Something out of place here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then when it was more religious? You mean when homosexuality was criminalised, and teen mothers were conscripted into giving their children away, women knew their place and we didn't have 'uppity blacks' walking around like they were our equals? Or further back, with the rotten boroughs supporting the influence of the 'divinely mandated' gentry and the church propping up the establishment in keeping the downtrodden poor but worthy?

Indeed - we are a very long way from being perfect in the UK. Not even close.

But if you look at how the UK has progressed over the past 150 years during which religion has been losing its power, losing its adherents and secularism has been slowly increasing then the trend has definitely been an improving one. Are you really claiming that late 20thC/early 21stC Britain is worse than mid early/mid20thC or mid/late 19thC?

[Outrider]

I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.

Love of money? No, Conservative love of power - you know, the Church of England when they aren't praying.

Active Christians are still significantly more likely to vote Conservative, members of other religions more likely to vote Labour, non-believers roughly evenly split between Labour and the Lib Dems, with the highest proportion Green voters also likely to be non-believers.

So, within the context of 'increasing secularism', the non-believer friendly Liberal Democrats put forwards various proposals for single transferrable vote or some other form of proportional representation, and the Christian-friendly Tories gave us a referendum on FTP vs AV, neither of which are proportional.

But it's that damn secularisation that did it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - we are a very long way from being perfect in the UK. Not even close.

Maybe but we seem to be going backwards at an alarming rate

But if you look at how the UK has progressed over the past 150 years during which religion has been losing its power, losing its adherents and secularism has been slowly increasing then the trend has definitely been an improving one. Are you really claiming that late 20thC/early 21stC Britain is worse than mid early/mid20thC or mid/late 19thC?

It is worse than the mid 20th century.

Progress through secularism and enlightenment is a crock. You have fooled yourself into believing in it unthinkingly.
If it is right to put progress at the door of decreasing religion then it is meet and indeed right to put obvious regress at the door of increasing secularisation.

[Outrider]

Maybe but we seem to be going backwards at an alarming rateIt is worse than the mid 20th century.

Gay rights don't appear to be going anywhere, and we're progressing on to coming to a collective understanding of how we're going to accommodate trans-rights. Women have more freedom than they ever have had, and issues of particular concern to them - domestic violence, how we frame gender in public depictions - are increasingly being considered by organisations and individuals. We appear to have slowed a little on our understanding of how people with disabilities can be given the freedom to fully join in with every day life, but we've not gone backwards on it. There's been a vocal backlash on racial equality, recently, but that backlash has been because institutions that previously turned a blind eye are no longer doing so.

No, we're not going backwards at all. It's slow, at times, it can feel like bashing your head against a wall, but we're still becoming a kinder, more open, more welcoming society, even when we take our eye off the ball and let the likes of Brexiteers shoot us in the collective foot.

Progress through secularism and enlightenment is a crock.

Because they've made the world worse how? How has giving equal protection to all religions and none been problematic? How has a pursuit of evidence-based learning and well-being for all resulted in an overall decline of society?

You have fooled yourself into believing in it unthinkingly.

Or you're lashing out at the competition because it's chipping away at the few remaining boundaries of what religion considers to be its province?

If it is right to put progress at the door of decreasing religion then it is meet and indeed right to put obvious regress at the door of increasing secularisation.

I think it's right to put progress at the door of the Enlightenment; that the consequence of that is to see that the bastions of the older eras that still rail against the coming of the light, full of sound and fury but increasingly signifying absolutely nothing of consequence has led to secularisation in the first instance, and to the perhaps inevitable end of religion as a mainstream concept at some point. Not yet, I don't think we're ready for it just yet, but the day is coming.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gay rights don't appear to be going anywhere, and we're progressing on to coming to a collective understanding of how we're going to accommodate trans-rights. Women have more freedom than they ever have had, and issues of particular concern to them - domestic violence, how we frame gender in public depictions - are increasingly being considered by organisations and individuals. We appear to have slowed a little on our understanding of how people with disabilities can be given the freedom to fully join in with every day life, but we've not gone backwards on it. There's been a vocal backlash on racial equality, recently, but that backlash has been because institutions that previously turned a blind eye are no longer doing so.

No, we're not going backwards at all. It's slow, at times, it can feel like bashing your head against a wall, but we're still becoming a kinder, more open, more welcoming society, even when we take our eye off the ball and let the likes of Brexiteers shoot us in the collective foot.

Because they've made the world worse how? How has giving equal protection to all religions and none been problematic? How has a pursuit of evidence-based learning and well-being for all resulted in an overall decline of society?

Or you're lashing out at the competition because it's chipping away at the few remaining boundaries of what religion considers to be its province?

I think it's right to put progress at the door of the Enlightenment; that the consequence of that is to see that the bastions of the older eras that still rail against the coming of the light, full of sound and fury but increasingly signifying absolutely nothing of consequence has led to secularisation in the first instance, and to the perhaps inevitable end of religion as a mainstream concept at some point. Not yet, I don't think we're ready for it just yet, but the day is coming.

O.

I disagree with almost everything you've said and i'll raise you two. Climate change and species extinctions.

[Outrider]

I disagree with almost everything you've said and i'll raise you two. Climate change and species extinctions.

You don't think equality is a good thing? You think we should still be in religiously-differentiated tribal states warring with each other over who has the better sky-fairy, or who is the more chosen special tribe? You don't think things are better now than, say, fifty or three-hundred years ago for women, the disabled, gay people, the trans community... What hole do you live in?

Climate change is a significant issue, I'd agree, probably the most pressing issue of current times, and arguably the product of the riches the enlightenment has given us; I'm not in the camp that we can combat it purely with potential future technological developments, although I think they'll play a part, but I would suggest that the Enlightenment is going to be of more use to us in responding to it than religion. The most significant contribution to the climate debate I've noted has been Christians saying that it's all blown out of proportion because God gave Noah a rainbow and promised not to do it again...

As to species extinctions - they've increased significantly in recent years, and (much like climate change) dwarf natural examples from history in terms of speed and possibly extent. However, whislt they're an indicator of other problems (most obviously climate change) and a reduction in biodiversity is a potential hazard for the adaptability of ecosystems in the future... extinction of species is a natural part of the lifecycle. It's sad, at one level, and it needs to be monitored, but it's not a problem in the same sense as climate change, racism or holy wars.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm sorry but we had the opportunity to change the voting system.....and didn't. Reason, love of money. Context, increasing secularism.

Bollocks.

Context: A badly presented choice of the worst option available because the LD's were so in love with their place at the top table. Also a population that is to some extent apathetic and also uneducated in politics.

And the result was decided on only a 42.2% turnout. Like Australia we should have compulsory voting, even if it means having a "None of the Above" box.

Absolutely sweet FA to do with secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bollocks. The

Context: A badly presented choice of the worst option available because the LD's were so in love with their place at the top table. Also a population that is to some extent apathetic and also uneducated in politics.

And the result was decided on only a 42.2% turnout. Like Australia we should have compulsory voting, even if it means having a "None of the Above" box.

Absolutely sweet FA to do with secularism.

Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.

[Outrider]

Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.

Progress is not due to secularisation... secularisation is progress.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

Here we go again, progress is due to secularism. Anything goes wrong, nothing to do with us ,guv.

Next time you change your name perhaps you could choose something more quixotic.

Where did I say progress was due to secularism?

I don't think secularism has a great deal to do with our warped parliamentary system. And neither do I think religion has. 

I could just as easily turn that statement round to fit you. Anything goes wrong and it's all do with secularism, nothing to do with religion.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't really do nuance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Next time you change your name perhaps you could choose something more quixotic.

Where did I say progress was due to secularism?

I don't think secularism has a great deal to do with our warped parliamentary system. And neither do I think religion has. 

I could just as easily turn that statement round to fit you. Anything goes wrong and it's all do with secularism, nothing to do with religion.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't really do nuance.

I’ve freely admitted the damage done to America and Christianity by a section of American Christians.
That is the sort of thing which will be remembered for decades or centuries.
That has been happening for centuries in Christianity and a bad name garnered by a few can leave a taint.

I offer no excuses for The Christian nationalist church.

On the other hand, increased Christianity did improve the Roman Empire which was rife with death for entertainments sake and sadistic sexual excess and exploitation, which has tainted Sex ever since.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Progress is not due to secularisation... secularisation is progress.

O.

The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.

[ProfessorDavey]

The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.

Why is secularism not progress Vlad.

Secularism is about government being neutral with regard to religion - neither favouring nor discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is religious or not religious. It is akin to government being neutral with regard to race (neither favouring not discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is of a particular race). It is akin to government being neutral with regard to sex (neither favouring not discriminating against regardless of whether an individual is of a one sex or the other).

Vlad - do you see a move toward governments being neutral with regard to race or sex as being progress compared to decades ago where they legally permitted discrimination on the grounds of race and sex? If so, why is it not progress to move in the same direction with religion (i.e. secularism).

[jeremyp]

The definition of progress you are using is a myth.
Secularisation clearly isn't so we can conclude that progress is a secular myth.

Secularism means not fining people who fail to attend church on Sunday and not hanging drawing and quartering Catholic priests who celebrate the Catholic mass.

I'd say that's progress. What do you think it is?

[Alan Burns]

The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.

[Nearly Sane]

The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.

So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.

[ProfessorDavey]

The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.

That's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it.

My view is different and I am also perfectly entitled to me view. Secularism means that the government and the state do not take a side, are neutral in the disagreement of views that we have and protect both of us in terms of our rights to hold those views.

Why exactly is that a problem AB unless you think that your views should be privileged over mine?

[ProfessorDavey]

So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.

Indeed - AB doesn't seem to realise that secularism is just as much about protecting adherents of one religion/denomination over those of another religion/denomination as it is about protecting the religious over the non religious and vice versa.

Seems there are a lot of religious people who don't think a level playing field is fair over one tipped in their favour, but are the first to cry foul if they perceive a non level playing field tipped against them (albeit usually that involves approaches to level the playing filed by removing special privileges for religions and religious people).

[Gordon]

The ultimate goal of Christian faith is to enable the eternal salvation of human souls.
I see the ever increasing secular society to be in direct conflict with this aim.

That might be because this 'aim' you mention is nonsensical, since there is no evidence for 'souls', and since the arguments offered for 'souls', such as by yourself, are fallacious and/or incoherent.

I don't think that secular society is in 'conflict' with the Christian faith: I think it is more the case that secular society doesn't much care about ancient religious superstitions nor sees a need to take them seriously. 

[Alan Burns]

So you think a society where RCs were burned alive is better than a secular one. Good to know.

Such actions are in direct conflict with the Christian message of the New Testament.
The last command of Jesus was "Love one another as I have loved you"

[Alan Burns]

That's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it.

My view is different and I am also perfectly entitled to me view. Secularism means that the government and the state do not take a side, are neutral in the disagreement of views that we have and protect both of us in terms of our rights to hold those views.

Why exactly is that a problem AB unless you think that your views should be privileged over mine?

What you deem to be "my views" do not come from me.  I am only a messenger.
I am merely re affirming the Good News of salvation given to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of how they may conflict with the ultimate goal of achieving eternal salvation.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you deem to be "my views" do not come from me.  I am only a messenger.

But we can both play that game - I can claim that my views do not come from me, but from evidence.

I am merely re affirming the Good News of salvation given to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I am merely reaffirming the position that is based on objective evidence.

You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of how they may conflict with the ultimate goal of achieving eternal salvation.

You are perfectly entitled to espouse your own views, just as I am entitled to point out the danger of a delusional approach which has no evidence base to back it up.

But the willy waggling 'my argument is better than your argument' isn't the point I was making. My point was whether you were comfortable that the state should preference one of our views over the other (noting they might not preference the view individually we hold) or whether the state should respect our rights to hold the views we do but remain neutral themselves and not preference either view through affording special privileges to you or I on the basis of the views we hold.

[Alan Burns]

But the willy waggling 'my argument is better than your argument' isn't the point I was making. My point was whether you were comfortable that the state should preference one of our views over the other (noting they might not preference the view individually we hold) or whether the state should respect our rights to hold the views we do but remain neutral themselves and not preference either view through affording special privileges to you or I on the basis of the views we hold.

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith.  We can't both be right.  However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true.  It is more than a matter of life or death.

[Stranger]

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith.  We can't both be right.  However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true.  It is more than a matter of life or death.

It really is terribly sad to watch someone who is capable of rational and logical thought say things that are so obviously illogical and irrational; it is the true horror of religion.

The very fact that you describe your faith as 'unshakable' makes it irrational. Any belief that you hold that cannot be shaken by new evidence cannot be based on rationality. And then we have the real horror of the fact that you think that your god would create a world in which merely having the wrong belief can be "more than a matter of life or death" - such a god would be an evil, cruel, unjust, and barbaric monster, and yet you worship it (which is a whole new layer of irrationality, no reasonable and sane being would even want worship).

A basically capable human mind utterly crippled by blind, unreasoning faith.   

[Nearly Sane]

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you believe to be true - just as I am sincere in my own unshakable Christian faith.  We can't both be right.  However, the consequences of you being right are trivial compared to the consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is true.  It is more than a matter of life or death.

Always lovely when a Christian actually argues they worship a prick god