God’s Love

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I have never claimed any kind of special privilege; nor do I know any Christians who have.  I can't even imagine what privileges you are referring to.  My life has been singularly devoid of privilege.

Tax breaks? Seats in the House of Lords? Teaching personal faith beliefs to children as if they are facts? Consultation in the media on any issue vaguely related to morality? 

The rest of your post simply validates what I said, entirely.

Only in our head BA, only in your head.

Unless that is you do propose to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy etc?

Incidentally, in the face of your stony silence on the matter can we now take it that you've dropped your odd notion that willingness to die for a belief and the likely truthfulness of that belief are epistemic bedfellows?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Tax breaks? Seats in the House of Lords? Teaching personal faith beliefs to children as if they are facts? Consultation in the media on any issue vaguely related to morality? 

Only in our head BA, only in your head.

Unless that is you do propose to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy etc?

Incidentally, in the face of your stony silence on the matter can we now take it that you've dropped your odd notion that willingness to die for a belief and the likely truthfulness of that belief are epistemic bedfellows?

I don't have any tax breaks, or a seat in the Lords, and don't know anybody who does  ( I believe there are 26 bishops who have a seat in the Lords, along with more than 800 Lords, who are also unelected and privileged ); but I do think that schools teach the National Curriculum; and I have noticed that in any discussion on morality, or anything else, you tend to see a representative of all shades of opinion.

As to your second point:  I simply say that thousands of perfectly sane, normal, and pacific individuals, have died for their faith:  it is a commitment you cannot hope to understand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I don't have any tax breaks, or a seat in the Lords, and don't know anybody who does  ( I believe there are 26 bishops who have a seat in the Lords, along with more than 800 Lords, who are also unelected and privileged ); but I do think that schools teach the National Curriculum; and I have noticed that in any discussion on morality, or anything else, you tend to see a representative of all shades of opinion.

I never said that you personally do - that's why specifically in Reply 173 I said: "...and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege...". Note the "some" there.

As to your second point:  I simply say that thousands of perfectly sane, normal, and pacific individuals, have died for their faith:  it is a commitment you cannot hope to understand.

No you didn't simply say that at all. What you actually said was that in some unexplained way their willingness to die is related to the truthfulness of their beliefs (though only it seems when those beliefs happen to be your ones too).

Remember?

[Shaker]

Indeed; what BA said was:

Why risk your life for a hoax?  Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.

There is, as there always is, a clear implication that to be prepared to die for a belief has some unspecified link to the truth of said belief.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I never said that you personally do - that's why specifically in Reply 173 I said: "...and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege...". Note the "some" there.

No you didn't simply say that at all. What you actually said was that in some unexplained way their willingness to die is related to the truthfulness of their beliefs (though only it seems when those beliefs happen to be your ones too).

Remember?

Religious organisations do not receive a greater number of privileges than many other groups, in many other ways.

I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness.  It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.

[BashfulAnthony]

Indeed; what BA said was:
There is, as there always is, a clear implication that to be prepared to die for a belief has some unspecified link to the truth of said belief.

That is how those people see it;  and nobody can prove their position is false.

[BeRational]

BA

Do you now at least accept that willingness to die for something, does not make that something true?

You made the claim and it has been shown to be false.

Can you accept that?

[Shaker]

I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness. It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.

Well, one thing that can be said is what you have at long last just conceded; it's a belief in truthfulness, not (necessarily) actual truthfulness.

[BeRational]

That is how those people see it;  and nobody can prove their position is false.

Of course it can.

Find people that are prepared to die for mutually opposite beliefs and hey presto your argument is defeated.

Do you accept as true every belief that someone is or once was prepared to die for?
If you do not, then you have proved your argument to be false!

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

Do you now at least accept that willingness to die for something, does not make that something true?

You made the claim and it has been shown to be false.

Can you accept that?

I am saying that people die for a belief because they think it is true:  you may think otherwise, but cannot prove it. 

Can you see that?

[Shaker]

That is how those people see it;  and nobody can prove their position is false.

That brings us back to the negative proof fallacy, though, doesn't it? The list of things which can't be definitively disproven is colossal beyond all human computation, and almost every item on it is something that you too disbelieve. You make a special case only of those beliefs which you, well, make a special case for.

[BeRational]

I am saying that people die for a belief because they think it is true:  you may think otherwise, but cannot prove it. 

Can you see that?

Yes of course I accept that. We have seen that recently in Paris.

YOU though, claim that this makes what they are prepared to die for true.

Do you now retract that claim?

[BashfulAnthony]

Yes of course I accept that. We have seen that recently in Paris.

YOU though, claim that this makes what they are prepared to die for true.

Do you now retract that claim?

If that is how you interpret what I said, either you fail to take my point, or I have not expressed myself clearly. I say some are prepared to die because they are so certain in their beliefs, not that their deaths make their beliefs true.  That would be silly.

Can you see now?

I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Religious organisations do not receive a greater number of privileges than many other groups, in many other ways.

Seriously? As David Voas notes:

- Its representatives are accorded special status on Remembrance Sunday, arguably the closest thing Britain has to a national day. 

- Acts of worship are mandatory in schools, along with religious education, and the state pays for thousands of schools run by particular denominations.

- Charitable status is no longer automatic for religious groups, but there are still few obstacles to obtaining it. 

- Religious organisations are exempt from some equalities regulations. 

- Broadcasters are obliged to give time to religion. 

- The Church of England has inherited enormous wealth from an earlier era. 

- Twenty-six bishops sit in the House of Lords.

- In the official order of precedence in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury stands above the Prime Minister and all other officers of state (and follows only the royal family).

And so on. What other organisations do you think enjoy this kind of privilege?

I am saying that people who have a great faith will die for it rather than denounce it, such is the their belief in its truthfulness.  It is not possible to say more than that, for or against.

You may be saying that now, but you've shifted ground. Previously you suggested that the willingness to die for a belief said something about its objective truthfulness. Rather than concede the point you've just re-formulated it to mean that the people who do the dying must think it to be true. Not very honest of you was it?

Well yes, presumably they - of any faith - must believe it to be true. So what though?

[BeRational]

If that is how you interpret what I said, either you fail to take my point, or I have not expressed myself clearly. I say some are prepared to die because they are so certain in their beliefs, not that their deaths make their beliefs true.  That would be silly.

Can you see now?

I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.

That's fine.
You do not think that being prepared to die for some belief makes the belief true.
That's good and I misunderstood your previous claim where you mentioned early Christians and the fact they were prepared to die.
This gave me the impression you thought it relevant to mention it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

That's good and I misunderstood your previous claim where you mentioned early Christians and the fact they were prepared to die.

No you didn't. He's just shifted ground and claimed the the re-formulation was what he meant all along.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Seriously? As David Voas notes:

- Its representatives are accorded special status on Remembrance Sunday, arguably the closest thing Britain has to a national day. 

- Acts of worship are mandatory in schools, along with religious education, and the state pays for thousands of schools run by particular denominations.

- Charitable status is no longer automatic for religious groups, but there are still few obstacles to obtaining it. 

- Religious organisations are exempt from some equalities regulations. 

- Broadcasters are obliged to give time to religion. 

- The Church of England has inherited enormous wealth from an earlier era. 

- Twenty-six bishops sit in the House of Lords.

- In the official order of precedence in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury stands above the Prime Minister and all other officers of state (and follows only the royal family).

And so on. What other organisations do you think enjoy this kind of privilege?

You may be saying that now, but you've shifted ground. Previously you suggested that the willingness to die for a belief said something about its objective truthfulness. Rather than concede the point you've just re-formulated it meaning that the people who do the dying must think it to be true.

Well yes - of any faith. So what though?

I was a teacher, and very few schools obey the law on the mandatory religious observance.   Any parent can remove their child from any religious participation.  Faith schools are only there because there is a demand:  this is a democracy.  If you don't like the situation, vote for someone of like mind.   Religion doesn't enjoy more air-time than any other part of society; not forgetting the large number of theists who have a right to be heard.  I've already pointed out the fallacious importance you put on the Bishops in the Lords. And as to wealth:  much of the money the Church has is used for the good of the community, whether theist or atheist; and in any case most of this wealth is in the form of land-ownership;  and they have to pay bills and salaries:  they are large employers. As to the position of the Archbishop, that is merely a nominal status  -  a pure red herring on your part. As far as my comment on belief, I have made my point;  if I seem to have shifted ground, that is because I have simply clarified myself.  If you are looking for real privilege then look at the corporate tax cheats who are allowed to get away with it: those whose wealth enables them to gain advantage over others :  bankers who raid the county's wealth: the supermarkets who defraud the populace daily,  etc, etc. Get real, and save your accusations for those who really deserve it.  As to the Remembrance Day; well that should be re-thought;  but it is about remembering, and that can be done by anyone anywhere.  If you have to be at the Cenotaph to express your remembrance, it begins to look like massaging ego. Anyone can go there and show their remembrance at any time.

[BashfulAnthony]

BR,

No you didn't. He's just shifted ground and claimed the the re-formulation was what he meant all along.

Wrong, again.  Do read all my posts, and try to get it.

[Shaker]

I now shall go and look at This Week in peace, and enjoy watching the best interviewer on telly, Andrew Neill.

That reminds me: I think I'll have Shredded Wheat for breakfast.

[BashfulAnthony]

That reminds me: I think I'll have Shredded Wheat for breakfast.

I used to have Shredded Wheat; three, of course!

[SusanDoris]

BA

Supposing a person nowadays died, i.e. was killed, for his/her Christian belief, how do you think that would benefit anyone, and why?

Think of it in personal terms and consider if it was yourself. You'd be on the news briefly, mentioned on those tweet things, and might just have a brief mention in history. Would it have benefited humanity? I think not. On the contrary, if such a death encouraged one more person to believe that a God exists, that there is a heaven to 'go ' to, then that sort of thing holds back progress towards a real understanding of life, the universe and everything.

N.B. I have not followed all of this topic, but have read all through this last page.

[Bubbles]

BA

Supposing a person nowadays died, i.e. was killed, for his/her Christian belief, how do you think that would benefit anyone, and why?

Think of it in personal terms and consider if it was yourself. You'd be on the news briefly, mentioned on those tweet things, and might just have a brief mention in history. Would it have benefited humanity? I think not. On the contrary, if such a death encouraged one more person to believe that a God exists, that there is a heaven to 'go ' to, then that sort of thing holds back progress towards a real understanding of life, the universe and everything.

N.B. I have not followed all of this topic, but have read all through this last page.

People do though, many of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871508/Four-young-Christians-brutally-beheaded-ISIS-Iraq-refusing-convert-Islam-says-Vicar-Baghdad-Canon-Andrew-White.html

What it shows is people are not prepared to give up their Christian beliefs and values in the face of barbarity.

What it does, is,  it shows the rest of the human race that not everyone is going to be threatened and pushed around into accepting barbarity.

It's their choice, and personally I think they have the guts to stand up for what they believe in.

The victim could just as easily be a Muslim , Jew or other belief.

Lots of people have refused to give up their religion because someone threatened to kill them.

They set an example, of people who stand up to bullies.

I take my hat off to them, it takes guts.

It's beneficial in the sense it shows not everyone is going to be bullied into accepting barbarity.


I suppose to a Muslim victim, it's a form of Jihad. Isis kills Muslims too.

http://tinyurl.com/ohm8dt5

http://tinyurl.com/orsk44e

[Bubbles]

I used to have Shredded Wheat; three, of course!

Three?

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I was a teacher,...

A depressing thought...

...and very few schools obey the law on the mandatory religious observance.   Any parent can remove their child from any religious participation.

Yes they can remove their children, with all the awkwardness, embarrassment and hassle that entails. The point though was that the norm is for religion to have its privileged position in education in the first place.

Faith schools are only there because there is a demand:  this is a democracy.  If you don't like the situation, vote for someone of like mind.

Really? How many send their children there because of their religious teaching, and how many because they happen to get better exam results do you think? And while we're at it, what kind of social damage do you think it causes to have children set aside in special institutions where they're taught that their faith beliefs "facts" are correct and the faith beliefs "facts" of others are wrong?

Would you be as relaxed at the idea of children being taught in, say, Marxist-Leninist schools?

Why not?

Religion doesn't enjoy more air-time than any other part of society;

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Can I suggest that you buy a copy of the Radio Times and maybe have a bit of a think about that? 

...not forgetting the large number of theists who have a right to be heard.

Ah yes, "Songs of Atheism" on a Sunday afternoon; "Rationalist Thought for the Day" on the Today Programme; secular humanists routinely broadcast every time the House of Commons is to debate abortion or capital punishment. 

I've already pointed out the fallacious importance you put on the Bishops in the Lords.

Wrongly so - if they don't have influence, what's the point of them being there, and besides the issue was that fact that the religious - and only the religious - get to have seats in the HoL by right.

Why?

And as to wealth:  much of the money the Church has is used for the good of the community, whether theist or atheist; and in any case most of this wealth is in the form of land-ownership;  and they have to pay bills and salaries:  they are large employers.

Some of it goes to good causes certainly (though how much of that benefits "the community" rather than to those who happen to use church facilities is moot), but much of it just goes to upkeep and some is downright squandered (Bishops with chauffeurs for example. Really?). C of E bodies also enjoy substantial and largely unsupervised tax breaks from their charitable status. 

As to the position of the Archbishop, that is merely a nominal status  -  a pure red herring on your part.

No, it's just an example of the privileged status I was talking about and that you denied happens. "Nominal" or not, it's still there.

As far as my comment on belief, I have made my point;  if I seem to have shifted ground, that is because I have simply clarified myself.

Flatly untrue. Your opening gambit was to suggest that the beliefs could not be a "hoax" because people died for them. Now you're saying instead only that people who die for their beliefs must think that they are true - a very different thing.

If you're not honest enough to face up to it that's up to you, but at least now presumably you won't be returning to your first argument will you.

Will you?   

If you are looking for real privilege then look at the corporate tax cheats who are allowed to get away with it: those whose wealth enables them to gain advantage over others :  bankers who raid the county's wealth: the supermarkets who defraud the populace daily,  etc, etc. Get real, and save your accusations for those who really deserve it.

You're confusing acts of illegality or immorality with state-sanctioned privilege, which are very different things.

As to the Remembrance Day; well that should be re-thought;  but it is about remembering, and that can be done by anyone anywhere.  If you have to be at the Cenotaph to express your remembrance, it begins to look like massaging ego. Anyone can go there and show their remembrance at any time.

Yes they can, but that wasn't the point: it was just another example of the entitlement the religious have that's denied to others. 

[floo]

When my husband was head of a state secondary school he managed to do without having religious assemblies. He gave the kids a thought for the day. I don't think there were any complaints, from parents or the LEA.