Christianity in Britain declining

[FourWheelDrift]

Religion was invented to rule the ignorant.

You see, Ug the 4th, Chief of the Neanderthal Tribe was fed up with his predecessors being killed when trying to assert their authority in demanding the tribe members to fight for them, give them food in taxes and to kiss his feet 3 times a week. So he had a brilliant idea of creating an invisible person, a great god of the air, land and sky, a god who made the sun every day. And if this invisible god told them to fight for him, give him food as tax and to kiss his feet 3 times a week they would do, because the god would stop the sun from appearing again if they didn't. Suitably timed with a solar eclipse the ignorant believed him.

[RichB]

cymtriks 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!)

Making an unfounded statement and then being rude about anyone who points that out does not magically make you right.

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.

My statement is perfectly well founded. I am not going to be so patronising as to do the "let me Google that for you" thing, you can do your own research. There have been far too many wars in the name of religion for me to bother to name them all. Millions of people killed, tortured and murdered. The depths to which humanity will sink in the name of religion is endless. I do not need to demonstrate this - it's undeniable to any normal thinking person. One may debate the degree of suffering caused by religion but to totally deny it, as you appear to be doing, is the flat-world style of thinking so common in religious zealots. I'm out.

[Richyboy]

I wish the headline read religion in Britain declining. It's unfortunate that in 2016 people still believe superstitious rubbish.

[Derek Smith]

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.

I missed this one earlier.

Kamikaze means divine wind. The emperor was a god. It was a religion just as much as christianity.

As for the other point, they might have but we'll never know if, had not religion been used as a rallying call by the organisers, whether they'd have been able to get those who were a bit miffed by another country's foreign policy to kill themselves.

The foreign policy most likely to miff them is the USA's support for Israel.

[George111]

Andehh said:

There is far worse in society/modern Britain then a moderate religion, followed by predominately level headed & kind individuals.

Exactly, those who hate Christianity for whatever reason need to look long and hard at what might be replacing it . . . and it's not atheism, it's other religions, which are less tolerant, less accepting and certainly not all encompassing like Christianity. If ever there was a situation which was a case of "out of the frying pan into the fire" this is it.

[smn159]

There are a fair few children who would have been a lot better off if the Catholic version of Christianity had never existed.

[Derek Smith]

George111 said:

Exactly, those who hate Christianity for whatever reason need to look long and hard at what might be replacing it . . . and it's not atheism, it's other religions, which are less tolerant, less accepting and certainly not all encompassing like Christianity. If ever there was a situation which was a case of "out of the frying pan into the fire" this is it.

Why should anything replace christianity? Atheism can't provide that function as, in effect, it doesn't exist as a system of worship. It is merely the absence of belief in a god.

I can't speak for others of course but I don't necessarily want christianity 'replaced'. It can go on as far as I'm concerned. I just don't want to have to accept its influences in my day to day life: no vicars in parliament by right, no funded schools whose purpose is to further their partial preferences. I want their influence out of governmental decisions. I want my taxes to go towards something more useful.

If it keeps out of my way, like morris dancers, I'm ambivalent to its existence.

The argument that we should allow christianity because something worse is in the wings is an empty argument. It's going would not leave a vacuum any more than the collapse of the temperance movement.

[George111]

Derek Smith said:

George111 said:

Exactly, those who hate Christianity for whatever reason need to look long and hard at what might be replacing it . . . and it's not atheism, it's other religions, which are less tolerant, less accepting and certainly not all encompassing like Christianity. If ever there was a situation which was a case of "out of the frying pan into the fire" this is it.

Why should anything replace christianity? Atheism can't provide that function as, in effect, it doesn't exist as a system of worship. It is merely the absence of belief in a god.

I can't speak for others of course but I don't necessarily want christianity 'replaced'. It can go on as far as I'm concerned. I just don't want to have to accept its influences in my day to day life: no vicars in parliament by right, no funded schools whose purpose is to further their partial preferences. I want their influence out of governmental decisions. I want my taxes to go towards something more useful.

If it keeps out of my way, like morris dancers, I'm ambivalent to its existence.

The argument that we should allow christianity because something worse is in the wings is an empty argument. It's going would not leave a vacuum any more than the collapse of the temperance movement.

Christianity has formed the country we live in today - as mentioned above, it still helps form the House of Lords . . . if you get rid of all that, the safe, stable, secure, humble, Christianity and replace it with, for example, Islam, how do you think that would influence our country ? And you can't say it won't, Muslims will take places in high society as Christians do now . . . think of how that will effect change. MPs don't run the country any more than the PM does, it's influence from all sorts of areas which runs the country and this is how it will change . . . you need to think a bit harder, it's not about a vacuum, there will never be a vacuum - there are several religions desperate to replace Christianity.

But then again you say "If it keeps out of my way, like morris dancers, I'm ambivalent to its existence. " - then you won't know what's happening until it's happened and it's too late.

[BlackLabel]

Halb said:

Big debate on Big Questions today on, 'should there be a British Islam'?

The whole thing turned into a shouting match between different Islamic sects.

[anonymous-user]

An interesting one for those who don't want the Bishops in the House of Lords.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16702806

How far do you go erasing people from the H of L until you are happy that it is to your liking? For the simple reason that those guys believe in something that you don't? What criteria, what beliefs are deemed acceptable for entry into your House of Lords? Do away with it entirely?
Then who is around to be prepared to say things that might not be popular or fashionable?

And to the 'imagine a world with no religion/WTC' meme, people could easily go on and replace the word 'religion' with 'Bush', 'America', 'Capitalism', 'Nationalism', 'oil', 'Imperialism'..............depends where your own personal grudge lies. To be honest if you think you can put only one of those words in the meme then I think you've a lot to learn.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm quite happy to have people in the H of L who believe stuff I don't. There are plenty of people that hold views that are logical and rational that I don't happen to believe in. Some people believe the death penalty should return. That's an entirely rational position to take. I don't happen to believe it should, but I have no objection to their place in the H of L. I don't even mind if people who hold irrational beliefs getting in to the H of L based on some other criteria or achievement. Eg. A successful businessman who believes in mermaids.

What I object to is people getting into the H of L purely because of their irrational beliefs, and being rewarded with a place for rising to the top of an organisation for people with irrational beliefs.

[Halb]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm quite happy to have people in the H of L who believe stuff I don't. There are plenty of people that hold views that are logical and rational that I don't happen to believe in. Some people believe the death penalty should return. That's an entirely rational position to take. I don't happen to believe it should, but I have no objection to their place in the H of L. I don't even mind if people who hold irrational beliefs getting in to the H of L based on some other criteria or achievement. Eg. A successful businessman who believes in mermaids.

What I object to is people getting into the H of L purely because of their irrational beliefs, and being rewarded with a place for rising to the top of an organisation for people with irrational beliefs.

Well put.

[Derek Smith]

George111 said:

Christianity has formed the country we live in today - as mentioned above, it still helps form the House of Lords . . . if you get rid of all that, the safe, stable, secure, humble, Christianity and replace it with, for example, Islam, how do you think that would influence our country ? And you can't say it won't, Muslims will take places in high society as Christians do now . . . think of how that will effect change. MPs don't run the country any more than the PM does, it's influence from all sorts of areas which runs the country and this is how it will change . . . you need to think a bit harder, it's not about a vacuum, there will never be a vacuum - there are several religions desperate to replace Christianity.

Why do you think another religion will replace CoE? Under my regime of allow anyone to believe what the hell they want to, they would still exist. They would just not be part of the state machinery. If they were not allowed to run tax funded schools, then no other religion would be allowed to. I don't want my money to support any religion. I'm not partial, I believe them all to be false.

So to be clear: I'm not suggesting getting rid of the CoE. I'm not suggesting picking on any one religion. I don't want any of them having an influence on my life, benign or otherwise. They certainly should not run schools, the very idea is repulsive.

Any religion which is sexist, homophobic, misogynistic or proposes that its followers are better than anyone else, or that a race is, somehow, the only one which will go to heaven (how racist is that?) should have all tax concessions removed. They should pay all the taxes that any other business (apart from the 6 of the top 10 British businesses) do. 'Cause they are businesses.

If they are all treated exactly the same then I'm not sure where this hole needing filling comes from.

In any case, if islam did take over from the CoE, they would not be the state religion, they would not enjoy concessions, they would not be able to influence kids as part of a national policy (nice one Blair), they would not be allowed special days. None would have any considerations over and above any other club.

George111 said:

But then again you say "If it keeps out of my way, like morris dancers, I'm ambivalent to its existence. " - then you won't know what's happening until it's happened and it's too late.

What, you think Riverdance will take over? I think American tap would be an improvement on morris. But I'm not so much ambivalent about dancing as have no real interest at all.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ash73 said:

Derek Smith said:

Why should anything replace christianity? Atheism can't provide that function as, in effect, it doesn't exist as a system of worship. It is merely the absence of belief in a god.

I think that's the biggest problem with atheism, it literally leaves people with nothing. Dawkins/Krauss wash their hands of it, for them (and me) science is enough, but most people are too thick for that. Years ago local chapels used to be the core of the community where everyone met and things got done; most people probably didn't care about the supernatural stuff. I think we do need to replace it with something, but I don't know what.

It's a good point. I suspect most people who have abandoned religion have replaced it with some other equally ludicrous drivel, from Feng Sui to homoeopathy. Apparently 25% of Brits believe there's something in astrology and check their horoscope on a regular basis.

[cymtriks]

RichB said:

My statement is perfectly well founded. I am not going to be so patronising as to do the "let me Google that for you" thing, you can do your own research. There have been far too many wars in the name of religion for me to bother to name them all. Millions of people killed, tortured and murdered. The depths to which humanity will sink in the name of religion is endless. I do not need to demonstrate this - it's undeniable to any normal thinking person. One may debate the degree of suffering caused by religion but to totally deny it, as you appear to be doing, is the flat-world style of thinking so common in religious zealots. I'm out.

Just because a war was fought in something's name does not make that thing responsible or make it the true cause. Your logic appears to be very confused. Exactly what kind of Google search would you suggest? I asked if you could find just one war, ever, anywhere, that was caused by religion. That isn't one that you wish was caused by religion to bolster your ill thought out premise. It isn't one that had obvious territorial, financial or dynastic objectives either. Just one. Ever. Anywhere. I'm sure you can find plenty of wars in which there were clear territorial, dynastic or financial motives and in which religion was used to spur on the troops but those wars don't help your case. You could equally well make an argument that uniforms cause wars or that flags cause wars using the same criteria.

As for causing more suffering are you serious? Communism, which totally rejected religion, managed to cause more death and misery than anything else in the last hundred years, more than their fascist rivals, and coming to an easily found Wikipedia total of 85-100 million. That is higher than the toll for the Crusades, Thirty Years war, French religious war, Sudanese and Lebanese wars combined by many millions. Just because you would like something to be true, especially something so easy to check, does not make it true.

You finish with exactly the same mistake that you made the first time, a rather sad belief that being rude makes you right.

[cymtriks]

smn159 said:

There are a fair few children who would have been a lot better off if the Catholic version of Christianity had never existed.

Of course if atheists had run the orphanages nothing bad would ever have happened... Oh... and by the way you might need to watch The Dying Rooms as a reality check.

[anonymous-user]

cymtriks said:

smn159 said:

There are a fair few children who would have been a lot better off if the Catholic version of Christianity had never existed.

Of course if atheists had run the orphanages nothing bad would ever have happened... Oh... and by the way you might need to watch The Dying Rooms as a reality check.

The Dying Rooms? Oh cripes, that's bloody awful. The Wikipedia introduction is as far as I will venture into that nightmare tonight.

[Dr Jekyll]

ash73 said:

I think that's the biggest problem with atheism, it literally leaves people with nothing. Dawkins/Krauss wash their hands of it, for them (and me) science is enough, but most people are too thick for that.

Essentially the same argument used by Ug the Neanderthal. You know it's all bks, but the rest of us should be made to believe it so we behave in the way you want.

[98elise]

ash73 said:

Derek Smith said:

Why should anything replace christianity? Atheism can't provide that function as, in effect, it doesn't exist as a system of worship. It is merely the absence of belief in a god.

I think that's the biggest problem with atheism, it literally leaves people with nothing. Dawkins/Krauss wash their hands of it, for them (and me) science is enough, but most people are too thick for that. Years ago local chapels used to be the core of the community where everyone met and things got done; most people probably didn't care about the supernatural stuff. I think we do need to replace it with something, but I don't know what.

Rubbish

I'm atheist and I don't have a big void in my life where religion should be, no more than you have a void in your life because you don't believe (I assume) in Dragons or Mermaids.

It simply doesn't figure in my life except when its being forced on my kids in school (and when it was forced on me in the Royal Navy).

[George111]

Derek Smith said:

George111 said:

Christianity has formed the country we live in today - as mentioned above, it still helps form the House of Lords . . . if you get rid of all that, the safe, stable, secure, humble, Christianity and replace it with, for example, Islam, how do you think that would influence our country ? And you can't say it won't, Muslims will take places in high society as Christians do now . . . think of how that will effect change. MPs don't run the country any more than the PM does, it's influence from all sorts of areas which runs the country and this is how it will change . . . you need to think a bit harder, it's not about a vacuum, there will never be a vacuum - there are several religions desperate to replace Christianity.

Why do you think another religion will replace CoE? Under my regime of allow anyone to believe what the hell they want to, they would still exist. They would just not be part of the state machinery. If they were not allowed to run tax funded schools, then no other religion would be allowed to. I don't want my money to support any religion. I'm not partial, I believe them all to be false.

So to be clear: I'm not suggesting getting rid of the CoE. I'm not suggesting picking on any one religion. I don't want any of them having an influence on my life, benign or otherwise. They certainly should not run schools, the very idea is repulsive.

Any religion which is sexist, homophobic, misogynistic or proposes that its followers are better than anyone else, or that a race is, somehow, the only one which will go to heaven (how racist is that?) should have all tax concessions removed. They should pay all the taxes that any other business (apart from the 6 of the top 10 British businesses) do. 'Cause they are businesses.

If they are all treated exactly the same then I'm not sure where this hole needing filling comes from.

In any case, if islam did take over from the CoE, they would not be the state religion, they would not enjoy concessions, they would not be able to influence kids as part of a national policy (nice one Blair), they would not be allowed special days. None would have any considerations over and above any other club.

George111 said:

But then again you say "If it keeps out of my way, like morris dancers, I'm ambivalent to its existence. " - then you won't know what's happening until it's happened and it's too late.

What, you think Riverdance will take over? I think American tap would be an improvement on morris. But I'm not so much ambivalent about dancing as have no real interest at all.

The thread was started with the assertion that Islam is overtaking Christianity . . . the OP posted a link to https://www.rt.com/uk/324970-christianity-religion...

Hence my comments.