*sigh*

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it’s a clever arguing tactic.

Actually I’d rather the Attorney General didn’t comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him. It’s a bit worrying and entirely inappropriate to have the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).

Presumably you’d rather only priests commented on stuff about religion then?

*sigh*

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time

Good point Grum, but why follow it up with…

(describing them as deluded).

I can’t see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing. He is playing the ball – the beliefs – not the men. Perfectly valid approach irrespective of whether he is correct or not.

kerching!

I can’t see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing.

Petty semantics. He is saying ‘if these atheists don’t agree with my opinion they are deluding themselves’ – how is that different from them being deluded exactly?

Not the same thing as ernie is doing at all.

It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.

You are also ignoring the massive straw man here – who has argued it is ‘going to disappear overnight’?

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it’s a clever arguing tactic.

Actually I’d rather the Attorney General didn’t comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him.

And yet articles which involve people expressing their personal opinions is an established character of newspapers, the Guardian has several pages to cover precisely that. It’s one of the reasons why people buy newspapers.

And if Daily Telegraph readers are interested in reading about the Attorney General’s opinions regarding, religion, gardening, holiday destinations, or any other subject, then I can’t see a problem.

I don’t think I’m misrepresenting you at all, it’s clear that you are unhappy with the Attorney General’s opinions so that’s why you think Daily Telegraph readers shouldn’t read about them.

Except it’s not is it? There’s a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false. You’re deluding yourself to miss that point (DYSWIDT?)

It’s not semantics at all. There is a it difference between separating views/behaviour from the people concerned. Hence good people can do bad things and vice versa. The danger in ignoring this is that you may misrepresent others.

Except it’s not is it? There’s a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false.

So a person deluding themselves is not deluded? Ok then. 🙄

There’s a pretty fundamental difference in meaning

Go on then.

It doesn’t make it a character trait (which is the basis of your allegation), no.

Where did I say that? You’re straw manning again.

Forgotten already?

Where did I mention anything about character traits?

However – if I was to say that christians’ beliefs are delusional, how is that different from saying christians are deluded?

It’s ridiculous to claim there’s any significant difference.

He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.

“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.

So being deluded isn’t a character trait?

If you didn’t mean that it is, why on earth do you think the AG might be prejudiced against somebody because of something that isn’t a character trait?

Not sure why you’ve started going on about character traits – your argument doesn’t make sense and is still covered under what I said a few posts back.

Petty semantics.

Next is someone going to tell me that when IDS says ‘those denying Britain is a Christian country are “absurd” ‘ – he’s not really saying they are absurd.

He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.

“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.

I’m afraid that the only one revealing a lack of partiality is you, because thats what the evidence does say – sorry if you don’t like it or believe they’re all wrong, but the stats support his point

I’m not debating the statistics – I’m debating his use of them. Using belief in the supernatural as an argument in favour of christianity and against atheism is quite a stretch.

IIRC more people believe in ‘the supernatural’ than God.

Time to put the shovel down?

Anyway, I “see” a Guardian article and “raise” a Spectator one…. 😉

I say all this as a lapsed agnostic, open to the idea of a disestablished church and booting the bishops out of the Lords. But to deny that we are a Christian country is progressive revisionism of the highest order. Some people do not like the fact that we are a Christian country – but they should say so, rather than pretend otherwise. Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage, as well as our current governing structure, is at best delusional. At worst it shows metropolitan liberal society attempting to cleanse the parts of Britain it finds distasteful.

Leaving aside the partisan last sentance, the rest seems pretty spot on. And the bold bit is playing the ball not the man – a bit like the AG!!

Time to put the shovel down?

Great argument – well made. Really playing the ball not the man etc

But to deny that we are a Christian country

That depends how you define ‘a Christian country’ though – which renders his whole argument totally pointless.

Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage

Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.

But to deny that we are a Christian country

Personally, I’d say we were once a Christian country but aren’t any more.

According to IDS, you’re ‘absurd’, and according to our Attorney General you’re deluded deluding yourself.

As I go around and look at the way we make laws, and indeed many of the underlying ethics of society are Christian based and the result of 1500 years of Christian input into our national life. It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.”

TBH I feel sorry for them they know they have lost the battle , they know their influence will decline be it from the moral voice of authority re gay marriage to its literally declining and dieing church attendance figures. Its floundering like a fish out of water still able to thrash around and get folk to notice it but its decline is inevitable and very difficult for them to address/alter.
Saying Christianity shaped the country is just to state a historical fact however given some of the laws they shaped – might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, deportation, slavery, etc I think they probably want to cherry pick which laws reflect their values.

FWIW – I assume THM will agree- the morals argument for religion is pretty weak – Adams was it iirc while since i did this- either there is a reason why morals are good [ then we can all see this reason, god, devout and atheist], or god chose them on a whim and we just follow them. Its not hard to work out which is the case.

Whilst we are being pednantic

Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?

So if you were christened or baptised as a kid, is there something you legally need to do later in life to be officially “no religion” ?
Has bigger implications in other countries. Germany is one, where the church is owned by the state.

IIRC more people believe in ‘the supernatural’ than God.

Yes, but the Theos study put some interesting contradictions out there, like people not believing in god, but believing in angels and the devil…

The problem is you’re suffering confirmation bias – you presuppose that answering the question ‘does god exist?’ is a binary yes or no answer – that unless you say ‘yes’ then the only possible answer is ‘no’ – Whereas in fact a great many people would answer ‘possibly’ or ‘maybe’

The point about christianity is that questioning the or doubting existence of god is entirely consistent with the faith, in fact its what much of the basis of theology is about.

The theos report was very interesting with this comment:

the proportion of people who are consistently non-religious – i.e. who don’t believe in God, never attend a place of worship, call themselves non-religious, and don’t believe in life after death, the soul, angels, etc. – was very low, at about 9%

We’re not trying to rewrite history; show me one person denying that Britain was a Christian country. We’re criticising people for rewriting the present.

I’m confused that people still seem to think the stats support the “christian country” argument though, I thought we’d done that to death. But perhaps I’m absurdly deluding myself (while not being deluded)

grum – Member

I’m not debating the statistics – I’m debating his use of them. Using belief in the supernatural as an argument in favour of christianity and against atheism is quite a stretch.

You should read your link again. He doesn’t do that. He’s using the statistics to explain what he claims is the lack of progress that atheism has made.

It’s not unreasonable to claim that a belief in the supernatural or a deity hinders the progress of atheism.

I don’t know where you get the “quite a stretch” from.

BTW why did you provide a link to an article which you claim is full of holes and which you think shouldn’t have been written anyway ?

Well it was you who introduced the idea of the AG being prejudiced, which presumably being an intelligent man he isn’t against people who simply hold a particular viewpoint.

Petty semantics.

Now you’re just repeating discredited arguments.

I’m not debating the statistics – I’m debating his use of them.

Well in the particular bit you’ve quoted he’s using them to explain what the statistics say – clearly that’s completely unacceptable.

“Argument”, grum? It was a question hence the ? – is it time to put the shovel down? Yes or no?

And referring to the argument (the ball) not the writer (the man) – its important not to misrepresent here!

The point about christianity is that questioning the or doubting existence of god is entirely consistent with the faith, in fact its what much of the basis of theology is about.

That’s fine – but continually trying to make out that ‘we are a christian country’ when hardly anyone goes to church, most people don’t consider themselves religious, and more people believe in aliens than god ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/alien-believers-outnumber-god_n_1968259.html 😉 ) is pretty daft.

“Argument”, grum? It was a question hence the ? – is it time to put the shovel down? Yes or no?

And referring to the argument (the ball) not the writer (the man) – its important not to misrepresent here!

Exactly – you weren’t making an argument. You were just criticising me with no attempt to justify why or counter any of my points.

I was having a debate on Saturday with some devout Catholics, some atheists, some agnostics over lunch. Take the Apostles Creed – if you only believe some but not all of it – does that rule you out of calling yourself a Christian? Ditto, the one devout Catholic has a homosexual sibling, so the debate was intriguing to say the least.

Anyone going to answer this question?

Whilst we are being pednantic

Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?

Or this one?

Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage

Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.

No I was criticing your argument and specifically your point that the AG called atheists deluded – from the quote, that seems to be untrue.

No reference to you nor any criticism of you, so the point that I was criticising you is invalid for the same reason.

I countered the point v specifically.

Hmm – an online survey. Yes I read what they say about it being a legitimate sample, but presumably they didn’t actually include any of the older people who don’t own a computer in their survey.

‘Time to put the shovel down’ is nothing more than a childish dig (and a sign you’ve lost the argument).

If you don’t want to accept that it’s up to you.

Hmm – an online survey. Yes I read what they say about it being a legitimate sample, but presumably they didn’t actually include any of the older people who don’t own a computer in their survey.

Did you notice the wink I put in after it? I realise it’s not the most reliable source.

Anyone going to answer this question?

Whilst we are being pednantic
Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?

Or this one?

Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage
Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.

when hardly anyone goes to church

You’re still hung up on the church thing?

My dad was brought up in full on hardcore catholic tradition, latin mass and everything- turned his back on the RC church when he married a divorcee in 1971, which created huge ructions within the family.

You’re telling me he wasn’t religious, or wasn’t a christian, because he didn’t go to church? because he didn’t have me baptised?

I can tell you you’re wrong

Take the Apostles Creed

Rocky lost to him then beat him IIRC
HTH

as for believing all the Bible I think you will be hard pushed to find a christian who believes it all so cherry picking and dsaying some of it is the word of god [ 10 commandments] an some not true but an allegory – genesis] seems to be the “rational” for accepting much of what it says is factually inaccurate whilst still keeping the faith

Seriously how can i be deluding myself and not be deluded – granted its a politer way of saying it but that is all.
You are lying to yourself about that one if that is what you think….did i just call you a liar*?

Have we stopped doing deductive logic on here or something?

* done for effect I am not suggesting anyone is actually lying here just that we disagree

Ah, sorry – shall we just discount the post you included that in then? 😉

1. sorry, dont feed trolls
2. Yes the argument that this is not a Christain country is doing exactly that. To use a specific if trivial example – look at what is engraved on a pound coin and ask why it is there?

You might as well argue that we do not have a monarchy.

I can tell you you’re wrong.

Anecdote (with added confirmation bias) ? evidence.

1. sorry, dont feed trolls

🙄

Play the ball not the man etc. Pretty clear sign you’ve lost the argument there.

Ah, sorry – shall we just discount the post you included that in then?

If you like.