While all the areas/scenarios seem to mix up well enough, this particular area/scenario doesn't.
The point system doesn't work for this one, I can't imagine someone answering Q1-Q4 with an "A" and then answering Q5 with an "A" as well: someone agreeing very strongly to these statements will obviously never treat their children this way.
Both you and Cov answered Q1-Q4 with "A", but Q5 was a "D".
Q5 (and maybe Q10) seems to be needing a reverse point, otherwise the minimum score will never be 5 but 8.
The midway point for area 1/scenario 1 by your count will be 14. I'm scoring 3 over the midway point, both Cov and you score the absolute lowest score here (8, again by your count and applied logic), 4 below midway.
Totally valid point and I agree with you, that question was worded the wrong way round for the point system, it is unfortunately a little later now to fix, unless everyone wants to edit their answers accordingly , and I will reverse the question in some way that would still be fair to its original point. It might be easier to reverse the point system for that answer as you have correctly asserted.
This is a wrong conclusion (at least I think it is) because I think there is quite a bit of difference. But once you go assigning numbers to answers and just add them up, something is lost in the process.
If someone (like me) is already close to one extreme, there isn't a whole lot of room for further movement.
Again, a valid point, I was just merely trying to identify and question our answers without simply having more questions being asked, it is obviously not perfect, maybe the answer would be to open it up to a 100 point system, give it a number from 1-100 as your answer - just a thought.
If you insist on the point system, maybe A=1, B=45, C=55 and D=100 makes more sense, as B and C are only slight agree/disagree.
It will still be arbitrary though.
I dont agree with that, simply because the particular wording seems to mean something slightly different to you from my intention, maybe I should have gone with 1-4 as my answers (although I chose against that, the questions got numbers, and the answers got letters).
This may not make sense to you at all. Although I have felt an atheist for a very long time now, I have been baptised and went to Catholic schools from age 6 to 18. The "normal" Catholic schools, opening the week with a prayer, and "religion" (don't know how else to translate it) was a course at school, not only about Christianity but all kinds of religion.
This is part of general knowledge, and to me it's very similar to history or cultural knowledge. I don't think I'd want to deny my children knowledge of religion, as much as some dislike religion, it's part of our culture (and it's insane how much influence Christianity has had on Western culture). I don't think I would like my children to only think of Christmas as a presents and food event.
At a young age, like many others I presume, I started to dislike going to church, the only obligation was mass at Christmas, and after a while that stopped too (at age 13 or so). So, the environment I grew up in and the exposure to religion I've had didn't stop me to make my own choices.
Don't blame me for doubting if no religion at all or some religion would be good for my children - I don't have anything with religion anymore but I do think it's better for general knowledge.
I dont suggest that people shouldnt be taught ABOUT religion in school, in fact they should be taught ABOUT it, but they should not be taught it as a religion. There is a huge distinction between those 2 things, but at the same time they should be taught ancient philosophy, and modern philosophy because after all religion was humans first attempt at philosophy.
I don't think I would like my children to only think of Christmas as a presents and food event.
Or the winter solstice...... whos celebration was stolen by christianity, and claimed as its own, how many people celebrate that any more, if someone wants to just hand presents around, and eat and drink a lot, that is no less disrespectful to christianity than it is to those who worship the winter solstice.
If that is your view on it, we have all been brainwashed.
To a greater or lesser extent, yes. Not all brainwashing is deliberate, you only have to look at why teenage girls are starving themselves to look like the models on tv and in print.
Many customs we don't even think about have been implanted into our brain without us even realising it.
Yes, take my point above about the winter solstice for example, we have had it beaten into us, it is christmas for example, and the date they stole from pagans are an example, and the name they gave it, JC was most likely born 4BC (ironic isnt it that he was born 4 years before he existed) and likely in june or july.
but we don't think twice about wearing clothes ourselves.
I do, its pretty cold at the moment.
Wearing clothes in Western society is part of brainwashing too.
See skinny teenagers above.
You simply don't go the full Monty because it's not considered proper.
I can if I want, there are places where that is perfectly legal, but take spain for example, naked female breasts are a common sight on their beaches. Also remember that it is customary and considered polite to remove your hat when you enter a building in the UK - this may very well have come about because of a religious belief, but you wont get raped and then stoned to death for NOT.
Do you think hardcore Christians wear a cross because they are forced to?
No, they force themselves to because they have been brainwashed to not think otherwise.
It's by choice.
Hardcore = no, moderate = probably guilt or affiliation.
Or because these Christians have been brainwashed?
Yes, but to greater and lesser degrees, think of skinny teenagers, some have not had a heavy or direct attack, but if it is all around their environment some will rub off.
I explained my point of view above, if this makes my list useless then I'm sorry. Hold on, I'll flip a coin.
Thanks, you have made a choice, but if you would prefer to add more granularity to your answer pich a number from 1-100 (1 = agree, 100 = disagree).
How can I disagree to andyb if I said I agree?
I was not accurate in my answer, sorry. I meant in regards to "nor does it make a person worse".
My point merely was, you can not generalise by "religion", "sex", "skin colour" or whatever, what norms and morals a person has - even though they all influence a person.
You certainly can, and people do all of the time, some for good, some for bad, and some just because it is obvious - stereotypes are totally human, and to dismiss them outright is foolish, you would be better off getting to know "your" stereotypes much better (myself included). Stereotypes to some dictate who they are, and it is as simple as that, very sad, but true.
This also means, that however hard to find, there is bound to be some religious person with norms and values that you (or I) can relate to.
No doubt, but the difference is that their religion dictates their morals and views to them, where I have chosen mine (and often change specific nuances).
That is what I meant when I said "religion by itself doesn't make a better or a worse person".
But I believe the last point explains this one. Religion has all that is needed to make a good person bad, but not having religion does not remove all that is good from someone, and so cant make them bad.
There have been a fair few cases over here, where "strongly reformed" (I don't know if the translation is correct) people abandoned this belief, and this has some consequences.
The neighbour next to my parents had been married for 15 years or so, 3 kids. Simple example of how far this religion goes: they aren't allowed to have (or even watch/listen) TV or radio, they aren't allowed to work on a Sunday and they have to go to church twice every Sunday but aren't allowed to drive a car on that day.
Abandoning this religion meant he had to divorce, he was no longer a son to his parents and he wasn't allowed to visit his children anymore.
That would be as a direct result of the evil, self loathing, torment, and punishment that the brainwashing and the religion has caused. I suggest that person would have been a good person without religion, but the evil that religion has poisoned that persons mind with is the problem. Maybe the best solution would be to go back to that religion rather than seek professional mental help, but I suspect that people who know the harm religion does cause to human minds would not be a good bet.
Structures with a religious function are meaningless, while a structure with historical value is not.
It seems inconsistent: by your standards (it doesn't have a technological function) the Nelson column is totally useless. Yet you seem to be proud of it, and it's very meaningful to you.
The only thing you can do with it is look at it. How on earth is that usefull?
And how does that differ from religious structures?
I would not agree with that, there are huge numbers of buildings and structures that I would consider of historical and architectual importance, many of them religious. Personally I am just glad I am not speaking French, not to mention all of the evil Bonaparte would have done to my country.
But that is not to say that continuing to build duplicates of Nelsons Column all over the place would be a sane thing to do, and I know that people would be heavily outspoken about it (look at north Korea and the statues of the nutcase in power and you will follow). The blind following of a historical figure, and worshipping that figure is a crazy idea, but when it is in the name of religion people seem to loose their senses and simply go along with it.
And how does that differ from religious structures?
If it already exists, is rare, or of significant importance leave it be, but dont think that you can impose things onto people who dont want them is right without merit. People dont go to the minaret to pray, they go to the mosque - the building of new mosques has not been banned - if it was I would ask some serious questions.
Many of the minarets in Switzerland that have been refused planning permission were refused because they are not allowed to be very tall, and people cant make noises from them many times a day, so all that is left is an islamic symbol, in a non-islamic country - you see the problem I am sure, many people are rightfully fearful of islam and the mad hate filled flag burners that represent them, so they have said no in a legal vote, people who dont like that should get over themselves.