I cannot abide football, and will be quietly chanting 'Forza Italia' tonight. The earlier the exit the sooner the hype and hysteria will end.
I fear you are being wildly over-optimistic in believing that England's early exit would in any way diminish the broadcasters' wall to wall saturation of all things World Cup. Even with the retirement of Alan Hansen, complete with his reported £1.5 million per annum salary, the BBC and others have sunk far too much money into their coverage to offer you much else of value over the next few weeks.
I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.
Do you just include watching TV on a traditional set, so watching TV in an iPad counts as a 21st century activity?
Clearly the British empire should have converted its subjects to CoE. If they'd done that, everyone in Iraq would be singing Kum ba yah instead of killing each other.
At least us atheists think this world is actually worth fighting for cuz it's the only one we've got - unlike the religious, who have already written off this one as being far inferior to the next world....
Quite. Atheism is a great motivator to enjoy and experience the best and most of this wonderful life.
'I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.'
'So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed. '
In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football. I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.
Great Britain is not a country. Poor start to a depressing post
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
An excellent article and some excellent responses.
decided by those on the extremes.
Southam - if the rest of the left was willing to be open-minded and properly engage in this debate as you have we would be in a far, far better position. Hopefully this will be a turning point, although the reaction of the Guardian and the muted reaction from the Labour party make me wonder.
Most (but from all) secularists are of the left. I have said before: whip all religion out of everything state sponsored and things will change for the better.
I think that is naively optimistic to be honest. If religion is removed as the pretext for irrational behaviour people will find something else.
You cannot remove religion. It is hardwired into the human brain. It's like trying to remove creativity, or the love of music, or maybe even sexuality.
Non-religious people - true atheists (a vanishingly small proportion of humanity, concentrated in a few liberal western nations) do not understand the appeal and power of religious belief, BECAUSE they lack the faculty thereof. Hence, their request for the removal of religion is like deaf people saying let's get rid of all pop, jazz, rock, opera, and classical music, then not understanding why such a proposal might cause problems, as well as being utterly impossible.
This is one of the major obstacles to our confrontation with, and understanding of, Islamism; I might do a Teleblog on it next week.
Zzzzz. Not this tired old bollocks again Sean. Every so often you pop up with this crap that atheists are missing something. You are wrong. We live for today and for our children.
It annoys you because I am right.
Moreover, if atheism was such an appealing way of life, you would expect the children of atheists to be atheists themselves. They are not. Atheists are the LEAST likely of any parents to hand on their belief system to their offspring.
Think on that. Yr kids are gonna be Methodists, Muslims or Mormons.
Get on yr knees and pray, heathen, it's still not too late. Maybe.
Your data is from the United States, a country where people grow up surrounded by overt displays of religion. I highly doubt that's the case in other developed nations.
... There is a widespread view that the Asian communities in England have not tried terribly hard to integrate into the general community, a problem we thankfully have never had in Scotland.
For all our politicians and the leaders of the mainstream Asian communities the report card definitely says "Could have done better".
Up here in the Highlands we have several communities largely made up of English people who have sold up and moved north. Around Helmsdale in Sutherland we have a fairly large group of people who all hailed from Yorkshire. Every one I spoke to when they moved her cited the same problem, feeling like foreigners in their own community back in places like Bradford. Their children coming home from school talking Urdu etc etc.
I fear that if the troubles in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan don't sort themselves out, the resistance to multi-culturalism in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands will continue to grow and if mainstream politicians don't show leadership, we will see the BNP types grow in influence once more.
Further to you pointing out the contrast between poor integration in England and successful integration in Scotland, I'd just like to point out to David Herdson ("The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy") that social policy is a devolved issue.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
The best societies on earth to live in are those with a tradition of low key religion. So places like Britain, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Canada.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
... There is a widespread view that the Asian communities in England have not tried terribly hard to integrate into the general community, a problem we thankfully have never had in Scotland.
For all our politicians and the leaders of the mainstream Asian communities the report card definitely says "Could have done better".
Up here in the Highlands we have several communities largely made up of English people who have sold up and moved north. Around Helmsdale in Sutherland we have a fairly large group of people who all hailed from Yorkshire. Every one I spoke to when they moved her cited the same problem, feeling like foreigners in their own community back in places like Bradford. Their children coming home from school talking Urdu etc etc.
I fear that if the troubles in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan don't sort themselves out, the resistance to multi-culturalism in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands will continue to grow and if mainstream politicians don't show leadership, we will see the BNP types grow in influence once more.
Further to you pointing out the contrast between poor integration in England and successful integration in Scotland, I'd just like to point out to David Herdson ("The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy") that social policy is a devolved issue.
Surely it's much more an issue of relatively low numbers of immigrants.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
This is a really weak argument. For a start, the Nazis were religious. Hitler believed in a Divine Providence that looked after the master race. Various other ones dabbled in the Occult. The only reason Communism has bigger death tolls than Naziism was because it happened to occur in countries with more people. Then we have things like King Leopold's brutal rape of the Congo, the Atlantic slave trade, the brutal conquest of the Aztecs and the Incas, all of which were carried out by God-fearing Christians.
It is democratic liberalism, with its belief in individual rights and constitutional governance, that has proven to be the philosophy that minimises harm and provides for the greatest human welfare. The presence or absence of religion is largely irrelevant. Where individual religions have turned into a positive force, it's because they have been tempered by the Enlightenment.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
Do people who choose not to play tiddlywinks have something that they are zealous about?
Or people who choose not to go to the opera?
There are millions of things anyone can do in their lives. Why should not doing one particular thing have any impact on what else you do?
... There is a widespread view that the Asian communities in England have not tried terribly hard to integrate into the general community, a problem we thankfully have never had in Scotland.
For all our politicians and the leaders of the mainstream Asian communities the report card definitely says "Could have done better".
Up here in the Highlands we have several communities largely made up of English people who have sold up and moved north. Around Helmsdale in Sutherland we have a fairly large group of people who all hailed from Yorkshire. Every one I spoke to when they moved her cited the same problem, feeling like foreigners in their own community back in places like Bradford. Their children coming home from school talking Urdu etc etc.
I fear that if the troubles in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan don't sort themselves out, the resistance to multi-culturalism in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands will continue to grow and if mainstream politicians don't show leadership, we will see the BNP types grow in influence once more.
Further to you pointing out the contrast between poor integration in England and successful integration in Scotland, I'd just like to point out to David Herdson ("The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy") that social policy is a devolved issue.
Surely it's much more an issue of relatively low numbers of immigrants.
Dickson is the worst kind of immigrant. He is a Swedish citizen of foreign birth but his primary loyalty lies in the country of his origin.
The football seems pretty easy to ignore or escape from, unless you are actively looking for something to moan about. It really doesn't have to annoy you that someone stacking shelves in Sainsbury's is wearing an England shirt. In the great scheme of things it's surely not important enough to make you hope that loads of your fellows are made miserable.
The mistake religious people make is the same as the mistake people who follow politics make on PB.
Because most people on PB follow politics very closely they think most other people in the UK do the same. But they don't.
It's exactly the same with religion. People who care passionately about religion think it's important to other people and try to draw all kinds of implications about what it means for other people.
What they don't realise is it's a complete irelevance - I don't have a single friend or relative or close work colleague who is in the slightest bit religious - I never discuss it with any friend / relative - just as I never discuss tiddlywinks or opera with any of them either.
If religion as a concept didn't exist it would make no difference in any way to me - but the fact it does exist has no impact either. Ditto tiddlywinks and opera.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Patronising bollocks. I am quite happy believing in nothing, in the sense Chesterton meant (and I know the context of the quotation. Do you?)
The unarguable case against religion is this: you have an omnipotent being who loves people in the way that a parent loves a child, and you have a world in which people torturing babies to death is a commonplace occurrence. He could stop this, but doesn't. Why not? And religion hardly even pretends to have an answer to this. Oooh yes, they say, that's a really interesting theological problem, or oooh, we don't know, but it's a Mystery and we have Faith. Bollocks.
The best societies on earth to live in are those with a tradition of low key religion. So places like Britain, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Canada.
Save that 'the tradition of low key religion' in this country is something which is entirely recent. Witness the debates over the Education Act 1902, and the fact that organised religion in Britain was at its strongest in numerical terms in the 1950s. When Piux IX established Romanist dioceses in 1851, the Russell ministry condemned it as an act of "papal aggression", and passed the Ecclesiastical Titles Act in an attempt to outlaw them.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
This is a pure tautology, and could be said about any belief system. That people who do not believe in one thing are capable of believing in anything else is not a profound insight.
... There is a widespread view that the Asian communities in England have not tried terribly hard to integrate into the general community, a problem we thankfully have never had in Scotland.
For all our politicians and the leaders of the mainstream Asian communities the report card definitely says "Could have done better".
Up here in the Highlands we have several communities largely made up of English people who have sold up and moved north. Around Helmsdale in Sutherland we have a fairly large group of people who all hailed from Yorkshire. Every one I spoke to when they moved her cited the same problem, feeling like foreigners in their own community back in places like Bradford. Their children coming home from school talking Urdu etc etc.
I fear that if the troubles in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan don't sort themselves out, the resistance to multi-culturalism in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands will continue to grow and if mainstream politicians don't show leadership, we will see the BNP types grow in influence once more.
Further to you pointing out the contrast between poor integration in England and successful integration in Scotland, I'd just like to point out to David Herdson ("The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy") that social policy is a devolved issue.
Surely it's much more an issue of relatively low numbers of immigrants.
Indeed. Integration is easy and happens naturally when immigration happens at low rates. It's why we need to massively clamp down on immigration so that integration can happen. Labour are not prepared to do that, and the Conservatives have proven incapable of doing it.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Patronising bollocks. I am quite happy believing in nothing, in the sense Chesterton meant (and I know the context of the quotation. Do you?)
The unarguable case against religion is this: you have an omnipotent being who loves people in the way that a parent loves a child, and you have a world in which people torturing babies to death is a commonplace occurrence. He could stop this, but doesn't. Why not? And religion hardly even pretends to have an answer to this. Oooh yes, they say, that's a really interesting theological problem, or oooh, we don't know, but it's a Mystery and we have Faith. Bollocks.
Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent.
As a great author once wrote: "I guess that just about wraps it up for God."
The smugness of BBC presenters in Brazil is a bit annoying IMO.
It's unfortunate that Andy Gray and Richard Keys haven't thus far been able to return to mainstream terrestrial TV. They are both hugely superior to anything on either BBC or ITV.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
the Atlantic slave trade ... all of which were carried out by God-fearing Christians.
Some used God as an excuse to carry out atrocities; that doesn't make them God-fearing Christians.
But it was a God-fearing Christian who fought to stop the slave trade whilst the rest of the world thought it perfectly fine.
The football seems pretty easy to ignore or escape from, unless you are actively looking for something to moan about. It really doesn't have to annoy you that someone stacking shelves in Sainsbury's is wearing an England shirt. In the great scheme of things it's surely not important enough to make you hope that loads of your fellows are made miserable.
Quite. This was one of those contentions that would have fallen into Tim's "only on PB" drawer.
... There is a widespread view that the Asian communities in England have not tried terribly hard to integrate into the general community, a problem we thankfully have never had in Scotland.
For all our politicians and the leaders of the mainstream Asian communities the report card definitely says "Could have done better".
Up here in the Highlands we have several communities largely made up of English people who have sold up and moved north. Around Helmsdale in Sutherland we have a fairly large group of people who all hailed from Yorkshire. Every one I spoke to when they moved her cited the same problem, feeling like foreigners in their own community back in places like Bradford. Their children coming home from school talking Urdu etc etc.
I fear that if the troubles in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan don't sort themselves out, the resistance to multi-culturalism in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands will continue to grow and if mainstream politicians don't show leadership, we will see the BNP types grow in influence once more.
Further to you pointing out the contrast between poor integration in England and successful integration in Scotland, I'd just like to point out to David Herdson ("The reaction to Trojan Horse has major implications for social policy") that social policy is a devolved issue.
Surely it's much more an issue of relatively low numbers of immigrants.
Dickson is the worst kind of immigrant. He is a Swedish citizen of foreign birth but his primary loyalty lies in the country of his origin.
Marvellous that your primary loyalty lies with Italy.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want. In general we allow it to be made into a hell. Atheists are no better, or worse.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want. In general we allow it to be made into a hell. Atheists are no better, or worse.
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Keeping Grayling occupied with the appointment of bishops seems a thoroughly good idea. It will ensure he spends less time doing further damage in the more important areas for which he is responsible, like the administration of justice and HM Prison Service. If it means that Grayling is kept busy, perhaps we could extend these formalities to other religions. It would not be an altogether radical break with tradition. In 1199, John purported to appoint an archpriest for all the Jews of England.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want. In general we allow it to be made into a hell. Atheists are no better, or worse.
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
Spoken like a true Labour authoritarian. The man on Primrose Hill knows best.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want. In general we allow it to be made into a hell. Atheists are no better, or worse.
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
Spoken like a true Labour authoritarian. The man on Primrose Hill knows best.
Why give people the power to inflict pain and suffering on earth and in doing so consign them to spend eternity in hell?
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
One does not have to have understood the thesis of Derrida's (unreadable) De la grammatologie to appreciate that terms often acquire their meaning in opposition to their antonyms. Good can only exist alongside evil. If you abolish the capacity to do ill, you also abolish the capacity to do good. Accordingly, without free will, goodness and evil are meaningless terms.
This argument, incidentally, holds in a purely secular context. It is not virtuous or charitable, for instance, to pay tax when obliged to do so by law.
State-run newspapers have warned people against eating sandwiches, and a senior police chief said they're keeping a close eye on the sandwich-eaters. Eating sandwiches is not illegal per se, he said, but if sandwich-eating is being used as a front - when the real intention is to criticise the coup - then that would be.
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
People have the freedom to choose? I have no idea if heaven or hell exists, or what either would be like. Ultimately it is unimportant, you do you best, and leave the rest to whatever happens. Zen Christianity is sanguine about stuff like that ;-)
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
One does not have to have understood the thesis of Derrida's (unreadable) De la grammatologie to appreciate that terms often acquire their meaning in opposition to their antonyms. Good can only exist alongside evil. If you abolish the capacity to do ill, you also abolish the capacity to do good. Accordingly, without free will, goodness and evil are meaningless terms.
This argument, incidentally, holds in a purely secular context. It is not virtuous or charitable, for instance, to pay tax when obliged to do so by law.
It gets incredibly messy when you add predestination into the mix. Although it keeps theologians in business trying to describe how you can ultimately have free will if you are predestined to be saved or damned.
Mark Thompson @MarkReckons I'm hearing that Lib Dem local parties are starting to quietly vote against Clegg. 75 of them are needed. I wonder if they'll reach there.
Are the LibDem lemmings determined to jump off the cliff?
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
One does not have to have understood the thesis of Derrida's (unreadable) De la grammatologie to appreciate that terms often acquire their meaning in opposition to their antonyms. Good can only exist alongside evil. If you abolish the capacity to do ill, you also abolish the capacity to do good. Accordingly, without free will, goodness and evil are meaningless terms.
This argument, incidentally, holds in a purely secular context. It is not virtuous or charitable, for instance, to pay tax when obliged to do so by law.
We are on earth for a few decades, if we are lucky. Heaven or hell, we are told, are forever. Thus, in the great scheme of things what happens down here is irrelevant. It was in God's power to create a very different earth in which there were, indeed, no concepts such as good or evil. But He chose to create the circumstances which gave rise to this world. Uniquely, the choices that God makes really are without consequence to He who has made them. Thus, how can it be anything other than evil for Him to have made the choices that He has?
Hoping I can stay awake tonight for the Italy v England game and that regardless of the score it is a good game of football. Last night I saw the kick-off for the Australia game and the next thing I remember was waking when the final whistle went.
Mark Thompson @MarkReckons I'm hearing that Lib Dem local parties are starting to quietly vote against Clegg. 75 of them are needed. I wonder if they'll reach there.
Are the LibDem lemmings determined to jump off the cliff?
Hmm, intrigue. Not sure it will come to much, but if it breaks into bigger news might cause more damage.
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
I thought you lefties would all love religion, lots of rules, a superior intellect in charge and punishment and damnation if you you go outside the collective.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
the Atlantic slave trade ... all of which were carried out by God-fearing Christians.
Some used God as an excuse to carry out atrocities; that doesn't make them God-fearing Christians.
But it was a God-fearing Christian who fought to stop the slave trade whilst the rest of the world thought it perfectly fine.
Your examples do not work.
That would be the same god fearing Christian who sought to ridicule evolution (and got his backside handed to him on a plate for his troubles by Thomas Huxley).
Men of good heart do good things for many reasons, often completely unrelated to religion. Personally I find it strange to think that one should only help one's fellow man for fear that one might end up in the 'wrong place' when one dies.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want. In general we allow it to be made into a hell. Atheists are no better, or worse.
Giving us free will was surely the ultimate act of evil.
Spoken like a true Labour authoritarian. The man on Primrose Hill knows best.
Why give people the power to inflict pain and suffering on earth and in doing so consign them to spend eternity in hell?
Have you read East of Eden? What you are asking is the main theme of the novel
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
I thought you lefties would all love religion, lots of rules, a superior intellect in charge and punishment and damnation if you you go outside the collective.
No, religion is all about personal salvation. We are collectivists.
Moreover, if atheism was such an appealing way of life, you would expect the children of atheists to be atheists themselves. They are not. Atheists are the LEAST likely of any parents to hand on their belief system to their offspring.
Think on that. Yr kids are gonna be Methodists, Muslims or Mormons.
Get on yr knees and pray, heathen, it's still not too late. Maybe.
Personally I just find it amusing that religious types are so sad and insecure that they need to believe in some all powerful deity to give meaning to their otherwise (as they must see it) pointless, insignificant lives.
You won't find us atheists on our knees, you'll find us sat in the bar, enjoying a drink whilst pointing at you and laughing.
Again, a complete misunderstanding of religious faith. I do not and did not choose to believe, I did not need a deity; God came to me. Religious faith chose ME. Turned out I was one of the lucky ones with the faculty for faith.
And it really is a tremendous solace, and I feel tremendous pity for those who do not share it. But there's not much I can do about your predicament.
But if you, as an atheist, are *laughing*, then you are the eunuch in the brothel laughing at the funny noises coming from the bedroom.
I reckon 'solace' is the key. Hard to accept you have no more importance than an ant, in the grand scheme.
I'd like to think we could just believe in *humankind* and try to make the best of it for the time we have. But it doesn't inspire confidence.
'I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football. I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.'
'So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed. '
'In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football. I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.'
' Great Britain is not a country. Poor start to a depressing post'
If Great Britain is not a country then neither is Germany or Italy- both the latter were not created until second half of the 19th century. England, Scotland and Wales are no more countries than Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Brandenburg as component parts of Germany , or Tuscany,Umbria as components parts of Italy. It is significant that Croatia and Serbia were not given separate team status until becoming independent countries. Prior to that they had to compete as part of Yugoslavia. It's a very striking anomaly that England ,Wales and Scotland have been treated differently.
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
I thought you lefties would all love religion, lots of rules, a superior intellect in charge and punishment and damnation if you you go outside the collective.
No, religion is all about personal salvation. We are collectivists.
No you are about personal salvation though collective action.
England are now the clear favourites at 2.82 decimal with Betfair to defeat Italy, on offer at 3.1 - I wonder if TSE will be backing the outsider as is his wont !
In the other earlier Group D game, Costa Rica can be backed at a whopping 8.5/1 to defeat Uraguay, available at 1/2.
I've just realised that the England vs Italy game doesn't start until 11.00pm, so that's as near as damn it to a 1.00am finish. Past my bedtime I fear- as fellow PB early birds will know, I'm up with the lark ...... witness my cheery start to this thread at 5.27 this morning.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
And as nations get richer, they have fewer children and decline as a percentage of humanity.
It's quite amusing just what little englanders the PB atheists are. Humanity is overwhelmingly religious.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
the Atlantic slave trade ... all of which were carried out by God-fearing Christians.
Some used God as an excuse to carry out atrocities; that doesn't make them God-fearing Christians.
But it was a God-fearing Christian who fought to stop the slave trade whilst the rest of the world thought it perfectly fine.
Your examples do not work.
You're just selectively choosing Christians to count the ones that did good things and ignore the ones that did bad things. And on completely spurious grounds - the Bible is full of evidence that the Judeo-Christian God didn't have much of an issue with slavery.
No, religion is all about personal salvation. We are collectivists.
An anachronistic false dichotomy. One only needs to look at the implications of the reception of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics in the Latin west in the thirteenth-century to demonstrate the fallacy of such a claim. It was on thoroughly collectivist principles that Thomas Aquinas advocated in his Summa Theologica the prohibition of suicide and the death penalty for relapsed heretics and other crimes. He argued that the common good, defined as the external good to which individuals were ordered, viz. their salvation in God, was better, greater and more divine than the individual good.
For a technical but nevertheless magisterial survey of the reconciliation of the "common good" with the preservation of individual salvation, see M.S. Kempshall's The common good in late medieval political thought, (Oxford, 1999).
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
I thought you lefties would all love religion, lots of rules, a superior intellect in charge and punishment and damnation if you you go outside the collective.
No, religion is all about personal salvation. We are collectivists.
No you are about personal salvation though collective action.
A bit like a church really.
I disagree. Collective action is entirely about self-interest, not salvation.
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
But our time on earth exercising free will is but a moment in what we are told is a much longer journey. It is in God's power to ensure that we spend eternity in paradise, but He chooses not to.
I thought you lefties would all love religion, lots of rules, a superior intellect in charge and punishment and damnation if you you go outside the collective.
No, religion is all about personal salvation. We are collectivists.
No you are about personal salvation though collective action.
A bit like a church really.
I disagree. Collective action is entirely about self-interest, not salvation.
Believe me having seen leftist economics it's about salvation.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
When countries get rich the religion is consumerism: joining their fellow congregation in the mall and purchasing "icons" of dubious value and worshipping the latest fashion.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
When countries get rich the religion is consumerism: joining their fellow congregation in the mall and purchasing "icons" of dubious value and worshipping the latest fashion.
I actually agree with that, but the debate is whether the religious would win out in numerical terms. I would prefer neither superstition or consumerism, but a society where we focus on morality but in a manner that is consistent with scientific principles.
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Them"? You speak of the religious as a tiny minority. Probably 70-80% of humanity is religious, maybe many more (the imponderable is China; evidence shows that when allowed, the Chinese are seriously religious).
Moreover, Britain is likely to become MORE religious in the next decades, as fiercely religious communities immigrate. Muslims do not stop going to mosques over generations, they do not, in general, secularise. Ditto Hindus and Sikhs, et al.
As evolutionary biology has predicted, the number of true atheists (2% of the world?) and the vaguely irreligious, is expected to FALL as a proportion of humanity in coming decades.
But being right or not isn't really a numbers game, is it?
Your statistics are borne out by the case of Rwanda though: 94% Christian/4% muslim/2% atheist. And a lot of good it did them: "Timothy Longman has provided the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide in Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, published in 2010.[6] Longman argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing."
I went to my first Church of England funeral only very recently - at a village church in Stretton on Dunsmore in Warwickshire. I longed to feel the power of the Lord, but what I got instead was a communion with history. Sitting there in that building which had been in constant use for hundreds of years I got a direct connection with the past, with all the others that had sat in the same place since it had been built. There was a peace to it and it was good. It was a similar feeling to one you get sometimes when you walk in ancient landscapes that man has been working since the beginning of recorded time. From such a feeling to a firm faith and belief in God is, I guess, but a short step. But I just can't take it. I wish I could. Maybe one day ...
Mr. Jones, if you condemn your kid to everlasting hellfire if they disobey you that's not good parenting.
That was Irenaeus' point. Everyone goes to Heaven because God's omnibenevolent and causing people to suffer eternally isn't necessarily the first thing the word 'omnibenevolent' conjures in one's mind.
Multiculturalism has died as finally the left has to make a choice between foreign religions and the illiberal society those religions want to impose (example: segregation and slavery).
@SO - "From such a feeling to a firm faith and belief in God is, I guess, but a short step. But I just can't take it. I wish I could. Maybe one day ..."
I find myself with the same quandary on similar occasions, there, but not quite.
(apols for shortening your comment, which was thought provoking and honest)
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
FFS. Where to begin??? China is atheist NOW. A communist atheist country. It's the one country that keeps the global numbers of atheists/non-religious anywhere respectable. Yet as China gets richer it gets MORE religious.
"It is impossible to say how many Christians there are in China today, but no-one denies the numbers are exploding."
"There are already more Chinese at church on a Sunday than in the whole of Europe.
The new converts can be found from peasants in the remote rural villages to the sophisticated young middle class in the booming cities."
Like every other atheist on this site, you really - in all politeness - do not have a f*cking clue what you are talking about, from the basic stats to the higher theoretics. It's like discussing the virtues of Raphael versus Caravaggio with a blind person. Pointless.
OK now I am going to get drunk on champagne in Soho, and, with a bit of luck, end a week where I made an unexpected £100,000, by sleeping with a sexy 26 year old Irish girl.
SeanT, sorry to interrupt your religious debate but I've got a meeting in Mornington Crescent in a couple of weeks. Afterwards I'm going out to dinner with a gorgeous member of the fairer sex. Can you please recommend somewhere fun to go. We both love good food and wine. Thanks!
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
OK now I am going to get drunk on champagne in Soho, and, with a bit of luck, end a week where I made an unexpected £100,000, by sleeping with a sexy 26 year old Irish girl.
See, there IS a God.
Not if you are a sexy 26 year old Irish girl.....
Excellent article Mr Herdson and thoughtful contribution, EiT - your analogy reminded me of some of the Nats who preach Salad Bowl but practice Borg......
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
the Atlantic slave trade ... all of which were carried out by God-fearing Christians.
Some used God as an excuse to carry out atrocities; that doesn't make them God-fearing Christians.
But it was a God-fearing Christian who fought to stop the slave trade whilst the rest of the world thought it perfectly fine.
Your examples do not work.
That would be the same god fearing Christian who sought to ridicule evolution (and got his backside handed to him on a plate for his troubles by Thomas Huxley).
Men of good heart do good things for many reasons, often completely unrelated to religion. Personally I find it strange to think that one should only help one's fellow man for fear that one might end up in the 'wrong place' when one dies.
On a point of interest, are we thinking of the same Wilberforce? I'm thinking Bishop Samuel 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce, he of the debate at the British Association meeting in the then very new University Museum at Oxford (itself very much a stone and iron psalm of praise to divine creation in nature, as the carving of Adam and Eve above the door shows).
Of course, Huxley himself was a great believer in morality and would very much be one of your men (and women) of good heart.
Multiculturalism has died as finally the left has to make a choice between foreign religions and the illiberal society those religions want to impose (example: segregation and slavery).
I think this is an incredibly interesting paradox - and the question is what is everyone (not just the left but all politicians) actually going to do?
If, say, the % of British people wanting to impose sharia law in the UK rises significantly, what are politicians (of all parties) actually going to do?
If the trend becomes quite significant it would surely require very radical action to stop it.
I went to my first Church of England funeral only very recently - at a village church in Stretton on Dunsmore in Warwickshire. I longed to feel the power of the Lord, but what I got instead was a communion with history. Sitting there in that building which had been in constant use for hundreds of years I got a direct connection with the past, with all the others that had sat in the same place since it had been built. There was a peace to it and it was good. It was a similar feeling to one you get sometimes when you walk in ancient landscapes that man has been working since the beginning of recorded time. From such a feeling to a firm faith and belief in God is, I guess, but a short step. But I just can't take it. I wish I could. Maybe one day ...
You sound like Larkin, who so very nearly believed (and would have been much happier if he had). He said this of the old English church:
A serious house on serious earth it is, In whose blent air all our compulsions meet, Are recognized, and robed as destinies. And that much never can be obsolete, Since someone will forever be surprising A hunger in himself to be more serious, And gravitating with it to this ground, Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in, If only that so many dead lie round.
Do not despair. Quite a few smart thoughtful people, who were once total atheists, find faith later in life. Bruce Chatwin is an interesting example. Plus Dostoevsky, Stravinsky, W H Auden....
The only reason religion is clinging to its "position" in public life is it's a self-interested pressure group interested in its own perks.
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
Yet pretty much every country grows less religious once it becomes rich. This is now becoming true in the United States. China is still only middle income - I suspect when it starts hitting $30k a year in GDP per capita it will become less religious like all the other nations that have done that have done.
FFS. Where to begin??? China is atheist NOW. A communist atheist country. It's the one country that keeps the global numbers of atheists/non-religious anywhere respectable. Yet as China gets richer it gets MORE religious.
"It is impossible to say how many Christians there are in China today, but no-one denies the numbers are exploding."
"There are already more Chinese at church on a Sunday than in the whole of Europe.
The new converts can be found from peasants in the remote rural villages to the sophisticated young middle class in the booming cities."
Like every other atheist on this site, you really - in all politeness - do not have a f*cking clue what you are talking about, from the basic stats to the higher theoretics. It's like discussing the virtues of Raphael versus Caravaggio with a blind person. Pointless.
See, there IS a God.
SeanT, I'm going to take a solid guess and say you're accusing others of not knowing about stats while making shit up yourself about the stats.
(Unless you're playing bad semantics with agnostics vs non-religious).
Those who do not believe in a divine being often have something they're equally zealous about, be it their vision of the perfect society, a master race, a personality cult, the planet etc. It could be argued that greatest humanitarian disasters usually occur when God is substituted for something else. Communism and Nazism being two recent examples. When you see the preservation of all human life as secondary to your goal, you open the door to genocide.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Patronising bollocks. I am quite happy believing in nothing, in the sense Chesterton meant (and I know the context of the quotation. Do you?)
The unarguable case against religion is this: you have an omnipotent being who loves people in the way that a parent loves a child, and you have a world in which people torturing babies to death is a commonplace occurrence. He could stop this, but doesn't. Why not? And religion hardly even pretends to have an answer to this. Oooh yes, they say, that's a really interesting theological problem, or oooh, we don't know, but it's a Mystery and we have Faith. Bollocks.
Because he gave us the gift of free will.
There are some people that will do evil, there are others that will strive for good. And there are plenty that will muddle along somewhere in the middle
Multiculturalism has died as finally the left has to make a choice between foreign religions and the illiberal society those religions want to impose (example: segregation and slavery).
I think this is an incredibly interesting paradox - and the question is what is everyone (not just the left but all politicians) actually going to do?
If, say, the % of British people wanting to impose sharia law in the UK rises significantly, what are politicians (of all parties) actually going to do?
If the trend becomes quite significant it would surely require very radical action to stop it.
There is some theory that when Muslims reach 20-25% of a country's population then civil strife is inevitable, as Islam refuses to assimilate, demands special treatment, and the host culture is forced into violent defense of its own beliefs.
Sadly, I believe the theory is not entirely nonsensical.
Moreover, if atheism was such an appealing way of life, you would expect the children of atheists to be atheists themselves. They are not. Atheists are the LEAST likely of any parents to hand on their belief system to their offspring.
Think on that. Yr kids are gonna be Methodists, Muslims or Mormons.
Get on yr knees and pray, heathen, it's still not too late. Maybe.
Personally I just find it amusing that religious types are so sad and insecure that they need to believe in some all powerful deity to give meaning to their otherwise (as they must see it) pointless, insignificant lives.
You won't find us atheists on our knees, you'll find us sat in the bar, enjoying a drink whilst pointing at you and laughing.
Again, a complete misunderstanding of religious faith. I do not and did not choose to believe, I did not need a deity; God came to me. Religious faith chose ME. Turned out I was one of the lucky ones with the faculty for faith.
And it really is a tremendous solace, and I feel tremendous pity for those who do not share it. But there's not much I can do about your predicament.
But if you, as an atheist, are *laughing*, then you are the eunuch in the brothel laughing at the funny noises coming from the bedroom.
Why should you be sorry for atheists? What makes you think that your particular mental aberration - which is very much how I view religious belief - should be the only one that can bring comfort to someone?
Lack of belief in an afterlife makes the joy of this one all the more satisfying.
Twitter Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 5m ComRes online poll for the IoS/S Mirror coming out. Last month it was CON 29, LAB 33, LD 8, UKIP 19, GRN 4
Should be interesting - last month's figures were probably influenced by the then impending Euro Elections. Will UKIP fall back to 15% or below? If they do, will the Tories close the gap on Labour?
Comments
"It is not known which party he claimed to represent. He was described as wearing a blue suit and a blue rosette."
http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Police-investigate-how-89-year-old-with-Alzhe
In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football.
I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.
Great Britain is not a country. Poor start to a depressing post
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
It is democratic liberalism, with its belief in individual rights and constitutional governance, that has proven to be the philosophy that minimises harm and provides for the greatest human welfare. The presence or absence of religion is largely irrelevant. Where individual religions have turned into a positive force, it's because they have been tempered by the Enlightenment.
Or people who choose not to go to the opera?
There are millions of things anyone can do in their lives. Why should not doing one particular thing have any impact on what else you do?
Unbelievable profligacy by the BBC.
Because most people on PB follow politics very closely they think most other people in the UK do the same. But they don't.
It's exactly the same with religion. People who care passionately about religion think it's important to other people and try to draw all kinds of implications about what it means for other people.
What they don't realise is it's a complete irelevance - I don't have a single friend or relative or close work colleague who is in the slightest bit religious - I never discuss it with any friend / relative - just as I never discuss tiddlywinks or opera with any of them either.
If religion as a concept didn't exist it would make no difference in any way to me - but the fact it does exist has no impact either. Ditto tiddlywinks and opera.
The unarguable case against religion is this: you have an omnipotent being who loves people in the way that a parent loves a child, and you have a world in which people torturing babies to death is a commonplace occurrence. He could stop this, but doesn't. Why not? And religion hardly even pretends to have an answer to this. Oooh yes, they say, that's a really interesting theological problem, or oooh, we don't know, but it's a Mystery and we have Faith. Bollocks.
As a great author once wrote: "I guess that just about wraps it up for God."
They are both hugely superior to anything on either BBC or ITV.
But it was a God-fearing Christian who fought to stop the slave trade whilst the rest of the world thought it perfectly fine.
Your examples do not work.
I assume.
Greece 5.7
Draw 3.35
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27113545&exp=e
Religious people are very lucky that everyone else quietly continues to accept putting up with their charade.
Apart from anything consider the huge amounts of time wasted by people for no reason other than not to cause offence - important people with busy jobs taking time going to and sitting through lengthy religious services and events.
Just one simple example - every time a Bishop is appointed Chris Grayling has to go down to Buckingham Palace and read out a whole pile of mumbo jumbo and the Queen appoints the new Bishop.
It's a complete charade, a complete waste of time, nothing is achieved. Why should Grayling have to waste hours and hours of his time doing this time and again?
Yet, of course, the religious self-interest group is desperate for it to continue - to maintain their "status" and preferential treatment.
It's time everyone stopped indulging them. One thing is certain - if all the nonsense was stopped nobody would suggest restarting it again - and everyone would wonder why so much time had been wasted on it all.
"Exactly right. An omnipotent all-good being that let's horrific things happen to the innocent."
It's one of the great misunderstandings among the "religious", God gave us the free will to make the world what we want.
In general we allow it to be made into a hell.
Atheists are no better, or worse.
Mankind is far to curious to live in the Garden of Eden, It always wants to peer over the next hill.
This argument, incidentally, holds in a purely secular context. It is not virtuous or charitable, for instance, to pay tax when obliged to do so by law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27833824
State-run newspapers have warned people against eating sandwiches, and a senior police chief said they're keeping a close eye on the sandwich-eaters. Eating sandwiches is not illegal per se, he said, but if sandwich-eating is being used as a front - when the real intention is to criticise the coup - then that would be.
That is a bizarre sentence.
People have the freedom to choose? I have no idea if heaven or hell exists, or what either would be like. Ultimately it is unimportant, you do you best, and leave the rest to whatever happens.
Zen Christianity is sanguine about stuff like that ;-)
I'm hearing that Lib Dem local parties are starting to quietly vote against Clegg. 75 of them are needed. I wonder if they'll reach there.
Are the LibDem lemmings determined to jump off the cliff?
http://www.parkview.bham.sch.uk/ckeditor_image/14 May 2014 PVET response.pdf
England 14-1; Sri Lanka 13-1
Men of good heart do good things for many reasons, often completely unrelated to religion. Personally I find it strange to think that one should only help one's fellow man for fear that one might end up in the 'wrong place' when one dies.
I'd like to think we could just believe in *humankind* and try to make the best of it for the time we have. But it doesn't inspire confidence.
Mr. T, I hope one day you'll embrace the true faith, and be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
'I rarely watch television - which I find so 20th century. What does irritate me,however, is entering supermarkets, bakers, restaurants etc only to be served by someone wearing an English football jersey. We don't have this nonsense in relation to rugby, cricket, tennis or indeed any other sport , and I see no reason why we should have to suffer it with football.
I have no problem with people enjoying a game of soccer - but do object to it being rammed down everyone's throats.'
'So you want your own national team to lose? Sad indeed. '
'In so far as I would recognize a national team it would be Great Britain - England being the only team in the tournament that does not represent an independent country due to an historical anomaly re-football.
I don't actually accept the premise underlying that comment which rather assumes one SHOULD support the national team. If I had the slightest interest in the game I might well prefer the playing style of - say - Brazil , Germany or whoever and ,therefore, reasonably wish to see them triumph. I really don't give a toss for national identity when it comes to something so trivial.'
'
Great Britain is not a country. Poor start to a depressing post'
If Great Britain is not a country then neither is Germany or Italy- both the latter were not created until second half of the 19th century. England, Scotland and Wales are no more countries than Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia and Brandenburg as component parts of Germany , or Tuscany,Umbria as components parts of Italy.
It is significant that Croatia and Serbia were not given separate team status until becoming independent countries. Prior to that they had to compete as part of Yugoslavia. It's a very striking anomaly that England ,Wales and Scotland have been treated differently.
A bit like a church really.
In the other earlier Group D game, Costa Rica can be backed at a whopping 8.5/1 to defeat Uraguay, available at 1/2.
I've just realised that the England vs Italy game doesn't start until 11.00pm, so that's as near as damn it to a 1.00am finish. Past my bedtime I fear- as fellow PB early birds will know, I'm up with the lark ...... witness my cheery start to this thread at 5.27 this morning.
It's quite amusing just what little englanders the PB atheists are. Humanity is overwhelmingly religious.
Worshiping Mammon is the one true way? ;-)
The relevant issue is whether it plays any important role in people's lives.
The UK figures are 26% Yes, 73% No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
For a technical but nevertheless magisterial survey of the reconciliation of the "common good" with the preservation of individual salvation, see M.S. Kempshall's The common good in late medieval political thought, (Oxford, 1999).
When countries get rich the religion is consumerism: joining their fellow congregation in the mall and purchasing "icons" of dubious value and worshipping the latest fashion.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
Your statistics are borne out by the case of Rwanda though: 94% Christian/4% muslim/2% atheist. And a lot of good it did them: "Timothy Longman has provided the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide in Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, published in 2010.[6] Longman argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda#1994_Genocide
I expect people with experience in local politics in the cities would know if that's true or not.
England Italy 1-1 is 5-1 with Betfair Sportsbook but I just placed it and got 11-2 (They are matching their exchange) . I also clicked through http://www.oddschecker.com/football/world-cup/england-v-italy/correct-score link which should give me a £5 free bet (Stake) should England lose.
Whether one believes or not doesn't alter the truth. Besides, Irenaeus' theodicy reasons that everyone goes to Heaven anyway
numbers
if you take the training wheels off your kid's bike is it because you want them to hurt themselves?
That was Irenaeus' point. Everyone goes to Heaven because God's omnibenevolent and causing people to suffer eternally isn't necessarily the first thing the word 'omnibenevolent' conjures in one's mind.
And here is the ISIS battle plan for Baghdad, siege first, then capture.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/06/analysis_isis_allies.php#
I find myself with the same quandary on similar occasions, there, but not quite.
(apols for shortening your comment, which was thought provoking and honest)
and may God go with you. :-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10899774/Simon-Schama-TV-should-tell-passionate-bloody-histories-of-faiths.html
Agree with him, and his series on the Jews was outstanding.
Excellent article Mr Herdson and thoughtful contribution, EiT - your analogy reminded me of some of the Nats who preach Salad Bowl but practice Borg......
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/committee-row-expert-seeks-apology-from-snp-msp-1-3443833
Of course, Huxley himself was a great believer in morality and would very much be one of your men (and women) of good heart.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 5m
ComRes online poll for the IoS/S Mirror coming out. Last month it was CON 29, LAB 33, LD 8, UKIP 19, GRN 4
If, say, the % of British people wanting to impose sharia law in the UK rises significantly, what are politicians (of all parties) actually going to do?
If the trend becomes quite significant it would surely require very radical action to stop it.
(Unless you're playing bad semantics with agnostics vs non-religious).
There are some people that will do evil, there are others that will strive for good. And there are plenty that will muddle along somewhere in the middle
Have you read Enoch Powells Bimingham speech???
Lack of belief in an afterlife makes the joy of this one all the more satisfying.