Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, did you mean 'apart from the demonstrable history of organised religion in the West's vehement opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, why do we assume pro-gay equals anti-religion'?

O.

Gay holy matrimony or matrimony hasn't got a great deal of  history though has it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.

All I want is a level playing field - the playing field is not level at the moment. Take two examples:

1. A museum, run as a charity that has a cafe on its premises that is run to generate revenue to support the museum. The space occupied by the museum benefits from 80% rates relief, but still has to pay 20%. The cafe will be considered to be trading subsidiary and will be charged 100% business rates with no relief.

2. A church, run as a charity that has a cafe on its premises that is run to generate revenue to support the church. The whole building is not on the VOA database and it is therefore not possible to charge any business rates. Both the church and the cafe pay exactly zero business rates.

How is that equitable?

[Nearly Sane]

You are using emotive language again.

But the point remains that the vast majority of the population (typically over 60-70%) oppose state funded faith schools, oppose religious selection in schools and oppose the Lords spiritual.

But that evidence is regularly batted away by either naive or deliberate misrepresentation of the census data to imply that we remain a majority religious country and therefore there must be support from that religious majority for faith schools and automatic places faith leaders in the HoLs.

That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.

Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.

But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.

Sorry, not understanding what you mean by the argument running both ways. It's precisely the sort of argument that you have put here that I was referring to as an ad populum. Policy should not be determined by sheer numbers, else we would on that logic give white people better tax breaks. The question  should be irrelevant to policy, and removed, Playing about with the wording only serves to validate the argument about numbers.

[Nearly Sane]

But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.

Ah the old straw merchant is obviously offering you a good deal at the moment. Religion is irrelevant to the setting of policy in this way. I did not say it was it irrelevant to history or people, that's you just making shite up. And 'With the census a bit of epidemiology' is meaningless drivel.

[ProfessorDavey]

But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.

I agree that religion isn't irrelevant - but its relevance and importance needs to be contextualised in the here and now in terms of public policy, not by reference to what used to be the case. And also there is an argument (and data from censuses and other sources is important in this respect) to be forward looking - how are trends likely to play out over the next few decades.

And without doubt religion, and in particular religious organisations, are given much greater importance than should be the case given the tiny numbers of people who have any active involvement in those organisations. And any sensible forward looking approach will conclude that the proportions of people actively involved in religion overall, and particularly in christianity, will diminish over the coming decades.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.

You could try a referendum campaigning on the grounds that the numbers of those who claim affiliation on the census are getting smaller and since they are going south why dont we just save time and marginalised it fully and forget about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah the old straw merchant is obviously offering you a good deal at the moment. Religion is irrelevant to the setting of policy in this way. I did not say it was it irrelevant to history or people, that's you just making shite up. And 'With the census a bit of epidemiology' is meaningless drivel.

On reflection you are probably right about the last bit.
It's actually worse than a bit of epidemiology. It is a means of eradication.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, not understanding what you mean by the argument running both ways. It's precisely the sort of argument that you have put here that I was referring to as an ad populum. Policy should not be determined by sheer numbers, else we would on that logic give white people better tax breaks. The question  should be irrelevant to policy, and removed, Playing about with the wording only serves to validate the argument about numbers.

What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.

[ProfessorDavey]

You could try a referendum campaigning on the grounds that the numbers of those who claim affiliation on the census are getting smaller and since they are going south why dont we just save time and marginalised it fully and forget about it.

Emotive language again Vlad.

I have no desire to marginalise religion or eradicate it - merely to ensure that its importance and influence in the public arena, in particular through religious organisations is broadly matched by its importance to the public in general. Currently I don't think that is the case - religious organisations punch well above their weight in terms of influence and privilege when you recognise that roughly 90% of the population have no meaningful involvement in any religious organisation. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.

Are you sure you aren't talking about the masons?

[Nearly Sane]

On reflection you are probably right about the last bit.
It's actually worse than a bit of epidemiology. It is a means of eradication.

Pish

[Nearly Sane]

What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.

But in seeking to merely change the questions to be less leading you are accepting the validity of the arguments that religious people should be given special privileges.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you sure you aren't talking about the masons?

No - although they may (or may not) have influence beyond their numbers as I don't think we know their numbers and they act in a secretive manner. I don't remember seeing a census question about mason membership and I doubt any mason is going to stand up and claim we are a majority mason country (for obvious reasons).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But in seeking to merely change the questions to be less leading you are accepting the validity of the arguments that religious people should be given special privileges.

But then we are back to the question ......Is representation a privilege.

[Nearly Sane]

But then we are back to the question ......Is representation a privilege.

No, we are not back to that. People are represented  by their elected members. Giving certain groups special privileges reduces the representation of others.

[Outrider]

Gay holy matrimony or matrimony hasn't got a great deal of  history though has it?

That's sort of the point - it's been suppressed for a long time, thanks in part to the activity of organised religions.  Thankfully, we're starting to realise their opinion only needs to hold weight within their own club.

O.

[Outrider]

But religion is not irrelevant.

Religion is irrelevant.  The religious people aren't, but their religion is.

It is part of our heritage...

So is slavery and invading France.

... and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige.

Which is why it's important to ensure that the census is conducted impartially so as not to lend undue credence to what are, increasingly, fringe positions.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion is irrelevant.  The religious people aren't, but their religion is.

So is slavery and invading France.

Which is why it's important to ensure that the census is conducted impartially so as not to lend undue credence to what are, increasingly, fringe positions.

O.

If religion is irrelevant why are you on here on a regular basis.
Is it not that you wish it to be irrelevant?

What would you say is the difference between a fringe and a minority?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So is slavery and invading France.

Are we looking at antitheist payback here?

[Outrider]

If religion is irrelevant why are you on here on a regular basis.

Firstly, it was intended within the context of this discourse, but more generally because religious people keep trying to get the public sphere to act upon as though it were.

Is it not that you wish it to be irrelevant?

No, it's that some people don't seem to have realised that what's important to them isn't necessarily more relevant in the broader, dare I say 'real', world.

What would you say is the difference between a fringe and a minority?

I think when you have your leadership wear funny hats and speak to imaginary friends it becomes a fringe.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

What would you say is the difference between a fringe and a minority?

I think the distinction is that we usually refer to minorities in the context of a set of defined characteristics that individuals inherently have or do not have and where it isn't a choice. So in the UK black people represent a minority as you are either black or you are not black, and if you are not black you cannot become black and vice versa. So the total pool of potential black people is the same as the actual pool of black people - in other words black people are a minority in this example.

Religion and other belief positions (whether religious, philosophical or political) are not like that. The potential pool of christians is 100% of the population - anyone can choose to be a christian - likewise humanist - likewise socialist. So it is perhaps less appropriate to call people who hold a view that could be adopted by 100% of the population to be a minority - rather we should describe the view or opinion as a minority or fringe one.

Point being that we could all be christian, or humanist or socialist, but we cannot all be black.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, it was intended within the context of this discourse, but more generally because religious people keep trying to get the public sphere to act upon as though it were.

No, it's that some people don't seem to have realised that what's important to them isn't necessarily more relevant in the broader, dare I say 'real', world.

I think when you have your leadership wear funny hats and speak to imaginary friends it becomes a fringe.

O.

I dont think that is the definition of a fringe. Particularly the hat bit. So God is imaginary I'd like to see your workings on that.
We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.