[Closed] Is the UK a Christian Country?

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?

The point I was trying to make is that Atheism is not a belief based position.

It would appear that atheism is not a position at all. But this shouldn't stop you from expressing an view on the existence of a God. remember I'm asking you what you think, not what you don't think.

The question was "do you believe no gods exist" I do not believe in gods in any form therefore its a semantically null question as the concept of gods is false therefore there can be no concept of "no god"

Its not that I am incapable of changing my mind. Its that the question is nonsense in the form asked.

You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist - its not a belief

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.

Thankyou. Of course, I agree. But you are still 'believing' your senses though? Obviously because it is the most rational course of action given the irrefutable evidence. Its when role start to believe things in the absence of evidence that it starts to get messy. Politely, that's known as faith. (I just think its odd)

You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist - its not a belief

this is circular

You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist - its not a belief

OK - I don't believe that there's no chance of TJ changing his mind then.

the concept of gods is false

Prove it.

remember I'm asking you what you think, not what you don't think.

No - you asked both questions.

I am quite prepared to say " I do not believe in gods" and have done many times. that is an answerable question. However to ask " do you believe there are no gods" is asking me what I don't think. there is no real or honest answer to it

aracer - Member
Atheists are happy to accept the existence of a god, but require evidence.
Not TJ - he knows there isn't one.

Atheists are happy to, given the evidence, accept the existence of a god. However, the probability measurement that such evidence is available, is a number so small that it's as near zero as makes no difference. That is the gap through which religion still feels it is able to wriggle and still expect us to treat it seriously.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

CharlieMungus - Member

"You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist - its not a belief"

this is circular

Correct - the question has no meaning.

I think that what TJ's [i]trying[/i] to say is that rather than believing there is no god, he is ignorant of the existence or non-existence of Gods.

[u]TJ is actually here, on this site, telling us that [b]he[/b] is [b]ignorant[/b][/u]

Some of us have prayed for this moment 😆

remember I'm asking you what you think, not what you don't think.
No - you asked both questions.

yes, ages ago, but you answered the what you don't think one and continue to do so.

I am quite prepared to say " I do not believe in gods" and have done many times. that is an answerable question.

However to ask " do you believe there are no gods" is asking me what I don't think. there is no real or honest answer to it

It's not asking what you don't think. Do you think there are no biscuits left in my tin over here?

Its now degenerated into a discussion about semantics.

I'm an atheist, and I'm happy to say I believe there are no gods, if that helps?

I base this belief on (the complete lack) of firm evidence...

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.

There is no spoon.

But you are still 'believing' your senses though? Obviously because it is the most rational course of action given the irrefutable evidence.

That's an interesting question. I may have to think about it.

I'm an atheist, and I'm happy to say I believe there are no gods, if that helps?

Yes it does help, it seems that everyone is capable of answering this question except TJ

Do you think there are no biscuits left in my tin over here?

Did you ever play the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy adventure game?

Do you think there are no biscuits left in my tin over here?

Its unknowable - thats my point

Schrödingers cat

That's an interesting question. I may have to think about it.

See, it [i]was[/i] worth reading the whole post... 😉

Schrödingers cat

No, CharlieMungus's Biscuits.

Lucky the analogy wasn't a cracker barrel. (-:

Do you think there are no biscuits left in my tin over here?
Its unknowable - thats my point

Finally!!!
It's unknowable, good! So what do you believe? What do you think?
Then, if the state of my biscuit tin in unknowable, how come you can know that there is no god.

and it's got frig all to do with Schrodinger's cat

if the state of my biscuit tin in unknowable, how come you can know that there is no god.

By definition, there's good reason to suspect that there may be biscuits in a biscuit tin. The same does not hold true for gods.

A better analogy might be to ask whether we believe that there's a walrus (or no walruses) in your biscuit tin.

A better analogy might be to ask whether we believe that there's a walrus (or no walruses) in your biscuit tin.

Fabulous.

Finally!!!
It's unknowable, good! So what do you believe? What do you think?

I do not believe in gods. I can give no answer to the question " do you believe there are no gods" as the question is meaningless. I do not have any belief in the concept of "no god" "No gods" is a meaningless concept to me

Then, if the state of my biscuit tin in unknowable, how come you can know that there is no god.

In answer to my own analogy,

I don't believe that there is a walrus in your biscuit tin. I do believe that there are no walruses in your biscuit tin. It's a made-up concept and so absurd that I'd go as far as to say that I [i]know[/i] that there are no walruses in your biscuit tin, because there's no reason to think that there are beyond the made-up premise I invented (though of course there may be biscuits shaped like walruses.)

However, if you were to show me your biscuit tin and go "look, a walrus" then I would revise my stance. Presented with such evidence, I would then know that you have walruses in your biscuit tin, and I would decline offers to visit you for coffee.

A better analogy might be to ask whether we believe that there's a walrus (or no walruses) in your biscuit tin.

Fine, do you believe I don't have a walrus in my biscuit tin?

I don't believe that there is a walrus in your biscuit tin. I do believe that there are no walruses in your biscuit tin. It's a made-up concept and so absurd that I'd go as far as to say that I know that there are no walruses in your biscuit tin, because there's no reason to think that there are beyond the made-up premise I invented (though of course there may be biscuits shaped like walruses.)

sure but, you don't actually know, you have very good reason to believe, but to know is something very different, knowledge is conceptually different from believing very strongly.

I wonder how TJ would cope as a customs official. Hello, officer. I have no drugs on me. What? you cannot believe or not believe me? why thanks you.

knowledge is conceptually different from believing very strongly.

How so? I'm not so sure.

Charlie - I believe that drugs exist as do many folk - therefore I can believe in the absence of them.

If I don't believe something exists how can I believe in its absence?

If I don't believe something exists how can I believe in its absence?

the same way everyone else does. Are you avoiding the knowledge issue?

do you believe I don't have a walrus in my biscuit tin?

Is it possible to accept the existence of something which you do not believe exists?

That's a neat trick.

sure but, you don't actually know, you have very good reason to believe, but to know is something very different, knowledge is conceptually different from believing very strongly.

Then we're into the realms of philosophical twaddle about how we really "know" anything. Do we really know that the Universe isn't some inter-dimensional hyperbeing's high school science project? (His brother had used it for a project previously, so he had to format it first to get rid of all those big lizardy things.)

I know, for all practical purposes. I "know" plenty of things which, at some point, may be disproved as better explanations or evidence comes to light. I "know" plenty of things based on what other people have told me, which I lack the means to validate first-hand but which plenty of very clever people have been able to prove.

I know these things beyond reasonable doubt. Arguably, from another point of view I don't actually know anything at all. (Quiet at the back)

Mr Woppit - Member
Is it possible to accept the existence of something which you do not believe exists?

Is it possible to accept the existence of something which you do not believe exists?
That's a neat trick.

Well, it is, but it is a bit of a linguistic trick. One might say they do not believe god exists, but not say that they believe god does not exist.

TJ

Do you believe in The Dictionary ?

It's a book that defines the meanings of all the words we use.

And it's definition of Atheism, says your talking cack.

ATHEISM:
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
- noun 1. [b]the belief that there is no God[/b]

I know these things beyond reasonable doubt. Arguably, from another point of view I don't actually know anything at all. (Quiet at the back)

Sure, i'm reasonably happy with that idea, but the 'knowing' is based on hard evidence. and in the realms where you have no evidence or insufficient knowledge, then you don't know, although you may have strong suspicions that i don't have a walrus in a biscuit tin

how do you know there is no god? have you been across the whole universe and looked to make sure he isn't hiding behind a rock?

You believe there is no god in the abscence of evidence to prove otherwise.

Schrodingers Cat, you do not know what is happening in the box but reason and probability allows you to predict the outcome.

I believe in Evolution, i believe in the big bang, if someone comes along and shows me a better theory then i will change my beliefs, the heart of science is to be open about ideas because the whole point is to challenge belief.

I do not have any belief in the concept of "no god" "No gods" is a meaningless concept to me

I don't think it's a meaningless concept. I think it's a weaselly one.

To acknowledge that there are no gods, you first have to acknowledge that gods exist and then say there aren't any. It's a theist point-scoring exercise.

My walrus tin analogy falls down on exactly this point, thinking about it. I already know(*) that walruses exist, the question is whether they exist in CM's biscuit tin (or whether none of them don't, or something). Perhaps instead we need to consider whether or not we know that there are no live unicorns in the tin.

(* - at least, I know beyond reasonable doubt; I've seen them on TV. They could be an elaborate hoax, but it's not likely).

Do you believe in The Dictionary ?

It's a book that defines the meanings of all the words we use.

And it's definition of Atheism, says your talking cack.

There are many dictionaries, and you haven't specified which one you're referring to. You might well be used to having blind faith in a book, but how do we know that it's a credible source (or that you haven't just made it up)?

As a stab in the dark, I looked on dictionary.com - this is what it has to say:

atheism
a·the·ism
? ?[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin: 1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Whether or not this proves your point or TJ's, frankly it's too much of a logic bomb for me to care so you can fight it out amongst yourselves. Point is, it carries two alternate definitions, not just the one you cited.

To acknowledge that there are no gods, you first have to acknowledge that gods exist and then say there aren't any. It's a theist point-scoring exercise.

exactly.

Surely;

Knowledge = Belief based upon the most convincing evidence available. (People 'knew' that the world was flat, orbitted by the sun)

Faith = Belief based upon nice stories, indocrination, desire to fill the gaps...

Both belief though. Maybe it's the English language that is left wanting...

To acknowledge that there are no gods, you first have to acknowledge that gods exist and then say there aren't any. It's a theist point-scoring exercise.

Not at all, you don't have to accept they exist to say there aren't any. I'm happy to say that I don't believe that unicorns exist. I'm also happy to say that I believe that unicorns don't exist.

Why is that so hard for you to do the same with god?

TJ, still why is it that the state of my biscuit tin is unknowable, yet the existence or nor of a god is knowable?

Perhaps instead we need to consider whether or not we know that there are no live unicorns in the tin.

Just to be pedantic, unicorns do exist. first exhibit is the Narwhal, which may be one source of the myth, then there are cases of antelope, goats, etc with a single horn.

To go further, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus did exist, as did most of the prophets, Budha probably existed as have the majority of the religious leaders of the world. Which does lead to the question of if someone hears "voices" due to mental illness does that mean the "voices" don't exist because i can't hear them? If there solution is to call the voices god as an explanatin of what is happening to them? Occams razor.... the answer is probably the simplest one, which reflects the culture in which you live. Fits through history have often been regarded as divine rather than an illness.

Nope - only Monkeys, lions, elephants, Tigers and Hippo's

See - it says on the pack:

[img] [/img]

To acknowledge that there are no gods, you first have to acknowledge that gods exist and then say there aren't any. It's a theist point-scoring exercise.

Really? I have to acknowledge the existence of bogeymen 😯 before saying that there aren't any (under my bed)??? I now feel that I was seriously misinformed as a small child...

in the realms where you have no evidence or insufficient knowledge, then you don't know, although you may have strong suspicions that i don't have a walrus in a biscuit tin

True. But, critically, I have no reason to think that you might(*). I therefore know right now that you do not have a walrus in your biscuit tin.

(*) - Interestingly, this was true at the start of the discussion but isn't actually true any longer; there's a likelyhood that you might obtain a walrus and put it in the tin in order to prove a point. God doesn't exist, but you might invent him.

ok, but back to the unicorns and bogeymen...

I have to acknowledge the existence of bogeymen before saying that there aren't any (under my bed)???

Absolutely.

Compare "there are no bogeymen under your bed" to "there's no such thing as bogeymen." In the former you're passively reinforcing the concept that bogeymen exist, in the latter you aren't.

To go further, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus did exist, as did most of the prophets

Provide evidence. Frankly, there's more historical data to suggest that Sherlock Holmes existed than Jesus.

Which does lead to the question of if someone hears "voices" due to mental illness does that mean the "voices" don't exist because i can't hear them?

Fits through history have often been regarded as divine rather than an illness.

True. But, critically, I have no reason to think that you might(*). I therefore know right now that you do not have a walrus in your biscuit tin.

Strangely enough I work in a zoo and one of our walruses just gave birth and died immediately after. I've been given repsonsibility of looking after the tiny fella and had nowhere to keep him. Guess what i did?

Absolutely.

Compare "there are no bogeymen under your bed" to "there's no such thing as bogeymen." In the former you're passively reinforcing the concept that bogeymen exist, in the latter you aren't.

Fine, but can you say there is no such thing as bogeymen?

So is 'there are no bogeymen' (forget geographical locations) different to there is no such thing as bogeymen?

Same question for Gods?

Strangely enough I work in a zoo and one of our walruses just gave birth and died immediately after. I've been given repsonsibility of looking after the tiny fella and had nowhere to keep him. Guess what i did?

Made up a story in order to convince me that [s]god is real[/s] there is a walrus in your biscuit tin?

So is 'there are no bogeymen' (forget geographical locations) different to there is no such thing as bogeymen?

I'm not sure. Is there?

Cougar,

Yes various dictionary definitions with vary (slightly) in their wording.

But I'll bet you nobody can find one that says:

Atheism:

Noun-

The [b]Knowledge[/b] that no gods exist.

They will [b]all[/b] have the word [b]BELIEF[/b] in the definition.