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

[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.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

How many Christians know how the 'books' in the current versions of the Bible were selected, when and by whom? And who wrote those individual books and when? And what books have been ignored and why?

[Tuerto]

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.

Fair enough, sorry for the ramble, it wasn't specifcally aimed at you. It's something i have quite a strong opinion on as i know quite alot of religious people and they're some of the most moderate and understanding people i've ever met, they'd be like that without religion, it just so happems that they do have faith.

[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.

[RonnieBird]

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.

I did say that reading my previous post regarding objective reality was important in terms of this one. In it, I made the point that there may be any number of alternative " truths" but only one can be correct. Therefore there are many religions which can't all be correct -


So what ? Since you are free to choose your religion - including the one which you have unwittingly chosen - you can choose which set of rules you accept. It's still not going to work if you make it up as you go along.

You prove this in your own posts by declaring religions to be barbaric and mysogenistic, which is your opinion but is that enforceable on others just because you say so ? If so, are my opinions enforceable on you too, or is it all purely up to the individual to decide for himself ? Of course, that's just another way of saying " do what you like".

Schisms are not legitimate parts of religions by the way, but that's another issue.

I'm afraid your last point about religious books being written by human beings is a very old argument which is quite silly really since all books are written by human beings aren't they ? Books about Polar Bears aren't actually written by Polar Bears and yet I believe some of them are quite accurate.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I did say that reading my previous post regarding objective reality was important in terms of this one. In it, I made the point that there may be any number of alternative " truths" but only one can be correct. Therefore there are many religions which can't all be correct -


So what ? Since you are free to choose your religion - including the one which you have unwittingly chosen - you can choose which set of rules you accept. It's still not going to work if you make it up as you go along.

You prove this in your own posts by declaring religions to be barbaric and mysogenistic, which is your opinion but is that enforceable on others just because you say so ? If so, are my opinions enforceable on you too, or is it all purely up to the individual to decide for himself ? Of course, that's just another way of saying " do what you like".

Schisms are not legitimate parts of religions by the way, but that's another issue.

I'm afraid your last point about religious books being written by human beings is a very old argument which is quite silly really since all books are written by human beings aren't they ? Books about Polar Bears aren't actually written by Polar Bears and yet I believe some of them are quite accurate.

I didn't state that religions are barbaric and misogynistic per se. I used the words 'sometimes' and 'when' in that sentence. As for your reference about polar bears it is fair to say that the evidence we have is backed up by science. How many religions can have the same said about them? And do you think that your god is the right one and all the others are wrong? (which is a claim held by many believers whatever their chosen deity/deities is/are? How do account for the multitude of Abrahamist schisms and if your own religion is of that ilk how do you know that you are on the correct version. Let's be honest, most religious believers don't choose their religion by careful analysis and having investigated thousands of religions: they take on the religion passed down to them as a child and defend it as the only true religion that exists.
Had you been born in a different bed on this planet you would probably be a believer in a different deity. It's rarely about free choice, I'm afraid.

[RonnieBird]

I didn't state that religions are barbaric and misogynistic per se. I used the words 'sometimes' and 'when' in that sentence. As for your reference about polar bears it is fair to say that the evidence we have is backed up by science. How many religions can have the same said about them? And do you think that your god is the right one and all the others are wrong? (which is a claim held by many believers whatever their chosen deity/deities is/are? How do account for the multitude of Abrahamist schisms and if your own religion is of that ilk how do you know that you are on the correct version. Let's be honest, most religious believers don't choose their religion by careful analysis and having investigated thousands of religions: they take on the religion passed down to them as a child and defend it as the only true religion that exists.e
Had you been born in a different bed on this planet you would probably be a believer in a different deity. It's rarely about free choice, I'm afraid.

It's always about free choice, and that's the answer to your other questions about which religion to choose.

As for the usual stuff about scientific proof, well you can't dispove God with science despite so many people trying for so very long.

I doubt that you personally understand all the science you rely upon, repeat the experimentation and calculation or check it in any other way. I'm not picking on you here - no one else who quotes science so freely does either- but the fact is you require just as much faith to reach your conclusions as anyone needs to form their religious beliefs. It's just that you place your faith in something else.

Unless you did the above , it's not just faith in science either, it's faith in the truthfulness of whoever told you about the science.

You've developed faith through personal choice then, just as I said, and so you've got your religion just as others have. It's a different religion based upon the primacy of the human mind in the Universe in terms of intelligence and the idea that this universe could have come about randomly and without any reason. Your scriptures are the repeated conclusions and theories of scientific research and your prophets are Brian Cox and David Attenborough. Make no mistake though, you are no more questioning of your religion than anyone else is of theirs.

I'm very sorry if the above seems rude or intended to diminish you personally. It's not meant to make you angry, but rather to make you think. Is it possible that there exist in the Universe things which we cannot measure of weigh because our "science" doesn't understand them, or are you satisfied that as a species we have mastered all knowledge ?

[Baloo]

It's always about free choice, and that's the answer to your other questions about which religion to choose.

As for the usual stuff about scientific proof, well you can't dispove God with science despite so many people trying for so very long.

I doubt that you personally understand all the science you rely upon, repeat the experimentation and calculation or check it in any other way. I'm not picking on you here - no one else who quotes science so freely does either- but the fact is you require just as much faith to reach your conclusions as anyone needs to form their religious beliefs. It's just that you place your faith in something else.

Unless you did the above , it's not just faith in science either, it's faith in the truthfulness of whoever told you about the science.

You've developed faith through personal choice then, just as I said, and so you've got your religion just as others have. It's a different religion based upon the primacy of the human mind in the Universe in terms of intelligence and the idea that this universe could have come about randomly and without any reason. Your scriptures are the repeated conclusions and theories of scientific research and your prophets are Brian Cox and David Attenborough. Make no mistake though, you are no more questioning of your religion than anyone else is of theirs.

I'm very sorry if the above seems rude or intended to diminish you personally. It's not meant to make you angry, but rather to make you think. Is it possible that there exist in the Universe things which we cannot measure of weigh because our "science" doesn't understand them, or are you satisfied that as a species we have mastered all knowledge ?

You can of course apply that argument to many things not just the Christian God. For example, Science has not disproved the existence of fairies nor the multitude of Greek Gods.

From my point of view if people’s beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, help them to live happier and more productive lives then we should ‘live and let live’. Freedom of belief is important and when accompanied by an absence of religious privilege safeguards our human rights. And as such I try not debate with people regarding their beliefs.

[Tuerto]

I didn't state that religions are barbaric and misogynistic per se. I used the words 'sometimes' and 'when' in that sentence. As for your reference about polar bears it is fair to say that the evidence we have is backed up by science. How many religions can have the same said about them? And do you think that your god is the right one and all the others are wrong? (which is a claim held by many believers whatever their chosen deity/deities is/are? How do account for the multitude of Abrahamist schisms and if your own religion is of that ilk how do you know that you are on the correct version. Let's be honest, most religious believers don't choose their religion by careful analysis and having investigated thousands of religions: they take on the religion passed down to them as a child and defend it as the only true religion that exists.
Had you been born in a different bed on this planet you would probably be a believer in a different deity. It's rarely about free choice, I'm afraid.

You're making some massive generalisations. How do you know that 'Many believers' think that their god is the right one and 'others' are wrong, or defend their religion as the only true religion that exists. That simply isn't true in my experience. In my opinion you're way of kilt with your opinions on religious people, the ones that i know don't think that way at all. On another note, yes, people are passed down religion, but plenty of them do question what they've inherited or interpret it a way that suits them and what they believe in, many of them turn away from it, like i did.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

You're making some massive generalisations. How do you know that 'Many believers' think that their god is the right one and 'others' are wrong, or defend their religion as the only true religion that exists. That simply isn't true in my experience. In my opinion you're way of kilt with your opinions on religious people, the ones that i know don't think that way at all. On another note, yes, people are passed down religion, but plenty of them do question what they've inherited or interpret it a way that suits them and what they believe in, many of them turn away from it, like i did.

Many religions consider their own version to be the only true religions and consider non-believers not worthy of being accepted in the afterlife. Anyway, there's no point arguing about religion but please don't think that I know little about the subject. On a lighter note, in the last two weeks I have visited the sikh's Golden Temple and have had a number of discussions on their religion with various individuals and spoke at length with a Krishna priest in his backstreet temple. I've been to a few mosques but have to confess that this time around that I haven't had any in-depth discussions with the attendees. I have been doing such things for decades. I find religion and history as hugely interesting but I put it in the category of folklore.
You think differently and we can leave it as that