Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted March 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 we either follow God, or we choose to ignore/not believe in Him. I take issue with this viewpoint: it's not a choice. If it were a choice then I would choose to believe in God and seek forgiveness from Him for my sins and whatnot, because as people so often point out that is the "safer" option. However, regardless of how appealing a belief is, or how much I might truly want to believe it, I cannot will myself to belief something that just doesn't make any sense to me. Disclaimer: if my tone comes across as hostile I assure you that I do not mean it to be. Of course, I understand. Here's the appropriate way to put this; You're either convinced or you're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 If different sects of Christianity or Islam can hate each other so much I don't see the difficulty in them hating their each other. Also, it may be true that most people in this country are merely 'default christians' but thinking that Christian ideology doesn't pervade our supposedly secular politics is unfortunately untrue. I don't know if you remember that we had a member of Opus Dei (Ruth Kelly) in the cabinet among other Christians in the back benches who tried (and nearly succeeded) in getting Catholic adoption agencies exempted from sexual orientation regulations. There are numerous other examples. And don't forget that Tony Blair hid his Catholicism from the public during his premiership. Not to mention the parade of religious leaders pontificating on the news over every socio-political issue in the news. Of course they claim to speak for the Christian majority but vastly over-represent themselves and distort the view of the public toward the more conservative views they hold. Religious leaders definitely hold more sway than their dwindling number of followers give them and their is too much morality in politics in this country with too many MPs letting their personal beliefs affect decisions that should be made on more concrete reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 And now for the interlude @TFG: For where it mostly matters though religion is generally kept out of it. So I'm happy with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 @TFG: For where it mostly matters though religion is generally kept out of it. So I'm happy with that. That's where I disagree though, it's just not as overt as it is in the USA. MPs here generally suppress their religious views in public but then act on them in votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 we either follow God, or we choose to ignore/not believe in Him. I take issue with this viewpoint: it's not a choice. If it were a choice then I would choose to believe in God and seek forgiveness from Him for my sins and whatnot, because as people so often point out that is the "safer" option. However, regardless of how appealing a belief is, or how much I might truly want to believe it, I cannot will myself to belief something that just doesn't make any sense to me. Disclaimer: if my tone comes across as hostile I assure you that I do not mean it to be. Wait, it's the *safer* option? You're not falling for the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, are you? Because just choosing to believe in God A isn't safe if it's really God B who's running the show. Pascal's Wager assumes that Christianity is the only viable alternative to atheism, and that there aren;t a myriad of different Christianities whose doctrines are all at odds and would send the adherents of other doctrines to an afterlife of torment. People can believe whatever nonsense they want; I'm firmly of the opinion that the majority of foundational beliefs of any person are essentially arational (though atheism itself is rational). Pascal's Wager's blatant fallaciousness really gets my goat, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 It's the voting that's generally the more public bit though. You find it bad, I find the outcomes acceptable. We'll agree to disagree Ooh Pascal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4AXOmPZ6fo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) I'm that guy when it comes to politics! I can't imagine someone as personable as you holding a distasteful view on politics. I won't have it! Note how I tend to stay out of all the extremely serious discussions - it's how I stay personable! :grin: Edited March 10, 2011 by TheForgetfulBrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 But it's not too big that the contents of the thousand+ year old bible dictates our laws n such. Although they have been revised somewhat, our laws are in fact very much dictated by The Bible and Christian law. Thanks to the good book, for example, same-sex marriage is still not legal in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 we either follow God, or we choose to ignore/not believe in Him. I take issue with this viewpoint: it's not a choice. If it were a choice then I would choose to believe in God and seek forgiveness from Him for my sins and whatnot, because as people so often point out that is the "safer" option. However, regardless of how appealing a belief is, or how much I might truly want to believe it, I cannot will myself to belief something that just doesn't make any sense to me. Disclaimer: if my tone comes across as hostile I assure you that I do not mean it to be. Wait, it's the *safer* option? You're not falling for the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, are you? Because just choosing to believe in God A isn't safe if it's really God B who's running the show. Pascal's Wager assumes that Christianity is the only viable alternative to atheism, and that there aren;t a myriad of different Christianities whose doctrines are all at odds and would send the adherents of other doctrines to an afterlife of torment. People can believe whatever nonsense they want; I'm firmly of the opinion that the majority of foundational beliefs of any person are essentially arational (though atheism itself is rational). Pascal's Wager's blatant fallaciousness really gets my goat, though. Actually my specific statement is based on the assumption that even if there is a "god" (or "gods") all religions are wrong, but that a common thread in many of them is that you need to worship him (or them). So worshiping "god" (or "the gods") in general is the safer option, not any specific religion. *Edit* - I will admit that I am predisposed toward Abrahamic religions since they have been in my face my whole life, but if I were to "choose" to become spiritual/religious I actually find animistic beliefs much more appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 But it's not too big that the contents of the thousand+ year old bible dictates our laws n such. Although they have been revised somewhat, our laws are in fact very much dictated by The Bible and Christian law. Thanks to the good book, for example, same-sex marriage is still not legal in the UK. But marriage is a religious act, so that would be the gov't stepping out of it's jurisdiction a bit to force vicars to marry gay couples against their religions teachings. Civil Partnership, as we've discussed in the past, is the same laws and rights as regular old marriage, just with the difference that they can't do it in a church and it's not called marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Question: if a straight couple wants to get "married" but they don't want any church to have anything to do with it, then is it a marriage there or is it a civil partnership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 It's essentially a marriage. Just a small civil ceremony, dunno where the term comes from but it's at a "reception". Normally a smaller (and certainly cheaper) affair, held in some council building or similar. Civil Partnership (at the moment) is for same sex couples only. As I said we've discussed this before: http://tay.gappoi.or...the-gay-thread/ edit: but in the old place I now notice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Civil marriages have long existed apart from any religious body, nor are marriage ceremonies unique to the Christian Church or even religious communities. Apart from that, it was just the easiest example of a religious issue relevant to current politics. The point I was getting at is that our laws were made by Christians, based on the 10 commandments, as laid out in the bible. Sure we can look at our laws and say 'well clearly murder, theft and rape are wrong', but there is no real way to distinguish our morality from socio-religious conditioning. Whatever your personal beliefs, it's hard to shake off the influence of thousands of years of religion. As an added bonus, our head of state, who must ratify every law passed, is also the head of her own religion. Edited March 10, 2011 by withoutphallus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Yeah I know our laws are based on the original 10 commandments, but it's nothing much special. Every religion and general common sense is well aware murder, theft and rape are wrong. We could of been a pagan nation still and still have laws that are pretty similar. What's important though is that we've changed the laws and gone with the times regardless of what the bible says. The National Curriculum teaches the bible as one of the holy books of the many global religions, and that the universe started billions of years ago in a big bang and millions of years ago some fish swam out the ocean. (and then the one eyed monkey...) Our laws do not absolutely prohibit the union of gay couples, they allow for abortion, they even seem kind of okay on euthanasia as long as you do it somewhere else (and give it...~two decades, we'll be okay with it here too). It's late and I can't think of much where the two have clashed much on recent stuff but those would be the big ones where christian values and English law collide a bit. And having the Queen as head of CofE is a nice bonus I think. Henry VIII making CofE to divorce his wife was kind of the start to going "you know what, we don't have to follow this to the letter in regards to the law". And even if Elizabeth II was hugely relgiious and disagreed with stuff on the basis of her religious views she can't do much. She's a figure head. As you said she's the one "who must ratify every law passed". Her political power is about zilch. It's pretty much just by tradition these days. We had a civil war to make it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 What happens if the Queen refuses to ratify a law? *Edit* - To keep this post from being entirely off-topic: While was far as spirituality goes I'm atheist (technically agnostic, but atheist in practice), philosophically I'm a secular humanist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'm have no idea to be honest. A black hole is created? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Wikipedia doesn't seem to know either. *Edit* - Apparently it was last done in 1708 though, so it's not exactly a huge issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1704 during the reign of Queen Anne. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died; George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legislature Best I could find. It's definitely a case of 'you have the power to do this as long as you promise never to actually use this power'. Back to the topic at hand though, of those who have identified themselves as religious (or perhaps it's better to say theists) are you active members of a religious community or particular branch of the Church or is your relationship with God merely private? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 For those offended by my post earlier or whatever, understand that I'm talking about the militant stick up the ass people you find on the internet. The ones who feel the need to make a stupid post and start an argument when you mention that last Sunday you went to Church or because you do support something that is right wing. It annoys the shit out of me when comedians, celebrities, the so-called self proclaimed "intellectuals" openly mock people who believe in a higher being as being simple-minded, unintelligent or brainwashed sheep. Issac Newton came up with the principals of motion, developed calculus and invented the cat door. He also wrote books about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In short, it's not funny when a comedian does a stand-up bit telling me that I'm some how inferior because I believe in Jesus. He can have his opinions and he can state them but he and the people who laugh at them just make themselves out to be bigots. I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) A lot of geniuses actually are crazy and have crazy beliefs. One doesnt relate to the other. Also finding a subject funny doesnt mean you stand behind it. Comedy is an art, like anything else. I myself really enjoy a good religion or racial joke, but im not even remotely racist. Then again, im not easily offended either because i take no sides. Everyone is a shithead as far as im concerned. Im as likely to be friends or enemies or to be killed or loved by a religious or nonreligious person equally. You can try to take a stance and have your beliefs, but were really all the fucking same. Only person who should care about your religion is yourself. No one else. Just dont bring up jesus and god in every single conversation and were cool. I think thats what annoys people. And its not just because its god, you just shouldnt be so repetitive. Imagine if i ended every conversation with "fuck your gay cunt, jesus" or "bro." Its fucking annoying to humanity in general, not just aetheists. Cut the shit and just be a good human being. Edited March 10, 2011 by Strangelove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I also have an issue with people openly declaring that they are 100% sure that there is no god. They can say they don't believe in a god or that they aren't sure but to declare absolutely that there is no god is claiming omniscience which is not only prideful but rather ludicrous to claim that you have such definitive knowledge. True - to openly claim 100% that there is or isn't a god is just delusional. There is simply no way to verify something like that. Basically, everyone here dislikes extremists on either side, is what I'm getting from all this. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pfff, all of you are wrong. I'm a true Atheist. I worship my savior, Athe, the all-mother. She slumbers in her glass castle... I await the day she wakes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pfff, all of you are wrong. I'm a true Atheist. I worship my savior, Athe, the all-mother. She slumbers in her glass castle... I await the day she wakes. Boss Fight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) I think the problem is that a good majority of people outside of the former Soviet Union today are for all reasons and purposes Irreligious. It's all a matter of philosophy really. You see those who are against organised religion aren't technically atheist they're anti-religion and yes that's actually something you can put on your census data if you want. Those who call themselves spiritual but not religious are also in that category as are agnostic, deists, nontheists, atheists, ignostics, freethinkers, skeptics, non-believers, secular humanists, Marxists (yes it's considered to be a system of belief today albeit political in origin), apathetics/apatheism or anti-theists. Some of them are vague though, like anti-theists can also be those who oppose a singular God since it existed as early as Greco-Roman times. Most of us do not really research into what a system of philosophy is and go by honestly what people say which are similar to their beliefs. Some college students, particularly philosophy students do say they're this or that without going into the deep extents of why they choose to believe something. What doesn't help Atheism is the fact that unfortunately there are arrogant douchebags who believe their way is the only way such as Dawkins. It's pretty much as bad as those who impose a religion upon people. You see the thing is there must always be choice in the system of belief because that's the key 'System of Belief'. We've come across all of these various systems in our search for the Universal Truth. In my personal opinion there is some truth to every thing because I don't believe in the 'everything is false or everything is true' ideology. However little truths in every system cannot form a formative belief. Morality is a human invention that seeks to separate us from animals and forms a core part of every belief system. Morality explained by an ethicist does technically form the basis for most beliefs. Who or what the ethicist is varies as does the purpose of the ethicist depending on the system of belief. I'm sorry if it sounds offensive but it's the core of most beliefs and every founder or key figure in a religion and/or belief system is an ethicist (that's not a bad thing really because by and large having some sort of ethics is good for a human). Where every system of belief goes wrong is honestly with personal interpretation. Personal interpretation of a system of beliefs clouds its true intention because what I feel a set of words means and what you feel a set of words means need not be the same 100%. That forms the basis of most arguments really. This is because language and communication are ambiguous. This causes one of the bigger issues faced by several youths today in terms of a belief system - 'cognitive dissonance' since there's more than one side to the equation in everyone's head (before they settle down on something). Atheism unfortunately thanks to some people has gained a 'religious status'. That's because religion is technically a cultural system that enforces beliefs and values. When you convene as an atheist which I've seen in several countries, you're negating what it means. Atheism till recently used to be the rejection of belief (now it's the rejection of belief in deities which while closer in meaning to the word wasn't what it was). Personally I have a few conflicting philosophies. While I can say that for most practical purposes my primary philosophy would be that of Epistemology to some extent I am a non-essentialist and also an anti-existentialist (though I'm not saying one shouldn't enjoy themselves). I also have a consequentialist side when it comes to certain political affairs. As a result of varying philosophies I can sometimes come off as amoral. I don't consider myself religious, agnostic, ignostic or atheistic. I don't believe in right or wrong and feel that the highest power is an existentially non-existent entity that doesn't distinguish good or bad in terms of human morality. As far as I'm concerned we are pretty much like goldfish in a translucent bowl in what appears to be a dim waterless empty room. I do believe that fear of death and existence beyond the mortal plane is what causes a lot of people to believe in one thing or the other. What really drives me is not to find the meaning of life but rather to find out what creates rational though in our minds and how can we define and recreate the chemical existence of knowledge. I don't believe everything can be deconstructed down to Turing machines because deconstruction can only go so far as can TMs. For me personally that's all that matters to me in a quest for truth. (Quest for Truth for many though has been one about enlightenment and to varying degrees associated with Buddhism which is technically again a spiritual irreligious thing which has become a religion over time, which is why I say that Atheism is becoming a religion. Also just to add some info, Hindus don't deny Buddha and in fact believe that he's also an avatar of Vishnu). But at the end of the day, they're all belief systems just holding our rational sentience together. We choose what we want to believe, but it's our interpretation of said belief that makes all the difference because volumes of thought are lost in translation. p.s. My parents are somewhat religious to varying degrees (Mother is rationally religious, belongs to an orthodox background, father started following religion probably around my age). My wife is anti-religion (believes in God but not a religious establishment). I am since there's no clear-cut definition for my philosophies under the general umbrella of irreligious leaning on the atheistic side but don't consider myself an atheist due to it being a restrictive term. I prefer no boundaries to my personal stance against belief systems. I was also taught religion (3 as a matter of fact), but the first teacher also explained to me where the beliefs came from though he believes in the religion. I also gave up on studying religion by the time I was 9 simply because I wasn't interested in being 'taught'. I just read a lot of books on the subject and spoke to several people. I have been exposed personally to 5 religions. I won't get into semantics about Destiny like HC because 20th century has redefined destiny in so many ways that it's a vast philosophical realm with several wastelands. Also people find it slightly surprising that I'm what I am because I'll be honest there's more anti-religious sentiment in the UK than there isn't At least amongst those in my age group and areas that I frequent. edit: I'm going to spell-check since I'm up at 4am typing this and reading through an edit list of stuff I need to do for another client. edit 2: I also usually try not to bring about my viewpoints on religion most of the time but I do on philosophy which ultimately ends up being a discussion of religion or politics. Edited March 10, 2011 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 P.S. I also want to clarify about marriage in the UK. Technically in the UK all Church of England marriages are 100% recognised by the law and you get a marriage certificate if you get married in a CoE regardless of your beliefs. However every other kind of wedding/marriage requires a civil ceremony and getting married under a house of religion does not make you married. You do need to have a separate civil ceremony apart from whatever traditional way you do get married. So with that regards this constitution is highly tied to the CoE. Basically any sort of marriage outside of the CoE is civil partnership in the UK and you're not completely 'married' in the eyes of the law unless you either have a CoE marriage or a civil partnership. There are laws however if you are a couple and have been living together for over 2 years or maybe it's 5. I'm not entirely certain what period of time they consider. I know it's 2 for immigration laws but I think for dispute in property it might be 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.