Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The issue of to what extent people in the UK were exposed to Christianity, to a greater or lesser degree, is undoubtedly relevant: especially in relation to those who were born and grew up when organised Christianity had an influential role across UK society at large.

That is no longer the case though, and a while ago I recall a cleric being asked (in an episode of the Beyond Belief podcast, iirc) about the issues facing Christianity in the UK and he said along the lines of the biggest problem was the "unchurched": people for whom Christianity was simply an irrelevance in that they never had any engagement with it on a personal or family basis beyond what happened at school - people like me.

I wasn't even christened, which was probably unusual for a child born in the west of Scotland in 1952, and none of my 3 children or 5 grandchildren have been christened - so we are all "unchurched". I wonder to what extent what was unusual in my case 69 years ago is now more the norm: I suspect it may be, which is why the cleric mentioned above was concerned. 



     

Given your interest in this board christianity can hardly be an irrelevence can it? If it really was an irrelevence you'd be doing something else surely.

[Outrider]

Apologies for the typo, my previous post was supposed to read '... no-one want revenge on religion, they want to not have to care at all.'

That is unscientific hyperbole especially when global statistics are taken into account. That is mere atheist wankfantasy

Convenient time to slip from UK concerns to global statistics, but hey-ho. Worldwide we see some growth in religious absolute numbers (but not a significant change in the proportion of religious to non-religious) in areas characterised as typically 'third-world', a mixed picture in 'second world' nations, and in the developed world we see stagnating or shrinking populations overall, with a demographic shift towards non-belief.

I still don't see any atheist desire for 'revenge' on religion, just a want for it to fade into irrelevance. Where there's active hatred for religion I see it coming from other religions.

All the religions you mention are polytheist and not world religions.

Their extent was a limitation of transportation options when they were popular, not something intrinsic to the mythology; Christianity was a local religion until it became the fashion in the Roman Empire; it's not as though it sprang unbidden across the world independently, there's no pre-European invasion tradition of Abrahamic worship in the Americas or India.

As to polytheism, Christianity is a polytheistic tradition trying pseudo-intellectual sophistry to pretend like it's not in an attempt to manufacture some sort of fundamental difference from previous superstitions. The Holy Trinity, Satan, the (other) angels in their multitudinous ranks and, depending on the specifics of the theology, divine saints... that's a lot of divine entities rocking around for a monotheism.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As to polytheism, Christianity is a polytheistic tradition trying pseudo-intellectual sophistry to pretend like it's not in an attempt to manufacture some sort of fundamental difference from previous superstitions. The Holy Trinity, Satan, the (other) angels in their multitudinous ranks and, depending on the specifics of the theology, divine saints... that's a lot of divine entities rocking around for a monotheism.

O.

Satan and the angels are not divine.

[ProfessorDavey]

I take Dawkins line that there are no Christian Children etc. i.e. just because your parents were actively christian you must be.

I agree - new born babies are no more born christian than they are born muslim or born West Ham fans or born musical. However they are born into households that may be christian, muslim or West Ham fans or musical and/or to parents who chose to bring them up to be christian, muslim, West Ham fans or musical by taking active steps to inculcate those aspects into their children - such active steps might include choosing to send their children to a faith school or to Sunday School/madrassa classes, allowing their children to attend worship at church/mosque or buy buying a little West Ham top for them to wear and taking them to see West Ham when they are old enough.

And there are examples where parents make a decision to take active steps to promulgate something thing in their children that isn't something they do themselves - for example my in laws weren't musical, played no instruments but they ensured that all of their children were brought up to be musical by taking a range of active steps for their children - enrolling in instrument lessons, buying a piano for them to practice on etc etc.

My parents were not active Christians by any sense. So I dispute an active christian upbringing.

Maybe your parents weren't active christians - but nonetheless they made decisions about your upbringing that ensured promulgation of christianity in you that were entirely choices - while I might accept your argument on the faith school (although it is really rare that there wasn't another non faith school in easy walking distance) but there can be no such argument on Sunday School - that was an active decision to send you to a completely voluntary and elective activity whose prime purpose is christian religious instruction. Why on earth would they have done that unless they wanted you to be brought up in a christian manner. And even if they didn't understand what Sunday School was (hardly credible) that you went and were attending a faith school at a key age and (although weirdly you seem hazy on details) were attending christian worship as a child indicates that your upbringing was miles away from being non religious, but was actively christian, regardless of whether your parents were active churchgoers. Here is the clue - parents bringing up their children in a non religious manner do not choose to send their children to voluntary religious instruction classes, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc, nor are they likely to send their kids to faith schools nor are they likely to have kids attending religious worship, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc.

I think you have a problem of perspective - I think you cannot see that because your upbringing wasn't as tub thumpingly christian apologist as you have become that it wasn't a christian upbringing. It was. It is a bit like someone who as an adult is a rabid West Ham fan, season ticket holder, attending all home and away games claiming that they weren't brought up to be a West Ham fan because their parent's only bought them the odd top, supported them attending the occasional game and encouraged them to find out all about West Ham by buying the West Ham fanzine for them every week (ie. like Sunday school).

Also highly dubious is your ''folding back into the religion of childhood'' a process you still haven't elucidated.

As a child you attended a faith school with a fundamental christian ethos, you attended christian religious instruction classes, you attended christian worship. Your bringing wasn't non religious, it was christian. Despite the fact that you briefly stepped away from your christian upbringing it is clear that later you reverted back to the religious that your upbringing had promulgated in you. You folded back into the religion of your childhood. The very notion that you claim that after reading CS Lewis the bible, which you had previously studied but hadn't made sense began to make sense. Had you not been brought up in a christian manner that statement would be nonsensical as you'd never have studied the bible before - but of course you did, in the christian environments of your faith school and your sunday school.

[Gordon]

Given your interest in this board christianity can hardly be an irrelevence can it? If it really was an irrelevence you'd be doing something else surely.

That I regard Christianity as a personal irrelevance does not mean that I'm uninterested in any circumstances where organised Christianity seeks to have a disproportionate influence over society at large, such as we saw over Same Sex Marriage,

They are, of course, free to put forward their point of view but they aren't free to presume that their point of view is authoritative by default or that wider society should be expected to conform to religious dogmas just because they are religious dogmas - if so, then they would be over-reaching.

[Outrider]

Satan and the angels are not divine.

Yes they are.

Or, to not just make unsubstantiated assertions... I suppose that depends on your interpretation of 'Divine' to be fair - they're supernatural beings that fulfil part of the mythos and operate magically as part of the hierarchy outside of nature, and to that extent they are in a similar field as the three gods you do claim divinity for. So whilst you might be able to justify classifications that differentiate between the Trinity and angels, they are on a spectrum of supernatural beings operating out of alleged metaphysical realms - if you want to reserve the word 'divine' for a subset of that fine, but they're all of an ilk, and it's a false distinction to try to pretend that it's something fundamentally different to, say, the Greek pantheon of Titans, Gods and demi-gods, nymphs and other magical creatures.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I think that christianity has had less influence for a lot longer than any of you atheists in this country.

Complete nonsense.

I don't think I even knew that atheism and atheists were even 'a thing' until I was probably in my 20s such was (and still is) the invisibility of atheism in the UK. Organised christianity and christians have a prominence in the UK, even now, easy beyond atheists and atheism. Take a brief walk or drive in any village, town or city and likely you'll pass several churches proudly proclaiming their Christianity. Look amongst the people you know - no doubt the tiny proportion (perhaps 5% of the population) who are active christians will have made that know to you somehow and you will be aware of it, if even an off hand, cast away comment that at the weekend 'after church, they went for a walk and pub lunch'. Vlad at least every fourth person in the UK is atheist - I bet you, nor I have any idea who most of those people are, because they tend to keep these things private. Given your persecution complex that should terrify you Vlad - every fourth (maybe every third) person you pass in the street, meet in the pub, have a meeting with at work, serves you in a shop is ... an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree - new born babies are no more born christian than they are born muslim or born West Ham fans or born musical. However they are born into households that may be christian, muslim or West Ham fans or musical and/or to parents who chose to bring them up to be christian, muslim, West Ham fans or musical by taking active steps to inculcate those aspects into their children - such active steps might include choosing to send their children to a faith school or to Sunday School/madrassa classes, allowing their children to attend worship at church/mosque or buy buying a little West Ham top for them to wear and taking them to see West Ham when they are old enough.

And there are examples where parents make a decision to take active steps to promulgate something thing in their children that isn't something they do themselves - for example my in laws weren't musical, played no instruments but they ensured that all of their children were brought up to be musical by taking a range of active steps for their children - enrolling in instrument lessons, buying a piano for them to practice on etc etc.
Maybe your parents weren't active christians - but nonetheless they made decisions about your upbringing that ensured promulgation of christianity in you that were entirely choices - while I might accept your argument on the faith school (although it is really rare that there wasn't another non faith school in easy walking distance) but there can be no such argument on Sunday School - that was an active decision to send you to a completely voluntary and elective activity whose prime purpose is christian religious instruction. Why on earth would they have done that unless they wanted you to be brought up in a christian manner. And even if they didn't understand what Sunday School was (hardly credible) that you went and were attending a faith school at a key age and (although weirdly you seem hazy on details) were attending christian worship as a child indicates that your upbringing was miles away from being non religious, but was actively christian, regardless of whether your parents were active churchgoers. Here is the clue - parents bringing up their children in a non religious manner do not choose to send their children to voluntary religious instruction classes, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc, nor are they likely to send their kids to faith schools nor are they likely to have kids attending religious worship, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc.

I think you have a problem of perspective - I think you cannot see that because your upbringing wasn't as tub thumpingly christian apologist as you have become that it wasn't a christian upbringing. It was. It is a bit like someone who as an adult is a rabid West Ham fan, season ticket holder, attending all home and away games claiming that they weren't brought up to be a West Ham fan because their parent's only bought them the odd top, supported them attending the occasional game and encouraged them to find out all about West Ham by buying the West Ham fanzine for them every week (ie. like Sunday school).
As a child you attended a faith school with a fundamental christian ethos, you attended christian religious instruction classes, you attended christian worship. Your bringing wasn't non religious, it was christian. Despite the fact that you briefly stepped away from your christian upbringing it is clear that later you reverted back to the religious that your upbringing had promulgated in you. You folded back into the religion of your childhood. The very notion that you claim that after reading CS Lewis the bible, which you had previously studied but hadn't made sense began to make sense. Had you not been brought up in a christian manner that statement would be nonsensical as you'd never have studied the bible before - but of course you did, in the christian environments of your faith school and your sunday school.

If the parents have no real idea or commitment what constitutes a religious conversion then they are going to conclude that whatever brush with religion they had a brush with religion such as sunday school is not in their view going to turn they're kids into a holy roller and so they will see sunday school as a respite

Sunday school certainly isn't about bible study which is a group or commentary aided activity. There was never any bible study in our house. I certainly have no reccollection of Bible study in the manner of believers bible study

Your thesis remains dependent on notions of brainwashing, intensive bible study by children, Mysterious sleeper Christians who carry it in their subconscious until an equally mysterious release, and disregards any notion of an encounter with Christ not merely it's reality and it is this I am objecting to since it introduces bias to your interpretations and misrepresents what Christianity is about.

In terms of islam and Hinduism we have of course Gabriella and Sriram to consult. Not that I see evidence of that from you. Gabriella is a convert to Islam from another tradition I understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete nonsense.

I don't think I even knew that atheism and atheists were even 'a thing' until I was probably in my 20s such was (and still is) the invisibility of atheism in the UK. Organised christianity and christians have a prominence in the UK, even now, easy beyond atheists and atheism. Take a brief walk or drive in any village, town or city and likely you'll pass several churches proudly proclaiming their Christianity. Look amongst the people you know - no doubt the tiny proportion (perhaps 5% of the population) who are active christians will have made that know to you somehow and you will be aware of it, if even an off hand, cast away comment that at the weekend 'after church, they went for a walk and pub lunch'. Vlad at least every fourth person in the UK is atheist - I bet you, nor I have any idea who most of those people are, because they tend to keep these things private. Given your persecution complex that should terrify you Vlad - every fourth (maybe every third) person you pass in the street, meet in the pub, have a meeting with at work, serves you in a shop is ... an atheist.

No, I'm talking about the atheists on this board who feel oppressed by supposed Christian society. You for instance think that Britain in the sixties was a religious country, I don't and haven't in fact I had to wait to age 23 before receiving what I would call the proper key christian information. I think that most of the people in the street are likely to be apatheist rather than publicly professing atheists who, I'm afraid are still in a small minority.

[ProfessorDavey]

Gabriella is a convert to Islam from another tradition I understand.

Yes I am aware of that and I never said no-one ever ends up as an adult as an adherent of a different religion to the one of their upbringing. What I have said is that it is very, very rare - a comment that (unlike most of yours) is actually backed up by research and evidence. So Gabriella's conversion from hinduism as a child (I believe) to islam as an adult doesn't discount my views at. Actually the make up of people on this MB is pretty consistent with the broader stats on adult religious adherence compared to upbringing, noting that what you describe as apatheists are unlikely to be particularly interested in engaging in this MB.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I am aware of that and I never said no-one ever ends up as an adult as an adherent of a different religion to the one of their upbringing. What I have said is that it is very, very rare - a comment that (unlike most of yours) is actually backed up by research and evidence. So Gabriella's conversion from hinduism as a child (I believe) to islam as an adult doesn't discount my views at. Actually the make up of people on this MB is pretty consistent with the broader stats on adult religious adherence compared to upbringing, noting that what you describe as apatheists are unlikely to be particularly interested in engaging in this MB.

Certainly your misunderstanding about what Christianity actually is colours the efficacy of your methodology. I certainly get the opinion that you are running an argumentum ad populum.

[ProfessorDavey]

You for instance think that Britain in the sixties was a religious country, ...

Well I can't really speak about the 60s as I was too young, but UK society had a pretty heavy underlying dollop of christianity about it. I suspect pretty well every child in school in the early 70s was expected to participate in christian prayers, hymns etc and required to learn about christianity, shops and most amenities weren't open on a Sunday due to christianity, there were (and still are) christian churches pretty well everywhere so you could hardly miss them, many youth organisations were aligned to churches, any welcoming ceremony for a new-born child was expected to be christian (or at least another religion), the notion of a non religious ceremony was unheard of, likewise for funerals. This was a world where the very first word of the national anthem was 'God', and it is pretty clear which god was being referred to. Need I go on.

I don't and haven't in fact I had to wait to age 23 before receiving what I would call the proper key christian information.

Ah bless, Vlad didn't get the christian information he wanted as a child - point being that this wasn't because you'd never received christian instruction, you'd had it year after year thought childhood - you just weren't taken with the information you received.

How much information (right, wrong, faulty, accurate) did you receive about atheism and atheists as you grew up - I suspect absolutely zero - it was never taught in schools or discussed elsewhere. So you may be complaining about the 'quality' of the formative information and instruction you received about christianity through your childhood. My equivalent is that I don't think I even realised that atheists and atheism even existed until probably late teens - somehow I think you realised that christianity and christians existed Vlad from about as young as you can remember (just like me).

[Outrider]

No, I'm talking about the atheists on this board who feel oppressed by supposed Christian society.

Supposed?

Our education system requires daily induction into the state religion - we have a state religion! - the national public service broadcaster is obliged to reserve specific time slots for religious programming across multiple streams - the head of state is also the head of the state religion - we have reserved seats in the legislature for members of the state religion... there is no 'supposed' about it.

That's before you get to any particular social attitudes or more, before you look at the preponderance of particular religious outlooks in the political incumbents, before you look at attendance or professions of belief, that's what's written into the underlying structure of our country.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Certainly your misunderstanding about what Christianity actually is colours the efficacy of your methodology.

Not really unless you are in no true scotsman territory Vlad. And by the way you aren't the arbiter of what christianity is for all christians. Most of this research involves self declaration - people don't need to prove they meet the Vlad-test-for-true-christians, no they are asked to indicate:

1. What religion (if any) they were brought up in
2. What religion (if any) they affiliate with now
3. Whether they actively participate in that religion - e.g. prayer, attending worship etc
4. How important religion is to them

Or variants of these kinds of questions.

We know of course that self reporting, particularly in terms of attendance, overestimates the numbers attending worship, but that is a different matter.

[jeremyp]

Satan and the angels are not divine.

Satan would certainly be classed as a god (small g) in any religion that is not pretending to be monotheistic. Compare him to Loki or Ganesha. Apart from his alleged evil intent, he doesn't seem any different to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Our education system requires daily induction into the state religion - we have a state religion!

Indeed and even in non faith schools back in the 70s there was a pretty clear to expectation (well actually a requirement) to engage children in christian, well actually CofE, worship.

So if that environment wasn't as such how come I know the Lord's Prayer so well (the CofE) version, that whenever I've attended RCC services with my wife (which I have done occasionally) I am always caught out when their version suddenly (and still to me unexpectedly) ends early. That's how embedded the Lord's prayer is - and where did that come from? Standard early 70s non faith schooling.

[ProfessorDavey]

All the religions you mention are polytheist ...

So what - why is a religion somehow more important because it is monotheistic rather than polytheistic.

... and not world religions.

Define a world religion. It seems to me that christianity is only a 'world religion' firstly in a current geographic sense and then only by the good luck to be around at a time when people have been able to travel the world.

But I'd also argue that it isn't a world religion if you consider world, not just to involve current geography but also time and scope. So christianity is a religion that has existed for a blink of an eye in terms of the history of earth, and even less so in terms of the history of the universe - so pretty parochial in that sense. Also christianity, unlike some other religions, is achingly anthropocentric - about humans, by humans, for humans and therefore has absolutely nothing to say to the 99.9999% (or whatever it may be) of life that is not human, and of course nothing to say to the world before humans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - why is a religion somehow more important because it is monotheistic rather than polytheistic.

As Outrider has said the age of polytheism is largely over Monotheism not so, Hinduism has developed it's own monist monotheism

Define a world religion.

One that is able to cross cultures, The abrahamic monotheisms and Buddhism have been able to do this and that is why they are referred to as world religions

It seems to me that christianity is only a 'world religion' firstly in a current geographic sense and then only by the good luck to be around at a time when people have been able to travel the world.

Christianity has been going for 2000 years and has survived where geopolitical and geoscivilisations have failed and has even survived the upheaval.

But I'd also argue that it isn't a world religion if you consider world, not just to involve current geography but also time and scope. So christianity is a religion that has existed for a blink of an eye in terms of the history of earth, and even less so in terms of the history of the universe - so pretty parochial in that sense. Also christianity, unlike some other religions, is achingly anthropocentric - about humans, by humans, for humans and therefore has absolutely nothing to say to the 99.9999% (or whatever it may be) of life that is not human, and of course nothing to say to the world before humans.

Social science is achingly anthropocentric anthropology is achingly anthropocentric. What a stupid accusation. Cosmology and science starts with religion and proceeds with the idea that laws govern a reasonable cosmos.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Satan would certainly be classed as a god (small g) in any religion that is not pretending to be monotheistic. Compare him to Loki or Ganesha. Apart from his alleged evil intent, he doesn't seem any different to me.

Satan is a created being and not of divine substance. Those notions are up to you whether you reject them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed and even in non faith schools back in the 70s there was a pretty clear to expectation (well actually a requirement) to engage children in christian, well actually CofE, worship.

So if that environment wasn't as such how come I know the Lord's Prayer so well (the CofE) version, that whenever I've attended RCC services with my wife (which I have done occasionally) I am always caught out when their version suddenly (and still to me unexpectedly) ends early. That's how embedded the Lord's prayer is - and where did that come from? Standard early 70s non faith schooling.

You were, in your own theory brought out of the oven too early Ha Ha. My argument is that a cultural christian environment or even a PROPER CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING in culture and in heart and home does not a christian make. Only a commitment to Christ can do that.

[jeremyp]

Satan is a created being and not of divine substance. Those notions are up to you whether you reject them.

The gods of many religions are created. Most of the Ancient Greek pantheon were born in the normal way to other gods. Your distinction is somewhat artificial. I'd call it monotheistic snobbery, which is the perception that monotheism is somehow more advanced than polytheism and, as a result, trying to pretend your polytheistic religion is really monotheistic.

At the end of the day, they're all make believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The gods of many religions are created. Most of the Ancient Greek pantheon were born in the normal way to other gods. Your distinction is somewhat artificial. I'd call it monotheistic snobbery, which is the perception that monotheism is somehow more advanced than polytheism and, as a result, trying to pretend your polytheistic religion is really monotheistic.

At the end of the day, they're all make believe.

I don't think my distinction is artificial. Satan and the angels are not of the divine substance. They are created, Constructed rather than birthed. You are turning your ignorance of that into some kind of virtue I feel. That is what makes Christianity monotheism. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God is pretty clear cut to me.

[Gordon]

My argument is that a cultural christian environment or even a PROPER CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING in culture and in heart and home does not a christian make. Only a commitment to Christ can do that.

Not much of an argument, Vlad: presumably you'd have to be exposed to Christianity first in order to decide that you want to make a "commitment to Christ", since it seems unlikely that any one would make this "commitment" without first having been exposed to Christianity - which does seem rather circular.

I'm guessing it is the exposure to Christianity, plus the requisite amount of gullability, that is the key stage - and of course not everyone who is exposed to Christianity accepts it, but these days fewer are perhaps being exposed in the first place (the 'unchurched' I mentioned previously)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not much of an argument, Vlad: presumably you'd have to be exposed to Christianity first in order to decide that you want to make a "commitment to Christ", since it seems unlikely that any one would make this "commitment" without first having been exposed to Christianity - which does seem rather circular.

I'm guessing it is the exposure to Christianity, plus the requisite amount of gullability, that is the key stage - and of course not everyone who is exposed to Christianity accepts it, but these days fewer are perhaps being exposed in the first place (the 'unchurched' I mentioned previously)

Clearly we are all exposed to it. We know this due to the lavish amount of Goddodging.

[Stranger]

...lavish amount of Goddodging.

Something else you've never provided the slightest hint of a scintilla of evidence for.