Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Over Half of Britons Claim No Religion
timesonline.co.uk — The report also calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England. The role and privileges of the established Church are challenged because they do not reflect “the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations.”
suxmonkey- 2162 diggs
- digg it
- lickmylovepump, on 02/23/2008, -91/+191religion should not involve itself with politics. this includes christians, muslims and atheists.
- rebotfc, on 02/23/2008, -20/+392athiesm isn't a religioin. Just like not playing chess isn't a hobby.
- FatLoser, on 02/23/2008, -118/+23Not shutting up about your disbelief in god is just as annoying as not shutting up about your belief in god. Some of us don't even think about whether or not there is a god... we just go on with our daily lives and don't agonize over it like self-proclaimed atheists.
- CastrTroy, on 02/23/2008, -10/+22So only people who are agnostic should be involved in politics?
- FatLoser, on 02/23/2008, -40/+7No, everybody should shut up about their personal beliefs. Hence _personal_ beliefs.
On a side note, next time read and at least give your best effort at comprehending a comment before you reply to it. - rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -1/+26FatLoser, I note that you cannot seem to restrain yourself from shouting about your own personal beliefs... And, in typical zealous fashion, insisting on imposing them on everyon else.
- FatLoser, on 02/23/2008, -40/+7No, everybody should shut up about their personal beliefs. Hence _personal_ beliefs.
- hmcook87, on 02/23/2008, -7/+59the definition of religion has nothing to do with how annoying you find a particular viewpoint. ok, you don't like atheism, thats fine, but it does not make it a religion.
- FatLoser, on 02/23/2008, -30/+6Read my comment again. Atheists, Christians, Muslims... doesn't matter what religion or absence of religion they worship, they are all too self-involved and biased to see things from a logical, or, FSM forbid, tolerant viewpoint.
- Chrisbe, on 02/23/2008, -2/+6Hmmm. I am not saying there is not a passion to this position which makes it appear like a religion; people will be people. But what is it they are trying to replace religion with? Religion and any belief system is about confirmation. Sir Francis Bacon once said "I will see it when I believe it." Basically belief systems thrive on seeking out confirmation and dismissing contradictions as anomalies. This approach will lead to believing just about whatever a person wants and does explain why we as human's believe so many different things (not just religions). I believe what these people are trying to do it get everyone to adopt a system based on contradiction. This way we all seek to disprove our hypotheses instead of looking for the littlest of proof. I see a lot of benefit in swapping a system based on confirmation with a system based on contradiction.
- Scynet, on 02/23/2008, -2/+9Not, religion has to do with supernaturality or gods, not in idealism. Under your definition everything the mankind thinks it knows is religion, which completely defeats the purpose of the word. Religion is occupied for the belief some sort of divine precence.
- eatasandwich, on 02/23/2008, -4/+30Religion poisons everything. Stop that part and you'll discover than the atheists will shut up too. Being apathetic is not a reason to brag or belittle others for wanting to change the world for the better. In fact, you have just exposed yourself to be guilty of the same thing. You are being just as annoying and not shutting up either.
- Lyk4n, on 02/23/2008, -5/+5Does sitting on that fence hurt your fat ass?
- CastrTroy, on 02/23/2008, -10/+22So only people who are agnostic should be involved in politics?
- spookyttws, on 02/23/2008, -10/+23I couldn't have said it better myself. So I won't.
- Chiko, on 02/23/2008, -13/+61Well you could always make a hobby out of debating on how chess is a stupid game.
- magicaltrevor, on 02/23/2008, -5/+32What about the chess players who are always trying to force everyone to play chess?
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2What about them? Is anything you do -- short of taking away their right to free speech (and thereby damaging your own) -- going to stop them?
Since the answer is no, why waste your time with it? - Haecceity, on 02/23/2008, -3/+9Absolutely. Chess should be taught instead of biology and other board games should banned. Why should we be bothered about that?
/sarcasm
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2What about them? Is anything you do -- short of taking away their right to free speech (and thereby damaging your own) -- going to stop them?
- ICSU, on 02/24/2008, -3/+4Yes, that would be a hobby. So still, atheism is not a religion or a hobby. Speaking about religion may be a hobby but it's something extra and you don't have to be atheist for that.
- Ranvier, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3True, but you couldn't make a hobby out of NOT debating on how chess is a stupid game, which would be analogous to atheism.
- magicaltrevor, on 02/23/2008, -5/+32What about the chess players who are always trying to force everyone to play chess?
- shinythingy, on 02/23/2008, -10/+2True but it still stands.
- SLockhart, on 02/23/2008, -26/+6It takes way more faith to believe the universe created itself than to believe that, like all other things, the universe was created from the outside. It's not just the case that Athiests don't believe. They also do believe. They believe that the universe created itself and some of them are hard core fundamentalist about it.
- StarlessKnight, on 02/23/2008, -1/+16Atheist.
"a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
No where does it say "a belief in something, anything, at anytime anywhere involving faith."- aadyss, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2True. As an Evangelical I feel the Atheist must have much more faith in their beliefs than me. I cannot wrap my mind around intelligence came from chance and natural selection, which in itself is a non-intelligent non-entity. I on the other hand do not spend any time trying to convince any Atheist to change their views. That know what Christains and other religions offer and reject their beliefs. End of story as far as I am concerned.
- nicksauce, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5I cannot understand it, therefore its wrong, and takes faith to believe. Typical christian argument.
- Magnus150, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3We don't share your willful ignorance, but it is nice of you not to try to push it on us. Now only if your brethren would do the same and stay out of our big boy's science classes.
- SLockhart, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1This conversation is moot anyway because athiests don't exist.
- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0@ aadyss
Can you explain why you believe that god's intelligence can come from nowhere but mine has to have been put there by some pre-existing entity?
There is a total lack of logic in what you are suggesting. To respond with anything along the lines of 'god is god and has always been' is just pulling the wool over your own eyes and inventing a 'deus ex machina' to solve a problem your intellect can't.
- nicksauce, on 02/23/2008, -1/+10One thing we know for sure: The universe exists
Now we can conclude
1) The universe created itself as you so 'eloquently put it', but I will rephrase this to the universe exists as a consequence of natural law, or more succinctly, the universe just exists.
or
2i) God created the universe
2ii) God just exists
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor by any chance?- SLockhart, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2Yes. Are you familiar with any original thoughts of your own?
- nicksauce, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Why come up with new arguments to debunk the same old arguments?
- thadiusdean, on 02/23/2008, -0/+12Atheism doesn't claim anything about the creation of the universe. We are able to admit that we have no idea why it's here. Maybe someday we will figure out why but as of right now that is not the case.
- aadyss, on 02/23/2008, -7/+0Perhaps you may not claim to know about the universe but the true Atheist does. I think you may have to move to the Agnostic side.
- Magnus150, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I've yet to meet an atheist that claims to know the meaning of life the universe and everything (besides 42). Anyone that says they do are obviously religious.
One day we might find out, but right now it's just stupid to say you know when you don't. - djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1@ aadyss
You seem to not understand what athiesm is. It's quite simple: athiesm is the lack of a belief in god(s).
This has nothing to do with the origin or 'meaning' of the universe.
You are clearly tied into some misunderstanding on what athiesm involves. Just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean they claim to understand the universe. That is ridiculous. I don't understand why the universe is so big or how it came into being, but I don't need to invent an imaginary friend to try to explain it.
Plenty of things previously only explainable by using the god card have since been explained scientifically - lightening, rainbows, the moon's orbit, etc. As time goes by science will answer more and more of life's mysteries by examining facts and real evidence.
To use god to explain everything you can't otherwise explain is just robbing yourself of the intellect that (in your opinion) god gave you. Why would god waste his time creating human intelligence if he didn't want it to be used to understand and explore the universe? Why create such a complex mind if he only wants you to blindly believe everything you read in a religious text and to ignore everything else? That kind of a god would be nothing short of evil. Sounds more like something that would be attributed to Satan to me.
- StarlessKnight, on 02/23/2008, -1/+16Atheist.
- CondiRice, on 02/23/2008, -2/+14That's a very good quote I may have to steal.
- JonLatane, on 02/23/2008, -12/+4Atheism is still a belief system - namely, the belief that there is no god. If politicians banned the practice of any theistic religion (which would be an atheist law) there would be just as much of a problem as if any other religion had that kind of political control. Here's a slightly more accurate version of your analogy:
Atheism is playing checkers, and possibly denouncing all those who play chess, Chinese checkers or any other board game. Agnosticism is understanding how to play all of them, but recognizing that none of them are better than any of the others, and that arguing over it is pretty silly.- tribble222, on 02/23/2008, -5/+10Atheism is a LACK of a belief. The onus is on the religious crowd, not the atheist crowd, and not spread evenly through both. If I suggested to you that there is a t-rex in geosynchronous orbit about Venus, the onus would be on me to prove it to you. When someone claims that a supernatural being created the universe, the onus is on them to prove it.
Any atheist who has actually thought about it will tell you that there is a chance that God does exist. It is just incredibly unlikely, same as the orbiting t-rex. Atheism is about logically looking at evidence. Religion is about faith, quite the opposite.- rocksouljah, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1I'm an atheist that has thought about it, many times. I've come to the conclusion that there isn't one, based on that, if there was a "God" who created us, then who created them? And if no one created them, then why do we need a creator. The only conclusions I can draw from that, is that either there is a never ending string of creators, or that there is no creators, and I personally find the latter more plausible.
- rocksouljah, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Forgot to add one thing. With the above, coupled with the fact that there is no sound evidence of there being any god, I have to say that I cannot bring myself to believe in any superior being or anything of the like. I cannot base my life around a feeling or faith, because to me it is a nonsensical thing to base your life around something there is no evidence pointing to it being true.
- lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1"When someone claims that a supernatural being created the universe, the onus is on them to prove it."
No, the onus is on no one to prove anything to anyone. You don't have to prove anything to me, and I have no need or desire to prove the existence of my God to anyone, because if I could and did, atheists would still reject Him. We could still live in peace, despite our differences, however, atheists and theists of all sort would have to quit trying to control each other. Unfortunately, this will never happen, because all of us humans, believers and non-believers, have a need, a deep seated desire to control one another, to play God, to gain that ever-needed sense of power that we lack, because we really aren't in control of that much in this world. Power is much sought after in this world, whether internationally, nationally, locally, in a family, at work, or on the streets.
Atheism isn't a lack of belief. It takes a lot of faith to believe that we came from nothing, are amazingly complex, and yet are going nowhere, returning to nothing and never existing again.
Atheism is the ultimate belief in self. Kinda like a complete ego trip. This was the original sin, Lucifer's sin. This is the belief that we can save ourselves from ourselves, although it will never save us from death. We all die. - JonLatane, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1You're an agnostic and you don't even realize it. Atheism asserts the nonexistence of any gods. If you don't firmly believe the existence of any god is impossible, you're not an atheist. Simple as that.
As for the "onus of proof:" Intuitively, the Poincaré conjecture should be true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_conjecture ). A good deal of mathematical theory may already assume it to be true, even though it has yet to be proven. There's probably people who believe it's true, and people who don't. But guess who the "onus of proof" is on?
That's right! ***** NO ONE! You're free to believe what you'd like without proving it; the only decent reason to prove/disprove it would be to affirm other (useful) theory that requires such knowledge. Plenty of atheists are just as *****-ish as Baptists because they have this stupid idea in their head.
Believe what you want to believe; if you can prove what you believe is right, well then good for you, you've ***** with a lot of people's life choices. I hope you're proven it for some purpose other than that. Until that's done, though, stop arguing about it. It's annoying. - tribble222, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1@JonLatane
If I am an agnostic with regard to God, then I am also an agnostic with regard to EVERYTHING, no matter how unlikely. I accept that, by strict definition, I am an agnostic. By the same definition I am an agnostic not only to God, but to the t-rex, to the flying spaghetti monster, and to the invisible pink unicorn. I assert, however, that most people who call themselves atheists, including Richard Dawkins by his own admission (read the God Delusion) are agnostic by that strict definition. Even though I'm agnostic about the t-rex orbiting venus, if someone asked me do I believe there is a t-rex orbiting venus, I would not answer that I'm unsure, I'd answer that no, there isn't a t-rex orbiting venus. Just like I'd answer no, there isn't a god. People would call me an a-orbiting-t-rex-ist just like they would likewise call me an atheist.
- rocksouljah, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0wrong place
- tribble222, on 02/23/2008, -5/+10Atheism is a LACK of a belief. The onus is on the religious crowd, not the atheist crowd, and not spread evenly through both. If I suggested to you that there is a t-rex in geosynchronous orbit about Venus, the onus would be on me to prove it to you. When someone claims that a supernatural being created the universe, the onus is on them to prove it.
- blackjack75, on 02/23/2008, -6/+22Three guys are sitting on the floor.
- The first one says : "Hey, there's a 30 feet pink elephant below this stone"
- The second one lift us the stone and says "See. There's nothing, you're just plain lunatic".
- The third one puts the stone back in place and says: "Maybe there is one now? Or maybe under another stone? How can you be this arrogant not to believe the thought of the first guy was worth as much as yours? "
I don't have to explain which one is the religious guy, which one is the atheist.. and which one is the oh-so-reasonable agnosticist who considers extraordinary evidence isn't required to give extraordinary allegations an equal value to more reasonable ones based on observable evidence..- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -2/+9No, but you could explain what the hell an "agnosticist" is. ;-)
- tinfins, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2Except the stone has never been lifted. Your analogy does not fit the agnostic mindset at all. Also, agnostic does not mean relativist.
- NightVortez, on 02/23/2008, -12/+6Eh, sitting on the couch doing nothing can be considered a hobby, atheism is still a belief in something, or rather the lack of, and this shouldn't be involved in politics. Telling someone what not to believe in is just as bad as telling someone what to believe in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but that's not going to influence my political views.- BetterOffEd, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately, you made very little sense with this. Atheism, by definition, is a LACK of belief. ANYTHING ELSE besides agnosticism is a belief. Atheists don't tell people what to believe in. They just want organized religion's influence removed from government policy.
- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1"Atheists don't tell people what to believe in."
have you read any of the posts on here?
- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1"Atheists don't tell people what to believe in."
- lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -6/+1Atheism isn't a lack of belief. It takes a lot of faith to believe that we came from nothing, are amazingly complex, and yet are going nowhere, returning to nothing and never existing again.
Atheism is the ultimate belief in self. Kinda like a complete ego trip. This was the original sin, Lucifer's sin. This is the belief that we can save ourselves from ourselves, although it will never save us from death. We all die. - Lewie, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4@lmlp
You are incredibly wrong. It is not faith that makes Atheists think that, it's the LACK OF PROOF of God, afterlife, etc. Show us proof of a god or a spirit, and we'll acknowledge its existence.
Atheism is NOT a belief in self. That is Egoism. Egoism is not Atheism, that is why they are two different words. Atheism is simply the disbelief in god(s). As such, we can't blame our problems on other beings, we must blame them on ourselves.
I don't understand how you can throw Lucifer (meaning "Light bearer" in Latin) in this conversation, because he, being a (fallen) angel, believes there is a God. Atheists believe in neither.- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1"It is not faith that makes Atheists think that, it's the LACK OF PROOF of God, afterlife, etc" Jesus did prove himself, about 2k years ago. but many of you deny that he did this, and now deny that he even existed.
"Show us proof of a god or a spirit, and we'll acknowledge its existence."
No. because you won't change your mind, no matter what. you'll spend your days and nights trying to find ways to explain it. you won't even believe it with Jesus' second coming, because you'll call it a 'shared hallucination' or something crazy.
"Atheism is NOT a belief in self."
yes, it is. atheism says that humans are in control of their own life, their destiny, our fate while on this planet. atheism suggests that we had no creator, that we evolved from earth and are returning to earth. atheism is the ultimate belief in self. egoism and atheism-- although different words, they walk hand in hand, down the broad highway to destruction.
"As such, we can't blame our problems on other beings, we must blame them on ourselves."
guess what? same with christians.
"I don't understand how you can throw Lucifer in this conversation, because he, being a (fallen) angel, believes there is a God. Atheists believe in neither."
I throw lucifer into this conversation because he believed that he was better than God. Even though you don't realize it, so do you. In fact, you worship satan, even though i tell you that you worship yourself. read the satanic bible and you'll see exactly what i mean.
"(meaning "Light bearer" in Latin)"
thanks for that information, i just might be able to make it through another day.
"congratulations, you have nothing to look forward to"
- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1"It is not faith that makes Atheists think that, it's the LACK OF PROOF of God, afterlife, etc" Jesus did prove himself, about 2k years ago. but many of you deny that he did this, and now deny that he even existed.
- NightVortez, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1BetterOffEd, quite a few atheists do tell people what to believe in by calling organized religions crazy and such. Kind of hard to make sense out of it, but atheism can be taken as believing the non-existence of God, which the standard definition tells us.
"Atheism: the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods."
Of course there are a lot of different types of atheism, one of them being agnosticisms, but that's getting away from the point. Nothing that that forces your spiritual beliefs (or lack of) on people should ever be implemented in politics, which is why Roe v. Wade is always such a fun argument.- BetterOffEd, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0I have to disagree... I'm not an atheist, but I know for a fact that they first and foremost call for an END TO ALL BELIEF in general; or an END of FAITH (to borrow the title of a popular book). So by very definition, they don't "BELIEVE" (as you say above) in ANYTHING AT ALL. They only RECOGNIZE things that are FACTS, which can be corroborated with EVIDENCE; and they are of the opinion that anything that cannot be PROVEN in this world should not be the basis for anything governmental. So therefore, no "belief" or "faith" is required at all to be an atheist.
And while I don't necessarily defend them (I tend to lean towards agnosticism myself), the burden of proof is not upon atheists... The burden of proof is upon theists. (See the flying spaghetti monster or Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot for more info).
- BetterOffEd, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0I have to disagree... I'm not an atheist, but I know for a fact that they first and foremost call for an END TO ALL BELIEF in general; or an END of FAITH (to borrow the title of a popular book). So by very definition, they don't "BELIEVE" (as you say above) in ANYTHING AT ALL. They only RECOGNIZE things that are FACTS, which can be corroborated with EVIDENCE; and they are of the opinion that anything that cannot be PROVEN in this world should not be the basis for anything governmental. So therefore, no "belief" or "faith" is required at all to be an atheist.
- epiccollision, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2@nightvortez...telling ppl the truth is not an agenda...its the truth.
- BetterOffEd, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately, you made very little sense with this. Atheism, by definition, is a LACK of belief. ANYTHING ELSE besides agnosticism is a belief. Atheists don't tell people what to believe in. They just want organized religion's influence removed from government policy.
- FatLoser, on 02/23/2008, -118/+23Not shutting up about your disbelief in god is just as annoying as not shutting up about your belief in god. Some of us don't even think about whether or not there is a god... we just go on with our daily lives and don't agonize over it like self-proclaimed atheists.
- Ramble, on 02/23/2008, -4/+65I do agree, but oddly enough it works here in the UK. In America you have lots of fundies, and the state is meant to be totlaly secular. Over here we have a state religion but no-one believes in it.
- theodenking, on 02/23/2008, -1/+8I don't think there's a correlation. Europe as a whole is less religious than America, secular institutions or no.
- TotalHalibut, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1And I assume you have stats to back that up?
- blackeagle613, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6sure TotalHailibut http://tinyurl.com/2rra6v
- theodenking, on 02/23/2008, -1/+8I don't think there's a correlation. Europe as a whole is less religious than America, secular institutions or no.
- DavidtheDuke, on 02/23/2008, -21/+9Those Britains might not have any religions holdin' them down, but they sure do like their rising police state! Oh, the irony.. Police state or theocracy, take your pick!
- gautamf1, on 02/23/2008, -3/+11police state or theocracy ... is there a difference?
- Bhima, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4well technically, there're a lot of differences but I get your point.
- 3tcp, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5A police state is simply a country so bent on enforcing the law that they don't recognize any concept of individual rights and will do take any measure possible to increase the liklihood of catching someone breaking the law.
Theocracy is a government run by the leaders of a specific religion and gives no indication of how it should be run. Unless the leaders feel that the religion demands police-state style enforcement of its doctrines then it wouldn't have to be the same.
One could argue that Iran is a theocracy since the government has positions determined by religious affiliation but they have democratic election processes and more individual rights than a country like North Korea which is most definetly a police state.- quaxon, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I agree with your point however i disagree that Iran is not a police state. I cant really speak about how it is now, as i havent been there in over 10 ten years, but when i did live there instead of a police force you had military patrolling the streets, each with an assault rifle at their side. They were in charge of enforcing all the laws including the islamic codes of conduct and dress. I am not sure if this is still how it is today but when i lived there it most definitely was a police state.
- EarlOfLade, on 02/23/2008, -12/+8USA is far more of a police state than UK ever will be.
- Bhima, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11Don't get some contest going!
- quaxon, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1HELL YEAAHHHAAAA RED WHITE AND BLUE.....1....2....SCORE BABY, AMERICA !!!!!!
- Magnus150, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Buried for reminding me of NASCAR.
- eatasandwich, on 02/23/2008, -0/+14As someone who is English and who lives in the US I feel I can say that both America is in fact worse than Britain in this regard too....Britain is becoming MORE like America, which is a bad thing. The human race is going backwards. However there's no need for this thread to turn into a Brits verses Americans thread. Neither country is doing things right.
- TheUnlearn, on 02/23/2008, -5/+0I'm glad you know what is the correct way to run a country. please, enlighten us in regards of how to make our countries perfect.
- StarlessKnight, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5@TheUnlearn: Stop being afraid of the bogeyman. That'd be a start. Security? Fine. Mass panic about the evil terrorists invading the country to destroy our way of life in a coordinated effort TODAY! Not so much.
- TheUnlearn, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0i didn't say better, i said perfect. You can't make it perfect but eatasandwich seems to know what is best for the whole of society. i just figured he could help make our country perfect on his way to fixing the rest of society.
- iainc, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2@TheUnlearn: rich, coming from a 19 year old. Spend less time on Digg and get on with your homework.
- TheUnlearn, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0ah yes, someone on digg can read. as a side note: what does my age have to do with the topic at hand?
- warriorscot, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1You watch too many movies.
- DavidtheDuke, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1No I don't think Britain is a police state yet, but it sure does have a populace that's as or more willing to have barking cameras at them.
- gautamf1, on 02/23/2008, -3/+11police state or theocracy ... is there a difference?
- Trollmaster, on 02/23/2008, -7/+31religion should not involve itself in anything that affects mankind
- TotalHalibut, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2Except for the fact taht mankind created it and it concerns the development of mankind. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's inherently bad.
- DarkSamus, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4please stop taking stupid pills and learn how to reason
- spanglegluppet, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4Religion should not involve itself with politics, people's lives, the internet, or anything with any moving parts.
- kazamx, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2You should not opperate heavy machinery while under the influence of Religion.
- exomniac, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Religion cannot involve itself with anything. Religion does not start wars. Guns don't kill people. American Airlines didn't commit mass murder on 911. Get off the meds, man. Open your ***** mind. Atheism is all fine and great. Congratulations with that. But waging some war against religion makes as much sense as Bush waging war on terror. Your war is simply simple-mindedness vs. simple-mindedness. Hate takes many shapes, and it uses many forms of transportation.
- Syzothermy, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2"Religion does not start wars."
Crusades.
- Syzothermy, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2"Religion does not start wars."
- TotalHalibut, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2Except for the fact taht mankind created it and it concerns the development of mankind. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's inherently bad.
- SSUK, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6Well, England DID have a civil war to ensure this was so.
- mCanada, on 02/23/2008, -6/+7like rebotfc said, it's amazing how many people lump Atheism with religion. You might naturally think that Atheist means "believing that there isn't a God" (which is the wrong interpretation), I think the correct interpretation removes belief from the equation completely. Religion = belief, blind faith, leap of faith, e.t.c Atheism = observing this world
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5People come about what they call "knowledge" based on their observations, but also based on the philosophical assumptions that allow them to accept or reject a line of thought as valid or invalid. This is an important enough concept that there's a name for it: epistemology. Here's the definition stolen from m-w.com:
epis·te·mol·o·gy: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
Even though I'm an atheist, I'm not enthused about the way you characterize the difference between atheism and religion. It amounts to saying that the philosophical point of view underlying atheism is right and other philosophical points of view are just bogus. It's fine to adopt a certain philosophical points of view, but if you want to convince others, come up with a real argument, don't just label the other point of view as "blind faith" and call it done.- mCanada, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3 I'm simply stating a fairly basic, uncontroversial fact. To be a part of any religion you need faith. Atheism removes faith and belief from the equation when discussing the universe. They are mutually exclusive concepts and do not belong together. Thanks for the definition on that branch of "philosophy", but I made no statement that others were incorrect. I simply reaffirmed what atheism was or was not and visa versa.
- lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1Atheism isn't a lack of belief. It takes a lot of faith to believe that we came from nothing, are amazingly complex, and yet are going nowhere, returning to nothing and never existing again.
Atheism is the ultimate belief in self. Kinda like a complete ego trip. - djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2@lickmylovepump
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that athiesm involves faith. Your argument makes no sense. An athiest judges the world (i.e. universe) on observable facts.
You seem to be getting your ideas of what athiesm is from some biased source.
An athiest sees no evidence of god's existence and therefore has no belief in god. Just as an athiest has no belief in magic because there is no evidence that magic exists.
Faith is believing in something without proof of its existence. It is the cornerstone of religion. Athiesm does not involve faith of any kind. Believing only in what can be observed/measured/confirmed is not faith.
Your red herring that athiesm is an 'ego trip' is such nonsense that it's hardly worth responding to...
I do exist. I know that I exist - I can observe myself. I think therefore I am. Believing in something because I can prove it exists is not an ego trip.
Believing that you were created especially by an all powerful god and that the universe was created especially for you sounds more like an ego trip to me...and that is a foundation of religion.
An athiest simply doesn't rely on mythology, fairy tales, and 'faith' to explain his existence.- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1i am going to try to answer you quickly, because i am tired and want to go to bed. "Please explain how you came to the conclusion that athiesm involves faith. Your argument makes no sense. An athiest judges the world (i.e. universe) on observable facts.
You seem to be getting your ideas of what athiesm is from some biased source."--- It takes a lot of faith to believe that we came from nothing, are amazingly complex, and yet are going nowhere, returning to nothing and never existing again. i've observed the world around me, and read lots of stuff. i have no source, religious internet or book source or anything. maybe the bible, but that's it. "An athiest sees no evidence of god's existence and therefore has no belief in god. Just as an athiest has no belief in magic because there is no evidence that magic exists."--- Do you believe that the earth and our solar system just happened to work out so perfectly that you and i are intelligent enough to be sitting in front of screens, debating with eachother, possibly from thousands of miles away from eachother? that would be blind faith in the big bang, evolution, and the amazingly unreal chance that it all came together so perfectly that that we humans exist, have emotions, rational thoughts, et
"Faith is believing in something without proof of its existence. It is the cornerstone of religion."--- Jesus and all of the prophecies that he fulfilled is all the proof i need. "Athiesm does not involve faith of any kind. Believing only in what can be observed/measured/confirmed is not faith." show me how to measure, observe or confirm that we all ended up here by some lucky chance. "Your red herring that athiesm is an 'ego trip' is such nonsense that it's hardly worth responding to..."--- it wasn't a put-down, at all, it is truth. "I do exist. I know that I exist - I can observe myself. I think therefore I am."--- I observe God's work everyday--my fingers, my hair, my behavior and thinking patterns, that tree outside, etc. my statement would be, 'god created me, therefore i am for a short while longer.' being able to think, doesn't constitute my existance. GWB exists, but does not think. all fun aside, my cat exists, but does not think. "Believing that you were created especially by an all powerful god and that the universe was created especially for you sounds more like an ego trip to me...and that is a foundation of religion."-- the universe wasn't created for me, it wasn't even created for us. we were created to serve and worship god, if we so choose. your statement is not a foundation of christianity. "An athiest simply doesn't rely on mythology, fairy tales, and 'faith' to explain his existence."--- i've addressed the 'faith' issue i believe already. as far as mythology and fairy tales, i suppose i could just reverse that statement, however i would be just putting you down like you did me. atheism has morphed from a personal disbelief in any god to a political, social, spiritual, religious and emotional belief that there are no gods or God.
- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1i am going to try to answer you quickly, because i am tired and want to go to bed. "Please explain how you came to the conclusion that athiesm involves faith. Your argument makes no sense. An athiest judges the world (i.e. universe) on observable facts.
- nextyoyoma, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Then why is it called "atheism"? The etymology suggest a categorical non-belief in a deity.
I'm not saying you can't "observe the world," as adrianmonk suggests, don't call that "atheism"- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2I think you're confusing 'believing there is no god' with 'not believing in god'. It's a very subtle difference, but it is very important. There is no dogmatic belief in athiesm.
Maybe you're coming from the POV that there is a god and that it takes some kind of 'belief' to deny its existence. The truth is that an athiest does not believe in a god that can not be observed/proven to exist in the same way that they would not believe in fairies or hobbits. Since there is no evidence of the existence of god, an athiest has no reason to believe there is one (or more than one).- sporkyy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1I don't think that the difference between believing in no gods and not believing in any gods is really all that important. I like to think of atheism as a practical position. To contrast, I view agnosticism as an intellectual position. With the two being totally compatible.
Let's say someone proposed a god that required you to pray 7 times a day on a bath mat whilst facing Hoboken, NJ. Whether you believe this god doesn't exist or simply don't believe in the existence of this god, you don't pray 7 times a day on a bath mat whilst facing Hoboken, NJ. That is essentially the atheist position. Living one's life in such a way as no gods exist. The question of whether it is possible to ultimately know whether any gods exists or not is not answered (including this god that wants you to pray 7 times a day on a bath mat whilst facing Hoboken, NJ).
- sporkyy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1I don't think that the difference between believing in no gods and not believing in any gods is really all that important. I like to think of atheism as a practical position. To contrast, I view agnosticism as an intellectual position. With the two being totally compatible.
- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2I think you're confusing 'believing there is no god' with 'not believing in god'. It's a very subtle difference, but it is very important. There is no dogmatic belief in athiesm.
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5People come about what they call "knowledge" based on their observations, but also based on the philosophical assumptions that allow them to accept or reject a line of thought as valid or invalid. This is an important enough concept that there's a name for it: epistemology. Here's the definition stolen from m-w.com:
- diggimator, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6What would antidisestablishmentarianists have to say about that?
- purple8, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Religion absolutely should be separate from politics. I live in Utah and there is frequently a lot of overlap between church and state. It can be very frustrating when you're not in the majority.
- Risti, on 02/24/2008, -5/+0Religion should involve itself with politics and it always will.
Religion is not political. People are political. If somebody genuinely believes that what bible says should be how we live our lives, then by all means use politics to enforce the word of God. But – like everything else in politics, it should be open for criticism. If you bring the word of God into politics, then I should have the right to treat God like any other politician.- lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3where in the bible does in say or insinuate that we christians should enforce the word of God through politics? i'm confused on this one. incidentally, God isn't a politician. and Jesus never was involved in politics either. not to say that he didn't make statements that got him in trouble in the religious-political arena, just that he wasn't involved with politics. his statements include putting the pharisees in a (really) bad light, and of course they were totally pushing their religious beliefs into politics. coincidence?
- lickmylovepump, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1i forgot to add, where in Darwin's books or statements did he say that evolutionists should force their beliefs on the world? and why do atheists force their beliefs down religious people's throats?
- lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3where in the bible does in say or insinuate that we christians should enforce the word of God through politics? i'm confused on this one. incidentally, God isn't a politician. and Jesus never was involved in politics either. not to say that he didn't make statements that got him in trouble in the religious-political arena, just that he wasn't involved with politics. his statements include putting the pharisees in a (really) bad light, and of course they were totally pushing their religious beliefs into politics. coincidence?
- rebotfc, on 02/23/2008, -20/+392athiesm isn't a religioin. Just like not playing chess isn't a hobby.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/23/2008, -154/+18Religion can indeed involve itself into politics just as everything else does.
People are not monolithic, unfeeling beings of pure logic. If they were, then there would be no such thing as morality, ethics, desires, and purpose.
Religion shapes and molds us as people just like any other esoteric aspect of human existence.
Would you remove all secular humanistic involvement as well? If not, why not?
Secular humanism says to look to human minds for the solutions to life's problems. Fine, no problem. That's wonderful for some people.
But, for everyone else, we tend to look to the Supreme Being...primarily because the Supreme Being is a lot smarter than we are.- TheCatsPants, on 02/23/2008, -15/+110"the Supreme Being is a lot smarter than we are."
Smarter than you, yeah.- XNihil0Zer0, on 02/23/2008, -7/+68Lol, I like how you made a nonexistent thing smarter than him.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/23/2008, -62/+3Be humble. You're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -4/+50I don't think you're in a position to criticise.
- MaiSacNjoMouf, on 02/23/2008, -12/+3That's what she said...
- CAPITALLETTERS, on 02/23/2008, -2/+13Touché.
- TheCatsPants, on 02/23/2008, -2/+22@zachwii
I don't have an agenda, but I do know you have to be a little irrational to believe there is such a creature as a Supreme Being. It's the irrational part of us that wants to believe in God, and an afterlife, and that there is an ultimate morality and purpose. These are all understandable human desires because they are all comforting, and beautiful, ideas. But they are not based in logic. I really hope there is a God etc. I just don't think there is one. All we have is this planet and each other. Irrationality and politics should never mix. - rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -2/+22@zachwii,
Your entire comment itself is indicative of the weakness and danger of a religious worldview.
1) You start with a dogmatic statement; "everybody has an agenda". You provide no evidence to support it - but, even if we grant your unfounded assumption, and ignore the loose, undefined use of "agenda", the conclusions you draw from this initial assertion are illogical.
2) You make use of careless, uninformed generalizations "atheists have...atheists hate...atheists this...atheists that" A classic indication of close-minded prejudice is a generalized attack on an entire class of people.
Which brings me to
3) the most fundamental and common bit of faulty thinking that stems from a religious worldview is confusing ideas with the people who hold them. You do not distinguish between an argument attacking the premises of religion, and attacks on religious people - just as you cannot seem to conceive of a logical argument against atheism without attacking atheists.
4) You use intellectual phrasing in an attack on intellectualism itself, misapplying the principles of the scientific method even while criticizing those whom you say rely on it too much.
5) You claim to "know just as much about the scientific method as anybody else on here", thus attempting to make an argument from authority at the same time as you make unfounded (an irrelevant) assertions about the qualifications of other.
In fact, your entire comment is nothing but a string of illogical, disconnected attacks on the person - and, you will no doubt interpret this substantive critique of the substance of your argument as if it were a personal attack on your person.
This is, unfortunately, the best evidence a rational thinker could present of the toxicity of a religious upbringing and a worldview informed by authoritarian organized religion and "received wisdom". - frazw, on 02/24/2008, -1/+7@zachwii
Your line of argument is hypocritical.
"Yet many of you could not resist the urge (I'm not going to quote every one of them, you have a scroll bar, use it) to attack my world view in a tired effort to discredit anything I say. This is a cop-out and it avoids the argument at hand."
I do believe that you yourself are guilty of this, attacking atheists as being hateful individuals earlier but you did apologise, kudos.
I am an atheist and I believe that religion or lack of it should be a private matter not something for the public arena, i.e. in politics. I am not going to deny that religion has played a part in shaping our moral and ethical conscience up to this point but it was never alone and we are beyond that now.
You also said "You see, the scientific method is neutral when it comes to ideas involving God or lack thereof."
This is not true. The scientific method at best considers God a theory. All available evidence at the current time suggest that God does not exist. Science is not required to prove his existence, although in time that may happen whatever the outcome. The only evidence of God's existence comes from the most fallible and untrustworthy source there is. People with untestable stories. Beyond that, solving the problem of creation with a creator only creates a bigger problem of who created the creator. If God can have endured for eternity, why not the universe? Science currently says God does not exist with the evidence at hand. If new evidence is brought to light science and I will re-evaluate that position.
I must object to the comment "the only instance where I see it as a problem is when violence is introduced." Not because I don't see it as a problem but because I see it as a monumentally huge problem which affects us all regardless of belief but as you said, "Humans, regardless of belief, can be horrible with total disregard for human life." Indeed.
"I'm for a NEUTRAL government, one that does not actively support atheist/secular or religious viewpoints. That was my initial argument. In other words, I do not want a government telling me what I should believe in, or that I am irrational for believing in something."
Therein lies the problem though. Atheism itself is neutral toward all religions in the sense that all religions would be treated equally. That doesn't mean actively discouraged or that you would be told what to believe. It means that all religions would be given equal time and standing, something that cannot happen with a religious state.
Take lawmaking for instance. How do you tackle the problem of religious differences when making a law? Which version do you base it on? Do you pander to the Christians or the Jewish or the Jedi? You can't because then you are being unfair to the other groups, you have to remove religion from the equation. - nullifidian0, on 02/24/2008, -2/+5@zachwii:
You wrote: "I believe many atheists have a clear and understandable agenda to want to irradicate any religious influence over government, and I'm all for that. However, they also wish to irradicate the idea of religion or God itself, and do this by over-politicizing the scientific method."
Some may, although I certainly do not, and neither do any of the very many atheists I personally know. You and everyone else are free to believe any damned well thing you please, but if there is *any* intention whatsoever to use this as the basis for public policy, then they'd better be able to back it up with some kind of reality.
You wrote: "How do they over-politicize the scientific method you ask? Here is an example of a typical argument an atheist may use: "I do not believe in fairy tales, I use the scientific method as an approach to issues." You see, the scientific method is neutral when it comes to ideas involving God or lack thereof. The supernatural (and whether or not it exists is open to debate) is something that is not bound by the rules of the natural world and therefore not something the scientific method is capable of answering."
The difference is when those who make claims regarding the existence of the supernatural, they are then creating a hypothesis which is the starting point of science. As soon as they do that, they've by default opened up their idea to be investigated, measured and criticised. If they refuse to accept the implications of that, then that is merely a manifestation of a dogmatic attitude. Until such things can be demonstrated, they remain as "fairy tales".
You wrote: "You attack the "religious world view" yet the only instance where I see it as a problem is when violence is introduced."
You may see that as the only instance, but I certainly do not. Any time that anyone uses a religiously based idea to try to tell or force me or the society in which I live how we are supposed to live *our* lives, I see it as a problem. Something non-violent that I would have a problem with? Mandatory attendance at religious services. Wouldn't happen, you might think? Wrong, it happens in just about every single school in the UK *today*. I can think of hundreds of other examples, some current, some where some wingnut is trying to make it so.
If, for example, someone doesn't drink alcohol for religious reasons, is the correct action then for them to:
a) not drink alcohol on a personal basis, or
b) prevent everyone from drinking alcohol?
Theocrats like b) whereas the more liberal amongst us prefer a).
You wrote: "Extremists around the world use religion as justification of all-out war, which is obviously destructive. However, in many instances throughout history (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong) have seen religious views as destructive and an obstacle to their totalitarian rule. Atheism was used to justify the killings of millions (yes, millions) of religious people who did nothing to harm anyone."
You've just conflated atheism with totalitarianism, a completely disingenuous and frankly ignorant remark. Those communist assholes you just mentioned may have been atheists, but their ideologies (and their actions) weren't based on it. The sooner that people learn the difference, the better.
You wrote: "Humans, regardless of belief, can be horrible with total disregard for human life."
I don't see anyone disagreeing with this.
You wrote: "I try not to make generalizations of atheists as I respect their views."
No, you clearly don't. You may respect their *right* to have a view, but the view itself you do not respect. There is a very distinct difference here.
And lastly, you wrote: "I'm for a NEUTRAL government, one that does not actively support atheist/secular (sic) or religious viewpoints. That was my initial argument. In other words, I do not want a government telling me what I should believe in, or that I am irrational for believing in something."
Which is PRECISELY the definition of "secular". It means "non-relgious", not "anti-religious". Look it up. Preferably in a dictionary. - lickmylovepump, on 02/24/2008, -4/+2isn't it funny how strongly atheists feel they have to defend their beliefs? it's almost as if they are insecure in what they believe, to the point of having the need to tell everyone else what they should believe. like to be rational, logical, intelligent, human beings, you have to believe what they believe. if you don't, they get belligerent, red in the face and demanding to the point of putting a believer down in any way possible in order to get them to not believe. i really used to think that religious fundamentalists (whatever that means now) were the type to force their beliefs on others. now it's the atheists. they're just so full of anger and hate, against freedom of belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of basically anything, all the while they accuse the believers of the exact same things that they do. instead of believers being the hypocrites of the world, it's now the atheists.
- Scynet, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5If you think things deep enough, you'll notice irrationality doesn't exist in nature. Irrationality is the same as supernatural: it's something that shouldn't be happening but does anyway. If nature works through a set of rules as it seems to, everything that happens happens for a reason (gliche, I know). Our actions are defined by the chemical reactions in our body. It might seem irrational to start singing in a conference and rational to sit down quietly, but if the chemicals state he should sing, then that's what happens, and not complying wouldn't be irrational (supernatural, as he would defy the rules of nature).
- atticus8, on 02/23/2008, -2/+7"Be humble. You should really be more humble. By the way, when I pray, an all-powerful being that I am in some sort of radio contact with reaches into the world and, without anyone knowing (except me), temporarily changes and affects the physical laws of the universe we all live in so that I can get what I prayed for." - JimmySpaza
Pray for me Jimmy. Pray that I become humble, maybe God'll do it for you.- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2You put quotation marks around that supposed quote from me. Why? Did I actually say that?
...or is your empathy-based morality telling you it's OK to lie about me on a public website where others can see?
And I just did pray for you. Be ready, dude. Seriously.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2You put quotation marks around that supposed quote from me. Why? Did I actually say that?
- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -4/+50I don't think you're in a position to criticise.
- XNihil0Zer0, on 02/23/2008, -7/+26Well, there is no such thing as morality, at least not an absolute one. And since you seem to know the "purpose", do you mind filling the rest of us in?
- JimmySpaza, on 02/23/2008, -45/+4If there is no such thing as absolute morality or purpose, then you're existence is meaningless and anyone could kill you...and you would have no complaints, right? After all, morality is relative and there is no meaning to anything, right? RIGHT?!?
See the problem with atheism. You paint yourselves into a corner every single time.- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -4/+52So why are atheists under-represented in prisons?
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -8/+1I don't know. I've never been to prison to check.
If I had to guess, 99% of people in prison have been exposed to some kind of religious teaching in prison as part of some rehab attempt. Most atheists in bad situations tend to gravitate toward God in some fashion...and would not longer consider themselves atheist.
There are not atheists in foxholes. - sk11, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Re: jimmySpaz
You don't have to actually go into prison to check you fool. I don't think you really understand atheism, it's the disbelief of god in simple terms, people don't simply switch beliefs for sake of convenience. Just like I wouldn't expect christians to just switch to islam if it suited their situation. There are plenty of atheists serving in the military, in places like Iraq and in other dangerous places. You'll find that many of the British personnel are unreligious, for example.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -8/+1I don't know. I've never been to prison to check.
- Scienceisfun, on 02/23/2008, -3/+29But your logic here doesn't make sense. To paraphrase: "There is no absolute morality, therefore your existence is meaningless." I don't see the connection. If you were the only human alive (which, in principle, is not an impossible scenario), absolute rules like not killing, or not stealing cease to be relevant since there is no one to kill, and no one to steal from. Does your existence cease to be meaningful since your moral code is now meaningless? Does a meaning to existence require a minimum of two people? It doesn't make sense that the meaning of your existence is placed entirely in the hands of people that are not you. That said, I think that a significant portion of life's meaning does come from one's interaction with others, just not exclusively from such interactions.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -4/+1You paraphrased incorrectly.
Morality and meaning are two separate entities...and are not causally linked to one another.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -4/+1You paraphrased incorrectly.
- drshorty, on 02/23/2008, -3/+12Hmm, well if there's no absolute morality or purpose, what about relative morality or purpose? Your existence is just as meaningless if you claim you get meaning from God. I find myself, of myself, by my will, to have meaning in life, to me, granted by God. You find yourself, of God, by God's will, to have meaning in life, to God. Much as a slave would be to his master, only you are you have sought slavery your God has not demanded...
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -5/+1If relative morality and purpose is all that there is, then there really is nothing, yes?
Such relative morality and purpose would be no more binding on others and ourselves than a declaration that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
But, if God does exist and has laws for us to live by, then such are absolute, objective, and binding upon every human.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -5/+1If relative morality and purpose is all that there is, then there really is nothing, yes?
- MisteryMeat, on 02/23/2008, -3/+15It's the believers who are not supposed to care if they are killed. If paradise is one bullet away then why are you wasting time surfing the web?
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -8/+2Because it is God's will that I live a life helping others, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, praying for others, and proclaiming that God is real and what His laws are.
This is the same for you too, even though you deny that God even exists.
Weird...knowledge of God is only a prayer away, buddy. Try it tonight. - MisteryMeat, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2Honestly I just feel bad for you. I've been there, the brainwashing runs deep and years passed by before I could call myself an Atheist. What ultimately convinced me that the Bible is a fairy tale was spending the time reading it.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -8/+2Because it is God's will that I live a life helping others, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, praying for others, and proclaiming that God is real and what His laws are.
- absurdist, on 02/23/2008, -2/+7You might want to familiarize yourself with the term "enlightened self-interest..."
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2"Enlightened self-interest" is another way of saying "I am smarter than you so do what I say".
- absurdist, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Wow... just wow. The irony is so thick you couldn't cut through it with a machete.
- frazw, on 02/24/2008, -1/+6Are you telling me that you need a purpose to be happy? That you need a purpose to observe beauty? That there must be a purpose for you to enjoy yourself?
I have a problem with someone killing me because it would end this fantastic trip that I am privileged to have a ticket for. One that lets me experience with awe the universe around me. There is no meaning in this life but that which we make for ourselves. Mine is to enjoy it while I can and that includes other people. People are a universe to be explored in themselves. Killing one robs you of the chance to know them. Why would I want to deny someone else the chance to see what I see? You reveal too much of yourself in claiming without religion life is insignificant. For that reason I hope you never stop believing.
You claim all of this is a problem with atheism while you sit around waiting for something better.- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -6/+1You're assuming that everyone else FEELS like you do. Some people are naturally mean and selfish, and this sometimes translates into murder if they FEEL like it. You don't FEEL that way, but others do. Consider yourself lucky.
The problem is that there are millions of people around the planet who don't care about other people like you do...and will steal, hurt, and murder without any moral problem. They may not do such things because of criminal prosecution...but THAT is not empathy.
To those people, what would you say? That they should not do such things because of how YOU feel? Please. Only objective, absolute morality from the Creator has the power to change such people. - TheCatsPants, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2@JimmySpaza
You are right about people who seem to be "lost". I have no idea how to help people like that. Perhaps the idea of God could help change them. However, plenty of criminals believe in God and it doesn't stop them. People find excuses to do bad things, or they succumb to temptation, or sometimes they think it is their only choice. I guess the best society can do is to try to spot negative behaviours and help them while they are still children. And even then, there will always be some people who cannot be helped, and the only thing we can do then is catch them and lock them up. I don't believe in the death sentence for the worst behaviour, mainly because of the risk of miscarriages of justice. - TheCatsPants, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1@JimmySpaza
"They may not do such things because of criminal prosecution...but THAT is not empathy."
And only doing good things to get to heaven is only looking out for yourself. But does it matter? It has the effect of encouraging people to do good and avoid bad. I do not think I am a good person, in fact I know I am not, but so long as I commit no crime and do not hurt others, or allow others to be hurt, does it matter? It's not perfect, but it works.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -6/+1You're assuming that everyone else FEELS like you do. Some people are naturally mean and selfish, and this sometimes translates into murder if they FEEL like it. You don't FEEL that way, but others do. Consider yourself lucky.
- TheCatsPants, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2I give my life purpose, the people around me give my life purpose. I don't believe someone actually "made" me (othe than my parents). I consider myself incredibly lucky to even exist. This is it - my one and only chance. For that reason, I consider my life (and the lives of others) to be precious. We shouldn't waste our lives on hate, violence, and wars. Life doesn't become meaningless or worthless because of a lack of belief.
- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -4/+52So why are atheists under-represented in prisons?
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -4/+9well, from an absolute "someone's keeping score" perspective there isn't any morality that we can find evidence for, but in the sense of morality as something that allows people to live together and prosper, there are many moral statements that you can collect objective evidence for. Unnecessary killing is bad. Unnecessary suffering is bad. Where you want to define things like unnecessary is another issue, but I doubt any stable minded person would be able to say those ideas are immoral.
- dash1185, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4Well you could argue that there is what we commonly call morality, except it does not depend on the existence of a religion. It is so mainly because we can experience regret and guilt. Empathy is something that is greatly developped in humans, and It has nothing to do with believing in a god. Jimmy, if you think you need religious beliefs to remain "moral" and not go in the streets and kill someone, then I'm sorry you're a sociopath.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -5/+1Take away God-centered morality from me and I would NOT go out into the streets and kill people. Then again, I'm lucky to have a sense of empathy that would prevent me from doing so.
So, take away the laws of God and take away the environmentally-driven factors such as empathy for other humans and you'd see a lot more murders in the street.
Apparently, you have only your feelings to tell you what is good and evil, huh? - Wade, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3You also only have your feelings to tell you what is good and evil, where exactly do you believe your "sense of empathy" comes from? Mars?
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -5/+1Take away God-centered morality from me and I would NOT go out into the streets and kill people. Then again, I'm lucky to have a sense of empathy that would prevent me from doing so.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/23/2008, -45/+4If there is no such thing as absolute morality or purpose, then you're existence is meaningless and anyone could kill you...and you would have no complaints, right? After all, morality is relative and there is no meaning to anything, right? RIGHT?!?
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -6/+14Religion shapes and molds people in the same way that any social institution does. They try to establish meaning and purpose as well as come up with rules people can live by. The problem and thing that separates religion from things like psychotherapy and philosophy is that it allows itself to be based on concepts for which there is either little evidence for, or much evidence against.
- rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -2/+8Furthermore, organized religion is inherently pathological and incompatible with self-determination and self-rule in free societies.
Organized religion is based on the principle that knowledge is received from superiors, that the world is separated into good an evil, and that the followers of the particular religion are better than those who do not follow the religion.
All religion is based on the assertion that one's beliefs influence the physical world (either directly or by pleasing a deity who acts to one's benefit), an assertion without empirical basis, which is dangerously contrary to the reality that ones *actions* influence the physical world. Hence, for example, the strong correlative, indeed causative, link between climate change denial and religiosity.
- rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -2/+8Furthermore, organized religion is inherently pathological and incompatible with self-determination and self-rule in free societies.
- ziffel, on 02/23/2008, -5/+10"This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of ***** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago." - George Carlin
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1You don't agree with God but you'll reference the comedian Carlin, huh? Are you sure that your moral compass is pointing north?
- Syzothermy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3The sad thing is that the comedian makes more sense than the average theist.
- BlackBob, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2George Carlin tells it like it is. He is a very wise man.
- Syzothermy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3The sad thing is that the comedian makes more sense than the average theist.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1You don't agree with God but you'll reference the comedian Carlin, huh? Are you sure that your moral compass is pointing north?
- raid517, on 02/23/2008, -3/+6You keep your religion pal. In this country we do perfectly fine without it.
- bonhoeffer, on 02/23/2008, -4/+3A brief survey of history shows the U.S. has done pretty well for a country of religious, primarily Christian, citizens. Who in the world compares favorably with the U.S.?
- fmaxwell, on 02/23/2008, -1/+9Just about every Scandinavian country, which have the highest levels of atheism.
In what way have we "done pretty well"? We have school districts trying to teach creationism -- and we wonder why U.S. science scores are among the lowest in the developed world. We have bombings of abortion clinics and doctors working at them being murdered. We have millions of Christians trying to get their religious views enacted into laws and forced on others (abortion, prayer in school, creationism, etc.). We have hate crimes against gay people in the name of religion and religious activists trying to make sure that gay people are not afforded the same right to marry as straight people. You have a funny idea of "pretty well."
- fmaxwell, on 02/23/2008, -1/+9Just about every Scandinavian country, which have the highest levels of atheism.
- bonhoeffer, on 02/23/2008, -4/+3A brief survey of history shows the U.S. has done pretty well for a country of religious, primarily Christian, citizens. Who in the world compares favorably with the U.S.?
- Pritchard, on 02/23/2008, -4/+7Aye. I'm not religious at all and I got a great sense of morality! I think religion's kinda silly, to be honest... I don't know. Before I started paying more attention to the news, I had almost completely forgotten two things: 1) Religion 2) Skateboarding.
- siszam, on 02/23/2008, -10/+2Notice the atheists don't have a problem declaring their supremacy and forcing their views on others at all.
- frazw, on 02/24/2008, -2/+8I do not declare my supremacy or force my views on others. I debate the subject with those willing. I take your willingness to debate from the fact you posted.
Incidentally I think you could forgive those that do given the fact that organised religions always have and still do declare their supremacy and force their views. I'm not saying adherents do, just the religious body itself. Why shouldn't some atheists be forgiven for doing the same? - sg1fan, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I am an athiest, I could care less what religion my neighbor is practicing, providing they dont try to impose it on me. I had a friend in high school who was constantly trying to convert me... make me a "born again". This constant hatred you have against athiests simply makes you look like a Hypocrite. Sad and pathetic.
- P5ycHo, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1We're just reacting to the FUD most you religous people are trying to subject people to. We are not asking you to do something. We're just trying to show you your logic is flawed. That's not forcing our views upon anyone. Just keep your religion to yourself. Don't go door to door to 'salvage souls'.
- frazw, on 02/24/2008, -2/+8I do not declare my supremacy or force my views on others. I debate the subject with those willing. I take your willingness to debate from the fact you posted.
- BillDoor, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2In Jimmy's defense he was referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- fuckinlogin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for He is a lot smarter than us! (and has more carbohydrates)
Ramen!
On a more serious note, religion is a disease. The sooner all religions (including cult-like "religions" like scientology) are confined to a dark corner, the better.
- TheCatsPants, on 02/23/2008, -15/+110"the Supreme Being is a lot smarter than we are."
- PatrioticKiwi, on 02/23/2008, -48/+17When the leading religionist in the country, the Archdhimmi of Canterbury, sells out British sovereignty to the Muslims, is there any wonders why the Church of England no longer holds popular appeal?
- loudribs, on 02/23/2008, -2/+29Oh come on...he sold nothing to anyone while the media jumped on snippets of his speech in order to whip up some hearty 'the muslims are taking over' headlines. There is no danger of 'the Muslims' taking over, but that doesn't sell papers.
- Ramble, on 02/23/2008, -1/+24The Muslims are nowhere near taking over. According to the most recent census there are only 4 times as many Muslims as there are Jedi. It would be clearly rediculous to assume Jedi are taking over as well.
- jamusallen, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2You won't be laughing in couple years, when all our women are being stolen through Jedi mind tricks.
- batfink3312, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10Patriotic kiwi... ah what a surprise an antipodean who is racist. Idiot.
- pintomp3, on 02/23/2008, -1/+12right, that 2.7% of the population is really taking over.
- bonhoeffer, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1"Taking over" isn't a democratic or even popular process. I think less than 2.7% of Russians were communists in 1917. It means being able to focus your power on a particular social institution to force preferential benefits, accommodations, and allowances from them. My acquaintances in England, France, and Germany use the term "taking over" with regard to immigrant Muslim populations.
- ManoWar, on 02/23/2008, -19/+1The Queen has not being taking care of her responsibility's as Spiritual leader of the kingdom. When you have been overrun by the Muslims in a way the Nazis could have only dreamed of. We The Christian Patriot will make a stand and push the Devils spawn out of the EU and the holy land.
*Note EU will you be footing the bill again. It wont be cheap. F-22 are not cheap. ^_^- batfink3312, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7@ManoWar, I truly hope you are being ironic, and not some lobotomized Yank.
- KillerStone, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3Don't feed the trolls.
- ManoWar, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1History has a habit of repeating its self. The Desert people are on a rise and hold the world’s wealth in oil. There will be a single Muslim state under a Caliph. They will march on Europe as they have done in the past. But this time they will have Ally's all they way into London. We will save the English speaking people at all cost (sucks to be French, America haters). God Save the Queen!
- rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4Another cowardly member of the armchair keyboard brigade.
- ManoWar, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Funny how you don't like a western to talk like a Muslim... if i am The Great Satan. Then what may i call them. Churchill was a warmonger till the bombs starting dropping on London.
- batfink3312, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7@ManoWar, I truly hope you are being ironic, and not some lobotomized Yank.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -8/+146Many countries around the world support nearly half atheist or agnostic populations. Even Israel has something like a 40% atheist or agnostic population. It hovers around 40%-50% in most European countries as well.
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -8/+16To be fair, grouping together atheists and agnostics, while the two groups are very similar and their lack of faith may also be similar, statistics like that are a little disingenuous since I would imagine the agnostic group is a catch all for people who passively don't follow a faith, while atheists and strong agnostics are (I would imagine) a smaller percentage group since their beliefs required that they focus their attention on whether they really think there is or isn't a supernatural being out there. Still, it's a start, but Just something to keep in mind if someone tries to use those kinds of stats to say that there are a boatload of people who actively deny the existence of a god, when the statistics are also including people who just don't know and have yet to dig into it but may still want to believe.
- rustintable, on 02/23/2008, -4/+12An agnostic is very close to being an atheist. An atheist believes there is no god because they see no evidence for one. An agnostic does not know if there is a god because they see no evidence to make them believe there is one. Agnostics become atheists as soon as religious people start becoming dangerous because it becomes necessary to assert that since there is no evidence of a god let alone the rest of the arbitrary dogma that goes along with any particular religion that they have not right to influence others.
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11I agree, but there's also people who are agnostic because they would otherwise be atheists, but don't want to let go of the security blanket of "well maybe the abrahamic god was wrong, but surely there's some god". I do agree that many agnostics are just taking a slightly different view to the same set of facts as atheists though.
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0*Some* agnostics are very close to being atheists. Some of them, however, merely see that this is an area that has a lot of bagged, a lot of biased information sources, and that tons of intelligent people have legitimate disagreement about. So they reserve judgment until something convinces them. If ever.
Also, regarding this statement: "Agnostics become atheists as soon as religious people start becoming dangerous because it becomes necessary to assert that since there is no evidence of a god", I don't think that's an accurate description of an agnostic. An agnostic isn't someone who says, "The evidence for god is non-existent." It's someone who says, "There isn't a truly compelling argument in favor of ANY particular point of view." And that includes atheism among the points of view that don't have a compelling argument. - nakani, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1@carpespasm
Or is it the Atheists who won't let go of the security blanket of "there is no possibility that a god could exist"? Modern cosmology fluctuates between the non/existence of some form of god. It's not so farfetched when you start thinking about a technological singularity, the "brain in a vat" problem, recursive virtual realities, quantum physics, time travel...
- ch33sehead, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5Okay, carpespasm, there's a little context you hafta consider here. First of all, language is man-made, so there lies your problem: the words "atheist" and "agnostic" weren't exactly defined by the brightest people in the world. Defining "atheist" as people who "declare there is no god" is just a really bad definition. "Theists" are people who believe in god, so the logical converse of that should technically be "people who don't believe in a god" and not "people who declare there is no god." Also, defining "agnostics" as people who declare that all knowledge of god is unknowable is just beyond retarded.
Think of the Russell's teapot: let's say I told you that there was a teapot orbiting the sun in between the orbits of Mars and Earth. However, this teapot is SOOO small that even the best telescopes will not be able to find it. Now, I'm gonna go ahead and give you some credit and assume that you won't believe me about the teapot. So, in this case, does that make you teapot atheist or teapot agnostic?
Remember, he who controls language controls thought. A more ideal language system would not differentiate between atheists and agnostics--there would only be one word for them.- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -2/+0I disagree with your last statement (but the rest is sound).
The English language is so great because it has many words that are similar but not exactly the same in meaning.
There is a difference between an agnostic and an athiest. I was agnostic until I grew up and read up on various religions, at which point I became an athiest.
I don't think your analogy is good enough - a tiny teapot orbiting the Earth is not equivalent to god. I could find that teapot and prove its existence.
When it comes to god, science wouldn't be able to find a god if it existed (presumably), so an agnostic might think 'there's no way to know if there's a god, so I have no opinion on it', whereas an athiest would perhaps say 'if I can't observe it then it doesn't exist'.
I suppose technically an agnostic is an athiest - but not the other way around...just as a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. - nakani, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1@ch33sehead
The reality is that our dictionaries control language, and you'll be fighting an uphill battle to redefine them.
atheist: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.- Gizza, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
The problem here is that this is a non-existent position. If you don't 'believe' then you must 'not believe'. There is no middle ground. If you don't actively believe in something, then by default you don't believe in it. Making all agnostics atheists by definition. - nakani, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1@Gizza: you assume that all questions are binary. how can someone have a position on a yes/no question when they do not have enough evidence to choose either way?
- Gizza, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -2/+0I disagree with your last statement (but the rest is sound).
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2Often, surveys (at least good surveys) make a distinction between things like "agnostic" and "unaffiliated". The former makes a statement about why someone isn't a participant in a religious group, whereas the latter explicitly avoids making a statement about why someone doesn't align themselves with a group and merely counts them.
- sporkyy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1That seems like a real subtle difference to me. Yet this same survey might count Catholics, Mormons, Christian Scientists and Pentecostals all within the same "Christian" category.
- rustintable, on 02/23/2008, -4/+12An agnostic is very close to being an atheist. An atheist believes there is no god because they see no evidence for one. An agnostic does not know if there is a god because they see no evidence to make them believe there is one. Agnostics become atheists as soon as religious people start becoming dangerous because it becomes necessary to assert that since there is no evidence of a god let alone the rest of the arbitrary dogma that goes along with any particular religion that they have not right to influence others.
- Vodka2389, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5I don't get why people are surprised that Israel isn't really religious. First of all, it was established more for ethnic Jews than religious Jews. Second, many Israelis come from the former Soviet Union which was of course very anti religion.
/the more you know- blackjack75, on 02/23/2008, -3/+5I wouldn't say coming from the Soviet Union would make people less religious. The fact that their faith was indeed oppressed probably made their beliefs stronger. On the opposite when no one cares people tend to forget about old traditions and beliefs.
- Vodka2389, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3If you look at the former Soviet Union today, I believe it's one of the least religious areas in the world. Eventually, all the propaganda they were being fed from birth gets to you.
- ZenMojo, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2You are the product of your parents and upbringing. In the same way that the United States is full of Christians, the Soviet Union and China are pretty godless.
- blackjack75, on 02/23/2008, -3/+5I wouldn't say coming from the Soviet Union would make people less religious. The fact that their faith was indeed oppressed probably made their beliefs stronger. On the opposite when no one cares people tend to forget about old traditions and beliefs.
- bingobongony, on 02/23/2008, -13/+1Hey idiot...claiming no religion is NOT the same as atheist or agnostic. And your comment is complete *****.
- ubrikkean, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1If I remember correctly, it is significantly higher in the USA than in most European countries... 70%+ "believe in a higher power" is what I saw in an article a while ago. Dunno how accurate it is, but it seems appropriate based on my experience.
- poopz, on 02/24/2008, -4/+2awesome!
It's really sick how on Digg people shoot big sticky wads and high five each other over every article bashing Christians, showing church attendance going down, or showing some priest who got arrested. Yes, religion being exploited in politics is a bad thing, and ultra conservative followers of religion are bad as well. But is religion itself a bad thing? NO. Go ahead, digg me down, I'm just trying to spread the truth.- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Yes, religion is a bad thing. If you don't agree with that, that's OK, but my opinion is as valid as yours.
Religion teaches people to reject responsibility, tolerance, and reason, because a supernatural being has decreed that the human mind shouldn't be used (despite the contradictory sentiment expressed that the human mind was deliberately created by the same supreme being). Religion gives power over people (just look at the Pope or any royal family). If the Pope says something, a billion Catholics automatically have to agree with it. The Crusades wouldn't have worked as well without religion as the excuse for killing and stealing. 'Islamic' terrorists would not be able to trick stupid people into suicide bombings without using religion to control them.
Responsibility, tolerance, and reason are some of the most important things that we need in order to treat each other well and to create a better world for everyone.
I'm not saying that a religious person can't be a good person or that the above is true for all religious people.
- djgreedo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Yes, religion is a bad thing. If you don't agree with that, that's OK, but my opinion is as valid as yours.
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -8/+16To be fair, grouping together atheists and agnostics, while the two groups are very similar and their lack of faith may also be similar, statistics like that are a little disingenuous since I would imagine the agnostic group is a catch all for people who passively don't follow a faith, while atheists and strong agnostics are (I would imagine) a smaller percentage group since their beliefs required that they focus their attention on whether they really think there is or isn't a supernatural being out there. Still, it's a start, but Just something to keep in mind if someone tries to use those kinds of stats to say that there are a boatload of people who actively deny the existence of a god, when the statistics are also including people who just don't know and have yet to dig into it but may still want to believe.
- 99CentFreedom, on 02/23/2008, -98/+7LoL! Have fun burning in hell you damn dirty pagans!
- Sneakernets, on 02/23/2008, -19/+4COCKY LITTLE FREAKS
- EarlOfLade, on 02/23/2008, -2/+31What is hell and where is it and why should I care about your fantasy?
- thomtomw, on 02/23/2008, -1/+25learn what "pagan" means.
- sb66, on 02/23/2008, -1/+17Lol that made me laugh. But not with you, if you know what I mean.
- frazw, on 02/24/2008, -0/+7If I were to accept that God exists my understanding was that, according to most religions, God is the most loving, forgiving being in the universe. If that is true, why would he send anyone to hell for simply using the mind He gave them? After all if He made me this way then He is responsible for my not believing in Him.
If He is not the loving being claimed, then He is no better than Hitler. In the sense that He will punish you if you don't do what He says. - Totalchaos02, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4If your god made me an Atheist, who are you to question him/her/it?
- anditsamber, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1Well I get the joke.... Digg is such a funsuck, you're all pseudo intellectual jerks.
- ramo13, on 02/23/2008, -3/+37So ? no state should care wether half the population are following arational-polytheism, agnosticism or jedi, that is exactly the point of a state being secular.
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -0/+22Yes, but if you're a politician trying to figure out what kind of pandering will score you the most votes, realizing that over half your constituents claim no religion would be a useful thing to take note of.
- warriorscot, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4While in all intents in purposes secular, Britain and many other European nations are not technically secular having a state religion although all religions are represented at any practical level where it is needed on paper its been the same for a few hundred years.
- adrianmonk, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah, well, Britain also still has a royal family that, although they have no *power*, does still have some sort of official title in the government. Which is also inconsistent with modern (democratic) principles of government.
What does this tell you? It tells you that Britain LOVES tradition. Enough to keep things around despite the fact that they are totally incongruous with the way people think now.- nullifidian0, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1We're trying to fix this.
- Lynxpro, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Who is trying to fix this? The Ron Paul crowd? The Cult of Obama? Neither. Presidential power has been on the increase since FDR. It doesn't matter which party controls the office. And even Republicans are now riding roughshot over "State's Rights" or the Reagan Era's "New Federalism". And as for Europe, there's no fix because the march to federalism continues with or without a de facto written constitution.
- Lynxpro, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Do not confuse "democratic" with "modern". The ancient world birthed democracy and it fell apart. "Democratic" is "current" but there's no guarantee that it will last or be associated with "the future". If anything, the increasing power of the Presidency in the USA and the attempts to create a "President of Europe" show that the trend is moving more towards greater "executive" power in the Western World. There's just no official hereditary requirement for either.
- frazw, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Actually it tells you that tourism is good for the economy.
- gudnbluts, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0"What does this tell you? It tells you that Britain LOVES tradition."
Yeah, we do. As long as it does no harm tradition's a great thing. It's part of what makes the world an exciting place. - afortnightdead, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0The 'British' royal family totally do have power, far too much. In fact, the queen could dissolve parliament today if she wished.
- adrianmonk, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling this is one of those powers that exists on paper, but if anyone actually tried to use it, all they'd accomplish is proving that they don't really have that power.
This is sort of like the Texas constitution: when Texas joined the United States, it was an independent country, and we wrote a clause in there that says we can leave the US if we want to. So technically, we can leave if we want. But if we actually tried to do it, what do you think would happen? Hint: The US Civil War helped answer this question last time some states tried to leave.- gudnbluts, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1"I have a feeling this is one of those powers that exists on paper, but if anyone actually tried to use it, all they'd accomplish is proving that they don't really have that power."
Too true. It'd be the end of the whole thing, if they ever did try it.
- gudnbluts, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1"I have a feeling this is one of those powers that exists on paper, but if anyone actually tried to use it, all they'd accomplish is proving that they don't really have that power."
- adrianmonk, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling this is one of those powers that exists on paper, but if anyone actually tried to use it, all they'd accomplish is proving that they don't really have that power.
- nullifidian0, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1We're trying to fix this.
- loudribs, on 02/23/2008, -6/+89I'm so glad that the subject of dis-establishing the CoE is climbing up the agenda again...it's a total nonsense that the state should play any role in endorsing any particular religion, especially when the bulk of the population are openly non-believers. I remember as a kid how pissed off I used to be at having to pray in assembly every week....why the hell should I? I don't believe in God yet by law, I was supposed to participate in weekly act of worship. If you really want to turn someone off a religion, make them practice it....it totally had that effect on me.
Disestablishing the CoE in no way encroaches on the rights of church members. They are still free to practice their religion as they please while non-believers would be able to feel that the state doesn't take one side or another and represents the nation as a whole without a bias towards a particular faith group. Sounds pretty win-win in my opinion.- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -1/+32Britain needs to become a secular nation, we need to give up this farce we call the church of England! I too remember having to go to school in the morning just to worship some ***** religion that I and my parents thought was a load of nonsense, even the teachers looked like they just wanted to go back to sleep. Face it most people would rather lie in or watch tv than worship anything. And why would any god need people to worship them, low self esteem?
- Waterrat, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3 Could be...Maybe said god is insecure.
"If you really want to turn someone off a r
eligion, make them practice it....it totally had that effect on me. "
My mother never understood that and ended up making my brother and I hate religion by ramming it down our throats.
We are both atheist. She acted like going to church was so important..We found it boring as watching golf.
- Waterrat, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3 Could be...Maybe said god is insecure.
- Ramble, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8I too went to a C of E school, but didn't quite have that bad experience. Sure there were prayers but I ignored them.
- mvisa, on 02/23/2008, -11/+2Well If you go to middle eastern countries, they all support their own religions, so I don't see why we shouldn't. Foreigners complain that they do not get treated like they do in their own country when in England, but we would not be treated well if we went to the middle east and started causing a fuss due to anything said that has a very slight resembilance towards anything bad to do with our religion.
- quaxon, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5Its called evolving. Islam is a much newer religion than the other major 2. what they are doing now is what all the western countries were doing less than two centuries ago. Iran would be as secularized as europe if america and britain had not seeked to exploit their resources and overthrow their government.
- rationalist, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Which middle eastern country would you most like your country to emulate, and why?
- Lynxpro, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2Dubai. Their ruler seems to be of the philosopher-king mold.
- InspectorGadget, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Mvisa - You make my brain hurt. The way to counter irrationality is with reason, not more irrationality.
- warriorscot, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I feel similarly about the CoS and have had similar experiences, even as young as 5 I knew the answers to my questions were ***** and that it was a waste of time that could be better spent usefully or just wasting your time in a more pleasurable way.
I think the number would be higher but I know allot of people don't admit to being atheist or agnostic among older generations, I know my grandparents shared my general sentiments but were very worried that I would even voice them among family as even 50 or 60 years ago in working class areas to admit to not being a believer was to be ostracized, same even if you disagreed with the church or failed to make a "donation" to the church. - atticus8, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5"- Thank you for flying Church of England. Cake or death?
- Death..... nonoNO CAKE, I want cake.
- But you said death first! I heard it. You said death first.
- But I meant cake!
- Alright, get him some cake. You're lucky we're the Church of England"
Eddie Izzard - funkywood, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I remember a few of us thinking of being Jehovahs witnesses like 2 guys in our year. We didn't know how weird they were then and actually thought of them as less religious all because they got to skip all the boring religious crap every morning.
- bonhoeffer, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1To the extent adherence to a religious creed benefits a nation, the national government has a reason to encourage such adherence. Any church that provides education, medical care, financial assistance, and redemption from criminal careers should expect preferential treatment from the government which values those things.
- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -1/+32Britain needs to become a secular nation, we need to give up this farce we call the church of England! I too remember having to go to school in the morning just to worship some ***** religion that I and my parents thought was a load of nonsense, even the teachers looked like they just wanted to go back to sleep. Face it most people would rather lie in or watch tv than worship anything. And why would any god need people to worship them, low self esteem?
- Beveridge89, on 02/23/2008, -46/+8What business does the UN have producing reports telling us we should disestablish our state religion?
I'm not a believer, but practically the fact the CoE is the state faith has absolutely no effect on peoples lives. The act would be pointless, save for destroying part of our history.- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -0/+24Yeah, because it's not like the CoE receives any tax money? It takes over £1000 million a year to run.
- Beveridge89, on 02/23/2008, -10/+1I'm disapointed you decided to try and suggest we pay all that it costs to run. Yes, it costs £1 billion a year to run, but it costs the taxpayer £60 million, or roughly £1 per person. Hence we're back to my practicality argument. Believe me, the government wastes a lot more than that on more trivial things. How about we rally against them first?
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Reducing taxes to a per person fee is always a way to weasel out of the argument at hand. It doesn't matter that it's pocket change for each person; it matters that, aggregated, it's 60 million pounds that could go to something better and valid.
- Beveridge89, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2Yep, just like billions of other pounds the government wastes. But forgive me for just focusing on things that will make a difference.
- sk11, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Sixty million is enough to run about 40 schools for children with learning difficulties, but I guess you feel that's not important, right?
- Beveridge89, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1How many can be run on a billion?
In the big picture, no, it isn't important, but thats not really the reason why you shouldn't go after this sixty million rather than sixty million in other government waste. If you after the CoE tax money, you won't get it. Any party who proposes doing it will lose. As i've said, its one of the only policies that could lose both parties their heartlands.
Of course, the church spends more than that sixty million year on charity. That is not to say that this would be stopped if we stopped giving them tax money- the church is rich after all. But lets stop pretending that going after this money would make a difference. Going after the billions spent on unelected and pointless commitees would, going after this wouldn't.
Either way, that doesn't quite explain why it shouldn't be our state religion, with or without tax funding. - sk11, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1"How many can be run on a billion?"
I don't see how it is an either/or situation, why exactly can't cuts be made in multiple areas, what's so special about this case? Besides I think it's academic, I get the feeling you wouldn't reconsider even if the figure was into the billions.
"If you after the CoE tax money, you won't get it. Any party who proposes doing it will lose. As i've said, its one of the only policies that could lose both parties their heartlands."
I doubt it, of all the issues that can make or brake an election this seems pretty insignificant. I'm guessing it'll garner no more outrage than the hunting ban did.
"But lets stop pretending that going after this money would make a difference. Going after the billions spent on unelected and pointless commitees would, going after this wouldn't."
Again your argument is flawed: if a man being arrested for theft pointed out that a murderer had escaped, should the police let him go too? I don't buy the a little waste here and there is fine because a lot is being wasted elsewhere argument. It all adds up and at the end of the day 60 million pounds is a lot of money.
"Either way, that doesn't quite explain why it shouldn't be our state religion, with or without tax funding."
Read the title of the digg submission, then consider that national church attendance is small and declining because most attendees are elderly.
Britain is better off as a secular nation, under which EVERYBODY's beliefs are protected and treated equally, regardless of their beliefs and those of the majority. At some point islam could become the faith of the majority, I'm sure your views on secularity would change if that occurred?
- geekchic, on 02/23/2008, -0/+21"What business does the UN have producing reports telling us we should disestablish our state religion?"
Why shouldn't anyone commision reports on issues and make recomendations on their findings. Governments have a long track record of ignoring accademic reports anyway.
I find it interesting that as many religious people seem so scared of the fragility of their religion that any questions about it should be censored out of existance.- Beveridge89, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1I find it interesting that you are either unable to read or just wanted an irrelevent last paragraph. As I already said, i'm not a believer.
If this is the standard of academic report, its a good thing the government ignores them. Your from the UK, so you know as well as I do what you would call a parties policy to get rid of the CoE/CoS as state religion: electoral suicide. If this report was too stupid to realise that just because people don't attend church doesn't mean they don't count themself as a protestant, that just because people don't count themself as a believer they won't see it as an attack on history, tradition, or even the monarchy, that it was too lazy to even just ask people whether they wanted it changed, then it deserves a lot of criticism. All this 'academic' report has managed to do is to identify one of the few policies that could get the tories kicked out of Cornwall and Labour kicked out of Scotland, if either was dumb enough to propose it.
And if you don't see the difference between a report stating, say, more vaccinations are needed for school children and one telling us we shouldn't have a state religion, perhaps you deserve a bit of critcism yourself.
- Beveridge89, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1I find it interesting that you are either unable to read or just wanted an irrelevent last paragraph. As I already said, i'm not a believer.
- sk11, on 02/23/2008, -0/+24Yeah, because it's not like the CoE receives any tax money? It takes over £1000 million a year to run.
- grungegbunny, on 02/23/2008, -9/+142Meanwhile, the powers that be within the US are plotting the 2nd dark age.
- SemiSarcastic, on 02/23/2008, -4/+7So...what are you going to do about it?
- tidu, on 02/23/2008, -3/+13Let it be, American Idol is on. Plus, he can just watch a documentary on it on the History Channel a few years later.
- bizkit00, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3Grab a sword!
- adrianmonk,
- SemiSarcastic, on 02/23/2008, -4/+7So...what are you going to do about it?