[Closed] Is the UK a Christian Country?

Thats for sure oldandpastit

We are definitely arguing about angels on pinheads now.

No debate about religion ever goes anywhere cos at the end of the day it comes down to faith. if you have faith in your religion that no rational debate can sway it and if you do not have the faith then it is unknowiable

You cannot believe in the absence of something.

Do you believe in this :

[img] [/img]

No one's seen it.....it's just a theory.

Some guys in Geneva might be interested in your opinion TJ....let them know.

Nick- you know that. No belief involved

You cannot believe in the absence of something.

I beleive the theory exists. I have no knowledge of it to judge it by and I neither believe or disbelieve in the Higgs boson.

ernie

That's what Jesus saw when he necked those magic mushrooms in the desert...oh but he called it the Devil

I beleive the theory exists.

Excellent ! Next you'll be telling me that you believe the theory of God exists!

I've a feeling this thread has run its course... But thanks for a good chat folks- especially CharlieMungus. Did not expect anything much out of this.

Nope = point missed - its not about belief. Its about knowledge. You cannot believe in the absence of something. Before the existence of bacteria was known about there was no concept of bacteria thus no one could have not believed in them.

Yet apparently you know there is no god. On what do you base that knowledge?

Feel free to ignore the question or claim it's meaningless. Such a claim won't make you look clever...

He was a builder/chippy ffs.

I reckon in between his seditionary antics and his religious cult he would have been able to knock out a good few tables and chairs. Wonder if any of them survived...

There are rumours of a cup...

...the Higgs bosun (aka god particle)

As an aside,

This is a false analogy. Scientists don't "believe" that there is a Higgs Boson particle. It's a theory. They're currently running tests to see if they can find it. There's no faith or belief involved.

In the absence of any evidence for the existence of something the rational person concludes it does not exist

Sure thats an entirely reasonable conclusion. But that is not the same as knowledge.

Vatican states certainly is not very christian

Hah! Classic!

Scientists don't "believe" that there is a Higgs Boson particle.

Ah, so little faith. You'll never find the Holy Grail if you lack faith you know. Helps to have faith when you go and splash out £2.5bn on a god-seeking tool too.

Srsly tj, i think scientific method gives that you can't know that there is no god. So you are lft with a cople of options, either like northwind you have no belief about the existence of god, or you believe he doesn't exist. Which is it?

Why is this so hard for you to answer? We always end up in these cul-de-sacs of argument as you refuse to shift from an off the cuff statement and continually evade direct questions

I am not evading direct questions. However we are in a philosophical / semantic corner.

I have no belief about god. In the absence of any evidence the only logical position to take is that there is no god. There is no belief in the matter.

Aracer - I base that knowledge on the absence of any evidence however as above its a logical / semantic / philosophical corner and it can be argued that that its not knowledge but a rational conclusion. My point is that it is not a belief.

konabunny - Member

Vatican states certainly is not very christian

Hah! Classic!

Well it doesn't act in a very Christian way does it? From denial and cover up of child abuse to accumulation of great wealth to theresponsibility for many deaths

I do not need a tray.

I can kill you without a tray, with the power of the Force - which is strong within me - even though I could kill you with a tray if I so wished. For I would hack at your neck with the thin bit until the blood flowed across the canteen floor.

No the food is hot, you'll need a tray to put the food on.

I have no belief about god. In the absence of any evidence the only logical position to take is that there is no god. There is no belief in the matter.

Good sensible answer.

The problem is that rather annoyingly, faith works the other way around, which of course means that this thread will keep going round in circles forever.

If _I_ was god, I would make sure there was plenty of good hard scientific evidence around so that people like TJ would not be in any doubt as to my existence.

I hear that the North Korean authorities are releasing details about the late departed Dear Leader's life.

Apparently, when he was born, winter suddenly turned into spring. Not only that, when a boy, at his first attempt at golf, he produced 11 hole-in-ones!

Next we'll be hearing about something miraculous occurring after his death, no doubt...

😉

If _I_ was god, I would make sure there was plenty of good hard scientific evidence around so that people like TJ would not be in any doubt as to my existence

Perhaps there is evidence, but we're all so determined that God doesn't exist that we're interpreting it all wrong ... 🙂

I have no belief about god. In the absence of any evidence the only logical position to take is that there is no god. There is no belief in the matter.

But to take a position in the absence of evidence is belief, what else would you call it, or do you still insist that it is knowledge?

I base that knowledge on the absence of any evidence however as above its a logical / semantic / philosophical corner and it can be argued that that its not knowledge but a rational conclusion. My point is that it is not a belief.

The point is that in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, it's not a logical conclusion at all. It's a belief. Otherwise as discussed above you also knew that there was no such thing as the Higgs Bosun (or bacteria, cells, atoms etc. before evidence was found for them - note to Cougar, this is about TJ's beliefs, not the scientists). Good job you're a nurse, not a scientist.

Not all that interested in another answer from you - I appreciate you're not about to change your position on this, as not changing your mind when discussing things on STW is clearly such a deep rooted faith for you. Simply pointing out the glaring flaw in your argument.

Edit: bah - typing at the same time as Charlie again, but this time I reckon I've got a more comprehensive answer, so I'll leave it.

There's "joao3v16" again with his/her "perhaps". Get a grip.

If all the "interpretations" are "wrong", then how come they all lead to stuff that actually works? Planes fly.

Magic carpets don't.

If all the "interpretations" are "wrong", then how come they all lead to stuff that actually works? Planes fly.

Last time I checked there was nothing in the bible saying planes were impossible (or discussing the use of magic carpets).

TJs main problem here is that early on he asserted that atheism is not a belief based position, when in fact, it obviously is. As is everything in our consciousness. We can 'prove' stuff beyond our reasonable doubt, but we still are basing it on certain very reasonable basic assumptions about the nature of reality and consciousness. How do I 'know' that this reality isn't an elaborate dream, or computer simulation, that there is not another completely different form of reality that is imperceptible to me? Of course I don't know. But there is no evidence for that hypotesis, and nor can there be. As someone above pointed out, the most logical and reasonable thing to do is carry on my life regardless, the 'unknowable' being entirely irrelevant, a bit like the concept of viruses and bacteria to a 17thc peasant, or for that matter, the concept of deity based religion to me.

Atheism IS a belief based position; as is everything. It is NOT a faith based system. faced with scientific proof of a Deity (if that were possible) a reasonable atheist would accept the fact and 'believe'.

Last time I checked there was nothing in the bible saying planes were impossible (or discussing the use of magic carpets).

Who said anything about the bible? I was commenting on the claim that there is "evidence of god" but that we're "interpreting it" wrongly.

Are you actually reading any of this stuff, or just firing off random irrelevancies?

[quote=TJ]I base that knowledge on the absence of any evidence

So does the Higgs Bosun particle exist ? (YES/NO)

There is no evidence of it, but there is a concept of it.

By your own rules of logic, you [b]KNOW[/b] it does not exist, because there is no evidence to prove that it does.

atheism is not a belief based position, when in fact, it obviously is

Nope. Atheists are happy to accept the existence of a god, but require evidence.

Religious people believe without evidence.

It's a little tiresome to find that one has to keep repeating this to religious types who either 1: ignore it and plow on regardless with their clear non-understanding of the Atheist position or 2: haven't bothered to learn about it before spouting tripe.

Higgs Boson (etc) = theory. Some people think it could explain stuff _AND_ they have an experiment they could conduct to test it.

If the experiment works then their theory is good for another day, if it doesn't then they need a new theory. Cougar pointed this out earlier.

Faith cannot be verified experimentally, and if it could, it wouldn't be faith anymore.

Mr Woppit, at least have the decency to read the whole post. I'm not a religious type, I am an atheist and I state that evidence is required.

Not in any way claiming it was exclusively Christian or that they invented it,far from it but I reckon it was the first major Western religion/philosphy to expound it as it's credo.
The Persians,Eygptians,Greeks and Romans never helped you out if you got a puncture
Oh and they all also had slaves...

Eh? Since when is Bethlehem in "the West" (in a literal or figurative sense)?

Oh and the British, Americans, French, Belgians etc also had slaves despite (mostly) professing Christianity. Apparently they preferred the New Testament to the Old.

The Standard Model of the Universe requires the "Higgs particle" to make it work, therefore it is being looked for. Early indications are that, given the right tools (LHC at Cern) it will soon be found.

The is no indication that the universe needs a god to enable it to function.

Don't let that stop YOU hunting for The Snark though, if you deem it a productive use of your time.

Its now degenerated into a discussion about semantics.

The point I was trying to make is that Atheism is not a belief based position. Its the absence of belief. Therefore the question " do you believe no gods exist" is meaningless as I have no belief about gods.

I was making a point about the semantics used and the sloppy thinking of the theists who equate belief with truth

Higgs Boson (etc) = theory. Some people think it could explain stuff _AND_ they have an experiment they could conduct to test it.
If the experiment works then their theory is good for another day, if it doesn't then they need a new theory. Cougar pointed this out earlier.
Faith cannot be verified experimentally, and if it could, it wouldn't be faith anymore.

That's fine.

But TJ claims to "KNOW" things don't exist because there is no evidence to prove they do.

Rather than "BELIEVE" they don't exist, like most people might.

(I think it's because he said it earlier and is physically incapable of changing his mind?)

v8ninety - Member
Mr Woppit, at least have the decency to read the whole post.

OK.

If someone doesn't "believe" that the evidence of their senses is presenting them with reality, I'd say it's a question for therapy myself. Especially when all the stuff that works has come about by loads of different people working at all sorts of levels producing something based on a shared perception of what is, or is not, real.

Proof of the Pudding, and all that.

Its now degenerated into a discussion about semantics.

Is that the new Edinburgh defence?

I was making a point about the semantics used

🙄

Last TJ post +1.

🙂

(I think it's because he said it earlier and is physically incapable of changing his mind?)

Do you believe that, or do you know it? Me I have every faith in TJ keeping his position, no matter what...

Atheists are happy to accept the existence of a god, but require evidence.

Not TJ - he knows there isn't one.

[quote=The Dictionary]
.
[b]ATHIESM[/b]
.
[b]a·the·ism[/b]

[ey-thee-iz-uhm]

- noun 1. the[b][u] belief that there is no God[/b][/u]

Crikey. I've just agreed with TJ. 😀

Do you believe that, or do you know it? Me I have every faith in TJ keeping his position, no matter what...

Does the fact he has never changed his position on anything (in the face of overwhelming odds against him) count as evidence, or absence of evidence?