FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > How religious is Britain?
How religious is Britain?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not very, thank god. " Ha  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i think hes correct ..have you been down a catholic or any other faith church recently ?" There are queues outside my local Catholic church on a Sunday and it has three services to meet the demand. Three very distinct communities attend. The Baptist church is doing well too. My old CofE church had its last service this weekend and has now closed its doors. I don't know if that is enough for Cameron to be right about this being a Christian country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there's a whole load of people who claim to be christian, because that's what they were told they were as children. But they only practise that faith at weddings/funerals. Catholic services numbers are probably bolstered by immigrants from catholic countries, Spain, Portugal etc. And obviously Catholic guilt still works wonders. But I know my local Free church is standing room yonly for most services. But that's probably because it's Scotland and it's free. " there are a lot of american style happy clappy aggresively evangelical places springing up too...theyalways seem to be full and more importantly, bringing in the revenue... they seem to have cornered a real niche in the market with hiring out meeting space...I used to hate it in my former job being bombarded with subliminal marketing messages particularly disturbing seeing as I work in mental health and these organisations are not well known for their tolerance towards the individuals we care for... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't see the fastest growing religion spreading around this country like wildfire then you may as well leave your blinkers on And it is not practised in churches" What religion is that ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In itself that isn't enough, but on this one Cameron is right. Firstly Britain's history has been built around Christianity for over 1000 years. Some of it for good, some of it for not so good, but as much as the likes of Terry PRATchett would like to re-write it, it cannot be changed. Whether we believe in the bible or not (I don't) British society was built around Christian values and although most people these days are not practising Christians those values still hold firm. Of course Christianity has a lot to answer for but you don't have to believe in a 2000 year old fairy story (or a 1500 year old one for that matter) to understand that it has been the mortar that has held society together for centuries. Ditch it at your peril. " Sure but what have the Romans done for us ? Society organised itself and functioned well enough without worshiping Christ and still does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny, all my lads and me included, turn to some supreme being when we're getting gazzumped. Quite a few "non religious" fellas doing the old cross sign before legging it to a ditch! On reflection I actually think it's funny!! So what I'm trying to say is I'd assume most will turn to something when the chips are down. Make sense? " It's just actions phrases. Many people do it without believing they will benefit from it. In a way it signals their inner feelings not their belief that it will save them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't see the fastest growing religion spreading around this country like wildfire then you may as well leave your blinkers on And it is not practised in churches What religion is that ?" Apathy, laziness and reverence of labour saving devices. All hail the almighty dishwasher! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" British society was built around Christian values and although most people these days are not practising Christians those values still hold firm. Of course Christianity has a lot to answer for but you don't have to believe in a 2000 year old fairy story (or a 1500 year old one for that matter) to understand that it has been the mortar that has held society together for centuries. Ditch it at your peril. " And those christian values are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are officially a secular country .. so declaring it to be "Christian" is as bad as proclaiming it any other faith. " Agreed, he is just pushing for the religious nut job vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religious amongst us are a minority. He is wrong and just posturing to try to regain support from those who have fled to ukip etc. He needs more swivel eyed loons as they call their party members. " Has the CofE Conservative heartland switched to UKIP or is this about same sex marriage? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain?" I think it's 2 kinda different questions....yes we are a Christian country, but we're not very religious I was brought up vaguely CofE but class myself as agnostic if asked. My problem (if such it can be classed) is that as a Christian country we are more than tolerant of other creeds and religions to the apparent exclusion of Christianity (I won't post examples here, but if you want them, I've got a few and it's not just because I've read the Daily Mail on occasion) I agree, we should assert that Britain is a Christian country and I'll qualify that by saying we have a decent record of tolerism in the last few generations  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the queen swears an oath to god on her coronation and police swear and oath to the queen. Neither party honour their oaths so whats all this oath swearing about ?" The Queen is head of the Church of England so it is in her interests to support an organisation she is head if. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world." Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world. Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. " Fact is it is because of our hundreds of years of Christian ethics peculating into every area of our society that we live in a country where there are the freedoms you mention. As for your postulation that we are responsible for what happens in parts of the world we no longer control is nothing more than post colonial guilt and is rubbish. The only reason that any country is the way it is is because that is how those with power treat those without. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How religious is Britain?" I don't know but I'm going to start a "Thump Cult" where everyone talks BS amongst themselves and I give out really shitty advice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like to get down on my knees and bow my head " ****unzips flies****  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country." Considering Cameron's office called the police when a bishop tried to hand in a petition about food poverty, his nauseating hypocrisy brings to mind the poem "Holy Willie's Prayer".  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is one God, geographical religious origins , ethnicity, culture just means we call an entity by a different name and in different ways. The sooner we all realised that, the better and more peaceful a Britain and world we would live in. Britain, with free speech and _xpression reflects this diversity, so, yes, I believe Britain is a religious society. "All religions are controlled by the few to oppress the many...if there really is a god!!...wouldn't he/she stop it?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religious amongst us are a minority. He is wrong and just posturing to try to regain support from those who have fled to ukip etc. He needs more swivel eyed loons as they call their party members. Has the CofE Conservative heartland switched to UKIP or is this about same sex marriage? " I think the Cam man is sending out a message that resonates with a selection of ukip supporters. CofE worshipers will generally not be ukippers. And there is a tie-in to same sex marriage, as some people have been angered by the tories implementation of it. So appearing again, on the surface, somewhat religious, is an attempt to win them over again. I don't think there's much belief there, I think it's spin mainly - I'm fairly cynical about the lot of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world. Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. " Would you say that Muslim nations have better moral values than ours then such as Saudi Arabia where they still have public beheadings of criminals in the street? Do you think that is a civilised society? I think the UK is now a secular nation first and foremost, but Cameron is right to highlight our nation has its roots in Christianity and many of our laws are from Christian based values. We live in a country of free speech and he has the right to _xpress his opinion. There was a newspaper story the other day that said many Christians are afraid to voice their opinions these days. Why should they be afraid? We hear plenty from muslims in the news and the media these days so i think its about time Chistians did become more vocal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello Lickety, Firstly your pics are good,,have fabbed for you. Secondly do you really expect to get a fair cross-section of the public on a swingers site to provide the erudite answers to a difficult philosophical question as deep as that of religion and it's role in the state? For every sensible comment you're going to get spite, anecdote, repeated hearsay, partly remembered history, and plain old-fashioned trolling and shallow-thinking. So having read some of the comments here is my 2 penn’orth for what it is worth. 1) Contrary to several assertions the UK is NOT officially a secular society, even if we ignore the fact that more than a thousand years worth of its history, law-making and custom and practice of everyday life has been framed in some way by religious belief. Wiki "State religion": A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, WHILE NOT SECULAR, is not necessarily a theocracy. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state. 2) If we were secular then we wouldn't have that loud-mouthed organisation known as the National Secular Society (though it's very secretive about total membership and who funds it). 3) One poster noted that when the lads are getting "gazzumped" (mil speak for taking fire) they suddenly find themselves getting a bit religious and one or two others put that effect down to "habit, how they were brought up etc", well as the old saying has it: "There are no atheists in foxholes!" 4) 55 "Public" figures have spoken out: probably drawn from the same noisy pool of public loudmouths with axes to grind and egos to polish who always get more air-time than the millions of ordinary people whose voices are never heard or ignored when they do make a noise (like the Government consultation on the changes re "marriage" which ignored over 500,000 signatures who were against it (we didn't see any headlines saying 500,000 members of the public have spoken out!). 4) If the only opinions that count have to come from the "famous" well you can also dig up plenty in favour of religion and the existence of a "supreme being of some kind". Here's just a couple: Voltaire (wiki him if you don't know him) "If God didn't exist it would be necessary for man to invent him! and Einstein "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe" 5) Somebody said that the Government would love it for the country to be more religious. Oh no they wouldn't: witness the outcry from politicians of all shades of opinion if the Church gets back to important basics and points out the plight of the poor, the weak, the homeless and the dispossessed. 6) The top echelons of society definitely wouldn't want a more religious society: try the "Rich man, camel, eye of needle and the kingdom of heaven" in a country where the top 5 families have the same total income as the bottom 20%. In a country where soup kitchens are growing, the poor are getting poorer: the top echelons know that a society with those kind of "fairness" beliefs would be tearing down their doors! 7) You always get the old chestnuts of "Society can't be religious because it doesn't obey all its commandments": well, like communism, perfect rule-following only works for angels. Try being a total religious pacifist in the face of Hitler's aggression. If the Allied nations had stuck to "Thou shalt not kill" then today we'd probably all be speaking German and the Jews wouldn't exist at all (plus neither would mentally ill people, disabled people, Roma, homosexuals, communists, trade-unionists and a lot more besides). 8) You'll get the other red-herrings too: religious leaders have been bad guys, priests have committed sins, religion has given us unfair rules and interfered in our lives too much. Of course these things have happened: no matter how "pure or perfect" a religious code claims to be in the end it is administered and often twisted by people who shape it for their own means or are themselves shaped by the times they live in (viz the Crusades). Does that mean the ideals should be thrown away because perfection is impossible? 9) You expect a religion NOT to interfere in the way society is being run when at the time all types of society were being "governed" by the rules/laws of whatever God/Diety/Supreme being/plant/spirit/crystal or what-have-you that society believed shaped the world in which it lived? 10) And of course there is always the "denigration" argument viz: belief in fairy stories to imply that only the stupid and gullible would go there. Poor old Einstein eh? While we are at it I might point out to the "ungodly" (lovely word that) that UK law about equality says you shouldn't denigrate other people's religions so you can be as secularist as you like, but don't push your luck with "Fairy Stories". 11) Now my mathematics and science are pretty good, but I must admit that quantum physics and quantum cosmology make my brain hurt a bit, but these are the guys driving the current "Science knows all the answers" thing. Well here's their “fairy story” for you: On the basis of the rules we've discovered we would like you to believe that a) the entire universe was once squashed into a space smaller than the smallest thing you can ever think of and b) the universe just "is", we don't know why, we'll probably never know why, so you'll just have to believe! Oh btw we may be completely wrong, because our known measurements and rules just may be too small/too poor or just plain wrong to ever give us the "big" picture. They just happen to work for most of what we need for now, so repent and believe .
"Jesus christ, post of the century that is folks. Are you on a break from setting mastermind questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"will somebody tell me the answer. . . ," 42 - or - a little more religious than some people want it to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" . .is god really dead??. . " in the hearts of all except the 'believers'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" . .is god really dead??. . " Have a read of (or if it's easier, watch ) William Lane Craig (on Youtube...) You may also find some debates between Dawkins and John Lennox... Or There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind. Lots of intelligent people on both sides of the argument - and it'll take a smarter mind than mine to figure it all out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now my mathematics and science are pretty good, but I must admit that quantum physics and quantum cosmology make my brain hurt a bit, but these are the guys driving the current "Science knows all the answers" thing. Well here's their “fairy story” for you: On the basis of the rules we've discovered we would like you to believe that a) the entire universe was once squashed into a space smaller than the smallest thing you can ever think of and b) the universe just "is", we don't know why, we'll probably never know why, so you'll just have to believe! Oh btw we may be completely wrong, because our known measurements and rules just may be too small/too poor or just plain wrong to ever give us the "big" picture. They just happen to work for most of what we need for now, so repent and believe " I find this exciting - and there are lots of scientists open to the idea of a God or something similar. I don't believe that a God did, or ever would, have invented religion though - that's entirely the creation of man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello Lickety, Firstly your pics are good,,have fabbed for you. Secondly do you really expect to get a fair cross-section of the public on a swingers site to provide the erudite answers to a difficult philosophical question as deep as that of religion and it's role in the state? For every sensible comment you're going to get spite, anecdote, repeated hearsay, partly remembered history, and plain old-fashioned trolling and shallow-thinking. So having read some of the comments here is my 2 penn’orth for what it is worth. 1) Contrary to several assertions the UK is NOT officially a secular society, even if we ignore the fact that more than a thousand years worth of its history, law-making and custom and practice of everyday life has been framed in some way by religious belief. Wiki "State religion": A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, WHILE NOT SECULAR, is not necessarily a theocracy. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state. 2) If we were secular then we wouldn't have that loud-mouthed organisation known as the National Secular Society (though it's very secretive about total membership and who funds it). 3) One poster noted that when the lads are getting "gazzumped" (mil speak for taking fire) they suddenly find themselves getting a bit religious and one or two others put that effect down to "habit, how they were brought up etc", well as the old saying has it: "There are no atheists in foxholes!" 4) 55 "Public" figures have spoken out: probably drawn from the same noisy pool of public loudmouths with axes to grind and egos to polish who always get more air-time than the millions of ordinary people whose voices are never heard or ignored when they do make a noise (like the Government consultation on the changes re "marriage" which ignored over 500,000 signatures who were against it (we didn't see any headlines saying 500,000 members of the public have spoken out!). 4) If the only opinions that count have to come from the "famous" well you can also dig up plenty in favour of religion and the existence of a "supreme being of some kind". Here's just a couple: Voltaire (wiki him if you don't know him) "If God didn't exist it would be necessary for man to invent him! and Einstein "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe" 5) Somebody said that the Government would love it for the country to be more religious. Oh no they wouldn't: witness the outcry from politicians of all shades of opinion if the Church gets back to important basics and points out the plight of the poor, the weak, the homeless and the dispossessed. 6) The top echelons of society definitely wouldn't want a more religious society: try the "Rich man, camel, eye of needle and the kingdom of heaven" in a country where the top 5 families have the same total income as the bottom 20%. In a country where soup kitchens are growing, the poor are getting poorer: the top echelons know that a society with those kind of "fairness" beliefs would be tearing down their doors! 7) You always get the old chestnuts of "Society can't be religious because it doesn't obey all its commandments": well, like communism, perfect rule-following only works for angels. Try being a total religious pacifist in the face of Hitler's aggression. If the Allied nations had stuck to "Thou shalt not kill" then today we'd probably all be speaking German and the Jews wouldn't exist at all (plus neither would mentally ill people, disabled people, Roma, homosexuals, communists, trade-unionists and a lot more besides). 8) You'll get the other red-herrings too: religious leaders have been bad guys, priests have committed sins, religion has given us unfair rules and interfered in our lives too much. Of course these things have happened: no matter how "pure or perfect" a religious code claims to be in the end it is administered and often twisted by people who shape it for their own means or are themselves shaped by the times they live in (viz the Crusades). Does that mean the ideals should be thrown away because perfection is impossible? 9) You expect a religion NOT to interfere in the way society is being run when at the time all types of society were being "governed" by the rules/laws of whatever God/Diety/Supreme being/plant/spirit/crystal or what-have-you that society believed shaped the world in which it lived? 10) And of course there is always the "denigration" argument viz: belief in fairy stories to imply that only the stupid and gullible would go there. Poor old Einstein eh? While we are at it I might point out to the "ungodly" (lovely word that) that UK law about equality says you shouldn't denigrate other people's religions so you can be as secularist as you like, but don't push your luck with "Fairy Stories". 11) Now my mathematics and science are pretty good, but I must admit that quantum physics and quantum cosmology make my brain hurt a bit, but these are the guys driving the current "Science knows all the answers" thing. Well here's their “fairy story” for you: On the basis of the rules we've discovered we would like you to believe that a) the entire universe was once squashed into a space smaller than the smallest thing you can ever think of and b) the universe just "is", we don't know why, we'll probably never know why, so you'll just have to believe! Oh btw we may be completely wrong, because our known measurements and rules just may be too small/too poor or just plain wrong to ever give us the "big" picture. They just happen to work for most of what we need for now, so repent and believe .
"So much wrong here that it's incredible. Don't have time or inclination to go through it all so will just start with the first point you made: 1) The UK doesn't have a state religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To Canis Testiculum (Dog's Bollocks in dog latin): Ty for your comment: "Jesus christ, post of the century that is folks. Are you on a break from setting mastermind questions?^ Our answer: nope, usually we answer them. Erudition and accuracy used to be expected in this educated country. Some of us are still fighting a rearguard action/guerrilla war to recover that position. BTW Jesus Christ should have both initial letters capitalised as here. "Thanks for your well written and argued contribution. Thank you too for the compliments. Your point on expecting well reasoned debate on here... well, sometimes it happens and just sometimes it draws somebody new into contributing. The cross-section of society here is unlike anything in my day to day life and I find it interesting to see all of the views - even when I don't agree with them, find them offensive and/or find them tedious. I will return to your contribution on another day when it is not so late and think through your comments. As for Canis, I believe his name translates as Dogs bollock, singular. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world. Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. Would you say that Muslim nations have better moral values than ours then such as Saudi Arabia where they still have public beheadings of criminals in the street? Do you think that is a civilised society? I think the UK is now a secular nation first and foremost, but Cameron is right to highlight our nation has its roots in Christianity and many of our laws are from Christian based values. We live in a country of free speech and he has the right to _xpress his opinion. There was a newspaper story the other day that said many Christians are afraid to voice their opinions these days. Why should they be afraid? We hear plenty from muslims in the news and the media these days so i think its about time Chistians did become more vocal. " They say religion brain wash ppl's minds actually the powerful media does and the propagated islamophoby by the media has just found its fruits in opinions like yours. Its a war with the islamic world. Did you ask yourself why this war is at its higher escalation? Did you ask yourself how many millions of muslims died because of the so called democratic nations views on imposing their influence, power and ideology? How hypocritic it is to invade them threaten them, impose leaders on them and call it fight for freedom, democracy and human rights. The inocent millions that died ... did they not have the right for anything? Politicians will make you beleive in anything through media and bombarding you with evil images about other nations to justify their own evil acts for the sake of wealth and power and only few in the power who actually benefit from it. The poor will always become poorer and the rich more rich. In Saudi arabia they cut thiefs hands in a public place. It happens once in a decade but then its a theft free country. Assasins are sentensed to death in a public place and it happens once in a decade but then how much murder is there in that country and how much is it in here? The list goes on. They could argue with you the benefits of their own system and if they do a referundom in saudi arabia for changing it their ppl would chose to keep it ruther then live in a western way. Is that not the basic aspect of democracy? Do you really think there is freedom of speech and democracy in here or France or the US?! I dont think so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world. Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. Would you say that Muslim nations have better moral values than ours then such as Saudi Arabia where they still have public beheadings of criminals in the street? Do you think that is a civilised society? I think the UK is now a secular nation first and foremost, but Cameron is right to highlight our nation has its roots in Christianity and many of our laws are from Christian based values. We live in a country of free speech and he has the right to _xpress his opinion. There was a newspaper story the other day that said many Christians are afraid to voice their opinions these days. Why should they be afraid? We hear plenty from muslims in the news and the media these days so i think its about time Chistians did become more vocal. They say religion brain wash ppl's minds actually the powerful media does and the propagated islamophoby by the media has just found its fruits in opinions like yours. Its a war with the islamic world. Did you ask yourself why this war is at its higher escalation? Did you ask yourself how many millions of muslims died because of the so called democratic nations views on imposing their influence, power and ideology? How hypocritic it is to invade them threaten them, impose leaders on them and call it fight for freedom, democracy and human rights. The inocent millions that died ... did they not have the right for anything? Politicians will make you beleive in anything through media and bombarding you with evil images about other nations to justify their own evil acts for the sake of wealth and power and only few in the power who actually benefit from it. The poor will always become poorer and the rich more rich. In Saudi arabia they cut thiefs hands in a public place. It happens once in a decade but then its a theft free country. Assasins are sentensed to death in a public place and it happens once in a decade but then how much murder is there in that country and how much is it in here? The list goes on. They could argue with you the benefits of their own system and if they do a referundom in saudi arabia for changing it their ppl would chose to keep it ruther then live in a western way. Is that not the basic aspect of democracy? Do you really think there is freedom of speech and democracy in here or France or the US?! I dont think so. " Sorry but totally disagree with pretty much everything you just said there. There is freedom of speech here yes,....just you go to China or Russia or Iran or North Korea or Syria and speak out or protest against the government and see how long you last before you get arrested or thrown in jail for it. Not media Hype that is just plain FACT! Nothing i said in my original post was from being brainwashed by the news or media, everything i said is well known public knowledge and true. I think you will find in countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and many other of these other nations you seem so keen to defend the media there is tailored much more to brainwash their citizens there, and their newsfeeds and internet access is restricted and censored so they only hear what the governments want them to hear. At least we have a free press and in most cases unbiased, uncensored media and internet access. As for the media here sending out messages of Islamaphobia, thats complete and utter nonsense. Much of the reporting the BBC does on Israel and Palestine is vastly in favour of the muslim/palestine side of the story. But as its not totally biased the Israeli side gets told aswel. Our society seems so bogged down with "political correctness" these days that no one dare say a bad word about muslims in case they offend someone. Personally i don't care much for political correctness and if i've got something to say then i'll say it (thats called freedom of speech). You list examples of "western democracy's" invading muslim countries and doing untold damage but you fail to mention western nations also went into Bosnia in the 90's to help and stop the genocide of muslims, same can be said in parts of Africa, but i guess you'd rather just skim over those facts to suit your own agenda. Then you say in Saudi Arabia thiefs only get their hands cut off once every ten years and murderers get beheaded once every 10 years, so in your book does that make it ok then? Sorry but once in 10 years is still too much, i'm just suprised you admitted it even happens at all given the tone of your post, or are you now going to reply and deny it still happens in the 21st century? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain?" Britain is a christian country. I can't think of any other country,whether there heritage beit,Muslim,Hindu,buddiest, sihk,or Judaism,who would feel it necessary to Justify their religious heritage,why should Britain,Christianity is who we are. It's not bigoted,nor racist,to acknowledge who we are. We have to stop apologising,we have to stop appeasing,we have to stop being so sickinly pc. Britain was founded on christian values,Britain is a religion tolerant country,if that's not good enough,why are you still here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In Saudi arabia they cut thiefs hands in a public place. It happens once in a decade but then its a theft free country. Assasins are sentensed to death in a public place and it happens once in a decade but then how much murder is there in that country and how much is it in here? The list goes on. They could argue with you the benefits of their own system and if they do a referundom in saudi arabia for changing it their ppl would chose to keep it ruther then live in a western way. Is that not the basic aspect of democracy? Do you really think there is freedom of speech and democracy in here or France or the US?! I dont think so." If you really think that Islamic ethics (which shape Saudi Arabian laws and society) are so good why don't you convert to Islam (only Muslims may become Saudi citizens) and move there permanently? I am sure you will love the religious police and being subject to the tender mercies of Sharia law as practiced by the Wahhabi muslams of Saudi. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
for the first part of your post.
It's very natural for every nation to be proud of their heritage and defend it but being tought that we are suprior to other nations is wrong.
I woukd ruther see Britain proud of it's Christuanity and ppl have more faith in it than the phenomenon of seeing its ppl disconnected from it. Actually Christianity is a religion connected to Islam and Jewish faith and should help to creat peace in the world not conflict. Politician's use religion when it suits their agenda and deny it when it doesn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't see the fastest growing religion spreading around this country like wildfire then you may as well leave your blinkers on And it is not practised in churches What religion is that ? Apathy, laziness and reverence of labour saving devices. All hail the almighty dishwasher!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think anyone has claimed we are superior to anyone else. I believe what has been said by a number of us is that the Christian ethical system that has shaped our society is superior to the other ethical systems being used around the world." In what way is it supperior?! The notion of family has diluded when in other non Christian societies family is much stronger much bigger and much supportive to its members. In other societies they don't hire a babysitter to look after the kid nore do they use after school clubs and nursuries. Kids spend more time with their parents, ancles and anties, grand parents, cousins ect. In here the kid is lucky if they know who their father is. Many kids are growing with parents where a male mum and a male daddy! or a female mum and a female father. Much higher delinquence rates, much higher crimes, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, pedophiles, drogatics. Extremely materialistic society. You are worth what you have in the bank account ect. What supperior ethics? The only supperiority you feel about is whats not acceptable in this society that is acceptable in others. Doesnt make it supperior in any way. Its just strange to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In what way is it supperior?! The notion of family has diluded when in other non Christian societies family is much stronger much bigger and much supportive to its members. In other societies they don't hire a babysitter to look after the kid nore do they use after school clubs and nursuries. Kids spend more time with their parents, ancles and anties, grand parents, cousins ect. In here the kid is lucky if they know who their father is. Many kids are growing with parents where a male mum and a male daddy! or a female mum and a female father. Much higher delinquence rates, much higher crimes, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, pedophiles, drogatics. Extremely materialistic society. You are worth what you have in the bank account ect. What supperior ethics? The only supperiority you feel about is whats not acceptable in this society that is acceptable in others. Doesnt make it supperior in any way. Its just strange to you. " Nice post
I like that the first part of your post invites me to justify my position. The second part offers an example to disprove my position and the third part highlights that perceived flaw.
It is nice to see a reasoned response.
Now to deal with your points as I see them.
Firstly we have to understand that it has taken 1500 to 2000 years of the Christian ethical system to develop our societies moral compass. At present there is a battle raging between the Christian ethos and the Laissez faire ethos of Capitalism that developed with the industrial revolution. I would suggest that Christianity and Christian ethics have stopped the worst excesses of Capitalism so far but that the breakdown of values that you highlight is a sign of Capitalism winning its battle for our souls with Christianity.
As for your claim about others having lower crime rates, and lower rates of sexual abuse I would seriously question that. Firstly if you are correct please explain to me how we live in one of the safest places in the world? Could it be that there is less recorded crime in other parts of the world because there is little or no law. Could there be less paedophilia because there are lower ages of consent and abuse of children is not seen as criminal? Could there be less drug addicts because they are not counted or looked after? Please do not confuse the lack of laws and ability to enforce order for the absence of what we would consider crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To Lins75: Knew it would bring out the Trolls. Since the original post is there for all to read you could have simply posted your one-liner on its own as the "don't have the time" is a lame excuse that only Victor Meldrew's "I don't believe it" can exceed. Ref the UK state religion I give you wiki: The Church of England is the officially established Christian church[2][3][4] in England and the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion." I fail to see how replying to a post makes me a troll but I'll remain civil as ever. Re your reply, it proves my point. You said the UK had a state religion then post about religion in England. I'm sure I don't need to point out that the UK isn't solely composed of one nation and that my point stands, the UK doesn't have a state religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain? Britain is a christian country. I can't think of any other country,whether there heritage beit,Muslim,Hindu,buddiest, sihk,or Judaism,who would feel it necessary to Justify their religious heritage,why should Britain,Christianity is who we are. It's not bigoted,nor racist,to acknowledge who we are. We have to stop apologising,we have to stop appeasing,we have to stop being so sickinly pc. Britain was founded on christian values,Britain is a religion tolerant country,if that's not good enough,why are you still here. " I'm British. I'm not Christian. I'm not religious. I'm not 'pc'. You can't speak for 'we' - which is the very reason this country is no longer a Christian country and hasn't been for a long time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain? Britain is a christian country. I can't think of any other country,whether there heritage beit,Muslim,Hindu,buddiest, sihk,or Judaism,who would feel it necessary to Justify their religious heritage,why should Britain,Christianity is who we are. It's not bigoted,nor racist,to acknowledge who we are. We have to stop apologising,we have to stop appeasing,we have to stop being so sickinly pc. Britain was founded on christian values,Britain is a religion tolerant country,if that's not good enough,why are you still here. I'm British. I'm not Christian. I'm not religious. I'm not 'pc'. You can't speak for 'we' - which is the very reason this country is no longer a Christian country and hasn't been for a long time. " No one is speaking for you or any other individual. What some of us are talking about is the country, and we are all part of this country, and this is a Christian country like it or not. Look at any Royal Coat of Arms, Army, Navy, RAF. Parliament or any other government body and you will see a cross on top of a crown. That shows that legitimacy of the office...from God to Crown by anointment during Coronation of the Monarch to the office by Royal appointment.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" (only Muslims may become Saudi citizens) " Although the above is not your central point to anything - it is one of the few facts that you share, and unless the law has changed in the last year or two, it's definitely not true. Even Saudi-born children of non-Saudi Muslim economic migrants cannot apply for citizenship. It does many, many things wrong - I'm certainly not its biggest fan, and it has catching up to do especially with things like the welfare state and equality for women and other faiths too. At present, any woman who drives tends to have fully tinted windows. And there are certainly human rights abuses of non Saudis for sure, particularly with regards to pay and working conditions. The other stuff you mention about certain crime statistics... I'm not sure if it's not-not true and is under recorded. Are you just guessing? Saudi is pretty okay with law and order from what I have seen having lived there for a year. As far as personal safety is concerned, it is as safe as the statistics (and the early poster) have suggested. All of what they consider societies 'vices' such as drinking, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, celebration of non-Islamic festivals etc exist too...but the unwritten rule is to do it in the privacy of your own homes, and don't promote it publicly. I missed out on a very fun New Years party the year I was there as I wasn't well...still gutted about that!! With regards to here: I think it's an evolving culture with big elements of the foundations based on Christian values. Saudi is the way it is, I.e because, rightly or wrongly, the ruling class are fearful of external influences 'damaging' and diluting it's cultural landscape. Britain is culturally rich because history has shown that tolerance and openness can quite often be a good thing. This country isn't one way or another because Cameron says so. It's up to the people whom he represents, to decide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this country is no longer a Christian country and hasn't been for a long time. " I'm guessing you're referring to the current level of people identifying themselves as Christian, rather than the nature of the official logos/symbols paraded by the ruling class? I've just wiki'd what a previous poster said and he is correct -officially, England has a state religion - Christianity, but the other parts of the UK do not. I didn't know that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain? Britain is a christian country. I can't think of any other country,whether there heritage beit,Muslim,Hindu,buddiest, sihk,or Judaism,who would feel it necessary to Justify their religious heritage,why should Britain,Christianity is who we are. It's not bigoted,nor racist,to acknowledge who we are. We have to stop apologising,we have to stop appeasing,we have to stop being so sickinly pc. Britain was founded on christian values,Britain is a religion tolerant country,if that's not good enough,why are you still here. I'm British. I'm not Christian. I'm not religious. I'm not 'pc'. You can't speak for 'we' - which is the very reason this country is no longer a Christian country and hasn't been for a long time. No one is speaking for you or any other individual. What some of us are talking about is the country, and we are all part of this country, and this is a Christian country like it or not. Look at any Royal Coat of Arms, Army, Navy, RAF. Parliament or any other government body and you will see a cross on top of a crown. That shows that legitimacy of the office...from God to Crown by anointment during Coronation of the Monarch to the office by Royal appointment. "And there are Lions on an England football shirt, and a dragon on a Welsh flag. This is not a Christian country - like it or not. Even when it might have been considered so no bugger could agree on what that ever meant. It is and always has been an island of many changes and differences, with a few ignoramuses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this country is no longer a Christian country and hasn't been for a long time. I'm guessing you're referring to the current level of people identifying themselves as Christian, rather than the nature of the official logos/symbols paraded by the ruling class? I've just wiki'd what a previous poster said and he is correct -officially, England has a state religion - Christianity, but the other parts of the UK do not. I didn't know that. " Well I'd imagine the Church Of England is the cause of that. That great institution founded by one man! I'm talking of the people that would identify themselves as Christian yep. Although there's more church attendance within immigrant areas so there is that dimension too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" (only Muslims may become Saudi citizens) Although the above is not your central point to anything - it is one of the few facts that you share, and unless the law has changed in the last year or two, it's definitely not true. Even Saudi-born children of non-Saudi Muslim economic migrants cannot apply for citizenship." So you are correcting me for saying only Muslims can be Saudi citizens by saying only Muslims born of Muslim Saudi citizens can be Saudi citizens. 
"It does many, many things wrong - I'm certainly not its biggest fan, and it has catching up to do especially with things like the welfare state and equality for women and other faiths too. At present, any woman who drives tends to have fully tinted windows. And there are certainly human rights abuses of non Saudis for sure, particularly with regards to pay and working conditions." I have never said Saudi is lawless, in fact where I mentioned Saudi I pointed out that in that country they even have religious police and that those who thought Islamic ethics to be superior to Christian ethics may like to experience the Islamic conservatism of the Wahhabi Islam, I could have suggested that they move to the tribal areas of Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan or spot valley and see how they fair under Taliban Islamic rule. "The other stuff you mention about certain crime statistics... I'm not sure if it's not-not true and is under recorded. Are you just guessing? Saudi is pretty okay with law and order from what I have seen having lived there for a year." Again you miss-apply what I have said over 2 posts in order to make an invalid point. It is a shame when anyone has to resort to such deceitful and disingenuous methods in order to do down their own country and society in favour of a medieval and benighted country that exports religious bigotry and violence all over the world. "As far as personal safety is concerned, it is as safe as the statistics (and the early poster) have suggested. All of what they consider societies 'vices' such as drinking, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, celebration of non-Islamic festivals etc exist too...but the unwritten rule is to do it in the privacy of your own homes, and don't promote it publicly." Until the religious police break down your door, pull you outside and give you a public beating... "I missed out on a very fun New Years party the year I was there as I wasn't well...still gutted about that!! With regards to here: I think it's an evolving culture with big elements of the foundations based on Christian values. " So you agree with me about where we get our ethical values from. "Saudi is the way it is, I.e because, rightly or wrongly, the ruling class are fearful of external influences 'damaging' and diluting it's cultural landscape." Rubbish! Saudi and the whole of the Middle East is the way it is because Arabs have a 6000 year+ of an ethical system based on power and ownership where failure to exercise power is a sign of weakness. "Britain is culturally rich because history has shown that tolerance and openness can quite often be a good thing. This country isn't one way or another because Cameron says so. It's up to the people whom he represents, to decide. " Agreed, this country is not the way it is because any one person says so. It is this way because we have 1500+years of Christian ethics forming a foundation of laws that allow us more freedom than that granted by other ethical systems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and yet i would think most of you over the years have been to a church to a wedding or a christining, or funeral." Your point is? i have been to weddings at hindu temples and synagogues. i remain firmly atheist with jedi overtones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In itself that isn't enough, but on this one Cameron is right. Firstly Britain's history has been built around Christianity for over 1000 years. Some of it for good, some of it for not so good, but as much as the likes of Terry PRATchett would like to re-write it, it cannot be changed. Whether we believe in the bible or not (I don't) British society was built around Christian values and although most people these days are not practising Christians those values still hold firm. Of course Christianity has a lot to answer for but you don't have to believe in a 2000 year old fairy story (or a 1500 year old one for that matter) to understand that it has been the mortar that has held society together for centuries. Ditch it at your peril. " You have ditched it and it doesnt seem to have done you any harm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you are correcting me for saying only Muslims can be Saudi citizens by saying only Muslims born of Muslim Saudi citizens can be Saudi citizens." Exactly - a Muslim from Pakistan, Somalia or the UK can't. I've met a lot of ex-pats that would love to and have lived over there for decades, but under the current system they will always be ex-pats. It does many, many things wrong - I'm certainly not its biggest fan, and it has catching up to do especially with things like the welfare state and equality for women and other faiths too. At present, any woman who drives tends to have fully tinted windows. And there are certainly human rights abuses of non Saudis for sure, particularly with regards to pay and working conditions. "I have never said Saudi is lawless, in fact where I mentioned Saudi I pointed out that in that country they even have religious police and that those who thought Islamic ethics to be superior to Christian ethics may like to experience the Islamic conservatism of the Wahhabi Islam, I could have suggested that they move to the tribal areas of Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan or spot valley and see how they fair under Taliban Islamic rule." As mentioned earlier, I've lived there - in the ultra conservative Riyadh - and have met many ex-pats from the UK and the U.S and they are very happy there - not all are Muslim either. Ironically, the worst treated people are those of South Asian whether they're Muslim or not. I'm not suggesting it's institutionalised hatred, but there is a superiority complex. Another one of Saudis mention social problems. "Again you miss-apply what I have said over 2 posts in order to make an invalid point. It is a shame when anyone has to resort to such deceitful and disingenuous methods in order to do down their own country and society in favour of a medieval and benighted country that exports religious bigotry and violence all over the world." Nothing is being misapplied - I've been VERY honest about my experience of Saudi Arabia - and as balanced as I can possibly be. For all its faults - personal safety is not a concern there. I have found the worst people to be employers of some of the poorer economic migrants with regards to pay and working conditions. It's a very insular place - they're fearful perhaps, of all other shades of Islam as they believe their interpretation is the most 'pure' one. Nobody is downing their own country - I love the society I live - it gives me great hope. I just refuse to don red/white and blue tinted glasses. The rulers of virtually every country in the world are guilty of criminal, immoral or unethical behaviour: some towards their own, some towards others. "Until the religious police break down your door, pull you outside and give you a public beating..." Ah, the muttawa! They told me off for wearing shorts once! From my experience, their influence is waning, and there are even discussions among the royals to allow women to drive - though with paternalism so deeply entrenched, I'm not sure if it will happen in my lifetime. Nonetheless, there are women that drive, but they tend not to belong to the working class. As far as public beatings, and the muttawa breaking down doors - this is very different from my experience in Riyadh. The suggestion was that what happens at home is your business, just don't bring it out into the open and 'corrupt the society'. So I sensibly decided not to tell anyone that my satellite dish gave me access to lots of porn channels. A lot of the big compounds - residential areas for ex-pats - people live as they live here. Big swimming pools, bars, parties. Everyone, including the religious police is aware of what happens there - so long as it state within the gates - they said or did nothing. As I said before, it was unscrupulous employers that could exploit some of these rules i.e. a teacher was accused, by the school of trying to convert the children into Christianity...he wasn't beaten, but was told to leave the kingdom. I guess that's no different to anyone trying to frame anyone anywhere else - though the punishment is far more frightening! Lots of prostitution there too - once again - just hiding below the surface - but not beyond the reach of anyone looking for it. "So you agree with me about where we get our ethical values from." It comes from many sources - each and every culture that has visited this shores of the last couple of thousand years has left their influence and of course Christian doctrine has had a massive say in the way Britain has run. It not static though, the influence of the Pope weakened, and the head of state took his place, making modifications as he saw fit. "Rubbish! Saudi and the whole of the Middle East is the way it is because Arabs have a 6000 year+ of an ethical system based on power and ownership where failure to exercise power is a sign of weakness. " You're misunderstanding what I'm saying - perhaps I wasn't clear. I was referring to the ruling class wanting one homogeneous culture - and want to minimise the influence of external influences as much as possible. Where they can use religion to further this aim, they do. Nothing really controversial there. "Agreed, this country is not the way it is because any one person says so. It is this way because we have 1500+years of Christian ethics forming a foundation of laws that allow us more freedom than that granted by other ethical systems. " I think what has happened is that the many people who don't have a faith and/or belong to a religion, organised or otherwise, have adopted some of the Christian values you mention, discarded others and wish to remove the label. While religiosity may be floundering, the values aren't going to disappear necessarily as some are rather universal and can be found in secular moral codes too - however what may slowly become less apparent, is the religious branding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In itself that isn't enough, but on this one Cameron is right. Firstly Britain's history has been built around Christianity for over 1000 years. Some of it for good, some of it for not so good, but as much as the likes of Terry PRATchett would like to re-write it, it cannot be changed. Whether we believe in the bible or not (I don't) British society was built around Christian values and although most people these days are not practising Christians those values still hold firm. Of course Christianity has a lot to answer for but you don't have to believe in a 2000 year old fairy story (or a 1500 year old one for that matter) to understand that it has been the mortar that has held society together for centuries. Ditch it at your peril. " (m) Agreed. No matter what the country, religions will always be around & it's the religions that have & always will influence governments, laws & punishments. I'm not religious & believe religions & Gods were invented by primitive man to explain the unexplainable that they have no comprehension of. If this country gave up its Christian values, & then so it's not hypocritical, gave up its Christian laws & punishments that have come from 2000 years of Christian evolutionary belief, it would only be a matter of time before it's replaced gradually by other people from other religions that have come here to settle. They will petition, protest & lobby till they get want they want because our government has no balls to say no. We can all still be classed as Christians (even non religious people) because we live a Christian way of life. Our values are being eroded away enough as it is without other religions trying to lay down their own laws. Some already don't like our laws & want them changed. Like mentioned above " ditch Christianity at your own peril. Sharia law is already knocking at Westminsters' door & it has got MPs discussing it. Some communities up north are already petitioning for Sharia Law. Do you really want Sharia laws replacing Christian laws. Women are killed for not marrying who their parents order them to (honour killings) which to them is legal, it's still murder, thieves have their hands cut off, women are not allowed an education & a very important one for married swingers - adultery is punishable by death. Even now, we give refuge to a brave young girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban just because she stood against their laws. You all know who I mean. It's been in the news enough & thankfully she has now recovered. I just wish everyone from different religions would get along but it'll never happen. Not until religious extremists forgive & forget all the religious wars that were started by primitive man who didn't know any better. For example, Muslim extremists will always hate the west because they can't forgive primitive Christians for invading their land & starting the Crusades. Most religious people from all religions are nice friendly people, but its not the nice people that starts religious trouble. As for this being called a Christian country, are people forgetting that our Monarch, our Queen, is the head of our Christian C of E church. When William becomes king, he will also become the head of our Christian C of E church. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech and free media means that you dont give a one sided version of the story and only take of what suits the government agenda and amplify it. Did they give Abou Hamza the right to defend himself and give his version of the storry on tv? No. Did you ever heard Alkaida version of the storry about Afganistan's invasion? Did you ever heard Ousama Benladen's video denying the responsibility for 9/11? No. but you heard the faked one to justify invading a free nation, distabilising it and the killing of 100's of thousands of inocent children women and elderly. For your knowledge Saudi arabia royal family has been put to power by Britain which was never a kingdom in its hystory before that. They have been imposed as leaders to that nation by Britain and they are one of the biggest allies/subordinate to Britain. Israel was created by Britain to distabilise the whole region. Syria's government was chosen by the French, and in all ex colonies the same story. The colonisation is still but in a different shape. An hypocrite politics. In land we tell the kids the storry of Blanche neige with the whitch. Also most of those nations they tell you we are supperior to them by morals and values, they were the lands of thousands of years of civilisation that fed the new modern civilisation of today. Read the hystory of the Crusades, when the Christian armies where making genocides in every muslim city they take. The muslims armies were freeing the Christian war prisoners. Even Richard the lion heart's life was saved by the muslims army leader when he lost the war and he was sent back home free and safe. Muslims made of Spain the land of wonders and the most civilised country in Europe for 900 years when they took it. They treated the Christians and the Jews with the same civil rights. What did Britain do in the American continent? Exterminated a whole continent with the help of the French and the Spanish. What did they do to India? The land where the numbers you're using everyday come from? They drove thousands of years back and devided them into 5 different countries with endless conflicts and racial wars. The list is too long to list here. Nothing to be proud of and nothing morally supperior. " From what you say in your first paragraph it sounds to me like you are the one who has been brainwashed by Islamic extremism Al-Qaida ideology. I suppose you are also one of those people who believe 911 was a conspiracy theory instigated and conducted by the USA in order to wage a war on muslims? How can Abu Hamza defend himself, there are countless video clips of him spouting hatred and encouraging violence against non muslims, which he preached openly on the streets of London. No i've not seen a video of Bin laden denying responsibility for 911, but i did see a clip of him sitting around a room with his other Al-Qaida cronies and using his hands to mime how the planes crashed into the world trade centre, and he was laughing about it. Not really the actions of an innocent man. Just for the record Israel is one of the oldest nations in the world, it existed before Britain in biblical times so how you can say Britain created Israel really is beyond me, maybe you need a history lesson? I think you are refering to the recreation of the new Israel after the end of the 2nd world war, but Israel existed hundreds of years before this and its well documented. Again you bring up the issue of "western nations" imposing their will on other countries to bring about democracy, but you failed to mention the arab spring. I'm sure you know all about it where the muslim people themselves rose up against dictatorships, in countries like Egypt and Tunisia all because they want a better way of life which they know democracy will bring to them and they hope to enjoy the same basic human rights and freedoms we have here in the uk. Another little note on Saudi Arabia, don't they still publicly stone women in the street there if they are found to have commited adultery? It's barbaric and how you can even try to defend it as a civilised society in the modern world is beyond comprehension of most normal sane minded people. We are not living in the dark ages anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" (m) Agreed. No matter what the country, religions will always be around & it's the religions that have & always will influence governments, laws & punishments. I'm not religious & believe religions & Gods were invented by primitive man to explain the unexplainable that they have no comprehension of. If this country gave up its Christian values, & then so it's not hypocritical, gave up its Christian laws & punishments that have come from 2000 years of Christian evolutionary belief, it would only be a matter of time before it's replaced gradually by other people from other religions that have come here to settle. They will petition, protest & lobby till they get want they want because our government has no balls to say no. We can all still be classed as Christians (even non religious people) because we live a Christian way of life. Our values are being eroded away enough as it is without other religions trying to lay down their own laws. Some already don't like our laws & want them changed. Like mentioned above " ditch Christianity at your own peril. " If it's important enough for enough people - and they _xpress it, Christianity will remain the state religion, in England at least, unless enough people argue for complete secularism. Wales and Scotland, from my reading, do not have any official state religion - I can't see that being reversed. Might I ask, for non-religious person such as yourself, what is a Christian way of life, and how does it differ from a secular way of life? " Sharia law is already knocking at Westminsters' door & it has got MPs discussing it. Some communities up north are already petitioning for Sharia Law. Do you really want Sharia laws replacing Christian laws. Women are killed for not marrying who their parents order them to (honour killings) which to them is legal, it's still murder, thieves have their hands cut off, women are not allowed an education & a very important one for married swingers - adultery is punishable by death. Even now, we give refuge to a brave young girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban just because she stood against their laws. You all know who I mean. It's been in the news enough & thankfully she has now recovered. " Although I do very much understand your fears regarding other religions adding their own regulations to the existing legal system (inheritance is currently being discussed), you mentioned 'honour killings' and 'forced marriages' being legal in Islamic jurispudence. There are as legal as 'kitchen deaths' in Hinduism. There is no legal basis for either. " I just wish everyone from different religions would get along but it'll never happen. " Me too. I'm still hopeful - perhaps naively so. " Not until religious extremists forgive & forget all the religious wars that were started by primitive man who didn't know any better. For example, Muslim extremists will always hate the west because they can't forgive primitive Christians for invading their land & starting the Crusades. " It will require olive branches to be extended by both sides and a complete end to imperialism by 'other means' i.e. giving up the influence some countries may have on former colonies. That will be a challenge. Non-interventionism is a dirty word at the moment. " Most religious people from all religions are nice friendly people, but its not the nice people that starts religious trouble. " I agree, it's normally not the genuinely religious people that start the trouble either, but those that covet power. " As for this being called a Christian country, are people forgetting that our Monarch, our Queen, is the head of our Christian C of E church. When William becomes king, he will also become the head of our Christian C of E church. " Yep, I've checked and "the Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England" - though at present, not Scotland, Wales nor NI....from what wikipedia suggests. As someone has mentioned earlier, even as secular countries, they're still doing okay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" From what you say in your first paragraph it sounds to me like you are the one who has been brainwashed by Islamic extremism Al-Qaida ideology. I suppose you are also one of those people who believe 911 was a conspiracy theory instigated and conducted by the USA in order to wage a war on muslims? How can Abu Hamza defend himself, there are countless video clips of him spouting hatred and encouraging violence against non muslims, which he preached openly on the streets of London. No i've not seen a video of Bin laden denying responsibility for 911, but i did see a clip of him sitting around a room with his other Al-Qaida cronies and using his hands to mime how the planes crashed into the world trade centre, and he was laughing about it. Not really the actions of an innocent man. Just for the record Israel is one of the oldest nations in the world, it existed before Britain in biblical times so how you can say Britain created Israel really is beyond me, maybe you need a history lesson? I think you are refering to the recreation of the new Israel after the end of the 2nd world war, but Israel existed hundreds of years before this and its well documented. Again you bring up the issue of "western nations" imposing their will on other countries to bring about democracy, but you failed to mention the arab spring. I'm sure you know all about it where the muslim people themselves rose up against dictatorships, in countries like Egypt and Tunisia all because they want a better way of life which they know democracy will bring to them and they hope to enjoy the same basic human rights and freedoms we have here in the uk. Another little note on Saudi Arabia, don't they still publicly stone women in the street there if they are found to have commited adultery? It's barbaric and how you can even try to defend it as a civilised society in the modern world is beyond comprehension of most normal sane minded people. We are not living in the dark ages anymore. " You raise some interesting points. I’m not sure if there is a war on Islam per se, though some people may believe that. There are places in the world considered valuable for various reasons, so are of interest to other countries. There may also be an ideological battle going on and a democratisation of countries who haven’t adopted this system – sometimes forcefully. I agree, Abu Hamza looked very, very shady. Bin Laden, although denied any involvement in 9/11, I believe, praised the people who committed the atrocities. Whether or not he was guilty, those aren’t actions of a decent person. I’m not privy to his history although there are accounts that he was supported by the US during the Afghan/Russian conflict. There are other instances of deception that have led us to wars. We’re all familiar with Andrew Gilligan’s discovery of the dodgy dossier. We may be less familiar with Nurse Nairah – this may shed some light on how the American public were convinced to go to war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) We also may be less aware of the thoughts of the democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein, and even they did not want a forced regime change by way of an invasion – which ultimately was the reason we went to war with Iraq. That, and possibly, oil. We may not often hear from the media that Saddam wanted to negotiate with the West made numerous attempts to open secret contacts with the Bush administrations. There will be countless other examples of how consent is manufactured by the powers that be who pick and choose what is fed to the public, by way of the free, open and transparent media we're supposed to have. The Israeli situation is like any other in the history of countries occupying others, and it matters little how old it is. Some people wanted Palestine, and they took it. Palestinians want it back. Vikings invaded us, as did the Romans. We enslaved the Africans and slaughtered the indigenous populations of the Americas. Muslims invaded the Maghreb and killed many there. The Russians wanted Chechnya, and now they want bits of the Ukraine. It’s sadly the nature of some men who crave power. We stole Diego Garcia, and won't give it back, despite a high court ruling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1005064.stm It’s a shame about Tunisia, Egypt et al and it’s difficult to say what’s what. We seem to be supporting Tunisia yet their democratically elected government is similar in their conservatism to the Morsi who was also democratically elected. We were friends with Gadaffi – something clearly soured that relationship. In the end, the common people suffer, as they always have done. With regards to your little note on Saudi Arabia: “Adultery, which is considered an offence against God, is illegal and punishable by stoning. There are no accounts of stonings in the past decade, but there have been reports of courts sentencing people to be stoned. In 2010, a Filipino worker was sentenced to stoning over an extramarital affair. The ambassador persuaded the judge to reconsider his decision. In 2009 two Sri Lankans were sentenced to stoning for adultery. The sentences were reduced to 700 lashes and six years in prison.” Yet more evidence of poor and unfair treatment of South Asians by the Saudis. During my time there, although adultery/fornication was prevalent, just kept hush and ignored so long as folk were discreet about their personal affairs. A lot of smoke and mirrors in the world of geo-politics – and no country appears whiter than white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now I am accused of being brainwashed by alkaida!!! Wtf! I give up " Well in an earlier post you accused me of being brainwashed by the "western anti muslim Islamophobic media". You also seem to be _xpressing opinions which were defending the actions of Abu Hamza and Osama Bin Laden (well known Al-Qaida figures and associates). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now I am accused of being brainwashed by alkaida!!! Wtf! I give up Well in an earlier post you accused me of being brainwashed by the "western anti muslim Islamophobic media". You also seem to be _xpressing opinions which were defending the actions of Abu Hamza and Osama Bin Laden (well known Al-Qaida figures and associates)." I was defending the true concept of free speach, democracy and fairness not the actions of AbuHamza. Or Benladen. I know very little about both of them. The Media can make of a the devil an angel an can make of Gabriel an evil creature. For people to make their own minds and for the media to be neutral and free they should give both sides of the storry. He is human after all and he has the the right for free speach or at least defend himself for all the allegations against him. which he was denied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now I am accused of being brainwashed by alkaida!!! Wtf! I give up Well in an earlier post you accused me of being brainwashed by the "western anti muslim Islamophobic media". You also seem to be _xpressing opinions which were defending the actions of Abu Hamza and Osama Bin Laden (well known Al-Qaida figures and associates). I was defending the true concept of free speach, democracy and fairness not the actions of AbuHamza. Or Benladen. I know very little about both of them. The Media can make of a the devil an angel an can make of Gabriel an evil creature. For people to make their own minds and for the media to be neutral and free they should give both sides of the storry. He is human after all and he has the the right for free speach or at least defend himself for all the allegations against him. which he was denied. " As i said in previous comment, Abu Hamza openly preached hatred and violence against non muslims on the streets of London. He was videoed by the Police doing this and it was shown on the (neutral and unbiased) news channels in the UK. Inciting violence and racial hatred is a crime in the UK and the police were right to arrest him for it. Also the government were right to deport him for it too. He can now have the right to free speech and defend himself in an american court of law on various terrorist offences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't see the fastest growing religion spreading around this country like wildfire then you may as well leave your blinkers on And it is not practised in churches" its growing because of breeding levels quite simple really indoctrinated from birth. do not mix up choice of being religious as some have no choice. I was brought up as catholic i chose not to follow it as was my choice i knew a few that have faith in different religions and to have faith in a religion i do not see as a bad thing its just not for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't see the fastest growing religion spreading around this country like wildfire then you may as well leave your blinkers on And it is not practised in churches its growing because of breeding levels quite simple really indoctrinated from birth. do not mix up choice of being religious as some have no choice. " A very valid point - a better picture is formed using conversion rates... Though I wouldn't know where to start for that information - I'm sure people have looked at it (a quick google search suggests this) but whether or not there is a consensus.... Well, can we humans ever fully agree on anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No some Christians just go round hating homo sexual men and ladies and removing the rights of women to have abortions I'm English born here , learnt about Christianity here realised it was a divisive bronze age human manipulative doctrine here .I work here pay lots of tax here . I don't think I should leave x" I think you totally missed what I said. I don't care what religion someone is. I don't care if people were born here or emigrated here. I was on about the people that want to come here, decide they are not happy with the way things are, don't like our Christian way of life values & want it changed to suit them & their own religion, like Hamza. Wanted to live here but hated us & promoted hatred of us & wanted others to kill us yet he was prepared to sponge off our welfare state & take our money. Such a hatefull man. He wanted Sharia law across the land. If you are happy here then good on you. It was not just Christians that were against homosexuals, other religions are against it as we'll. Homophobia is another thing that All religions have to answer for, but again, it was something they didn't understand & were afraid of it so claimed it was against god. A lot of religious values are too outdated & belong in the past. Religions are too strict & won't adapt & evolve to fit in with modern times & societies. The one thing you won't see though is a Christian going & murdering & beheading someone because someone said something against Jesus. Then openly gloating about it, bragging about it & posting the grizzly beheading video on YouTube for the whole world to see & then wanting viewers to click the Like button. Why????? Why can't everyone live happily together? Why all the religious hate? This is the 21st century for fook sake. Not the Iron Age where they still think the world is flat & Earth is the centre of the universe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary." Nope read it again. It said if people ! Well I is people and I don't agree with homophobia or xenophobia I don't agree with any person who wants to kill or torture it's not people who disagree with xtian values but those who disagree with human values and those my friend can be found bound to most if not all religions and non theists I'm a pacifist atheist I don't wish to see the rise of any bigoted religion . The thread is about should our pm suggest the country embrase xtian values more and the answer is a resounding no . I will clearly reiterate xtian values are what distinguish it from other philosophy and doctrine NOT what it holds in common. At face value what most people mean by xtian values are actually closer to atheistic Buddhist values .ie be kind be charitable be caring understanding and thoughtful .although Christianity pretends to hold such values they are over shadowed by a doctrine of worship guilt life manipulation homophobia and xenophobia Christian values treat women as second class citizens .fortunately human values are fighting hard to irradiate such teaching but the only xtian rule book the bible calls women who are menstruating unclean and in not one of the No gospels does the fictitious character JC denounce this or other bronze age thuggery as wrong It is pretty much agreed that the xtian story a Jesus meek and mild was actually adapted from the tao and other eastern philosophy as an antidote for the brutal Jewish text and rules .of course what returned was a nonsensical mish mash bastard of a doctrine ripe for twisted minds to use to justify any bigotry they have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary." You need a serious lesson in history. I doubt I share your ideals, but thankfully I have the right to choose to keep living here because British society is not dictated by one set of values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No some Christians just go round hating homo sexual men and ladies and removing the rights of women to have abortions I'm English born here , learnt about Christianity here realised it was a divisive bronze age human manipulative doctrine here .I work here pay lots of tax here . I don't think I should leave x I think you totally missed what I said. I don't care what religion someone is. I don't care if people were born here or emigrated here. I was on about the people that want to come here, decide they are not happy with the way things are, don't like our Christian way of life values & want it changed to suit them & their own religion, like Hamza. Wanted to live here but hated us & promoted hatred of us & wanted others to kill us yet he was prepared to sponge off our welfare state & take our money. Such a hatefull man. He wanted Sharia law across the land. If you are happy here then good on you. It was not just Christians that were against homosexuals, other religions are against it as we'll. Homophobia is another thing that All religions have to answer for, but again, it was something they didn't understand & were afraid of it so claimed it was against god. A lot of religious values are too outdated & belong in the past. Religions are too strict & won't adapt & evolve to fit in with modern times & societies. The one thing you won't see though is a Christian going & murdering & beheading someone because someone said something against Jesus. Then openly gloating about it, bragging about it & posting the grizzly beheading video on YouTube for the whole world to see & then wanting viewers to click the Like button. Why????? Why can't everyone live happily together? Why all the religious hate? This is the 21st century for fook sake. Not the Iron Age where they still think the world is flat & Earth is the centre of the universe. " Take a look at the Christians in the Central African Republic - including the one that ate a Muslim for revenge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary." No Christians don't cause they have nuclear bombs and powerful armies so all they need is to do is press the botton and invade other weeker nations. Kill by hendreds of thousands and call it democratising them, fight for freedom, and all the bullshit. Before that it was fight in the name of Jesus and they slaved the black ppl giving them the status of an animal compared to whites and genocides in many cities in the middle east. For centuries they oppressed and killed the jews who lived and flourished safely within the muslim communities. They did a first and second world war and all know what happened. They colonised and degraded most parts of the planet. They dropped 3 atomic bombs in Japan in 2 of the busiest cities in Asia at the time .... they killed over 100 million native Americans to the extermination ... Shall I go on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary. You need a serious lesson in history. I doubt I share your ideals, but thankfully I have the right to choose to keep living here because British society is not dictated by one set of values." I don't need a history lesson on the things that happened only 7+ years ago. You can't judge modern society by the mistakes made 100s or 1000s of years ago by primitive man who didn't know any better. It's history & needs to be left there so people of different religions can get along without the hatred. Gillian Gibbons from Liverpool was working in the Sudan at a school & had a class project with a teddy bear. She let the 6 yr old children name the bear, which they named Muhammad, which is also one of the most common names in the country. Sudanese law is heavily influenced by Sharia Law (Fact - not my opinion). As a result, she was arrested & the school was closed. It was reported that about 10,000 people were gathering outside the police station where she was being held armed with swords & machetes calling for her execution. She was charged under Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act, for "insulting religion, inciting hatred, sexual harassment, racism, prostitution and showing contempt for religious beliefs". She could've been punished with 40 lashes. They had to move her to a secret location because of fears for her safety. It was only because of decent proper Muslims condemning the Sudanese government & Labours Lord Ahmed & Conservatives Baroness Warsi, that she was released into the British Embassy's custody with a Presidential pardon. It was news all round the world. And what about poor Ken Bigley & the others that were beheaded & the videos of it plastered all over the internet. What did they do wrong??? Absolutely nothing. They were innocent. What a civilised way to behave in the "Modern Civilised World". "Take a look at the Christians in the Central African Republic - including the one that ate a Muslim for revenge." You can't judge a whole religion on the actions of a nutcase or 2. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not agree with Call Me Dave camMoron very often, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. This is a Christian country and we should all be very grateful for that and do everything we can to protect it. The fact is our whole society and our system of laws are based on Christian ethics and those who want to dismantle this should look round the world at the societies produced by other ethical systems, because I would suggest that they are all inferior to ours. I would further say that the proof of this is seen in influx of refugees (political and economic) from nearly every non Christian part of the world. Ppl flee for economic reasons and for hope that their beleifs and political views are protect by the freedom of speach and minority protection laws in this country not because Britains chritian values are superior to other nations. Actually most of those who immigrated here come from nations that have been distabilised by the colonial exterior politics of Britain. What superiority are you talking about?! Many of those nations have better moral values and stronger societies and sense of solidarity than yours. Would you say that Muslim nations have better moral values than ours then such as Saudi Arabia where they still have public beheadings of criminals in the street? Do you think that is a civilised society? I think the UK is now a secular nation first and foremost, but Cameron is right to highlight our nation has its roots in Christianity and many of our laws are from Christian based values. We live in a country of free speech and he has the right to _xpress his opinion. There was a newspaper story the other day that said many Christians are afraid to voice their opinions these days. Why should they be afraid? We hear plenty from muslims in the news and the media these days so i think its about time Chistians did become more vocal. They say religion brain wash ppl's minds actually the powerful media does and the propagated islamophoby by the media has just found its fruits in opinions like yours. Its a war with the islamic world. Did you ask yourself why this war is at its higher escalation? Did you ask yourself how many millions of muslims died because of the so called democratic nations views on imposing their influence, power and ideology? How hypocritic it is to invade them threaten them, impose leaders on them and call it fight for freedom, democracy and human rights. The inocent millions that died ... did they not have the right for anything? Politicians will make you beleive in anything through media and bombarding you with evil images about other nations to justify their own evil acts for the sake of wealth and power and only few in the power who actually benefit from it. The poor will always become poorer and the rich more rich. In Saudi arabia they cut thiefs hands in a public place. It happens once in a decade but then its a theft free country. Assasins are sentensed to death in a public place and it happens once in a decade but then how much murder is there in that country and how much is it in here? The list goes on. They could argue with you the benefits of their own system and if they do a referundom in saudi arabia for changing it their ppl would chose to keep it ruther then live in a western way. Is that not the basic aspect of democracy? Do you really think there is freedom of speech and democracy in here or France or the US?! I dont think so. Sorry but totally disagree with pretty much everything you just said there. There is freedom of speech here yes,....just you go to China or Russia or Iran or North Korea or Syria and speak out or protest against the government and see how long you last before you get arrested or thrown in jail for it. Not media Hype that is just plain FACT! Nothing i said in my original post was from being brainwashed by the news or media, everything i said is well known public knowledge and true. I think you will find in countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and many other of these other nations you seem so keen to defend the media there is tailored much more to brainwash their citizens there, and their newsfeeds and internet access is restricted and censored so they only hear what the governments want them to hear. At least we have a free press and in most cases unbiased, uncensored media and internet access. As for the media here sending out messages of Islamaphobia, thats complete and utter nonsense. Much of the reporting the BBC does on Israel and Palestine is vastly in favour of the muslim/palestine side of the story. But as its not totally biased the Israeli side gets told aswel. Our society seems so bogged down with "political correctness" these days that no one dare say a bad word about muslims in case they offend someone. Personally i don't care much for political correctness and if i've got something to say then i'll say it (thats called freedom of speech). You list examples of "western democracy's" invading muslim countries and doing untold damage but you fail to mention western nations also went into Bosnia in the 90's to help and stop the genocide of muslims, same can be said in parts of Africa, but i guess you'd rather just skim over those facts to suit your own agenda. Then you say in Saudi Arabia thiefs only get their hands cut off once every ten years and murderers get beheaded once every 10 years, so in your book does that make it ok then? Sorry but once in 10 years is still too much, i'm just suprised you admitted it even happens at all given the tone of your post, or are you now going to reply and deny it still happens in the 21st century? " Having lived and worked in SA, having neighbours who were serving police officers, they had a 3 tier system: FCN ( First country nationals ), indigenous Saudis, SCN ( Second country Nationals ), Westerners and TCN's ( Third Country Nationals ) Non Westerners, they had a sliding scale of justice, with the same crime being committed by a FCN, than by that of a TCN resulting in far harsher punishment for the latter. To have the Mattawa ( religious police ) arrest a western lady with no headscarf and only having a dress that was below her elbows and knees, being put before a religious court and having her head shaved, sprayed black along with her legs and arms and occupation in her passport changed from housewife to prostitute....1/Punishment should fit the crime, 2/ Be proportionate, 3/ Be equal, however 4/ Be fair. Having known of injustices and capital punishment, in the name of the state, taken place, that were wrong ( similarly, read death of a princess ), the argument of deterrent is a misplaced one, end of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Having lived and worked in SA, having neighbours who were serving police officers, they had a 3 tier system: FCN ( First country nationals ), indigenous Saudis, SCN ( Second country Nationals ), Westerners and TCN's ( Third Country Nationals ) Non Westerners, they had a sliding scale of justice, with the same crime being committed by a FCN, than by that of a TCN resulting in far harsher punishment for the latter. To have the Mattawa ( religious police ) arrest a western lady with no headscarf and only having a dress that was below her elbows and knees, being put before a religious court and having her head shaved, sprayed black along with her legs and arms and occupation in her passport changed from housewife to prostitute....1/Punishment should fit the crime, 2/ Be proportionate, 3/ Be equal, however 4/ Be fair. Having known of injustices and capital punishment, in the name of the state, taken place, that were wrong ( similarly, read death of a princess ), the argument of deterrent is a misplaced one, end of. " Terrible injustice - what a harrowing ordeal. I recall a story of a couple in Dubai, that were caught kissing publicly ...had a difficult time too. One thing I'm very surprised at having lived in Riyadh, was the issue the mattawa had with the lack of headscarf.. In Riyadh, at least, it was pretty common place for western women to not cover their faces nor wear headscarves... I do recognise they have a law for covering up legs et al... I had what sounded like a warning for wearing shorts - though they went below the knees - which is what is permitted for men. He had a little grumble and then went off on his merry way....probably to be mean to someone else. It may be because he realised I had an English accent or I would have been treated the way some South Asians are. If everybody was treated the way the Saudi national men are, it'd be a better place. They do generally have less crime...petty theft seems to make up for a big chunk, though it's difficult to say whether that's due to the possibility of such heavy punishments or the nature of the people. As I mentioned in an earlier post, while I was there, I quickly realised that any law breaking with regards to dress, drugs, alcohol, fornication etc was tolerated so long as it occurred privately. Some of the large residential areas/compounds were awash with naughtiness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Having lived and worked in SA, having neighbours who were serving police officers, they had a 3 tier system: FCN ( First country nationals ), indigenous Saudis, SCN ( Second country Nationals ), Westerners and TCN's ( Third Country Nationals ) Non Westerners, they had a sliding scale of justice, with the same crime being committed by a FCN, than by that of a TCN resulting in far harsher punishment for the latter. To have the Mattawa ( religious police ) arrest a western lady with no headscarf and only having a dress that was below her elbows and knees, being put before a religious court and having her head shaved, sprayed black along with her legs and arms and occupation in her passport changed from housewife to prostitute....1/Punishment should fit the crime, 2/ Be proportionate, 3/ Be equal, however 4/ Be fair. Having known of injustices and capital punishment, in the name of the state, taken place, that were wrong ( similarly, read death of a princess ), the argument of deterrent is a misplaced one, end of. Terrible injustice - what a harrowing ordeal. I recall a story of a couple in Dubai, that were caught kissing publicly ...had a difficult time too. One thing I'm very surprised at having lived in Riyadh, was the issue the mattawa had with the lack of headscarf.. In Riyadh, at least, it was pretty common place for western women to not cover their faces nor wear headscarves... I do recognise they have a law for covering up legs et al... I had what sounded like a warning for wearing shorts - though they went below the knees - which is what is permitted for men. He had a little grumble and then went off on his merry way....probably to be mean to someone else. It may be because he realised I had an English accent or I would have been treated the way some South Asians are. If everybody was treated the way the Saudi national men are, it'd be a better place. They do generally have less crime...petty theft seems to make up for a big chunk, though it's difficult to say whether that's due to the possibility of such heavy punishments or the nature of the people. As I mentioned in an earlier post, while I was there, I quickly realised that any law breaking with regards to dress, drugs, alcohol, fornication etc was tolerated so long as it occurred privately. Some of the large residential areas/compounds were awash with naughtiness. " The poor friend who had the ignominy of being hauled in front of a religious court was in Al Khoba in the East of the Kingdom, the miscarriage of justice ( two Philipino men servants, both banging the wife, husband comes home, she cries rape....on telly, been told their sentence was commuted to life, smiling as they reinacted the supposed crime that a confession had been beaten out of them. Joking,smiling. Once finished...and the reinactment was on state telly, taken outside and beheaded ), in Riyadh....incidentally, the ban on alcohol in the Kingdom, was due to a minor royal back in the 30's being d*unk and being involved in a stabbing. Oh and yes, home made hooch, beer and wine was widespread, we got rather good at it!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary. You need a serious lesson in history. I doubt I share your ideals, but thankfully I have the right to choose to keep living here because British society is not dictated by one set of values. I don't need a history lesson on the things that happened only 7+ years ago. You can't judge modern society by the mistakes made 100s or 1000s of years ago by primitive man who didn't know any better. It's history & needs to be left there so people of different religions can get along without the hatred. Gillian Gibbons from Liverpool was working in the Sudan at a school & had a class project with a teddy bear. She let the 6 yr old children name the bear, which they named Muhammad, which is also one of the most common names in the country. Sudanese law is heavily influenced by Sharia Law (Fact - not my opinion). As a result, she was arrested & the school was closed. It was reported that about 10,000 people were gathering outside the police station where she was being held armed with swords & machetes calling for her execution. She was charged under Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act, for "insulting religion, inciting hatred, sexual harassment, racism, prostitution and showing contempt for religious beliefs". She could've been punished with 40 lashes. They had to move her to a secret location because of fears for her safety. It was only because of decent proper Muslims condemning the Sudanese government & Labours Lord Ahmed & Conservatives Baroness Warsi, that she was released into the British Embassy's custody with a Presidential pardon. It was news all round the world. And what about poor Ken Bigley & the others that were beheaded & the videos of it plastered all over the internet. What did they do wrong??? Absolutely nothing. They were innocent. What a civilised way to behave in the "Modern Civilised World". Take a look at the Christians in the Central African Republic - including the one that ate a Muslim for revenge. You can't judge a whole religion on the actions of a nutcase or 2." Like I said previously you need a lesson in history. Your arguments (and attitude) are based on ignorance and lack balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary. No Christians don't cause they have nuclear bombs and powerful armies so all they need is to do is press the botton and invade other weeker nations. Kill by hendreds of thousands and call it democratising them, fight for freedom, and all the bullshit. Before that it was fight in the name of Jesus and they slaved the black ppl giving them the status of an animal compared to whites and genocides in many cities in the middle east. For centuries they oppressed and killed the jews who lived and flourished safely within the muslim communities. They did a first and second world war and all know what happened. They colonised and degraded most parts of the planet. They dropped 3 atomic bombs in Japan in 2 of the busiest cities in Asia at the time .... they killed over 100 million native Americans to the extermination ... Shall I go on? " I asked in an earlier post but you failed to comment, so will ask again. Do muslim people themselves want democracy? Have you heard of the Arab spring? It mainly happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and also smaller uprisings in other muslim nations. Was all over the news. This was the muslim people themselves rising up, and nothing to do with Western nations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary. No Christians don't cause they have nuclear bombs and powerful armies so all they need is to do is press the botton and invade other weeker nations. Kill by hendreds of thousands and call it democratising them, fight for freedom, and all the bullshit. Before that it was fight in the name of Jesus and they slaved the black ppl giving them the status of an animal compared to whites and genocides in many cities in the middle east. For centuries they oppressed and killed the jews who lived and flourished safely within the muslim communities. They did a first and second world war and all know what happened. They colonised and degraded most parts of the planet. They dropped 3 atomic bombs in Japan in 2 of the busiest cities in Asia at the time .... they killed over 100 million native Americans to the extermination ... Shall I go on? I asked in an earlier post but you failed to comment, so will ask again. Do muslim people themselves want democracy? Have you heard of the Arab spring? It mainly happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and also smaller uprisings in other muslim nations. Was all over the news. This was the muslim people themselves rising up, and nothing to do with Western nations." Hi Centaur, I refer you to a post I wrote yesterday ('twill require some scrolling) which responds to some of your comments in a previous submission to this thread - you probably didn't notice it in the mountains of messages... I can fully understand why, as it directed towards someone else so I hope you don't mind my joining in! With regards to your most recent questions on the topic of democracy - a most fascinating subject... I draw your attention to the writings of Chomsky who discusses the reality of democracy as it is practised in countries such as the UK, USA et al. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/ I hope you find it an enlightening read. In my on view, people of any background want justice, equality and for their leaders to behave decently and to genuinely represent the interests of the people whom they serve - as opposed to the interests of big business (or former colonialists) who help support, via money and influence, their rise to power in the first place. I think many of the people of the Arab states involved, want free of the dictatorships, which quite often are supported by the west so they choose a ruler 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. It's a great shame that the uprisings by and large weren't successful - revolutions quite often are bloody though, hopefully the sacrifices people made would be worth it. Interestingly, Islamic doctrine forbids revolutions for this very reason. The only seemingly stable country, that's gone through a dramatic change, is Tunisia whose leaders , interestingly are of a very similar inclination to the democratically elected former Egyptian president, Morsi. One does wonder why the western media appeared to denounce Morsi, yet support the Tunisia Islamists. One hopes there weren't any sinister reasons behind this. Alas, there often are. In summation, we all want democracy, but not the one where the masses are considered to be "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. They have to be put in their place. Decisions must be in the hands of an intelligent minority of responsible men, who have to be protected from the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd.” Vive la revolution...once I've finished watching Britains Got Talent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically... If people are not happy with living in a Christian country, they are free to leave & live somewhere else. No one is forcing them to live here with our ideals, to enjoy our free country & have freedom of speech. At least Christians don't go around murdering people just because they don't agree with Jesus & name a teddy bear after Mary. No Christians don't cause they have nuclear bombs and powerful armies so all they need is to do is press the botton and invade other weeker nations. Kill by hendreds of thousands and call it democratising them, fight for freedom, and all the bullshit. Before that it was fight in the name of Jesus and they slaved the black ppl giving them the status of an animal compared to whites and genocides in many cities in the middle east. For centuries they oppressed and killed the jews who lived and flourished safely within the muslim communities. They did a first and second world war and all know what happened. They colonised and degraded most parts of the planet. They dropped 3 atomic bombs in Japan in 2 of the busiest cities in Asia at the time .... they killed over 100 million native Americans to the extermination ... Shall I go on? I asked in an earlier post but you failed to comment, so will ask again. Do muslim people themselves want democracy? Have you heard of the Arab spring? It mainly happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and also smaller uprisings in other muslim nations. Was all over the news. This was the muslim people themselves rising up, and nothing to do with Western nations." The Islamic Sharia law about the leadership/governance that was estabilished 14 centuries ago is a democratic one. Muslims have to chose who leads them. This was the Islamic messanger's command just before his death when he was asked who'd take the lead of the nation after him. Yes in Egypt and Tunisia ppl were craving for chosing who govern them and the west has stopped any attempt for a real democratic system in the all muslims nations because those nations have strong conviction for their faith and belive in the Islamic law which doesn't suit the west for one simple reason: Islamic law doesn't tolerate occupation or submition by any way to non muslim nations and if it happens muslims have the right to fight for their freedom and beleifs. Instead the west has supported all kinds of dictatorship and royal systems they chose over them and still doing all their power for democracy not to take a place in these countries. Algeria in the 90's is the first demactratic revolution and the west supported the militart for their cout d'etat against the islamic party who won by over 90% in the elections. The country sank in a civil war for 12 years and the military were killing their own ppl like rats. The west and united nations blinded the eyes about the massive killings. In Egypt the same story the military in Egypt that was governing for 50 years and being a pro-American/western did the cout d'etat against Morsi who was democratically elected. When it suit the west they send their Nato flots within 24 hours to invade in the name of all the beautiful cayses from human rights, freedom, democracy and so on. They simply will never allow democracy to happen in these nations cause tgey want them to stay always uncivilised, oppressed and devided to make them easier to control and exploit their resources. There was a mention above that we should not judge a nation or a religion by its hystory that happened centuries ago! Its not getting any better but worse. There are 195 nations in the planet. There is over 170 American military bases around the world to control it by force and exploit it. Britain follows behind the Americans in their colonial external politics and military actions. Before the 2nd war the same role was lead by Britain and France. Today the USA taking the lead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain?" Read this one with great interest and amazement but I bet when the shit truly hit the fan and your whole life falls apart, how many of the self rightous so called non believe on here would actually turn to god!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"David Cameron has stated Britain should not be ashamed to assert it is a Christian country. Fifty five public figures have written to the Telegraph that his comments are divisive and that Britain is not a very religious country - that it is largely non-religious. So, how religious a nation is Britain? Read this one with great interest and amazement but I bet when the shit truly hit the fan and your whole life falls apart, how many of the self rightous so called non believe on here would actually turn to god!!!" I'm agnostic. I can turn to God without the need for religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, how religious a nation is Britain? Read this one with great interest and amazement but I bet when the shit truly hit the fan and your whole life falls apart, how many of the self rightous so called non believe on here would actually turn to god!!!" Point 1 - Being atheist doesn't make you 'self rightous'. It just means you don't believe in god, nothing else. And you can't force yourself to believe in something. Point 2 - If the 'shit hits the fan' I would turn to friends and family for tangible support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fundamental logic negates a creator " I'm not sure if it's that cut and dried. I've tried listening (by way of YouTube) to conversations had between Lane Craig, Hitchins, Lennox and Dawkins...and most recently Anthony Flew, who was considered one of 'the worlds most famous atheists' and a mentor of sorts to Dawkins....Flew changed his mind at the latter end of his life, and died a deist. He felt that a creator of the universe is logical but that He does not get involved in the affairs of his creation. Even Dawkins admitted the most logical scientific position is likely to be agnosticism but he will stick to what is evident. The current situation with the Big Bang theory being revisited due to challenge posed by a singularity which has zero volume/infinite density (something many mathematicians have said is an impossibility in the real world) has led to vehement proponents of this idea as a solution to the origins of the universe I.e prof Penrose, to change their mind. Many physicists feel the universe is so finely tuned - the constants are so precise and that it's mathematically improbable for this to have happened by 'chance'. And any slight change to the value of the constant would make it impossible for the universe to exist. Therefore, one Darwinian solution being considered is the multiverse theory - in a nutshell, there are lots of planes/universes, all with slightly different conditions/values... This is likely the only one that, by chance, has got the values required for a universe to exist. Some cosmologists have accepted this as a possible solution, some reject it as being too far fetched. Theists believe it's an anything but God solution. The one difference between the two camps is that genuine scientists will change their mind when new evidence presents itself or their ideas are challenged as is the case with the origins of the universe. Theists feel God gave them the blueprint, the abrahamic religions as you mentioned have a similar one as they appear to have the same origins, with modifications at various points. It's all very fascinating and Theologians like Lane Craig and John Lennox make interesting philosophical arguments too when debating the equally mentally robust Dawkins and Hitchens. Not cut and dried at all though in my view and with regards to the origins of the universe - it may very well be something we never truly know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fundamental logic negates a creator I'm not sure if it's that cut and dried. I've tried listening (by way of YouTube) to conversations had between Lane Craig, Hitchins, Lennox and Dawkins...and most recently Anthony Flew, who was considered one of 'the worlds most famous atheists' and a mentor of sorts to Dawkins....Flew changed his mind at the latter end of his life, and died a deist. He felt that a creator of the universe is logical but that He does not get involved in the affairs of his creation. Even Dawkins admitted the most logical scientific position is likely to be agnosticism but he will stick to what is evident. The current situation with the Big Bang theory being revisited due to challenge posed by a singularity which has zero volume/infinite density (something many mathematicians have said is an impossibility in the real world) has led to vehement proponents of this idea as a solution to the origins of the universe I.e prof Penrose, to change their mind. Many physicists feel the universe is so finely tuned - the constants are so precise and that it's mathematically improbable for this to have happened by 'chance'. And any slight change to the value of the constant would make it impossible for the universe to exist. Therefore, one Darwinian solution being considered is the multiverse theory - in a nutshell, there are lots of planes/universes, all with slightly different conditions/values... This is likely the only one that, by chance, has got the values required for a universe to exist. Some cosmologists have accepted this as a possible solution, some reject it as being too far fetched. Theists believe it's an anything but God solution. The one difference between the two camps is that genuine scientists will change their mind when new evidence presents itself or their ideas are challenged as is the case with the origins of the universe. Theists feel God gave them the blueprint, the abrahamic religions as you mentioned have a similar one as they appear to have the same origins, with modifications at various points. It's all very fascinating and Theologians like Lane Craig and John Lennox make interesting philosophical arguments too when debating the equally mentally robust Dawkins and Hitchens. Not cut and dried at all though in my view and with regards to the origins of the universe - it may very well be something we never truly know. " Fact However complex and precise a universe a human a parasite may first appear they will never be as complex as a creator would have to be in order to design and create such things.this fact always regresses to a nonsense suggesting if you need a creator in your life to explain complex systems you will need a creator of a creator ad infinitum Evolution explained complex systems from fundamental origins and always negates a creator If a creator of our small visible bit of universe existed one fact would be true it would be an evolved entertiy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fact However complex and precise a universe a human a parasite may first appear they will never be as complex as a creator would have to be in order to design and create such things.this fact always regresses to a nonsense suggesting if you need a creator in your life to explain complex systems you will need a creator of a creator ad infinitum Evolution explained complex systems from fundamental origins and always negates a creator If a creator of our small visible bit of universe existed one fact would be true it would be an evolved entertiy "The multiverse theory also suffers from the problem of infinite regression... Perhaps that's why there is no consensus with regards to the fundamental origins of the universe(s) and no evidence for any theory, theistic or scientific. Time will tell if there ever is, as will scientists and theologians who stand on the shoulders of their respective giants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know?" From the little reading i've done, the scientific assertion is the exact opposite...things actually go from simple to complex and that's why some scientists feel that there couldn't be a Creator...I.e. From single celled organisms to lots-of-celled Homo Sapians. On this very matter I recall once, Lennox asking Dawkins if his mind was simpler than the book he wrote. I ought to revisit that debate...my mind is like a sieve sometimes. It's all quite fascinating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Therefore, one Darwinian solution being considered is the multiverse theory - in a nutshell, there are lots of planes/universes, all with slightly different conditions/values... This is likely the only one that, by chance, has got the values required for a universe to exist. " Darwinism has nothing to do with cosmology or the multiverse theory. It is only about biological evolution, a completely different branch of science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Therefore, one Darwinian solution being considered is the multiverse theory - in a nutshell, there are lots of planes/universes, all with slightly different conditions/values... This is likely the only one that, by chance, has got the values required for a universe to exist. Darwinism has nothing to do with cosmology or the multiverse theory. It is only about biological evolution, a completely different branch of science." That's why I used the word Darwininan...in fact, this was the exact wording used by Dawkins himself to describe the multiverse theory. The principle is the same - instead of mutations (biology) you have slight differences in the constants (physics). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know?" A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Therefore, one Darwinian solution being considered is the multiverse theory - in a nutshell, there are lots of planes/universes, all with slightly different conditions/values... This is likely the only one that, by chance, has got the values required for a universe to exist. Darwinism has nothing to do with cosmology or the multiverse theory. It is only about biological evolution, a completely different branch of science. That's why I used the word Darwininan...in fact, this was the exact wording used by Dawkins himself to describe the multiverse theory. The principle is the same - instead of mutations (biology) you have slight differences in the constants (physics). " My bad, trying to watch tv, play online poker and read forums all at the same time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice "Which bit of your reasoning was not created by man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice "hmm wow some big words there. | can only think of one absolute fact known to the human race. if you can tell me some more id be greatful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My bad, trying to watch tv, play online poker and read forums all at the same time "Lol - no worries. I hope you're winning! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice
Which bit of your reasoning was not created by man?"That's the beauty non of it x discovery and understanding do not need to be created only the language ie maths 1 plus 1 equaling 2 is not a creation it's a description of a fact within a context it existed whether a human can interpret it or understand it and without being created | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice
hmm wow some big words there. | can only think of one absolute fact known to the human race. if you can tell me some more id be greatful."That's semantic rubbish | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice "A cursory listen to the great debates between modern day theologians, philosophers and scientists suggests it's not as simple as that. Thus far, the problem of infinite regression has not been dealt with by science. Philosophers/theologians (Lane Craig, Hamza Tzortsis, John C Lennox et al, claim they have - it's something I need to look into deeply - it does stretch one's mind - but as with anything in life, it is that which takes effort that has any worth. We believe what we choose to believe, and we understand what we're capable of understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice
A cursory listen to the great debates between modern day theologians, philosophers and scientists suggests it's not as simple as that.
Thus far, the problem of infinite regression has not been dealt with by science. Philosophers/theologians (Lane Craig, Hamza Tzortsis, John C Lennox et al, claim they have - it's something I need to look into deeply - it does stretch one's mind - but as with anything in life, it is that which takes effort that has any worth.
We believe what we choose to believe, and we understand what we're capable of understanding."? Science does not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice
hmm wow some big words there. | can only think of one absolute fact known to the human race. if you can tell me some more id be greatful.
That's semantic rubbish "some peeps just dont understand the difference betwixt fact/truth and belief. Bit weird from someone calling themselves Taoist tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
(Oh and Lickety thanks for the interesting thread some very thoughtful & interesting views & comments ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science does not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x "My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress. Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity. With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence. Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one? Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know). I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science does not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x
My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress.
Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity.
With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence.
Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one?
Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know).
I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable!
"I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science does not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x
My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress.
Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity.
With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence.
Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one?
Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know).
I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable!
I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible
The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer
To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound.
"Do you know for an absolute fact that "things in the universe are moving away from each other" or did you read that somewhere and just chose to believe it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer " Modern science makes a strong case for this particular point and as far as I'm aware, there is no controversy. What happened at the 'beginning' of time is what is contentious and I've already shared some of the interesting ideas that prominent scientists have come up with to tackle this. They do have their inherent issues too - as I've also mentioned - including infinite regress. " To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound. " There can only be two options from what I can see. Universe is finite - there was a point when space and time began though the cause of this event is unknown. Therefore, the universe began to exist. There was something that caused the universe to exist. What caused that, and that .... The Universe is infinite - If the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then, based on the law of entropy why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death? There is zero data that suggests the concept of infinity exists in the real world. Mathematicians have argued this when challenging the idea of a mass of infinite density and zero volume - the singularity. There is no empirical evidence that infinity exists beyond an idea. This was one of the reasons why Professor Penrose changed his view with regards to the big bang. Philosophers have used the following to explain the problem with infinity and the non-existence of a first cause: If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? X billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series. This suggests there has to be an independent first cause or something. I agree, there is not enough scientific data to rule out many things. Although I feel (an) infinite universe(s) can be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x
My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress.
Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity.
With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence.
Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one?
Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know).
I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable!
I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible
The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer
To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound.
Do you know for an absolute fact that "things in the universe are moving away from each other" or did you read that somewhere and just chose to believe it ?"Can we measure the wavelength of light , yes .have I experimented with cathode ray oscilloscopes yes , do I understand light redshift and it's implications yes . Can these effects be measured by measuring light from distant objects , yes are the results consistent yes can the experiments be repeated yes have I seen them yes can anyone , yes . Belief what told , no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer Modern science makes a strong case for this particular point and as far as I'm aware, there is no controversy. What happened at the 'beginning' of time is what is contentious and I've already shared some of the interesting ideas that prominent scientists have come up with to tackle this. They do have their inherent issues too - as I've also mentioned - including infinite regress. To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound. There can only be two options from what I can see. Universe is finite - there was a point when space and time began though the cause of this event is unknown. Therefore, the universe began to exist. There was something that caused the universe to exist. What caused that, and that .... The Universe is infinite - If the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then, based on the law of entropy why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death? There is zero data that suggests the concept of infinity exists in the real world. Mathematicians have argued this when challenging the idea of a mass of infinite density and zero volume - the singularity. There is no empirical evidence that infinity exists beyond an idea. This was one of the reasons why Professor Penrose changed his view with regards to the big bang. Philosophers have used the following to explain the problem with infinity and the non-existence of a first cause: If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? X billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series. This suggests there has to be an independent first cause or something. I agree, there is not enough scientific data to rule out many things. Although I feel (an) infinite universe(s) can be." Your first cause hypothesis is just a creator myth thinly veiled and again ends in infinite regression if you assert a first cause is needed beyond the existing system that first cause must by the same logic have a cause, it becomes circular. To my knowledge entropy does not have a time scale ? Evolution counter balances many entropic fallacy s which in truth entropy was there to describe athermodynamic property of heat/energy flowing one way to a less energy dense state x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought this thread was about how religious Britain was after Cam-moron's little speech but those damn muslims have invaded it. We must stop them, they 'invaded' Britain & are 'invading' the interweb now & have even spread in to fabs forums, no-where is safe!!! swingers rise against them before it's too late
(Oh and Lickety thanks for the interesting thread some very thoughtful & interesting views & comments )"Haha The west was deluded trying to convert them, and Jankiskhans army lost their invasive purpose as soon as they took Baghdad. They are an old virus without antidot. lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your first cause hypothesis is just a creator myth thinly veiled and again ends in infinite regression if you assert a first cause is needed beyond the existing system that first cause must by the same logic have a cause, it becomes circular. " I'm not postulating that there's a first cause or not - I'm just presenting the inherent issues associated with both a finite universe and infinite universe as they are the only two available options. The infinite option is the one you seem to consider to be the strongest position. My previous post was designed to highlight that it is not a particularly strong position, logically speaking. " To my knowledge entropy does not have a time scale ? Evolution counter balances many entropic fallacy s which in truth entropy was there to describe athermodynamic property of heat/energy flowing one way to a less energy dense state x
"I've no idea about the time-scales governing entropy - but I'm guessing infinity ought to be long enough. Anyway, that's pretty much a side issue to think about. We've already established the primary problems concerned with an infinite universe indicate it is not at all probable. That leaves a finite universe - but we know the universe can't just come out of nothing, but out of nothing, nothing comes...though recently, Stephen Hawking has confusingly asserted that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Many disagree. So from whence did it all come..? This is something that theologians and philosophers have made attempts to tackle. I'm not either so I'll leave that for you to investigate. “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your first cause hypothesis is just a creator myth thinly veiled and again ends in infinite regression if you assert a first cause is needed beyond the existing system that first cause must by the same logic have a cause, it becomes circular. I'm not postulating that there's a first cause or not - I'm just presenting the inherent issues associated with both a finite universe and infinite universe as they are the only two available options. The infinite option is the one you seem to consider to be the strongest position. My previous post was designed to highlight that it is not a particularly strong position, logically speaking. To my knowledge entropy does not have a time scale ? Evolution counter balances many entropic fallacy s which in truth entropy was there to describe athermodynamic property of heat/energy flowing one way to a less energy dense state x
I've no idea about the time-scales governing entropy - but I'm guessing infinity ought to be long enough.
Anyway, that's pretty much a side issue to think about. We've already established the primary problems concerned with an infinite universe indicate it is not at all probable.
That leaves a finite universe - but we know the universe can't just come out of nothing, but out of nothing, nothing comes...though recently, Stephen Hawking has confusingly asserted that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Many disagree.
So from whence did it all come..?
This is something that theologians and philosophers have made attempts to tackle. I'm not either so I'll leave that for you to investigate.
“…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”
"To be very fair to you having read your other posts I do realise you were illustrating other positions and not specifically your own position. The first cause hypothesis is an old one and I did not mean to suggest that you were the one veiling it thinly x The beauty of infinity one is only ever half way through xx I do favour the infinite over the finite but have no where near enough data to assert it beyond plausible. I can reason that infinite time /space raises less questions than finite .finite always has the sour taste of "what's before" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x
My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress.
Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity.
With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence.
Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one?
Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know).
I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable!
I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible
The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer
To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound.
Do you know for an absolute fact that "things in the universe are moving away from each other" or did you read that somewhere and just chose to believe it ?
Can we measure the wavelength of light , yes .have I experimented with cathode ray oscilloscopes yes , do I understand light redshift and it's implications yes . Can these effects be measured by measuring light from distant objects , yes are the results consistent yes can the experiments be repeated yes have I seen them yes can anyone , yes . Belief what told , no
"I suppose you're insunating by "What told" the exustance of God. So I take it you don't beleive in God not because you have been told so but because you have measured it's non existance and remeasured it with laboratory ultraprecise instruments and repeated the scientific experience that showed the non existance of God! Or at least you have proven it through a scientific logical conclusion?!
Most scientists don't deny the existance of Aliens living in an very unprobable far away planet neither do they beleive in their existance for there is no scientific evidence of their existance.
Why do those of them who claim that science and the existance of God dont go on together, use the same logic and reasoning?! Or the person in this thread who went to the extreme claiming its a scientific fact that God doesn't exist?
When you see the sign of peugeau in a new car. Without thinking you say its a peugeo make. You don't say it may have evolved from the old peugeau 404 do you?
Every creature, material gas, lquid or solid, alive or not is made from the same basic element "a molecule" which all work in the physical law and which is infinitely more complex than a car are supposed to have come to existance by chance and call this bulshit men created imagination a scientific theory.
Evolution is the biggest forgerry in the whole scientific history. The missing link i.e. the primitive human body that was for over a century the proof of Darwins theory that men have evolved from ape was not examined by a single scientist and was kept unreachable in a London's museum. When finally it was examined after decades of concidering Darwins theory as a scientific fact it was obvious its not a human skelton from 20 ft away. Even many parts of the skeleton doesn't belong to the same individual.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Suggesting a molecule is a fundamental particle is not exactly demonstrative you have a great understanding of physics or science. Thus explaining all of the data that clearly illustrates the facts behind evolution would be wasted and futile all I will say are you ignorantly dismiss the millions of gifted ,objective, meticulous people who have spent countless hours finding cleaning cataloguing rock strata composition organic and fossil fragments . And that's before the genetic component. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Science not need to deal with an infinite regression problem ! That is only a problem for those who assert god exists and cite complex can only be made by complex . Most atheists don't thus no problem The only mental hurdle for me is to accept that within an infinite time frame something of fundamental simplicity has always existed . The parts of a boson perhaps but that is speculation and I don't do that x
My limited understanding indicates it actually does have a problem with infinite regress.
Scientifically speaking, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately x billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime.
When there was only one universe, the questions concerned the origins of the singularity.
With the multi-verse theory, the question remains with regards to the origins of the near infinite number of singularies, as a result of which a series of slightly different universal constants emerged, where it is theorised that only one set of this constants would enable to the universe to come into existence.
Another theory being discussed (the BBC Horizon - What Happened Before the Big Bang) refers to a series of big bangs - linear in fashion - each one ending one universe and producing the next. What caused the first one?
Dawkins et al concede that science does not know the origins of our Universe (and it may never know).
I'll keep digging at the philosophical side of things, though I wished I'd done that sooner, when my brain was less like a vegetable!
I don't believe big bang theory I understand it , I'm agnostic on the theory much of it is plausible
The main fact is objects in the universe are moving away from each other , expansion thus is a fact back in time closer
To assert this is a beginning time however is wrong little data to make a rational conclusion. There is zero data to rule out infinite continuous time and universal rebound.
Do you know for an absolute fact that "things in the universe are moving away from each other" or did you read that somewhere and just chose to believe it ?
Can we measure the wavelength of light , yes .have I experimented with cathode ray oscilloscopes yes , do I understand light redshift and it's implications yes . Can these effects be measured by measuring light from distant objects , yes are the results consistent yes can the experiments be repeated yes have I seen them yes can anyone , yes . Belief what told , no
I suppose you're insunating by "What told" the exustance of God. So I take it you don't beleive in God not because you have been told so but because you have measured it's non existance and remeasured it with laboratory ultraprecise instruments and repeated the scientific experience that showed the non existance of God! Or at least you have proven it through a scientific logical conclusion?!
Most scientists don't deny the existance of Aliens living in an very unprobable far away planet neither do they beleive in their existance for there is no scientific evidence of their existance.
Why do those of them who claim that science and the existance of God dont go on together, use the same logic and reasoning?! Or the person in this thread who went to the extreme claiming its a scientific fact that God doesn't exist?
When you see the sign of peugeau in a new car. Without thinking you say its a peugeo make. You don't say it may have evolved from the old peugeau 404 do you?
Every creature, material gas, lquid or solid, alive or not is made from the same basic element "a molecule" which all work in the physical law and which is infinitely more complex than a car are supposed to have come to existance by chance and call this bulshit men created imagination a scientific theory.
Evolution is the biggest forgerry in the whole scientific history. The missing link i.e. the primitive human body that was for over a century the proof of Darwins theory that men have evolved from ape was not examined by a single scientist and was kept unreachable in a London's museum. When finally it was examined after decades of concidering Darwins theory as a scientific fact it was obvious its not a human skelton from 20 ft away. Even many parts of the skeleton doesn't belong to the same individual.
"so God made man but he used a monkey to do it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought this thread was about how religious Britain was after Cam-moron's little speech but those damn muslims have invaded it. We must stop them, they 'invaded' Britain & are 'invading' the interweb now & have even spread in to fabs forums, no-where is safe!!! swingers rise against them before it's too late
(Oh and Lickety thanks for the interesting thread some very thoughtful & interesting views & comments )" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it quite arrogant to state that as a fact? How do you know? A equals b B equals c Logic then means c equals a Which bit of my fact regarding the relative complexity of a creator and a creation is not an axiom logical fact ? The point reiterated. A person cannot conceive a thing that is complex can exist without being designed However one my imagine a creator , complex and not simple would always be one of its attributes The person who needs complex things to be designed can only ever regress to needing the creator to also be a work of design/ creation . Pure logic produces pure facts No arrogance required only understanding without agenda or prejudice
Which bit of your reasoning was not created by man?
That's the beauty non of it x discovery and understanding do not need to be created only the language ie maths
1 plus 1 equaling 2 is not a creation it's a description of a fact within a context it existed whether a human can interpret it or understand it and without being created "I think you missed my point. 'one' is the creation of man - it's how man explains something. That one x one equals anything is also the creation of man. 'Facts' are those things man chooses to accept as so. Just because we say it is so however, doesn't necessariy make it so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
