Evil

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Maybe it's just a matter of individual perception as Outrider does not usually come across to me as angry and dejected.

But many of us - atheists and theists, including you Vlad -  probably do come across to others at various times as angry and dejected, even when we don't feel angry and dejected. Not really sure what the significance of that is? If theists come across on here as angry does it reveal something about faith / religious belief? 

I agree it is not right that Christians sometimes get told they can't wear crosses as it might be offensive whereas other religions can wear their symbols.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it's just a matter of individual perception as Outrider does not usually come across to me as angry and dejected.

But many of us - atheists and theists, including you Vlad -  probably do come across to others at various times as angry and dejected, even when we don't feel angry and dejected. Not really sure what the significance of that is? If theists come across on here as angry does it reveal something about faith / religious belief? 

I agree it is not right that Christians sometimes get told they can't wear crosses as it might be offensive whereas other religions can wear their symbols.

I think Outrider and I were discussing Sweden though. Outrider made a point of saying how happy Swedes were and in the context of a post from outrider that suggests that the reason for there happiness was secularism and a rejection of religion. I merely point out that internet atheists and secularists do not present as particularly happy and lets look at the leadership of internet and publicly professed atheists, they are either British or american and sneery rather than genuinely happy in my opinion. I see no swedes pitching in to the secularist international mission.
Are they keeping themselves aluf or aloof?

[torridon]

It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.

The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven

One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?

If God doesn't remove these 'veils of deception' then it can only be either because such is not his will, or he is unable too.  Either of which position contradicts the other claims for God as being benign and almighty.  See why christian theism makes no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God doesn't remove these 'veils of deception' then it can only be either because such is not his will, or he is unable too.  Either of which position contradicts the other claims for God as being benign and almighty.  See why christian theism makes no sense.

Almightyhood or whatever you call it needs more definition than atheists are prepared to offer IMHO.
AS for Benignity....Where do you want to start.

Matthew 7:11 offers a perspective on where we are in the benignity stakes.

[Outrider]

Given that a crushing, overwhelming victory for secularism is usually about 45% i'm minded to give you that.

When secularism wins, we all win - no 'victory for secularism' is 'crushing', its a relief.

Yes, but what about poor souls like yourself. You come across as being angry and dejected.

Is that how you read it? I'm relieved to see one or two others comment that they don't see that in what I write (though I've had my moments, every once in a while). Generally I'm of the opinion that if what I'm trying to communicate isn't coming across properly that's on me, not  you, but if you're seeing something that I don't think is there, and other people don't think is there, maybe it's something about how you're reading, not how I'm writing.

In this case it means government by atheists just as a theocracy is government by theists Pious shit? Passing of laws against expression of religion?

Whether the individuals within government are theist or atheist is irrelevant to secularism - secularism is about the process, not the people, about the justifications not the motivations.

O.

[jeremyp]

Almightyhood or whatever you call it needs more definition than atheists are prepared to offer IMHO.
AS for Benignity....Where do you want to start.

You're the one that thinks there is a god. You define him/her/it/them.

Matthew 7:11 offers a perspective on where we are in the benignity stakes.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (NRSV)

How do you know God is less evil than somebody who gives a stone to his child instead of bread?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think Outrider and I were discussing Sweden though. Outrider made a point of saying how happy Swedes were and in the context of a post from outrider that suggests that the reason for there happiness was secularism and a rejection of religion.

Is it rejecting religion if the Swedes choose Secularism - which means religion is a private matter for the individual rather than privileged in public? The Swedes include the church or religion in many of their private rituals - birth, marriage, death.

Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church owned 1/5th of the land and was heavily involved in the care of the sick and the poor and in education in Sweden. After the 16th century Reformation led to the formation of the Church of Sweden, dissenting religious views were criminalized and severely punished until about the 18th century, when immigrants were allowed to follow their own beliefs and practices, which opened up the way for diversity of belief and secularism.

As the previous social functions of the Church, such as medical care, education, and social care gradually become the responsibility of the State and other secular bodies and Sweden developed a strong welfare state, the Church started to lose its social authority as it was no longer seen as an integral part of the mechanisms of the State providing welfare and education.

Not particularly surprising is it that the less of a role religion plays in the mechanisms of State related to welfare and education, the more religion becomes a private matter for the individual and the less religion can influence decisions of the State? Religious beliefs are treated the same as non-religious beliefs. Do you think it is a bad thing to treat religious beliefs the same way as non-religious beliefs?

Both religious and non-religious beliefs are often sincerely held and very important to people and guide people's behaviour. Therefore if there is a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs on a civil issue, presumably it would be settled by society through some democratic process, similar to how they brought in legislation to permit gay civil marriages in the UK. Preferably without all the name-calling which just entrenches people in their opposing views on any issue, because why would anyone want to be railroaded into a belief they don't agree with? In Sweden, the populations' beliefs in secularism and separation of Church and State and freedom of religious belief means they have ensured that currently the State cannot force any religious organisation to go against its beliefs and officiate same sex marriages - the non-religious belief of the State is not privileged over religious belief. It's up to each religious organisation to decide for itself how it conducts religious marriages.

As there is no compulsion in beliefs, presumably we're all agreed we have not yet come up with a better solution to resolve a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs than society or the State following a democratic process that leads to a majority decision without privileging any particular religious or non-religious beliefs? 

I merely point out that internet atheists and secularists do not present as particularly happy and lets look at the leadership of internet and publicly professed atheists, they are either British or american and sneery rather than genuinely happy in my opinion.

I think that's a massive generalisation. I see lots of happy internet atheists and secularists. Or at least if we are doing a comparison internet atheists and secularists seem no more unhappy than internet theists who seem all doom and gloom about what sinners we all are and how society is going to hell in a handbasket because people are becoming less religious etc

I see no swedes pitching in to the secularist international mission. Are they keeping themselves aluf or aloof?

No Swedes on here, true. But if you look on the internet plenty seem to be having discussions about the place religion has in society. After plenty of discussions and debates the Swedes seem to have democratically decided to separate Church from State but allow the Church of Sweden to have a special role in certain cultural-heritage areas as a nod to its role in the history of Sweden. The State (through taxes)  financially contributes to the Church of Sweden to help it maintain cultural heritage sites that are under the Church's management.

Additionally, as mass immigration into Sweden has led to religious diversity, religious organisations in Sweden seem to play an important role in management of emergencies as they provide comfort and support to those affected, and they are financially supported in this role by the State using taxpayer money. 

[Alan Burns]

Ok and given, you could be seeing the world through the Devil's eyes but you just don't realise it, it makes sense not to take your interpretation as correct. 
Fair enough - you have a personal preference for different values but your values could also be that of the great deceiver (as you put it). I guess we'll never know but it's good to have the discussions. I think it's safer to have diversity of thought so people can act as a check on each other to stop one way of thinking becoming too comfortable or go unchallenged.
As I said your words could be the words of the great deceiver...

The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.
Through prayer, God's grace will guide you to discern the truth and protect you from the deceptions of the evil one.

Never underestimate the power of prayer.
Today our church celebrates the great 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas said that he learnt more through prayer than from study.
quote from wiki:
His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy is derived from his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

[Aruntraveller]

The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.

Well, it might be worth a try on Boris Johnson as mere facts don't seem to cut it anymore.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it rejecting religion if the Swedes choose Secularism - which means religion is a private matter for the individual rather than privileged in public? The Swedes include the church or religion in many of their private rituals - birth, marriage, death.

I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion. Whether that is right is another matter. Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''? What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it. Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.

Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church owned 1/5th of the land and was heavily involved in the care of the sick and the poor and in education in Sweden. After the 16th century Reformation led to the formation of the Church of Sweden, dissenting religious views were criminalized and severely punished until about the 18th century, when immigrants were allowed to follow their own beliefs and practices, which opened up the way for diversity of belief and secularism.

As the previous social functions of the Church, such as medical care, education, and social care gradually become the responsibility of the State and other secular bodies and Sweden developed a strong welfare state, the Church started to lose its social authority as it was no longer seen as an integral part of the mechanisms of the State providing welfare and education.

Not particularly surprising is it that the less of a role religion plays in the mechanisms of State related to welfare and education, the more religion becomes a private matter for the individual and the less religion can influence decisions of the State? Religious beliefs are treated the same as non-religious beliefs. Do you think it is a bad thing to treat religious beliefs the same way as non-religious beliefs?

Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question. Second question could you give many examples? To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public. You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.
 

Both religious and non-religious beliefs are often sincerely held and very important to people and guide people's behaviour. Therefore if there is a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs on a civil issue, presumably it would be settled by society through some democratic process, similar to how they brought in legislation to permit gay civil marriages in the UK. Preferably without all the name-calling which just entrenches people in their opposing views on any issue, because why would anyone want to be railroaded into a belief they don't agree with? In Sweden, the populations' beliefs in secularism and separation of Church and State and freedom of religious belief means they have ensured that currently the State cannot force any religious organisation to go against its beliefs and officiate same sex marriages - the non-religious belief of the State is not privileged over religious belief. It's up to each religious organisation to decide for itself how it conducts religious marriages.

As there is no compulsion in beliefs, presumably we're all agreed we have not yet come up with a better solution to resolve a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs than society or the State following a democratic process that leads to a majority decision without privileging any particular religious or non-religious beliefs?


 
I think that's a massive generalisation. I see lots of happy internet atheists and secularists.

where can these be seen?

Or at least if we are doing a comparison internet atheists and secularists seem no more unhappy than internet theists who seem all doom and gloom about what sinners we all are and how society is going to hell in a handbasket because people are becoming less religious etc

My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening. I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.

No Swedes on here, true. But if you look on the internet plenty seem to be having discussions about the place religion has in society. After plenty of discussions and debates the Swedes seem to have democratically decided to separate Church from State but allow the Church of Sweden to have a special role in certain cultural-heritage areas as a nod to its role in the history of Sweden. The State (through taxes)  financially contributes to the Church of Sweden to help it maintain cultural heritage sites that are under the Church's management.

The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it might be worth a try on Boris Johnson as mere facts don't seem to cut it anymore.

With the individual mentioned I think we come to a stark realisation that all things sanctioned by men and women are inherently corruptable.

We need to refresh our resolve at the fountain of incorruptability...and that is probably the essence of what prayer is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.
Through prayer, God's grace will guide you to discern the truth and protect you from the deceptions of the evil one.

Never underestimate the power of prayer.
Today our church celebrates the great 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas said that he learnt more through prayer than from study.
quote from wiki:
His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy is derived from his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

As prayer leads to millions discerning the Catholic church or all Christians are deceived, how would you show that prayer helps discern truth from error? Equally prayer leads to millions discerning that Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists are deceived. Do you have another suggestion, as your prayer suggestion hasn't worked, given the diversity of beliefs? 

[Outrider]

I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion.

The data links happiness to secularism, I just publicise the correlation.

Whether that is right is another matter.

It's right, that's what the data shows. Whether one is causative of the other, or whether they are both the result of something else like financial stability, a robust welfare system, lower levels of inequality or widespread uptake of further education is certainly open to debate though.

Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''?

No, you can entertain your beliefs in public, but they do not hold any weight in the law - your right to them might (I'd advocate that) but not the content of them.

What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it.

Religious privilege, yes, that's basically the entirety of secularism. Privilege more broadly, no.

Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.

No. If you have another belief, one that's not in any way religious, and it also has no demonstrable basis, that's equally ignored by the law. Baseless claims with a religious basis have been afforded a privilege, historically, that other baseless claims have not - removing that privilege is not giving privilege to someone else, it's levelling the field. You want the law to recognise your wants, give a reason why anyone else should be bound by it.

Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question.

In Great Britain, currently, marriage.

To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public.

Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the other examples you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like. You should observe your religion wherever you choose - it's private so far as the law is concerned.

You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.

Or Bible quotes. Or sounding out the call to Friday prayers. You couldn't, though, expect the government to prohibit sales of beef because you think cows are holy...

where can these be seen?

Ooh, ooh, sir, ooh, sir, me sir, pick me sir...

My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening.

It's a step in the right direction. It won't take us all the way, there are still any number of social and cultural influences - some explicitly religious in origin, some which have been adopted by religious traditions, some of which happen to coincide with religious traditions - which we could do with eradicating or stifling, and at the same time there are some elements of religious tradition which it would be a shame to lose.

I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.

You mean when public information was carefully curated by institutions with a vested interest in placating the authorities, and atheist voices were discounted and not heard at all?

The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated

Then nothing will be lost by a tendency towards secularism, so what is it that you're so 'triggered and ... sneery' about?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The data links happiness to secularism, I just publicise the correlation.

It's right, that's what the data shows. Whether one is causative of the other, or whether they are both the result of something else like financial stability, a robust welfare system, lower levels of inequality or widespread uptake of further education is certainly open to debate though.

No, you can entertain your beliefs in public, but they do not hold any weight in the law - your right to them might (I'd advocate that) but not the content of them.

Religious privilege, yes, that's basically the entirety of secularism. Privilege more broadly, no.

No. If you have another belief, one that's not in any way religious, and it also has no demonstrable basis, that's equally ignored by the law. Baseless claims with a religious basis have been afforded a privilege, historically, that other baseless claims have not - removing that privilege is not giving privilege to someone else, it's levelling the field. You want the law to recognise your wants, give a reason why anyone else should be bound by it.

In Great Britain, currently, marriage.

Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the other examples you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like. You should observe your religion wherever you choose - it's private so far as the law is concerned.

And there you have it another secularist who considers talking positively about religion in public is like taking a dump in public.

What a shower.

[Aruntraveller]

Walt

That really is not what Outrider said.

Stop misrepresenting him.

[Outrider]

And there you have it another secularist who considers talking positively about religion in public is like taking a dump in public.

I'm pretty sure I just said that - and I quote -

...and at the same time there are some elements of religious tradition which it would be a shame to lose.

and more specifically

Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the ... [taking a taking a dump in public] ... you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like.

Is it the reading for understanding that you struggle with, or is it just some sort of compulsive misrepresentation condition that you suffer from?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walt

That really is not what Outrider said.

Stop misrepresenting him.

No he says ''If you're religious beliefs are obnoxious.'' What religious beliefs does he not find obnoxious?'' Is he not suggesting zero barrier between obnoxious ideas and religious ideas?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion. Whether that is right is another matter. Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''? What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it. Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.

I think religion is still a public matter with secularisation - the places of worship are open to the public, people can preach and talk about their religious beliefs in public. I agree that there seems to be some confusion currently due to some people trying to stifle freedom of expression because they believe they have a right to not be offended. But that applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs. For example, expressing gender critical beliefs in public could get you a visit from the police. So it seems to be a problem in the current culture rather than an attempt to specifically silence the religious.

Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question.

Do you mean in the UK - yes - theists and atheists are treated equally by the election process for becoming an MP or Local Councillor. Or did you mean something else?

Second question could you give many examples?

Religious people are not forced to go against their beliefs and perform religious marriages and non-religious are not forced to go against their beliefs and refuse to perform gay marriages. Though to be honest I am not sure what you mean - there are so many situations where Equalities Legislation protects people from discrimination for their religious beliefs. Maybe you can give me an example of where you think they are not treated equally so I can understand what you are getting at?

To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public. You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.

Religious people wear sandwich boards too proclaiming their religious beliefs - not really seeing the problem with a sandwich board.

No, per my previous post when I say "private" I was referencing the fact that many years ago a religious institution could be seen as the primary public face of things like providing medical care, social care and education to members of society and now these institutions no longer have these public roles as they have been taken over by the State. So religious institutions become less relevant to people on a day to day basis as they are involved in far fewer activities that affect the public. In Sweden, as I said, they provide a lot of comfort and assistance to people in emergencies so all I am saying is their public role is confined to fewer areas because the State is doing a lot of the things that religious institutions used to do. 

where can these be seen?

Happy atheists? I see them all over the place. Many of the same places I see happy theists. Most of my friends are atheists. I just had a fantastic conversation with an atheist school friend this morning who phoned me up and asked if she could stay the night next week as she had an early badminton match in the area - she plays for England. I have not seen her in probably about 2 or 3 years as she moved out of London about 6 years ago. Most of my family are theists - they also seem pretty happy. 

My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening.

Yes I don't believe it's going to be a shangri la either - it will bring its own, different challenges as some other ideology or dogma replaces religion or people try to replace whatever they got from religion with something else that could bring its own challenges.

I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.

Everyone seems more outspoken and sneery these days about lots of things, it's not just during discussions about religion  - it's a cultural change in communication. Many people sneer about politics, sport, films, books, TV. But there are also many times people don't sneer.

The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated

Maybe by some. Others just observe some unequal treatment where religion gets special consideration and think that the special consideration should end. It's an opinion that I think they are entitled to express - freedom of expression and all that.

Others are free to express opposing opinions. Makes for a good discussion on a message board.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm pretty sure I just said that - and I quote -  and more specifically
Is it the reading for understanding that you struggle with, or is it just some sort of compulsive misrepresentation condition that you suffer from?

O.

What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?

[Aruntraveller]

No he says ''If you're religious beliefs are obnoxious.'' What religious beliefs does he not find obnoxious?'' Is he not suggesting zero barrier between obnoxious ideas and religious ideas?

He gave an example of Christian Voice. It was clear what he meant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think religion is still a public matter with secularisation - the places of worship are open to the public, people can preach and talk about their religious beliefs in public. I agree that there seems to be some confusion currently due to some people trying to stifle freedom of expression because they believe they have a right to not be offended. But that applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs. For example, expressing gender critical beliefs in public could get you a visit from the police. So it seems to be a problem in the current culture rather than an attempt to specifically silence the religious.
Do you mean in the UK - yes - theists and atheists are treated equally by the election process for becoming an MP or Local Councillor. Or did you mean something else?

No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He gave an example of Christian Voice. It was clear what he meant.

Yes what are they saying that is bad that say a right wing extremist but atheist could not be saying?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?

Being a theist or atheist is no barrier to standing for election.

Voters who are theists are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.

Voters who are atheist are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.

The person who gets the highest number of votes gets elected. When the next election rolls around voters have another chance to hold their representatives accountable for the way they have represented their voters' interests.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being a theist or atheist is no barrier to standing for election.

Voters who are theists are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.

Voters who are atheist are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.

The person who gets the highest number of votes gets elected. When the next election rolls around voters have another chance to hold their representatives accountable for the way they have represented their voters' interests.

I'm sorry I see no religion or atheism here only non religion.

[Outrider]

What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?

Still can't quite understand... How about I write you a checklist?

Am I about to suggest secularism means banning one or more religions?
Am I about to equate secularism with privileging atheism?
Am I about to go off on one about 'antitheists'?
Am I about to conflate secularism with Soviet-era USSR or Communist China?

If so, I've probably got it wrong and need to try again.

No charge, consider it a public service.

For the last time, secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs, it even lets professional religio-twats like Rees-Smugg put themselves up for election, if they wish. It's merely the principal that there is no justification to a law that's implemented purely on the basis of religious belief.

O.