Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on June 11, 2015, 04:51:04 PM
-
Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?
Please explain?
ippy
-
Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?
Please explain?
ippy
The Stalinist antireligion agenda of the NSS and BHS.
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.
-
Exceedingly unlikely. If that had been true you wouldn't have dipped straight into Vlad's Bumper Book of Religiose Tripe Tropes for yet more meaningless, content-free rhetoric.
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
Vlad may have proved to you that he doesn't know; but pretty presumptuous to include every theist in that. Unless you have some mysterious poll to quote from. It's very easy to look it up.
-
I wasn't aware that I had "included every theist in that."
-
I wasn't aware that I had "included every theist in that."
"All of them. " So many of them." Which ever: still wonder how you would know either?
-
"All of them. " So many of them." Which ever: still wonder how you would know either?
1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.
2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike (or rather, in his case, anti-theism and "Stalinism" and whatever other daft wibble he comes out with).
-
"All of them. " So many of them." Which ever: still wonder how you would know either?
1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.
2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.
You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem." Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify. Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.
-
You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem." Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify. Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.
I'm glad you quoted that, because it demonstrates that you did in fact see that I wrote "some of them" and not "every theist" as you claimed in #5.
My comment is based on the number of theists I've seen misunderstand secularism in a wide variety of different forums over a good many years.
-
"All of them. " So many of them." Which ever: still wonder how you would know either?
1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.
2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.
you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like. So when Ippy starts of about secularism, we know the 'record' and can hum along with it.
-
You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem." Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify. Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.
I'm glad you quoted that, because it demonstrates that you did in fact see that I wrote "some of them" and not "every theist" as you claimed in #5.
My comment is based on the number of theists I've seen misunderstand secularism in a wide variety of different forums over a good many years.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature? Wonder if you've ever had time to work? And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature?
Good time management I guess.
Wonder if you've ever had time to work?
Of course.
And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?
No idea, but then I didn't specify any proportion, I simply said "so many."
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature?
Good time management I guess.
Wonder if you've ever had time to work?
Of course.
And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?
No idea, but then I didn't specify any proportion, I simply said "so many."
Whatever you said, it was quite meaningless. Why can't you accept that?
You're not being a good example to Lenny, who may well be monitoring this as he makes his cocoa.
-
Because it isn't.
I reiterated ippy's statement as made in the OP, to wit: "Not all religionists but quite al lot of you." Very noticeable that you haven't been badgering him.
-
Back to the scheduled thread: I suspect that another reason why so many religionists are unhappy with secularism is because it places their own religion (which surely by definition for the individual religionist must be The Truth) alongside all other religions on equal terms, making it merely one belief occupying a level platform with other beliefs. If your belief system has enshrined within itself statements that it and it alone is the absolute truth, to have to occupy the public forum with other belief systems (which needless to say make precisely the same claim and have the same pretensions to exclusivity) treated precisely equally can only be rather galling to say the least.
-
"All of them. " So many of them." Which ever: still wonder how you would know either?
1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.
2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.
you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like. So when Ippy starts of about secularism, we know the 'record' and can hum along with it.
You might be right in that, but it's better than confusing secularism with Stalinism as you do.
-
Because it isn't.
I reiterated ippy's statement as made in the OP, to wit: "Not all religionists but quite al lot of you." Very noticeable that you haven't been badgering him.
I picked you out because you attempt to portray yourself and your comments as inviolable. But you are as inclined as any other, to make errors: you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.
And the above was an equally meaningless comment. But then ippy is like that.
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
What on Earth is the point of this? You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read. Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake? "So many" is not the same as "all". Many of us know that.
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
What on Earth is the point of this? You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read. Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake? "So many" is not the same as "all". Many of us know that.
Semantics! He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!
-
you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like.
What leads you to that opinion (he asked hopefully)? On the NSS website I found the following:
About the National Secular Society
The National Secular Society works towards a society in which all citizens, regardless of religious belief, or lack of religious belief, can live together fairly and cohesively. We campaign for a secular democracy with a separation of religion and state, where everyone's Human Rights are respected equally.
which is a pretty good capsule definition of secularism as far as it goes in so short a space. On the BHA (not BHS ... that's British Home Stores) website there's this:
We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief.
No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.
Perhaps it only exists in your head, Vlad.
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
What on Earth is the point of this? You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read. Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake? "So many" is not the same as "all". Many of us know that.
Semantics! He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!
No. You made a statement that is impossible to justify when you conflated "so many" with "all". Now you are on the attack because you know you were wrong, but you're not big enough to admit it.
-
No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.
Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.
-
Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?
Please explain?
ippy
The Stalinist antireligion agenda of the NSS and BHS.
I note you are one of those people that seem unabe to understand the principles of secularism, like for example: "freedom of religion for all and freedom from religion", please explain how this infringes on any of your rights to hold or express any belief you may have?
Even with my own personal view of religion where it seems a bit potty, just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't make me want to send out any kind of inquisition against religionists nor would it be right for the non-religious to have any more say or privilege than any religious believing citizen in the running of our nation or visa versa; that's secularism, seriously where does Starlinism come into that Woo?
lppy
-
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! You made a daft comment - admit it?
What on Earth is the point of this? You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read. Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake? "So many" is not the same as "all". Many of us know that.
Semantics! He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!
No. You made a statement that is impossible to justify when you conflated "so many" with "all". Now you are on the attack because you know you were wrong, but you're not big enough to admit it.
What a quite ludicrous attempt to justify Shaker's sloppy post. It matters not how many, but the fact that he purports to know of any number to back up what he says is absurd. When we were discussing teaching a short while back, he alleged he knew "many, many, many teachers." When challenged he admitted to two! If I, or any theist on here makes a claim, or assertion, we are asked for evidence (eh, ippy?) It happens every day. So I, in turn, challenge Shaker for the evidence for what he says? It was just an off-the-cuff comment, made without thought or any kind or attempt to justify it. So it was meaningless - but he won't admit to it.. To try and twist it to make me appear to be wrong is disingenuous in the extreme. He made the post, not I. That is what it is all about.
-
No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.
Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.
Where's the evidence then?
-
No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.
Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.
Where's the evidence then?
Hmmm ... I was wondering that too.
-
No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.
Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.
This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads: "What is the problem..." and "Girls in lab," and had none. As I pointed out: you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you
Where's the evidence then?
Hmmm ... I was wondering that too.
This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads: "What is the problem..." and "Girls in lab," and had none. As I pointed out: you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you
-
Notwithstanding the blatant misrepresentation of my position in your #5 (may have been accidental at first; deliberately and rather slimily and petulantly evaded when pointed out to you) I answered this point twice, in #8 and #10.
-
Notwithstanding the blatant misrepresentation of my position in your #5 (may have been accidental at first; deliberately and rather slimily and petulantly evaded when pointed out to you) I answered this point twice, in #8 and #10.
No misrepresentation at all. You said, "my experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means." What evidence have you to substantiate that what you said is nothing but an idle opinion? How many theists are you talking about: one, five, fifty? There are millions; so for your comment to have any validity you would need to know a great many.
-
I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read (and read rather better than you seem to be able to at that).
Misrepresentation, by the way, is claiming that I had said "all theists" when I had said no such thing.
-
I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read (and read rather better than you seem to be able to at that).
Your squirming attempt to distance yourself from your ridiculous comment, cuts no ice. And resorting to your usual denigration of peoples' ability, does you no favours. So "know of," now becomes, "I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read." What a pathetic and immature inability to admit an error.
-
The error was all yours, as #5 and #7 confirm. That this is freely available for all to see makes it all the more contemptible that you are still trying to duck the issue and wasting time when we could have been discussing secularism, but so be it. It's not as though you would have had anything of any merit or relevance to offer anyway.
-
The error was all yours, as #5 and #7 confirm.
You made the post, you fool. It's up to you to substantiate it! You are just intellectually dishonest!
-
You made the post, you fool.
Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?
-
You made the post, you fool.
Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?
"There is a righteous anger, which is not sinful."
-
I'm sure it's Matthew 5:22 ...
-
I'm sure it's Matthew 5:22 ...
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger. My anger is righteous. Jesus himself showed righteous anger: "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored." - Mark, 3:5
However, Jesus does condemn hypocrites: "Jesus addressed the other form of hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
Fancy the Bible saying inconsistent and contradictory things!
My anger is righteous.
I'd have had a score on it being "the right kind" ;)
Just as Jesus showed righteous anger: "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored." - Mark, 3:5
Would have gone down a treat on Jackanory.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
Fancy the Bible saying inconsistent and contradictory things!
My anger is righteous.
I'd have had a score on it being "the right kind" ;)
Just as Jesus showed righteous anger: "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored." - Mark, 3:5
Would have gone down a treat on Jackanory.
There is nothing at all contradictory about stating that there are differing kinds of anger. It is self-evident anyway, except to you.
I think you have misunderstood your, "Religion for Numpties." You are banging your head on a brick wall, yet again. But it's all a red herring: you have not, despite trying, managed to detract me from my original comment on your fatuous comment about secularism, and your failure to justify it. Like to try again?
-
But you have very ably managed, albeit temporarily, to distract (not detract, which means something else) attention from your misrepresentation of my words as found in #5 and #7.
-
But you have very ably managed, albeit temporarily, to distract (not detract, which means something else) attention from your misrepresentation of my words as found in #5 and #7.
detract: "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something." Yes, that's what I meant.
To repeat, for those who have difficulty with comprehension: it matters not how many you claim know nothing of secularism: the crux is, you said, "many do." How many is many, because unless it means a large number, then it is a meaningless thing to say, which is the thrust of my argument. So, how many?
-
detract: "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something." Yes, that's what I meant.
Then your grasp of English is clearly as shaky as your grasp of honesty. "You have not, despite trying, managed to distract me from my original comment" (which you presumably meant to write but didn't) is normal, standard English. "You have not, despite trying, managed to detract me from my original comment" (which you did write) is unlettered gibberish.
So 0/10 for reading comprehension but 10/10 for consistency; every thread that you infest with your tedious, humourless, excitable-to-the-point-of-hysterical and curiously illiterate pedantry is absolutely guaranteed to turn into a complete toilet.
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.
And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!) in order to promulgate their secular agenda.
As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.
-
that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem."
I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.
But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).
-
And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!)
Corby, I'm thinking. Definitely Corby ... than which no fate could be worse.
As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.
Aye ::)
-
You might want to adjust that last post, Prof D, as I worry that if Bashful thinks you are misquoting him by posting what Shaker actually said that he might literally erupt - and just think of the mess.
-
I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.
But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).
Initially it occurred to me to say be careful, Bashers will be all over you like the white on rice wanting to know who these authority figures in major religions and their willing followers are, their names, addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers, inside leg measurements and credit ratings, until I remembered that since you said it and not me, that won't be the case.
-
You might want to adjust that last post, Prof D, as I worry that if Bashful thinks you are misquoting him by posting what Shaker actually said that he might literally erupt - and just think of the mess.
Imagine the froth ... ::)
-
I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.
But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).
Initially it occurred to me to say be careful, Bashers will be all over you like the white on rice wanting to know who these authority figures in major religions and their willing followers are, their names, addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers, inside leg measurements and credit ratings, until I remembered that since you said it and not me, that won't be the case.
Well we can start with the previous Pope during his visit to the UK in 2010 equating secularism with the Nazis.
Or the former Archbishop of Westminster claiming secular atheists aren't fully human.
How's that for starters.
-
Bashers will, I'm sure, be along to comment later :D
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.
And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!) in order to promulgate their secular agenda.
As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.
Worse than murder I'd make him watch a more lengthy than usual cricket match; don't they all last about two months anyway?
ippy
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
Maybe so, but I wouldn't be included to go down that route for two reasons.
First that's for that poster to know (we can't) and only he can reveal this and only if he wishes to.
Secondly that view can be countered in reverse - i.e. that the most committed atheists on this board are actually jealous of the believers and wresting with their own lack of faith.
Now I certainly know this not to be the case for me - can't talk for others - bit it is a bit poor to suggest that extreme theists are atheists in denial, but extreme atheists aren't theists in denial.
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.
Or not - see above.
Actually I think me point was that there should be consistency and actually we can't really know unless the poster(s) in question wish to open up about it, so it is a rather futile line of discussion, in either direction.
-
In either direction - quite so.
Therefore if believers don't want to have their motives psychologised at a remove, they shouldn't presume that they are entitled to do it to atheists.
-
In either direction - quite so.
Therefore if believers don't want to have their motives psychologised at a remove, they shouldn't presume that they are entitled to do it to atheists.
That's about right.
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.
True.
Doubts are healthy if you acknowledge them, imo.
-
detract: "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something." Yes, that's what I meant.
Then your grasp of English is clearly as shaky as your grasp of honesty. "You have not, despite trying, managed to distract me from my original comment" (which you presumably meant to write but didn't) is normal, standard English. "You have not, despite trying, managed to detract me from my original comment" (which you did write) is unlettered gibberish.
So 0/10 for reading comprehension but 10/10 for consistency; every thread that you infest with your tedious, humourless, excitable-to-the-point-of-hysterical and curiously illiterate pedantry is absolutely guaranteed to turn into a complete toilet.
You really will have to wash your mouth out: not just to rid yourself of your nastiness, but to wash away your verbal diarrhea. :(
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
I assume this is a joke post. Oh, it's Floo: so yes, it is a joke.
-
You might want to adjust that last post, Prof D, as I worry that if Bashful thinks you are misquoting him by posting what Shaker actually said that he might literally erupt - and just think of the mess.
But it couldn't possibly be as bad as the stench of tripe emanating from the combined forces of the atheists here. Actually, by "combined forces," I mean bullies. They always seem to need to hunt together: probably because they can't handle anything on their own.
-
I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum! ::)
This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.
To me it's rather akin to an imbecile, trying to be clever
-
As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.
We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.
And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!) in order to promulgate their secular agenda.
As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.
Worse than murder I'd make him watch a more lengthy than usual cricket match; don't they all last about two months anyway?
ippy
Ah, if only you could arrange it for me! ;D
-
I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.
But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).
Initially it occurred to me to say be careful, Bashers will be all over you like the white on rice wanting to know who these authority figures in major religions and their willing followers are, their names, addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers, inside leg measurements and credit ratings, until I remembered that since you said it and not me, that won't be the case.
Well we can start with the previous Pope during his visit to the UK in 2010 equating secularism with the Nazis.
Or the former Archbishop of Westminster claiming secular atheists aren't fully human.
How's that for starters.
I wonder how many people took any notice of them; or cared? I'm reasonably informed, and it's the first I've heard about those quotes.
-
This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads: "What is the problem..." and "Girls in lab," and had none. As I pointed out: you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you
You're assuming I could be bothered to read the relevant thread.
-
You made the post, you fool.
Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?
He made a deal with me not to insult people if I stopped swearing. I knew the fuckwit wouldn't be able to keep it up.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
Don't call me a liar. Clearly you managed to fail utterly to follow what was said (no change there, then!) It is either ignorance on your part, or plain lying. And don't forget the original point I made, which has conveniently been side-tracked. You are a disingenuous piffle talker. I now await an answer, no doubt littered with words from your extensive collection of gutter-snipe vocabulary. If you do, I'll ignore it. By the way, I think you broke the "deal" some time back and could not wait to free yourself to go back to your unintelligent, immature, foulness. I dread to think what it's like to be in your company: fortunately, that won't ever happen, unless there really is a Hell - I would be watching through the window, with ear-plugs on. .
-
This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads: "What is the problem..." and "Girls in lab," and had none. As I pointed out: you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you
You're assuming I could be bothered to read the relevant thread.
Like you couldn't be bothered to read this? You couldn't keep your oar out.
-
Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?
Please explain?
ippy
ippy, I think the problem can be attributed to a variety of misunderstandings.
Firstly, there is a well-known label for something that has nothing to do with secularism, really, Secular Humanism. Anyone brought up an any sort of literature will know of the likes of Asimov, Attwood, Bentham, Bronowski, Chomsky, A.C.Clarke, Russell, Sagan - etc., etc.. Those of us who are religious have no great problem with such folk, though we may disagree with some or all of their understandings of the world. They are all well-respected scholars/authors/... .
Secondly, there are those who shout about the importance of secularism, yet then espouse ideas that aren't secular. For instance, there those who argue that any second chamber of government should not only have NO CoE Bishops sitting in its midst, there should be NO (official) religious representation at all in such a place, when true secularism would have official representation from as wide a range of belief systems represented within the population as possible. Even you have done this at times; almost all your threads about secularism relate to the position of the Christian faith in society - few to other faiths and their influences.
To sum it up, secularism has almost as many meanings as it has adherents.
-
Suspiciously alphabetic list there, Hope.
-
Suspiciously alphabetic list there, Hope.
I almost gave a link to the Wikipedia page that lists them alphabetically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secular_humanists).
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
Don't call me a liar.
It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
Don't call me a liar.
It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.
Not so; but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
Don't call me a liar.
It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.
Not so;
Blatantly lying again.
but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.
Well we had a deal and you were the one that broke it first. You're really not too clever, are you.
-
The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.
That would imply you are in the right. You are not. You lied about Shaker's posts.
Don't call me a liar.
It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.
Not so;
Blatantly lying again.
but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.
Well we had a deal and you were the one that broke it first. You're really not too clever, are you.
You are a liar: do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts? I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ. I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose! The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy. Have a good night.
-
You're really not too clever, are you.
Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.
-
I can see why religious people are suspicious of secularism as expressed by the BHA and the NSS.
.........................
People are suspicious of secularism as portrayed by those organisations because regardless of how fair the odd snippets are, they come across as too controlling.
But surely less controlling than their current religions, yes?
-
I can see why religious people are suspicious of secularism as expressed by the BHA and the NSS.
It's because when used by these organisations it is just another attempt to control the way the religious think and a step towards putting their faith in a box to conform with what those groups think it is,or what they think it. "ought " to be.
The NSS are trying to redefine religion and what it means and its scope of influence in those that follow it.
It often also has an agenda of influencing religious people's children so that they grow up to become atheists and seeing the world in the same way as those organisations.
It's an attempt at control.
Also the BHA are exclusive in who can or can't be a humanist ( see thread on humanism the sharing faith section)p
People are suspicious of secularism as portrayed by those organisations because regardless of how fair the odd snippets are, they come across as too controlling.
What complete junk.
In what way do either the NSS or the BHA have any control or power over anyone - they don't. And if they have no control or power over anyone it is pretty hard to argue that they are controlling. Who are they controlling and how Rose.
Contrast that with the major religions in the UK that variously run about one third of our state schools, requirement for religious worship even in non faith schools, provide a significant number of members of the HoL by right (and of course disproportion numbers of members in both houses), are regularly afforded representation on official bodies that are charged with advising government on potential changes to policy, have un-challenged access to major media outlets to promulgate religious views (e.g. thought for the day).
All the NSS (and to a lesses extent the BHA) are doing is trying to create a level playing field - one in which people are not afforded privilege, nor suffer discrimination on the basis of their religious belief, or lack thereof. Now if that's "controlling' - well lets have more of it. Actually it is the complete opposite.
-
You're really not too clever, are you.
Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.
Agreed.People who think they are a cut above others intelligence wise, fall well short in reality, but fail to see it. It is so very sad when this happens because their constant unpleasant jibes just go to highlight their inadequacies!
-
I note, with interest, that the former Education Secretary Charles Clarke is calling for the statutory obligation for schools to have an act of collective worship to end. One might view this as a step towards secularising the curriculum. However, he appears to call for the "compulsory teaching of religious literacy" - whatever that is.
Mr Clarke's remarks - as reported on the BBC website - are part of a report published as part of the Westminster Faith Debates. His report is jointly written with Professor Linda Woodhead, of Lancaster University. He considers that everybody should be taught about different faiths including non-religious beliefs such as humanism. He believes that such a development could usefully counter radicalism and fundamentalism.
However, any support I might give to this dissipated when I saw that the right of parents to send their children to faith schools should be protected.
EDIT
Just as I pressed the send button Charles Clarke appeared on Radio 4 "Today" being interviewed by John Humphries. Available in iPlayer.
-
Many schools can't have a collective anything because they don't have the room.
I think it was nice when schools had an assembly in the morning. Of course not ALL schools have to have a religious assembly, but there is something to be said for the morning assembly.
Unfortunately schools are often so overcrowded or have expanded to the point where any sort of assembly is out of the question.
As far as I can remember from my schooldays, the morning assembly (which was held in the gym) was a complete waste of teaching time.
-
When my husband, an atheist, was a secondary school head teacher, he did non religious assemblies, but gave the kids a moral 'thought for the day'. He got away with it.
-
Many schools can't have a collective anything because they don't have the room.
I think it was nice when schools had an assembly in the morning. Of course not ALL schools have to have a religious assembly, but there is something to be said for the morning assembly.
Unfortunately schools are often so overcrowded or have expanded to the point where any sort of assembly is out of the question.
As far as I can remember from my schooldays, the morning assembly (which was held in the gym) was a complete waste of teaching time.
Really? I didn't find that.
While assembly lasted it was good because it was nice to be updated with various notices about school life and goings on, an opportunity to acknowledge efforts of pupils and made it much more of a school community.
Plus it gave children the chance to accompany any singing with the musical instruments they had learnt to play.
I thought it was nice.
I honestly can't remember what happened in assembly at my school, except the prayers part. It's too long ago, and it clearly didn't make much impression on me.
-
even "thought of the day" for example.
I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.
But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.
Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.
I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.
But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?
-
even "thought of the day" for example.
I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.
But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.
Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.
I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.
But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?
No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.
Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3110489.stm
Then perhaps it would be fairer and more sensible to have two thought for the day, one religious and the other non-religious.
-
even "thought of the day" for example.
I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.
But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.
Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.
I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.
But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?
No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.
Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.
But it isn't called "religious thought for the day" it is called "thought for the day" and it isn't reasonable to ban people who might have extremely interesting and thought provoking comments on moral issues simply because they aren't religious.
The way forward isn't to rename it and continue to restrict contributors (that is a backwards step) but to allow contributions from people of all religions and none.
-
even "thought of the day" for example.
I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.
But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.
Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.
I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.
But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?
No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.
Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3110489.stm
Then perhaps it would be fairer and more sensible to have two thought for the day, one religious and the other non-religious.
Why?
Surely the best approach is to have one thought for the day without discrimination against potential contributors simply because they aren't religious.
-
Why?
To please Rose and stop people from arguing about it. :)
-
Why?
To please Rose and stop people from arguing about it. :)
plus it gives spots for both to boil the kettle, or in my case doubles them.
-
You're really not too clever, are you.
Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.
The very last person on here, (with one possible exception), is you, to judge wit and intelligence.
-
You are a liar: do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts? I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ. I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose! The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy. Have a good night.
Oh dear, when the capability to think rationally deserts you, a bit of invective never hurts. Admittedly, some of that was quite inventive. Do you want to see if you can do any better.
-
You are a liar: do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts? I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ. I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose! The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy. Have a good night.
Oh dear, when the capability to think rationally deserts you, a bit of invective never hurts. Admittedly, some of that was quite inventive. Do you want to see if you can do any better.
Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative. You are as full of invective as any, but less strident; settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal." You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language. What's more, you can't mind your own business. Other than all that, you're okay.
-
But surely less controlling than their current religions, yes?
What's less controlling about 'there is no God', and 'there is a God but you can choose to ignore or to believe in said God'?
-
What complete junk.
Are you trying to say that someone who explains why they - and others - are wary of a given term are wary for no good reason? The thread title asks why people (in this case 'religionists', whatever that term might mean) have 'problems with' a particular concept. Rose and others have explained why they feel that the term 'secularism' is a word that has been devalued by being used in a variety of sometimes conflicting ways. What's 'complete junk' about that?
Is it that only your opinion counts, PD?
-
When it can be proved, without a shadow of doubt a deity exists, it would be unreasonable to disbelieve, until then................!
-
I note, with interest, that the former Education Secretary Charles Clarke is calling for the statutory obligation for schools to have an act of collective worship to end. One might view this as a step towards secularising the curriculum. However, he appears to call for the "compulsory teaching of religious literacy" - whatever that is.
It's nothing new, HH. Teachers (Christian and otherwise) as well as other people (also Christian and otherwise) have been calling for the repealing of this particular legislation since I first started teaching in the 1970s. In part, the call is prompted by the high level of 'observation by omission', in part by the fact that fewer and fewer schools have halls large enough to hold whole-school assemblies and partly by the appreciation that there are an increasing number of children from non-Christian backgrounds within our schools nowadays.
-
When it can be proved, without a shadow of doubt a deity exists, it would be unreasonable to disbelieve, until then................!
In other words, we should only believe in things that don't require belief? ;)
-
So a Muslim is taught what it is like to be a Christian and to find the things the two faiths share so they are more resistant to being poisoned later on in life by radicals.
That shouldn't take long, Rose. The only thing I can think of that Muslims and Christians share a belief in is the concept of a God. The God they believe in is very different for each faith. ;)
-
Doesn't 'Prayer for the Day,' broadcast at 05:43 every morning, fulfill the remit for a specifically and explicitly religious item? That being the case, just as the good Prof. says, make 'Thought for the Day' live up to its actual and not assumed title.
ETA: Mention of RTftD gives me the chance to post this:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?m=06&y=15&d=03&entry=entry150615-074927
-
So what are you looking for?
-
And inspirational thoughts can only come from the religious? Why, as the Prof. asked, isn't it then called 'Religious Thought for the Day'? It isn't.
Plenty of people don't like it as it is.
-
So what are you looking for?
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I like hearing about lines of Jewish thought or what Guru Nanak taught about aspects of life and the news
Three minutes is just enough to be interesting without being preachy.
I like it as it is.
;D
Why are you so resistant to hearing from an even greater diversity of voices. If you value listening to someone who gives a Jewish or Sikh perspective on the issues of the day, why not a humanist or someone with another non religious moral philosophy.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
Is it always light?
I recall some rather strong thoughts for the day.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
-
It works as a very short programme because the speakers have a context which they can draw on, which is partially familiar to the target audience.
I don't quite understand why that excludes people of no faith. ???
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality, hmmmm.
-
https://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/comparison-of-islam-and-christianity-6211517
There is a teachers resource attached to that which if you click on it outlines some of the similarities and differences.
There are quite a few things to share if you look.
The are no similarities listed in the teachers' resource material, Rose. It is even headed
Guidelines for teachers on the worksheet:
What do Muslims believe?
What do Christians believe?
Basic differences between Muslim and Christian beliefs
-
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I've heard TftD quite often and there are regularly 'Thoughts' that have little or no religious or spiritual content within them. Are people suggesting that the only people who can legitimately give such thoughts are non-religious people? Surely its the content, not the speaker, that matters?
-
Because there are other more suitable places for them to expound their POV.
Where - I'm not aware of any other place where non religious people are able to discuss issues of the day from a moral perspective which, presumably (given your desire for TFTD to remain exclusively for religious people) is only for non religious people. If you know of such a programme, do please tell us.
Thought for today caters for a specific audience, (not necessarily believers of a particular faith), but of people that like to hear about different religions in the context of modern day life.
I'd beg to differ - TFTD doesn't have a specific audience at all, given that it is a tiny slot within the Today programme and although broadly at the same time each morning can differ in start time by longer than its entire length. It's audience are people tuned in to the Today programme who will include a mix of religious and non religious people who I would expect reflects the UK demographic pretty closely.
Unfortunately you assume that someone who is religious cannot be a humanist, they can.
No I am not assuming that - but how can you justify the current position where a religious humanist could get a slot on TFTD but a non religious humanist would be banned.
I'm not really interested in some random person trying to explain their whole non religious moral philosophy in just the three minutes they have, remember the faith/ religion of the person sets the POV in a context that a non religious person doesn't have.
It works as a very short programme because the speakers have a context which they can draw on, which is partially familiar to the target audience.
Why would the contributors be 'random' - TFTD has always had regular contributors and all the change would do is start to include interesting and challenging regular contributors who aren't religious but have something interesting to add in the tradition of TFTD.
I disagree on context, non religious people may have just as much context as religious people - the 'golden rule' is just about the broadest moral compass we have and perhaps the group that espouses that most strongly are humanists, including non religious humanists.
And given that the target audience is listeners to the Today programme (who are likely to be about 50% religious, nominally; 50% non religious) why would this audience be particularly familiar with (for example) a Sikh tradition view, and yet not with a broadly secular humanist view. I'd argue that the latter would be much more familiar in context to a much greater proportion of the target audience than the former.
-
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I've heard TftD quite often and there are regularly 'Thoughts' that have little or no religious or spiritual content within them. Are people suggesting that the only people who can legitimately give such thoughts are non-religious people? Surely its the content, not the speaker, that matters?
No I am certainly not saying that only non religious people can provide thought which are largely non religious.
But that, in fact, focusses on the non-sense of the current situation - namely that a religious person is allowed to spend three minutes covering a topic or issue without religious content, but a non religious person is banned from doing the same.
So the issue isn't whether 'the only people who can legitimately give such thoughts are non-religious people' but why only religious people are allowed to, which is the current situation.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the atheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with religion, plus spending huge amounts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
-
I've heard TftD quite often and there are regularly 'Thoughts' that have little or no religious or spiritual content within them. Are people suggesting that the only people who can legitimately give such thoughts are non-religious people? Surely its the content, not the speaker, that matters?
This is so wide of the mark that I can't see that it can be anything but a conscious and wilful misrepresentation.
What fair-minded people want is for a programme entitled 'Thought for the Day' to live up to its title and present a range of interesting and thought-provoking points from a range of contributors be they religious or non-religious. I would say that that covers everybody, pretty much.
What the BBC and evidently some listeners such as Rose want is for it to be open only to religious contributors.
It's not difficult.
If it's the content matters, why isn't RTftD open to non-religious contributors?
-
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I've heard TftD quite often and there are regularly 'Thoughts' that have little or no religious or spiritual content within them. Are people suggesting that the only people who can legitimately give such thoughts are non-religious people? Surely its the content, not the speaker, that matters?
No, no one has suggested anything like that on here, only the opposite has been suggested. Have you just not read anything and made this up? Or did you read the stuff and not understand any of it? Or are you lying?
-
This is so wide of the mark that I can't see that it can be anything but a conscious and wilful misrepresentation.
Not sure how it can be a misrepresentation of the various types of TftD's I've heard over the years. I've heard Tftd's based around sports events, political events, social events - as well as ones based around Biblical, Qu'ranic, Bhavad Gita-ic and other religious ideas.
-
This is so wide of the mark that I can't see that it can be anything but a conscious and wilful misrepresentation.
Not sure how it can be a misrepresentation of the various types of TftD's I've heard over the years. I've heard Tftd's based around sports events, political events, social events - as well as ones based around Biblical, Qu'ranic, Bhavad Gita-ic and other religious ideas.
... and every single one of those will have come from an adherent of/representative of the main religious belief systems.
The misrepresentation was of the argument that people here such as Professor Davey and myself are making, not the one that exists only in your head.
-
No, no one has suggested anything like that on here, only the opposite has been suggested. Have you just not read anything and made this up? Or did you read the stuff and not understand any of it? Or are you lying?
Well, what I don't understand is why it is felt that 1) all TftD's are actually of a religious nature - as I've pointed out, I've heard enough over the years that weren't, and 2) why some people seem to be implying that those who have a religious background can't be 'trusted' to make non-religious thoughts - which, by my experience, at least - they do every now and again.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the atheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with religion, plus spending huge amounts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
It is a Religion & Ethics Board open to all regardless of their religion or lack of.
Can we just agree that we are all obsessive on here as we all spend time on this board. Then leave the gratuitous insults at the door.
After all if the obsessives weren't here you'd be obsessing all on your lonesome.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
-
No, no one has suggested anything like that on here, only the opposite has been suggested. Have you just not read anything and made this up? Or did you read the stuff and not understand any of it? Or are you lying?
Well, what I don't understand is why it is felt that 1) all TftD's are actually of a religious nature - as I've pointed out, I've heard enough over the years that weren't, and 2) why some people seem to be implying that those who have a religious background can't the trusted to make non-religious thoughts - which, by my experience, at least - they do every now and again.
No one who is not religious is allowed to make them.
Please read and repeat reading that sentence until you start making sense.
-
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists ...
Is that what it was? I thought it was just more sloppy typing ;)
ETA: It was ::)
-
... and every single one of those will have come from an adherent of/representative of the main religious belief systems.
Again, not strictly true, Shaker - unless you are classifying Jedi-ism as a 'main religious belief system'. I heard a TftD by a Jedi-ist some months back. Furthermore, I seem to remember that Radio 4 ran a series of TftD's (albeit later in the evening, iirc) that were specifically not exclusively religious in nature or speaker. Seem to remember that Clare Balding advertised it on her Sunday morning programme on Radio 2.
-
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists ...
Is that what it was? I thought it was just more sloppy typing ;)
I'm in a hurry to take Meg out. But, hey, sloppy typing is better than having to read so many sloppy posts from the sainted atheists on here. :)
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?
Of course, you never make mistakes. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?
Of course, you never mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.
We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?
-
Good grief I came from page on of this thread where BA was blabbing his gums endless then skip to page 6 and find the same thing!!! ;D
Oh well I'm sure there is a thread where he isn't arguing black is white .... then again!
-
This is so wide of the mark that I can't see that it can be anything but a conscious and wilful misrepresentation.
Not sure how it can be a misrepresentation of the various types of TftD's I've heard over the years. I've heard Tftd's based around sports events, political events, social events - as well as ones based around Biblical, Qu'ranic, Bhavad Gita-ic and other religious ideas.
But never involving a non religious person.
This is actually part of the problem for me. Were all the contributors 'professional' theists, e.g. bishops, priests, rabbis etc then perhaps it would be less 'clunky'. But they aren't.
So, for example, Rhidian Brook has been a contributor for years, yet he isn't a professional theist at all. He's a novelist and screenwriter. He gets a platform because he is also religious even if he gives a TFTD which barely mentions religion. So why should he be permitted this platform, but another novelist and screenwriter is banned because he isn't religious.
Nothing against Rhidian Brook per se, merely pointing out the non-sense of the situation.
Likewise there are a couple of contributors who's day job is leading a think tank - why are they allowed merely because they are religious but someone from another think tank banned because they aren't.
-
What you find with the BBC is they consistently put programmes on for the religious listeners which, although they're not my cup of tea, it's quite correct that they should be represented and I have no quarrel with it.
What you do find are lots of programmes similar to "An Island Parish", I only mention this programme as an example, now if you look or listen to these programmes they are unchallenged religious propaganda, again I have no objection to them individually.
There are a number of these religious programmes that go out on a regular basis BBC radio 4 seems to have the most of the BBC's religious content and once more that's OK why shouldn't religious people have their programming, there's no objections coming from my quarter.
T4TD is on six days a week an exclusively religious slot, then on BBC radio 2 five days a week Pause for thought another exclusively religious slot, the daily service BBC radio 4 (LW) Prayer For the Day seven days a week BBC radio 4, another one.
All of these programmes I have mentioned are presented by the religious for the religious there's no input from non-religious people, there are also a number of discussion programmes and debates about various aspects of religion and other philosophies, these are the only places where you hear or see non-religious people represented and something like 90% of these programmes the religious outnumber the non-religious people, plus they are debates or a discussion type of programme.
They did recently put on some unchallenged non-religious programming on radio 3 late night a couple of months back I doubt many noticed, I wonder why they put that kind of programme there on 3, the radio station nobody listens to, and late at night, it wouldn't be so that if anyone complained, "Well we did put a few programmes covering non religious subjects on the other night"; nothing new there they strategically placed for a reason of course.
The result is that on the main BBC TV channels and their main radio stations, they, the BBC, manage to inhibit non-religious voices to as a minimal part of any of their broadcasting time they think they can get away with, so it doesn't surprise me when they declare using the logic of the mad house that they wont allow non-religious voices on T4TD.
How much more does the £10 million a year BBC Religion and Ethics department want shut down non-religious representation and for how long do they think they can keep getting away with it.
Having non-religious voices on T4TD would be a very minor concession when compared to the large amount of unfettered religious representation they put out.
ippy
-
T4TD isn't really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.
If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home :o
All NoN religious people equal Alf Garnett - can I suggest you stop digging'?
-
T4TD isn't really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.
If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home :o
The ban of non-religious voices on T4TD must be the most irrational thing the BBC has ever done.
ippy
-
T4TD isn't really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.
If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home :o
No it wouldn't. The contributors would still be selected for their ability to provide a short three minute piece on the issues of the day within the context of their own philosophic or moral standpoint, just as they are currently. The only difference being that some of the contributors would be religious (and may or may not talk about their religious perspectives) others would be non religious.
There is no suggestion that a opened up TFTD would simply become a platform for random contributors. It would still be based on regular contributors, and that is quite important as three minutes is a very short time, so you end up understanding the person over time as they contribute many three minute pieces.
To be honest Anne Atkins makes me want to throw something at the radio already - she is more Alf Garnett-like than many non religious contributors I could suggest.
-
I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm
What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.
She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.
The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.
Blimey - an article from 2002 - hold the front page.
-
I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm
What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.
She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.
The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.
"The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on".
Well you would be aghast Rose, when you obviously are unable to understand what secularism represents.
ippy
-
Rose: with regard to the extension of marriage to couples of the same sex, did or do you agree with the move, disagree with it or not sure?
(Sounds random, I know, but I have an ulterior motive for asking ;) ).
-
I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm
What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.
She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.
The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.
Well the more I see of your posts on this topic the more aghast I am at the way you view others.
-
Wouldn't it be better to rename it to 'Religious Thought for the Day' since that's only what you think it can be?
You're demonstrating Bashful Anthony Syndrome - pathological hypersensitivity to actual or merely perceived criticism - if a two-and-a-half minute slot saying that science explains things properly where religion never has (stating the bleeding obvious as far as I'm concerned) should arouse such an irrational response.
That you should zero in on the supposed 'hang ups' of others is about the best example of unintentional irony I've seen in a long time.
-
This is what the remit is for thought for the day
"Thought for the Day provides an opportunity to reflect on current affairs from a perspective of religious faith."
Richard Dawkins failed see my post above. He couldn't comment on current affairs from a perspective of someone without a religious faith.
This is why I don't want it widened, because I don't see why it should be used as yet another platform for people with hang ups about religion.
Yep because no theists have any of those. Your opposition to free speech and equality is not in line with your idea that the non theists are opposed to equalityn
-
TftD is supposed to look at current affairs from a religious perspective.
Dawkins didn't stick to that remit because he didn't appear on TftD because he's not allowed to. He appeared on a separate, alternative programme like TftD but not TftD - a bit like the Alternative Queen's Speech that Channel 4 puts on every Christmas Day.
You know ... separate but equal ::)
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?
Of course, you never mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.
We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?
You call me hypocritical, whilst admitting you do the very things you pointed out to me, "tons of them."* If that is not turning logic on its head, what is? I do not misrepresent you; in fact I haven't a clue what you are on about most of the time, your English is so inadequate. As to why I am on her: because I have a religious belief, and I choose to defend it against the resident numpties, who have absolutely no explanation as to why they spend years on here, ranting, as often as not, using guttersnipe language. Spend a little more time checking your English before posting; and a lot more time checking what you've written.
*Five errors on your last post on this thread - sloppy!
-
Keep people like Richard Dawkins off T4TD
Why because it no longer becomes anything to do with thoughts at all, but more of the usual crap he throws at religion.
He had his chance here, and blew it, because he had nothing interesting to say, other than put others down.
"Professor Richard Dawkins
Prof Dawkins became the first atheist to deliver a Thought for the Day
A BBC spokesman said he could not comment on the contents of Ms Smoker's lawyers' letter as it was private correspondence.
Speaking about the dispute, he said: "Thought for the Day provides an opportunity to reflect on current affairs from a perspective of religious faith.
"As such it is inappropriate to include non-religious contributions."
In August, Oxford University scientist Professor Richard Dawkins became the first atheist to deliver an alternative, unofficial Thought for the Day.
In his two-and-a-half minute slot, Professor Dawkins argued that science gave a better explanation of life than religion."
Xxxxxxxxx
If people like that want to be included in things like T4TD then they need to show some of these inspiring thoughts which don't involve putting other people down.
Rrichard Dawkins failed dismally to show he was capable of making relevant and inspiring comments of his own without putting down others or reverting to the same old stuff he writes books about.
The bloke hasn't got an original thought in his head that doesn't involve his particular "hang up"
No I don't want the likes of him on thought for the day otherwise
It's going to have to be renamed as " hang up of the day" instead.
I note my post 154 on this thread still stands.
ippy
-
The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.
So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?
Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.
Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...
Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here - as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."
The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.
Please note the corrections above; made before you posted. Thank you.
't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?
Of course, you never mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.
We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?
You call me hypocritical, whilst admitting you do the very things you pointed out to me, "tons of them."* If that is not turning logic on its head, what is? I do not misrepresent you; in fact I haven't a clue what you are on about most of the time, your English is so inadequate. As to why I am on her: because I have a religious belief, and I choose to defend it against the resident numpties, who have absolutely no explanation as to why they spend years on here, ranting, as often as not, using guttersnipe language. Spend a little more time checking your English before posting; and a lot more time checking what you've written.
*Five errors on your last post on this thread - sloppy!
Why do you feel the need to lie on here so frequently?
-
Rose: with regard to the extension of marriage to couples of the same sex, did or do you agree with the move, disagree with it or not sure?
(Sounds random, I know, but I have an ulterior motive for asking ;) ).
It doesn't bother me.
I'd only object if I thought it was being forced on a church that didn't want to perform a religious marriage ceremony but was being forced to by law.
What has this got to do with T4TD? Or secularism?
Glad you asked.
The argument most often advanced by supporters of equal marriage was the fairness (or unfairness) argument; namely that it was manifestly unfair that only heterosexual couples could get married and that same-sex couples were forbidden from doing so. There's absolutely nothing whatever intrinsic to marriage as a concept to state that it can only ever be between two people of opposite sexes. A majority of the public saw it that way, and in due course we had legislation put into place which removed that silly and backward bit of discrimination from society. A bit of unfairness was remedied, in other words.
Many people see the situation with TftD as analagous. Because it's called 'Thought for the Day' and not 'Religious Thought for the Day' or 'The God Slot' or 'The Bible Bit' or 'Quran Qorner' or what have you, there's nothing inherently religious about it, and there's no justification for excluding non-religious contributors, for preventing them from giving their thoughts. Deliberately and explicitly cutting out non-religious voices is discriminatory in almost anybody's book.
-
I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm
What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.
She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.
The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.
"The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on".
Well you would be aghast Rose, when you obviously are unable to understand what secularism represents.
ippy
Oh I do!
I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.
Way to prejudiced.
Your posts don't line up with what it is you are saying about the NSS.
Secularism is what it is no more or any less, fine you don't have to like it, liking it or not doesn't make its ideals wrong.
ippy
-
Wouldn't it be better to rename it to 'Religious Thought for the Day' since that's only what you think it can be?
You're demonstrating Bashful Anthony Syndrome - pathological hypersensitivity to actual or merely perceived criticism - if a two-and-a-half minute slot saying that science explains things properly where religion never has (stating the bleeding obvious as far as I'm concerned) should arouse such an irrational response.
Its not irrational, the two minute slot isn't about criticising the beliefs of others.
It's about looking at current affairs from a religious viewpoint.
Richard Dawkins with his two minutes of knocking religion proved beyond doubt that he can't do it.
He can't talk for two minutes about current affairs using his own philosophy of life, without knocking religion.
A rabbi has to get up there and talk about current affairs, throwing in a bit of his own religious perspective without criticising other religions etc how come Richard Dawkins can't do that?
Because he can't.
You put Richard Dawkins up there and all he can do is come out with the same old stuff.
Oh the obsession of theists with Dawkins - does it ever stop.
Lets get a couple of things straight. First Dawkins has never appeared on TFTD - he once had something similar, but not actually a slot on the programme itself.
Secondly I wouldn't be in favour of selecting non religious people to contribute to a broadened TFTD who would be likely to use the 3 minutes to criticise religion - that isn't the point, although secularists and non believers are quite regularly criticised overtly or covertly on the current TFTD format.
Thirdly despite your obsession I don't think that Dawkins, nor some of the more high profile non religious campaigners would be the type of people to become contributors on a revised TFTD. Actually if you look at the regulars currently many are actually very low profile outside of their TFTD contribution - they may be professional theologians or otherwise involved in think tanks, as academics or in other careers but with a strong moral opinions. There are loads of non religious people who would fit into the latter categories (obviously not the professional theologians of course). So you would get Dawkins, Grayling etc, but you might get Jonathon Glover, or John Harris (both academic ethicists), maybe even Richard Curtis.
-
It's just a title, just like "match of the day" only features one sport.
But other sports programmes featuring different sports (and only those sports) are available. There is no such equivalent where non religious people are given an unfettered 3 minutes to give their views on issues throughout their own moral viewpoint where there aren't any religious voices allowed.
-
It's just a title, just like "match of the day" only features one sport.
And the other point is that MOTD isn't included as a core component of a flagship news programme that has a requirement to demonstrate impartiality.
If you wanted a real analogy it would be if the sports section on the Today programme only ever reported football and banned any other sports and got round the claim of partiality by suggesting that the 3 minute sports section was somehow a separate programme not part of, nor governed by, the rules of impartiality that apply to the Today programme.
-
The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.
A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.
Can you give some examples? The only one that leapt out at me was religious (i.e. abysmally cruel and miserable) slaughter of animals, a religious 'tradition' I would gladly see eradicated.
-
The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.
A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.
Can you give some examples? The only one that leapt out at me was religious (i.e. abysmally cruel and miserable) slaughter of animals, a religious 'tradition' I would gladly see eradicated.
Agree: but some years ago I lived near a fella who worked in a slaughter house, and the tales he would regale people with about what went on, beggars belief. The whole business of slaughter is foul and ridden with abuse and neglect.
-
I know :'(
I remember hearing the manager of a slaughterhouse saying years ago that that's why you can only get utterly brain-dead morons to do the job in the first place.
-
I think there are lots of programmes that invite non religious comment of current affairs.
Which also ban comments from religious people and do not provide any mechanism for those views to be challenged or debated? Really? News to me - examples please.
I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not.
-
It's just a title, just like "match of the day" only features one sport.
And the other point is that MOTD isn't included as a core component of a flagship news programme that has a requirement to demonstrate impartiality.
If you wanted a real analogy it would be if the sports section on the Today programme only ever reported football and banned any other sports and got round the claim of partiality by suggesting that the 3 minute sports section was somehow a separate programme not part of, nor governed by, the rules of impartiality that apply to the Today programme.
Perhaps the BBC feel the today programme contains enough balance where the non religious POV is put across and discussed ( in as much as it doesn't involve religion at all)
I don't think so, or else the BBC wouldn't use the loophole of 'pretending' that TFTD isn't part of the Today programme to get around its obligations on impartiality.
-
I know :'(
I remember hearing the manager of a slaughterhouse saying years ago that that's why you can only get utterly brain-dead morons to do the job in the first place.
There is no doubt that neglect of the rules and regulations goes on excessively, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is not more public outrage. There is ridiculous attention to such trivia as what the Duchess of Cambridge is wearing today, but not to the suffering, daily, of these poor creatures.
-
A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions
As far as I can see pretty well all of the NSS campaigns are entirely focussed on issues where religion and the state bump up against each other, which of course is entirely consistent with its secular remit.
Do they want to abolish faith schools - no, they only want state funded faith schools abolished. Do they want to outlaw admission to faith schools being on the basis of faith - nope, only when the school is funded by the state.
Do they want to stop private organisations choosing to hold prayers at their meetings - nope - they only want to outlaw prayers as part of official meetings of public bodies, e.g. councils.
Do they want hospital chaplains abolished - nope they just think that they should be funded by the religious organisation, not the state.
In fact the only campaigns I can see which aren't directly about religion and the state are where there is abuse or cruelty - e.g. religions slaughter, abuse in churches and FGM.
and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.
What are you talking about then?
-
I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.
I like it because it is a bit religious.
Normally I avoid religious programmes but T4TD I like. You can listen to past recordings.
I've no doubt in time the NSS will destroy it and fill it with their own politically correct garbage.
Perhaps the reason the BBC don't want to give in, is because they know enough people like it as it is.
It's sad, but religion has become politically incorrect nowadays.
:(
Guess what you just might learn to love the TFTD contributions of Jonathon Glover when he is finally allowed to contribute as a non religious person.
You've probably never heard of him, but he is an academic ethicist, a lovely guy and a fantastic and 'warm' speaker who be engaging, challenging and charming in equal measures. He'd be great - would knock the Daily Mail-ish rantings of Anne Atkins into a cocked hat.
-
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Secret-halal-slaughterhouse-film-reveals-horrific- animal-abuse.html
www.theguardian.com/world/video/2010/oct/07/animal-welfare-abuse-slaughterhouse
I hope these two can be accessed okay, but they are appalling. Anyone who looks at these and is not moved to tears, is heartless. Enjoy your sausages!!
There are many more examples.
-
So so far non religious people like depths, are like Alf Garnett and speak garbage. Feel the push for equality.
-
I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.
It's symbolic and important to challenge discrimination and privilege where it is found.
And you can turn it on its head - how about the various campaigning christian groups spending their members money on issues about a cake!?!?
And actually the point isn't to destroy TFTD but to make it better and more relevant. Given that probably 80-90% of the listeners to the Today programme have no active involvement in any religion TFTD speaks to a very narrow audience. To open it up would get far fewer people rushing to the radio to turn it off when it comes on, as happens now.
-
I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm
What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.
She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.
The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.
"The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on".
Well you would be aghast Rose, when you obviously are unable to understand what secularism represents.
ippy
Oh I do!
I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.
Way to prejudiced.
Your posts don't line up with what it is you are saying about the NSS.
Secularism is what it is no more or any less, fine you don't have to like it, liking it or not doesn't make its ideals wrong.
ippy
The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.
A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.
No it doesn't want to destroy religious traditions, it clearly points this out.
The main thing that seems to be upsetting religious people is where the NSS is pointing out where the religious have their very cosy comfortable long held privileges underlined and they/you think we should let these privileges continue unchallenged.
Why do you think the NSS shouldn't disturb these long held cosy comfortable privileges the religious organisations have for the express reason of creating a level playing field for all people of all beliefs or none?
The HOL bishops privileges are outrageous but that's only one of many privileges when you add them all together they amount to an enormous outrage of unwarranted privilege, no small wonder the NSS is very busy on this front when you add them all up.
Like I said and I haven't seen anything to change my mind: you really don't understand what it is secularism is all about but don't worry too much unfortunately you are far from being on your own in this area.
ippy
-
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Secret-halal-slaughterhouse-film-reveals-horrific- animal-abuse.html
www.theguardian.com/world/video/2010/oct/07/animal-welfare-abuse-slaughterhouse
I hope these two can be accessed okay, but they are appalling. Anyone who looks at these and is not moved to tears, is heartless. Enjoy your sausages!!
There are many more examples.
I think you raise a really valid point, but I think it's better on another thread because it will get hidden here. I know Gonzo asked on the recipes thread today but again not sure it is suitable there either. I think this needs a thread of its own, possibly a pinned one since, as with other subjects it arises regularly.
-
So so far non religious people like depths, are like Alf Garnett and speak garbage. Feel the push for equality.
Equality doesn't mean we are all the same or want the same things.
Therefore some programmes are not equal because they are targeted at different groups with different requirements.
There are still a lot of religious people in this country of various sorts and programmes need to reflect that as well.
A three minute slot for those with an interest in a religious viewpoint, not just the religious, is not a problem IMO.
There are plenty of programmes that don't involve religion at all.
Science programmes for example.
Which do not exclude religious people from taking part. And I see you haven't begun to address that you have taken the position that non religious people are worthless Alf Garnetts that talk garbage when it comes to ethics and morality.
-
I think there are lots of programmes that invite non religious comment of current affairs.
Which also ban comments from religious people and do not provide any mechanism for those views to be challenged or debated? Really? News to me - examples please.
I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not.
"I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not".
This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.
ippy
-
And actually the point isn't to destroy TFTD but to make it better and more relevant. Given that probably 80-90% of the listeners to the Today programme have no active involvement in any religion TFTD speaks to a very narrow audience. To open it up would get far fewer people rushing to the radio to turn it off when it comes on, as happens now.
I'm amazed that there could be any active resistance to the idea of making something more inclusive - religious and non-religious contributors - rather than exclusive (non-religious contributors not allowed).
It's almost as though some people support inequality and discrimination ... oh wait: some of them do.
This isn't the most important issue in the world. I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. On the other hand, as the Prof. says, it's important to stand up and be counted whenever unfairness and inequality manifest themselves regardless of the size of the issue in relative terms.
-
As long as each group has an equal say separately
But that's the whole point - they don't.
For non religious people to have an equal say separately there would need to be a 'balancing' programme to TFTD - one which allows non religious people to discuss issues of the day within their non religious moral framework, and which allows non religious contributors, but bans religious ones.
But that programme does not exist. So TFTD allows religious contributors but bans non religious ones, while other related programmes (Moral Maze being a good example) allow both religious and non religious.
There is, clearly, no equal say separately.
-
I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.
Way to prejudiced.
And Ann Atkins isn't?
You fill me with incredulity!
-
I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.
Way to prejudiced.
And Ann Atkins isn't?
You fill me with incredulity!
Indeed.
-
I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.
I like it because it is a bit religious.
Normally I avoid religious programmes but T4TD I like. You can listen to past recordings.
I've no doubt in time the NSS will destroy it and fill it with their own politically correct garbage.
Perhaps the reason the BBC don't want to give in, is because they know enough people like it as it is.
It's sad, but religion has become politically incorrect nowadays.
:(
It's the principle that's wrong, however much time it's on air has nothing to do with it.
You've got that problem a lot of religionists have with secularism, you really don't get it,
stand it on it's head; T4TD where only non-religious people can contribute, how would you like that?
ippy
-
Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative. You are as full of invective as any, but less strident; settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal." You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language. What's more, you can't mind your own business. Other than all that, you're okay.
Your previous effort was better. I think you've shot your load.
-
Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative. You are as full of invective as any, but less strident; settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal." You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language. What's more, you can't mind your own business. Other than all that, you're okay.
Your previous effort was better. I think you've shot your load.
I have plsnty left; but there are the Mods to take into account. :)
-
So what are you looking for?
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I like hearing about lines of Jewish thought or what Guru Nanak taught about aspects of life and the news
Three minutes is just enough to be interesting without being preachy.
I like it as it is.
;D
I don't understand why you can't have the occasional humanist on. What are you afraid of?
-
Sometimes by widening the audience you are no longer catering for the original audience the programme was aimed at.
The audience is already everybody who listens to the Today programme between 7.30 and 8 am. At the moment, the slot completely ignores a large proportion of them.
What it does is give those individuals an interesting depth to their opinions, which would be lacking without the religious background.
Frankly I find quite a lot of what is said in Thought for the Day to be pretty shallow. I don't think depth or shallowness is anything to do with being a theist or not.
-
I heard a TftD by a Jedi-ist some months back.
Really? I'd like to see some evidence to back that one up.
-
This is why I don't want it widened, because I don't see why it should be used as yet another platform for people with hang ups about religion.
But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book.
-
So so far non religious people like depths, are like Alf Garnett and speak garbage. Feel the push for equality.
Equality doesn't mean we are all the same or want the same things.
Therefore some programmes are not equal because they are targeted at different groups with different requirements.
There are still a lot of religious people in this country of various sorts and programmes need to reflect that as well.
A three minute slot for those with an interest in a religious viewpoint, not just the religious, is not a problem IMO.
I'm actually fine with that, but let's call it what it is "Religious Thought for the Day"
There are plenty of programmes that don't involve religion at all.
Science programmes for example.
The last Christmas special of The Infinite Monkey Cage (science programme) had the Reverend Richard Coles on it. There is no bar to scientists who believe in a religion appearing on any BBC science programme. Why are you frightened of atheists when the arch-atheist himself - Brian Cox - is prepared to invite a priest onto his science programme?
-
I have plsnty left
Is that some sort of a disease?
-
I have plsnty left
Is that some sort of a disease?
No, and it certainly isn't cash! :)
-
I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.
Way to prejudiced.
And Ann Atkins isn't?
You fill me with incredulity!
I had to look her up because I haven't happened to have come across her thoughts for the day.
"In September 2008, Atkins prompted complaints after offending the people of Norfolk on BBC Radio 4. In a Thought for the Day broadcast about compensation culture, she said: "No more chestnut trees lining the streets of Norwich, in case the conkers fall on your head - as if that would make a difference, in Norfolk"
Do you come from Norfolk?
When I listen I usually listen from here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5bxBSyCZvhXMzJtsZg5lSsP/regular-contributors
She's the intellectual heavyweight who was hauled over the coals for claiming that a gay man is seventeen times more likely to be a paedophile.
-
Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.
That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.
-
I once read a comment, when equal marriage was being discussed, from somebody who thought that it was "extreme."
I like to think that my response - "Extreme equality? How does that work then?" - put the point across.
-
I think there are lots of programmes that invite non religious comment of current affairs.
Which also ban comments from religious people and do not provide any mechanism for those views to be challenged or debated? Really? News to me - examples please.
I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not.
"I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not".
This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.
ippy
Omg conspiracy theories now!
Have a listen, tell me if I'm wrong.
ippy
-
Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.
That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.
Not really.
But you can have to much equality to the point it can be a bad thing.
It's when people don't recognise individuality and are obsessed with everyone being the same.
Equality is equality is equality!
-
So what are you looking for?
Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.
I like hearing about lines of Jewish thought or what Guru Nanak taught about aspects of life and the news
Three minutes is just enough to be interesting without being preachy.
I like it as it is.
;D
I don't understand why you can't have the occasional humanist on. What are you afraid of?
The particular non religionists that are kicking up a stink because they think they "ought" to be on it, are the last people I would want to see on it.
I don't like evangelism at the best of times and being dictated to by a bunch of strident atheists with an agenda does not appeal.
Richard Dawkins feeble attempt at a mock T4TD doesn't fill me with confidence that this wouldn't happen.
The thought for the days I have listened to have been not preachy at all and are just reflections on aspects of life from a variety of religious viewpoints which I don't necessarily share.
To allow Richard Dawkins and the NSS crew to put forward their agenda on there in the aggressive way the do, would spoil it and make it preachy and not at all reflective at all.
For a start Richard Dawkings has been banging on about His idea of Science being better than Religion for years, we have all heard it before, It's about time he came up with a new thought, because another one must be due by now.
If you let the non religious people who are wanting to go on it, on it, it will become more political and more about point scoring than about reflection.
I'm sure there are non religious people who could inspire and make people reflect without religion but they are not the strident ones clamouring to make the changes and forward their own agenda.
I'm afraid that those strident and bossy atheists are going to drown out all the interesting people I want to listen to.
Not necessarily believe, but listen to.
For some reason they want to either shut them up, or force their own beliefs on me in equal measure.
I choose to listen to Rabbi Sachs, but it looks like I might be forced to have Richard Dawkins, and his POV.
It's not even that I believe what different religions believe in, or even that I disagree with what Richard Dawkins believes.
It's the nature of the way they get the message across.
They are strident, aggressive, pushy, bossy, and preachy.
No I don't want them, a lot of Christianity stopped doing that in the UK and certain atheists need to learn not to do it either.
It wasn't acceptable then and it isn't acceptable now , except now the problem is these strident Atheists who have so many hang ups about religion it's annoying.
I don't like RD or the NSS or the BHA because they dictate in the same way religion did 50 years ago. The BHA is very discriminating on who can be called a humanist for example.
I know what secularism is, but I don't feel the need to tear off parts of my countries history because of it.
They do!
In this country established Christianity largely grew up, and stopped dictating to other people who wanted to think differently, now there are some atheists who need to grow up as well, and stop telling religious people and everyone else what they should be thinking and calling them "muddled" if they don't agree.
I react to evangelical and pushy Atheists in exactly the same way as I react to evangelical and pushy Christians .
Seriously, they are so much alike in many ways.
They just make me feel Secularism is a bit like socialism, there are benefits and good points but taken to an extreme it becomes communism , it's uncomfortable and I don't want to be there.
Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.
Not such a sweet little Rose; I note you still either don't want to understand secularism, or are unable to do so.
ippy
-
Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.
That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.
Not really.
But you can have to much equality to the point it can be a bad thing.
It's when people don't recognise individuality and are obsessed with everyone being the same.
Blimey, not only do you not understand secularism, but it appears you don't understand equality.
The whole point of equality is to support diversity (hence loads of departments in companies etc are called Equality and Diversity).
Equality means that people are treated equally and do not suffer discrimination regardless of their diverse characteristics where those characteristics aren't relevant to a job, receiving a service etc etc. So equality ensures that people can develop their diverse individuality safe in the knowledge that they won't suffer discrimination because of it.
-
I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.
I like it because it is a bit religious.
Normally I avoid religious programmes but T4TD I like. You can listen to past recordings.
I've no doubt in time the NSS will destroy it and fill it with their own politically correct garbage.
Perhaps the reason the BBC don't want to give in, is because they know enough people like it as it is.
It's sad, but religion has become politically incorrect nowadays.
:(
It's the principle that's wrong, however much time it's on air has nothing to do with it.
You've got that problem a lot of religionists have with secularism, you really don't get it,
stand it on it's head; T4TD where only non-religious people can contribute, how would you like that?
ippy
There are plenty of non religious slots on the media where any form of religion would be considered inappropriate and I have found that religious people are being excluded in real life based on the fact they are religious.
Along the lines of " oh! We don't want them!" ( based on the fact they wear a dog collar not that they are preachy)
So it works both ways.
The £10,000,000 a year budget to run on, BBC religion and ethics department runs all of the religious and ethical content of the Beeb, as per it's title, the head of department is always someone very high up in religious circles if it's not one of the bishops or another.
So there's no bias there then Rose is that what you're hinting at?
ippy
-
This is why I don't want it widened, because I don't see why it should be used as yet another platform for people with hang ups about religion.
But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book.
Do they have hang ups about atheism?
Do you think it's unjustified for me to suggest that all theists who speak on TftD have hang ups about atheism? If so, don't you think that is a bit hypocritical since you made exactly the analogous accusation with respect to any atheists that might get to speak on TftD?
And more importantly do they express them on T4TD, in the fashion of Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins did that once in a special one off slot and what he said was, at least, true. There is no reason to suspect that this would happen every time an atheist does TftD.
-
This is why I don't want it widened, because I don't see why it should be used as yet another platform for people with hang ups about religion.
But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book.
Do they have hang ups about atheism?
Do you think it's unjustified for me to suggest that all theists who speak on TftD have hang ups about atheism? If so, don't you think that is a bit hypocritical since you made exactly the analogous accusation with respect to any atheists that might get to speak on TftD?
And more importantly do they express them on T4TD, in the fashion of Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins did that once in a special one off slot and what he said was, at least, true. There is no reason to suspect that this would happen every time an atheist does TftD.
I don't really think that campaigning secularists are necessarily the most appropriate contributors to a broadened TFTD. I would have thought the more natural contributors would be atheists who are engaged in philosophy and ethics. These would be the kind of people most likely to provide great contributions, providing an personal ethical perspective on current affairs in an interesting and thought provoking manner. Much like many of the current religious contributors I'd image many would not be household names but for their contributions to TFTD.
-
The particular non religionists that are kicking up a stink because they think they "ought" to be on it, are the last people I would want to see on it.
I'm kicking up a stink about it with you right now, but I certainly don't think I ought to be on it. Who are these people that are kicking up a stink but do want to be on it?
I don't like evangelism at the best of times and being dictated to by a bunch of strident atheists with an agenda does not appeal.
Richard Dawkins feeble attempt at a mock T4TD doesn't fill me with confidence that this wouldn't happen.
How many times does it have to be said before this penetrates your skull? Having atheists on TftD is no more likely to result in stridency than having the current crop of theists on. And how do you know Richard Dawkins would even be one of the contributors?
And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do. Vlad is getting jealous.
-
And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do. Vlad is getting jealous.
Exactly - there are perhaps 15 million atheists in the UK, why do the theists obsess on just one.
-
I don't really think that campaigning secularists are necessarily the most appropriate contributors to a broadened TFTD. I would have thought the more natural contributors would be atheists who are engaged in philosophy and ethics. These would be the kind of people most likely to provide great contributions, providing an personal ethical perspective on current affairs in an interesting and thought provoking manner. Much like many of the current religious contributors I'd image many would not be household names but for their contributions to TFTD.
I totally agree with you. You might have one or two big names occasionally (similar to them sometimes using Jonathan Sachs or the Arch Bish of C), Rose's obsession with Richard Dawkins is a straw man.
-
And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do. Vlad is getting jealous.
Exactly - there are perhaps 15 million atheists in the UK, why do the theists obsess on just one.
I take it you Meldrews will stop going on about the Pope then.
-
This Meldrew won't.
Given what the organisation of which he's the head has been responsible for, not a bleeding chance, chummy.
-
This Meldrew won't.
Given what the organisation of which he's the head has been responsible for, not a bleeding chance, chummy.
I'm not your Chum.
-
But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts, so it seems apposite ;)
-
But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts
I am not your Pal either.
-
But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts
I am not your Pal either.
Pedigree Chum, perhaps?
-
But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts
I am not your Pal either.
Pedigree Chum, perhaps?
this thread won't win a lot over to the board
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
Hi Rose I've just had a quick read of your link, I will read it through again later but my first impression is immediately the author is another person like yourself that seems to be unable to grasp the idea of secularism and what it's all about.
Aggressive secularism, what's that all about?
Secularism wants to protect your right to hold and practice any religious belief you wish to take up; I suppose secularists are aggressive towards those that would like to take your religious freedoms away from you.
Use of the phrase "aggressive secularism" is a phrase when used tells immediately that the user of this term doesn't understand secularism.
ippy
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.
You never will get secularism Woo, best find another thread where you might at least understand the subject.
ippy
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
But this articular has nothing to do with secularism.
The argument here is about limits to freedom of speech that isn't fundamentally about secularism. All a secularist agenda would claim is that the limits of freedom of speech should be balanced, so that both the religious and non religious have the same ability to speak as they see fit. A secular agenda would suggest that if religious people can insult and offend non religious people and their views/beliefs, so should non religious people be able to insult and offend religious people and their views/beliefs. Or that freedom of speech should be curtailed so than neither should be able to insult and offend the other and their views/beliefs.
So the secularists currently are concerned about limits to freedom of speech that specifically protect the religious and they religions, while allowing them free reign to insult others. That's not balanced.
-
I actually find the article unpleasant to read. Firstly, most Islam isn't aggressive - it's only a minority. Secondly, secularism doesn't just uphold the right to offend but the right to take offence - to say that secularism 'doesn't care' is ridiculous, like saying religion 'doesn't care'. Clearly the author doesn't understand what secularism is. And gay marriage is a 'fashion'? Funny that a Catholic country has just voted for marriage equality then.
-
This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.
ippy
I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror). I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.
The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc. That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.
-
This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.
ippy
I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror). I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.
The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc. That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.
One of the worst with an agenda of his own is Jeremy Vine on the phone in parts of his show BBC radio 2 1200 t0 1400 5 days a week whether you go along with his agenda or not it's wrong.
Most of the flipping of the paddles on the pin ball table the BBC does is very clever, well oiled, works in all sorts of ways if you take the trouble to list its methods it make those that do sound like a conspiracy theorist, that sounds like Peter Cook speaking with his well known "Did you know" sketch soppy voice.
I've yet to hear a programme made for non-religious people that is specifically made for non-religious people by non-religious people about non-religious subjects like, for instance, Humanism.
The religious are able to have and broadcast unchallenged programmes for themselves on a daily basis, which contrary to what you may think of me, I think it's quite right that the religious have their unchallenged programming, regardless what I might think of the subject.
The BBC doesn't do unchallenged non-religious broadcasts on any of the main stations, it did a series about free thinkers some months back on radio 3 at and around 2330 to 0100, get the picture?
You think the BBC has an agenda?
They use exactly similar flipping on the pin ball table methods with politics to suit their agenda and of course it's all in our imaginations, they are nowhere near the benign organisation they would have all of us think they are.
ippy
-
This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.
ippy
I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror). I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.
The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc. That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.
Can't say I can agree with you there.
On the portrayal of 'characters' in tv and radio, there was a long discussion on this some while ago and the view seemed to be that religious figures (e.g. clergy) were portrayed in a broadly sympathetic manner (e.g. VofD and Rev etc), and of course scientist are still regularly portrayed by the media in fictional programmes as geeks.
On scientists and religious figures on news, current affairs etc - well first why do you assume that stuff religious leaders come out with isn't also 'incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public- - I'd argue that it often is too.
But you also need to recognise the difference between getting someone on the news for their 'expert opinion', and for their 'opinion'. If there is a news item on mortality rates due to ebola then a scientist is likely to be giving an 'expert opinion' - to inform the listeners or viewers so to speak. It would not be reasonable to attack their expert opinion, because it is likely to be based on fact. That contrasts with someone giving an opinion on a matter where there is no agreed 'fact' but is genuinely a matter of opinion. So if a bishop gives their opinion on gay civil marriage, it isn't an expert opinion, merely one opinion, not factually based, and one of many opinions that need to be balanced and challenged by the broadcaster to ensure impartiality.
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.
I don't agree mainly because although technology and knowledge has increased the basic human being is very much the same.
People nowadays are no different to those ancient people, who also thought they lived in an enlightened age too.
Most, in fact all tribes they have discovered in the last few hundred years all had a religious belief of some sort which indicates to me anyway, that it is something that is deep in our being.
Take away our electric lights and our technology and I wonder how long or how many generations before it popped up again even if the original people were atheist.
I think the sense of divine, and all the rest of it is to much a part of us to be just cast off.
Astrology is still going strong, despite our more "enlightened times"
I think it is more enlightened to accept that aspect of human nature is always going to be with us, no matter how many new gadgets we have, or how much science we learn.
I suppose you could also argue our sense of the divine is evolving with us.
Astrology, how come identical twins don't live/have identical lives?
The above tells you all anyone needs to know about astrology.
ippy
-
Another example of the BBC's slickness is Beyond Belief which is broadcast on Monday afternoons at 4.30.
It is a programme which purports to look at matters of interest/concern to religion in a non-sectarian context. The subjects may be overtly religious, like fundamentalism, or more ethically related, like organ donation.
However, what you almost always get is a series of faith-based statements (a jewish, islamic, hindu, christian etc). There is seldom any input from someone who has no faith viewpoint.
-
Rose
Do you believe that there is any validity to astrology? And if so, why?
The conference Methods of Predicting the Future has been cancelled for unforseen reasons.
-
That contrasts with someone giving an opinion on a matter where there is no agreed 'fact' but is genuinely a matter of opinion. So if a bishop gives their opinion on gay civil marriage, it isn't an expert opinion, merely one opinion, not factually based, and one of many opinions that need to be balanced and challenged by the broadcaster to ensure impartiality.
I'd agree, although no doubt these clerics see themselves as being 'moral experts', and to some extent that they are asked to pontificate on such matters in the public arena just encourages them, and also the odd notion that the professionally religious are somehow moral luminaries just by dint of their chosen career.
-
I'd agree, although no doubt these clerics see themselves as being 'moral experts', and to some extent that they are asked to pontificate on such matters in the public arena just encourages them, and also the odd notion that the professionally religious are somehow moral luminaries just by dint of their chosen career.
The following is taken from a website called Sexual Intelligence - effectively a monthly blog by sex therapist named Marty Klein. He mostly concerned with American attitudes to sex and sexuality.
Two weeks ago I had the privilege of speaking at NECSS—the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism. I was surrounded by world-class scientists, including Yale Med School neurologist Steve Novella, Stanford physicist Deborah Berebichez, Oxford neuroscientist Heather Berlin, and even Bill Nye The Science Guy.
It was glorious—no explaining why science is important to everything we do or touch or think. Every one of the 600 attendees "believes" in gravity, evolution, and the Scientific Method.
I started each of the conference's three days in a wonderful bubble. But each day, news from the outside world was an ugly intruder—which, in a way, was why I was asked to speak there. My talk was on religion's successful challenge to democracy and public policy—which is particularly visible in the realm of sexuality.
My opening presentation was pretty straightforward:
Organized religion has successfully marketed itself as Morality Experts
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sex is mostly about morality—and therefore, they are society's Sex Experts
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sexual morality is about limiting choices (as opposed to, say, ethical decision-making or transparency).
Therefore, when organized religion gets political power, it invariably limits everyone's choices concerning sexuality.
Organized religion is aggressive in including a huge number of human enterprises within its supervision of our sexuality.
Some American politicians (such as Michelle Bachman and Scott Walker) are devout believers, with whom the above message resonates deeply. They enthusiastically drag America down to social illiteracy with them. But many politicians (such as Chris Christie) are simply for sale, and will cynically flaunt newfound religious and erotophobic bonafides as part of fundraising and campaigning.
That's why I called my talk "The Successful Subversion of Secularism."
Here are just a few reminders of the way organized religion denies science—hard-won human knowledge and certainty—to maintain its power and enforce its mass delusions on people of faith.
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
-
Another example of the BBC's slickness is Beyond Belief which is broadcast on Monday afternoons at 4.30.
It is a programme which purports to look at matters of interest/concern to religion in a non-sectarian context. The subjects may be overtly religious, like fundamentalism, or more ethically related, like organ donation.
However, what you almost always get is a series of faith-based statements (a jewish, islamic, hindu, christian etc). There is seldom any input from someone who has no faith viewpoint.
All programmes of this type are vetted and put out via the BC's religion and ethics department, they do have the odd contribution from a non-religious person, if you ever hear one of these programmes go out where the non-religious contributers out number the religionists please tell me, I'll try not to feint; there is always someone there at the BBC tapping the paddles on the pin board table, they never miss.
By having the occasional non-religious person on their programme if you were to complain HH; well Mr HH there was a Mr This or a Ms That on at various times representing your POV, without telling a lie.
Another ploy often used is where, as standard practice they always outnumber the non-religious speakers, they then have perhaps something like an interview with someone that has relevance to the subject of the programme that lasts say perhaps for ten minutes thats another ten minutes knocked off of the programme where the already out numbered non-religious contributer wont be heard; believe me the are up to all of these tricks.
I have to admit these ploys I'm writing about here on their own; people would think, oh you're imagining things, that on its own it can't be and yes it does look like that I have to agree but these things happen all of the time and when added together plus the fact that that blasted R & E department doesn't miss, puts a slant, a bias on all of these BBC R & E programmes.
ippy
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.
I don't agree mainly because although technology and knowledge has increased the basic human being is very much the same.
People nowadays are no different to those ancient people, who also thought they lived in an enlightened age too.
Most, in fact all tribes they have discovered in the last few hundred years all had a religious belief of some sort which indicates to me anyway, that it is something that is deep in our being.
Take away our electric lights and our technology and I wonder how long or how many generations before it popped up again even if the original people were atheist.
I think the sense of divine, and all the rest of it is to much a part of us to be just cast off.
Astrology is still going strong, despite our more "enlightened times"
I think it is more enlightened to accept that aspect of human nature is always going to be with us, no matter how many new gadgets we have, or how much science we learn.
I suppose you could also argue our sense of the divine is evolving with us.
Astrology, how come identical twins don't live/have identical lives?
The above tells you all anyone needs to know about astrology.
ippy
Do you know any twins Ippy?
Most of the ones I have met felt they were connected in some way and often made the same choices naturally.
Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference.
"Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference".
Mandy Rice Davies.
ippy
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Anyone with an ounce or even a tiny smidgen of sense listens to Psmith. I am a sceptic but there are some things you just cannot deny. Psmith is one of them.
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
-
I found him especially accurate in the week he told me my lucky biscuit was a garibaldi. I dread to think what would have happened had I gone for my usual rich tea. As it was I didn't forget to buy the milk or leave my keys in the house.
Phew!
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
-
Rose
Do you believe that there is any validity to astrology? And if so, why?
The conference Methods of Predicting the Future has been cancelled for unforseen reasons.
That reminds me of the newspaper astrologer who got the sack from that particular paper. Opening the letter from the editor, it began: "As you will no doubt be aware ..."
-
I found him especially accurate in the week he told me my lucky biscuit was a garibaldi. I dread to think what would have happened had I gone for my usual rich tea. As it was I didn't forget to buy the milk or leave my keys in the house.
Phew!
The day he told me to not wear blue was so useful. Unbeknownst to me a TV company had set up a 'Green screen' Which is, of course, blue outside my front door for some filming and had I worn blue I would have been invisible to the car that passed, and would have almost certainly killed me.
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes I did and what else would it be.
This isn't a joke it's true there's a British newspaper titled "The Psychic News", I assure you I haven't made it up.
Surly there's no need to buy it? How do they manage to stay in business? Why do they need a paper?
ippy
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.
I don't agree mainly because although technology and knowledge has increased the basic human being is very much the same.
People nowadays are no different to those ancient people, who also thought they lived in an enlightened age too.
Most, in fact all tribes they have discovered in the last few hundred years all had a religious belief of some sort which indicates to me anyway, that it is something that is deep in our being.
Take away our electric lights and our technology and I wonder how long or how many generations before it popped up again even if the original people were atheist.
I think the sense of divine, and all the rest of it is to much a part of us to be just cast off.
Astrology is still going strong, despite our more "enlightened times"
I think it is more enlightened to accept that aspect of human nature is always going to be with us, no matter how many new gadgets we have, or how much science we learn.
I suppose you could also argue our sense of the divine is evolving with us.
Astrology, how come identical twins don't live/have identical lives?
The above tells you all anyone needs to know about astrology.
ippy
Do you know any twins Ippy?
Most of the ones I have met felt they were connected in some way and often made the same choices naturally.
Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference.
"Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference".
Mandy Rice Davies.
ippy
Mandy Rice Davies?
This Mandy Rice Davies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mandy_Rice-Davies
That's a bit deep for me Ippy.
Was she a twin?
Or into astrology?
:o
She is well known for her famous saying at the time of the Profumo scandal, it goes, "Well they would do wouldn't they", I'm surprised you weren't familiar this saying.
It's all on wikkie.
ippy
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes I did and what else would it be.
This isn't a joke it's true there's a British newspaper titled "The Psychic News", I assure you I haven't made it up.
Surly there's no need to buy it? How do they manage to stay in business? Why do they need a paper?
ippy
So why take the piss then? What does a spoof on astrology have to do with the fact I'm a pagan?
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes I did and what else would it be.
This isn't a joke it's true there's a British newspaper titled "The Psychic News", I assure you I haven't made it up.
Surly there's no need to buy it? How do they manage to stay in business? Why do they need a paper?
ippy
So why take the piss then? What does a spoof on astrology have to do with the fact I'm a pagan?
I consider Paganism Astrology, All Religions, tarot and Cargo Cultism etc etc are all on a par believing in any one of those is bad enough, two of them well; that's the way I see it, can't help it if you don't like it Rhi.
Psychic News have just phoned up to tell me what I'll be thinking of tomorrow, I didn't need to give them my number?
ippy
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes I did and what else would it be.
This isn't a joke it's true there's a British newspaper titled "The Psychic News", I assure you I haven't made it up.
Surly there's no need to buy it? How do they manage to stay in business? Why do they need a paper?
ippy
So why take the piss then? What does a spoof on astrology have to do with the fact I'm a pagan?
I consider Paganism Astrology, All Religions, tarot and Cargo Cultism etc etc are all on a par believing in any one of those is bad enough, two of them well; that's the way I see it, can't help it if you don't like it Rhi.
Psychic News have just phoned up to tell me what I'll be thinking of tomorrow, I didn't need to give them my number?
ippy
Psychic News have just contacted me, too, to tell me what you are going to post tomorrow. But I already knew that: everybody does! :)
-
So because I link to a site spoofing astrology you assume I believe in it because I'm a pagan, Ippy. You then go off onto Psychic News, a publication for psychics and those interested in it, like it is relevant to me.
Two of what, Ippy? Do you have even the slightest clue what I believe? Oh no, because when I invited you over to the pagan board to discuss it you just sneered. So don't pretend you have the faintest idea what paganism is, because you don't have the first idea.
-
I consider Paganism Astrology, All Religions, tarot and Cargo Cultism etc etc are all on a par believing in any one of those is bad enough, two of them well; that's the way I see it, can't help it if you don't like it Rhi.
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us; so if you insist on pooh-poohing the one, you might as well pooh-pooh the other.
-
So because I link to a site spoofing astrology you assume I believe in it because I'm a pagan, Ippy. You then go off onto Psychic News, a publication for psychics and those interested in it, like it is relevant to me.
Two of what, Ippy? Do you have even the slightest clue what I believe? Oh no, because when I invited you over to the pagan board to discuss it you just sneered. So don't pretend you have the faintest idea what paganism is, because you don't have the first idea.
As I said.
ippy
-
I consider Paganism Astrology, All Religions, tarot and Cargo Cultism etc etc are all on a par believing in any one of those is bad enough, two of them well; that's the way I see it, can't help it if you don't like it Rhi.
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us; so if you insist on pooh-poohing the one, you might as well pooh-pooh the other.
I did think that was what I expressed, they are all a bit out of the corner of the mouth, "oh yes of course" thinking, hoping and trying to make sure you don't end up with an axe in the head.
Oh by the way I note you're still very mixed up with this belief and science thing of yours.
ippy
-
Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.
http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right
Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?
ippy
Did you actually follow the link?
Yes again and what else?
ippy
Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?
ippy
So you got that it's a spoof then?
Yes I did and what else would it be.
This isn't a joke it's true there's a British newspaper titled "The Psychic News", I assure you I haven't made it up.
Surly there's no need to buy it? How do they manage to stay in business? Why do they need a paper?
ippy
So why take the piss then? What does a spoof on astrology have to do with the fact I'm a pagan?
I consider Paganism Astrology, All Religions, tarot and Cargo Cultism etc etc are all on a par believing in any one of those is bad enough, two of them well; that's the way I see it, can't help it if you don't like it Rhi.
Psychic News have just phoned up to tell me what I'll be thinking of tomorrow, I didn't need to give them my number?
ippy
Psychic News have just contacted me, too, to tell me what you are going to post tomorrow. But I already knew that: everybody does! :)
I knew you'd say that, (this has got to stop BA).
ippy
-
Back to the OP I'm surprised Rose doesn't understand secularism, not so with Woo he's just not receiving, like the op title:
What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
The only thing it must be is the determination to retain all of their religious privileges, on those grounds secularism is seen by religionists as a threat.
ippy
-
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us
When can we expect to see some back-up for that assertion?
-
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us
When can we expect to see some back-up for that assertion?
Probably at about the same time that we can expect to see evidence that the assertion is wrong. After all, almost all of science, especially a lot of modern science, consists of ideas about the universe and matter that we can only surmise by observing events and believing that this event is in response to that one. Science isn't as objective a discipline as many would like to believe.
-
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us
When can we expect to see some back-up for that assertion?
Probably at about the same time that we can expect to see evidence to the contrary.
Oh brilliant - argument from or appeal to ignorance/negative proof fallacy. If there was such a thing as Hope bingo (as well as Vlad bingo) that would have been 500 points.
-
Secularism wants to protect your right to hold and practice any religious belief you wish to take up;
How does it propose to do this?
How is it doing this at the moment?
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.
You never will get secularism Woo, best find another thread where you might at least understand the subject.
ippy
I don't get ''Ippy secularism'' which states both the desire for the elimination of religion and simultaneously takes credit for the survival of same.
-
Secularism wants to protect your right to hold and practice any religious belief you wish to take up;
How does it propose to do this?
How is it doing this at the moment?
By guaranteeing freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
And by ensuring that people don't suffer discrimination on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, nor are they afforded special privileges on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.
Simples.
How is it doing this at the moment - well in the UK, reasonably well, but there remain certain obstacle to those goals, mainly situations where people with a particular religion are afforded special privileges not afforded to others who do not hold that religion. And if you turn it on its head, that is in fact discrimination against those who do not hold that religion.
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.
You never will get secularism Woo, best find another thread where you might at least understand the subject.
ippy
I don't get ''Ippy secularism'' which states both the desire for the elimination of religion and simultaneously takes credit for the survival of same.
Then perhaps you need to thick a little harder.
Lets change the topic to freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion.
It is perfectly reasonable and consistent on the one hand to support, without reservation the right of freedom of speech, but on the other desire that racism is eliminated. What that would mean is that although you recognise the right of a racist to express their racist views, you hope that in time people progress to a point where racist view have died out (although if they still exist someone has the right to express those views)
-
Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is religious sees it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.
You never will get secularism Woo, best find another thread where you might at least understand the subject.
ippy
I don't get ''Ippy secularism'' which states both the desire for the elimination of religion and simultaneously takes credit for the survival of same.
There you are Woo Proff D has explained it to you see if you can get it this time, that would go for you too Rose.
ippy
-
Secularism wants to protect your right to hold and practice any religious belief you wish to take up;
How does it propose to do this?
How is it doing this at the moment?
By guaranteeing freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
And by ensuring that people don't suffer discrimination on the basis of their religion or lack thereof, nor are they afforded special privileges on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.
Simples.
How is it doing this at the moment - well in the UK, reasonably well, but there remain certain obstacle to those goals, mainly situations where people with a particular religion are afforded special privileges not afforded to others who do not hold that religion. And if you turn it on its head, that is in fact discrimination against those who do not hold that religion.
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
-
ippy, unfortunately for you, it needs just as much 'belief' to accept the ideas that science put before us as it does to accept those that religions put before us
When can we expect to see some back-up for that assertion?
Probably at about the same time that we can expect to see evidence to the contrary.
Oh brilliant - argument from or appeal to ignorance/negative proof fallacy. If there was such a thing as Hope bingo (as well as Vlad bingo) that would have been 500 points.
I noticed this post to you Hope from Shaker he's got you sized up and you even think you have credible evidence that could support the stuff you believe too.
ippy
-
Back to the OP I'm surprised Rose doesn't understand secularism, not so with Woo he's just not receiving, like the op title:
What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
The only thing it must be is the determination to retain all of their religious privileges, on those grounds secularism is seen by religionists as a threat.
ippy
I don't have any privileges.
The threat is the creeping narrow mindedness and mockery that people with a religion are increasingly coming under, under the guise of secularism.
Your attitude to Rhiannon and astrology being a prime example.
It might have been better if Ippy had bothered noticing I'd linked to a piss-take rather than the lazy assumption that I was trying to convince him of something woo.
I don't mind paganism being dismissed as a load of, but only by people who actually know what it is.
-
Back to the OP I'm surprised Rose doesn't understand secularism, not so with Woo he's just not receiving, like the op title:
What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
The only thing it must be is the determination to retain all of their religious privileges, on those grounds secularism is seen by religionists as a threat.
ippy
I don't have any privileges.
The threat is the creeping narrow mindedness and mockery that people with a religion are increasingly coming under, under the guise of secularism.
Your attitude to Rhiannon and astrology being a prime example.
Taking a view doesn't preclude people from being secular, or having distain for airy fairy ideas that have no supporting evidence.
ippy
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
-
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
-
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
-
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
Really !?!?
I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.
-
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
Really !?!?
I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.
These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .
I note that people like the NSS and BHA think the secularist program has not gone far enough and have shown they are more than capable of conjuring up ''an age old wrong'' that ''only more secularism'' can solve.
-
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
Which ones out of
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
exactly?
-
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
Which ones out of
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
exactly?
Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists, then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian.....As I say Secularism cannot guarantee it's supposed self appointed role to defend religion while wanting it's elimination.....And as I also say the best it can do is to be vigilant against it's own excessive and sweeping generalisations.
-
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
If, as per Jeremy Bentham, there's nonsense on stilts, this is bullshit with wings. Freedom of religion entails that people are free to adhere to whatever religious belief system they choose (within certain limits, although those limits are notably looser than would obtain in a non-religious context: for example, the slaughtering of animals and the genital mutilation of infants). Freedom from religion ensures that other people who do not share those beliefs are not compelled to abide by whatever strictures they impose.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
This is incoherent and doesn't even attempt to make sense in any variety of normal English.
-
Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists
Source?
then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian
So when I asked for an example of in which country religious believers can fear "a boot against the door," your response is the supposed "discomfort" of some Muslims?
You are actually taking the piss now, aren't you?
-
On Jewish people leaving France, these amongst others
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/Jews-Leaving-France.html?mobile=yes
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Three-out-of-four-French-Jews-mull-leaving-France-352779
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/10/jews-france-leaving_n_6448418.html
-
Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists
Source?
then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian
So when I asked for an example of in which country religious believers can fear "a boot against the door," your response is the supposed "discomfort" of some Muslims?
You are actually taking the piss now, aren't you?
BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.
Whose taking the piss? Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.
So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!
Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.
-
BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.
Can you be rather more specific? (In fact, a lot more specific rather than merely listing the first news outlets that leapt into your head).
Whose taking the piss?
You are (or perhaps I should say 'yours').
Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.
This is the hyperbole with which you agreed when you said: "... I think that's ["a boot against the door"] closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit."
So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!
I'm not taking it to task because he was, quite rightly, taking the piss out of your histrionic wibble. I agree with him fully.
Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism
Which is what, exactly? Saying rude things about religion?
.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.
They should concentrate on their bigger problem - understanding what it actually means.
-
BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.
Can you be rather more specific? (In fact, a lot more specific rather than merely listing the first news outlets that leapt into your head).
I think i'll leave the information there and you appearing wilfully ignorant over it.
Besides in your wrath you have ignored the references supplied on the pending exodus by Nearly Sane.
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.
ippy
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.
ippy
How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?
-
These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .
But they might be able to. If you enshrine privilege and discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof within your constitution (i.e. a non secular state) you haven't got a hope of achieving fairness and equality and both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Your attitude is a bit like saying because some of the populace are racist (or sexist) then a state should even bother to enshrine equality on the basis of race (or gender) but should specifically ensure some racial groups (or gender) are given special status and special privilege.
Sure secularism doesn't necessarily achieve complete fairness and equality in practice, but it does embed it in law and aspire to achieve this in principle. A non secular state doesn't even bother to set itself up to achieve fairness and equality in principle, let alone in practice.
-
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I have mentioned before that I own property in France.
In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.
In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.
An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.
-
Whose taking the piss? Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.
So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!
Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.
Who started the hyperbole? Oh yes that would be you with the following:
'contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.'
My comment about boots at the door was a sarcastic repost to your self evidently dumb hyperbole about the supposed link between secularism and 'apartheid', 'equivalent to theocracy', 'suppression' and 'dark potential'.
A quick look at secular countries reveal no such link. We could of course take a quick look at some theocracies (which in Vlad's fantasy world are equivalent to secular states) and check out their commitment to freedom of religion and freedom from religion, for example:
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan
etc
And of course the developing state that ISIS are trying to create.
Complete freedom of religion and freedom from religion by the populace in those countries - hmm of no that's wrong.
-
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I have mentioned before that I own property in France.
In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.
In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.
An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.
Indeed - this is what Vlad seems to be unable to understand.
That secularism doesn't mean religion is banned, nor that religion isn't valued. It means that religion (or a particular religion) and people adhering to religion (or a particular region) are not favoured in the context of laws and the state, over another religion (or no religion) and people adhering to another religion (or no religion).
In a secular world people are treated fairly and equally under the law regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.
ippy
How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?
I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.
We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.
Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.
ippy
-
Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.
Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.
Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.
Really !?!?
I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.
These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .
I note that people like the NSS and BHA think the secularist program has not gone far enough and have shown they are more than capable of conjuring up ''an age old wrong'' that ''only more secularism'' can solve.
Well if old Vlad won't believe me directly, perhaps he will believe the highly respected Pew Research Center which has conducted extensive research looking at restrictions to religious freedom in pretty well every country in the world. They have looked at both Government restrictions on freedom of religion, and also social hostilities (a measure of the hostility of the populous to people with certain beliefs).
Check out the figure here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/religious-restrictions-in-the-50-most-populous-countries/
This is of the most populous countries in the world - those in the bottom left have the greatest religious freedom (low government restrictions and low social hostility), those toward the top right, the least religious freedom (high government restrictions and high social hostility). So what do we find when we look at the extremes and check whether they are secular or not.
Well of the 21 countries in the bottom left 4 blocks (i.e. those with the most religious freedom) all but 3 (UK, Thailand and Argentina) are secular.
Of the 16 countries in the top right 4 blocks (i.e. those with the least religious freedom) just 3 (Russia, India and Turkey) are secular.
So not much evidence there that not being secular protects religious freedom and plenty of evidence that a secular state is far more likely to result in greater religious freedom (both in terms low low levels of government restrictions and social hostility).
Job done - Vlad proven wrong (yet again).
-
Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.
-
Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.
Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)
-
Well, yeah, but apart from that ...
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.
ippy
How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?
I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.
We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.
Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.
ippy
Ippy, your views aren't offensive - in fact I think the only logical positions are to accept all belief is rubbish or all belief is possible. And nothing you say keeps me awake at night - believe me, if you are open as a pagan you have to expect derision ('kit off in woods whoar you all think you're Harry Potter') along with frightened ignorance ('Satan worshippers' 'time of baal' etc etc.)
You are free to express your disdain in whatever way you wish, but rudeness isn't debate or discussion and making assumptions about what people do and believe rather than asking or listening doesn't help either.
But I am sure you are a decent sort also and I always welcome your DIY advice. :)
-
Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.
Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)
I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.
As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?
ippy
-
Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.
Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)
I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.
As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?
ippy
It would seem that my impersonation of Vlad is convincing.
-
Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?
You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.
ippy
How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?
I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.
We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.
Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.
ippy
Ippy, your views aren't offensive - in fact I think the only logical positions are to accept all belief is rubbish or all belief is possible. And nothing you say keeps me awake at night - believe me, if you are open as a pagan you have to expect derision ('kit off in woods whoar you all think you're Harry Potter') along with frightened ignorance ('Satan worshippers' 'time of baal' etc etc.)
You are free to express your disdain in whatever way you wish, but rudeness isn't debate or discussion and making assumptions about what people do and believe rather than asking or listening doesn't help either.
But I am sure you are a decent sort also and I always welcome your DIY advice. :)
Say I were a Cargo Cultist, how much further than knowing I'm a Cargo Cultist would you want to go into my my particular Cultism, not much if anything I would guess: ditto paganism for me.
Sorry if you don't like it and expressing views are a normal part of forum life, I accept this as a forum and of course expect everybody to agree with me and dam those that don't.
Outside of where frankness is expected like here, you're probably like me and keep these things to yourself; back to heat/kitchen.
ippy
-
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I have mentioned before that I own property in France.
In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.
In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.
An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.
Good Moaning.
What yoo ere seein eez zat zees are former churches now ooned by ze local council and oocazionly Hired oot to ze Church.
Are ze actual churches not allowed to own zere own premises after all a beeg Tweed soaked eenglish toff like yourselves ees allowed to own propertie. Why not Zee Church?
-
Oh yes of course you are right.
I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...
France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc
Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.
I have mentioned before that I own property in France.
In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.
In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.
An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.
Good Moaning.
What yoo ere seein eez zat zees are former churches now ooned by ze local council and oocazionly Hired oot to ze Church.
Are ze actual churches not allowed to own zere own premises after all a beeg Tweed soaked eenglish toff like yourselves ees allowed to own propertie. Why not Zee Church?
If I recall correctly, Officer Crabtree's habitual greeting was "God Moaning" which I am sure is his/hers/its/theirs habitual reaction whenever he/she/it/they see your fingers touch the keyboard, Vlad.
-
Why do you think I am an academic - don't forget that is the profession where people debate and use argument, not violence.
Seem to remember that over the years, the academic world - even lecture halls - has had its fair share of violence, PD. ;)
-
I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.
As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?
ippy
ippy, as I said in my very first post on this thread, the problem that I see is that despite having a fairly tight dictionary definition, the term 'secularism' is often used in a variety of ways by so-called supporters of 'secularism'.
-
I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.
As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?
ippy
ippy, as I said in my very first post on this thread, the problem that I see is that despite having a fairly tight dictionary definition, the term 'secularism' is often used in a variety of ways by so-called supporters of 'secularism'.
If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.
ippy
-
If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.
ippy
Or, this post simply shows that you think I was accusing you of something? Do you use the term in more than the official sense?
-
If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.
ippy
Or, this post simply shows that you think I was accusing you of something? Do you use the term in more than the official sense?
Accuse away Hope, fill your boots.
If, as it seems to me you're having trouble with my previous posts, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for, that's all I'm trying to convey to you nothing more or anything less.
ippy
-
secularism doesn't expect any kind of favoured position in public life
Except to be the favoured position in public life.
-
secularism doesn't expect any kind of favoured position in public life
Except to be the favoured position in public life.
Capitalism seems to be the best system we have even with all of its faults, for which I'm not making any excuses, don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?
If there are no privileged places for anyone we all have an equal say, in theory, don't you think it could be one less thing for our contentious enough human race to fall out with each other.
Whilst I want as near as can be achieved a level playing field for all in the public sphere, it really angers me when bills like assisted dying is block voted against by more than 26 Bishops.
The privilege given to the Bishops goes beyond unelected as of right seats for 26 Bishops when they retire they more often than not receive a title that enables them to carry on as though nothing has changed, they retain their seat in the HOL.
I have no objection to any Bishop if he earned his seat in our legislature or anyone else that has a faith gaining a seat in our legislature on merit; this system as it is is insulting to those of us that do not share these beliefs the Bishops have nor is it in any way democratic and this one of the most obvious privileged positions the religious have and it's only one of the many privileges the religious have.
Secularism as I understand it doesn't seek to banish religious belief from the system it only wishes to put religion in its place where it is on the same level as all others without even one privilege so that it's just the same and on the same footing as all of the rest of us.
I have only given Bishops as an example of privilege within our legislature because it's the most glaring indefensible example of the many privileges the religious have here in the UK.
ippy
-
... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?
And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?
-
... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?
And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?
There would be no religious ones, which is all that secularism concerns itself with. The evidence can be found in secular democracies.
-
... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?
And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?
If a group was afforded special privileges on the basis of religious belief or lack thereof, then you wouldn't have secularism, would you. Simply as that.
-
Moderator:
I think that the most pragmatic approach is to remove the posts relating to the exchange between Vlad and Prof D given the suggestion of libel, since it is not in the wider interests of the Forum for such posts to remain on public view.
Locking this while I do the split, after which I will unlock the thread. Given the above I suggest we move on.
Done, and thread unlocked.
-
... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?
And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?
Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope
"Capitalism seems to be the best system we have even with all of its faults, for which I'm not making any excuses, don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life"?
ippy
-
Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope
So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?
-
Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope
So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?
At least it wouldn't be written into the constitution.
-
Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope
So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?
How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.
ippy
-
How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.
ippy
For one thing, I didn't miss anything in your post; secondly, I didn't "as if you didn't understand in the first place"; and thirdly, I choose to respond to a part of the post which seemed to me to show that you misunderstand that privilege doesn't apply only to the religious/irreligious arena. That's the problem with secularism in the context you use it - as the Oxford Dictionary points out - it is limited in its scope to the arena of religion/spirituality.
Definition of secular in English:
adjective
1 Not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular?q=secularism#secular__17
It has other meanings as well - economic, astronomic, ...
-
How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.
ippy
For one thing, I didn't miss anything in your post; secondly, I didn't "as if you didn't understand in the first place"; and thirdly, I choose to respond to a part of the post which seemed to me to show that you misunderstand that privilege doesn't apply only to the religious/irreligious arena. That's the problem with secularism in the context you use it - as the Oxford Dictionary points out - it is limited in its scope to the arena of religion/spirituality.
Definition of secular in English:
adjective
1 Not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular?q=secularism#secular__17
It has other meanings as well - economic, astronomic, ...
If you're so determined fine have it how you like.
I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.
ippy
-
Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope
So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?
At least it wouldn't be written into the constitution.
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
-
I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.
ippy
You can restrict yourself to that, ippy, if you want. I would rather 'dump' on privilege in all its forms.
-
I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.
ippy
You can restrict yourself to that, ippy, if you want. I would rather 'dump' on privilege in all its forms.
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
ippy
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
I can think of six impossible things before breakfast, but how would that change anything?
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
I can think of six impossible things before breakfast, but how would that change anything?
Don't know - not sure what relevance this comment is to the discussion.
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
Such as?
-
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
Not strictly true. The UK does have a written constitution - but it is contained within several documents. It hasn't yet been codified.
(I do note your qualification - as such.)
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
Such as?
The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.
Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.
Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.
Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.
The right connections count for a lot.
and the monarchy don't get that?
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
Such as?
In spades and also at our expense.
The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.
Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.
Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.
Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.
The right connections count for a lot.
and the monarchy don't get that?
-
There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.
It's people I suppose.
I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.
It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.
I don't have an issue with it.
Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?
-
There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.
It's people I suppose.
I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.
It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.
I don't have an issue with it.
Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?
Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉
When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?
-
I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.
I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.
Such as?
The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.
Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.
Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.
Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.
The right connections count for a lot.
Lots of the privileges afforded to the religious here in the UK are small ones Rose But when you add up the large number of privileges they have, it's no longer a small matter.
ippy
-
There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.
It's people I suppose.
I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.
It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.
I don't have an issue with it.
Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?
The real ones with the light sabers? Like your post.
ippy
-
There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.
It's people I suppose.
I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.
It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.
I don't have an issue with it.
Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?
Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉
When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?
We don't!
They are what makes up our traditions and culture
http://listverse.com/2010/04/02/10-very-strange-british-traditions/
People should leave them alone!
I love our traditions.
Big and little ones
You may love your traditions, but the British public don't when it comes to Bishops in the House of Lords. Polling suggests by an overwhelming over two to one (56% to 26%) the British public don't want Bishops in the HofLs.
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
-
... and the monarchy don't get that?
Well, there are a lot of things that they are not allowed to do, especially the Monarch themselves.
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
We 'used' to keep slaves? We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
We 'used' to keep slaves? We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
We 'used' to keep slaves? We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
Once it was legal; now it isn't.
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
We 'used' to keep slaves? We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
Once it was legal; now it isn't.
Yep, I think that was effectively Be Rationals point. I was just pointing out that Hope's point , one that is valid in different circumstances, would make a good discussion and one Hope has flagged before, if taken in direct reply here leads to the conclusion I outlined.
-
There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.
It's people I suppose.
I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.
It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.
I don't have an issue with it.
Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?
Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉
When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?
We don't!
They are what makes up our traditions and culture
http://listverse.com/2010/04/02/10-very-strange-british-traditions/
People should leave them alone!
I love our traditions.
Big and little ones
You may love your traditions, but the British public don't when it comes to Bishops in the House of Lords. Polling suggests by an overwhelming over two to one (56% to 26%) the British public don't want Bishops in the HofLs.
I don't trust polls.
It depends what was asked ie exact wording
And who they asked, whether it was representative of the population as a whole.
This was a bone fide YouGov poll, which is carefully assessed to ensure demographic balance and due to its sample size will have a margin of error of about +/-3%
The overall poll was about HofL reform and this question was worded as follows:
'Currently the House of Lords contains 21 seats for senior Bishops from the Church of England. Do you think a reformed House of Lords should or should not retain seats for the bishops?'
I'm struggling to see how the wording of the question, nor how the poll was conducted would be biased. And even if they were out by the furthest extremes of their margin of error the results would be 53% to 29% against retaining Bishops. Of course it is just as likely to be out in the other direction, i.e. 59% to 23% in favour of abolition.
-
We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.
Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?
We 'used' to keep slaves? We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
It was never a waste of time, but obviously still needs some more work.
Ugly things still resurface in the human race, obviously.
Yes, I was just pointing out that unless you do the reductio as I did, it does not affect Be R' s point
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
If the point is the principle then that isn't a salient point. After all would it make any difference to the OT God if instead of being down for killing many hundreds of thousands of kids and getting soldiers to massacies them in his name.
, it only killed one and only had one girl raped?
As to other members of the Lords people might object to, that is both irrelevant and incidences to the case. Irrelevant in the first as it's a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Incidences because one can object to plenty of members of the House of Lords and not have to write it down continually so you have no evidence of others opinions on these irrelevant lords.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.
It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.
-
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
No, society has allowed it to be reintroduced. We pay people peanuts, even nothing, to do work. We have people being brought into the country to work for nothing.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
All sorts of people might make a positive contribution to the house, but in most cases they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being appointed to the HofLs. The Bishops (uniquely) automatically get a seat by default of being appointed to an entirely separate position within an entirely separate organisational. And in some cases get a seat simply for time serving in another role, as 21 out of the 26 get their seat simply by being one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.
It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.
I agree, although I would still want a second chamber with complementary powers to the House of Commons. I think it wouldn't be good to simply have the commons without the checks and balances that a second chamber creates.
-
so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time
No, society has allowed it to be reintroduced. We pay people peanuts, even nothing, to do work. We have people being brought into the country to work for nothing.
I would suggest that if you want to discuss the actual detail of this it's worth a thread of its own. I have covered why in other posts
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
All sorts of people might make a positive contribution to the house, but in most cases they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being appointed to the HofLs. The Bishops (uniquely) automatically get a seat by default of being appointed to an entirely separate position within an entirely separate organisational. And in some cases get a seat simply for time serving in another role, as 21 out of the 26 get their seat simply by being one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?
-
It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.
And replaced with yet another bunch of short-termist politicians?
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
All sorts of people might make a positive contribution to the house, but in most cases they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being appointed to the HofLs. The Bishops (uniquely) automatically get a seat by default of being appointed to an entirely separate position within an entirely separate organisational. And in some cases get a seat simply for time serving in another role, as 21 out of the 26 get their seat simply by being one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?
It still requires a proper appointment process and isn't automatic.
In the case of the Bishops one might automatically get a seat because some other Bishop retires so you become one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
-
It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.
And replaced with yet another bunch of short-termist politicians?
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
I would make it like jury service. With a ''get out of serving'' clause if you have a big company or estate to run ;)
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
With half its membership resigning every five years.
-
I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected: but that also seems not to bother the detractors.
All sorts of people might make a positive contribution to the house, but in most cases they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being appointed to the HofLs. The Bishops (uniquely) automatically get a seat by default of being appointed to an entirely separate position within an entirely separate organisational. And in some cases get a seat simply for time serving in another role, as 21 out of the 26 get their seat simply by being one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?
It still requires a proper appointment process and isn't automatic.
In the case of the Bishops one might automatically get a seat because some other Bishop retires so you become one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.
The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
With half its membership resigning every five years.
Half, or possibly a third. I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
With half its membership resigning every five years.
Half, or possibly a third. I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.
Elected in thirds every five years with each elected member serving a 15 year term to ensure stability and maintenance of expertise, but also ensuring regular refreshment.
-
The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.
It is not that much more archaic, nor does it stink that much more than some of the more 'modern' systems - systems, for instance, that deliver massively fractured electoral mandates, which can only be satisfied by coalitions of small, hugely disparate and often grudging parties which don't really do anything for months, sometimes even years.
-
That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.
I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.
With half its membership resigning every five years.
Half, or possibly a third. I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.
Elected in thirds every five years with each elected member serving a 15 year term to ensure stability and maintenance of expertise, but also ensuring regular refreshment.
That's probably about right.
-
The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.
It is not that much more archaic, nor does it stink that much more than some of the more 'modern' systems - systems, for instance, that deliver massively fractured electoral mandates, which can only be satisfied by coalitions of small, hugely disparate and often grudging parties which don't really do anything for months, sometimes even years.
Quoting failed or failing systems does not validate ours.
-
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.
-
Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉 any more than Islam is.
Neither is Christianity. It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.
-
When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?
We don't!
Yes we do. We've ditched the heritage of slave trading, also, executing Catholics, putting gay people in prison,treating women as chattels, bear baiting, forcibly taking over other parts of the World. Those of us in the Danelaw stopped raping and pillaging almost as soon as we got here. The monarch no longer rules by divine right or even at all.
There's masses of heritage and tradition that we have dropped. Losing a few piddling bishops would hardly be noticeable.
-
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.
www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html
-
We pay people peanuts, even nothing, to do work. We have people being brought into the country to work for nothing.
Not legally. The point was that the slave trade used to be a major industry. Lots of British people got very rich on it. It is a part of our heritage that we have done away with and we are trying to stamp out the criminal activity.
-
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.
www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html
Learn to copy/paste links properly. You see those two sets of three dots. They mean you haven't done it right.
-
The UK has no written Constitution as such.
Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.
www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html
Learn to copy/paste links properly. You see those two sets of three dots. They mean you haven't done it right.
Don't be such a patronising twerp. I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid! You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.
www.independent.co.uk./uk//uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.htm
-
Don't be such a patronising twerp.
I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid! You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.
Get off your high horse and use your brain for a change. If you paste the link as you posted it into a browser bar
It. Does. Not. Work.
This isn't the first time you've done that. You've copied some shortened version (hence the ellipses) but apparently it is a personal insult to you to point out you made a mistake.
And then like the stupid arsehole that you are, you insult me because you are too moronic to post links properly and your head is too far up your own arse for you to admit you made a simple mistake.
The laws that make up the constitution of the UK are all written down, just not in one place. We have the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Union, Magna Carta, the 1832 Reform Act, the Human Rights Act and many more.
-
Don't be such a patronising twerp.
I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid! You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.
Get off your high horse and use your brain for a change. If you paste the link as you posted it into a browser bar
It. Does. Not. Work.
This isn't the first time you've done that. You've copied some shortened version (hence the ellipses) but apparently it is a personal insult to you to point out you made a mistake.
And then like the stupid arsehole that you are, you insult me because you are too moronic to post links properly and your head is too far up your own arse for you to admit you made a simple mistake.
The laws that make up the constitution of the UK are all written down, just not in one place. We have the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Union, Magna Carta, the 1832 Reform Act, the Human Rights Act and many more.
www.independent.co.uk./uk//uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.htm
You have to be the far-and-away the mos pretentious know-all on this forum.. Add that to your low-grade language and iignorant misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what is left is somebody who, calling an idiot would be an insult to all stupid people.
Look up Judge Neuberger and his views on the need for a written Constitution, and find out how wrong you are.
-
Neither is Christianity. It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.
I suppose you could say the same for paganism and most of the other -isms that have existed throughout history. So, what is your point? After all, Christianity is the only faith that specifically includes all humanity in its founding principles.
-
Neither is Christianity. It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.
I suppose you could say the same for paganism and most of the other -isms that have existed throughout history. So, what is your point? After all, Christianity is the only faith that specifically includes all humanity in its founding principles.
How so?
Paganism very often refers to a country's indigenous religion by the way. It's kind of the opposite of imported.
-
Look up Judge Neuberger and his views on the need for a written Constitution, and find out how wrong you are.
As the article makes clear, it is Lord Neuberger's opinion that the UK does not have a written constitution. He acknowledges that others do not share his opinion.
The UK does have a written constitution, however it is not codified.
-
Paganism very often refers to a country's indigenous religion by the way. It's kind of the opposite of imported.
Is that why so much European paganism is similar? Is there any specifically 'British' form of paganism?
-
Paganism very often refers to a country's indigenous religion by the way. It's kind of the opposite of imported.
Is that why so much European paganism is similar? Is there any specifically 'British' form of paganism?
Christianity persecuted much of the indigenous British paganism out of existence, but it survived in pockets of folklore and the myths and stories that got written down. So Celtic paganism (as we can understand from folklore, tradition, place names and archaeology) had a different set of beliefs and culture from the Anglo-Saxon, which in turn was different from those parts of the country that were controlled by the Norsemen. Because of the Celtic influence in Brittany and the Anglo-Saxons in Northern Europe and of course the Scandinavians there are similarities, but further south and east and the indigenous religion is quite different. And of course something pre-dated even Celtic culture in Britain, although we only get glimpses of that, mostly through archaeology and features in our landscape.
So modern neopaganism is a mix of reconstruction based on what we know and personal experience that gets passed on to others. Even wiccans tend now to look to the past as well as to the stuff that spring from Gardner's imagination and weave their own tapestry of old and new.
I'm not sure why you think Christianity is exclusive in considering the 'whole of humanity'? What do you mean by that?
-
I'm not sure why you think Christianity is exclusive in considering the 'whole of humanity'? What do you mean by that?
As as I am aware, no other faith was established as being for the whole of humanity. After all, no other faith has God as its 'founder'.
-
I'm not sure why you think Christianity is exclusive in considering the 'whole of humanity'? What do you mean by that?
As as I am aware, no other faith was established as being for the whole of humanity. After all, no other faith has God as its 'founder'.
I would have thought that plenty of religions have gone further than merely humanity (i.e humans) but also encompassed the natural world too. Worth noting of course that it would be unfair to expect ancient religions to take account of the world beyond that which they knew about, in the same way as judeo-christian religions at their inception were largely a product of time and place.
-
I would have thought that plenty of religions have gone further than merely humanity (i.e humans) but also encompassed the natural world too. Worth noting of course that it would be unfair to expect ancient religions to take account of the world beyond that which they knew about, in the same way as judeo-christian religions at their inception were largely a product of time and place.
Well, Judeo-Christian thinking does go beyond the mere human - there are plenty of passaages instructing people to care for the natural world - but there is often a belief here (as indicated by your last sentence) that Christianity was originally merely a Jewish sect. I was pointing out that, contrary to the writings of Geza Vermes and others like him, there is no indication in the Gospels or even the Old Testament, that the faith was for Jews alone. The Jewish leaders seem to have arrogated the faith to the Jewish people, but it is clear that non-Jews were amongst the first believers in Christ. In other words, whilst Christianity may have been a product of time and place (as everything is), it wasn't people-group specific at its outset.
Going back to the point about nature, both Christ and Paul make it clear that humanity is responsible for the well-being of the natural world. In other words, nature isn't a separate entity; it is dependent upon humanity for its safety and protection (hence the use of the term 'dominion' in Genesis, rather than the term 'domination'.
-
I would have thought that plenty of religions have gone further than merely humanity (i.e humans) but also encompassed the natural world too. Worth noting of course that it would be unfair to expect ancient religions to take account of the world beyond that which they knew about, in the same way as judeo-christian religions at their inception were largely a product of time and place.
Well, Judeo-Christian thinking does go beyond the mere human - there are plenty of passaages instructing people to care for the natural world - but there is often a belief here (as indicated by your last sentence) that Christianity was originally merely a Jewish sect. I was pointing out that, contrary to the writings of Geza Vermes and others like him, there is no indication in the Gospels or even the Old Testament, that the faith was for Jews alone. The Jewish leaders seem to have arrogated the faith to the Jewish people, but it is clear that non-Jews were amongst the first believers in Christ. In other words, whilst Christianity may have been a product of time and place (as everything is), it wasn't people-group specific at its outset.
Going back to the point about nature, both Christ and Paul make it clear that humanity is responsible for the well-being of the natural world. In other words, nature isn't a separate entity; it is dependent upon humanity for its safety and protection (hence the use of the term 'dominion' in Genesis, rather than the term 'domination'.
Not really - right from the first pages of Genesis the rest of the world is created in a manner that is inherently secondary to humanity. So the judeo-christian tradition is fundamentally a religion based on humanity with everything else channeled via that conduit. Judeo-christianity sees the rest of the natural world as distinct from and somehow dependent on humanity, rather than being equal and integrated. You've comments on christ/paul makes my point rather well.
That, in my view, is much more restricted than, for example Buddhism, that is much clearly in seeing the human species and other living things as part of a more coherent whole. And indeed the concept of reincarnation and connectivity across different aspects of the natural world seems much more expansive that the narrow humanity-dominated view of judeo-christianity. You could perhaps argue the same for paganism, but I'll leave that for the pagans here.
-
I'm not sure why you think Christianity is exclusive in considering the 'whole of humanity'? What do you mean by that?
As as I am aware, no other faith was established as being for the whole of humanity. After all, no other faith has God as its 'founder'.
Well, not exactly. Christianity was founded by quite a few people - Paul, the early church fathers, made popular by some Romans, and based on the writings that were supposedly based on the teachings of a man called Jesus. The evidence, as Rose has pointed out, is that if Jesus said what he said then it was directed to his own people - the Jewish population of the area around Galilee.
Paganism is for the whole of humanity because every people has their own indigenous beliefs, very often grown out of the local landscape and natural world. Christianity may have a few teachings on 'looking after' nature; paganism generally has the created world as integral to its practice and a relationship with nature characterises many pagan paths. Of course some pagans haven't exactly been friendly - the Norse for example - but then neither have Christians.
-
I would have thought that plenty of religions have gone further than merely humanity (i.e humans) but also encompassed the natural world too. Worth noting of course that it would be unfair to expect ancient religions to take account of the world beyond that which they knew about, in the same way as judeo-christian religions at their inception were largely a product of time and place.
Well, Judeo-Christian thinking does go beyond the mere human - there are plenty of passaages instructing people to care for the natural world - but there is often a belief here (as indicated by your last sentence) that Christianity was originally merely a Jewish sect. I was pointing out that, contrary to the writings of Geza Vermes and others like him, there is no indication in the Gospels or even the Old Testament, that the faith was for Jews alone. The Jewish leaders seem to have arrogated the faith to the Jewish people, but it is clear that non-Jews were amongst the first believers in Christ. In other words, whilst Christianity may have been a product of time and place (as everything is), it wasn't people-group specific at its outset.
Going back to the point about nature, both Christ and Paul make it clear that humanity is responsible for the well-being of the natural world. In other words, nature isn't a separate entity; it is dependent upon humanity for its safety and protection (hence the use of the term 'dominion' in Genesis, rather than the term 'domination'.
Not really - right from the first pages of Genesis the rest of the world is created in a manner that is inherently secondary to humanity. So the judeo-christian tradition is fundamentally a religion based on humanity with everything else channeled via that conduit. Judeo-christianity sees the rest of the natural world as distinct from and somehow dependent on humanity, rather than being equal and integrated. You've comments on christ/paul makes my point rather well.
That, in my view, is much more restricted than, for example Buddhism, that is much clearly in seeing the human species and other living things as part of a more coherent whole. And indeed the concept of reincarnation and connectivity across different aspects of the natural world seems much more expansive that the narrow humanity-dominated view of judeo-christianity. You could perhaps argue the same for paganism, but I'll leave that for the pagans here.
Yes, Christians are taught that we are placed as stewards over the natural world. Pagans see the natural world as divinity or as expressions of that equal to human beings; many are pantheist, panentheist and/or animist. Not all pagans believe in reincarnation but I've yet to come across a path that doesn't have some kind of focus on cause and effect - if we misuse nature, we pay.
-
I'm not sure why you think Christianity is exclusive in considering the 'whole of humanity'? What do you mean by that?
As as I am aware, no other faith was established as being for the whole of humanity. After all, no other faith has God as its 'founder'.
Well, not exactly. Christianity was founded by quite a few people - Paul, the early church fathers, made popular by some Romans, and based on the writings that were supposedly based on the teachings of a man called Jesus. The evidence, as Rose has pointed out, is that if Jesus said what he said then it was directed to his own people - the Jewish population of the area around Galilee.
Paganism is for the whole of humanity because every people has their own indigenous beliefs, very often grown out of the local landscape and natural world. Christianity may have a few teachings on 'looking after' nature; paganism generally has the created world as integral to its practice and a relationship with nature characterises many pagan paths. Of course some pagans haven't exactly been friendly - the Norse for example - but then neither have Christians.
Thanks for that - somehow I thought my point about pagans answering for themselves would be ... well ... answered.
Actually rather than judeo-christianity being the most expansive of religions it seems to me to be one of the narrowest and most restrictive. Affectively focussed on the human species (with the rest of nature a bit of an afterthought for humans to look after and use) and also more narrowly restricted to time, place and people than many other religions. A religion that is based on relationship with nature is pretty well universal - it transcends time and place, albeit the details may be different depending on the local environment. That seems much more universally relevant than the key (unique) features of christianity which are effectively fulfilling jewish prophecy and trying to ensure that the human species is seen to be closer to the divine than anything else (strange that when created by ... well ... the human species).
-
The BBC describes Paganism
"Almost 57,000 people in England and Wales identify themselves as Pagan, according to the 2011 census, making Paganism the largest non-mainstream religion. In addition there were nearly 18,000 Druids, Heathens and Wiccans - all groups which are identified as Pagan.
Paganism is best described as a group of religions and spiritual traditions based on a reverence for nature.
Like Hinduism, there is no single founder, scripture or religious philosophy. Most Pagans, however, believe in the divine character of the natural world and Paganism is often described as an "Earth religion".
"Paganism is a spiritual path to some, a religion to others, that helps people to reconnect with the natural world, their ancestors, and the Otherworlds of myth and folklore," said Damh the Bard, of the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) - one of the UK's largest organised Pagan groups.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/20693321
Heathens don't always identify as a nature spirituality as they focus more on the deities, although relationship with the spirits of the land is important, and Wiccans don't always identify as pagan, but generally that's on the money.
-
For Rose - a bit of Damh the Bard.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yuhbx-BkE
-
Well, not exactly. Christianity was founded by quite a few people - Paul, the early church fathers, made popular by some Romans, and based on the writings that were supposedly based on the teachings of a man called Jesus. The evidence, as Rose has pointed out, is that if Jesus said what he said then it was directed to his own people - the Jewish population of the area around Galilee.
Wrong on both accounts, Rhi. By the time Paul came on the scene, the Christian Church had already begun to spread around the Mediterranean and possibly further afield than that. It was already established (though not in the sense that we understand the 'established church') as an entity.
As for "the evidence, as Rose has pointed out, ..."; if that was the case, why were the apostles willing to share the Gospel with non-Jews and to allow the church to spread out from Palestine? More importantly, why had Jesus been willing to share his teaching with Samaritans, Romans and other non-Jews. As far as I can make out from the documentation, the attempt to Judai-ify Christianity started some years after Jesus' death and resurrection and lasted for only a few years - it had certainly lost the argument well before both Peter and Paul died.
Paganism is for the whole of humanity because every people has their own indigenous beliefs, very often grown out of the local landscape and natural world.
Precisely, Paganism is very much territorial; it grew out of the local landscape and was therefore only relevant to people who understood that landscape. As such, there were and are a myriad of Pagan paths, which people are free to pick and choose from.
Now, I don't know whether you would agree that beliefs like animism and shamanism belong within the Pagan 'fold' - I have read material written by folk who regard themselves as Pagans that this is the case: but from what I understand Paganism is very much a 'pick and choose what suits me' belief system - not that different, in fact, to Hinduism.
Christianity may have a few teachings on 'looking after' nature; paganism generally has the created world as integral to its practice and a relationship with nature characterises many pagan paths.
If you study the Old and New Testaments, the passages have nothing to do with any cursory 'looking after' nature as you seem to suggest; it is an integral aspect of real faith.
I would happily accept that, over the centuries, that aspect of the Christian faith (not sure about post-70 AD Judaism) had been subsumed to a large degree into wealth creation and abuse of the natural world - until, between them, Christians and non-Christians began to rediscover it in their different ways 100 to 150 years ago.
Not sure that the pagans who would no doubt have existed in, for instance, the Middle Ages were any better than their religious equivalents.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that Chrisyianity comes largely from the mind of Paul - the 'church' was undoubtedly Jewish in nature, although clearly it began to appeal to Gentiles early on. But even if we accept Jesus intended to found a worldwide faith, that doesn't make him God.
Will write more later - school play beckons.
-
His name is pronounced 'Dahv' but he's known as Dave the Bard in our house. His weekly podcasts are worth a listen.
-
You have to be the far-and-away the mos pretentious know-all on this forum..
And you are the most obnoxious twat. You descend to insult at the slightest provocation. You have a serious problem with being shown you've made a mistake.
Add that to your low-grade language
Says the man who prefers insult to proper argument.
and iignorant misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what is left is somebody who, calling an idiot would be an insult to all stupid people.
I know what the constitution is. It is written down. Or are you going to claim that things like the Reform Act and the Acts of Union are not in writing?
-
You have to be the far-and-away the mos pretentious know-all on this forum..
And you are the most obnoxious twat. You descend to insult at the slightest provocation. You have a serious problem with being shown you've made a mistake.
Add that to your low-grade language
Says the man who prefers insult to proper argument.
and iignorant misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what is left is somebody who, calling an idiot would be an insult to all stupid people.
I know what the constitution is. It is written down. Or are you going to claim that things like the Reform Act and the Acts of Union are not in writing?
Bye.
-
I note the idea/problem religionists have with some kind of perceived threat secularism poses to them, shows no signs of going away.
It's a bit like when you ask a politician a question about say money, the answer, more often than not, has nothing to do with the question asked.
"What really is the problem religionists have with secularism"? After all it guarantees the religious their rights.
ippy
-
I note the idea/problem religionists have with some kind of perceived threat secularism poses to them, shows no signs of going away.
It's a bit like when you ask a politician a question about say money, the answer, more often than not, has nothing to do with the question asked.
"What really is the problem religionists have with secularism"? After all it guarantees the religious their rights.
ippy
Amazing, ippy, you have suddenly begun to use the term secularism in the more commonly accepted manner. It's taken you some time, but better late than never. Will you be able to keep it up, I wonder. ;)
-
I note the idea/problem religionists have with some kind of perceived threat secularism poses to them, shows no signs of going away.
It's a bit like when you ask a politician a question about say money, the answer, more often than not, has nothing to do with the question asked.
"What really is the problem religionists have with secularism"? After all it guarantees the religious their rights.
ippy
Amazing, ippy, you have suddenly begun to use the term secularism in the more commonly accepted manner. It's taken you some time, but better late than never. Will you be able to keep it up, I wonder. ;)
Looks like the drubbing Prof D gave you Hope may have done some good, now you're turning some of the stuff I have written about secularism around somehow in your own mind, in in a similar way you excuse yourself for believing religious stuff that you must know is nonsense.
I haven't altered my secular viewpoint I've no idea why you're suggesting I have?
ippy
-
Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉 any more than Islam is.
Neither is Christianity. It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.
That's right, it was a foreign import brought over from abroad by some foreigners.
And it is part of our heritage.
-
Looks like the drubbing Prof D gave you...
Quel drubbing, ippy?
-
That's right, it was a foreign import brought over from abroad by some foreigners.
No doubt well-intended ... they probably thought they were "educating" us!
All they did was overlay one superstition with another.
-
No doubt well-intended ... they probably thought they were "educating" us!
There is some evidence that it may have been brought over by a British trader returning from the Mediterranean. However, most believe that there was no attempt to evangelise the British when it was first introduced to Britain in the 1st century -
We tend to associate the arrival of Christianity in Britain with the mission of Augustine in 597 AD. But in fact Christianity arrived long before then, and in the 1st Century AD, there wasn't an organised attempt to convert the British.
It began when Roman artisans and traders arriving in Britain spread the story of Jesus along with stories of their Pagan deities.
Christianity was just one cult amongst many, ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml
-
What the heck has Augustine got to do with evangelising the Britons?
He might have been strutting his stuff in what is now the south of England - but Columcille was there before him in the west of Scotland - where he met pre-existing Christian communities founded by Ninian a century earlier.
-
What the heck has Augustine got to do with evangelising the Britons?
He might have been strutting his stuff in what is now the south of England - but Columcille was there before him in the west of Scotland - where he met pre-existing Christian communities founded by Ninian a century earlier.
Just highlighting the fact that the misapprehension many have is just that. Bear in mind that the 'authorities' in Rome believed that Britain had never been evangelised and sent Augustine to do the business. He had quite a shock when he arrived, I suspect.
-
What the heck has Augustine got to do with evangelising the Britons?
He might have been strutting his stuff in what is now the south of England - but Columcille was there before him in the west of Scotland - where he met pre-existing Christian communities founded by Ninian a century earlier.
Just highlighting the fact that the misapprehension many have is just that. Bear in mind that the 'authorities' in Rome believed that Britain had never been evangelised and sent Augustine to do the business. He had quite a shock when he arrived, I suspect.
-
Yep.
Thus starting four centuries of conflict between Roman Christianity and Celtic Christianity - and inadvertantly sowing the seeds for Scottish identity in the process!
-
What the heck has Augustine got to do with evangelising the Britons?
He might have been strutting his stuff in what is now the south of England - but Columcille was there before him in the west of Scotland - where he met pre-existing Christian communities founded by Ninian a century earlier.
Oh latecomers one and all.
You should head back to the daddy-O of them all. Namely Britain's first Christian martyr, Alban, who (even if you accept the latest date for his death) was in the ground for 60 years before Ninian was even born.
-
I was thinking about the 'evangelisation' bit, Prof.
Apart from the 'candida casa' at Whithorn ( an archaeologist's dream come true, btw), Ninian seems to have founded and inspired several other communities in Galloway and Ayrshire, whic themselves spawned mission churches, all of which were active by the time Columcille (Columba) came from an already semi-Christian area of Ireland to Dalriada.
-
I was thinking about the 'evangelisation' bit, Prof.
Apart from the 'candida casa' at Whithorn ( an archaeologist's dream come true, btw), Ninian seems to have founded and inspired several other communities in Galloway and Ayrshire, whic themselves spawned mission churches, all of which were active by the time Columcille (Columba) came from an already semi-Christian area of Ireland to Dalriada.
Well if 'evangelisation' is your 'thang', then perhaps a bit more attention on Amphibalus, who (if you believe the story) was the Christian priest who converted Alban. Both were executed so he too was one of the very earliest Christian martyrs and also an evangelist, who pre-dated Ninian by about 100 years. Indeed it is reputed that he converted three out of the four earliest christian martyrs in Britain (the fourth being himself).
-
... and inadvertantly sowing the seeds for Scottish identity in the process!
Scottish only or a wider Celtic identity?
-
... and inadvertantly sowing the seeds for Scottish identity in the process!
Scottish only or a wider Celtic identity?
The Scots - and other occupants of these islands were never Celts.
The Celts were a central European people occupying the Danube valley who spread into neighbouring areas. The idea that the rocky parts of the British Isles were celtic was invented by the Welsh romantic Edward Lhuyd at the end of the 17th century. He determined that the similarity between British and some Iberian and Gaulic languages was due them being of celtic origin. They were not, the Celts had never expanded so far west.
I suppose we now have to accept the modern concept of "celtic", but it is really a fantasy.
-
The Celts were a central European people occupying the Danube valley who spread into neighbouring areas. The idea that the rocky parts of the British Isles were celtic was invented by the Welsh romantic Edward Lhuyd at the end of the 17th century. He determined that the similarity between British and some Iberian and Gaulic languages was due them being of celtic origin. They were not, the Celts had never expanded so far west.
I suppose we now have to accept the modern concept of "celtic", but it is really a fantasy.
I thought the term 'Celtic' was applied to the British by the Romans. By the way, your comment would seem to suggest that the Oxford Dictionary is partially wrong in its definition of the term:
Celtic: Relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Celtic
Mind you, one definition of 'Celt' is nearer your understanding:
A member of a group of peoples inhabiting much of Europe and Asia Minor in pre-Roman times. Their culture developed in the late Bronze Age around the upper Danube, and reached its height in the La Tène culture (5th to 1st centuries bc) before being overrun by the Romans and various Germanic peoples.
1.1 A native of any of the modern nations or regions in which Celtic languages are (or were until recently) spoken; a person of Irish, Highland Scottish, Manx, Welsh, or Cornish descent.
Origin
From Latin Celtae (plural), from Greek Keltoi; in later use from French Celte 'Breton' (taken as representing the ancient Gauls).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/celt?q=Celt#Celt
The more recent French origin is interesting.
-
... and inadvertantly sowing the seeds for Scottish identity in the process!
Scottish only or a wider Celtic identity?
-
Specifically Scots, Hope, in that the independent streak in the Celtic church never quite left the Scottish Church, even after it had become 'Romanised', a process all but completed under the tutelage of Margaret, Wife of Malcolm Caen Mhor.
The authorities at Canterbury kept insisting that they should be the main source of power in the church in these Isles, but for three centuries, Scots clerics fought an action every bit as invoved as the various military exploits,culminating in Rome making Scotland a 'Special daughter'.
At the Wars of Independence, Bruce would never have achieved any real power without the active support of bishops Wishart and Lamberton (despite both being incarcerated in England-). That's when Bernard, Abbot of Arbroath, became the most prominant 'free' Scots cleric, and in the process, accumulated both prestige for the abbey (which became the richest in Scotland) and even more influence at court for the church. OK, a couple of centuries later, the corruption this would engender would lead, in part, to the Reformation, but at the time the church reinforced Scots identity as a separate state of being from that of England.
-
Celtic: Relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Celtic
This simply reflects the classification devised by Lhuyd.
I note your observation about the recent French origin.
It could be that Lhuyd was being creative about "celtishness" or perhaps, though being a linguist but not a linguistician confused and then combined two disparate terminologies.
-
Celtic: Relating to the Celts or their languages, which constitute a branch of the Indo-European family and include Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, Cornish, and several extinct pre-Roman languages such as Gaulish.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Celtic
This simply reflects the classification devised by Lhuyd.
I note your observation about the recent French origin.
It could be that Lhuyd was being creative about "celtishness" or perhaps, though being a linguist but not a linguistician confused and then combined two disparate terminologies.
Surely other linguistic specialists have corroborated Lhuyd's classification of these languages as being directly related to each other? You will accept, I presume, that these languages are Indo-European (with the possible exception of 'Gaulish') and that they evolved separately from the original I_E over a similar period of time? Where do you think the immediate geographical and linguistic roots of these languages lie, if not with those peoples loosely referred to as "The Celts"?
-
McEvoy et al (2004) in American Journal of Human Genetics 75 693-702 employ another approach.
They consider that any such progression of a central European language and its population expansion from central Europe would be manifest in the DNA of people living in the present day "Celtic Fringe". They examine Y chromosome evidence and find little support for any migration from central Europe. I suppose any invasion could have been by women, but that is unlikely.
It seems likely that Lhuyd conflated two things and came up with his Celtic Fringe: the similarity of Atlantic coast languages and the fact that the Romans had called a Gaulish tribe a name with celtic overtones. Hence the languages must be the modern remnants of the original Celtic languages. (I'm not sure if there are any records of the languages spoken by the central Europeans.) His postulation was that the Celts came from central Europe, brought their language with them and settled on the Atlantic coast and remained a seperate, identifiable, people and culture.
The homogeneity in the DNA of people living in the British Isles does not suggest that there was any major Iron Age influx from central Europe. It may be therefore that any imagined ethnic differences between different communities in the British Isles are just that - imagined.
-
It may be therefore that any imagined ethnic differences between different communities in the British Isles are just that - imagined.
No. Ethnic differences are more cultural than genetic.
-
It may be therefore that any imagined ethnic differences between different communities in the British Isles are just that - imagined.
No. Ethnic differences are more cultural than genetic.
EDITED FOR CLARITY
Ethnic differences more cultural than genetic? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "ethnic". If you are talking about "German" ethnicity and "Danish" ethnicity then I would agree. But what about "Northern European" and "Mediterranean" ethnicities. There are typically physical differences which are transmitted through inheritance rather than culture. I admit that these differences may be slight - a tendancy to a particular natural skin colour, a tendancy to a particular hair colour etc.
Lhuyd's argument (and this, of course, was pre-Mendel) was that the Atlantic coast celts came from a different genetic heritage than the rest of the British Isles population, they were a different people from a different place. And that they were physically different with a tendency towards red hair, stocky build, knobbly knees ...... God knows what.
And there are still people around believing this guff .....
My statement was a conclusion based on findings from the examination of DNA samples: no evidence of an invasion of central Europeans, of a different people, and a high level of genetic homogeneity amongst people from all parts of the British Isles - so no seperate "Celtic" genotype.
Of course "ethnic" differences in these circumstances are going to be cultural.
-
... though being a linguist but not a linguistician confused and then combined two disparate terminologies.
Hi HH, could you define what you mean by the term 'linguistician' and how it differs from the more commonly used term 'linguist'?
-
... though being a linguist but not a linguistician confused and then combined two disparate terminologies.
Hi HH, could you define what you mean by the term 'linguistician' and how it differs from the more commonly used term 'linguist'?
He's trying to distinguish between people who know lots of languages and people who study language, I think.
-
But what about "Northern European" and "Mediterranean" ethnicities. There are typically physical differences which are transmitted through inheritance rather than culture.
Take a baby born in Scandinavia, have it brought up by Greek parents. When it grows up, will it be Greek or Scandinavian in its outlook, values, likes and dislikes etc. I think it will be unambiguously Greek, although it might look a bit funny compared to its friends.
It used to be thought that, when the Saxons arrived, they displaced the existing population, so complete was the cultural shift. However, genetics tells us this was not the case and the existing population simply adopted the Germanic culture.
I think we overrate the importance of genetics and "race". I once heard a black comedian (unfortunately I forget her name) say "I once went to Nigeria to discover my roots. I found out my roots were in Hackney".
-
... though being a linguist but not a linguistician confused and then combined two disparate terminologies.
Hi HH, could you define what you mean by the term 'linguistician' and how it differs from the more commonly used term 'linguist'?
A linguist is a person who speaks more than one language.
A linguistician is a person who practises linguistics, an academic discipline which is related to psychology. Linguistics is the scientific study of language as a phenomenon. Its most notable practitioner is probably Noam Chomsky.
-
But what about "Northern European" and "Mediterranean" ethnicities. There are typically physical differences which are transmitted through inheritance rather than culture.
Take a baby born in Scandinavia, have it brought up by Greek parents. When it grows up, will it be Greek or Scandinavian in its outlook, values, likes and dislikes etc. I think it will be unambiguously Greek, although it might look a bit funny compared to its friends.
It used to be thought that, when the Saxons arrived, they displaced the existing population, so complete was the cultural shift. However, genetics tells us this was not the case and the existing population simply adopted the Germanic culture.
I think we overrate the importance of genetics and "race". I once heard a block comedian (unfortunately I forget her name) say "I once went to Nigeria to discover my roots. I found out my roots were in Hackney".
You are taking this all out of context.
Why, I don't know.
I was merely trying to explain the origin of the modern concept of "Celtic" and the role of Edward Lhuyd in its development. Nothing more. I had been asked a question by Dicky Underpants was attempting to provide some academic evidence.
-
But what about "Northern European" and "Mediterranean" ethnicities. There are typically physical differences which are transmitted through inheritance rather than culture.
Take a baby born in Scandinavia, have it brought up by Greek parents. When it grows up, will it be Greek or Scandinavian in its outlook, values, likes and dislikes etc. I think it will be unambiguously Greek, although it might look a bit funny compared to its friends.
It used to be thought that, when the Saxons arrived, they displaced the existing population, so complete was the cultural shift. However, genetics tells us this was not the case and the existing population simply adopted the Germanic culture.
I think we overrate the importance of genetics and "race". I once heard a block comedian (unfortunately I forget her name) say "I once went to Nigeria to discover my roots. I found out my roots were in Hackney".
You are taking this all out of context.
Why, I don't know. But, in general I agree with you.
I was merely trying to explain the origin of the modern concept of "Celtic" and the role of Edward Lhuyd in its development. Nothing more. I had been asked a question by Dicky Underpants was attempting to provide some academic evidence.
-
I recommend Stephen Oppenheimer's book "The Origins of the British" which covers the genetics and linguistics of European and British peoples. It is an excellent read for anyone that likes to get down into details.
The word "celtic" is used differently in different contexts so doesn't really have a firm definition. He shows that large parts of England already had similar language and culture, in fact also genetics, as the post-Roman "Saxon invaders".
Link to an article by Oppenheimer giving a summary of his work (ignore the headline para at the start which is misleading though):
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry
And also Q+As in a follow up which is interesting in itself:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestryrevisited
-
I'd say the Celts are defined more by cultural and linguistic ties, etc, than genetic connections.
The similarities between music and language in Galicia, Ireland Wales, Cornwall, the Gaeltacht in Scotlannd and Cape Breton, not to mention the areas which styl have traces of their Brythonic Welsh heritage such as the area covered by the former kingdom of Strathclyde, etc, are the bonds which bind us.
Just go to Celtic connections in Glasgow in January....academic tomes cease to be relevent at that point!
-
I'd say the Celts are defined more by cultural and linguistic ties, etc, than genetic connections.
The similarities between music and language in Galicia, Ireland Wales, Cornwall, the Gaeltacht in Scotlannd and Cape Breton, not to mention the areas which styl have traces of their Brythonic Welsh heritage such as the area covered by the former kingdom of Strathclyde, etc, are the bonds which bind us.
Just go to Celtic connections in Glasgow in January....academic tomes cease to be relevent at that point!
Well, that was the line I was taking in the question I asked. I don't doubt that it's very unlikely that a single group could be defined bearing similar genetic characteristics which would differentiate them from other early inhabitants of these isles. But I'm still puzzled about the geographical-linguistic origins of all these "celtic" languages, which so obviously bear close relationships with each other, and which are equally obviously of the Indo-European class of languages.
However, there being no written examples of the ancient development of these languages (like Indo-European itself), I suppose we're never likely to know. Unless some strange glyphs are found which turn out to be some unknown form of developed Indo-European. That's not beyond the bounds of possibility - after all, the ancient Hittite language (written in cuneiform) puzzled linguists for decades, until - wonder of wonders - it turned out to be a form of Indo-European (the key to this puzzle was the word "Watter", which turned out to mean "water"!
-
I recommend Stephen Oppenheimer's book "The Origins of the British" which covers the genetics and linguistics of European and British peoples. It is an excellent read for anyone that likes to get down into details.
Thank you for that, Udayana. I'll check that one out. One more for a long list :)
-
I wonder what the Bretons and the Celts would think about, What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
ippy
-
The spread of IE language could have taken the (usual) two separate paths of cultural flow into the British Isles - one from Central Europe across the North Sea, the other from the South, along the Atlantic coast - accounting for differences between the "celtic" and "germanic" languages.
This would work for both Yamnaya (the current favorite) and Anatolian hypotheses of IE origins.
I wonder what the Bretons and the Celts would think about, What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
ippy
I should think they were essentially pagan and happy to live and let live, or even integrate. It is only when large empires start to be established that we get gods that make a bid for monopoly and won't allow any competition.
-
The spread of IE language could have taken the (usual) two separate paths of cultural flow into the British Isles - one from Central Europe across the North Sea, the other from the South, along the Atlantic coast - accounting for differences between the "celtic" and "germanic" languages.
This would work for both Yamnaya (the current favorite) and Anatolian hypotheses of IE origins.
I wonder what the Bretons and the Celts would think about, What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
ippy
I should think they were essentially pagan and happy to live and let live, or even integrate. It is only when large empires start to be established that we get gods that make a bid for monopoly and won't allow any competition.
Do you mean in the same way that Secularists only want to have a level playing field, where the freedom of religion is taken for granted and at the same time, in the same way freedom from religion would be?
ippy
-
Yes, I think so ... as long as you weren't needed as a sacrifice :-\
-
The spread of IE language could have taken the (usual) two separate paths of cultural flow into the British Isles - one from Central Europe across the North Sea, the other from the South, along the Atlantic coast - accounting for differences between the "celtic" and "germanic" languages.
This would work for both Yamnaya (the current favorite) and Anatolian hypotheses of IE origins.
I wonder what the Bretons and the Celts would think about, What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
ippy
I should think they were essentially pagan and happy to live and let live, or even integrate. It is only when large empires start to be established that we get gods that make a bid for monopoly and won't allow any competition.
Do you mean in the same way that Secularists only want to have a level playing field, where the freedom of religion is taken for granted and at the same time, in the same way freedom from religion would be?
ippy
That's all bollocks Ippy and you know it hence the third degree Tim Farron has received about his religious convictions.
Did Milliband get pulled up similarly for being an atheist and, because of it, a vacuous twat? of course not.
-
That's all bollocks Ippy and you know it hence the third degree Tim Farron has received about his religious convictions.
What third degree? He had a couple of gentle questions about it on the R4 interview I heard, nothing more.
Historically, the English (if not the Scots and Welsh) get very suspicious of people who want to mix religion and politics, mainly because we used to do it all the time and it led to quite a bloodbath.
-
Yes, I think so ... as long as you weren't needed as a sacrifice :-\
Would tthat be like the sacrifice of privileges the religious will be making in the interests of equality for all?
ippy
-
The spread of IE language could have taken the (usual) two separate paths of cultural flow into the British Isles - one from Central Europe across the North Sea, the other from the South, along the Atlantic coast - accounting for differences between the "celtic" and "germanic" languages.
This would work for both Yamnaya (the current favorite) and Anatolian hypotheses of IE origins.
I wonder what the Bretons and the Celts would think about, What is the problem religionists have with secularism?
ippy
I should think they were essentially pagan and happy to live and let live, or even integrate. It is only when large empires start to be established that we get gods that make a bid for monopoly and won't allow any competition.
Do you mean in the same way that Secularists only want to have a level playing field, where the freedom of religion is taken for granted and at the same time, in the same way freedom from religion would be?
ippy
That's all bollocks Ippy and you know it hence the third degree Tim Farron has received about his religious convictions.
Did Milliband get pulled up similarly for being an atheist and, because of it, a vacuous twat? of course not.
Don't be daft, of course they did. And Clegg too who was also an atheist, although with a Christian wife.
But there is a difference. There isn' any suggestion that Clegg or Miliband's atheism had any direct effect on his voting. By contrast there is a legitimate question to be asked as to whether Farron's voting against gay marriage is linked to his Christian views. And also whether failing to vote for gay marriage is fundamentally compatible with being a 'liberal'.
-
But there is a difference. There isn' any suggestion that Clegg or Miliband's atheism had any direct effect on his voting. By contrast there is a legitimate question to be asked as to whether Farron's voting against gay marriage is linked to his Christian views. And also whether failing to vote for gay marriage is fundamentally compatible with being a 'liberal'.
Why is it a legitimate question to ask whether someone's voting record is linked to their Christian beliefs when it isn't a legitimate question to ask the same of someone's atheist beliefs?
As for your final question, why would it be assumed that 'liberal' equates with being 'pro-gay marriage'? The two halves of the question don't appear to match
-
Why is it a legitimate question to ask whether someone's voting record is linked to their Christian beliefs when it isn't a legitimate question to ask the same of someone's atheist beliefs?
Classic fail - atheism isn't a belief.
As for your final question, why would it be assumed that 'liberal' equates with being 'pro-gay marriage'? The two halves of the question don't appear to match
No liberal equates with allowing people to choose - e.g. for gay people to choose to marry.
-
Why is it a legitimate question to ask whether someone's voting record is linked to their Christian beliefs when it isn't a legitimate question to ask the same of someone's atheist beliefs?
There are no atheist beliefs.
The problem with a link to Christian beliefs apart from the fact that some of their moral ideals are not as progressive as they might be is that there is this Christian message that the World is going to end and then it will be great for Christians. That scares me.
-
I have an issue with Jeremy Corbyn, in that he supports hom••\•\•\y, which is witless but it is less of an issue than Tim Farron who (a) sees gay stuff as as a sin and (b) is willing to lie about that by omission. People can.be/ are wrong in my opinion but if at base your morals are based on something utterly different to me, bye!
-
Had to edit last post - second seems 404
-
There are no atheist beliefs.
Sorry jeremy, but there are no less atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs. Without a belief system one can't function as a human being. It s the underpinning foundation of one's approach to life. However I will accept that a better description would probably be 'humanist beliefs'.
The problem with a link to Christian beliefs apart from the fact that some of their moral ideals are not as progressive as they might be ...
How do you define 'progressive'? In my view its one of these nebulous terms that have little or no real meaning.
.. is that there is this Christian message that the World is going to end and then it will be great for Christians. That scares me.
What scares you? The fact that this world is going to end - even science predicts that. Or is it your rather throw-away comment that 'it will be great for Christians'? Are you trying to link this to Floo's thread on hell, in some way. ;) I suspect that most non-believers will be quite happy with whatever they meet after death.
-
Hope
Surely you understand by now that atheism is NOT a belief system?
If you do not then this had to be explained in simple terms until you do.
You cannot really contribute until you understand this as you will make too many mistakes based on this false understanding.
-
There are no atheist beliefs.
Sorry jeremy, but there are no less atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs. Without a belief system one can't function as a human being. It s the underpinning foundation of one's approach to life. However I will accept that a better description would probably be 'humanist beliefs'.
Oh no, classic fail number two. Atheism and humanism aren't the same thing. Sure there are plenty of atheist humanists, but there also plenty of atheists that aren't humanist and plenty of humanists that aren't atheist. Sure atheists will have believe systems but that belief system isn't atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of believe in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.
You really do seem to have a problem grasping this, so perhaps I can try to explain it in a manner you might just grasp. You are a Christian, and that is a belief system and no doubt informs your fundamental approach to life. But I also presume that you do not believe that Thor exists (in a real sense). Is your lack of belief in Thor a belief system (answer - it isn't) - in what way does you lack of belief in Thor inform your fundamental approach to life (answer - I doubt it does at all).
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
ippy, are you defining "drubbing" as "someone has stated an opposing view?" That seems to be how you're using it. Every time someone disagrees with Hope, you say he's has had a "drubbing". Seems to be different from the way the rest of the English speaking world use it.
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
ippy, are you defining "drubbing" as "someone has stated an opposing view?" That seems to be how you're using it. Every time someone disagrees with Hope, you say he's has had a "drubbing". Seems to be different from the way the rest of the English speaking world use it.
ippy has always had problems with the English language.
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
ippy, are you defining "drubbing" as "someone has stated an opposing view?" That seems to be how you're using it. Every time someone disagrees with Hope, you say he's has had a "drubbing". Seems to be different from the way the rest of the English speaking world use it.
High there Cyb, B A, yes I suppose the use of drubbing could be seen as irritating, well well; at he same time there are posts on this thread that clearly demonstrate there isn't an automatic connection between intelligence and education.
ippy
-
atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs.
Atheists are united only by the fact that they don't believe in any gods - that's a unifying lack of belief and everything else is a free-for-all. There is only one shared theist (religious) belief, which is the belief that there is a god.
Adherents of the Abrahamic faiths share more beliefs, Christians a broader set, Catholics even more specific and so on.
Without a belief system one can't function as a human being.
But those belief systems are atheist, they are compatible with atheism - they do not spring from, but rather alongside, atheism. Some theists, presumably, have beliefs about what are the best sport teams in a given league, but their theism does not turn that position into a theistic belief.
O.
-
As I have raised before I am not sure I have a belief system rather than a set of beliefs which while in the main are consistent, I don't make an active attempt to codify. Most of my actions don't really seem to happen out of beliefs, indeed maybe none do, since it is all about my little lizard brain and its desires. Beliefs, in the morality sense, feels like a massive post rationalisation.
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
ippy, are you defining "drubbing" as "someone has stated an opposing view?" That seems to be how you're using it. Every time someone disagrees with Hope, you say he's has had a "drubbing". Seems to be different from the way the rest of the English speaking world use it.
High there Cyb, B A, yes I suppose the use of drubbing could be seen as irritating, well well; at he same time there are posts on this thread that clearly demonstrate there isn't an automatic connection between intelligence and education.
ippy
Now, now, ippy; no need to run yourself down - I'll happily do that for you. ;)
-
Another drubbing Hope, you've been on the receiving end of a number of successive drubbings just lately Hope, oh dear.
ippy
ippy, are you defining "drubbing" as "someone has stated an opposing view?" That seems to be how you're using it. Every time someone disagrees with Hope, you say he's has had a "drubbing". Seems to be different from the way the rest of the English speaking world use it.
High there Cyb, B A, yes I suppose the use of drubbing could be seen as irritating, well well; at he same time there are posts on this thread that clearly demonstrate there isn't an automatic connection between intelligence and education.
ippy
Now, now, ippy; no need to run yourself down - I'll happily do that for you. ;)
Well well an instant example so soon too.
ippy
-
Some theists, presumably, have beliefs about what are the best sport teams in a given league, but their theism does not turn that position into a theistic belief.
O.
So what you are saying is that atheism tends to cover the ''so what?'', trivial beliefs........
-
Hope
Surely you understand by now that atheism is NOT a belief system?
If you do not then this had to be explained in simple terms until you do.
You cannot really contribute until you understand this as you will make too many mistakes based on this false understanding.
Make him take a test, go on, make him. Don't leave him alone till he does. :D
(BTW, you haven't passed my "test" yet.
-
High there Cyb, B A, yes I suppose the use of drubbing could be seen as irritating, well well;
Why would I find your posts irritating, ippy; especially those that refer to drubbings that I'm supposed to have received at the hands of X or Y? If it gives you pleasure to regard them as drubbings, its no skin off my nose.
...at he same time there are posts on this thread that clearly demonstrate there isn't an automatic connection between intelligence and education.
Since you mention this, I couldn't agree more - but I wasn't going to mention it lest it hurt your feelings.
-
High there Cyb, B A, yes I suppose the use of drubbing could be seen as irritating, well well;
Why would I find your posts irritating, ippy; especially those that refer to drubbings that I'm supposed to have received at the hands of X or Y? If it gives you pleasure to regard them as drubbings, its no skin off my nose.
...at he same time there are posts on this thread that clearly demonstrate there isn't an automatic connection between intelligence and education.
Since you mention this, I couldn't agree more - but I wasn't going to mention it lest it hurt your feelings.
Mention away_____
ippy
-
Hope, how come you really seem to think that atheism is some kind of belief system, could you explain the route you have taken to arrive at this rather strange apparent conclusion of yours.
I note on catching up with this thread there seem to be some sort of mental block in most religionists minds that prevents them understanding the basic principles of how secularism works and in some cases religionists see secularism as some form of deep and dark enemy of religions in general, I wondered why? Thus the O P title.
ippy
-
There are no atheist beliefs.
Sorry jeremy, but there are no less atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs.
Wrong. Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
Without a belief system one can't function as a human being.
But atheism is not a belief system. Atheists have belief systems but belief systems are not atheism.
It s the underpinning foundation of one's approach to life.
Nope. For me, atheism is a consequence of some of my beliefs. It's not a foundation.
How do you define 'progressive'?
What do you think "progressive" means? A belief that you don't burn witches at the stake is progress over a belief that you do.
What scares you?
The denseness is strong with this one. If you have a Christian who thinks the End of the World is a Good Thing, wouldn't you get nervous if he was in charge of all America's atom bombs?
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Tortoises wouldn't be atheist because the suffix 'ist' is in reference to people (yea, I'm being anal).
Nowhere am I aware of an atheist having to be aware of their atheism in order to qualify to be one, and that goes for a-anything.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
i agree - the notion that an atheist is anyone or anything that does not believe in god even if they have no concept of what the concept of god is is, well meaningless. By that measure my gate post is atheist, but that has no relevance.
To my mind the only meaningful use of the term is someone who understands the basic concept of a god but does not believe they exist.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Tortoises wouldn't be atheist because the suffix 'ist' is in reference to people (yea, I'm being anal).
Nowhere am I aware of an atheist having to be aware of their atheism in order to qualify to be one, and that goes for a-anything.
Nowhere am I aware of someone identifying as an atheist who doesn't know at least something about what the term means; and that goes for anything-ist.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Tortoises wouldn't be atheist because the suffix 'ist' is in reference to people (yea, I'm being anal).
Nowhere am I aware of an atheist having to be aware of their atheism in order to qualify to be one, and that goes for a-anything.
Nowhere am I aware of someone identifying as an atheist who doesn't know at least something about what the term means; and that goes for anything-ist.
Agreed. How does that mean you can't be considered an atheist if you aren't aware of being one or what it means?
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Tortoises wouldn't be atheist because the suffix 'ist' is in reference to people (yea, I'm being anal).
Nowhere am I aware of an atheist having to be aware of their atheism in order to qualify to be one, and that goes for a-anything.
Nowhere am I aware of someone identifying as an atheist who doesn't know at least something about what the term means; and that goes for anything-ist.
Agreed. How does that mean you can't be considered an atheist if you aren't aware of being one or what it means?
To be honest, I prefer to consider usage and definition rather than etymology, but given that the "atheism is neutral" lobby are so fond of playing the a- card I thought I'd use the -ist card! an -ist is someone engaged with a belief or practice, not someone who passively and accidentally isn't another -ist.
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
Thanks for sharing.
Feel free to join in with the topic being discussed any time you like
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
Spot on. Speaking as one charged with obsession and a deep infatuated love of Richard Dawkins, His soft grey hair whipping in the wind like some kind of...Heathcliffe, his fragrant delivery of those lovely......er,well any way....as somebody so accused I think you have shown that obsession with God is yet another obvious thing missed by antitheists......
-
Some Christians seem to have an obsession with non believers! ::)
-
Some Christians seem to have an obsession with non believers! ::)
Nope....here we are, after all, on a religion forum and you guys just sort of pop up.
-
Some Christians seem to have an obsession with non believers! ::)
Nope....here we are, after all, on a religion forum and you guys just sort of pop up.
No we aren't. This is a 'Religion & Ethics' board and this thread is on the General Discussion section. Why shouldn't non religious people be interested in talking about ethics, or indeed the impact religion still has on our society, i.e. conversations about secularism. And just to be clear this boards welcomes non theists just as it welcomes theists. We are equal here.
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippi
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippi
I'm sorry if you can't see the differences between unicorns and God then as they say ''yer nae use tae me!''
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippi
I'm sorry if you can't see the differences between unicorns and God then as they say ''yer nae use tae me!''
Can you prove which one is real Woo? Or are they both very unlikely to be in the realms of reality, realistically I think the latter has to be the case; or if you like they're both about as likely to be true as each other.
It's a go nowhere belief anyway so why bother with it?
ippy
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Even accepting your definition, atheism is not a belief system, it's just not accepting somebody else's belief system.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Even accepting your definition, atheism is not a belief system, it's just not accepting somebody else's belief system.
Absolutely - atheism is no more a belief system than not believing in Thor, or not believing that Liverpool are the greatest football team the world has ever seen, or not believing that Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarist ever etc, etc.
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
Oh, I see very well. My point, which you certainly cannot see, is why it bothers you, and why you keep on banging on. And so far you have not explained, only waffled. It seems to be a real problem with you.
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
Oh, I see very well. My point, which you certainly cannot see, is why it bothers you, and why you keep on banging on. And so far you have not explained, only waffled. It seems to be a real problem with you.
You're entitled to think whatever you would like to think B A.
ippy
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
Oh, I see very well. My point, which you certainly cannot see, is why it bothers you, and why you keep on banging on. And so far you have not explained, only waffled. It seems to be a real problem with you.
You're entitled to think whatever you would like to think B A.
ippy
Really? Then why do you spend so much time telling me that I am wrong??
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
Oh, I see very well. My point, which you certainly cannot see, is why it bothers you, and why you keep on banging on. And so far you have not explained, only waffled. It seems to be a real problem with you.
You're entitled to think whatever you would like to think B A.
ippy
Really? Then why do you spend so much time telling me that I am wrong??
Think about it.
ippy
-
I don't go about my daily life wondering about whether unicorns exist or not, any more than I wonder about this theist god thing they keep refering to.
About 61 years ago when I was twelve the stuff I'd heard about the god idea, didn't make any sense to me then and over the years I've not seen or heard anything that would make me change my mind, now I'm even more convinced the whole gods ideas is nonsense.
ippy
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
No not really B A it's more to do with adults believing such obviously man made nonsense, that's intersting to me and how they are so convinced about their rubbish there seems to be some effort at various times to inflict their regressive nonsence upon others with things like the bishops block voting against the assisted dying bill, in spite of the 82% of our population want it in some form or another; fortunatly there are ways around the bishops but they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Mind you, they do serve as another example of this largely unwanted type of belief that should have made it's exit many years ago, like Duglas Adams said religion is fascinating but it surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people believe in it. (Not verbatim of Duggie but near enough).
For the same reason as Duggie B A that's why I'm here.
ippy
And your fascination extends to derision, day in and day out, and never seems satiated I call that a rather unhealthy obsession: yet you describe theists as being subject to "obviously man made nonsense." Can you spot the contradiction in your position?
It's hardly my fault that you can't see the wood for the trees B A.
ippy
Oh, I see very well. My point, which you certainly cannot see, is why it bothers you, and why you keep on banging on. And so far you have not explained, only waffled. It seems to be a real problem with you.
You're entitled to think whatever you would like to think B A.
ippy
Really? Then why do you spend so much time telling me that I am wrong??
Think about it.
ippy
I have. And I'm still asking.
-
Why shouldn't non religious people be interested in talking about ethics, or indeed the impact religion still has on our society.....
No-one has said they shouldn't be, so get that chip of your shoulder, chum.
-
Why shouldn't non religious people be interested in talking about ethics, or indeed the impact religion still has on our society.....
No-one has said they shouldn't be, so get that chip of your shoulder, chum.
Bashful Anthony has, so take your chip off your shoulder.
-
I'm sorry if you can't see the differences between unicorns and God then as they say ''yer nae use tae me!''
The point is not the difference but the similarities. Both are fictional.
-
Why shouldn't non religious people be interested in talking about ethics, or indeed the impact religion still has on our society.....
No-one has said they shouldn't be, so get that chip of your shoulder, chum.
Bashful Anthony has, so take your chip off your shoulder.
He absolutely has not. ippy said "I am not interested in theism" (I'm paraphrasing) and BA said "I think you are; that's why you're no here all the time". He never once said he shouldn't be interested or that he shouldn't be here.
.... time for you to read back.....
.........now you notice you're wrong...
............now you angrily tell me I am playing word games, and that it was "implied"...
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Even accepting your definition, atheism is not a belief system, it's just not accepting somebody else's belief system.
Yup, that's right. and...?
-
That's not right, is it? You do think about God, every day, and you talk about Him on here every day. You are obsessed by Him.
For myself I do next to no thinking about the concept of gods as such. I read all the good books on the subject years ago and thought about it and after at the most fifteen seconds decided that it's all utter horseshit of the most stupendous proportions. The idea of gods is one worth taking seriously, but for a very short space of time indeed and only once. A lot of people (most?) seem to do this fairly early on in life, in the teenage years perhaps: thereafter nobody need give such patent and palpable arse gravy a moment's head-room.
No, the perennial fascination isn't with gods but in grown adults, apparently normally constituted and seemingly intelligent in other ways, who claim to take such things seriously. To believe in that which is defied by all logic, reason, evidence (and lack thereof) and common sense, lacks any unified coherent definition and is more than adequately explained by the vagaries of human psychology - now that's extremely bizarre, and endlessly interesting.
But I tell you what Bashers; why not pretend that you haven't seen this reply so that in another week or two weeks or a month or so you can ask the question yet again and still claim that no one has answered it.
-
Why shouldn't non religious people be interested in talking about ethics, or indeed the impact religion still has on our society.....
No-one has said they shouldn't be, so get that chip of your shoulder, chum.
Bashful Anthony has, so take your chip off your shoulder.
He absolutely has not. ippy said "I am not interested in theism" (I'm paraphrasing) and BA said "I think you are; that's why you're no here all the time". He never once said he shouldn't be interested or that he shouldn't be here.
.... time for you to read back.....
.........now you notice you're wrong...
............now you angrily tell me I am playing word games, and that it was "implied"...
No I'm not interested in theism but it does fascinate me the amount of people that are hook line and sinker taken in by it; now that is interesting.
Cant stop long got to have a chat with the fairies at the bottom of the garden and the feed the unicorn.
ippy
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Even accepting your definition, atheism is not a belief system, it's just not accepting somebody else's belief system.
Yup, that's right. and...?
And atheism is not believing in God, it's not belief system.
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
-
Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No. If that was all then tortoises would be atheists, which is of course absurd. An atheist is someone who is aware of theism and has decided they don't buy it.
Even accepting your definition, atheism is not a belief system, it's just not accepting somebody else's belief system.
Yup, that's right. and...?
And atheism is not believing in God, it's not belief system.
Yes I know! So..?
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
So you can easily find a quote where he says you shouldn't be here, then
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
So you can easily find a quote where he says you shouldn't be here, then
Very probably - if I were on the PC rather than my phone I should think that finding such a quote would be a simple task.
Not nearly as easy (since he's done it yet again today) as finding a BA quote asking atheists why they're discussing religion on a forum specifically designed to discuss religion, as though he hasn't asked the same question a hundred times before and has had it answered as many times but pretends that it hasn't.
-
And atheism is not believing in God, it's not belief system.
Yes I know! So..?
You should trace this little subthread back to its start, then you might remember why you were arguing with me.
-
You should trace this little subthread back to its start, then you might remember why you were arguing with me.
Or to summarise the thread:
Sorry jeremy, but there are no less atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs
Wrong. Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No.
Then round the houses and up the garden path for a bit until...
And atheism is not believing in God, it's not belief system.
Yes I know!
So what was the point of that useless little diversion you took us on? You picked on a minor part of one of my replies to Hope and decided to be contrary for no good reason.
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
So you can easily find a quote where he says you shouldn't be here, then
Very probably - if I were on the PC rather than my phone I should think that finding such a quote would be a simple task.
Not nearly as easy (since he's done it yet again today) as finding a BA quote asking atheists why they're discussing religion on a forum specifically designed to discuss religion, as though he hasn't asked the same question a hundred times before and has had it answered as many times but pretends that it hasn't.
His whole life is one of pretense. He pretends that he is absolutely certain about everything concerning "God", whilst unknowingly demonstrating that he isn't.
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
So you can easily find a quote where he says you shouldn't be here, then
Very probably - if I were on the PC rather than my phone I should think that finding such a quote would be a simple task.
Not nearly as easy (since he's done it yet again today) as finding a BA quote asking atheists why they're discussing religion on a forum specifically designed to discuss religion, as though he hasn't asked the same question a hundred times before and has had it answered as many times but pretends that it hasn't.
His whole life is one of pretense. He pretends that he is absolutely certain about everything concerning "God", whilst unknowingly demonstrating that he isn't.
Good old Leonard. In his arrogance he assumes to pot-hole my whole life. What an idiotic comment, followed by an airy-fairy assessment of my "demonstration" of certainty. None of it followed by any evidence to back it up. In, short, just a cheap jibe, the one thing Leonard is good at.
-
He absolutely has not.
Hardly a day goes by when BA doesn't berate us atheists for coming on to this religion forum.
So you can easily find a quote where he says you shouldn't be here, then
Very probably - if I were on the PC rather than my phone I should think that finding such a quote would be a simple task.
Not nearly as easy (since he's done it yet again today) as finding a BA quote asking atheists why they're discussing religion on a forum specifically designed to discuss religion, as though he hasn't asked the same question a hundred times before and has had it answered as many times but pretends that it hasn't.
I have been "answered," but not honestly. All I get is waffle. What is the honest reason (or reasons) atheists blather on in this forum, and others? I'll keep asking until someone tells the truth.
-
How do you know the answers you've received are not honest?
When did you develop these psychic abilities?
-
How do you know the answers you've received are not honest?
When did you develop these psychic abilities?
I know you all too well, that's how!
I have always been psychic: I'm known around these parts as "that psychic bash!" I think they said "bash!" ;)
-
That's not an answer.
To know that a reply you've been given is deliberately dishonest you have to know it to be such by knowing the 'real' answer. I ask again: on what basis do you claim to know this?
-
That's not an answer.
To know that a reply you've been given is deliberately dishonest you have to know it to be such by knowing the 'real' answer. I ask again: on what basis do you claim to know this?
No. You are evading the issue. I'll throw it back at you. I ask you again: why do you post, year in and year out, asking the same old questions about theism? Indeed, why does it bother you, as it clearly seems to judging by the volume of post on the subject, over the years?
-
No.
Yes.
You are evading the issue.
Not in the slightest - you are, the issue being that you stated:
I have been "answered," but not honestly. All I get is waffle. What is the honest reason (or reasons) atheists blather on in this forum, and others? I'll keep asking until someone tells the truth.
I asked you on what basis you make these claims. You didn't answer this because you can't.
I'll throw it back at you. I ask you again: why do you post, year in and year out, asking the same old questions about theism? Indeed, why does it bother you, as it clearly seems to judging by the volume of post on the subject, over the years?
You've had this question answered - by me at least - numerous times every time that you've asked it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself this many times. You allege that the answers you've received are dishonest, but such a statement only flies if you can demonstrate what the "actual" answer really is, i.e. if you have the evidence that demonstrates dishonesty. To determine dishonesty - that's conscious and deliberate deceit, remember - you need to be able to show what the honest bit is by comparison. You don't have such evidence because it doesn't exist: I know it, you know it. Nevertheless, since you're a big one for playing ridiculous games, I'll ask one more time: what do you think the "actual" answer really is and how do you claim to know it?
This is what's being evaded, and I'm not the one doing it.
-
No.
Yes.
You are evading the issue.
Not in the slightest - you are, the issue being that you stated:
I have been "answered," but not honestly. All I get is waffle. What is the honest reason (or reasons) atheists blather on in this forum, and others? I'll keep asking until someone tells the truth.
I asked you on what basis you make these claims. You didn't answer this because you can't.
I'll throw it back at you. I ask you again: why do you post, year in and year out, asking the same old questions about theism? Indeed, why does it bother you, as it clearly seems to judging by the volume of post on the subject, over the years?
You've had this question answered - by me at least - numerous times every time that you've asked it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself this many times. You allege that the answers you've received are dishonest, but such a statement only flies if you can demonstrate what the "actual" answer really is, i.e. if you have the evidence that demonstrates dishonesty. You don't have such evidence because it doesn't exist: I know it, you know it. Nevertheless, since you're a big one for playing ridiculous games, I'll ask one more time: what do you think the "actual" answer really is and how do you claim to know it?
This is what's being evaded, and I'm not the one doing it.
As usual, best form of defence is attack! You are the one on here, among others, who obsess about something you don't even believe exists. You make silly pretences that you are really interested in theists and why they believe; but that's codswallop. You come on here quoting Biblical references and discussing theology; yet you believe none of it. Why then do you go on, ad nauseam? To a point you do it because you think it 's an easy topic to deride, and you obviously enjoy scoring cheap points in debate: fair enough. But I think there is a deeper, psychological reason. It may be a longing to believe which you cannot quite reconcile; or it is some other deep hang-up. Maybe your mother was frightened by a vicar when she was pregnant ( :) ) Whatever, and it would take counselling to establish why you all are the way you are, it is without doubt most odd the way you are so totally obsessed.
-
As usual, best form of defence is attack! You are the one on here, among others, who obsess about something you don't even believe exists.
But theism - especially monotheism - does exist, Bashers. Alas. I wish it didn't just as I wish animal cruelty didn't exist, but unfortunately it does and as an anti-theist that's why I continue to argue against it.
You make silly pretences that you are really interested in theists and why they believe; but that's codswallop.
More claims of dishonesty. If I thought there was any point at all in asking you how you claim to know this I'd do so, but I know you'll only duck, dive and dodge yet again.
You come on here quoting Biblical references and discussing theology; yet you believe none of it. Why then do you go on, ad nauseam?
Because as Vlad would be the very first - OK, maybe the second - to tell you, I'm an anti-theist. Theism is irrational, fatuous, juvenile and predicated on all the laziness of mind and slackness and sloppiness of thought that I detest, and it needs to be countered everywhere, all the time.
To a point you do it because you think it 's an easy topic to deride, and you obviously enjoy scoring cheap points in debate: fair enough.
No point scored is that cheap, and you can't not score all the points against something as ridiculous as theism.
But I think there is a deeper, psychological reason. It may be a longing to believe which you cannot quite reconcile; or it is some other deep hang-up. Maybe your mother was frightened by a vicar when she was pregnant ( :) ) Whatever, and it would take counselling to establish why you all are the way you are, it is without doubt most odd the way you are so totally obsessed.
You are, typically, incorrect.
Those home-study psychology courses - ask for your money back.
-
As usual, best form of defence is attack! You are the one on here, among others, who obsess about something you don't even believe exists.
But theism - especially monotheism - does exist, Bashers. Alas. I wish it didn't just as I wish animal cruelty didn't exist, but unfortunately it does and as an anti-theist that's why I continue to argue against it.
You make silly pretences that you are really interested in theists and why they believe; but that's codswallop.
More claims of dishonesty. If I thought there was any point at all in asking you how you claim to know this I'd do so, but I know you'll only duck, dive and dodge yet again.
You come on here quoting Biblical references and discussing theology; yet you believe none of it. Why then do you go on, ad nauseam?
Because as Vlad would be the very first - OK, maybe the second - to tell you, I'm an anti-theist. Theism is irrational, fatuous, juvenile and predicated on all the laziness of mind and slackness and sloppiness of thought that I detest, and it needs to be countered everywhere, all the time.
To a point you do it because you think it 's an easy topic to deride, and you obviously enjoy scoring cheap points in debate: fair enough.
No point scored is that cheap, and you can't not score all the points against something as ridiculous as theism.
But I think there is a deeper, psychological reason. It may be a longing to believe which you cannot quite reconcile; or it is some other deep hang-up. Maybe your mother was frightened by a vicar when she was pregnant ( :) ) Whatever, and it would take counselling to establish why you all are the way you are, it is without doubt most odd the way you are so totally obsessed.
You are, typically, incorrect.
Those home-study psychology courses - ask for your money back.
You just don't get it, or, more accurately, won't get it. You have made your point about theism, sometime back in 1970, or something, and to waffle on about: "Theism is irrational, fatuous, juvenile and predicated on all the laziness of mind and slackness and sloppiness of thought that I detest, and it needs to be countered everywhere, all the time" is just old hat, not to mention totally over the top. Just why does it need to be countered, and I mean the theism of Christianity? Radical Islam, maybe, but I don't notice much comment in that department. No, you have a hang-up; it's unhealthy, and try as you may, you cannot justify it. Sorry, old chap.
-
You just don't get it, or, more accurately, won't get it. You have made your point about theism, sometime back in 1970, or something, and to waffle on about: "Theism is irrational, fatuous, juvenile and predicated on all the laziness of mind and slackness and sloppiness of thought that I detest, and it needs to be countered everywhere, all the time" is just old hat, not to mention totally over the top. Just why does it need to be countered, and I mean the theism we of Christianity? Radical Islam, maybe, but I don't notice much comment in that department.
Radical Islam is a minor problem in British society and culture. It exists, but far out on the margins, way out in the hole-and-corner lunatic fringes of small numbers of disaffected young men (usually) in deprived urban areas. This isn't to say that nothing should be done about it; it's to say that the priorities need to be kept straight. It's the established state Christian church which sought - for example - to prevent same-sex couples from having a civil (i.e. secular, i.e. absolutely none of their damned business) marriage. It's the same church that always chips in trying to prevent people from having the easeful, dignified and painless death they seek. And so forth. They can expect to stop being attacked about thirty seconds after they stop trying to interfere in the lives and deaths of people who don't share and have no interest whatever in their batty, backward superstition (which is by far the great majority of the population).
And in any case, in attacking theism one is attacking Islamic theism as much as Christian or Jewish theism. Anti-theism is precisely that - anti-theism.
-
You just don't get it, or, more accurately, won't get it. You have made your point about theism, sometime back in 1970, or something, and to waffle on about: "Theism is irrational, fatuous, juvenile and predicated on all the laziness of mind and slackness and sloppiness of thought that I detest, and it needs to be countered everywhere, all the time" is just old hat, not to mention totally over the top. Just why does it need to be countered, and I mean the theism we of Christianity? Radical Islam, maybe, but I don't notice much comment in that department.
Radical Islam is a minor problem in British society and culture. It exists, but far out on the margins, way out in the hole-and-corner lunatic fringes of small numbers of disaffected young men (usually) in deprived urban areas. This isn't to say that nothing should be done about it; it's to say that the priorities need to be kept straight. It's the established state Christian church which sought - for example - to prevent same-sex couples from having a civil (i.e. secular, i.e. absolutely none of their damned business) marriage. It's the same church that always chips in trying to prevent people from having the easeful, dignified and painless death they seek. And so forth.
And in any case, in attacking theism one is attacking Islamic theism as much as Christian or Jewish theism. Anti-theism is precisely that - anti-theism.
That is an ignorant and disgraceful comment. There have been over a hundred terrorist atrocities in the UK since the 70's, including, of course, 7/7 in London, and the butchering of Lee Rigby; plus unknown numbers of thwarted plots or conspiracies. You lamely quote such things same-sex marriage, yet that is changing anyway, and is hardly a like-threatening topic. People here can live their lives free of any connection with the Church: it need not impinge on anybody's life. You utterly over-state your case, and dismiss Islamic Radicalism which is a threat to our life and society. Your position is untenable.
You say Islam has no effect on the culture here. This is a quote from the Spectator:
"The introduction of a madrassa curriculum at a secular state school in Birmingham and talk of Christian pupils at risk of ‘cultural isolation’ seem to have come as a revelation to non-Muslim Britain. They should not have. Islam in Britain is dominated by a very specific, and rather illiberal, version of the faith — one that, if anything, seems to be becoming more conservative over time.
As the Muslim population became more established, one might have assumed that a westernised form of Islam would have come to dominate Britain’s mosques. According to a database of British Islam, however, only two out of 1,700 mosques in Britain follow modernist interpretations of the Koran. It’s not the same elsewhere in the West. In a 2011 survey of Islam in the United States, 56 per cent of mosques described themselves as following an interpretation of Islam adapted to modern circumstances. This has not happened in Britain."
There is an increasing, often worrying, influence of Islam on the culture here, in schools, through Sharia Law, and in a decided failure to integrate.
-
That is an ignorant and disgraceful comment. There have been over a hundred terrorist atrocities in the UK since the 70's, including, of course, 7/7 in London, and the butchering of Lee Rigby
Since the 70s? That's forty years at least - how many of these were directly and undisputably traceable to this radical Islam of which you speak?
plus unknown numbers of thwarted plots or conspiracies.
If they're unknown you can't factor them into your fantasies, then, can you?
You lamely quote such things same-sex marriage, yet that is changing anyway
In spite of religious objections - that's because although inexplicably in 2015 we remain a de jure religious nation, in societal terms we are already a religiously apatheistic and ignostic culture and thank goodness becoming increasingly more so by the year. What this means in practice is that weirdly we - we as in England, not Britain or the UK - still have an established church invincibly ignorant of just how utterly irrelevant it is to the overwhelming majority of the population yet still shrilly piping up from the sidelines whenever something crops up which it doesn't like.
People here can live their lives free of any connection with the Church: it need not impinge on anybody's life.
They were certainly trying to impinge on the lives of gay people hoping to marry, and they're still impinging on the lives of people who are suffering torments to which they wish to bring an end.
-
"...disaffected young men (usually) in deprived urban areas."
That is a pile of Marxist BS. Shaker is really trying to pile it on today. The truth is, and studies on radicalized Muslim youth back this up, most are educated, wealthy, and well integrated. Shaker is feeding us that Marxist crap about it boiling down to socioeconomics, and that is a blatant lie.
-
I was referring to the UK, not the USA's barren loft extension in which you reside.
-
Get educated Shaker. I wasn't talking N America in particular. For example, one of the studies on this comes out of Aarhus University. Do you know where Aarus is? Try Denmark.
Cut the Marxist BS Shaker. These young devils aren't living the tombstone blues, this is fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQNQdVG5DMY
-
That is an ignorant and disgraceful comment. There have been over a hundred terrorist atrocities in the UK since the 70's, including, of course, 7/7 in London, and the butchering of Lee Rigby
Since the 70s? That's forty years at least - how many of these were directly and undisputably traceable to this radical Islam of which you speak?
plus unknown numbers of thwarted plots or conspiracies.
If they're unknown you can't factor them into your fantasies, then, can you?
[/b]
You lamely quote such things same-sex marriage, yet that is changing anyway
In spite of religious objections - that's because although inexplicably in 2015 we remain a de jure religious nation, in societal terms we are already a religiously apatheistic and ignostic culture and thank goodness becoming increasingly more so by the year. What this means in practice is that weirdly we - we as in England, not Britain or the UK - still have an established church invincibly ignorant of just how utterly irrelevant it is to the overwhelming majority of the population yet still shrilly piping up from the sidelines whenever something crops up which it doesn't like.
People here can live their lives free of any connection with the Church: it need not impinge on anybody's life.
They were certainly trying to impinge on the lives of gay people hoping to marry, and they're still impinging on the lives of people who are suffering torments to which they wish to bring an end.
I was quoting a list of atrocities and plots (not specified for security reasons) made public by the Security Services. I am not making this list up out of thin air. From my own personal experience i am well aware that many Islamic youths are far from enamoured with our society, and indeed, a recent straw poll on BBC News, suggested that at least 50% of Islamic youth are sympathetic to Daesh. Your complacent and ill-informed reaction is the kind of attitude which is a danger to our security. An ignorant response from you
-
Shakey,
"...barren loft extension..."
Which reminds me, have you slithered out of your cellar and visited Scotland yet? Too funny that you are living right on it's door step and have never have bothered to visit. Have you managed London or Liverpool? (snork)
-
Scotland, not yet. London and Liverpool, more times than I can remember. (Or in some cases care to, as a dear friend of mine used to live in Toxteth :-\ ).
-
You should trace this little subthread back to its start, then you might remember why you were arguing with me.
Or to summarise the thread:
Sorry jeremy, but there are no less atheist beliefs as there religious beliefs
Wrong. Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. End of story.
No.
Then round the houses and up the garden path for a bit until...
And atheism is not believing in God, it's not belief system.
Yes I know!
So what was the point of that useless little diversion you took us on? You picked on a minor part of one of my replies to Hope and decided to be contrary for no good reason.
It wasn't minor, it was your claim about what defines atheism.
I have never claimed that atheism is a belief system.
Got in a muddle again, jp?