Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[jon1959]

Certainly.
We are indeed in a worrying place in terms of the spiritual health of the nation, but it's not for the first time.
The thing is, you see, that you cannot be a spiritual vacuum and if you're not filled with the right spirit you'll be filled with the wrong one, and I think this explains a lot of the problems we face in society today.

The Romans thought they'd ended Christianity,didn't they?

The Romans turned Christianity into a state religion. Out with the Vestal Virgins and in with the Pope.

[RonnieBird]

The Romans turned Christianity into a state religion. Out with the Vestal Virgins and in with the Pope.

Wasn't quite like that was it ?

They eventually became Christians, but not before persecuting Christians for a very long time and having reached a point - just as our present day enemies have - where they thought they'd destroyed it and replaced it with their own low practises.

We can observe that Christian societies thrive , and we can observe our own society withering on the vine as its faith and purpose dwindles . The stem is stronger than you think though and it will recover

[jon1959]

Wasn't quite like that was it ?

They eventually became Christians, but not before persecuting Christians for a very long time and having reached a point - just as our present day enemies have - where they thought they'd destroyed it and replaced it with their own low practises.

We can observe that Christian societies thrive , and we can observe our own society withering on the vine as its faith and purpose dwindles . The stem is stronger than you think though and it will recover

Well, if you are Wales-Bales you have played a blinder there with your Janet and John defence of globalist religion.

Just to play along for a while - the Romans persecuted lots of different people and beliefs (as well as tolerating them at other times) including Christianity before they adopted it and imposed it on everyone within their empire.

Who are our 'present day enemies' and what are their 'low practices'? Does 'our' relate to UK Christians, or to the mix of people who inhabit this messageboard (including the aetheists and Jedis)?

'We can observe' is an interesting phrase. I have observed many Christian societies (today as well as through history) that are insular, bigoted and oppressive. Others maybe not. But are you claiming that our society (UK, Europe, the West or however you define 'our society') is withering (I totally disagree with that opinion) because fewer than half of us hold supernatural beliefs and are card-carrying members of the (often wealthy, powerful and insidious) institutions that claim to champion those views?

You're not Truthpaste are you?

[The Gifaffe]

Hilarious that the word man uscripts is blanked because it has a hole in it. lol

[RonnieBird]

Well, if you are Wales-Bales you have played a blinder there with your Janet and John defence of globalist religion.

Just to play along for a while - the Romans persecuted lots of different people and beliefs (as well as tolerating them at other times) including Christianity before they adopted it and imposed it on everyone within their empire.

Who are our 'present day enemies' and what are their 'low practices'? Does 'our' relate to UK Christians, or to the mix of people who inhabit this messageboard (including the aetheists and Jedis)?

'We can observe' is an interesting phrase. I have observed many Christian societies (today as well as through history) that are insular, bigoted and oppressive. Others maybe not. But are you claiming that our society (UK, Europe, the West or however you define 'our society') is withering (I totally disagree with that opinion) because fewer than half of us hold supernatural beliefs and are card-carrying members of the (often wealthy, powerful and insidious) institutions that claim to champion those views?

You're not Truthpaste are you?

In fact the Romans were very tolerant and accepting of most religions in the Empire, and built joint temples for local idols which were often shared with their own. They took a very different and much harsher view of Christianity from the outset.

The word "our" refers here to Christians, so that's easily dealt with.

insular, bigoted and oppressive are all subjective terms. You may well regard things as insular ,bigoted or oppressive which others might not. Similarly, in fairness , "low practises " is a subjective term , and I expect I regard some things as such which you regard as quite wholesome and acceptable.

These are personal choices, and you are quite free to make your own. I would say that anyone's choices will have consequences, but you clearly reject that idea given your comments about "supernatural beliefs ".

Now, given that I am only truthfully answering the question posed in the OP , I'm hardly enforcing my beliefs upon you and,whilst I'd be delighted for you to find the truth of Christianity, I'm not going after anyone in the way that you seem to be doing.

If we can extrapolate the few points of yours I've read , I expect you'll be quite left wing and convinced about many things which I would reject because I've found that you can usually package these various beliefs together as being counter arguments against the plain truth, and persuasions to disregard the nature of the world in favour of some superficially more attractive version in which you can do what you like. Your choice entirely , as I've said, but do try and understand that you're practising a religion yourself because if I'm right about your general views , that'd tick all the boxes for a religion.

Last thing about the truth, well in fact the truth is very important to me.

[pomeroy]

In fact the Romans were very tolerant and accepting of most religions in the Empire, and built joint temples for local idols which were often shared with their own. They took a very different and much harsher view of Christianity from the outset.

The word "our" refers here to Christians, so that's easily dealt with.

insular, bigoted and oppressive are all subjective terms. You may well regard things as insular ,bigoted or oppressive which others might not. Similarly, in fairness , "low practises " is a subjective term , and I expect I regard some things as such which you regard as quite wholesome and acceptable.

These are personal choices, and you are quite free to make your own. I would say that anyone's choices will have consequences, but you clearly reject that idea given your comments about "supernatural beliefs ".

Now, given that I am only truthfully answering the question posed in the OP , I'm hardly enforcing my beliefs upon you and,whilst I'd be delighted for you to find the truth of Christianity, I'm not going after anyone in the way that you seem to be doing.

If we can extrapolate the few points of yours I've read , I expect you'll be quite left wing and convinced about many things which I would reject because I've found that you can usually package these various beliefs together as being counter arguments against the plain truth, and persuasions to disregard the nature of the world in favour of some superficially more attractive version in which you can do what you like. Your choice entirely , as I've said, but do try and understand that you're practising a religion yourself because if I'm right about your general views , that'd tick all the boxes for a religion.

Last thing about the truth, well in fact the truth is very important to me.

You refer to 'absolute truth' in one of your posts. How do you define this?

[RonnieBird]

You refer to 'absolute truth' in one of your posts. How do you define this?

Don't recall using that expression but I expect you're right.

It's all about subjective versus objective reality.

In subjective reality what you believe is supposed to be your particular truth and thus according to some,as valid as any other truth.
" perception is reality" if you like.
This is the prevailing philosophy since it was honed to a fine art by the dreadful Bertrand Russel.

Objective reality calls for "Ontic trust" , although perhaps let's not go there right now. Suffice it to say that it rejects the idea that there are alternative truths - there may be alternative versions , but only one is actually true and all the rest are either lies or mistakes.

Now,in the same way that man is not in himself capable of good or evil, but rather chooses which of these forces to lean towards, he isn't capable of discerning the truth for himself using only his own mind or logic - again he instead has to choose between two alternative and opposing versions , and must use his other abilities to do this. The abilities I speak of are his spiritual aspect, and of course ,in the event that man rejects or disbelieves that he even has such a component, it cannot help him.

One side will tell you that there is no such thing as absolute truth and the other will tell you that there is. As in most areas of human existence ,you must choose which to believe and you have free will to do that.

[Baloo]

In fact the Romans were very tolerant and accepting of most religions in the Empire, and built joint temples for local idols which were often shared with their own. They took a very different and much harsher view of Christianity from the outset.

The word "our" refers here to Christians, so that's easily dealt with.

insular, bigoted and oppressive are all subjective terms. You may well regard things as insular ,bigoted or oppressive which others might not. Similarly, in fairness , "low practises " is a subjective term , and I expect I regard some things as such which you regard as quite wholesome and acceptable.

These are personal choices, and you are quite free to make your own. I would say that anyone's choices will have consequences, but you clearly reject that idea given your comments about "supernatural beliefs ".

Now, given that I am only truthfully answering the question posed in the OP , I'm hardly enforcing my beliefs upon you and,whilst I'd be delighted for you to find the truth of Christianity, I'm not going after anyone in the way that you seem to be doing.

If we can extrapolate the few points of yours I've read , I expect you'll be quite left wing and convinced about many things which I would reject because I've found that you can usually package these various beliefs together as being counter arguments against the plain truth, and persuasions to disregard the nature of the world in favour of some superficially more attractive version in which you can do what you like. Your choice entirely , as I've said, but do try and understand that you're practising a religion yourself because if I'm right about your general views , that'd tick all the boxes for a religion.

Last thing about the truth, well in fact the truth is very important to me.

Being non-religious is not ‘doing what you like’. It’s actually quite possible for non-religious people to live a good life and to behave ethically just to make the most of the one life we have and not due to a fear of supernatural consequences.

[Tuerto]

Being non-religious is not ‘doing what you like’. It’s actually quite possible for non-religious people to live a good life and to behave ethically just to make the most of the one life we have and not due to a fear of supernatural consequences.

All of the religious people i know aren't well behaved because they believe in god, infact sometimes they're not that well behaved, because they're just people who have faith, or use their faith when they need it most, in short, they're standard human beings like the rest of us and their religious beliefs aren't even discussed. The problem with debates like this is that there's a backhanded nod towards religious fanatics and those who hold the seats of power within the religious establishment, the extreme elements within religion who have done some attrocious things in the name of god. By people referring to them sort of justifies their own misconceptions on people who have faith, and in some cases their hatred towards religion. Here's something, most religious people are moderate, plenty of them don't believe or certainly don't practise what is said in their holy book, how could they? I've no problem with people attacking the establishment or questioning their motives, but i do have an issue with the lazy misconceptions that some people hold (because it suits them to think that way) about people who have faith, which is exactly what they're doing when their attitudes are as intolerent and dissmissive as the religious figures that they so despise.

[Wales-Bales]

All of the religious people i know aren't well behaved because they believe in god, infact sometimes they're not that well behaved, because they're just people who have faith, or use their faith when they need it most, in short, they're standard human beings like the rest of us and their religious beliefs aren't even discussed. The problem with debates like this is that there's a backhanded nod towards religious fanatics and those who hold the seats of power within the religious establishment, the extreme elements within religion who have done some attrocious things in the name of god. By people referring to them sort of justifies their own misconceptions on people who have faith, and in some cases their hatred towards religion. Here's something, most religious people are moderate, plenty of them don't believe or certainly don't practise what is said in their holy book, how could they? I've no problem with people attacking the establishment or questioning their motives, but i do have an issue with the lazy misconceptions that some people hold (because it suits them to think that way) about people who have faith, which is exactly what they're doing when their attitudes are as intolerent and dissmissive as the religious figures that they so despise.

I'd say 6 out of the 10 commandments are very good, and if people adhered to them there wouldn't be a need for thousand of useless laws.

[Baloo]

All of the religious people i know aren't well behaved because they believe in god, infact sometimes they're not that well behaved, because they're just people who have faith, or use their faith when they need it most, in short, they're standard human beings like the rest of us and their religious beliefs aren't even discussed. The problem with debates like this is that there's a backhanded nod towards religious fanatics and those who hold the seats of power within the religious establishment, the extreme elements within religion who have done some attrocious things in the name of god. By people referring to them sort of justifies their own misconceptions on people who have faith, and in some cases their hatred towards religion. Here's something, most religious people are moderate, plenty of them don't believe or certainly don't practise what is said in their holy book, how could they? I've no problem with people attacking the establishment or questioning their motives, but i do have an issue with the lazy misconceptions that some people hold (because it suits them to think that way) about people who have faith, which is exactly what they're doing when their attitudes are as intolerent and dissmissive as the religious figures that they so despise.

I was replying to a post that talked about consequences and just doing what you like.

I’m not sure why you posted all that tbh. I know some liberal quakers and one of them is non-theist. I completely understand religion is a broad spectrum.

[RonnieBird]

Being non-religious is not ‘doing what you like’. It’s actually quite possible for non-religious people to live a good life and to behave ethically just to make the most of the one life we have and not due to a fear of supernatural consequences.

This again comes down to a very similar argument to that which I very briefly and reluctantly set out regarding truth above.

Please read that post because 90% of it is the same.

In this case though, it's objective versus subjective MORALITY.

Is morality defined by an outside and superior authority, or do we simply make it up as we go along to suit our own priorities ?

If we do that then no two versions will be the same ,and who will decide which version is correct ?

Is it possible to vary the rules of football on personal preference and still win the league, or do we need a predefined set of rules which everyone has to play by whether or not they agree with them ?

Join that up with my previous post about alternative realities and you will see how easily someone could be acting immorally whilst earnestly believing that they are being moral and ethical.

I know I'm brushing over this huge subject quickly and we can revisit it but I'm knackered and I've got to put the groceries away before the cold stuff melts all over the table !

[Taunton Blue Genie]

This again comes down to a very similar argument to that which I very briefly and reluctantly set out regarding truth above.

Please read that post because 90% of it is the same.

In this case though, it's objective versus subjective MORALITY.

Is morality defined by an outside and superior authority, or do we simply make it up as we go along to suit our own priorities ?

If we do that then no two versions will be the same ,and who will decide which version is correct ?

Is it possible to vary the rules of football on personal preference and still win the league, or do we need a predefined set of rules which everyone has to play by whether or not they agree with them ?

Join that up with my previous post about alternative realities and you will see how easily someone could be acting immorally whilst earnestly believing that they are being moral and ethical.

I know I'm brushing over this huge subject quickly and we can revisit it but I'm knackered and I've got to put the groceries away before the cold stuff melts all over the table !

The bit I highlighted is quite amusing when there are so many religions on the planet and them all not in perfect sync regarding morality. And human beings are sometimes better at creating a form of morality by way of laws when religions have barbaric and mysogenistic tendencies. And religions are always prone to new schisms due to internal disagreements. Abrahamism illustrates this aspect very strongly indeed. And there is always revisionism where morality is interpreted anew e.g. homosexuality in Christian churches.
Oh yeah, guess who wrote all the so-called holy books. Human beings.