Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7992616/Churchgoing-stabilises-after-years-of-decline-research-shows.html

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

So, is the enthrallment of the monistic Enlightenment view of a purely physical universe in terminal decline?

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

The irony here is that nothing has done so much to raise the profile of religion favourably as the slew of books decrying it as nonsense and attempting to talk down to and bully their audience.

[InsaneApache]

Reg Vardy has a lot to answer for.

[rory_20_uk]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one. removed as above

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

I think these are all fair points, and I accept them. Of course, the social utility of religion does not count against it being true (it may count in favour even, it may not.)

I present alos this, a book review by Rowan Williams on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7771422/Absence-of-Mind-The-Dispelling-of-Inwardness-from-the-Modern-Myth-of-the-Self-by-Marilynne-Robinson-review.html

I especially liked this:


She distinguishes this carefully and consistently from specific scientific argumentation, making the all-important point that a scientist outside their special field has no particular claim to philosophical acumen

and this:


“Whoever controls the definition of mind controls the definition of humankind itself.” The more the definition of mind is left to the parascientist – to Dennett and Dawkins and to reductive neurologists such as Steven Pinker and Michael Gazzaniga – the more political, moral and imaginative trouble we are corporately in.

Which would, I believe, be an opinion shared by Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, and also probably by Protagoras - ironic as that may be.

[Idaho]

Religion is fine, as long as we don't start based anything important on it.

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

Apparently this is "religion bashing" although was one of the main stimuli for the Protestant movement in the first place as it underlined the massive divide from the teachings of Christ and the Catholic church, especially in relation to the accrual of money, but also to the refusal to allow the masses to obtain copies of the book their religion was supposed to be based upon.

~:smoking:

[Rahwana]

as long as people still fear the hell and the uncertainty of their future, they still need a religion... at least, Christians are good friends, they will pay for your beer if you go to church with them! :clown:

[Beskar]

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

Religion has no place in science, has Science has no need for dogmatic ignorance such as Creationism, and its kin trying to prevent progress.

If you have happy with your 'opium of the people' though, I don't care until you attempt to force it on me or where it doesn't belong.

[PanzerJaeger]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

Excellent points. I'm with Marx on this one.

[tibilicus]

It may be on the up, but aren't the majority of people in the UK still self identified Atheists? I believe the figure is 60%+.

[al Roumi]

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

I'd imagine the censure (and warning?) might have been for calling catholicism a religion for the weak.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Saying religion is for the weak and people who can't accept they are going to die etc is pretty much akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins. There may be some truth in such statements, but they are very speculative and don't really do justice to the vast range of beliefs out there.

I have a hunch that the increase in church attendance may be something to do with all the controversy surrounding Islam, because it is making people consciously identify more as 'Christian', typical us v them scenario. Although even then I have to say I am surprised to see the established church doing so well, things don't seem so rosy with the Church of Scotland. Heh, I've actually been attending two churches recently, one of them being the C of S. But I've also been going to a local Baptist church where they have evening services for people from different churches to come to (not interfaith stuff, still strictly evangelical) because I have a friend that invited me, and the contrast really is marked. They have all kinds of Bible study groups, teaching sessions, various events etc, so I would not be suprised to see such churches thriving. But the C of S on the other hand does pretty much nothing, I actually emailed my minister a few days ago because I want to organise some sort of Bible study group... will see how that goes...

[Beskar]

Probably more to do with the Recession, and people want the comfort of sugar candy mountain in this time of hardship.


akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins.

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

The statement that there is no afterlife, no divine purpose, nothing out there looking out for you is a very frightening one to many people, it is also why some religious people will never be atheists as it scares them. Belief in an afterlife and spiritual stuff is a comfort blanket for many people that no matter how bad things are in life, they will be rewarded. It is a pretty known 'fact'.

Though if some one wanted to get rid of sins, they could just go to confession and all sins are stripped away, or pay for a pass to Heaven. That is how the Catholics do it.

[rory_20_uk]

The numbers of religions that offer an easy way out for sinners has always been great. If Atheists are merely weak sinners it'd be much easier to join a church that allows forgiveness after some minor act. Paganism can be pretty liberal in what classes as a sin so that would suit most people.

I'm sure there are loads of other reasons out there, ranging from a good way to meet people, which is certainly true, to meeting the right sort of people, historical or cultural significance or even just wanting to make a stand against the other. I'm (A)gnostic but I would support CoE vs all comers as this has helped form my country.

Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

The cynical atheist might say that this just shows attendance has been reduced down to the hard core of believers, which due to social & demographic considerations has been constant in the last 10 years.

This is still interesting, but it's not proof that the UK is becoming more religious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

My point is just that the old "Christians are weak" line presumes that fear is the only motivating factor behind their faith, regardless of any truth behind it, and I think that this is unfair

My own experience with religion is that it has been comforting at times, but more often the opposite has been true, especially in the earlier days. I think that's how things are meant to be though, look at the Psalms of King David which give a very good account of what a personal relationship with God is like, it isn't all about feeling warm and fuzzy.

Although I agree with you, many of the people who believe in 'hippie Jesus' are only in it because it makes them feel good.


Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

Well Calvinists like myself would have no problem with your example. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so he could make his glory known to the Isrealites. Pharaoh was already an evil king that had enslaved the Israelite people remember, and refused to let them go even before God hardened his heart.

Such beliefs might seem a bit brutal but that is becaused they are centred on the glory of God and not the glory of men, I don't deny it. Plus at least they are theologically consistent.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

5,000 more people in 2008 it says, but it's not clear if that's statistically significant.

[Tellos Athenaios]

On a population of millions? Are you kidding? It's pretty clear that it is *not* statistically significant.

[InsaneApache]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

[al Roumi]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

lol, HERESY.

Where's the Spanish inquisition when you need them? Cue python.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

[Louis VI the Fat]

Christian Research: Church attendance in the UK no longer in decline - exclusive guest post from Benita Hewitt (http://churchmousepublishing.blogspot.com/2010/09/christian-research-church-attendance-in.html)

This is actually rather earth shattering.

This will no doubt be very welcome news ahead of the Papal visit.Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years. :book:

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import. :knight:

[tibilicus]

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

[HoreTore]

Louis demonstrates how the French are superior to the English in maths.


Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

[tibilicus]

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

[rory_20_uk]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

I like Numbers 31, where they committed genocide, leaving only the virgin young females, which they took for themselves. Even conducted Human Sacrifice as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

Of course not, I was just pointing to examples of God being 'nice' in the OT. Also remember despite the perception below:


Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

God doesn't intervene directly in much of the OT. Indeed the God felt the Israelites were becoming too confident in their own abilities to win the conflict, and that's why he told Gideon to purge his army before they fought the Midianites. When God did intervene directly, it was stuff like parting the Red Sea or the Jordan River, or providig manna to eat etc.

[Furunculus]

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:as commonly occurs; rory expresses my opinion before i get a chance to voice it.

[Brenus]

“The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.”
That is if you believe the Book of course.

Because the systematic extermination of all opponents who pre-owned the lands given by God but taken by men e.g. Joshua leads me to other explanation about one of the greatest piece of propaganda and self-justification ever written.
I discovered it thanks to the .org, in a side door in a thread.
An excellent programme (Battle BC) on history channel reinforced this feeling.

Not only the Jews were not slaves but also they were warriors employed by Pharaoh to waged war on his borders (a little bit as the Serbs in the Krajina by the Austro-Hungarians against the Turks). The reason why Moses left Egypt (due to the fact that peace treaty was signed and Pharaoh didn’t want some to put in danger this treaty in doing something silly as raiding former enemy lands and women and cattle) is because the lost of the source of revenue: war.
Pharaoh assigned a new duty to the Jews as builders, but they didn’t like it. They left but re-supplied in usual way in plundering Egyptian towns.
Pharaoh didn’t like it so started a pursuit. Moses being a general on the field knew the Egyptian tactic and succeeded to avoid a frontal battle and slipped away…
Then the battle of the Holly lands started in systematically exterminating the local tribes…

[a completely inoffensive name]

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

[Rahwana]

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian :clown:

[HoreTore]

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian :clown:

The christian god's existance is irrelevant to my faith. It's not about what is true or not, I consider the word of the bible as morally wrong and so I will never follow it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.


Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years. :book:

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import. :knight:

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.


Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...


You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

Points of Theology:

1. Indulgences do not get you Heaven they [i]speed you through Purgatory. If you are in Purgatory you are already going to Heaven, indulgences are the equivilent of paying for a flight upgrade - they can't ever save your soul.

However, various Roman Catholic authorities have sold them at various times - which has always been illegal and has been repeatedly condemned by successive Popes (which might be ironic in some cases).

2. Christianity is less "Do what you like but you're going to hell" and much more "whatever you do, I'll let you off so long as you are genuinely sorry for it."

[HoreTore]

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

Nice guilt by association.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nice guilt by association.

It isn't guilt by association.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nice guilt by association.

Wrong try again.

[Hax]

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.
:bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.
:bow:

His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

[Idaho]

needlessly violent and hateful.

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

[Vladimir]

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

Thank you for the appropriately gentile and loving ~;).

[rory_20_uk]

I heard on Sunday a programme where people were desperately trying to justify why everyone should be respectful to the Pope...


He's the head of state
He's the head of a religion
Erm...
Just leave the wizened bigot alone, OK?


It was amazing really.

Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!
The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

Simmer down a bit people, let's keep this above board.

[al Roumi]

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

[Beskar]

This was an interesting show on Panorama about the Pope:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ttmcn/Panorama_What_the_Pope_Knew/

It is about the catholic priests fiddling children. Apparently, John Paul II (previous pope) made sure there was an atmosphere of silence, whilst the current Pope, he completely reformed on how the Catholic Church deals with these issues, including assisting police investigations and reporting allegations.

Though there were some issues where he could have acted 'faster' pre-Pope and able to do these reforms.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.


Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!

This is somewhat unfair to the Roman Catholic church overall, as abuses 50 years ago cannot be undone by the current administration - not even the Pope has a time machine. :balloon2:


The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).


OK, this one always gets my goat: you don't want AIDs? Don't sleep with filthy prostitutes, given that many African men like "dry" sex anyway I doubt a change in the Roman Catholic Church would make a whit of difference. Certainly, no one (or very few) in the west bother with Church teaching on contraception any more than they bother with church teaching on chastity. Why pretend Africa is any different. Rampent HIV in Africa is a cultural problem, not a religious one.

Fact is if Africans followed ALL Church teachings on sex there would be no HIV, or virtually no HIV. Complaining that they only follow half of it is perverse!

[rory_20_uk]

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).


i won't argue the condom thing, it is of course daft, but the matter of AIDs in africa is made massively worse by the culture of men sleeping around, and an subsistence lifestyle that's puts women in the position of having to accept it because the alternative is being turfed out the house to face starvation if they have the temerity to question their husbands sexploits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

Quite true - but irrelevant. If they don't care about church teaching sex why do they care about church teaching on condoms? It's an excuse.


The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

Also true, but the Church is correct insofar as condoms are far from bullet proof, and wearing one does not makes one genuinely "safe". Consider Horetore, who's little man goes away and hides at the prospect of not using a condom. So in that regard I do agree with the Church, just pushing the condom may well do more harm than good (there may even be a situation where people do reuse a condom in Africa, they have to reuse everythin else, and then it would be true that the increase the risk of infection.)


Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

Well, once you contract HIV you should probably be neutered/rendered infertile, but the modern world doesn't have the stones to contain the pandemic, does it? the fact is most transimissions come from illicit sex, and a lot of that is from transient workers who pay for it and then go and infect their wives.

as to women with HIV positive husbands?

Grounds for an annullment I'd say - failure to fulfill conjugal rights.


The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

~:smoking:

Here you will have no dissagreement from me, which is why I am not Roman Catholic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

~:smoking:And don't forget the official merchandise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11278500), proceeds flowing into the Vatican coffers!

When the Pope stretches out his arms to the masses gathered in parks in Glasgow, Birmingham and London this weekend, the rock star parallels will be exaggerated by the appearance of the adoring crowds.
Some will be wearing the official papal visit T-shirt (£18) while holding aloft an electronic flashing candle (£3).


Others may sport, against the autumn chill, an official baseball cap (£15) bearing the slogan of the newly beatified Cardinal Newman: "Heart Speaks Unto Heart".




It's good to see the Vatican work for a living, makes for a nice change from its other sources of income such as its mafia branches in Italy and running Belgium's largest ring of paedophile brothels.

[HoreTore]

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....


His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

Uhm, what? Are you ashamed that your faith converts junkies? Do you consider them lesser people, or what?

Because fact is that junkies and alcoholics is one of christianity's top sources of converts. And a rise in the number of junkies will logically be followed by an increase in the number of christians.

[Furunculus]

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

[HoreTore]

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

My points were a quick summary of most christian party programmes. When a party writes something in a programme, I assume that they will at the very least try to impllement in when they gain power. Is that a flawed view?

And yes, I am quite aware of the existance of liberal and socialist christians, but they are a minority and not the group most people convert to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there. The 17th century may look dramatic but there's an awful lot of more down-to-earth conflicts going on, which time and again was resolved as summed up succinctly at the time: cuius regio eius religio. Notice how religion is still a function (dependent on) who holds power... Not the other way around. Contrast that with the influence that cardinals hold in Italian politics; despite the fact the Vatican is not supposed to meddle in the affairs of another state, right? Or pick Iran or Pakistan where officials would not dare risk open confrontation with clergy for obvious reasons that have less to do with wrath of God or Allah and more to do with the wrath of an angry mob and their way of lynching people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It isn't guilt by association.


Wrong try again.

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country). The religious right Christians in countries do make almost all social laws based upon what their religion dictates. Gay marriage= Jesus doesn't like it. Ground Zero Mosque= Intolerance towards religion that's not Christianity.

Also, don't tell me the UK didn't have "draconian" measures. You only decriminalized homosexual male intercourse in 1967. Up until then you cracked down on those gays including Alan Turing, who then killed himself. But I guess ruining the life of one of the most brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists because he was gay isn't "draconian" to Christians, it's just keeping the country "clean" for God.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country).

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

That isn't a charitable assumption.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That isn't a charitable assumption.

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

[Beskar]

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.


Ok well I already knew that draconian laws don't solely come from Christians, I'm not that unreasonable. I just didn't take that meaning from your statement since I had not seen anyone directly attempt to propagate the statement that only Christians make draconian laws. So I figured that that was not the reasoning behind the statement since I (and from what Sasaki told me) figured that you were making a direct counterpoint to someone.

I also understand and recognize your draco point, I only had a problem with the statement "Soviet gov was atheist, it was draconian. What about that?"

As for the first two items on the list, I would need to read these "strong sociological arguments" towards stopping same sex couples from strengthening society by forming life long bonds towards each other in the form of marriage and towards preventing abusive couples from ending their perpetual dysfunctional relationship.

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

[al Roumi]

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.

I was not aware that the "Native" population was falling. Do you have a stat for that? AFAIK the birth rate of most social/ethnic groups is healthy in the UK.

I can appreciate that the Native proportion of the total UK population has fallen, but that's a result of a larger growth rate of "non-natives" -primarily through immigration.

The stats at the bottom of this are about the actual tally of bums on benches, not proportions of total population. Your reasoning relies on the assumption that the COE leaning ethnic population are in decline -and it is not substantiated.

I'm surprised that the Catholic stats are not better given the influx of Poles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.


As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

Also, as a witnessed Contract taken Under Oath, those who break their marriage vows should be charged with purjury.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.


As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.
Your first sentence makes no sense. It is the argument of a equality seeking society. Population makes no difference here. If the population is too much, homosexuals should marry since they can provide good families for kids and they love each other. If the population is too little they should marry because they love each other, it makes no sense for anyone to be "discouraging homosexuality" since no matter what the homosexual men are going to want to be with men and not women. Only if the population is uneducated and ignorant in that being gay is part of who you are, not a choice would they attempt to restrict gays from marrying in an attempt to "force" the gays to mate with women and have children instead.

If the institution of marriage is important because it intends to promote procreation in a stable environment rather then from two strangers having fun for one night, then the institution has been irrelevant since the birth control pill was introduced in the 1960s. Please, there is nothing special about wanting to mate and have kids. It is hard wired into our brains. You know what is special? Love, which both hetero and homosexual couples can produce plenty of it.

Your reasons are exactly what the problem is. "Arguments" taken from the Christian morals you have adhered to which you intend to instill upon the rest by government laws. You are essentially in my eyes saying, "This is what my religion views marriage as. There is an argument that homosexuals do not fulfill our requirement on what marriage is, therefore it is a strong case on denying homosexuals the right to marry."

[Beskar]

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.


That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.



I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.

You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."




*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

[rory_20_uk]

I heartily agree with Beskar (and will avoid merely repeating everything he's said).

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's arguments appear to be the traditional religious argument of putting the cart before the horse "this is what I think, let's try and justify it".

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.


There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

I said NOTHING about banning divorce Beskar, I'd thank you to take note of that. I said that if you break you Oath you should be punished, be it an Oath regarding Testimony, with regard to a Will, or with regard to a Marriage. I fail to see why marriage oaths are a special case in this regard.


You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.


I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there.

He did say since the times of feudalism, so why would I only look at the most recent two centuries?


Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.



"No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

Which is why any Humanist, be they secular or Christian should be against abortion.

[Beskar]

Which is why any Humanist, be they secualr or christian should be against abortion.

I see no reason to be against abortion, only reason to disapproval of it.

The solution is strong advocation of birth-prevention methods such as the pill, condoms, the snips and tying knots in the tubes. Unfortunately, some churches disapprove of these methods altogether. You would think they would have sense and go "Do not have sex before marriage, but if you are going to do it, make sure you shrink-wrap it". Some churches even argue even when married, not to use condoms or the pill, so you end up with your wife keep on getting pregnant.

Only main objections I have is around 20 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Because if you was going to have an abortion, you would have it as soon as possible (within the first 3 months or so where you don't even look pregnant), not at the point when the child can survive independently.

[al Roumi]

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays".

That's real bigotry, and it's far worse that the old bigotry against homosexuals because we claim to be a tollerant and fair society, whatever that means.

[Beskar]

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays"..

I did a very good post in a different topic about this. Very good post as in, I was proud to have posted it at least.

[HoreTore]

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I did a very good post in a different topic about this. Very good post as in, I was proud to have posted it at least.

That doesn't anything to this topic though, does it?

[Beskar]

That doesn't anything to this topic though, does it?

Neither did your post, hence why I redirected to a different topic where it was covered if you was interested in being reminded. I didn't know the various labels and concepts of sexual conduct was responsible for the UP in England and Wales.

[al Roumi]

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

Again, your "evidence" and example is neither exhaustive or conclusive, but massively subjective by reason of your own views.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

You used a specific example to suggest a general rule, and I even pointed out that was you said was "generally speaking". While I'm sure we both agree that Christians/atheists can both be pro/anti-freedom/progressiveness etc, I reject your claim that there is a correlation between the influence of Christianity and the existence of oppressive regimes.

For example, nowhere was the influence of Christianity stronger than amongst the more radical Protestant denominations, and yet these were the groups that led the charge in the development of individual liberty/contractarian government/democracy etc. This suggests that your general rule is incorrect from a historical perspective (and you did appeal to history and not just modern society, going back to "feudalism").


Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

Because the 20th century was so much better when atheism was predominant...

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

[Tellos Athenaios]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

[Rhyfelwyr]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

[Beskar]

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Hitler.27s_reaction_to_atheism)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religious_beliefs_and_policies)
So both Hilter and Stalin were Christians! Hitler also called the Jews 'Christ Slayers'. :bounce:

History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.

Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false. Catholicism was still far more dominate, which is why both Hitler and Mussolini had dealings with the Catholic church, even then in Russia, the Orthodox Church returned in force and the Russian Patriarch was reformed under Stalin.

There has never currently been a time where atheism has or is predominant. It is only predominant in intellectual circles currently and a few of the younger generation which hasn't been exposed to the same dogma of the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think Atheism predominates in a younger generation, I think that ignorance and willingness to believe the current fashion do. Most of the abuse I get for just being Christian, as opposed to being pro-life, or unwilling to sanction homosexual relationships in Church, comes from people in their early 20's.

If that's the positive affect of atheism it isn't very positive.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

Of influence of religion. I do not even make the connection between “Christianity” and “oppression” just yet for two reasons:

1) When actual oppression does occur there tends to be a fair amount of “giftwrap this sordid powergrab with a religious ribbon and people will buy it” going on. So how much of that is truly in the spirit of a given religion, how much of it is carried out for religious motives and how much of it is simply carried out under the pretext of religious motives? My estimates would err on the pretext side of motives, rather than on the spirit of the faith side (which no two believers ever seem to agree on anyway).
2) Influence and oppression are not equal, more importantly oppression is not the only way for influence of religion to manifest itself. In the context of the late 20th and now 21st century it is telling that people seriously doubt whether or not Pakistani muslim sects are compatible with British society, when in the 19th and early 20th century everything was all good as long as you were loyal to the British Empire and the British armed forces were adjusted to be more accessible to people of different faiths than the CofE in order to employ Pakistani soldiers. In fact, the British Empire built mosques and special military burial sites to accommodate their Pakistani forces during the Great War.

On the other hand there's a lot of almost reactionary response toward things like the pill and similar issues which makes you wonder what happened to the quality those faiths exhibited in earlier times to adapt to their host culture and integrate rather than attempt to beat it out of the host culture.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Hitler.27s_reaction_to_atheism)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religious_beliefs_and_policies)

First off, I don't know why you are telling me about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, when I was talking about wider developments in people's understanding of atheism/religion, and how these influenced the ideology that Hitler adopted (which was a form of social Darwinism)

Anyway, Hitler said he was Christian when speaking to Christians, but in private he seems to not be so keen on the faith. Indeed he said:

"The heavist blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew..."

Also... "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

He seems to have allowed Christianity to exist only because of its social use and relevance to his idea of society. "When all is said, we have no reason to wish the Italians or Spaniards to free themselves from the drug of Christianity."

Of course, I am aware he was not an atheist, and the whole "Hitler was an atheist and this somehow proves something" argument really annoys me. I like to point out to those people that Hitler adored the Catholic Church, and his hero was the leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther (because of his anti-Semetism), so really you could say Hitler was an all round Christian guy!

As for Stalin, even Dawkins accepts he was an atheist, and the stuff you showed on wiki was unsubstantitated and it even noted that no historian had ever backed up any of those claims. His decision to re-allow worship (having banned it, strange thing for a Christian to do in the first place!) appears to have been motivated by pratical reasons, in that it would boost the peoples morale.


Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false.

Atheism was far more predominant than Christianity in its influence on the ideologies of the time, without a doubt. You seem to be confusing personal faith with atheism as a social/ideological movement. As with Christianity, it inevitably picked up a lot of baggage along the way. Like with the above examples, Hilter associated atheism with Marxism, and for that reason alone was distrustful of it's social/political impact. And the political/religious beliefs of the posters in this thread suggests there is some truth in making such a correlation!


History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.[/spoil]

Hurts doesn't it? :tongue:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

[Beskar]

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

[Rhyfelwyr]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

Primitive communalism is a whole different matter from Marxism. Anyway, "hippie Jesus" is simply an invention of the Jesuited Papists in order to promote the EUSSR superstate with the Pope as it's spiritual and temporal head.

Well I made that up, I'm getting inventive these days. Still, Jesus was no hippie. :no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....It's good to see the Vatican work for a living, makes for a nice change from its other sources of income such as its mafia branches in Italy and running Belgium's largest ring of paedophile brothels.

I was unable to find any information corroborating your last assertions. I am, needless to say, skeptical.

[HoreTore]

I was unable to find any information corroborating your last assertions. I am, needless to say, skeptical.

While I don't know what the brothels are aimed at, it is common knowledge that the vatican and the catholic church in Italy has deep ties with the various Italian mafia organizations. Not just among the footmen either, but high up in the vatican.

A church like the catholic church has plenty of stuff to offer any aspiring mobster..

[a completely inoffensive name]

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.




It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.

Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".



I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.






And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

As HoreTore stated already, I did not see any absolute statement from him. I interpreted your statement differently because of that.



The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently. And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

[Brenus]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.

Call to tradition is not inherrently a fallacy, it can just be used to conceal one. If you move the goal posts by saying "marriage is about two people who love each other" then what you have done is redefine "marriage" to suit your own ends. By the by, "No true Scotsman" is also not a fallacy (ever) because once you have excluded rapists from "true Scotsman" the fact that a brtual rapist lives in Aberdean does not make him a "true Scot".

So, marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman for the raising of their own children in a stable environment, and for giving those children legitimacy. That completely excludes homosexual unions (which are not the same as hetersexual ones in any case, because they don't produce children).

Love has nothing to do with it.


Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".

My objection to abortion stems from my Christian Humanist belief in the sanctity of all human life it is, like my opposition to murder and the death penalty, the logical conclusion of that principle. It is suplamented by the additional principle that the strong should protect the weak from harm.


Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.

Nope, I'm talking about setting up a State school sponsored by a religious denomination, and the restrictions you should and should not allow for that.


I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent.

Right and wrong is a binary distinction.


But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is.

I'm not talking about right or wrong yet. You are talking about moral "right", I have only begun with logically correct.


According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

This statement makes no sense, it has no logically defined paramatars, what is a "Muslim" in this context, why am I opposed to them?


And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

It is more morally wrong to kill the child?

Sorry not buyin it.

Why does the child deserve death?


I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

Genuine objective morality has to come from somewhere external, shorthand "God", otherwise you have consensus morality. Under consensus morality homosexuality is only ok so long as the consesnus agrees it is. Under theistic morality harming people because they are homosexual (assuming homsexuality does not make one an evil servant of the "Devil") is always wrong. This is why some, but not enoguh, Christians opposed Hitler when he started rounding up Jews, and why priests in Italy helped them esacape.

onsensus is not a major concern for absolute morality - which is why Jesus got himself Crucified.

[tibilicus]

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

[rory_20_uk]

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

That's all its every truly been there for.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

That's all its every truly been there for.

~:smoking:

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

~:smoking:

Who said religion was anything about god? He is just a casus belli to be used against the people.

I agree with your statement.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.


I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

I know it's easy to dismiss religious people as seeing everything in black and white, but I would have thought even a secular humanist would agree that the right to life is an absolute value. Therefore if you treat an absolute value as having grey areas, you are being logically inconsistent.

I also don't see how you're analogy with Islam works, because while we both (I think?) accept that the right to life is a single, aboslute principle, Islam is of course simply an umbrella term for a huge range of beliefs.


And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?


I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

I think people often like to dismiss us like this because it is easier than actually seriously thinking about their own positions on the issue. You need to adress the lack of any sort of logical consistency in your argument. At least the extreme fringe of the pro-choice movement are logically consistent, although you would have to wonder why the baby suddenly becomes human at the point of birth.


Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

Justification at last! Nobody ever believed me, they just said I'm a crazy Hun, a bigot etc. But at last the experts are catching up, Mr. Devine was on the news last night and finally acknowledged that Catholics are increasingly driving the nationalist movement. Said it years ago myself in a paper for one of my politics classes (in a more academic tone than I do here of course, without the bias!), when you know the historical perpective it all makes sense, you've got to look beyond Scotland itself and understand how these identities all relate with Britain and Ireland etc.


It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

I would be ignoring the beam in my own eye if I upbraided them for this. Sadly what you said is true for many churches today. They are more like a social club, they have no interest in actually following the Gospel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

~:smoking:

Small Gods is my favourtie after Night Watch and The Fifth Elephant.

[HoreTore]

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

"Choice" is the buzzword of the right.

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

[Beskar]

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

[HoreTore]

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative. "pro-abortion" doesn't mean abort all babies, it means that I support(pro) the abortion law.

Btw: thank you Philipvs, for proving my point, that a christian majority will implement draconian laws and be a complete disaster to our nations, beyond all doubt.

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

[Beskar]

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative.

Huh? What was nonsense is saying pro-trains = ban others forms of transport.

If you are pro-trains, you are for the promotion of trains as a means of transport, over other types. For example "When it comes to transport, I am pro-train, I advocate the use of trains above the rest". So pro-train would be the active advocation of using trains or in favour of it being used. So pro-abortion would be the active advocation of using abortion or in favour of it being used.

Pro-Choice sums it up correctly, I only view it as a complete last resort, however, I do not want it to be illegal/banned, as that would cause more problems then solve them and I am no problem with people having the choice of abortion.

[HoreTore]

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

If that's your view; fine by me. It's not my view that a fetus is anything more than a lump of cells, which is why I hope you won't gain power because your stance is the complete opposite of mine.

No hard feelings bro, we just disagree is all!

Another example:

I am strongly in favour of immigration. However, I don't consider it illegitimate to want the opposite. That however, doesn't mean I won't hope that they'll never gain the power to stop immigration. And if they do, I will still consider it a draconian law.

@Beskar: When I think about it, "abortion-supporter" is probably a better translation of the term used to describe those in favour of abortion here.

[Beskar]

:wall:


A row erupted during a speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".


People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years. There needs to be some militant atheism to help put away these old dinosaurs who are long past their expiry date.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:wall:


A row erupted during a speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".


People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years. There needs to be some militant atheism to help put away these old dinosaurs who are long past their expiry date.

I think he was poking the Hornet's Nest, and the reaction has been a scream after some of the things said in the Liberal press recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/sep/16/pope-benedict-xvi-secularism

Someone at the Guardian agrees with me!

[drone]

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[naut]

I heard on Sunday a programme where people were desperately trying to justify why everyone should be respectful to the Pope...
https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7812/60961101502678450005746.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7812/60961101502678450005746.jpg

Any yet Atheists complain about "libel".

[Furunculus]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

~:smoking:

agreed.

on the subject of catholics and nazi's:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html

[gaelic cowboy]

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I would agree with this sentiment and I don't believe in God/Gods at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the reasoning stems almost from a medieval demon seed type fear hence the use of potential rape as a vaild reason.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

agreed.

on the subject of catholics and nazi's:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html

As Rhy noted, Luthar was an anti-Semnite (common at the time), and Protestants were therefore more likely to be anti-Semnites in turn in Germany. Having said that, some of Hitler's earliest detractors and critics were Protestant theologians, irrc.

[HoreTore]

As Rhy noted, Luthar was an anti-Semnite (common at the time), and Protestants were therefore more likely to be anti-Semnites in turn in Germany. Having said that, some of Hitler's earliest detractors and critics were Protestant theologians, irrc.

That may be, but the vast majority of his early opponents were lefites in some form; communists, social democrats, anarchists, unionists, etc etc.

Hitlers army did, however, have the words "Gott Mitt Uns" on their belt buckles.

[Brenus]

“Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...” In which category is the “we”?

“People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years”.
Yeap, because you have to be respectful of their belief… No others kind of belief deserves this impunity…
When I was in University, a teacher had to answer politely to a religious extremist interruption denying historical facts on the ground it was not in the Bible… And this was in University…
Secularism can be challenged but not Belief…

“I think he was poking the Hornet's Nest, and the reaction has been a scream after some of the things said in the Liberal press recently:”
Except of course that there were no Atheist Dictatorship as there are (were) Religious one.
Some dictators happened to be atheist (and even this is not proved) but they use to fight the political side of the Churches (thanks to R. Dawkins for the highlight). Or exploiting it in some cases (without the fundamental anti-Semitism spread by the 2 major monotheistic Religions, anti-Semitism wouldn’t exist.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” H. Hitler. My Kampf

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...” In which category is the “we”?

“People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years”.
Yeap, because you have to be respectful of their belief… No others kind of belief deserves this impunity…
When I was in University, a teacher had to answer politely to a religious extremist interruption denying historical facts on the ground it was not in the Bible… And this was in University…
Secularism can be challenged but not Belief…

“I think he was poking the Hornet's Nest, and the reaction has been a scream after some of the things said in the Liberal press recently:”
Except of course that there were no Atheist Dictatorship as there are (were) Religious one.
Some dictators happened to be atheist (and even this is not proved) but they use to fight the political side of the Churches (thanks to R. Dawkins for the highlight). Or exploiting it in some cases (without the fundamental anti-Semitism spread by the 2 major monotheistic Religions, anti-Semitism wouldn’t exist.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” H. Hitler. My Kampf

Your double standard is extraordinary.

[Brenus]

Your double standard is extraordinary:
Explain... Because I see none.
There are Religious Dictatureships. No Atheist one.
Hitler nor Stalin built their on no-religion State. The Vatican is Religious basis State. Iran is a Religious Dictatorship. And I am not comparing them.

You are free to challenge any idea or myth, except the religious ones because "you have to respect Religions". Religions can openly criticise fashions, habits, food, behaviour and domains of human activities but oops if you do the same…you have to respect them.
Double standard, yes, but not on my side…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your double standard is extraordinary:
Explain... Because I see none.
There are Religious Dictatureships. No Atheist one.
Hitler nor Stalin built their on no-religion State. The Vatican is Religious basis State. Iran is a Religious Dictatorship. And I am not comparing them.

You are free to challenge any idea or myth, except the religious ones because "you have to respect Religions". Religions can openly criticise fashions, habits, food, behaviour and domains of human activities but oops if you do the same…you have to respect them.
Double standard, yes, but not on my side…

Hitler, Stalin and Mao deliberately rejected religious belief, especially the latter two. While the state was not "atheistic" it was anti-religious.

as to criticism, You, Loius, Beskar, et al. criticise it all the time and get away with it, but atheists screamed bloody murder when the Pope made the connection between sidelining beliefs contrary to the State and the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century; this despite atheists being quite happy to call him a Nazi, child molester, hate monger....

don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[Shibumi]

If one man believe he is delusional. If several believe it is a religion.

I also strongly question the idea that religion "must be respected". I have read the bible, I have read the qur'an. Reading it, I mainly pended between laughter at the ludicrousness of the texts and shaking my head at the horrors described.

I know some people do take these texts seriously, but I struggle trying to understand them.

So no, religions at large should not be respected, not by any means. They should be the laughingstock of a enlighted society. Anyone trying to spread faith should be held up against the wall and questioned, be forced to defend his beliefs under the light of science and education.

Now that would be progress.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Atheism has become more militant in recent years.

My explanation is that until a decade or so ago, atheism felt confident about its growing influence. Historic tide was with atheism. As education spread, one day, the whole world would be enlightened and rise above private obscurantism.

However, in the last decade, religion has made a remarkable comeback outside of Western Europe.

Europe became aware of a restless Islam, both within and outside Europe's borders. Fundamentalist, irreconcilably hostile to liberal Western values.

In Eastern Europe, Catholicism and Orthodoxy filled the voids of communism. Massive new churches have been erected in Poland and Russia. Their politicians pictured with men with beards standing right behind them, their language filled with the imagery of fundamentalism. In Southeast Europe, for the first time in lord-knows-how-long-ago, the 1990's saw wars with a clear religious dimension.

America became ever more Christian fundamentalist. And through modern communication Europe simply became more aware of the very much thriving Christianity of America. The onslaught, indeed the very existence of, Intelligent Design shocked educated Europeans. What was considered an obscure, fundamentalist minority belief in Europe turned out to be pretty mainstream in America - a developed Western Society. So, 'it could happen here too...'

Atheism hadn't won at all. It was not 'the end of history', for neither liberal democracy nor a-religiousness. The 'enemies of reason' were alive and kicking...


European atheism was not long ago a secure, confident, self-explanatory. It was not even a movement. Few Europeans were atheist as part of their identity, simply because religion was so absent from their lives that one does not believe in a monotheistic god anymore than one does not believe in the force or in ancestral thought lines.

This changed. The perspective is now one of being under siege. Europe and East Asia stand alone in a world that has reverted to religious fundamentalism, to madness, to violence. The atheist feels he lives on a tiny island, in danger of being swept away.


Peculiarly, for the West European Christian, the perspective is the same. He too feels alone, insecure, in a majority environment hostile to him and his convictions.


There is a sadness to it all. Ten years ago, the European Christian was respected more than today. His religion considered a mostly innocent, perhaps backwards but nevertheless respectable opinion. Some atheists even felt a certain sadness that the Christianity of Europe was on the verge of dissapearing, felt it's last remnants needed active protection.

Nowadays, positions have harshened. European atheism militantly guards its position. Unfortunately, it does so - often by necessity - against people who themselves have very little direct ambition to overthrow it.


So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.Sorry, I'm going back a few pages.
Most of the numbers are estimates, with a wide margin of error. So they could show either a small decline or a small increase.
I guess we can both agree that we can establish with some accuracy that the decline in church attendance of previous decades seems to have halted somewhere in the middle of the noughties. Future developments remain to be seen.

[Strike For The South]

:love:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If one man believe he is delusional. If several believe it is a religion.

I also strongly question the idea that religion "must be respected". I have read the bible, I have read the qur'an. Reading it, I mainly pended between laughter at the ludicrousness of the texts and shaking my head at the horrors described.

I know some people do take these texts seriously, but I struggle trying to understand them.

So no, religions at large should not be respected, not by any means. They should be the laughingstock of a enlighted society. Anyone trying to spread faith should be held up against the wall and questioned, be forced to defend his beliefs under the light of science and education.

Now that would be progress.

Truly, all of us should be enlightened by you.


Sorry, I'm going back a few pages.
Most of the numbers are estimates, with a wide margin of error. So they could show either a small decline or a small increase.
I guess we can both agree that we can establish with some accuracy that the decline in church attendance of previous decades seems to have halted somewhere in the middle of the noughties. Future developments remain to be seen.

This is a fair point, but the survey doesn't take account of the evangelical Denominations and independant Churches, who are thriving in England, so much so that any "losses" from the mainstream are no doubt made good there. This is not something about which I have unambiguous feelings.

To come back on your general points (I don't feel I need to quote them here) I mostly agree with you, except for two things.

1. It was never clear that the "tide of history" was with atheism, and certainly not with genuine rationality - because not all atheism is rational. What was clear was that the priests and Bishops had lost a large portion of their credability; they have only just started to gain some of it back.

2. Prior to the First World War Europe was as relgious as anywhere else, atheism was confined to the fashionable intellectual elite and Communists. It was, I submit, the horrendous social shock of two wars that fractured society and caused religion to enter decline. the two generations that experienced that shock, the War and Post-war generations, are now passing on and their children find atheism and pure "Reason" not to their liking.

They want something more, and hence the rise of religion in general, where Christianity has a head start and has been quietly shoring up it's defences while bleeding away.

So - religion in general is due a comeback, and this is no bad thing when one considers the brilliant artists, politicians and Scientists driven by religious faith to better mankind.

After all, people didn't turn out to see the Pope just because they were bored.

[naut]

their children find atheism and pure "Reason" not to their liking.

They want something more, and hence the rise of religion in general, where Christianity has a head start and has been quietly shoring up it's defences while bleeding away.

So - religion in general is due a comeback, and this is no bad thing when one considers the brilliant artists, politicians and Scientists driven by religious faith to better mankind.
????

Um. Not round these parts. Most people here in that age bracket are either atheist, agnostic or part of un-organised religion/spirituality.

[Louis VI the Fat]

people didn't turn out to see the Pope just because they were bored.Well I can't speak for everybody, but as for me I went out to see the pope to get myself the official limited edition popemobile.



https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7770/4907663549076634.jpg




I've build in a radio-controlled engine, and drive it around my little cousins. When they don't run fast enough, the 'pope's gonna get them'. Scares the hell out of 'em. :thumbsup:

[Brenus]

“While the state was not "atheistic" it was anti-religious.” It was anti-democratic, so against all movements that could fight against it. Nothing specifically against religions…

“atheists screamed bloody murder when the Pope made the connection between sidelining beliefs contrary to the State and the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century; this despite atheists being quite happy to call him a Nazi, child molester, hate monger....”
Hate monger, well, to link atheism and totalitarian is what, exactly? Ok. The Pope artificially creates a link between atheism and Totalitarian Regimes and he shouldn't be challenged?
Nazi: The Catholic Church supported the Ante Pavlovic’s Ustase Regime in Croatia and even recently made Cardinal Stepinac, once supporter of this Regime, a Saint.
Which organisation helped the escape of Nazi to South America?
So here we don’t speak of something in the past, but anchored in the very present.
Nobody would call his a Nazi if he hadn’t rehabilitated Holocaust deniers, or as I mentioned above a pure Nazi supporter…
As protector of child molester, you just have to read the press…


I dished out; can you eat and digest it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Atheism is a social movement, if it really was just a case of people 'seeing the light' and embracing 'reason', then it wouldn't be based largely in certain societies, at a certain period in time, and clearly based along class/occupational/generational etc lines.

As with any religion or social movement, a few atheist intellectuals lead the charge and the masses blindly follow...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Pope artificially creates a link between atheism and Totalitarian Regimes and he shouldn't be challenged?

we don’t speak of something in the past, but anchored in the very present.
Nobody would call his a Nazi if he hadn’t rehabilitated Holocaust deniers, or as I mentioned above a pure Nazi supporter…This pope beatified 300 Spanish fascists of the Spanish Civil War.

So apparantly, the depravity of nazism is the result of atheism, but its close cousin, Spanish fascism, is not.


The hypocricy would be breathtaking. Were it not, that the depravity of nazism to this pope is not a depravity as understood by liberal democracy. The depravity of nazism to Ratzinger is the 'a-religiousness' of it. Devout Catholic Spanish fascists are beatified, 'a-religious' German fascists are condemned.

The pope remains an enemy to the free society.

[gaelic cowboy]

Atheism has become more militant in recent years.

My explanation is that until a decade or so ago, atheism felt confident about its growing influence. Historic tide was with atheism. As education spread, one day, the whole world would be enlightened and rise above private obscurantism.

I have an even simpler explanation I bet a lot of people were Daylight Atehists or maybe more properly Lazyiests.

It is the nature of ever generation to reject the previous one maybe this is there idea of rebellion in a world where people can do what they like.


Ole Benny has hit the nail on the head with one thing for me the Evils of Relativism it has to stop I just hope it is atheists that stop it and not religon.

[Beskar]

Hitler, Stalin and Mao deliberately rejected religious belief, especially the latter two. While the state was not "atheistic" it was anti-religious.

Hilter was against atheism and spoke in favour of the catholic church and even Islam. He was a mythologist, believing all sorts of Esoterics and religious beliefs.

Stalin was Russian Orthodox and re-instituted the Orthodox church after Lenin got rid of it.

Neither of them are "atheists".


as to criticism, You, Loius, Beskar, et al. criticise it all the time and get away with it, but atheists screamed bloody murder when the Pope made the connection between sidelining beliefs contrary to the State and the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century; this despite atheists being quite happy to call him a Nazi, child molester, hate monger....

don't dish it out if you can't take it.

:laugh4:, it is the Pope and his kind which are upset about it. If he deems that secularism is a threat and should be attacked, then it just proves and enforces anything I ever said. Religion in past and present want to enslave peoples minds to their indoctrination. Which funnily enough, since the religious lot first declared war on reason in the interests of their organized religions and means of control... :juggle:

[a completely inoffensive name]

2. Prior to the First World War Europe was as relgious as anywhere else, atheism was confined to the fashionable intellectual elite and Communists. It was, I submit, the horrendous social shock of two wars that fractured society and caused religion to enter decline. the two generations that experienced that shock, the War and Post-war generations, are now passing on and their children find atheism and pure "Reason" not to their liking.

They want something more, and hence the rise of religion in general, where Christianity has a head start and has been quietly shoring up it's defences while bleeding away.

So - religion in general is due a comeback, and this is no bad thing when one considers the brilliant artists, politicians and Scientists driven by religious faith to better mankind.

After all, people didn't turn out to see the Pope just because they were bored.

The war and post war generations saw with their own eyes that total destruction can be brought upon them by other men and that in the late 1940s to the early 1950s Western and Central Europe had to basically rebuild their cities and society almost from the ground up. God may be all powerful, but now humanity can bring the apocalypse as well and praying won't be influencing them. When Western Europe rebuilt, there was no "heavenly intervention" coming to help them, they rebuilt with their own hands and made their own future again. So yeah, they saw first hand that God either isn't there or doesn't care.

Now you have generations that were brought up in the rebuilt countries with no idea of how much effort the generations before them put in to built it all back up and the history books were just too boring for most to care about. Now without any knowledge of where the world around them came from their ignorance naturally breeds more ignorance and they feel that there a higher purpose or deity looking down to give them their purpose. Everything is handed to them so they don't realize they need to make their own purpose and instead naturally gravitate towards religion which hands them their purpose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The war and post war generations saw with their own eyes that total destruction can be brought upon them by other men and that in the late 1940s to the early 1950s Western and Central Europe had to basically rebuild their cities and society almost from the ground up. God may be all powerful, but now humanity can bring the apocalypse as well and praying won't be influencing them. When Western Europe rebuilt, there was no "heavenly intervention" coming to help them, they rebuilt with their own hands and made their own future again. So yeah, they saw first hand that God either isn't there or doesn't care.

It was never that bad.


Now you have generations that were brought up in the rebuilt countries with no idea of how much effort the generations before them put in to built it all back up and the history books were just too boring for most to care about. Now without any knowledge of where the world around them came from their ignorance naturally breeds more ignorance and they feel that there a higher purpose or deity looking down to give them their purpose. Everything is handed to them so they don't realize they need to make their own purpose and instead naturally gravitate towards religion which hands them their purpose.

This was hardly the first time this happened, by a long way - Medieval Europe was one long rebuilding from 400 AD to 1400 AD, yet it was all to the Glory of God.

So your analysis is obviously incomplete.

[Shibumi]

It was never that bad.



This was hardly the first time this happened, by a long way - Medieval Europe was one long rebuilding from 400 AD to 1400 AD, yet it was all to the Glory of God.

So your analysis is obviously incomplete.

Interesting how you manage to shrink a thousand years of history into half a sentence, and then claim someones else's analysis is incomplete.

Want to further your point a bit mate?



Truly, all of us should be enlightened by you

Thanks! I am glad You noticed this fast, sometimes I have to spend way more time before people reach this obvious conclussion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting how you manage to shrink a thousand years of history into half a sentence, and then claim someones else's analysis is incomplete.

Want to further your point a bit mate?

No, I want you to read some history.


[/quote]Thanks! I am glad You noticed this fast, sometimes I have to spend way more time before people reach this obvious conclussion.[/QUOTE]

Immune to irony as well, is there no end to your talents?

[HoreTore]

Immune to irony as well, is there no end to your talents?

Humour on the internetz = fail.

but being someone of supreme power, I of course got both jokes...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Swedish atheists are scary...

:hide:

[Beskar]

I have to admit, I can't help thinking of the Warhammer 40k universe with some of the arguments used for or by religion. I think it was earlier some one already mentioned Slaanesh.

It is interesting seeing how religion is constructed there.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It was never that bad. Not in the UK it wasn't. But I would submit that things like Hiroshima, Dresden, Berlin, Killing Fields, Vietnam etc. etc. did a lot to invalidate societal conventions and following a Faith is merely collateral damage.

[drone]

I have to admit, I can't help thinking of the Warhammer 40k universe with some of the arguments used for or by religion. I think it was earlier some one already mentioned Slaanesh.
Different thread. ~D

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.
Educate men without faith and you but make them clever devils.
To Question is to doubt.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
All souls call out for salvation.
Purge the unclean. Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant.

:inquisitive:

[Shibumi]

Different thread. ~D

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.
Educate men without faith and you but make them clever devils.
To Question is to doubt.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
All souls call out for salvation.
Purge the unclean. Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant.

:inquisitive:

Must have missed that part of the bible, seems more like some later preaching, surely anglo-saxon of origin [/jest].

Was it England or Ireland who just got their blasphemy laws back?

[Vladimir]

Must have missed that part of the bible, seems more like some later preaching, surely anglo-saxon of origin [/jest].

Was it England or Ireland who just got their blasphemy laws back?

Ireland. But I think it had something to do with worshiping the porcelain god after the Guinness anniversary celebration.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not in the UK it wasn't. But I would submit that things like Hiroshima, Dresden, Berlin, Killing Fields, Vietnam etc. etc. did a lot to invalidate societal conventions and following a Faith is merely collateral damage.

Coventry was horrific, but Exeter was bombed just to break English pride (the Cathedral was one buttress from going down here).

Even so, the Continent did not exactly burn


Must have missed that part of the bible, seems more like some later preaching, surely anglo-saxon of origin [/jest].

Was it England or Ireland who just got their blasphemy laws back?

Those quotes are from Warhammar 40K, not Christianity.

So you lose theology and geek points.

[Shibumi]

Coventry was horrific, but Exeter was bombed just to break English pride (the Cathedral was one buttress from going down here).

Even so, the Continent did not exactly burn



Those quotes are from Warhammar 40K, not Christianity.

So you lose theology and geek points.

You REALLY are not an avid fan of sarcasm, are you?

GW is a English company, hence my reference to anglo-saxons... And you must have missed the [/jest] part.

So You, dear sir, lose sarcasm and geek points. O maj gawd, yaou laust da internetz!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You REALLY are not an avid fan of sarcasm, are you?

GW is a English company, hence my reference to anglo-saxons... And you must have missed the [/jest] part.

So You, dear sir, lose sarcasm and geek points. O maj gawd, yaou laust da internetz!

Why would I be a fan or Sarcasm? It's lazy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A soul-searcher for all you evil atheists!


You have an 18 year old daughter. Pretty little thing, slightly naive, really just a little girl still. She went out for a drink, and takes the bus home, alone, at 2AM. She's had too much too drink, and keeps somewhat passing out. Other people will have to get her home. Whom would you rather wish shared this bus with her, was she dependent on:

A) four young Christian, Churchgoing men
B) four random blokes
C) a horde of Swedish atheists, led by ringleader Kadagar
D) Louis VI, Vladimir, HoreTore, Beskar, all four suddenly sporting identical Beatles clothes and hair, singing 'Twist and Shout', while obviously under the influence of ungodly amounts of alcohol.

[Shibumi]

A soul-searcher for all you evil atheists!


You have an 18 year old daughter. Pretty little thing, slightly naive, really just a little girl still. She went out for a drink, and takes the bus home, alone, at 2AM. She's had too much too drink, and keeps somewhat passing out. Other people will have to get her home. Whom would you rather wish shared this bus with her, was she dependent on:

A) four young Christian, Churchgoing men
B) four random blokes
C) a horde of Swedish atheists, led by ringleader Kadagar
D) Louis VI, Vladimir, HoreTore, Beskar, all four suddenly sporting identical Beatles clothes and hair, singing 'Twist and Shout', while obviously under the influence of ungodly amounts of alcohol.


Option A probably are sexually frustrated, so no.
Option B leaves much to chance.
Option C I would not go with, as Sweden hands out citizenship to anyone these days.
Option D sounds horrible after HoreTore's knowledge of rape.

Option B it is, leaves a lot to chance but better than the other options.

[Beskar]

A soul-searcher for all you evil atheists!


You have an 18 year old daughter. Pretty little thing, slightly naive, really just a little girl still. She went out for a drink, and takes the bus home, alone, at 2AM. She's had too much too drink, and keeps somewhat passing out. Other people will have to get her home. Whom would you rather wish shared this bus with her, was she dependent on:

A) four young Christian, Churchgoing men
B) four random blokes
C) a horde of Swedish atheists, led by ringleader Kadagar
D) Louis VI, Vladimir, HoreTore, Beskar, all four suddenly sporting identical Beatles clothes and hair, singing 'Twist and Shout', while obviously under the influence of ungodly amounts of alcohol.

D, because I only trust myself and if I was with them, I would know what they were like, and trust them not to do something silly. :beam:

HoreTore would teach them algebra, Louis would admire their feet and shoes and give them foot advice, I would preach against evils of Capitalism, and Vladimir would tell them about his cross dressing days as a penguin.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Option A probably are sexually frustrated, so no.

:driver:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Coventry was horrific, but Exeter was bombed just to break English pride (the Cathedral was one buttress from going down here).

Even so, the Continent did not exactly burn
Point is that events happened, perhaps more on the continent than in the UK itself, which defied all notions of any form of “civilisation”. And it did not stop there but continued to go on in other parts of the world. That sort of thing tends to make you re-evaluate the unspoken conventions of your society and a fair few number of people decided that having a God in your life does not go without saying, they discovered plenty of theology-defying pieces of scientific evidence and in general did enough to instill a notion that God is largely irrelevant anyway (and probably nonexistent too).

[Shibumi]

Tellos Athenaios, that is a very reasonable take on it.

I always wondered about the wars where both sides worshiped the same God. Would that not seem rather... Pointless from the perspective of a believer?

"Us english have the favour of God with us, contrary to you bastard Italians believing in your God! Now let us pray we shoot you to bits. Sure we still have to aim and stuff, God is not that much in our favour we can't aim, he help those who help themselves (making him slightly redundant one might think), but you know, he still is. Favouring us that is."

[Tellos Athenaios]

A soul-searcher for all you evil atheists!


You have an 18 year old daughter. Pretty little thing, slightly naive, really just a little girl still. She went out for a drink, and takes the bus home, alone, at 2AM. She's had too much too drink, and keeps somewhat passing out. Other people will have to get her home. Whom would you rather wish shared this bus with her, was she dependent on:

A) four young Christian, Churchgoing men
B) four random blokes
C) a horde of Swedish atheists, led by ringleader Kadagar
D) Louis VI, Vladimir, HoreTore, Beskar, all four suddenly sporting identical Beatles clothes and hair, singing 'Twist and Shout', while obviously under the influence of ungodly amounts of alcohol.

Well seeing as:

(A) If they start preaching her about the morals of getting drunk and returning home at 2AM I'm sure she won't remember any of that next day. But it might make her come home considerably later as the Christians attempt to lecture her while she is still drunk.
(B) Sounds good.
(C) She probably doesn't speak Swedish, and I don't think her English will improve with being drunk either. So that probably won't help much when she needs to explain where she lives or needs to ask anything.
(D) You are too drunk to notice anything. At that rate my daughter would end up having to stumble onwards alone anyway. Also the noise of you lot would wake up the entire neighbourhood, and I don't think Beatles improve much when drunk.

I may however have to remind her of the option to sleep over at someone else's place rather than attempting to catch a bus at 2AM.

[Strike For The South]

Remember, a mumbled no is just as good as a yes

[Brenus]

“Prior to the First World War Europe was as religious as anywhere else, atheism was confined to the fashionable intellectual elite and Communists.”
Unfortunately for your thesis this is not completely true.
The XVIII - XIX centuries saw a big movement of de-christianisation in the workers class in all Europe. Figures of babies given baptism shows a drastic fall in the XIX. Workers did even less baptism than nowaday.

Nothing to do with Intellectuals or Communists, just a pure reaction against the Churches…

The movement started in the 1760 will take more speed with the Industrial Revolutions due to several factors as the Holly alliances of the Church with the Powers and the Powerful in all countries and, in France, the anti-Republicanism of the Church. The laicisation of all ceremonies combined with the ban of non-authorised Religious Congregations (lonnnng time before the ban of the Burkas) and the laicisation of schools sabotaged the churches brain control on the masses...