[Closed] "I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth"

Unsafe how?

Perhaps a bit of an overstatement?

jambalaya - Member
We've done this topic to death before. The only abuse, narrow mindedness and bigotry I have seen comes the "anti-religious" posters. STW as a whole has effectively become an unsafe place for people of faith. As I said it's the very worst of the place.

I don't have any issue with faith. I'm not interested in bashing belief in God or faith - as my posting history would indicate.

I have an issue with hypocrisy pertaining to religion. An issue with politicians publically asserting that their religious belief and personal relationship with god supports and validates their decisions and position - especially when these run counter to the prevailing morality explicit in their proclaimed religions narratives. Frankly it stinks.

When listening to May, should we remember that the devil can quote scripture for its own purpose...?

This is why I've said time and again to use the Report Post link, then any abusive posts can and will be reviewed (by the team, not just me)

Matthew 5:39

I know Hilary Clinton is an actual demon, but didn't realise that May was one too!

When listening to May, should we remember that the devil can quote scripture for its own purpose...?

I know Hilary Clinton is an actual demon, but didn't realise that May was one too!

As long as she is not the Gatekeeper - that's fine.

Princess Tony did it all the time.

Yes. He's a hypocrite too. If there is a god, I hope there is a special place in hell for him, W and his ilk.

Can you Report Post on the abusive posts please? I seem to have missed them.

We've had many threads and they've all gone the same way. Look at the inferences here on the first page that all religious people are bigots. Even had the nonsense that Fillon (just won right to challenge for French Presidency, he's Catholic) hates homosexuals, absolute garbage. Like many millions of French he was against Gay marriage but he has said he won't change the law, he voted against Maastricht but he's not going to take France out of the EU either)

As you know I am against reporting post after post, you've got better things to do. It's simpler just to stay away from these threads. They are in my view the absolute worst of STW. Far worse than the politics one's.

We've had many threads and they've all gone the same way. Look at the inferences here on the first page that all religious people are bigots.

Because their manual is so vaguely written / translated and self-contradictory that it can be used to support whatever world view someone already has.

And in the case of Christianity, selectively edited all through history.

Shall I hop onto a sports thread and delete any comments criticising another's favourite team?

I've been a good boy recently!!

We've had many threads and they've all gone the same way.

Historically sure, I was guilty of it myself at one point. But recently?

Dont stop yet, I predicted at least 8 pages....

Are you lot anti-Christ?

Is that the right description?

Or is atheist the right description?

But then atheist are people that don't care about what other belief is that right? i.e. do they go around condemning or anti-ing?

😯

People's twisted view of scripture makes them believe their stupid, selfish, often intolerant and persecutive (Is that a word? If not, I have invented it.) actions are morally right and justified.

If she were basing policy on scripture, then yes. But there's no evidence that's happening. People can base policy on Das Kapital, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, any book they like. In fact we all do. The books we read and the culture we absorb help to create our identities and guide our actions, regardless.

However, it's not that simple; if she's claiming "god agrees with me" then it may well add additional weight to her policies with those who believe in that sort of thing.

Again - IF she used that in debate - then you'd have a point. But she doesn't.

Are you lot anti-Christ?
Is that the right description?
Or is atheist the right description?
But then atheist are people that don't care about what other belief is that right? i.e. do they go around condemning or anti-ing?

Not here. Just sick of people espousing one thing and pursuing another.

I am however anti-May!

If she were basing policy on scripture, then yes. But there's no evidence that's happening. People can base policy on Das Kapital, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, any book they like. In fact we all do. The books we read and the culture we absorb help to create our identities and guide our actions, regardless.

No, not the same thing at all. She is clearly using religion in her background to set herself up as a morally upstanding person - despite acting immorally.

We are all influenced by our background and experiences, the difference is that we don't carefully state them on record in an attempt to influence large numbers of people and gain power.

jamj1974 - Member
Not here. Just sick of people espousing one thing and pursuing another.

However, I also belief in the walking dead or those with brain rot ... 😆

p/s. We are all influenced by one thing or another even believing in nothing is still a belief, but if you admit to brain rot then you do not have a belief.

If you believe that you had a conversation with God and received an answer then you are either a) schizophrenic or b) His prophet.

Says who?

I know this is going to make me seem all molgrips about this, but this somewhat ignores all of the intelligent people of faith.

I have my own trope - awseome 🙂

But yes. You (the militant aetheists) go on about inteligence being important, then you dismiss the intelligent responses to your arguments because they don't agree with you. How incredibly ironic.

She is clearly using religion in her background to set herself up as a morally upstanding person - despite acting immorally.

If you are saying this is a cynical ploy to get votes, then fine - that may be it. If Christian philosophy influences her politics then well, she hides it well.

But she still has not yet based arguments on scripture. If she did then she'd get torn to pieces pretty quickly, and not just by you lot.

But yes. You (the militant aetheists) go on about inteligence being important, then you dismiss the intelligent responses to your arguments because they don't agree with you. How incredibly ironic.

Speaking for myself... Militant? Certainly. Atheist? Not really.

Historically sure, I was guilty of it myself at one point. But recently?

Maybe not in fairness, I was so put off I don't normally open them. I did this one as it referenced the PM.

Oh my. A politics combined with religion thread on STW.......

Usual suspects in?

Check.

Predictable battle lines drawn and being defended to the last?

Check.

University Challenge on in a few minutes?

Check out.

dannyh - Member
Oh my. A politics combined with religion thread on STW.......
Usual suspects in?
Check.
Predictable battle lines drawn and being defended to the last?
Check.
University Challenge on in a few minutes?
Check out.

😆

University Challenge on in a few minutes?

The correct answer - Barton-Singer's a bright chap!! Not sure about Paxo's Don Quixote (aka Quicksoat)!!!

@dannyh 🙂

Never mind her religion. Did you see her leather trousers?

Atheist means a rejection of all religious belief (all equally invalid) but Charlie's primary rule still applies because if you're a d1ck about other people's choices then you're no better than the tiny handful of religious loons

As for Theresa May, remember that she said when she was home sec "I'm all for free speech, but... " which bothers me greatly because there should be a full stop after the word speech, no but is allowed.

If she wants to be guided by her god, the more salient question is whether this belief has greater weight than the evidence that is presented when formulating policy - note that her comment avoids this question, which bothers me especially when you combine it with the free speech issue.

but she's a politician so I have a default position of assuming a BS spout unless proven otherwise, regardless of party

Nobody yet seems to have asked the important question. Not WWJD, but would Jesus be allowed into our glorious new Great Britain which we've taken back control of? I'm thinking carpenters aren't all that high up the list of skills we're short of, and with his background he's exactly the sort people are wanting to keep out.

Or does persecution by Romans give him legitimate refugee status?

"[i]I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth[/i]" is roughly equivalent, in terms of deranged medieval fanaticism of the sort that threatens the very foundations of modernity and the possibility of human progress to "[i]I sometimes do yoga because I feel quite spiritual[/i]" or "[i]I only eat free-range chickens[/i]".

I cannot believe how exciting this thread has been about something so utterly mleh. 🙂

I'll think it through, have a gut instinct, look at the evidence, work through the arguments, because you have to think through the unintended consequences

i'm happy with most of these, though 'which evidence' is a question. But basing national and international decisions on 'gut instinct' ?

i'm happy with most of these, though 'which evidence' is a question. But basing national and international decisions on 'gut instinct' ?

Maybe that was pre-referendum, when she was pro-EU? Post-referendum, leaving the EU is the right thing to do, because God.

I am quite comfortable having openly religious politicians and even an openly religious PM. That's the world we live in and even though we have dwindling numbers of politically observant people as an electorate we still largely seem to tolerate and reinforce a constitution that is somehow tied up with the monarchy and the Church of England. So what should we expect?

As above though, May and indeed Cameron and Blair all left the (backslidden) evangelical in me feeling upset and disenfranchised that the faith I thought I knew was being used to somehow bolster, justify or back up some rather un-Christian policy and decisions.

Ironically if Jesus were around today, his actions and teachings as reported in the gospels would have him backing current version of Labour (yes even the very atheist Corbyn) not TM DC or TB.

This threads stalling, have a Pic of her watching you whilst you criticise her..

[img] [/img]

julianwilson - Member

As above though, May and indeed Cameron and Blair all left the (backslidden) evangelical in me feeling upset and disenfranchised that the faith I thought I knew was being used to somehow bolster, justify or back up some rather un-Christian policy and decisions.

This is it... Some bolshy atheists seem to be getting upset about this but all there really is for us to be annoyed about, is bog standard Theresa May cynical hypocrisy, and who's got enough energy to get annoyed every time she does that?

The people who've got a right to be annoyed are genuine Christians seeing their Lord's name taken in vain, yet again. Christ wouldn't vote for this shower, he'd ride up on his velociraptor and hadoken her into the sea. (*)

(* It's a while since I went to church, I'm sketchy on the details)

Ironically if Jesus were around today, his actions and teachings as reported in the gospels would have him backing current version of Labour (yes even the very atheist Corbyn) not TM DC or TB.

Christ wouldn't vote for this shower, he'd ride up on his velociraptor and hadoken her into the sea.

He doesn't ride a velociraptor. He drives one of these.....
[img] [/img]

For so is it written in the Book of Panther 4:12

"and lo! the Lord came down from heaven in his triumph to smite the blasphemer"

See, that's not what the book of Shobba says.

Oooohhh, your gonna get such a smiting when HE finds out.

[img] http://650rider.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=2320 [/img]

Or does persecution by Romans give him legitimate refugee status?

Being all historical for a minute, I'm pretty sure it would yes.

Where's SaxonRider when you need him?

Being historical... the Jesus myth is a collection of older myths.

i thought it was "and lo, the roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout Israel".

Atheist means a rejection of all religious belief

No, it means an absence of belief. It derives from Greek "without God".

It can actually be either - a belief there is no god, or an absence of belief there is a god - although for many that is closer to agnosticism.

That might have been the original etymological derivation - but the meaning has moved on.

Look at the big brains on brad.

It can actually be either - a belief there is no god, or an absence of belief there is a god - although for many that is closer to agnosticism.

That might have been the original etymological derivation - but the meaning has moved on.

All atheists have an absence of belief in god, but only some believe that there is no god. Believing that there is no god is not an innate characteristic of atheism.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable, which is something else.