Saint George is not a fictitious person, he really existed. I'll grant you he probably didn't kill a dragon... Maybe a lizard in Turkey.
If I were in charge I'd have all the nonsense phased out like the French. Can you believe in today's world creationist science is still taught, they should be reported to the NSPCC? Society should do the world a big favour and eradicate religion. Promoting the ethic of a good samaritan is fine, saying that these people existed is not.
I'm sorry but it does mean that entirely. The fact he is (apparently) a saint and chosen as a symbol of patriotism for us to have a day off.
Arguably, but you said he was a fictitious person. He was not. He really existed. He was also Christian, a soldier and he was martyred. So there are significant aspects of the religious myth that are, to an extent, accurate.
If you believe that Christians have spent the day on their knees giving thanks for the fact that a mythical dragon in the Middle East was slain then you are fairly out of touch with religion. I suppose Irish Christians spend St Patricks Day abstaining from Guiness, and rugby, so they can meditate on the merits of a snake-free Ireland?
Regardless as to whether someone existed, he's no more created by god than he is by someones vivid imagination.
Anyway, the point of my argument revolves around the celebration of a Saint as a representative for a national celebration and a holiday. And for that a more apt day or symbol would be more appropriate. Religious celebration should not be allowed back into popular culture. Thankfully the Americans have virtually killed off Christmas and Easter, thankfully there religious ideas does not transfer as well over the pond as much as there ideas to generate money.
You would have to be ignoring some virtually irrefutible evidence to deny that he existed. I don't know for sure but I expect there is probably pretty strong evidence for his martyrdom and bravery. I don't like the phrase 'history denier', but... As you probably know, only a minority of Christians venerate saints and only a minority of those that do take the myths surrounding them literally. Granted that does leave a very small percentage of Christians with some pretty bizarre beliefs, but to write off people with Christian faith as 'crackpot' is pretty narrow minded.
Not really, its the believers who are narrow minded. They have no need to believe, most people have been educated to a reasonable standard, despite everything they still need the reassurance that's someones looking after them. Just a crackers philosophy to live your life by, so many opposing ideas with reality and science. Don't know where you got the history denier from. Religious people are the biggest history deniers there are, they believe in things that never happened all the time.
Have to say Carrabuh, while I agree with you in that religion is not for me, this argument is your worst. There are literally billions of people who struggle each and every day for a multitude of different reasons, and several million even in countries like ours. It does not astonish me in the slightest that they rely on religion. I also think that people who are militant atheists often miss out an important biological feature of humans, which somewhat undermines their claim to be Darwinist-based (for the most part). We should never forget that humans are, inherently, a social species and we thrive on community values. We are predisposed to reject the "different" and accept the "same". An enormous part of understanding who is the "same" are cultural ticks. Religion plays an astounding role in creating and continuing these cultural ideals. Breaking these cultural bonds creates more problems than it solves - have a look at Soviet Russia. For some inexplicable reason, it often creates further religions (e.g. Mao). Another way of looking at it, is that we on this site are bound by a cultural affiliation with Norwich City. Your religion is football, Carrabuh, your sect is Norwich City and your mantra is that of a passing game. That is as much an utterly illogical belief system as any religion. It does as much to bind you to other Norwich fans as Christianity does to bring our country together. We are humans and we are irrational. Embrace the parts that matter to you, but don't slam the parts that don't out of some (irrational) arbitrary dislike.
Ok, I understand that you think that. I don't personally see any problem in using a symbol that is dripping in history to mark our English identity. I like the fact that the same flag was flying at the last England football match, in 1966, in WW2, WW1, the battle of Agincourt and by Alfred the Great when he battled the vikings in East Anglia. Most of those mark brutal events, about which I'm not particularly proud, but the connecting thread and (sometimes misplaced) national pride of the flag bearers has a poignancy for me. I don't think that would be matched by a stylised image of a Dyson, even if that would have more current relevance.
As a life sciences student it goes without saying that I believe in evolution ahead of creationism, but to say 'God doesn't exist' an all people who think to the contrary are 'crackpots' also goes against science, because you can't prove that God doesn't exist. I'm sorry to see KIO's thread turned into a religious argument...
No,no, no, I'm sorry but that is hogwash. I don't follow football like a religion at all, football exists, god doesn't.(I also don't follow football fanatically either). Its not a life philosophy. Some of these idiots are going through there lives and actually making decisions on what they should do on it. Its an entirely rational dislike. Religion was developed for two reasons, to control the masses, if no-one gained any power through it, it would never have taken off. As well as explaining the World. Now the only place religion flourishes is in countries where those scenarios exist. People thankfully have more sense nowadays. The truth of the matter is they don't really believe in the Bible, because if they did, they'd all be working in charity shops and nothing would ever get done in the country. Believing in god is not some inherent biological need, it can be met without some made up story and a different community set up.
Agreed, apologies for biting after some blatant WUMmery. I didn't even know it was St George's day until I saw the thread, which definately supports the OP's view that we should have more pride in our national day.
From a logical point of view, I'm afraid you do. Whether you choose to deny it or not, the mere fact that you follow football, or a team, is as illogical as any religion. Given that we are born to survive and procreate, which is the fundamental argument against religion, it is logically unnecessary to do anything other than work towards those aims. I didn't say believing in god is a biological need - that is a straw man argument from you, sir! I said the cultural association is a biological need, and religion is a deeply ingrained set of cultural values whether you like it or not. Actually, and I would say unfortunately, religion is on the rise.
Whilst I am like Carrabuh, and astounded that something that most people don't believe in, should take precedence in many decisions crucial to the contibuation of this planet, I am not averse to faith. And I do see the value in rallying support for a nation around a talismatic figure or event. St George did exist and was a German mercenary who fought for money. As of course most soldiers are paid. My son's regiment have St George figuring in their tradition. Personally, I would use a unifying event that really signifies and emplifies, not Britain, but England. Something that without a shadow of a doubt would be free from controversy or doubt. Problem is, I'm buggered if I can think of one off hand. Certainly the music of Edward Elgar would be my favourite for anthem. I don't think it is necessary for an anthem to have lyrics so I would choose Nimrod.
