Christianity in Britain declining
Discussion
Halb said:
We've all been told something like: If it wasn't for that early goal we conceded I reckon we'd have done alright. As for that fifth goal the ref awarded. Well, it's a wonder he found his way to the centre circle being that blind. We can go forward from this.The chap's in receipt of some depressing data and he's just trying to spin something positive from it.
The thing with the printing press was it broke the church's hold on the population. Once cheap(ish) copies of alternate theories were available, including English translations of the bible, the church lost its control. It could never regain its power and has been in decline since.
Andehh said:
Heck, remove all religion from the middle east and you think it wouldn't still be an utter mess!?
What about the combination of poor countries sitting atop lakes of oil? (which we want robust access to)
Or the huge disparity between have and have nots?
Or the corruption?
Or the environmental hardships?
Or the dictators /ruling families?
Or the...?
Remove religion, and there is no shortage of other "excuses" people will use as to why they need to hate on their neighbour /blame the rich countries for!
That's no reason not to criticise religions and try to limit their influence, any more than we should try and reduce corruption.What about the combination of poor countries sitting atop lakes of oil? (which we want robust access to)
Or the huge disparity between have and have nots?
Or the corruption?
Or the environmental hardships?
Or the dictators /ruling families?
Or the...?
Remove religion, and there is no shortage of other "excuses" people will use as to why they need to hate on their neighbour /blame the rich countries for!
Edited by Andehh on Monday 7th December 21:17
cymtriks said:
Total rubbish that shows a complete ignorance of an objective assessment.
Given the form of attack on the Twin Towers you could equally well say "Imagine a world without aircraft".
I'm not sure that's correct. The airplanes were the method, religion was the motive. Further, it's not all that long since we had a world without aircraft.Given the form of attack on the Twin Towers you could equally well say "Imagine a world without aircraft".
If there were no aircraft, there could still be attacks on the twin towers. Without religion, that specific type of attack, i.e. murder/suicide for great rewards, would not have happened even by fire or bombing.
Without intent, there is no attack for a demonstration of whatever.
Derek Smith said:
If there were no aircraft, there could still be attacks on the twin towers. Without religion, that specific type of attack, i.e. murder/suicide for great rewards, would not have happened even by fire or bombing.
Not really following your logic, they could have attacked the Twin Towers for any number of reasons, including revenge, not being happy about US foreign policy etc. And just sacrificed themselves for the cause - much like Kamikaze pilots. No need for religion.cymtriks said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given the form of attack on the Twin Towers you could equally well say "Imagine a world without aircraft".
Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
Halb said:
Interesting. As derided as GCSE's were by those who took previous versions of the tests, I wonder if this is what happens when you teach people to think, rather than to learn and regurgitate facts?I realise that could read like a product of the GCSE system now sneering at the previous regime, which isn't what I intended, and GCSE subjects do still require rote learning. However, they do also encourage thought and deduction, and I'm not sure how much the old system did.
The only basis I have for this view is the contrast of UK based employees with those based in India, where (in my view) the older style of rote learning is still in use. It leads to smart people who can excel when solving a problem they've learnt about, but who in general seem to have some trouble thinking around a problem if the answer isn't already in their mental toolbox.
Bit of a ramble - in summary, teach people to think and question, rather than accept and regurgitate, and does religion inevitably decline?
RichB said:
Typical aggressive response from someone with an opposing viewpoint. I will say it again, there is more war, evil and suffering caused by religion in this world than anything else. There is no man in the sky with a white beard handing down pearls of wisdom and if all mankind accepted that it would be a better place.
Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
Humans will find a way. Religion just oils the prejudices already there.Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
TheGuru said:
Derek Smith said:
If there were no aircraft, there could still be attacks on the twin towers. Without religion, that specific type of attack, i.e. murder/suicide for great rewards, would not have happened even by fire or bombing.
Not really following your logic, they could have attacked the Twin Towers for any number of reasons, including revenge, not being happy about US foreign policy etc. And just sacrificed themselves for the cause - much like Kamikaze pilots. No need for religion.The correlation with religion is weak and is more than often used by people who have not bothered to do any research or maybe regurgitating some particular anti-religious group propaganda on Youtube with a clear agenda. It's dishonest or lazy at best, and yes I am an atheist myself!
allnighter said:
xactly, for once I disagree with Derek Smith. Religion is just an identifier for a clear political motive. People kill themselves for a 'cause' with or without religion. Tamil tigers (LTTE) have used planes albeit light aircrafts to the same effect and women suicide bombers, and there was no religion as a motive in their attacks. They had a different 'identifier'.
The correlation with religion is weak and is more than often used by people who have not bothered to do any research or maybe regurgitating some particular anti-religious group propaganda on Youtube with a clear agenda. It's dishonest or lazy at best, and yes I am an atheist myself!
I accept what is the obvious: organised religions are political. There is a major difference though. Very few liberal party supporters would kill themselves to further their aims of whatever their aims are. There is little logic as there is no promise of a future of bliss. The correlation with religion is weak and is more than often used by people who have not bothered to do any research or maybe regurgitating some particular anti-religious group propaganda on Youtube with a clear agenda. It's dishonest or lazy at best, and yes I am an atheist myself!
Some people have killed themselves, or at the very least committed acts where the likelihood of death was very high, for political reasons. We saw it during WWII over the persecution of jews where some atheists acted heroically for what could be called a political stance although anti one particular political ideology is more accurate. It is unusual though for suicide to be a stance of a political basis.
But the picture showed the twin towers, the implication being that without religious nuttery they'd still be standing, and the argument is a good one. The motivation of the attack, whilst political in essence, was overtly religious. Is there any doubt as to what the pilots were screaming out when they hit the buildings? So I'm with the image: without religion the towers would be standing.
That most recent wars are fundamentally political is a secure stance to take. I'd agree with that. However, without religious nuttery, there would be fewer pointless deaths.
World war 3 has come close in my lifetime. One wonders what might have happened had both parties been established on religious grounds.
The main point though is that if organised religions were somehow eradicated and the predilection of us to believe such nonsense going with it, there would be a lowering of the threat level against me, mine, you and everyone else. That would be, I reckon, and undeniable good thing.
jmorgan said:
RichB said:
Typical aggressive response from someone with an opposing viewpoint. I will say it again, there is more war, evil and suffering caused by religion in this world than anything else. There is no man in the sky with a white beard handing down pearls of wisdom and if all mankind accepted that it would be a better place.
Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
Humans will find a way. Religion just oils the prejudices already there.Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CrutyRammers said:
Indeed. Either leave it as it is, or (preferably) remove all religious say. Certainly do not start including foreign ones instead.
Yeah, these bloody foreign religions imported from the Middle East, taking the place of 
Derek Smith said:
The thing with the printing press was it broke the church's hold on the population. Once cheap(ish) copies of alternate theories were available, including English translations of the bible, the church lost its control. It could never regain its power and has been in decline since.
The comedy attitude Islam has to the koran in languages other than arabic is presumably related to this; given there are so many different versions(just like the bible and doubtless other common works of fiction) this is utterly bizarre.TheGuru said:
ot really following your logic, they could have attacked the Twin Towers for any number of reasons, including revenge, not being happy about US foreign policy etc. And just sacrificed themselves for the cause - much like Kamikaze pilots. No need for religion.
Kamikaze definitely were religious in nature; they were blessed by priests before they departed and the great Japanese imperialist project was endorsed by religious leaders.DanL said:
Bit of a ramble - in summary, teach people to think and question, rather than accept and regurgitate, and does religion inevitably decline?
Evidence suggests so, although I doubt it will die out as a proportion of people who have been been through such education have strong faith or seek solace via various new age quackerys and charlatanism.hidetheelephants said:
Derek Smith said:
The thing with the printing press was it broke the church's hold on the population. Once cheap(ish) copies of alternate theories were available, including English translations of the bible, the church lost its control. It could never regain its power and has been in decline since.
The comedy attitude Islam has to the koran in languages other than arabic is presumably related to this; given there are so many different versions(just like the bible and doubtless other common works of fiction) this is utterly bizarre.RichB said:
Typical aggressive response from someone with an opposing viewpoint. I will say it again, there is more war, evil and suffering caused by religion in this world than anything else. There is no man in the sky with a white beard handing down pearls of wisdom and if all mankind accepted that it would be a better place.
Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
Making an unfounded statement and then being rude about anyone who points that out does not magically make you right.Anyone who argues otherwise is a small minded, fool (sorry I made that last bit up!)
Can you find a single war, ever, anywhere in the World, that didn't have a clear territorial, financial or dynastic aim?
Thought not.
So where does that leave all the wars supposedly caused by religion?
Just because those in charge use religion as a tool to garner support, rally the troops or bolster morale does not make the war religious. You might do better to say that wars are caused by uniforms or by flags than by faith, you would certainly find more evidence for the assertion.
DanL said:
Bit of a ramble - in summary, teach people to think and question, rather than accept and regurgitate, and does religion inevitably decline?
It might do, but I don't see much evidence of such thought processes. The majority of people, even highly educated people, are extremely reluctant to face that something they have previously accepted as fact is wrong. I've seen more resistance to challenges to established belief outside religion than in debates about religion. Just look at the way that the theories of Continental drift and mass extinctions were received. "I was taught it" or "I read it in a book" or "I've always believed that" are very common objections to new ideas in any debate inside, or outside, of religion.I think it is simply fashionable to dismiss religion and many of the points put forwards in debates show a marked lack of ability to think by both sides.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff