Forum menu
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 [s]deluded[/s] 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:
[i]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%[/i]
We're not trying to rewrite history; show me one person denying that Britain [i]was[/i] 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 - MemberI'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 [i]"quite a stretch"[/i] 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 ?
[quote=grum ]Not sure why you've started going on about character traits
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 pednanticCan I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
Or this one?
Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritageWho 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.
[quote=grum ]That's fine - but continually trying to make out that 'we are a christian country' when hardly anyone goes to church 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.
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 [i]still[/i] 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
[quote=grum ]Did you notice the wink I put in after it? I realise it's not the most reliable source.
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.
I was having a debate on Saturday with some devout Catholics, some atheists, some agnostics over lunch.
**** me that sounds boring.
[quote=grum ]Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
Yes we have covered that one - yes, you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait (in the context that you claimed the AG was prejudiced against people because of it).
2. Yes the argument that this is not a Christain country is doing exactly that.
Yet again - that depends how you define 'a Christian country'. I'm not denying the important historical/cultural role of the church, and I don't see anyone else doing that either. So unless you can provide some actual specific examples, your argument is very weak indeed.
Yes we have covered that one - yes, you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait
No-one except you has mentioned anything about 'inherently deluded as a character trait' - classic straw man from you yet again.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]**** me that sounds boring.
Well to be fair it probably beats most of the religion threads on here.
[quote=grum ]No-one except you has mentioned anything about 'inherently deluded as a character trait' - classic straw man from you yet again.
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Oh and please play the ball not the man!!!!
[img] http://cimg2.ck12.org/datastreams/f-d%3Ac240cfa744d39103959a93b0fd3efdc6234846203d14a269d5e9e0ad%2BIMAGE%2BIMAGE.1 [/img]
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Nope, you invented that bit. I didn't imply anything of the kind.
Well then we can agree to differ! BTW, (1) was not referring to you. There is also no argument there - I simply do not feed trolls even if I enjoy reading their stuff from time to time.
E_L, it was the atheist who dived into the religious stuff. Everyone else was enjoying the fish 😉
Anecdote (with added confirmation bias) ? evidence.
Its evidence that I can point to at least one example of your point being wrong, and its the exception that proves the rule!
Now, can you point me to any evidence that failure to attend church regularly precludes one from being either of faith or religion as you have claimed?
you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait
I see the distinction and we could debate it but it is not a pin dance i wish to do today.
I dont agree if you say someone is deluding themselves you are clearly saying they are deluded...even if only on that one issue.
I see no way of denying this tbh.
ernie_lynch » **** me that sounds boring.
You need an englishman, a scotsman and a Irishman to really have agood time in a pub iirc
To be fair, the argument that you can delude yourself without being deluded seems no less convincing than the argument that you can be a christian without believing in god or christ.
[quote=grum ]
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Nope, you invented that bit. I didn't imply anything of the kind.
Ah, so I was imagining you calling the AG prejudiced because he considered atheists to be deluded?
Ah, so I was imagining you calling the AG prejudiced because he considered atheists to be deluded?
No - but the bit you've invented about 'inherent character traits' isn't essential to being prejudiced.
Using inflammatory phrases such as 'deluding themselves' is quite an insulting and inappropriate way for the AG to be describing the reasonably-stated views of a fairly varied bunch of leading figures. He also totally misrepresents their stated views. To me this indicates prejudice on his part.
All your petty semantic arguments don't change any of that.
Why do you think he used inappropriate and insulting language, and misrepresented their views so badly?
Right thanks for clearing that up. So you don't think the AG believes that atheists have a particular character trait, and that an intelligent man like him is prejudiced against some people simply based on one POV they hold. Presumably you'd be similarly upset if he mentioned which football team he supports?
So you don't think the AG believes that atheists have a particular character trait, and that an intelligent man like him is prejudiced against some people simply based on one POV they hold.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here - I think I've made what I think quite clear in my last post.
Presumably you'd be similarly upset if he mentioned which football team he supports?
Oh dear. Is this really the level of argument we're at? Can you [i]really[/i] not see the rather large difference?
(This from the man who's been strongly arguing that there's a huge difference between being deluded and deluding yourself 😆 )
Why did he use the language that he did?
Mr Grieve said: “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.”
Perhaps because he believes that folk are deluding themselves if they believe that the underlying ethics of Christian society or the input that they have had into national life will disappear overnight? Seems pretty clear to me and broadly correct. Hardly inappropriate or insulting.
Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year?
teamhurtmore - MemberPerhaps because he believes that folk are deluding themselves if they believe that the underlying ethics of Christian society or the input that they have had into national life will disappear overnight?
So the next question is, why is he misrepresenting the entire argument so badly? That's much worse than just being a bit impolite. Maybe he's just [s]deluded[/s] deluding himself.
If you could provide some examples of anyone saying christian historical influence on society is 'going to disappear overnight', you might have a tiny bit of a point - but it seems you can't.
So the next question is, why is he misrepresenting the entire argument so badly? That's much worse than just being a bit impolite.
Exactly.
Also, WTF does the Attorney General think he should be voicing his personal opinions about religion in a newspaper?
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).
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on who the Attorney General is. He is not a civil servant or (primarily) a lawyer. He is an MP and cabinet minister. He is not an adviser to the government, he is a member of it. The role is a political one and he is entitled to stick his oar into political debates.
He also didn't describe atheists as deluded. He said people who didn't think the UK is a Christian country are deluded. That's an important difference. It's "a bit worrying" that you didn't pick up on it. 😉
He is not an adviser to the government
[b]the Attorney General serves as the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government in England and Wales.[/b]
He is an MP and cabinet minister.
[b]The Attorney General is a non-cabinet minister [/b]who leads the Attorney General's Office.
Wikipedia only I'm afraid - perhaps you have a better source?
He didn't even say that kb, he said that to follow one idea would be to delude oneself. From the quotes given, there is no reference to calling anyone deluded.
[quote=grum ]I think I've made what I think quite clear in my last post.
You've not exactly made it clear why thinking somebody is incorrect on one POV they hold makes somebody prejudiced about that person. I'm assuming here that the AG isn't going to be making any legal rulings directly related to whether atheists think we still live in a Christian country any more than he's going to be making any legal rulings related to which football team somebody supports. If that assumption is correct, in what other way exactly is he prejudiced against them? Do you think he will make a different ruling because of this disagreement?
Let me just remind you of your original concern about his comments:
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).
Edit: oh and I'm impressed to see you're still busy playing the man in your edit (whilst complaining about others doing the same).
Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year?
Seeing as we are 'a Christian country' - perhaps we should - Christmas too. Christmas and Easter are largely pagan in origin.
You've not exactly made it clear why thinking somebody is incorrect on one POV they hold makes somebody prejudiced about that person.
Saying they are incorrect would be one thing. Saying they are deluding themselves is a very loaded and partial phrase. For someone so concerned with the specific use of language I would have thought that distinction would be important to you.
Edit: oh and I'm impressed to see you're still busy playing the man in your edit (whilst complaining about others doing the same).
How so? I just thought it was amusing/ironic that you made such a poor analogy between two completely different things, while claiming there is a huge difference between two statements that mean the same thing.
"Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year? "
Please don't while I am an atheist myself I really enjoy my pre Christian fertility festivals next you will be saying we should cancel Saturnalia/Sol Invictus.
As specific as "inappropriate" and "insulting"?
CB - as much as like my fish and lamb, too much chocolate becomes a trial! Not a fan of simnel cake either. 😉