The Religion Thread

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

most famously, the pope arranged 'christmas truce' of ww1 where, at the pope's behest, german and french and british troops crossed no man's land to play a game of football and share mince pies and a sherry together round christmas time

 

[Womble98]

most famously, the pope arranged 'christmas truce' of ww1 where, at the pope's behest, german and french and british troops crossed no man's land to play a game of football and share mince pies and a sherry together round christmas time

I was referring to more medieval times. There was a lot of war at the time but there were also times when wars were ceased due to papal bulls.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I was referring to more medieval times. There was a lot of war at the time but there were also times when wars were ceased due to papal bulls.

on the other hand we have quantum praedecessores, audita tremendi and quia maior amongst many more. which is your fave? mine is in generali concilio that made jews wear a yellow star or something to distinguish themselves

edit: ad exstirpanda which says that, yes, i have spoken to god and he says it's ok to torture and burn people alive. that one's good. they have a good record in medieval times, the papacy. between the crusades, the torture and the antisemitism

 

[Womble98]

Didn't say that it hasn't done a lot of shit, so don't act like I have.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it's not an act i genuinely am brilliant

 

[silkyman]

I think you're confused as to what an agnostic is, and I suspect you are one yourself. It's not someone who believes they don't know either way, it's someone who believes they can't know either way. Atheism/theism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. I would argue that the majority of atheists accept that they can't really know if a deity exists or not, even if they don't believe one does. Certainly the most prominent atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens fall into that category.

I'm absolutely not an agnostic, in either the popular meaning of the world ('I don't know') or the literal (We can't know) because I think we - as a species - can, and ultimately will know beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe, the world and life is possible to exist without the requirement of any supernatural being. And if the universe can exist without one, that means that there isn't one. Because how could there be? Why would there be?

I also don't buy the 'god of the gaps' style argument that there could still be a God even if you don't actually need one for everything to happen, just because we 'can't know for sure'. It's a bollocks argument with absolutely no logical basis. It seems that for some people, including in that video, is that 'I was told it as a kid and I really hope it is real'.

Well.. I wish Santa Clause was real, because it would have saved me a few quid for my little girl's presents. But he's not. (But you can never be 100% sure.. Perhaps he IS real in a magical North Pole hideaway that can't be seen, but doesn't come around anymore because parents have taken up the role so he doesn't interfere with the affairs of humanity any more. He's up there with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Perhaps you're an Easter Bunny Agnostic, too... Because you simply don't know.)

Are you a Thor Agnostic? Or Ra? Jupiter? Mithra? Con-Tici Viracocha Pachayachachic? Vishnu? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

'We're all atheists, I just believe in one god fewer than you.'

True Agnosticism as a concept doesn't only cover God.

Are you agnostic about the blue teapot orbiting Saturn? About Congleton Town winning the Premier League by 2030?

Are you agnostic about the possibility of me having a threesome with Mila Kunis and Keira Knightley? Because you can't know for sure. They might break down in front of my house on the way somewhere one day and be bedazzled by my haunting masculinity.

There are a lot of things that we 'can't know for sure'. It doesn't mean that absolutely ANY of them are going to be real. Even if it is something you really, REALLY want to be real, and it's something you were told about a lot as a kid.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i'd say it's quite a bit easier to accept, in general terms, that there might be a force, spirit, idea or being above us all, than to believe in the possibility of something quite specific, like your saucer or whatever dumb comparison u can come up with

 

[silkyman]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-for-leaders-of-other-religions-a6762821.html

Meanwhile....

The UK is less of a Christian country than ever with the fastest growing group being 'non religious'. So let's change things by adding more unelected religious leaders to the government.

Cracking.

 

[silkyman]

i'd say it's quite a bit easier to accept, in general terms, that there might be a force, spirit, idea or being above us all, than to believe in the possibility of something quite specific, like your saucer or whatever dumb comparison u can come up with

It's not about being easy to accept. That's an absolute irrelevance. What bearing does have your 'ability to accept it' have on something's potential existence? It either does or doesn't. What you think or feel makes no difference.

And the 'Russell's Teapot' is a reasonably well known philosophical argument about the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of God. You can't claim that one thing doesn't exist because I can't prove it does, and that something else does, because I can't prove it doesn't. I assumed you'd get the reference.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

It's not about being easy to accept. That's an absolute irrelevance. What bearing does have your 'ability to accept it' have on something's potential existence? It either does or doesn't. What you think or feel makes no difference.

an absolute irrelevance is why my beliefs matter to u

 

[silkyman]

You're sort of tailing off now. It's not really much of a debate.

So...

Bishops in the lords...

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it ain't even a debate. let people believe in what they want to, if it makes life easier for people who the fuck cares

 

[silkyman]

You were the one putting thoughts into other's heads. You stated that I was probably a confused agnostic and I explained why I wasn't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...hould-stop-acting-as-if-it-is-says-judge.html

This is interesting and the initial reactions I've seen are from a lot of religious groups frothing at the mouth and secular groups saying it should go further.

 

[HertsWolf]

It doesn't mean that absolutely ANY of them are going to be real.

Also doesn't mean that none of them are going to be real.

 

[HertsWolf]

You're sort of tailing off now. It's not really much of a debate.

So...

Bishops in the lords...

The Bishops in the Lords form 3.33% of the membership of the House of Lords. 17% of UK identify as Anglicans but only 1.9% of British adults attend weekly Anglican services. So this tends to support reducing the number of bishops. While you could argue that humanists have 96.67% of the seats, it does seem meet and proper for some seats to be given over to other faith leaders.

Given that the bishops have been happy to go against the flow frequently, let's hope their replacements are elected in a way that represents all in society, not just the simple majority. We already have a system that leaves, for example, many millions of voters feeling unrepresented.

One can define democracy as three lions and a zebra deciding on what to have for lunch. Be careful what you wish for.

Yet I do wonder how the great British public would vote given a choice between some old has-been politico who lost his seat, some corporate or civic non-entity who brown-nosed his or her way to the second chamber, or a bishop (who may well have brown-nosed their way to the top of the diocese)?

 

[blade1889]

Maybe we should elect Lords members like we do people going on Jury service? No brown nosing then.

 

[HertsWolf]

Maybe we should elect Lords members like we do people going on Jury service? No brown nosing then.

Hmmm. You think the electoral process, as is, doesn't involve brown-nosing? Brown-nosing for selection, brown-nosing the electorate, kissing babies, brown-nosing party officials, trousering expenses, brown-nosing in parliament. ffs

Must admit, given that we have a transparently elected lower house, I am a lot less concerned about the democratic principle in the upper/second house than I am about holding both houses properly to account.

 

[blade1889]

Hmmm. You think the electoral process, as is, doesn't involve brown-nosing? Brown-nosing for selection, brown-nosing the electorate, kissing babies, brown-nosing party officials, trousering expenses, brown-nosing in parliament. ffs

What you on about?

 

[HertsWolf]

What you on about?

Hmmm. Have to spell it out then: having people elected doesn't mean there isn't a lot of brown-nosing going on behind the scenes.

 

[blade1889]

Hmmm. Have to spell it out then: having people elected doesn't mean there isn't a lot of brown-nosing going on behind the scenes.

Oi you patronising sod you're quite clearly going off on some random rant at a tongue in cheek comment about the only way to ensure brown-nosing doesn't get people appointed.

 

[HertsWolf]

Oi you patronising sod you're quite clearly going off on some random rant at a tongue in cheek comment about the only way to ensure brown-nosing doesn't get people appointed.

Hmmm. Well you responded with what seemed like a serious response to a serious comment about whether you elect a second chamber or not.
Then you asked "What are you on about?". You can respond seriously without 'going off on one'. What am I, a mind-reader??

 

[blade1889]

Hmmm. Well you responded with what seemed like a serious response to a serious comment about whether you elect a second chamber or not.
Then you asked "What are you on about?". You can respond seriously without 'going off on one'. What am I, a mind-reader??

Yes I really thought we should just pick names out of a hat

And indeed you can. Your reply was very like a rant

 

[JimJams]

As ref I'd like to say blade made a 'tic' post that clearly said 'no brown nosing then' and Herts responded by saying 'You think the electoral process, as is, doesn't involve brown-nosing?'. The fact blade mentioned an alternative process to circumvent brown nosing, leading to the exhibit statement A, very much points to the idea that he does indeed think brown nosing exists in the electoral process. Ergo, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, Herts has lost el plotto.

 

[silkyman]

Also doesn't mean that none of them are going to be real.

But if you're talking unlikely scenarios, you can't just pick the one you like best and say 'that one'. Or Mila Kunis' Nissan Micra will be developing some problems about now.

 

[HertsWolf]

But if you're talking unlikely scenarios, you can't just pick the one you like best and say 'that one'. Or Mila Kunis' Nissan Micra will be developing some problems about now.

I suspect we are on slightly different wavelengths here. Ian's comment was about things 'we can't know for sure' and that 'It doesn't mean that ...any of them are going to be real.' My point was simply that it doesn't mean they aren't going to be real either. I wasn't thinking of it being a choice thing....I want A or I want B.... Just that A can't be proved or disproved (or 'real' or 'not real').

There are some things that aren't tangible but do feel real but can't be explained by science (possibly 'yet')....love, sentiment, even the sense of sorrow or enjoyment from some music or art....

 

[HertsWolf]

Ergo, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, Herts has lost el plotto.

"Quid pro quo"?

 

[JimJams]

Yeah, I give you a quid, you're a professional and you listen to status quo.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I'm absolutely not an agnostic, in either the popular meaning of the world ('I don't know') or the literal (We can't know) because I think we - as a species - can, and ultimately will know beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe, the world and life is possible to exist without the requirement of any supernatural being. And if the universe can exist without one, that means that there isn't one. Because how could there be? Why would there be?

I also don't buy the 'god of the gaps' style argument that there could still be a God even if you don't actually need one for everything to happen, just because we 'can't know for sure'. It's a bollocks argument with absolutely no logical basis. It seems that for some people, including in that video, is that 'I was told it as a kid and I really hope it is real'.

No, that's completely illogical. The belief that there is no logical reason to believe that a deity exists is completely different from the belief that we have the means to prove or falsify the existence of one. There's nothing we could learn about the natural world which would preclude or prove the existence of an undetectable super-being, therefore the only logical position is to accept that the existence of one is possible, regardless of how bizarre or unlikely it is.

Well.. I wish Santa Clause was real, because it would have saved me a few quid for my little girl's presents. But he's not. (But you can never be 100% sure.. Perhaps he IS real in a magical North Pole hideaway that can't be seen, but doesn't come around anymore because parents have taken up the role so he doesn't interfere with the affairs of humanity any more. He's up there with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Perhaps you're an Easter Bunny Agnostic, too... Because you simply don't know.)

Are you a Thor Agnostic? Or Ra? Jupiter? Mithra? Con-Tici Viracocha Pachayachachic? Vishnu? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

'We're all atheists, I just believe in one god fewer than you.'

True Agnosticism as a concept doesn't only cover God.

Are you agnostic about the blue teapot orbiting Saturn? About Congleton Town winning the Premier League by 2030?

Are you agnostic about the possibility of me having a threesome with Mila Kunis and Keira Knightley? Because you can't know for sure. They might break down in front of my house on the way somewhere one day and be bedazzled by my haunting masculinity.

There are a lot of things that we 'can't know for sure'. It doesn't mean that absolutely ANY of them are going to be real. Even if it is something you really, REALLY want to be real, and it's something you were told about a lot as a kid.

Again, you're confusing belief with knowledge. You believe that the threesome won't happen, you're probably right, but that doesn't mean you should believe that you have the ability to know that it won't happen. You can't invoke logical argument when it suits and then just dismiss it when it doesn't. If you accept that you are incapable of disproving the existence of something (and you are), then the only logical recourse is to admit that it could exist, regardless of how unlikely you believe that to be.

If you have a means to disprove the existence of "God", then feel free to share. But simply understanding the natural world is not going to cut it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Maybe we should elect Lords members like we do people going on Jury service? No brown nosing then.

Maybe parties should be able to elect them based on their share of the vote.

 

[blade1889]

Maybe parties should be able to elect them based on their share of the vote.

I think PR has been mentioned wrt the lords already. Personally I would find it weird to have a PR lords over commons...having a PR lords and FPTP commons seems stupid to me. Plus that still wouldn't eliminate brown-nosing to get people into favourable positions. The only way to do that would be to have a truly random system...which again I wouldn't want as it would genuinely mean anyone above a certain age could be in the lords which I'm uneasy with.

I'm not sure how you could do it but id like to see a lords where specialists were appointed to advice and pass laws on specialist issues.