What does the collective think of this then

[jakeblu]

It's a similar position to that which most people hold concerning elves, vampires, magical unicorns, intergalactic space-weasels, daleks or compassionate conservatives.

You see that's the problem with the current discourse, ridicule. It seems most atheists/agnostics are aggressive in there arguments. Do you think the archbishop of Canterbury is a believer in vampires, unicorns etc.

Steve

 

[big soft moose]

You see that's the problem with the current discourse, ridicule. It seems most atheists/agnostics are aggressive in there arguments. Do you think the archbishop of Canterbury is a believer in vampires, unicorns etc.

Steve

probably not - but theres no more proof for his beliefs than there are for those of someone who does - thats not an agressive post its simply the truth.

Faith doesnt require proof , I know ( In fact requiring proof denies faith) and I've no problem with anyone choosing to belive in a god, or indeed in unicorns, faerie queens, or magic wombles as that is completely their choice

 

[jakeblu]

Again I ought to make it clear I am skeptical of the likelihood of a creator but I do believe the bible is probably considered more factual than Grimm's faery tales

Steve

 

[big soft moose]

only in that grimms is declared as fiction, wheras most religious texts are supposedly factual , but only usually contain annectdotal content rather than anything that could be declared scientific proof.

its considered factual by those who believe in its content - but that is also true of those who believe in various myth and folk tales ... i'm not talking about people reading grimms, i'm reffering more to the sort of 'primitive' or 'altermnative' society where people believe in spirits of the trees and such.

 

[ghoti]

You see that's the problem with the current discourse, ridicule. It seems most atheists/agnostics are aggressive in there arguments. Do you think the archbishop of Canterbury is a believer in vampires, unicorns etc.

Steve

No. That was sort of the point.
Dawkins' reasons for dismissing God are probably very similar to the Archbishop of Canterbury's reasons for dismissing unicorns.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I agree with you that attitudes towards the treatment of captured and wounded enemy combatants - and civilians - changed over time, but I don't agree with your hypothesis here. The Zulu dead and badly wounded weren't carried off the field. Most of the wounded were killed, and the dead - estimated at around 350 in the immediate vicinity of the mission station - were buried in mass graves by the British. There is also at least one eye witness account suggesting that some of the wounded were still alive when they were thrown into the pits. The British had very limited medical resources available, basically Surgeon Reynolds and his assistants, but I doubt if this played any part in the decision.

My father's grandfather was one of the 98 men who stood at Rorke's Drift, so I've done research and there is clear documentation that Zulu women carried away many of the dead and wounded during the night. There was no flag of truce as such, but the British soldiers let them do it.

More or less correct. The last attacks were in the early hours of the morning, and dawn is around 05h15 - 05h30 in Kwa Zulu Natal at that time of year. It's unlikely that the defenders realised the enemy had withdrawn until about 06h00 and, as far as we know, the British left their positions at this point and started searching the area. The Zulus reappeared about an hour later when and they retreated behind their barricades again. Chelmsford and his men arrived around 08h00 and probably took part in the mopping up operation and burial of the dead.

Various reasons for killing the wounded have been put forward, but I don't think there is any single, and compelling, explanation. It may have been a combination of post battle stress, revenge for the killing of the sick and wounded during the attack on the hospital, and concerns about leaving wounded men in the vicinity of the mission station who could still have posed a threat, particularly if there was another assault. It's also been suggested that the defenders were outraged by the Zulus ruthlessness and mutilation of the dead at Isandhlwana - in accordance with their own customs - but this is speculative. We just don't know.

FWIW, Rorkes Drift is an interesting place to visit. It's remote, and hasn't really changed a great deal since 1879. The original church and homestead/hospital were pulled down after the battle, but their replacements are in more or less the same positions and it's easy to reconstruct the events. Isandhlwana is haunting.

I very much doubt whether the defenders knew any details about what had happened at Isandhlwana - 2 gallopers had been sent from there to warn them, early in the battle and before the Zulus had had a chance to mutilate the dead and kill the wounded. I go back to what said earlier, although I agree it's all just speculation - different times, different standards of conduct.

 

[POAH]

You see that's the problem with the current discourse, ridicule. It seems most atheists/agnostics are aggressive in there arguments. Do you think the archbishop of Canterbury is a believer in vampires, unicorns etc. Steve

if you are going to preach nonsense then you really should expect to be ridiculed