Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on August 14, 2015, 12:15:56 PM
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
-
Probably better placed in the Religion & Ethics sub-forum, but nevertheless, always nice to know that things are going the right way :)
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
Interesting that it is only ever CofE figures that are used to do the comparison. The extrapolation made here:
The percentage of non-religious people has increased from 31% in 1983, to 49% in 2014. Conversely, the share belonging to the Church of England has fallen from 40% to 17% over the same time period.
This means that by-far the single largest group of people is the non-religious.
simply doesn't exist. The comparison is between non-religious and religious, under which the latter are still ahead.
As so many people like to say, stats can quite easily lie, especially when the stats being quoted aren't comparable.
-
Probably better placed in the Religion & Ethics sub-forum, but nevertheless, always nice to know that things are going the right way :)
More like the Religion and Unethical, surely? ;)
After all, ippy loves to use these statistics that don't say what he wants them to.
-
More like the Religion and Unethical, surely? ;)
After all, ippy loves to use these statistics that don't say what he wants them to.
ippy posted a link - I missed the bit where he expressed an opinion on what he wanted the link and its information to say - where did you see it?
-
No, didn't think you'd answer that one either.
-
More like the Religion and Unethical, surely? ;)
After all, ippy loves to use these statistics that don't say what he wants them to.
ippy posted a link - I missed the bit where he expressed an opinion on what he wanted the link and its information to say - where did you see it?
Cheers Shaker, I've got used to it he always puts it, maybe not verbatim but, in the same way even if these polls are a few percentage points out I can't remember seeing any kind of upward trend for the religious agencies here in the UK.
Give it a while we start getting world figures even when I specifically state "here in the UK".
ippy
PS. After all I'm only trying to be helpful.
-
Interesting that it is only ever CofE figures that are used to do the comparison. The extrapolation made here:
The percentage of non-religious people has increased from 31% in 1983, to 49% in 2014. Conversely, the share belonging to the Church of England has fallen from 40% to 17% over the same time period.
This means that by-far the single largest group of people is the non-religious.
simply doesn't exist. The comparison is between non-religious and religious, under which the latter are still ahead.
Any port in a storm, eh, Hope :) Yes, religious still outnumber the non-religious... barely. How long do you think that's going to last? I'm sure there are large portions of the Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan and other communities would object to your co-opting them into your rather desperate statistical war against non-theism.
As so many people like to say, stats can quite easily lie, especially when the stats being quoted aren't comparable.
Except that they are comparable - number of C of E vs other groups: C of E loses. Largest single denomination: non-religious. Decrease in religious portion: 69% to 51%.
Which bit of that is deceptive?
O.
-
Any port in a storm, eh, Hope :) Yes, religious still outnumber the non-religious... barely. How long do you think that's going to last?
Ah, now, I think I can help you there ... ;)
-
Nice to have some good news on this day of grey gloom! :)
-
I've hung out with many New Agers over the years and they would describe themselves as having no religion, with a handful of exceptions. It's mainstream stuff -check out the magazine racks in Smiths and you'll find Spirit and Destiny, Kindred Spirit, Soul and Spirit, Prediction - the book section will have at least a coup,e of shelves of books on Angels, manifesting and the LoA, past lives, psychic experiences, tarot, astrology etc etc. I don't think it something we need to get fussed about - I've yet to meet an angel 'expert' who expects a seat in the House of Lords.
Quite what it will mean for this country when Islam is the majority organised religion - which it surely will be eventually - is anybody's guess.
-
I've hung out with many New Agers over the years and they would describe themselves as having no religion, with a handful of exceptions. It's mainstream stuff -check out the magazine racks in Smiths and you'll find Spirit and Destiny, Kindred Spirit, Soul and Spirit, Prediction - the book section will have at least a coup,e of shelves of books on Angels, manifesting and the LoA, past lives, psychic experiences, tarot, astrology etc etc. I don't think it something we need to get fussed about - I've yet to meet an angel 'expert' who expects a seat in the House of Lords.
Quite what it will mean for this country when Islam is the majority organised religion - which it surely will be eventually - is anybody's guess.
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
-
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
Not really. By the time it becomes the majority religion, religion will be the minority. We only have to worry if the current trends change significantly and the possibility of Islam being a significant enough majority to achieve some sort of parliamentary power becomes a reality, and even then we'd have to see a dramatic shift in the character of Islam in the UK.
O.
-
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
Not really. By the time it becomes the majority religion, religion will be the minority. We only have to worry if the current trends change significantly and the possibility of Islam being a significant enough majority to achieve some sort of parliamentary power becomes a reality, and even then we'd have to see a dramatic shift in the character of Islam in the UK.
O.
The truly religious will always be in a minority....That has always been the case.
But we know people will do anything for a job so Nominal adherence and practice could push the total number of ''religious'' well above a minority.
I think you've been deluded into thinking apatheism is the same as shrill, brave, New Atheism.
-
More like the Religion and Unethical, surely? ;)
After all, ippy loves to use these statistics that don't say what he wants them to.
ippy posted a link - I missed the bit where he expressed an opinion on what he wanted the link and its information to say - where did you see it?
Its in the thread title and is contextualized by all the other threads he's started on this topic. Sorry if you've missed them over the months.
-
Except that they are comparable - number of C of E vs other groups: C of E loses.
But why the CofE? why not Christian? After all, the comment later is that Britain is no longer a 'Christian' country, not an Anglican or CofE country.
Largest single denomination: non-religious.
Which bit of that is deceptive?
Just that; non-religious isn't a denomination. It might be a classification, but that is different to a denomination.
-
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
Not really. By the time it becomes the majority religion, religion will be the minority. We only have to worry if the current trends change significantly and the possibility of Islam being a significant enough majority to achieve some sort of parliamentary power becomes a reality, and even then we'd have to see a dramatic shift in the character of Islam in the UK.
O.
Yes, this is what I think most likely - non belief and 'spiritual but not religious' will outweigh the religious. And I think increasingly we will see more people for whom Islam is a culture rather than a religion in the same way as many now an identify as coming from a background that is culturally Christian rather than religious.
-
Except that they are comparable - number of C of E vs other groups: C of E loses.
But why the CofE? why not Christian? After all, the comment later is that Britain is no longer a 'Christian' country, not an Anglican or CofE country.
Largest single denomination: non-religious.
Which bit of that is deceptive?
Just that; non-religious isn't a denomination. It might be a classification, but that is different to a denomination.
Because the CofE is the established church. And the established church is dying.
-
Because the CofE is the established church. And the established church is dying.
No, the CofE is the established denomination. Christianity is the established 'church'. Again, I accept that there is a diminishing proportion of those who call themselves 'Christians' compared to say 40 years ago, but perhaps this is reflecting more the loss of the cultural Christians that this country has been burdened with for centuries.
I know that we have used the term 'established church' for centuries, but I'd have thought that, in these enlightened times, people would check that what they say actually reflects reality ;)
-
You'd better tell the CofE then.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history/detailed-history.aspx
-
You'd better tell the CofE then.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history/detailed-history.aspx
The Christian Church taraces its British roots back to the 3rd century, as the article says. The CofE came into being in about the late 15th century. Obviously, the CofE will trace its roots back to the early days, as do all the denominations. That doesn't mean that it has ever been the only denomination in England. Baptists started out in Amsterdam in 1609 and the first English/British Bapatist congegation started in the mid 1610s. The CofE may have been the dominant denomination for nigh on 500 years, but that is all it was. Contrary to 'popular belief', the CofE, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Brethren, etc, share at least as much as they disagree on, and what they agree on tends to be the core stuff.
-
No, the CofE is the established denomination. Christianity is the established 'church'. Again, I accept that there is a diminishing proportion of those who call themselves 'Christians' compared to say 40 years ago, but perhaps this is reflecting more the loss of the cultural Christians that this country has been burdened with for centuries.
But levels of activity, often measured as actually participation in religious services is declining at the same (or faster) proportional rate as loss of cultural christians. That's assuming by cultural christians you mean people who say they are christian on a census or in a survey, but aren't active in that religion.
-
For goodness sake Hope, do you really think I'm so stupid that I think the CofE is or ever has been the only English denomination? But it's not just a 'dominant denomination only' - our head of state is also the Supreme Head of the CofE and we still have the Lords Spiritual. No other domination has the same clout. It is the established church and is currently our official state religion.
-
I've hung out with many New Agers over the years and they would describe themselves as having no religion, with a handful of exceptions. It's mainstream stuff -check out the magazine racks in Smiths and you'll find Spirit and Destiny, Kindred Spirit, Soul and Spirit, Prediction - the book section will have at least a coup,e of shelves of books on Angels, manifesting and the LoA, past lives, psychic experiences, tarot, astrology etc etc. I don't think it something we need to get fussed about - I've yet to meet an angel 'expert' who expects a seat in the House of Lords.
Quite what it will mean for this country when Islam is the majority organised religion - which it surely will be eventually - is anybody's guess.
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
Not all of us; just people like you. Maybe you'd better go now, in case they look back at past history!
-
The MYTH of the SECULAR part one
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-myth-of-the-secular-part-1-1.3135538
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-myth-of-the-secular-part-1-1.3135621?autoplay=true
-
The MYTH of the SECULAR part one
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-myth-of-the-secular-part-1-1.3135538
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-myth-of-the-secular-part-1-1.3135621?autoplay=true
I thought we were discussing decline in numbers of religious people, not secularism. You do understand the difference don't you. Atheism and secularism aren't the same thing.
It is perfectly possible to have a secular country in which 100% of the people are religious - there is no contradiction there whatsoever. Indeed if you gaze across your southern border you will see a country with a much greater number of religious people than the UK, yet the USA is secular, while the UK isn't.
-
Davey,
You didn't listen to the link. Next time try and tell me something i don't know. I think if you had bothered to listen to the link you would have discovered that yes indeed, a secularist can be religious or not. Therefore you wouldn't have wasted space and time with the, he doesn't know what secularism is, myth.
-
For goodness sake Hope, do you really think I'm so stupid that I think the CofE is or ever has been the only English denomination? But it's not just a 'dominant denomination only' - our head of state is also the Supreme Head of the CofE and we still have the Lords Spiritual. No other domination has the same clout. It is the established church and is currently our official state religion.
Except that the CofE isn't a religion, Rhi - however much people might like it to be. Christianity is our official state religion (otherwise we would be saying that Britain was an Anglican nation, rather than a Christian one). It is precisely this error that I was pointing out in ippy's originally posted link, and pointing out that if they want to compare non-religious with anything they need to compare it with religious since there are many religious people in the UK who don't subscribe to, let alone belong to/attend CofE congregations.
-
But levels of activity, often measured as actually participation in religious services is declining at the same (or faster) proportional rate as loss of cultural christians. That's assuming by cultural christians you mean people who say they are christian on a census or in a survey, but aren't active in that religion.
I believe that attendance on a regular basis (generally deemed to be once a month by church statisticians, but once a year but some other statisticians) is actually fairly steady at present. Yes, there is a dramatic fall-off amongst those who state that they are Christian on a survey/census but don't attend church services. I think this is a good thing, as it gives a more realistic figure to the numbers.
-
Atheism and secularism are the same thing.
Typo?
-
Atheism and secularism are the same thing.
Typo?
Whoops - aren't
-
Davey,
You didn't listen to the link. Next time try and tell me something i don't know. I think if you had bothered to listen to the link you would have discovered that yes indeed, a secularist can be religious or not. Therefore you wouldn't have wasted space and time with the, he doesn't know what secularism is, myth.
So given that there is no contradiction between being religious and secularism why did you derail the discussion down a line which isn't relevant to the OP.
-
One thing's a certainty, if islam does become the majority religion, we'll all have to think very carefully if we continue to post on these types of forum.
ippy
Not really. By the time it becomes the majority religion, religion will be the minority. We only have to worry if the current trends change significantly and the possibility of Islam being a significant enough majority to achieve some sort of parliamentary power becomes a reality, and even then we'd have to see a dramatic shift in the character of Islam in the UK.
O.
I hadn't thought of it like that and let's hope you're right and it does seem to be going that way.
The only thing I can imagine is that in view of how relentlessly severe they are with the indoctrination their young children, will it decline enough and in time?
ippy
-
More like the Religion and Unethical, surely? ;)
After all, ippy loves to use these statistics that don't say what he wants them to.
ippy posted a link - I missed the bit where he expressed an opinion on what he wanted the link and its information to say - where did you see it?
Its in the thread title and is contextualized by all the other threads he's started on this topic. Sorry if you've missed them over the months.
Couldn't quite word smith your way out of it again Hope.
ippy
-
Its in the thread title
No it isn't.
-
Its in the thread title
No it isn't.
Except that you have only quoted part of the sentence - thus completely invalidating your own comment by quoting out of context.
-
Couldn't quite word smith your way out of it again Hope.
Oh sorry, is it too difficult for you to understand. With the exception of one word, which is 5 syllabes long, all the others are words of one or two syllables. Except possibly for that single word, most of the pre-intermediate EFL students I've ever worked with would have understood what I was saying. They would have guessed at its meaning if necessary.
-
Couldn't quite word smith your way out of it again Hope.
Oh sorry, is it too difficult for you to understand. With the exception of one word, which is 5 syllabes long, all the others are words of one or two syllables. Except possibly for that single word, most of the pre-intermediate EFL students I've ever worked with would have understood what I was saying. They would have guessed at its meaning if necessary.
Ten out of ten for trying Hope, black isn't white, you're welcome to go around on your own circle on your own, it'll be without my help.
ippy
-
Ten out of ten for trying Hope, black isn't white, you're welcome to go around on your own circle on your own, it'll be without my help.
ippy
Not sure why I'd need your help? After all, you seem to get lost and confused by some of the simplest concepts.
-
Ten out of ten for trying Hope, black isn't white, you're welcome to go around on your own circle on your own, it'll be without my help.
ippy
Not sure why I'd need your help? After all, you seem to get lost and confused by some of the simplest concepts.
I suppose living your life in a fantasy world without the slightest chance of finding any credible evidence that could support it must be a continual sourse of frustation and it would tend to make you see any kind of challenge to your manufactured, imagination driven, world could only come from confused people.
ippy
-
Ten out of ten for trying Hope, black isn't white, you're welcome to go around on your own circle on your own, it'll be without my help.
ippy
Not sure why I'd need your help? After all, you seem to get lost and confused by some of the simplest concepts.
I suppose living your life in a fantasy world without the slightest chance of finding any credible evidence that could support it must be a continual sourse of frustation and it would tend to make you see any kind of challenge to your manufactured, imagination driven, world could only come from confused people.
ippy
Ippy....if you and the other antitheists deadbeats around here are the result of having the real world then I suggest you don't actually have a grasp of the real world.
There we go. A theist's response in the dismissive style of, er, Ippy.....and frankly it was so enjoyable,I can understand why he does it.
-
Ten out of ten for trying Hope, black isn't white, you're welcome to go around on your own circle on your own, it'll be without my help.
ippy
Not sure why I'd need your help? After all, you seem to get lost and confused by some of the simplest concepts.
I suppose living your life in a fantasy world without the slightest chance of finding any credible evidence that could support it must be a continual sourse of frustation and it would tend to make you see any kind of challenge to your manufactured, imagination driven, world could only come from confused people.
ippy
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs. Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
Ah, another obsessive is stung into action. Can't stop to read what you have to say, I'm looking at the NZ/ Australia rugby match (your favourite sport! :D ) Mind you, whatever it is, I've heard it before - x hundred times!
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
Keeps im appy Shaker let him get on with it, mind you I've made another doll and bought some hat pins this time.
ippy
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
Keeps im appy Shaker let him get on with it, mind you I've made another doll and bought some hat pins this time.
ippy
"Another" doll? The mind boggles! ;)
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
Keeps im appy Shaker let him get on with it, mind you I've made another doll and bought some hat pins this time.
ippy
"Another" doll? The mind boggles! ;)
You wait I haven't started sticking the pins into it yet.
ippy
-
If theists were frustrated, then they could quite simply abandon their beliefs.
Except that we know it's not as easy as that, is it? For many there's nothing "simple" about it at all.
Sorry, ippy, it's you who is frustrated, that's why you're on here. You are envious, frustrated, and that has caused your obsession with religion.
Those mind-reading lessons you must have taken - ask for your money back.
Keeps im appy Shaker let him get on with it, mind you I've made another doll and bought some hat pins this time.
ippy
"Another" doll? The mind boggles! ;)
You wait I haven't started sticking the pins into it yet.
ippy
Oh dear, these people with these superstitious beliefs! Have you any verifiable evidence that sticking pins in it will have any effect?
-
Aha ... I reckon we might be onto something now, Bashers ... ;)
-
Aha ... I reckon we might be onto something now, Bashers ... ;)
Really? You mean you have some other kind of dolls? ;)
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
-
No, I was referring to the fact that a small, flickering light may be kindling in Bashers's brain with his earlier comments about people with superstitious beliefs and asking what evidence there is for them. He might just be on the right track at long last :)
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
... and there shall be a great searching for that thing with the little raffia attachment thing that was here somewhere only yesterday, at about eight o'clock ...
-
Aha ... I reckon we might be onto something now, Bashers ... ;)
Really? You mean you have some other kind of dolls? ;)
Can you stick pins into those types of doll?
ippy
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
P S. It's not the end of the world I'm worried about, it's the day after.
Makes about as much sense as the twaddle you keep on coming out with.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
Ippy, it's great that someone with your grasp of the real world can guff on about how secularism is not antireligious then crow over a triumphalist antireligion piece by secularism.org.
You're just a big phony.
-
New doll and set of hatpins for Vlad, ippster ;D
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
Ippy, it's great that someone with your grasp of the real world can guff on about how secularism is not antireligious then crow over a triumphalist antireligion piece by secularism.org.
You're just a big phony.
In which particular phrase in this thread did I indicate any form of triumphalism?
It just so happens these figures, showing the decline in ignorant, primitive, bronze age beliefs that have no substance in them, make it look as though they're on their way out here in the UK.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the good news.
ippy
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
Ippy, it's great that someone with your grasp of the real world can guff on about how secularism is not antireligious then crow over a triumphalist antireligion piece by secularism.org.
You're just a big phony.
In which particular phrase in this thread did I indicate any form of triumphalism?
It just so happens these figures, showing the decline in ignorant, primitive, bronze age beliefs that have no substance in them, make it look as though they're on their way out here in the UK.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the good news.
ippy
This country has been secular and mildly antireligious for decades Ippy.......also I can't see the UK as progressing in a way in which the majority benefit........exactly the opposite, in fact.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
Ippy, it's great that someone with your grasp of the real world can guff on about how secularism is not antireligious then crow over a triumphalist antireligion piece by secularism.org.
You're just a big phony.
In which particular phrase in this thread did I indicate any form of triumphalism?
It just so happens these figures, showing the decline in ignorant, primitive, bronze age beliefs that have no substance in them, make it look as though they're on their way out here in the UK.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the good news.
ippy
This country has been secular and mildly antireligious for decades Ippy.......also I can't see the UK as progressing in a way in which the majority benefit........exactly the opposite, in fact.
Well it's be as religious as you like as long as religions don't expect or get any privileges; a level playing field for all.
ippy
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
;D
-
Just dropping in with a couple of :) :)
-
The MYTH of the SECULAR part 7
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2673149606
-
The MYTH of the SECULAR part 7
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2673149606
Come on woody look next door, forget about chopping down the trees for a minute; the US is secular, I can't remember seeing any news about the religious population of the US being persecuted because of their religious beliefs.
Perhaps you've heard something I haven't, was it mass arrests of the religious or something like that? I don't think so.
ippy
-
Don't be so afraid to listen to this series Ippy. The MYTH of the SECULAR
I know you are afraid to listen to the series because you are making stunted and childish comments about mass arrests and chopping wood. Ippy, get educated on your secular myth.
http://backpalm.blogspot.ca/2012/10/david-cayley-latest-myth-of-secular.html
-
Don't be so afraid to listen to this series Ippy. The MYTH of the SECULAR
I know you are afraid to listen to the series because you are making stunted and childish comments about mass arrests and chopping wood. Ippy, get educated on your secular myth.
http://backpalm.blogspot.ca/2012/10/david-cayley-latest-myth-of-secular.html
The whole thing starts with a mischaracterisation - secularisation does not have a 'goal' of eradicating religion. There were people - still are - who think that removing the official sanction of religion will result in it dying out, personally I disagree (I think continued education will eradicate religion, but that's another debate).
Secularisation is not an attempt to eradicate religion, it's a system whereby religion should not be priveleged in the public arena. Nations around the world have adopted it to a greater or lesser extent: I'm not personally that au fait with the state of play in Canada.
Reading the summaries of the episodes it seems like some familiar canards: everything good in society came out of religion (arguably everything came out of religious organisations, because they had their tendrils into everything, but that doesn't mean that religious thought or religious sentiment is responsible), the US was founded on a religious basis (patent nonsense), the idea that Bible is the source of everything (it's not, it's just so selectably interpretable its adherents try to lay claim to everything, regardless of whether the ideas were around before or have only been possible long after); along with some intriguing concepts: secularism hasn't led to the downfall of religion which leads secularism to need rethinking/reimagining, a religious view of the meaning of 'fundamentalism'.
O.
O.
-
The whole thing starts with a mischaracterisation - secularisation does not have a 'goal' of eradicating religion.
Is that what canoe's programme states? As I frequently have cause to say, anything that wrong can only be the product of an incredible degree of ignorance or conscious and deliberate dishonesty.
There were people - still are - who think that removing the official sanction of religion will result in it dying out, personally I disagree (I think continued education will eradicate religion, but that's another debate).
I agree - that and affluence/material comfort and social security/prosperity.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/new-research--49-percent-have-no-religion-anglican-church-collapse-continues-islam-increases-ten-fold-since-1983
ippy
..and that day shall not come lest there be a great falling away first... :)
What's up 2C, milkman late this morning?
ippy
Ippy, it's great that someone with your grasp of the real world can guff on about how secularism is not antireligious then crow over a triumphalist antireligion piece by secularism.org.
You're just a big phony.
In which particular phrase in this thread did I indicate any form of triumphalism?
It just so happens these figures, showing the decline in ignorant, primitive, bronze age beliefs that have no substance in them, make it look as though they're on their way out here in the UK.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the good news.
ippy
Looking at the VJ memorial services today, I was hugely impressed. Looking at your pathetic comment here, and comparing you with the people in church, it is so striking what a sad person you are, with your sterile lack of any purpose in life, and with your silly, immature clichés. You people are to be pitied.
-
Looking at the VJ memorial services today, I was hugely impressed. Looking at your pathetic comment here, and comparing you with the people in church, it is so striking what a sad person you are, with your sterile lack of any purpose in life, and with your silly, immature clichés. You people are to be pitied.
What do you actually know about what ippy considers to be the purposes in (rather than purpose of - I'd be suspicious of anyone who claimed it was a singular affair) his life?
-
Looking at the VJ memorial services today, I was hugely impressed. Looking at your pathetic comment here, and comparing you with the people in church, it is so striking what a sad person you are, with your sterile lack of any purpose in life, and with your silly, immature clichés. You people are to be pitied.
What do you actually know about what ippy considers to be the purposes in (rather than purpose of - I'd be suspicious of anyone who claimed it was a singular affair) his life?
That's something for Ippy to comment on, not you.
-
Or you either, then.
-
Or you either, then.
I was commenting about his post; you were answering for him: a slight difference.
-
I was commenting about his post
No; you were commenting on his very existence - "sterile lack of purpose" as you put it. Far from answering for him, I quite rightly pointed out that you have no business making such a comment.
-
I was commenting about his post
No; you were commenting on his very existence - "sterile lack of purpose" as you put it. Far from answering for him, I quite rightly pointed out that you have no business making such a comment.
In other words, answering for him!
-
Still no. Saying that somebody has a "sterile lack of purpose" (while actually not knowing the first thing about them or their lives) is answering for them.
-
Outrider,
Try listening to the audio. And please read up on what the secularization theory is.
Not on the audio but the hosts words
"Western Social Theory ONCE insisted that modernization meant secularization and secularization meant the withering away of religion."
Secularization Theory is the theory that as society progresses, religion fades. As science and logic continues to develop, religion becomes ever more empty until it dies from lack of adherents.
I think you misrepresented there Outrider and you wouldn't have made that goof up if you read up on the secularization theory and actually listened to the first audio.
-
Still no. Saying that somebody has a "sterile lack of purpose" (while actually not knowing the first thing about them or their lives) is answering for them.
No, it is an opinion based on his posts. You are answering for him. If he disagrees with my opinion, it is up to him to repudiate it, not you.
-
Still no. Saying that somebody has a "sterile lack of purpose" (while actually not knowing the first thing about them or their lives) is answering for them.
No, it is an opinion based on his posts. You are answering for him. If he disagrees with my opinion, it is up to him to repudiate it, not you.
I'm not repudiating it, though; I'm stating, as a matter of simple fact, that you are in no position to make such a judgement about ippy, least of all when your "opinion based on his posts" is itself based on no more than the fact that he says disobliging things about your religion and you've got a weed up your ass about it.
-
Still no. Saying that somebody has a "sterile lack of purpose" (while actually not knowing the first thing about them or their lives) is answering for them.
No, it is an opinion based on his posts. You are answering for him. If he disagrees with my opinion, it is up to him to repudiate it, not you.
I'm not repudiating it, though; I'm stating, as a matter of simple fact, that you are in no position to make such a judgement about ippy, least of all when your "opinion based on his posts" is itself based on no more than the fact that he says disobliging things about your religion and you've got a weed up your ass about it.
In case you are unaware, your continued posting rather bears out my point; and I don't need to use bad language to make my point - a sure sign that you are losing your rag, again, and unable to make a coherent case.
-
As has been said many times before, your pearl-clutching over robust language is, while prudish, puritanical and pathetic, your problem. I suppose complaining about the occasional swearword is a diversionary tactic which spares you the onerous job of actually engaging with the points that people make - something which you never do. Never have, never will. It's far easier to wave your hankie around and asked to be fanned with a folded newspaper because somebody has said shit than it is to put in the hard yards of saying "Your argument is wrong, and this is why ...," which is clearly utterly beyond you.
-
As has been said many times before, your pearl-clutching over robust language is, while prudush, puritanical and pathetic, your problem. I suppose complaining about the occasional swearword is a diversionary tactic which spares you the onerous job of actually engaging with the points that people make - something which you never do. Never have, never will. It's far easier to wave your hankie around and asked to be fanned with a folded newspaper because somebody has said shit than it is to put in the hard yards of saying "Your argument is wrong, and this is why ...," which is clearly utterly beyond you.
The day I sit and listen to, say, the Queen effing and blinding in a speech, or the Archbishop swearing his way through an interview; or maybe the News introduced with a string of expletives, then I will continue to consider it bad language (called that because reasonable people consider it just that), used only by those who have no control, and even less vocabulary - ring any bells?
-
None whatsoever, since the "swearing = poor vocabulary" canard has been demolished, pulverised and buried too many times by too many superlative wordsmiths to have any traction whatsoever.
Ironically it's a pseudo-argument that only the terminally unoriginal and unimaginative - the linguistically hobbled -continue to use.
-
None whatsoever, since the "swearing = poor vocabulary" canard has been demolished, pulverised and buried too many times by too many superlative wordsmiths to have any traction whatsoever.
Ironically it's a pseudo-argument that only the terminally unoriginal and unimaginative - the linguistically hobbled -continue to use.
Funny. Seems only half-wits, exhibitionists and the linguistically-challenged need to resort to swearing. Often it is done, of course, in temper - that's the lack of control bit - and more often, to hide a paucity of content in an argument.
-
If you regard Chaucer, Donne, Shakespeare, Lawrence [rest of list snipped as being too long and unwieldy] as linguistically-challenged half-wits, your feeling for English language and literature is on a par with your ability to construct a rebuttal to an argument, i.e. nonexistent.
-
If you regard Chaucer, Donne, Shakespeare, Lawrence [rest of list snipped as being too long and unwieldy] as linguistically-challenged half-wits, your feeling for English language and literature is on a par with your ability to construct a rebuttal to an argument, i.e. nonexistent.
Well, using bad language as a literary ploy is not quite the same as using it habitually in normal discourse.. You seem not to appreciate such subtlety.
-
Why is it different? The words are the same and retain the same meanings, so do explain the difference.
-
Why is it different? The words are the same and retain the same meanings, so do explain the difference.
Certain words may be appropriate in literature in order to reflect every nuance of usage and how some ignorant and moronic people, conduct themselves in discourse, unable to express themselves adequately without swearing.
-
I don't need to use bad language to make my point
No,your style is more a stream of insults.
This is a public forum, anybody is free to contribute at any time. If you didn't want your conversation with ippy to be interrupted, you should have used a PM.
-
I don't need to use bad language to make my point
No,your style is more a stream of insults.
This is a public forum, anybody is free to contribute at any time. If you didn't want your conversation with ippy to be interrupted, you should have used a PM.
It's interesting that you feel the need to make several posts aimed at me this morning, referring to posts between myself and the sainted Shaker. So you think Shaker unable to interact with me on his own, or is it the usual "ganging up" by atheists, who are only here for that purpose, if they are honest enough to admit it (and they aren't!)
-
It's interesting that you feel the need to make several posts aimed at me this morning,
It's interesting that you constantly make posts aimed at other posters and yet when somebody does it to you, the whining starts.
Hypocrite.
-
It's interesting that you feel the need to make several posts aimed at me this morning,
It's interesting that you constantly make posts aimed at other posters and yet when somebody does it to you, the whining starts.
Hypocrite.
I am constantly being derided by the atheist numbskulls on here, as you aptly demonstrate. I am not whining, I am responding - but, then, as is so clear, your vocabulary is weak, which, of course, is why you have to revert to expletives so often.
-
I am not whining, I am responding - but, then, as is so clear, your vocabulary is weak, which, of course, is why you have to revert to expletives so often.
No, you are whining and are insulting. You constantly tell the people who disagree with you to go away or shut up or you insult them ("atheist numbskulls" anyone). You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
Incidentally can you show me the last post in which I used an expletive? Then I'll show you the last 10 posts in which you resorted to insult. I bet they're all more recent than my last use of a rude word.
-
I am not whining, I am responding - but, then, as is so clear, your vocabulary is weak, which, of course, is why you have to revert to expletives so often.
No, you are whining and are insulting. You constantly tell the people who disagree with you to go away or shut up or you insult them ("atheist numbskulls" anyone). You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
Incidentally can you show me the last post in which I used an expletive? Then I'll show you the last 10 posts in which you resorted to insult. I bet they're all more recent than my last use of a rude word.
Stop whining, Mr. Foul-Mouth.
-
I am not whining, I am responding - but, then, as is so clear, your vocabulary is weak, which, of course, is why you have to revert to expletives so often.
No, you are whining and are insulting. You constantly tell the people who disagree with you to go away or shut up or you insult them ("atheist numbskulls" anyone). You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
Incidentally can you show me the last post in which I used an expletive? Then I'll show you the last 10 posts in which you resorted to insult. I bet they're all more recent than my last use of a rude word.
Stop whining!
I'm not whining, I am merely telling you some home truths.
-
I am not whining, I am responding - but, then, as is so clear, your vocabulary is weak, which, of course, is why you have to revert to expletives so often.
No, you are whining and are insulting. You constantly tell the people who disagree with you to go away or shut up or you insult them ("atheist numbskulls" anyone). You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
Incidentally can you show me the last post in which I used an expletive? Then I'll show you the last 10 posts in which you resorted to insult. I bet they're all more recent than my last use of a rude word.
Stop whining!
I'm not whining, I am merely telling you some home truths.
Still whining!!
-
Still whining!!
See reply #93
-
Still whining!!
See reply #93
Stop whining!
-
You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
He had a go at me for saying "butt-crack" whereas Vlad's use of "fucking aliens" (on the crop circles thread) received nary a mention.
As you say, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.
-
You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
He had a go at me for saying "butt-crack" whereas Vlad's use of "fucking aliens" (on the crop circles thread) received nary a mention.
As you say, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.
I condemn all swearing on the forum, and have done consistently, as you will appreciate, if you are honest. So stop whining!
-
I condemn all swearing on the forum, as you will appreciate, if you are honest.
Why did you let Vlad's use of the F-word go then?
-
Why didn't you condemn it when Vlad did it, then? Not a word of reproach was written by you.
-
Why didn't yo
Then I do so now. And in case it gives you any reason to continue your lying posts, I, once again, condemn swearing by anyone on the forum - not that it stops the lame-brains from continuing the practice.
-
You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
He had a go at me for saying "butt-crack" whereas Vlad's use of "fucking aliens" (on the crop circles thread) received nary a mention.
As you say, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
-
Then I do so now.
You'd better get back on the thread and do the condemning then.
And in case it gives you any reason to continue your lying posts, I, once again, condemn swearing by anyone on the forum - not that it stops the lame-brains from continuing the practice.
When are you going to start condemning gratuitous insults?
-
You are a hypocrite because you complain about my swearing whilst throwing insults at me and you don't complain about the swear words used by people on your own side.
He had a go at me for saying "butt-crack" whereas Vlad's use of "fucking aliens" (on the crop circles thread) received nary a mention.
As you say, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
Still whining and desperate, to boot. :)
-
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
He replied to Vlad's post containing the F-bomb sixty-one seconds after Vlad posted it. He can't claim that he didn't see it because he quoted it; yet a word of condemnation was there none - instead, he concentrated (IIRC) on the fact that you accidentally typed 'am' instead of 'an,' or something similar.
The hypocrisy is so rank I can practically taste it from here.
-
Still whining and desperate, to boot. :)
I suppose I should be flattered that you re copying my posts.
-
If you're so bothered about whining, Bashers, why not take your own own advice and stop whining about (a) swearing and (b) the presence of atheists on this forum discussing religion and ethics as they are perfectly entitled to do?.
-
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
Still whining and desperate, to boot. :)
Interesting to note that here you are intervening in a conversation between me and Shaker. This is, of course, your right and you are welcome to, but when I did the same thing to you, there was no end of ranting and raving on your part because I interfered with your private conversation on this public message board.
-
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
He replied to Vlad's post containing the F-bomb sixty-one seconds after Vlad posted it. He can't claim that he didn't see it because he quoted it; yet a word of condemnation was there none - instead, he concentrated (IIRC) on the fact that you accidentally typed 'am' instead of 'an,' or something similar.
The hypocrisy is so rank I can practically taste it from here.
I have just condemned it. If I stop to comment on every swear word used on here, I would be doing little else. Okay, foul-mouth? So stop whining!
-
Yes, in fact, he replied to Vlad's post without commenting on the obscenity. Then when I asked him why he wasn't condemning Vlad, he evaded the question by mocking me for a spelling mistake. I think he's actually just deflecting with all the complaining about swear words.
Still whining and desperate, to boot. :)
Interesting to note that here you are intervening in a conversation between me and Shaker. This is, of course, your right and you are welcome to, but when I did the same thing to you, there was no end of ranting and raving on your part because I interfered with your private conversation on this public message board.
Stop whining!! You are both whiners, and both foul-mouthed, and I think I've amply demonstrated that. So ta ta! ;D
-
I have just condemned it.
Why has it taken you three days to do so (and not in the post you posted sixty-one seconds after Vlad's use of the F-word) whereas it took you less than ten minutes to deflect attention to this by Jeremy's exceedingly minor typo?
If I stop to comment on every swear word used on here, I would be doing little else.
But you're not doing anything else, least of all debating religion and ethics.
-
I have just condemned it.
Why has it taken you three days to do so (and not in the post you posted sixty-one seconds after Vlad's use of the F-word) whereas it took you less than ten minutes to deflect attention to this by Jeremy's exceedingly minor typo?
If I stop to comment on every swear word used on here, I would be doing little else.
But you're not doing anything else, least of all debating religion and ethics.
Ta ta.
-
I have just condemned it. If I stop to comment on every swear word used on here, I would be doing little else. Okay, foul-mouth? So stop whining!
Can you point to the last post in which I used a swear word please?
-
It seems Bashers has left the building, JP ;)
-
It seems Bashers has left the building, JP ;)
I think he's a little bit embarrassed. On another thread, he accused me of denigrating his intelligence (which, to be fair, I had done) but he did it in a post in which he had just called me a dolt i.e. had just denigrated my intelligence.
-
Oh dear ::)
-
Moderator:
I'd like to make a couple of points in relation to recent exchanges on this thread.
1. There seems to be an element of sniping in this thread: this should cease.
2. On the issue of swearing can I point out that this is not against the rules unless said swearing is part of what we deem to be a personal insult. Therefore, and please note this BA, protracted exchanges on the subject of adults swearing in general/colloquial/non-personal terms is becoming disruptive and is pointless since we will not intervene.
If members have concerns about swearing then they should report posts provided that the swearing involves personal insults: if not then it is a matter of taste, and members who disapprove of swearing are free to simply ignore it!
Gordon
-
Nice one Gordon.
-
I've just seen this exchange today, on reading through the various posts my conclusion would be that B A is finding it hard to accept the exponential decline of religion here in the UK and is striking back in his own way.
The point is no matter how much you don't like the decline in religious belief here in the UK, the fact remains religion is declining here in the UK, I do dislike religion but that's not the main reason I'm happy about its decline, it's the unnessary trouble it causes and it's unnessary in the first place.
I don't see that religion inspires good deeds with its carrot and pathetic stick approach, whether the people that do the good deeds are religious or not in my opinion, they are the sorts of people that would want to do good deeds anyway in spite of the rather odd aincent beliefs that are still managing to hang on here in this far more enlightened modern world.
ippy