I would like to see final Brexit bill incorporated into the leave voter's tax codes. Suggestions are it could take 35 years to get the money back Not keen the Tories are doing this at all as they will have their own interests at heart Still the amount of work I am seeing/doing re changing head offices to Europe is steadily climbing ... in short they want the Euro not the £
Excellent news today, as the highest number ever of British people declare themselves to be of 'no religion' - 53%. 21% have no belief, and 13% appear to be agnostic. I suppose the rest of those with no religion have personal beliefs but avoid organised religion, or more likely don't spend any time thinking about it. The number with no religion rises to 71% of 18-24 year olds. Hysterically, half of those who identify with an organised religion aren't sure if they believe in God. The future is bright, the future is rational. No matter how many ****ing faith schools the taxpayer funds.
I don't agree it's "hysterical" that someone who identifies with an organised religion isn't sure if they believe in God. For example, I would identify myself as Church of England, Christian and believe broadly in those values, but haven't a clue whether there's a God. "God" isn't needed in order to live by certain established, traditional principles underpinned by a religion
Dear GoogleStan, does the article have a breakdown of religions? Would be interesting to see how many Christians there are, against Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Druids and Jedi (yes, it is now a recognised religion), and also how many of these "alternative" religious followers be)ieve in a supreme deity? As a total non believer in religion I find it astonishing that in the 21st century people are still clinging on to medieval beliefs.
'Jedi' isn't a recognised religion, if people put that on the census form they got put into the 'no religion' pot. I find the whole argument to be a bit stupid, to be fair. There's absolutely no way, given the sum of our knowledge, to determine with any certainty either way whether God exists or doesn't exist. It then becomes a matter of faith as to whether you believe He does or indeed that he doesn't. So at best everyone on the entire planet is a left- or right- leaning agnostic. I do find your statement "As a total non believer in religion" strange though. You surely can't be saying you don't believe religion exists, right after listing four of the planet's main religions and a couple of groups that shop for their robes in the same store...
Anglican 15%, Catholic 9%, other Christian 17%, other religions (Muslim, Hindu etc) 7%. OK, I find it hysterical. and I am curious as to why you need a religion to live by principles.
I'll take the Christian religion, Stan, because that's the only religion that I'm close to knowledgeable about. I personally have little to do with church, but I do recognise that the principles laid down by Christ - love thy neighbour, safeguard children, forgiveness, don't worship money above all else etc... are founding principles of our Western Society. That these principles have not always been followed is no slight on the teachings themselves. If a person follows Christ's teachings all his or her life, and it turns out there is no God, has that person wasted his or her time? I'd say not.
Apparently 25% of the British population dont believe man walked on the moon What are your thoughts on it googlestan Are 25 or 75% stupid in their beliefs Only 6% of Americans think that way
While ultimate proof is, for the time being and probably permanently, denied us, you don't need any faith not to have faith/belief in God. Faith is the simple belief in something without any evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be Faith. And as Hitchens' razor states 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. The burden of proof lies with whoever is doing the asserting. But it's a fruitless and sterile argument. I think the encouraging thing in the survey is the decline of organised religion, which is not the same thing as personal faith, which I assume is based on a very individual revelation.
I don't think you need a religion, or the example of Christ, to have those values Goldie. They are all part of common human decency, we know the difference between right and wrong without religion to tell us.
What we in the West define as "common human decency" is founded on Christ's teachings, just as what a Muslim state's definition is, is underpinned by Mohammed's teachings. Of course, you're right that there is a negative to religion, in that it is tribal. We are becoming a more secular society, and eventually perhaps, the best of religious teachings will simply be subsumed into our inbuilt moral compass. But I think we have to accept that, that moral compass has been fashioned through generations by religious teaching. I'll give you an example of religious teaching influences in the Christian religion. A devout Roman Catholic will believe contraception is a sin and socially immoral. Anglicans believe it is essential to restrict population increases, an invaluable tool in poor countries such as Africa. We have to decide which of these routes should be incorporated into our "common human decency"
I see your Hitchens' Razor and raise you "Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence". There's a lot of assumptions necessary for anyone who takes a position on the existence (or not) of God. Most make rather illogical leaps when backing their position. For example, many people say that they have not seen evidence that God exists, and therefore he doesn't. That's not logical, all you have there is a lack of evidence, not evidence of non-existence. Many will point to scientific records, and say that - for example - fossils prove that Creationism is wrong, ergo God isn't real. The only things that proves is that a) there are things we've called fossils, and b) I know the word Ergo. Interested in the last thing you said though. It's clear that you think a decline in 'organised' religion is a good thing. What's your stance on personal faith (particularly how people work that faith through their daily lives and interactions with others)? Do you see that as something that should decline, or something that should flourish?
Err, common human decency is to allow individuals to make their mind up about birth control. I think you over state the Anglican position https://www.churchofengland.org/our...-health-social-care-policy/contraception.aspx Which seems to state that, as usual, the Church of England follows public opinion, a bit late. Nothing about population control. My point is that you don't need a religious tradition to have ethics. Agree or disagree?
I should make clear to everyone at this point that I love these debates and will stretch it out forever if possible. For those that may find my points upsetting or infuriating please put me on ignore (I'm guessing many already have). Let's take god out of the equation and say that I believe that there is a giant pink elephant with fairy wings living on the other side of the universe. You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does? Surely faith is all about the absence of evidence Willy? If you have evidence for something you don't need faith. If I were to suddenly say, on the basis of the evidence, I now believe in a Christian God, no personal revelation needed, I'm not sure I should be taken seriously, as I wouldn't have faith. At present there can be no definitive yes/no about the prime mover of existence - it may be that science can someday show what caused the Big Bang, but that just pushes the argument back a step (what caused the thing which caused the Big Bang etc etc ad infinitum). It may be that these things can never be explained in terms which our limited intellects can grasp. But not being able to understand something does not equate to 'God must have done it then'. And even if you think that the prime mover is God, like the deists believe, it does not follow that God has any particular interest in humanity, let alone individual humans. I agree that the creationist argument you highlight is weak (and doubtless why you chose it!) and no self respecting, or vaguely competent, debater would use it. All the creationist stuff shows is that there are some people who have been indoctrinated into still believing something which is patently stupid. Personal faith is a personal matter. Pretty obviously I don't have any, but I would never attempt to deny someone who has had a personal revelation, which I cannot experience (however sceptical I may be about it) the journey that it takes them on. I do wonder why people born in say, a country with a Christian tradition, tend to have revelations which lead them to a Christian God though. What I object to is people inflicting their personal faith on others, selling their revelations second hand to others, setting up rules (eat fish on Friday!) and organisations, and indoctrinating others, especially children - in other words religion. I don't think personal belief will necessarily decline, because as long as there is the human urge to search for meaning, and the human fear of death, it offers a solution. And that's fine with me, just don't ask me or my kids (or your kids) to agree, and don't set up schools and churches to spread the word. Keep it personal. Organised religion on the other hand should decline, its primary purpose in the olden days was to build stories to enable collective actions amongst large groups of people. We have other vehicles for this now - countries, companies etc. See Yuval Harari's 'Sapiens' for the full argument.
The Anglican view on contraception is that the individual should have freedom of choice re birth control. This can have a hugely beneficial effect in areas of the world with poor economies and high populations. You say this right of freedom of choice satisfies your test of common human decency. But the Catholic Church rules that individuals should have no such choice. Does that make it immoral in your eyes? What is "Common human decency" involves a moral test. Historically, rulings on this have been the province of the church/religion. Increasingly less so in this country. So my answer to your question is that ultimately, we will not need religious tradition to make the right ethical decisions. But Society is not there yet. However, on an individual basis, an atheist can certainly be ethical, but must recognise that his or her ethics are founded on centuries of religion doctrine. He or she has not formed them in a vacuum.
Nearly there. I would argue that the religions merely codified some basic human morality - do not kill, do not steal, do not lie - which pre existed them, because, however imperfectly adhered to, they are essential for societies to exist. Even if organised religion had never existed, we would still have the same basic ethics. Unprovable of course, and probably not worth pursuing further. The Catholic Church as an institution doesn't have human qualities like morality, anymore than a company or a country does. It's a collective fiction, only there because people believe in it. But I would argue that the teachings and actions of Catholics have often been immoral, and frequently evil. And I'm not just talking about child abuse. The preaching against condom use in areas with high rates of AIDS infection is evil. Considering gay people as intrinsically morally evil. Above all, negating individual responsibility and accountability by pretending that you can be forgiven your sins. There are certainly some things that growing up in a vaguely Christian tradition have given me though. A certain respect in places of worship and a penchant for religious based profanity amongst them.
Yes, we're agreed on the Catholic Church. It has not reached the 21st Century, not nearly. On the codification issue so far as Christianity is concerned, I think you understate the watershed created by Christ's life and teaching. The Old Testament laid out the 10 Commandments but nonetheless there was a human kindness and selflessness missing, that Christ introduced. The message spread like wildfire because people wanted it, but once Christianity coalesced into a religion and thus a powerful tribe (later powerful tribes) the whole thing was open to abuse.
