Militant secularisation

[TeePee]

It's not a morality issue, it's a civil rights issue. I am reminded that 'Jesus was the first Klansman'.

[Phage]

It's not a morality issue, it's a civil rights issue. I am reminded that 'Jesus was the first Klansman'.

Not familiar with that one. Can you expand ?

[melon]

Not familiar with that one. Can you expand ?

It sounds like reference to the KLAN as in KKK Klan , you know white hoods ,good ol southern boys etc

m

[Phage]

It sounds like reference to the KLAN as in KKK Klan , you know white hoods ,good ol southern boys etc

m

Of course. I was after the source and context of the quote.

[Saracen]

....

X-rays and gamma rays are the same thing fundamentally (one can transform to the other under the Doppler shift, for instance). We hypothesise that there is something called a photon, regardless of how abstracted the notion is. We suggest that it can be in certain discrete energy levels and formulate a theory to predict them. Once we understand that within our theory, a photon has an energy that is variable, we can predict the effects of higher and lower energy photons. This predictive power has led to the exploitation of terahertz radiation recently.

Point being that science is tested, we make a prediction ideally in advance and then we try to disprove it. Once particle physics took off, some of the greatest results in scientific history were the advance prediction of certain particles that appeared right at the expected energy. We then use this as basis for believing in the theory.

The beauty of science is that as soon as you disprove something, the entire community - hundreds of millions of people - should immediately change their minds. And thus is the scientific method.

Religion offers no proofs by construction, it must be accepted on faith, this is fine, however a lot of what people believe in - the power of prayer, for example - simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. People still believe in miracles, that visiting Lourdes will cure you of incurable diseases.

....

Agreed, and I understand (broadly) scientific method, but I think you're missing my point. Suppose, 1000 years ago, someone had said "I believe in gamma rays". Scientific "method" of the time (had it existed as such) would have found no evidence for it, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means they lacked the knowledge and equipment to detect them.

I was also drawing a distinction between religion and God, because in my view, the two are not necessarily synonymous. It is quite consistent for every religion on earth to be wrong, yet for some transcendental, "supernatural" power to exist, and perhaps, to have planned the universe. God, or something that to us might as well be God, may exist, and we just don't know what to look for, or have the means to detect it, scientifically.

I draw that distinction in reply to Aidan's comment

There's a mountain of natural evidence which directly contradicts the creation myth.

I agree, and the creation myth to me, at least if taken at face value, is bunkum. However, it could be the interpretation of what to us are a primitive people, to something they fundamentally don't understand.

And there are parallels. In that myth, God created the universe in (IIRC) 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Yet, modern science (as I understand it) puts the big bang as effectively a single moment of "creation". It's plausible that in order to put it in terms a primitive people would understand, it could be explained as "God" and a "week", because I doubt that, 2000 years ago, they'd have understood a nano-second, or whatever.

Another way of looking at it. I'm an economist. And I regularly end up trying to explain (or did until recently, because most people now get it) the difference between debt and deficit. Even yesterday, I had to explain to someone that the inflation rate going down didn't mean prices were dropping, just that the rate they were going up by had slowed. But on the debt/deficit thing, an analogy that gets the point across, simply and quickly if a bit inaccurately, is the credit card one. People get that, quickly, because they understand credit cards even if they don't understand (or aren't interested in) macro economics.

So, creation myth? Well, as written, I'd say it's patently ludicrous. But as an analogy, it bears some relevance, bearing in mind the level of scientific knowledge of the people being preached to. If someone tele/time-ported you back 2000 years to Nazareth, good luck explaining gamma rays, terahertz radiation and photons, let alone string theory, quantum mechanics, and so on, to the masses. If you tried, even 500 years ago, you might well end up tied to a stake as an ornament to a bonfire, or attached to a ducking stool wondering how long you could hold your breath. And I refer you back to my point about Galileo's problems .... which, I might add, did not just offend Catholic sensibilities, but were trashed by much of the "scientific" community of the time.

And one last way to look at it. I remember a cartoon series from my youth, called the Perishers. I think it was in the Mirror. It may still be going for all I know. Anyway, the Perishers (a bunch of school kids) used to go on annual holiday to the seaside, and their dog (Boot, IIRC) used to the fascinated by the antics of a bunch of overly-bright crabs in a pool of water on the rocks. One year, the crab's lead scientist built a new scientific device. He gather various empty drink cans, etc, and built this contraption (based on the largest rock in the pool) to "investigate" an annual phenomenon, the "eyes in the sky". The eyes, needless to say, were the dog, Boot, going to see what those daft crabs were up to this year.

So when the "eyes" appear, the "telescope" is raised and the end extends out of the pool. Boot, being a dog, barked into it and the air pressure blew the chief scientist off the rock, where he was promptly set upon by religious zealots proclaiming his presumptuousness had angered "the Eyes in the Sky".

Clearly, a parody, and it's far better in cartoon form, but neither copyright nor my drawing skills would permit that.

Anyway, the point? The crabs, for all their curiosity and ingenuity, absolutely lacked the broader context to understand matters way beyond their context and ability.They didn't even understand that their "world", the "pooliverse" as they put it, was part of a much larger structure because they lacked the ability to detect it.

God, or some transcendental power, may exist, and it may be outside the universe as we know it. And we may be as likely to understand it, or even detect it, as an amoeba is of understanding quantum mechanics.

If it does (and it's a sizeable "if" in my opinion), then it is for all practical purposes, "supernatural", but that may simply indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the real nature of the context of the universe on our part. Just because a jet airliner is "supernatural" to an amoeba's level of comprehension doesn't mean they don't exist, or that there's actually anything supernatural about them.

Do I believe in religions? Frankly, no, but I don't preclude the possibility that one is absolutely right, or that most are on to something, even if the terminology is ancient. I think it's implausible, but not impossible, that one or more religions are broadly right. The Bible, if written today, would, I suspect, be written somewhat differently even if the "lessons" were the same.

Do I believe that transcendental power exists? Well, no, but I'd state that as a belief that it doesn't, not a certainty. I'm brighter than an amoeba, and can accept that things may be beyond my comprehension, and that absence of evidence of their existence might indicate lack of existence or it might indicate lack of our ability to detect the evidence, or maybe just understand it when we see it. Or it might indicate that it/they don't exist and so there is no evidence to see or detect. I just don't think I have any basis at all to judge the relative likelihood of which option is true. After all, Galileo could have rejected gamma rays based on lack of evidence, had he thought about their existence. And been wrong.

[TheAnimus]

Wow indeed. I was referring to the genetics and studies of human beings (those being immediately relevant) and you mention the genetics of sheep?

How differen't do you think they are? Why do we test vaccinations on animals? Maybe if you stopped to read about genetics and neuroscience you'd begin to understand why its a fascinating aside, and an example of how it is not a 'choice' for those sheep. Again, I don't begin to know how you can assert it as been a 'choice', but you will just hide being sky fairy nonsense and ignore this point, like you ignore most of the points been put across, such as my last post.

I would say that they, and you, should be allowed to discriminate on those grounds. Just like people discriminate on the basis of whether you're wearing a shirt or shoes. What we shouldn't do is have the society or crowds or the government lock people up or fine them because of those differences.

So your saying that having a civil partnership, dedicating your life to someone is as whimsical choice as your shirt, or your shoes? Is that what marriage means to you? Oh no, wait, your marriage is 'special' everyone elses is inferior!

Erm - it was their business. Their house, their B&B, their business. It's called freedom of conscience - that you cannot be forced to act against your conscience in matters of morality. How would you feel if someone else, the government forced you to do or support something you thought was wrong?

They do, religious schools and I'm a 50p tax rate payer. Tax exempt status for the largest pedophile network the country has seen....... Benefits for people who have been out of work for 3 years which provide them enough money for cigs, sky and drink. There are many things.

I was running a B&B and I turned away a family because I didn't like the colour of their skin, that would be discrimination, regardless of my views, or my 'conscience' in the matters. Do you think racist people, such as the BNP should be allowed to deny their business services to certain groups of people?

I don't think we should legislate based on feelings and whether something is perceived as 'nice' or not? The fact the UK government and others have been doing so is, I believe, a huge part of the problem.

It's not about people been nice, its about people actively bullying some members of society, but you think thats OK? I do not understand how.

No. I don't. Just because my belief system is old doesn't make it wrong. I have no intention of stoning anyone, nor would I. I'm sad you feel this way, but that isn't representative of my faith at all. The couple at the B&B didn't stone anyone. No-one is stoning anyone. Think about it. No-one is saying it or believing but you're claiming the whole Christian world wants to stone gay people. We don't. We aren't. We just see the issue of homosexuality as something different to the genetic equation it is often presented to be. I believe the science backs that position. Therefore I believe we should be entitled to hold our position as long as we do so peaceably and kindly and reasonably.

But your view on such things comes from a tone which advocates stoning for that sitaution? So either your picking and choosing which bits to follow, or you follow it all?

If your picking and choosing, which you must be if you don't think a stoning is needed, then how can you claim any protection behind it, its mearly a charade used to disguise your own biggotry.

If someone said my religion says that all blacks are wrong, they should choose, like micheal jackson did to change their skin colour, would you begin to tolerate such an attitude? Would you stand by whilst someone singled out a section of society to bully them?

[billythewiz]

God, or some transcendental power, may exist, and it may be outside the universe as we know it. And we may be as likely to understand it, or even detect it, as an amoeba is of understanding quantum mechanics.

That's absolutely true, but what value is there in the speculation ? If something cannot be detected what value is there in speculating its existence ? I hope I don't have to justify the difference between an as yet unobserved part of a scientific theory (say, the God Particle) and purely made up guesses.

There may be some "God, or some transcendental power" and it might take the form of a spaghetti monster. Alternatively our universe might be the consequence giant, invisible unicorns clashing their rainbow coloured horns together. Or perhaps the story in The Matrix is true. Any one of these could be true. But what is the value of speculating ?

Without any evidence to hint at such a thing, why bother pursuing it ? It's far too easy make guesses up. What's hard is to find evidence and use that to postulate new ideas, and it is that activity that leads to technology, medicine and the modern world we live in.

[fuddam]

There may be some "God, or some transcendental power" and it might take the form of a spaghetti monster. Alternatively our universe might be the consequence giant, invisible unicorns clashing their rainbow coloured horns together. Or perhaps the story in The Matrix is true. Any one of these could be true. But what is the value of speculating ?

Without any evidence to hint at such a thing, why bother pursuing it ? It's far too easy make guesses up. What's hard is to find evidence and use that to postulate new ideas, and it is that activity that leads to technology, medicine and the modern world we live in.

Well, Mr Billy, that is EXACTLY where you're missing the point: as a Christian (i.e. am not talking for believers in other faiths), the faith we have is not in the EXISTENCE of God but in our future, that God will do what He says He will do - the afterlife.

A Christian is NOT a Christian if they believe based on blind faith. Christians believe based on.....(wait for it)..........EVIDENCE! See that? Understand what I am saying?

We have an EXPERIENCE of God, of His transformational love, of the difference in our lives when His Holy Spirit enters us.

I get so tired of hearing so many of the atheists on this forum missing that point. It's also the basis of a fundamental dismissal of Christianity, this idea of blindly following something, of giving up rational thought etc. So tired..........

I don't expect someone to come to belief in Christ without evidence. Ever. That would be as much use as believing in the FSM. Unfortunately for you, it's not verifiable in a laboratory, but it is no less real.

If you visit a vibrant, living church, where people talk about their EXPERIENCE of God, of how He has transformed their lives, then you'll see what I'm talking about. Ho hum.

[directhex]

Well, Mr Billy, that is EXACTLY where you're missing the point: as a Christian (i.e. am not talking for believers in other faiths), the faith we have is not in the EXISTENCE of God but in our future, that God will do what He says He will do - the afterlife.

A Christian is NOT a Christian if they believe based on blind faith. Christians believe based on.....(wait for it)..........EVIDENCE! See that? Understand what I am saying?

We have an EXPERIENCE of God, of His transformational love, of the difference in our lives when His Holy Spirit enters us.

I get so tired of hearing so many of the atheists on this forum missing that point. It's also the basis of a fundamental dismissal of Christianity, this idea of blindly following something, of giving up rational thought etc. So tired..........

I don't expect someone to come to belief in Christ without evidence. Ever. That would be as much use as believing in the FSM. Unfortunately for you, it's not verifiable in a laboratory, but it is no less real.

If you visit a vibrant, living church, where people talk about their EXPERIENCE of God, of how He has transformed their lives, then you'll see what I'm talking about. Ho hum.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Plenty of people here will tell you all about being touched by the FSM's noodly appendage, but you wouldn't have any reason to believe them

[TheAnimus]

If you visit a vibrant, living church, where people talk about their EXPERIENCE of God, of how He has transformed their lives, then you'll see what I'm talking about. Ho hum.

No you have no statistical evidence, you have the same kind of 'evidence' someone would use to say homeopathy isn't a load of bull**** that's more effective than a placebo.

As such we know homeopathy isn't real, its got no science to it.

Yet its users confuse the placebo effect with it being a real medication....

[aidanjt]

Christians believe based on.....(wait for it)..........EVIDENCE! See that?

I saw the slight of hand if that's what you mean. The only evidence I've seen involved in religious debate is the mountain of natural evidence Christians ignored, shunned, quelched, burned, and buried, along with its proponents, over the course of the last millennia.

[Phage]

I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the repeated attacks on Christians. Can we make the label more general ?

There are plenty of other organised religions that are equal targets. If you're not comfortable saying it about Jews, Hindus, or Muslims then don't say it about the Christians.

[G4Z]

You know what, this lunchtime I had a revelation.

I went and got my lunch from M&S and got a sphagetti pasta dish, as I sucked in the lovely pasta an appendege flicked back and then forth and slapped me in the face. I have been touched by the noodly appendage. I felt that cold sticky pasta on my face and it was REAL. REAL I TELL THEE!!!!!

Anyway, I have been chatting with the delectable noodly one for the last hour or so and basically it boils down to this.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG (especially you fuddam, you are gonna cook in a lake of white hot bolognase when you die mate)

I know so, I have been told so by the noodly one and there is not a damn thing you can say to convince me other wise because it my sincerly held belief, he has spoken to me and confirmed it. You are all wrong and you will all burn in various ways if you don't repent and eat some pasta RIGHT NOW.

I now demand my seat in the house of lords, all of the land in this country, some schools and of course 'eating of the spag bol' must appear first in the agenda of every government meeting. If you maggots don't play ball immediately you will be struck down with meatballs and then boiled in a pan for 15 - 20 minutes before being served... when you die. Obviously this will all happen after you are dead. I tell you what though, you don't wanna ignore this, it will be seriously painful after lifes for you my friends... oh yes, seriously painful.

He also says he doesn't like Christians most of all and you people have some real making up to do. This isn't my prejudice you understand, its just what the noodly one tells me. In my brain. Where only I can hear.

So there.

[Phage]

Now I'm hungry.
(All praise to the SpagBol.)

[directhex]

I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the repeated attacks on Christians. Can we make the label more general ?

Oh, it's entirely general - but we don't have a general state religion, and general forced religious status, or general free seats in the house of lords for heads of general religions.

We have the Queen as head of the C of E, we have councils forcing all councillors to sing praises of Jesus in order to be permitted in meetings, and we have free Lordships for bishops.

We have Christian privilege in this country, like it or not, and moving from Christian privilege to no privilege for anyone regardless of religious status is the goal of secularism - and what loudmouths like Warsi are arguing against with their attacks on "militant secularism"

[Saracen]

....

You are all wrong and you will all burn in various ways if you don't repent and eat some pasta RIGHT NOW.

....

So there.

As it 'appens, I'm planning an intense bit of worship in a couple of hours, when the wife gets home, involving some serious meditation of bacon, mushrooms, spag and a cheese sauce in a kind-of cheesy carbonara.

So I'm glad to know my soul is saved, or at least my stomach will be happy.