Fact David, why don't you suck my balls?

[Embattle]

This is historically a Christian country.

For the time being anyway. Then it can become a Muslim country.

Ironically the category with the largest increase is No religion, not Muslim even though it saw an increase between census years.

What Cameron said was a statement of fact but to me he didn't need to say it any way.

 

[Ch3tan]

I agree it's still a Christian country, however politics in this county should not be aligned with religion in my opinion, do Dave should probably shut up

 

[leggy]

I agree it's still a Christian country, however politics in this county should not be aligned with religion in my opinion, do Dave should probably shut up

Maybe not, but as long as playing to the majority wins some votes he'll continue preaching.

 

[Raven]

He is just trying to pander to the little Englander.

 

[Job]

Judging by church numbers it would seem pointless...they.must know something I dont..as for milliband...jewih prime minister...personally I would shut the fuk up about that...anti semetism is
rife in Europe and about to get a lot worse.

 

[Gwadien]

Tory Pm saying Tory things. Carry on, nothing to see here.

Actually...
One of the greatest British Prime Ministers was technically a Jew.

 

[Job]

We deserve the politicians...we get..whatever bullshit spin they come out with is because they know enough idiots will believe it for it to be worth pulling.

 

[Ctuchik]

What Cameron said was a statement of fact but to me he didn't need to say it any way.

It's more a statement of technical fact isn't it? The same as claiming that Sweden is..... whatever the fuck our church is even though we're one of the most secular countries in the world....

 

[Raven]

...but it isn't a fact. Historically it was there is no denying that. But not any more, we are a bit more enlightened these days. I also think the vast majority of government policy and social planning is not based on religion, sure it can be changed to not offend any particular group but it isn't based on religious belief (except for the few daft Sunday trading rules)

 

[Hawkwind]

I agree it's still a Christian country, however politics in this county should not be aligned with religion in my opinion, do Dave should probably shut up

Totally agree and it is why the 'Conscience of the House' should be kicked from the House of Lords.

 

[Chilly]

Totally agree and it is why the 'Conscience of the House' should be kicked from the House of Lords.

Except that they do tend to vote in sensible ways. I agree with you in theory, but they're some of the only people in there who don't blindly vote along party lines and actually examine the real social consequences of policy.

 

[Hawkwind]

Somewhat agree, but how can 26 votes really affect the outcome anyway? OK they have been involved in the legislative for over 900 years and there is a lot of history there. Prayers open every session which is probably not great for some of the muslim's now in the Lords (8-10??). It is just all a bit outdated. I would rather see the Lords be allowed to vote by the conscience every time and not have the whips keep them in line. Difficult to administer I know but would be better.

 

[DaGaffer]

...but it isn't a fact. Historically it was there is no denying that. But not any more, we are a bit more enlightened these days. I also think the vast majority of government policy and social planning is not based on religion, sure it can be changed to not offend any particular group but it isn't based on religious belief (except for the few daft Sunday trading rules)

I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who still class themselves as Christian, even if they haven't set foot inside a church outside of weddings, funerals and christenings since they were children. The British way is generally to put their religion in a box on a dusty shelf and ignore it until some big event happens, but it doesn't mean they have no religion.

Those of us who actively call ourselves Atheists are still a minority, and agnostics will often vacillate, and will certainly have no problem sticking their kids in faith schools, freely admitting to hypocrisy in exchange for giving their kids a good education.

So I don't think Dave is as off-base as you think.

 

[Gwadien]

I'd be happier if he used protestant rather than Christian, because that's what is more closely associated to the British identity, because we were amongst the first nations to become a 'nation' and remove control from the Vatican and decided to do so what we wanted to do in the parliament, but I suppose that'd be controversial because we have now lost our backbone.

 

[Embattle]

...but it isn't a fact. Historically it was there is no denying that. But not any more, we are a bit more enlightened these days. I also think the vast majority of government policy and social planning is not based on religion, sure it can be changed to not offend any particular group but it isn't based on religious belief (except for the few daft Sunday trading rules)

Census data shows it still to be the case at the moment even with a large decrease over the previous 10 years but I believe there is indeed little policy based on religion which is the way it should be and should continue to be.

 

[Scouse]

The British way is generally to put their religion in a box on a dusty shelf and ignore it until some big event happens, but it doesn't mean they have no religion.

The modern "British way" is a reflection of inertia and tradition more than anything else.

People get married in churches, go to funerals there etc, because it's the "done thing". I've heard loads of people moan about having to go to church a few times just so they'll be allowed their wedding there. The religion is the last thing on their minds - pretty photos and appeasing grandma is.

You end up in church for funerals and most people bow their heads. Some even grudgingly sing the shitty hymns. Then they go to the wake and get pissed and catch up with family they've not seen in ages.

Even in times of crisis god couldn't be further from their minds...

 

[old.user4556]

Maybe it's a generation thing, but the past two weddings I've been at have been humanist weddings (there was a Catholic contingent at both weddings) and the last funeral I was at was also humanist.

There was definitely disapproval at the humanist wedding though, although as I say "generation thing".

Fuck God.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's some good trolling in this thread *nostalgia tripping*

 

[DaGaffer]

The modern "British way" is a reflection of inertia and tradition more than anything else.

People get married in churches, go to funerals there etc, because it's the "done thing". I've heard loads of people moan about having to go to church a few times just so they'll be allowed their wedding there. The religion is the last thing on their minds - pretty photos and appeasing grandma is.

You end up in church for funerals and most people bow their heads. Some even grudgingly sing the shitty hymns. Then they go to the wake and get pissed and catch up with family they've not seen in ages.

Even in times of crisis god couldn't be further from their minds...

Don't disagree with any of that, but, it doesn't mean they've crossed the line into active disbelief. Most people would simply rather not think about it at all, but if pushed, will still say they believe in "a" God, even if its not a guy with a beard on a cloud. I meet very few people who actively describe themselves as atheists or even agnostic, except online.

 

[Scouse]

active disbelief

Oxymoron

I don't actively disbelieve in god. I just don't believe in it. There's an absence of belief. Belief is a verb, Gaff. It implies you're doing something. Something I don't do.

You don't need to actively disbelieve. You just don't perform believing.


Edit: I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist either. The various religions seem to have reasonably succesfully co-opted that to mean a belief that there is no god - which means you perform believing. I don't. So I'm not a believer, agnostic or atheist.

 

[Gwadien]

Oxymoron

I don't actively disbelieve in god. I just don't believe in it. There's an absence of belief. Belief is a verb, Gaff. It implies you're doing something. Something I don't do.

You don't need to actively disbelieve. You just don't perform believing.


Edit: I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist either. The various religions seem to have reasonably succesfully co-opted that to mean a belief that there is no god - which means you perform believing. I don't. So I'm not a believer, agnostic or atheist.

Trust you to have your own category

 

[Raven]

Maybe it's a generation thing, but the past two weddings I've been at have been humanist weddings (there was a Catholic contingent at both weddings) and the last funeral I was at was also humanist.

There was definitely disapproval at the humanist wedding though, although as I say "generation thing".

Fuck God.

Mine was humanist, I wouldn't even call it humanist tbh, it was just a wedding without the religious bullshit, had a ceremony in a barn. That was 11 years ago. Been to a few since. Also been to several church weddings where everyone was a set of hypocrites.

 

[old.user4556]

It's the hypocrisy that gets on my tits the most.

 

[DaGaffer]

Oxymoron

I don't actively disbelieve in god. I just don't believe in it. There's an absence of belief. Belief is a verb, Gaff. It implies you're doing something. Something I don't do.

You don't need to actively disbelieve. You just don't perform believing.


Edit: I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist either. The various religions seem to have reasonably succesfully co-opted that to mean a belief that there is no god - which means you perform believing. I don't. So I'm not a believer, agnostic or atheist.

I've thought about this a lot recently, and the whole "absence of belief" thing, while technically accurate, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny; "active disbelief" describes those who don't believe in God (like me), but choose to make that fact an active part of their identity (like Richard Dawkins). The simple fact is, if you take a position on anything, your views on that subject, even if your views are that the subject doesn't exist, is an active engagement with the subject, kind of a Schrodinger's Cat kind of deal, the act of observation (or engagement) gives the subject reality. So no, not really an Oxymoron, English is flexible enough to deal with it. The fact that religions have co-opted atheism to give it a certain meaning doesn't mean their interpretation is true, and it doesn't mean you can simply sidestep the issue; the very act of even talking about a lack of belief is taking a position on it.

 

[Raven]

That's a whole industrial pail of bullshit right there.

You don't need to analyse disbelief, you either do your you don't. Not believing in something doesn't somehow make you have faith. It's as simple as that.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's a whole industrial pail of bullshit right there.

You don't need to analyse disbelief, you either do your you don't. Not believing in something doesn't somehow make you have faith. It's as simple as that.

Except its not. And I never said you "have faith". I was talking about engagement with the subject.

 

[Scouse]

I've thought about this a lot recently, and the whole "absence of belief" thing, while technically accurate, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny; "active disbelief" describes those who don't believe in God (like me), but choose to make that fact an active part of their identity (like Richard Dawkins). The simple fact is, if you take a position on anything, your views on that subject, even if your views are that the subject doesn't exist, is an active engagement with the subject, kind of a Schrodinger's Cat kind of deal, the act of observation (or engagement) gives the subject reality. So no, not really an Oxymoron, English is flexible enough to deal with it. The fact that religions have co-opted atheism to give it a certain meaning doesn't mean their interpretation is true, and it doesn't mean you can simply sidestep the issue; the very act of even talking about a lack of belief is taking a position on it.

Completely disagree 100%.

You realise that you don't believe in god. I.E. You realise that you just don't believe - you don't perform the action.

To describe to someone that you don't believe isn't that you've taken a position - it's that you haven't joined in performing an action. I don't play football. It doesn't make me afootballist. It just makes me someone who doesn't play football.


I haven't chosen to make the lack of a belief an "active part of my identity" - it just simply is absent.

Now, when discussions of religion take place I take the position that there is no god - though not because of any belief. It's because there's no evidence for there being a god. It doesn't make me an "active disbeliever" - because belief simply isn't part of the equation.

It's not sidestepping the issue at all. I hold a position. It's not based on any belief at all. It doesn't define me and isn't something I would choose to identify myself with - just like the non-existence of a deity the non-existence of my belief isn't part of my life - because it doesn't exist. But an intellectual position exists - and that ain't anything to do with belief gaff.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's not sidestepping the issue at all. I hold a position. It's not based on any belief at all. It doesn't define me and isn't something I would choose to identify myself with - just like the non-existence of a deity the non-existence of my belief isn't part of my life - because it doesn't exist. But an intellectual position exists - and that ain't anything to do with belief gaff.

...and I never said it was. Go back, read what I said. Its still an active position on a subject, even if the position is "based on the evidence available, there is no evidence of a God" (my position), it is still a position on a subject. It doesn't have to be based on "belief" at all, its actually based on evidence, but you're still making an argument from somewhere. The minute you engage with any other person, whether religious or not, you're taking a position on the subject. Talking about absence of belief is actually irrelevant. And by the way, disagreeing is also taking a position.

 

[Scouse]

Its still an active position on a subject

OK. I went back and read what you said. And now I'm like "meh"

Of course I take a position on the subject. You can't not if confronted with something (though I think schroedinger's cat isn't a particularly great metaphor). Having re-read I agree that the church's co-option of the term atheism is based on a factual fallacy but at the end of the day it's now the popular term.

There needs to be a 4th definition. Atheism, like it or not, has been co-opted to mean the belief that there is no god. It doesn't accurately describe a whole section of society and it also fits into the "believers" view of the world quite nicely - pigeonholes those of us who don't perform their actions and gives us no escape from being tarred with the shitty-label brush.

Maybe we should be called Unicorns?

 

[MYstIC G]

You don't need to actively disbelieve. You just don't perform believing.

This is like the ultimate troll sentence, right?