Christianity in Britain declining

[IainT]

cymtriks said:

clear territorial, financial or dynastic aim?

Having those does not remove religion from the conflict - take ISIS - it is all three of those 'justified' through a certain religious interpretation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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...

Is that supposed to be a justification / excuse for the systematic abuse and rape of children and the covering up of such crimes that has been endemic within the Catholic church? Really?

[IainT]

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. 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 not possible for Atheism to leave people with anything other than the option to use their free will to decide how to behave.

It's why I draw strong gaps between my Atheist views me desire to see the UK become a secular society and the Humanist belief I hold.

Science does many things but it doesn't tell me what's right or wrong. I'm fine with that - I recognise that my morals are formed from a complex melting pot of influences: society, relationships, own thoughts and base drives all of which are often in conflict with one another.

In many respects 'good' and 'bad' become almost abstract and are far more a reflection of yourself through others than absolutes.

[Moonhawk]

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....

Many religions (Christianity in particular) claim to be some sort of moral authority.

The fact that you have to resort to retorts along the lines of "it would be just as bad if atheists were in charge" just shows what a fallacy the Christian moral high ground is.

[Digga]

98elise said:

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).

I think this line of attack is similar to those where people are married and cannot see how any single person is happy, or similarly have children and assume that childless couples have some great, dark chasm in their lives and hearts for the lack of them.

In general, people have a critical inability to empathise with any existence or experience outside of their own. It is the root of all ignorance and much of the trouble in this world. Religion itself seldom helps in this regard.

[Derek Smith]

Digga said:

think this line of attack is similar to those where people are married and cannot see how any single person is happy, or similarly have children and assume that childless couples have some great, dark chasm in their lives and hearts for the lack of them.

In general, people have a critical inability to empathise with any existence or experience outside of their own. It is the root of all ignorance and much of the trouble in this world. Religion itself seldom helps in this regard.

I think you meant to type that married people see no reason to allow a single person to be happy.

On other posters' points with regards to morals and such, the point is that most christians, as far as I can see, pick and choose their beliefs. It's a sushi bar experience: things go past that you like the look of and other thing are repulsive so you ignore them.

There are about 600 commandments in the KJ bible. I like lobster. I wonder how many christians eat lobster.

It is fashionable to quote the bit about keeping slaves but modern, non-religious morals say we should not and some churches have followed. Killing homosexuals is seen as a bad thing by many christians, although they profess to hate the act.

There is no religious void in my life.

There was a point made about astrology. Many christians believe that the stars have an influence. Homeopathy? I know of no research to suggest that atheists naturally gravitate towards other myths. My natural assumption is that if you tend to believe in miracles, then drinking plain water as the cure of all ills is but a step away.

I don't want to die and be switched off, but I accept it will happen. Despite not being around to enjoy it, I have planned for my death. It is the religious, with their belief in the rapture that have no plans for the morrow.

[Digga]

Derek Smith said:

I have planned for my death.

I'm sort of looking forward to mine; I'm assuming the end will bring eternal peace. Of course, there are a good many who would say I will (deservedly) spend eternity having my arse jabbed with a trident or whatever, so of course that might not work out as I envisage it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Derek Smith said:

There was a point made about astrology. Many christians believe that the stars have an influence. Homeopathy? I know of no research to suggest that atheists naturally gravitate towards other myths. My natural assumption is that if you tend to believe in miracles, then drinking plain water as the cure of all ills is but a step away.

My point was that many people who reject religion go on to embrace other stuff that's just as illogical. They say things like "I don't believe in god as such, but believe there's a greater force out there" Or they believe their dead parents are watching over them, or angels, or whatever.

[Derek Smith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

My point was that many people who reject religion go on to embrace other stuff that's just as illogical. They say things like "I don't believe in god as such, but believe there's a greater force out there" Or they believe their dead parents are watching over them, or angels, or whatever.

So?

Do they claim tax relief? Do they start schools in order to influence others? Do they belong to an organisation, which is sexist, makes inflamatory statements against those of a different lifestyle, tells those infected with aids not to use condoms, makes promises it cannot prove, states only those with similar beliefs are worth anything, buggers little boys and covers up horrendous offences? Oh, and taxes: don't forget taxes. And schools; did I mention schools where indoctrination takes place?

If not then they can believe what they want. They can associate with people of similar beliefs. As I said, morris dancers leave me cold, but I have no problem with them associating, dancing or hitting one another with sticks (especially that last bit). I wish them all the best and hope their pastime makes them feel good. But I'd throw a strop if 26 morris dancer ragmen and bagmen were allowed to be part of the government of this country solely because of their role within the dance.

I once went to see the Rampant Cockerels morris group because a colleague of mine was in it. Seeing him dancing did not alter my opinion, my high opinion, of his professional abilities. It was probably more beneficial to him than my hobby, writing, is to me.

I do not believe in gods, ghosts, hobgoblins and life after death, but I spoke to my father after he died. It was not illogical as I found it therapeutic. I stopped after a while. But I never believed he could hear me. If the religious pray to feel better and to cope with life's problems, then I have no problem with that. Indeed, it would be wrong, according to my morals, for me, or anyone else, to interfere with their hobbies if they do not effect me personally.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 1st February 16:24

[hidetheelephants]

Not that Catholicism needed provide more reasons to deride it, it just cannot help itself; instead of doing something useful for the benighted females of south america and perhaps giving temporary dispensation for some kind of birth control, their spectacularly helpful response to a massive public health issue is 'don't have sex for 2 years'. More evidence, not that it's needed, that catholicism is a diseased misogynist cult.

[Digga]

hidetheelephants said:

More evidence, not that it's needed, that catholicism is a diseased misogynist cult.

Power is nothing without control. In the start, that's what religion was used for, then came other stuff they could shackle people with, like money and taxes, but primarily, the whole god thing was a huge, massive exercise in control and extortion; how many other buildings do you see on our rural landscapes that are as old and large as the churches? Virtually none, because while people lived in homes cobbled together with straw and dung, the church could afford stonemasons and massive building projects, from money taken from the same people.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Derek Smith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

My point was that many people who reject religion go on to embrace other stuff that's just as illogical. They say things like "I don't believe in god as such, but believe there's a greater force out there" Or they believe their dead parents are watching over them, or angels, or whatever.

So?

Do they claim tax relief? Do they start schools in order to influence others? Do they belong to an organisation, which is sexist, makes inflamatory statements against those of a different lifestyle, tells those infected with aids not to use condoms, makes promises it cannot prove, states only those with similar beliefs are worth anything, buggers little boys and covers up horrendous offences? Oh, and taxes: don't forget taxes. And schools; did I mention schools where indoctrination takes place?

If not then they can believe what they want. They can associate with people of similar beliefs. As I said, morris dancers leave me cold, but I have no problem with them associating, dancing or hitting one another with sticks (especially that last bit). I wish them all the best and hope their pastime makes them feel good. But I'd throw a strop if 26 morris dancer ragmen and bagmen were allowed to be part of the government of this country solely because of their role within the dance.

I once went to see the Rampant Cockerels morris group because a colleague of mine was in it. Seeing him dancing did not alter my opinion, my high opinion, of his professional abilities. It was probably more beneficial to him than my hobby, writing, is to me.

I do not believe in gods, ghosts, hobgoblins and life after death, but I spoke to my father after he died. It was not illogical as I found it therapeutic. I stopped after a while. But I never believed he could hear me. If the religious pray to feel better and to cope with life's problems, then I have no problem with that. Indeed, it would be wrong, according to my morals, for me, or anyone else, to interfere with their hobbies if they do not effect me personally.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 1st February 16:24

I agree with all of that. I was just pointing out that giving up on religion means, for many people, putting their faith in some other drivel.

[Esseesse]

Derek Smith said:

So?

Do they claim tax relief? Do they start schools in order to influence others? Do they belong to an organisation, which is sexist, makes inflamatory statements against those of a different lifestyle, tells those infected with aids not to use condoms, makes promises it cannot prove, states only those with similar beliefs are worth anything, buggers little boys and covers up horrendous offences? Oh, and taxes: don't forget taxes. And schools; did I mention schools where indoctrination takes place?

Now we have schools where the state has the say on morality, where children are taught how to reproduce rather than their times tables. And do dogmatic politically correct atheists believe any other beliefs are worth anything? And are UK schools and Universities now not where a left wing indoctrination takes place?

Edited by Esseesse on Monday 1st February 17:28

[cymtriks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Is that supposed to be a justification / excuse for the systematic abuse and rape of children and the covering up of such crimes that has been endemic within the Catholic church? Really?

The original, not very well thought out, statement was that if religion did not exist then certain abuse would not have occurred.

I countered by pointing out that far worse abuse can be found where there is no (officially) religion. Consequently it is obvious that religion does not cause abuse and also obvious that removing it wouldn't make abuse any less likely.

It really is remarkable how the "scientists" on these threads repeatedly resort to bad logic, dubious history and a refusal to accept rational argument. Funnily enough, despite the "scientists" claims to the contrary, the "religionists" don't seem to be the ones that do those things, they usually just state "it works for me" and then get more of the same plus added rudeness about their beliefs in response. Have the "scientists" ever considered actually walking the walk?

[Terminator X]

Invented to control the masses 1000's of years ago and still around in 2016, you couldn't make it up.

TX.

[davepoth]

IainT said:

It's not possible for Atheism to leave people with anything other than the option to use their free will to decide how to behave.

Yes, it is.

I know an atheist; well, I know many, and am one. This particular atheist is vehement and vitriolic however. they've read everything that Richard Dawkins has written and agrees wholeheartedly. They harangue Christians and mock them for being backwards because that's what Richard Dawkins said to do.

Not everyone wants to look for the answers themselves.

[anonymous-user]

cymtriks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Is that supposed to be a justification / excuse for the systematic abuse and rape of children and the covering up of such crimes that has been endemic within the Catholic church? Really?

The original, not very well thought out, statement was that if religion did not exist then certain abuse would not have occurred.

I countered by pointing out that far worse abuse can be found where there is no (officially) religion. Consequently it is obvious that religion does not cause abuse and also obvious that removing it wouldn't make abuse any less likely.

It really is remarkable how the "scientists" on these threads repeatedly resort to bad logic, dubious history and a refusal to accept rational argument. Funnily enough, despite the "scientists" claims to the contrary, the "religionists" don't seem to be the ones that do those things, they usually just state "it works for me" and then get more of the same plus added rudeness about their beliefs in response. Have the "scientists" ever considered actually walking the walk?

Note how both responders to your Dying Rooms comment cut the reference to it from your comment when quoting you. It's like they want to blame all religion and all religious people for 9.11 but seem to want to ignore the crimes of a society without religion. The inconvenient truth that we are no better without religion is too much for them to handle perhaps? Once again, a corrupt mind is a corrupt mind whether religion is involved or not.

[Mr_B]

Just as things were looking good and religion in the UK was about dead when I was growing up in the 1980s, I turned on the TV one days and saw a bunch of religious people screaming death about a bloke who wrote a novel. It's like one stty neighbour moved out, but before you could celebrate, an even worse one moved in.

[ATG]

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!)

Anyone who argues that religion is a significant cause of war and suffering needs to give some examples, because I can't think of a single major war caused by religion. You might want to reflect on the scale of the Rwandan genocide, for example. Was that caused by religion? No. In the last couple of centuries can you point to a single major conflict that was caused by religion? Napoleonic wars? No. American civil war? No. Franco Prussian? No. Crimea? No. World War 1 and 2? No. Vietnam. Gulf War 1, 2 and 3? No.

[ATG]

RichB said:

y 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.

Seriously, the onus of proof is on you. You're the one making claims. I'm an atheist and I think your grasp of history is sadly lacking. One doesn't have to be a religious zealot to think you are wrong.