Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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).

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

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".

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Right and wrong is a binary distinction.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

That's all its every truly been there for.

~:smoking:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

I agree with your statement.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/commentisf...xvi-secularism

Someone at the Guardian agrees with me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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/img62/78...8450005746.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/78...8450005746.jpg

---

Any yet Atheists complain about "libel".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

agreed.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

agreed.

on the subject of catholics and nazi's:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

“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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Your double standard is extraordinary.

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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…

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

:love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Truly, all of us should be enlightened by you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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/...3549076634.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:

“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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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".

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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...

Swedish atheists are scary...

:hide:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Option A probably are sexually frustrated, so no.

---

:driver:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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).

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

“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...