No true apatheist

[ProfessorDavey]

Only about a quarter of the people voted for Brexit and I wouldn't be at all surprised if voting Conservative and being a Christian is correlated, what with the demographics of both groups.

Oh it is, and most strongly with anglicans who were at the forefront of the brexit vote.

[Gordon]

Which bit do you find unbelieveable?

All the anecdotal stuff of uncertain provenance - I'll concede that some of the place names (such as Jerusalem) are real places, but beyond that I think the risks of mistake, lies, propaganda, bias, exaggeration and outrageous miracle claims are such than that the the contents are largely indistinguishable from fiction.

[ProfessorDavey]

You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?

Have you drifted into the he who shall not be named territory Vlad.

Well I can be absolutely certain that I have read no more of Dawkins' books than you - why, because I've never read any, including 'The root of all evil'. And I would hope that I've read rather fewer than you as you seem to be obsessed with Dawkins and bang on about him endlessly. I trust that is from a position of knowledge of his views, which you would only get by reading his works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All the anecdotal stuff of uncertain provenance - I'll concede that some of the place names (such as Jerusalem) are real places, but beyond that I think the risks of mistake, lies, propaganda, bias, exaggeration and outrageous miracle claims are such than that the the contents are largely indistinguishable from fiction.

How about the part which says all have done wrong. How are you with that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you drifted into the he who shall not be named territory Vlad.

Well I can be absolutely certain that I have read no more of Dawkins' books than you - why, because I've never read any, including 'The root of all evil'. And I would hope that I've read rather fewer than you as you seem to be obsessed with Dawkins and bang on about him endlessly. I trust that is from a position of knowledge of his views, which you would only get by reading his works.

Why have you never read any? I have.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why have you never read any? I have.

Why should I have done Vlad? There are loads of authors whose works I haven't read. You do realise that it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and not to spend my time poring over the works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al.

But this rather negates your notion that he is somehow my spiritual father - hard to be that seeing as you are more versed in his works than I am.

However I am glad to hear that you have at least read his works given that you are bizarrely totally obsessed by him.

[Gordon]

How about the part which says all have done wrong. How are you with that?

I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.

True - but my problem with christianity is it assumes that before the fact, assuming that babies are born sinful (due to the sins of their predecessors back to genesis). That is what I have an issue with.

In my mind a new born baby has done nothing wrong, they aren't guilty, they are not sinful (not that I would use that term). To presume they are is wrong in my opinion, albeit they may very likely do something wrong, or indeed many things wrong later in life. And to ascribe a newborn as sinful on the basis of actions of others, presumable forefathers, is grotesque in its moral 'wrongness' in my view and leads to the horrors perpetrated on the basis of collective inherited guilt over the past millennia.

[Gordon]

True - but my problem with christianity is it assumes that before the fact, assuming that babies are born sinful (due to the sins of their predecessors back to genesis). That is what I have an issue with.

In my mind a new born baby has done nothing wrong, they aren't guilty, they are not sinful (not that I would use that term). To presume they are is wrong in my opinion, albeit they may very likely do something wrong, or indeed many things wrong later in life. And to ascribe a newborn as sinful on the basis of actions of others, presumable forefathers, is grotesque in its moral 'wrongness' in my view and leads to the horrors perpetrated on the basis of collective inherited guilt over the past millennia.

I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).

It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).

It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.

Actually ridiculous isn't the word that I would use for the notion that someone is sinful or guilty, not on the basis of anything they have done, but due to some perceived wrongdoing (however heinous) by some related person from an earlier generation.

No, the word isn't ridiculous, the word I'd use is dangerous. I might also suggest grotesquely unethical, but that's two words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.

 

I’m not talking about mistakes Gordon....I’m talking about deliberate self motivated wrong doing.
Are you now trying to pass this kind of thing as mistake, rather than something to be confessed? Then you already reacting to this part of the message and a plea of non affectation looks less sound.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).

It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.

Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.

Now that’s dangerous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually ridiculous isn't the word that I would use for the notion that someone is sinful or guilty, not on the basis of anything they have done, but due to some perceived wrongdoing (however heinous) by some related person from an earlier generation.

No, the word isn't ridiculous, the word I'd use is dangerous. I might also suggest grotesquely unethical, but that's two words.

Humbug.Any claim that I do wrong because “I’m only human” by dint of that believes that sin is hereditary and need not be confessed especially not to oneself.

[Gordon]

Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.

So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.

Now that’s dangerous.

What a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making. I'm only human is just a turn of phrase and doesn't absolve an individual from responsibility.

Who on earth said that a person shouldn't be held responsible for their actions - certainly not me. What I am saying is that the notion of holding one person responsible (guilty or sinful) for the actions of a long dead ancestor is dangerous and grotesquely unethical. But that is the inherent underpinning of christianity and the notion of collective inherited guilt, played out across the centuries, has filled our graveyard and unmarked mass graves throughout history. you are guilty and I am justified in persecuting you because your great, great grandfather persecuted my great, great grandfather - and where does that notion arise - well it is embedded in the first chapter of the bible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh it is, and most strongly with anglicans who were at the forefront of the brexit vote.

Ha ha ha.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ha ha ha.

Is that because you don't believe me or because you think it is funny Vlad.

And I know you like my use of data - so here goes.

Anglicans - 60% Leave; 40% Remain
No religion - 43% Leave; 57% Remain

Now I don't know what denomination you are Vlad, but while some other christian denominations were better than the Anglicans not one approached the level of remain support that people with no religion provided. Indeed the only group more remain than people with no religion were muslims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.

I dunno but I did request you forget about it since I think you need to be concerned at your own deliberate sin. Original sin not universally held and only really formulated and promoted by Augustine. Scripturally Christ reverses any thing Adam ever did which leaves us with our own sin.

What seems certain is that the idea of original sin surfaces in the excuse ''I'm only human'' which is really inherited sin warmed over for non religious consumption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that because you don't believe me or because you think it is funny Vlad.

And I know you like my use of data - so here goes.

Anglicans - 60% Leave; 40% Remain
No religion - 43% Leave; 57% Remain

Now I don't know what denomination you are Vlad, but while some other christian denominations were better than the Anglicans not one approached the level of remain support that people with no religion provided. Indeed the only group more remain than people with no religion were muslims.

Never heard of Brexit as a conspiracy by the Church of England before. Ho ho ho.

[Outrider]

You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?

You are aware, of course, that the choice of title for that programme was not only not Professor Dawkins', but that he actively sought to have it changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

Your Gospel is therefore not the gospel for somehow it leaves you innocent at heart and religious people the sinners.

We don't have a gospel, we don't have a tract that must be acknowledged. We have arguments by people which can be accepted or rejected, as you choose.

The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.

The gospel makes up a crime, sin, so that the authority can have power over its identification and absolution - it's a con.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are aware, of course, that the choice of title for that programme was not only not Professor Dawkins', but that he actively sought to have it changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

Changing the name could not have been critical to his overall intent. Poor defence.

We don't have a gospel,

But you have nothing which prevents you from straw manning the Gospel

we don't have a tract that must be acknowledged

What does that mean. In this day and age the bible doesn't have to be followed by anyone. So what do you mean?

We have arguments by people which can be accepted or rejected, as you choose.

Give an example.

The gospel makes up a crime, sin, so that the authority can have power over its identification and absolution - it's a con.

O.

Only God can forgive sin. But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime. So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation. Things only have power as long as you let 'em.

What we say is that wrong doing is what exerts it's authority.

[ProfessorDavey]

Never heard of Brexit as a conspiracy by the Church of England before. Ho ho ho.

Well perhaps you haven't been listening, or perhaps didn't want to hear. The data I provided was from late 2016 from the main analysis of the vote and from then on it was well known that christians (and particularly anglicans) were much more likely to vote for brexit than non religious people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only God can forgive sin. But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime. So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation. Things only have power as long as you let 'em.

But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves. And the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt. And once you embed that concept in a culture (as christianity has done) it is a short step to justifying persecution against individuals who have done nothing wrong on the basis that you are aggrieved at something a dim and distant relative of theirs might have done. And the consequences of that concept are terrifying as groups including black people, jewish people and many others have found out over the centuries.

Once you ascribe sin or guilt to someone regardless of anything they have done it is easy to justify punishment or persecution of that person regardless of the fact that they have done nothing wrong. And so it has been in christian culture for centuries.

[ekim]

So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.

"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens."   Matt 18/3

[ProfessorDavey]

"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens."   Matt 18/3

And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.