearly ruined it all - we were not teh first and wont be the last and relative to some, if could have been a lot worse. I tried to argue that the principles of Lowes ideas were not wrong, just utilsied the wrong people, and were poorly executed and communicated, and serious timing issues - which was my crime. But still not convinced that his role and leadeship that led to the fall from grace warranted the level of hatred and vitriol that was leveled against him - whatever the uberfans say, it is only football and there ARE more important things.

Now that is actually quite funny!

Ar I see what you mean now - sorry, but I was not suggesting a) we dod not have a decent system befor, or that b) only under lowe did we get one - my point was that underLowe it would have been easy to do what many other clubs were doing at the time - which was discover it was easier to y cheap foreign imports than develop your own - so investment in youth slumped - we kept it going and invested more relative to revenue and that paid dividends (literally ) - and he did this despite the call from any fans that it was a waste on money and better invested in the first team etc. The other point was more illustrative of the fact we do have a na advantge historicall and now in taht parents are ofetn more comfortable sending their kids to a place like Southampton than the big smoke and we have in the past and today made good use of this - Category one status should help some more as we end up with the Walcotts at 8 or 9 etc

I think some of faith probably feel they are being ridiculed or their faith belittled... afterall if you deny the existance of a god, you are in effect 'laughing' at their beliefs, even if not physically, certainly its probably impossible not to imply it. Its possible taht most who dont believe do think its all mumbo jumbo or words to that effect, so I suspect its easy for believers to feel we are belittling them - our opinion does that whether intended or not.

Sorry Kracken you need to read that again - to me its pretty clear - the statement is true and was pointing to the fact that we had a NATURAL advantage already, nowt to do with Lowe in attracting kids to the youth set up... so dont get your point on this - I was deliberately pointing out something that Lowe had no invoilvement in... obviously you have misinterpreted this. I go back to what I said before the key impact lowe had was not ignoring it when many other clubs in the prem did (simply doing the minimum to satisfy prem rules) - as it was seen as a luxury - why many of our own fans were having a go at him for not spending that money on the first team... which says a lot.

NOw I am confused - not sure where I said anything that needed that response - certianly did not make things up - during Lowes time, we spent more on the academy relative to revenue than most other clubs in the prem - nowt to do with whether we were as good or better historically, but talking about those years. second the rest is a) acknowledging that our location gives us an advantage - we had an environment that was not London etc - which was obviousl NOT down to Lowe, and secondly asking UP a question as to whetehr there was any truth in Lowe's statement in that articl about looking for intelligent kids with physique etc rather than just good footballers? so sorry not sure why you are questioning my post?

Well I Laughed:lol: Was getting a bit heavy there, but makes a change form the usual guff on here - and ramirez was doing my head in, was being trounced on the Lowe thread, so thought it might be interesting to go for a nice uncontrovercial topic like religion! TBF good points made, interesting opinion etc.

If you think so... depends on what spin you put on it - NC sets out a stall and that it - change tehd eal mid way, try and negotiate an increase, reveal a 3rd party from teh woodworka nd some clubs would still just up the amount or bend over, where getting the player is more important than sticking to your budget, in which case we are at fault for being inflexible. OR it suggest we are trying to ensure we stick within out budget and ensure we are financially stable so if the fees go up or payment demands are not within what is possible we walk away... ...add to the fact we seem to be after players now that atract more attention and bigger fees, we will never be the only option and teh auction route seems popular - and we wonder why we want these negotiations done in private....

Indeed truely bizarre and bonkers - but where some believe it was some sort of deliberate attempt to feck us over, I kinda look back at that now from teh comfort of NIge and NC and have to laught at those episodes

Thing is that Mousse 81 sounds like a wind up merchant - would not be surprized if it turned out to that West ham t at Moose....

All tru, biut not sure others are claiming he invented it - main plus point was the level of investmnet in the academy he was prepared to pump in relative to out revenue - lets also be honest in that once set up ith a decent accommodation place etc, parents felt good about their kids coming here rather than heading for teh big smoke and alll that entails - so we had that advantage - would be interested to know if it wa strue we looked for intelligent kids who we could teach, rather than just 'footballers' - would kind of make sense in that most of the kids have been level headed and relatively bright

good one Kracken - seriously not being funny but it made me chuckle - maybe it did not come across as intended, but I guess I like to look at whether there was rational in the initial decison, even if the execution was flawed or the outcome was a diaster - thats all - Sand by the Crouch Wilde Tango man comment, wiggley...well as I said concept oif internal promotion etc is a good one IF you have a suitable candidate - wigley obviously not a suitable candidate.. Woodward - indeed an expensive error, but still think under teh right circumstances someone like him could add something = right circumstances probably when you have a biliionnaire owner wont mis a ,mill and manager happy to have a more continental approach with General sporting manager in place and not directly involved with coaching Dutch boys? Come on - we did play some nice stuff whilst getting beat

NOt slating you - fair assumption but... We dont know any facts - before it was all about we had agreed the fee - all very positive, just working out payment details - etc Now rumour is (and I stress rumour) some bank guarrantee bollix etc - and that others re interested - If there is any truth in any of the twitter gossip , then it appears we have been dicked around - I suspect it looks like their agents or reps releasing the other club stuff either to encourage other bids for more cash OR force our hand on the payment schedule - we simply dont know the details - we may have bene flexible in negotion say offering more up front but less overall etc or more spread over a longer period - thats all NORMAL in these things - if we cant reach agreement so be it - we move on to another target. I suspect if we don not get hoim it will be because he was NEVER going to come here, just us being used to flush out bigger bids - or simply that the deal did not not make sense from our perspective financially - and lets remember the reason why other clubs often do these things in an apparently smoother way is because they seem often to sling more money at it - and we all know where that leads - I like the fact that we have our valuation, we made an offer, it was accepted but when the goal posts are shhifted we dont budge