Why should we give up our beliefs?

[BashfulAnthony]

What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.

Tell that to Russian and Communist countries...
Ans tell that to the Millions of Jews Hitler murdered...
Truth is man uses whatever excuse he can to execute his own form of evil.. Look at Nero and Rome.

Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...

Hitler was a sort of Christian.

Did you not know?

Another old chestnut, both wrong and stupidly advanced.

[Hope]

Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...

Ah, but if they can hide behind "this is what God tells me to do", it frees them from blame, doesn't it?

And it doesn't have to be 'what God told me to do', Len.  It can just as well be 'what the officers/politicians/peer group/society told me to do'.

[Shaker]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

[Hope]

Another old chestnut, both wrong and stupidly advanced.

BA, it wasn't completely untrue - Hitler did claim to be a Christian, albeit one with some pretty crazy ideas about what Christianity is all about.

What Christians have to recognize is that it isn't for us to judge people's confessions of faith; God does that.

[Hope]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

I thought your efforts on this board were just that, Shaker - efforts to call God to account.  Are you admitting that you aren't being very successful?

[Leonard James]

Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...

Ah, but if they can hide behind "this is what God tells me to do", it frees them from blame, doesn't it?

And it doesn't have to be 'what God told me to do', Len.  It can just as well be 'what the officers/politicians/peer group/society told me to do'.

Yep! Equally true.

[Shaker]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

I thought your efforts on this board were just that, Shaker - efforts to call God to account. 

Then you thought wrong - but eh, no surprises in that.

[Hope]

Yep! Equally true.

Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.

[Leonard James]

Yep! Equally true.

Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.

Human problems are compounded by religious belief sometimes.

[BashfulAnthony]

Yep! Equally true.

Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.

Human problems are compounded by religious belief sometimes.

And often it is precisely the opposite.

[Owlswing]

Yes, well I fell out of love with organised religion a long time ago. It's probably why I've stayed solitary as a pagan - even a bunch of people in someone's front room is too organised for me.

I get why Brian Cox gets so excited about the stuff he does, it is mind-blowing. But in a small way, my stuff is too, even if it's just for me. We can't all be astrophysicists and I don't see why some think it would be desirable for the mystical to disappear.

Sorry that I have come to see this so late.

On your point one - I fell out with the organised religion of my father and the military (the same organised religion applied to both) at the very beginning of the 1960's - from then until I was introduced to paganism, as a solitary, in the mid-1990's, my only "religious text" was from my uncle, 'if you cannot do someone a good turn, do not do them a bad one', almost a version of the threefold rule.

Despite now being a member of a Coven that performs rituals for the eight Sabbats and the thirteen Esbats I still do personal rituals, solitary ones, or with one or other or both my daughters. None of the latter can in anyway be described as organised, they are usually furiously ad-lib'd.

As, I believe you do, I do not observe any strict must do's or must not do's that might come from within the pagan community outside my family group previously described.

Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the States and will continue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.

I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.
   

[Hope]

Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the State and will conbtinue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.

The Bishops in the HoL is so minor an element of the connection between Church and State as to be irrelevant, Matt.  You only have to look at the USA to see that you don't need 'bishops' in any legislative house to still have such a connection.

I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.

Oddly enough, it seems to be MPs who are least keen to see this connection broken.  I suspect that they understand that as soon as the Church of England is disestablished, it will become a far more vociferous opponent to many things Governmental.

At the same time, one needs to remember that there is only official connection between the State and the Church of England, not with the church as a whole.  Depending on which statistics one uses, there are currently approximately 1 million members of the Church of England; even if only 3% of the UK population are Christians (=2 million), that still leaves 1 million Christians with no official connection to the State.

[Owlswing]

Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the State and will conbtinue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.

[quoteThe Bishops in the HoL is so minor an element of the connection between Church and State as to be irrelevant, Matt.  You only have to look at the USA to see that you don't need 'bishops' in any legislative house to still have such a connection.

Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country. Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.

I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.

Oddly enough, it seems to be MPs who are least keen to see this connection broken.  I suspect that they understand that as soon as the Church of England is disestablished, it will become a far more vociferous opponent to many things Governmental.[/quote]

At the same time, one needs to remember that there is only official connection between the State and the Church of England, not with the church as a whole.  Depending on which statistics one uses, there are currently approximately 1 million members of the Church of England; even if only 3% of the UK population are Christians (=2 million), that still leaves 1 million Christians with no official connection to the State.

Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.

Quite a pressure group!

[Hope]

Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country.

So, are you suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury's outburst against Wonga was merely on behalf of the members of the Church of England?  Or that many of the votes cast by the Bishops against Government welfare cuts and the like were merely on behalf of that same group?

Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.

I'd agree that about 50% of the population have no official representation in the HoL, but at least there are some Christians who are allowed to make their independent voices heard.  As for the 'entire non-Christian population having no such voice', most of the Labour, and many Tory and Lib. Dem. members of the House represent those people.

Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.

Quite a pressure group!

I've already corrected your wrong understanding of the representation of non-Christians and non-CoE members, so that part of your argument is somewhat undermined.

Regarding the 'pressure group', they seem to be more on the side of the poor and disenfranchised than on that of the rich and powerful.  Have a good look at their voting records.

[Owlswing]

Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country.

So, are you suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury's outburst against Wonga was merely on behalf of the members of the Church of England?  Or that many of the votes cast by the Bishops against Government welfare cuts and the like were merely on behalf of that same group?

Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.

I'd agree that about 50% of the population have no official representation in the HoL, but at least there are some Christians who are allowed to make their independent voices heard.  As for the 'entire non-Christian population having no such voice', most of the Labour, and many Tory and Lib. Dem. members of the House represent those people.

Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.

Quite a pressure group!

I've already corrected your wrong understanding of the representation of non-Christians and non-CoE members, so that part of your argument is somewhat undermined.

Regarding the 'pressure group', they seem to be more on the side of the poor and disenfranchised than on that of the rich and powerful.  Have a good look at their voting records.

Hope

You have a miraculous talent for changing tack when challenged.

I never mentioned any specific issues but I am not surprised that you have. You often use this tactic - when no specific is mentioned you do so to bring up a point that supports your view.

I was only talking about these people being a pressure group when involved with something that is against their beliefs, anything else and they can go whichever way they wish.

Things like Sunday Trading that were initially created to fit with keeping people in church, shoppers and shopkeepers both.

[Sassy]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

I suppose the lack of truth in your ways to accept God as ultimate righteous judge and jury as creator blurrs.

God cannot be accountable there is no one higher than him to be accountable too.
He doesn't have a maker... you do... it is God and you are answerable...

[Shaker]

Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.

[Owlswing]

Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.

He certainly seems to have committed far more sins than mosty humans - how many people have been harmed or killed by "Acts of God"? Millions?

[BashfulAnthony]

Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.

    Quite an opinion you have of yourself!

[floo]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

I suppose the lack of truth in your ways to accept God as ultimate righteous judge and jury as creator blurrs.

God cannot be accountable there is no one higher than him to be accountable too.
He doesn't have a maker... you do... it is God and you are answerable...

More unproven nonsense from Sass!

[Shaker]

Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.

    Quite an opinion you have of yourself!

Of course. Anyway, compared what has been written, ad nauseam, about gods and how they are depicted*, it's hardly a stretch.

* To wit: "Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoilt child." - Robert A. Heinlein

[ippy]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century? 

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?  After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.

"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?

What has the question just above got to do with this thread?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century? 

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?  After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.

"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?

What has the question just above got to do with this thread?

ippy

Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

But is that legitimate under subjective morality.

In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?

[Nearly Sane]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

But is that legitimate under subjective morality.

In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?

as much as a moral objectivity - opinion