Record number of British people say they have no religion

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:49 am

The number of Britons who say they have no religion has hit a record high, new data has revealed.
More than half of the British public (53 per cent) say they are not at all religious – a figure that has increased by five percentage points since 2015 and by 19 percentage points since 1983, when just three in 10 people deemed themselves non-religious. The news has prompted fresh calls for the Government to cut the amount of public money going to the church and reduce its influence in society. The decline in religious affiliation is hitting the Church of England particularly hard, with the number of people considering themselves Anglican having halved since 2000 – at just 15 per cent. Young people were particularly underrepresented, with just 3 per cent of those aged 18-24 describing themselves as Anglican, compared with 40 per cent of those aged 75 and over.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

SOURCE THE INDEPENDENT

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:07 pm

I'm not surprised really.
I think the only reason the odd Christian festival is still celebrated in this country is because they are centred round food, drink, and pressie giving.

We have become a very self satisfying, self obsessed society....many people don't need a God to worship anymore.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:24 pm

Syl wrote:I'm not surprised really.
I think the only reason the odd Christian festival is still celebrated in this country is because they are centred round food, drink, and pressie giving.

We have become a very self satisfying, self obsessed society....many people don't need a God to worship anymore.

Amun to that

Cool

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:38 pm

A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:40 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

You are religious Dibs, which is not an issue

I really have never understood how and why people try to distance themselves from being religious when they believe in a God, as that is what fundamentally a religion is.

You are a Christian, which as beliefs go, has one of the better teachers in Jesus.

Sadly most Christians follow more the teachings of Paul, who corrupted the teachings of Jesus.

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:54 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:59 pm

Syl wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

You are conflating different things Syl
A belief in something supernatural is religious, full stop
Having faith in humanity is not religious, that is simple having faith in people. Its what we see with our own eyes. It does not require faith in order to see how people can do good. Faith is a good attribute when its placed in humans and not myths.

For example, I can have and believe you will help people less fortunate than you. That does not even require a leap of faith. As I know you care. That shows religion plays no part, as to who you are. When religious beliefs sway your thinking, they can be for good and bad. With boundless historical examples shows it has more often been for bad.

by eddie Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:09 pm

I do know that a number of Catholics grow up with a really warped sense of sex. They seem to carry feelings of guilt about it.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:11 pm

eddie wrote:I do know that a number of Catholics grow up with a really warped sense of sex. They seem to carry feelings of guilt about it.

Do they?

Now i am interested, as that seems a poor stereotype?

My family are all Catholics, except me and one of my sisters.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:23 pm

To show how poorly Eddie's last point is.
I have heard stories over how my dad would pretend to fall asleep when he got home before I was born. In order to get out of having sex. Not because he did not want to. lol he was doing two jobs, he was knackered and yet every night my mother still lured him into bed for sex. This was related to me by my second eldest brother Pete. He would laugh how our late father would look knackered all the time.

I mean my eldest brother Ben, now sadly passed, was conceived 3 months before they married and born 6 months after. My late dad would laugh when I brought this up and said I have too much of my mothers insight.

There is a point about shame with unmarried sex with Catholics, but not sex when married in general.

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

You are conflating different things Syl
A belief in something supernatural is religious, full stop
Having faith in humanity is not religious, that is simple having faith in people. Its what we see with our own eyes. It does not require faith in order to see how people can do good. Faith is a good attribute when its placed in humans and not myths.

For example, I can have and believe you will help people less fortunate than you. That does not even require a leap of faith. As I know you care. That shows religion plays no part, as to who you are. When religious beliefs sway your thinking, they can be for good and bad. With boundless historical examples shows it has more often been for bad.

I probably am conflating, my mind can get a bit woozy when I delve too deep and try to explain, I know what I mean though. Razz

I don't only mean faith in fellow human beings, I mean a belief that there is more to life than this...what we are living now.
Reincarnation, a better place after death, ghosts, spirits, ......I have an open mind about everything.

Religion, like you say can cause a lot more harm than good, but then that's because some people follow it to the letter, and decry anyone who isn't as brain washed by it all as they are.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

You are religious Dibs, which is not an issue

I really have never understood how and why people try to distance themselves from being religious when they believe in a God, as that is what fundamentally a religion is.

You are a Christian, which as beliefs go, has one of the better teachers in Jesus.

Sadly most Christians follow more the teachings of Paul, who corrupted the teachings of Jesus.

Believe me I'm not religious I never do anything religiously lol!

I am a Christian that believes in once saved always saved and then i live my life as any normal person committing sins daily lol -

That's the difference with being religious and being saved by grace - religious people are always trying to be perfect I'm not trying to do anything I just get on with life and have no church commitments now I just take every day as it comes good or bad -especially since my dad passed I changed when he died something got released I'm different- I nursed him day and night on shifts and experienced some supernatural things in his room which changed me for the better .

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are conflating different things Syl
A belief in something supernatural is religious, full stop
Having faith in humanity is not religious, that is simple having faith in people. Its what we see with our own eyes. It does not require faith in order to see how people can do good. Faith is a good attribute when its placed in humans and not myths.

For example, I can have and believe you will help people less fortunate than you. That does not even require a leap of faith. As I know you care. That shows religion plays no part, as to who you are. When religious beliefs sway your thinking, they can be for good and bad. With boundless historical examples shows it has more often been for bad.

I probably am conflating, my mind can get a bit woozy when I delve too deep and try to explain, I know what I mean though.

I don't only mean faith in fellow human beings, I mean a belief that there is more to life than this...what we are living now.
Reincarnation, a better place after death, ghosts, spirits, ......I have an open mind about everything.

Religion, like you say can cause a lot more harm than good, but then that's because some people follow it to the letter, and decry anyone who isn't as brain washed by it all as they are.

Supernatural beliefs are fine when their belief system is not imposed on others Syl
Reincarnation is fine
Yes literal religious belief is the issue, more so with the Abrahamic beliefs

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:35 pm

eddie wrote:I do know that a number of Catholics grow up with a really warped sense of sex. They seem to carry feelings of guilt about it.

The Catholic churches views on sex, like priests must be celibate, birth control is bad, sex is for productive purposes not pleasure etc....is guaranteed to warp some Catholics views on sex surely.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:40 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are religious Dibs, which is not an issue

I really have never understood how and why people try to distance themselves from being religious when they believe in a God, as that is what fundamentally a religion is.

You are a Christian, which as beliefs go, has one of the better teachers in Jesus.

Sadly most Christians follow more the teachings of Paul, who corrupted the teachings of Jesus.

Believe me I'm not religious I never do anything religiously

I am a Christian that believes in once saved always saved and then i live my life as any normal person committing sins daily lol -

That's the difference with being religious and being saved by grace - religious people are always trying to be perfect I'm not trying to do anything I just get on with life and have no church commitments now I just take every day as it comes good or bad -especially since my dad passed I changed when he died something got released I'm different- I nursed him day and night on shifts and experienced some supernatural things in his room which changed me for the better .

Which is what is religious Dibs

They believe in a supernatural being

Religion has nothing to do with being perfect. As it has a set meaning and why such a view is subjective.

Each belief system will class their beliefs as perfect, as I am sure you will. That is literal beliefs

Not knocking Dibs, but you are religious

So being saved by grace is a belief religiously

I am sorry that you lost your Father Dibs and I would never ask you to change your beliefs. I would only ask that you have an open mind on them. I have lost my father, my eldest brother, my sister at one years of age, my niece being a baby also at one, two uncles to the IRA and others in my family. Its made me see, there is no god. As no god would be so cruel or simple not care. If there is life after death, its nothing like the religious dogma people believe in. Those were written by men to control others.

I am glad you have faith Dibs and I do not dispute what you have seen, but I myself cannot believe it myself. Its not to knock you but be honest with you.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:41 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:I do know that a number of Catholics grow up with a really warped sense of sex. They seem to carry feelings of guilt about it.

The Catholic churches views on sex, like priests must be celibate, birth control is bad, sex is for productive purposes not pleasure etc....is guaranteed to warp some Catholics views on sex surely.

That is very true Eddie

Hence why Mother Teresa was no saint

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:05 pm

Mother Theresa was a young and vibrant woman once, we are so used to seeing the pics of her as a very aged frail woman, yet here she is aged 18.

Record number of British people say they have no religion Agnes_gonxha

Record number of British people say they have no religion Agnes_gonxha

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:13 pm

Syl wrote:Mother Theresa was a young and vibrant woman once, we are so used to seeing the pics of her as a very aged frail woman, yet here she is aged 18.

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:30 pm

They are his views and he has obviously studied and written about various religions, including Catholicism and Mother Theresa in depth.

Yes she was against birth control and abortion, that was her religion and she was a very religious woman, so obviously she would teach that, and like he said, that's not very helpful when people are dying of hunger and disease.

She did devote her life, and live amongst the unfortunate and the dying, so its easy for him to sit on his comfy chair and criticise.

by eddie Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:32 pm

Thorin wrote:
eddie wrote:I do know that a number of Catholics grow up with a really warped sense of sex. They seem to carry feelings of guilt about it.

Do they?

Now i am interested, as that seems a poor stereotype?

My family are all Catholics, except me and one of my sisters.

I've known a few Irish people and a couple of non-Irish and they've all told me that due to their early teachings they had a problem with seeing sex as something to be enjoyed - as something fun - due to their catholic upbringing.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:37 pm

Syl wrote:They are his views and he has obviously studied and written about various religions, including Catholicism and Mother Theresa in depth.

Yes she was against birth control and abortion, that was her religion and she was a very religious woman, so obviously she would teach that, and like he said, that's not very helpful when people are dying of hunger and disease.

She did devote her life, and live amongst the unfortunate and the dying, so its easy for him to sit on his comfy chair and criticise.

Another example of brainwashing

She devoted her life to warp peoples minds, that did nothing for women. How on earth you can even look up to her after she ensured many women never had empowerment. I am sorry but many people daily live by people dying Syl. Does that excuse their wrongs. She taught women to be nothing more than baby machines. How you as a free minded woman can defend her is appalling. She stood against everything that feminism is about.

Don't confuse her charity, when it endorses slavery of women

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:42 pm

eddie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Do they?

Now i am interested, as that seems a poor stereotype?

My family are all Catholics, except me and one of my sisters.

I've known a few Irish people and a couple of non-Irish and they've all told me that due to their early teachings they had a problem with seeing sex as something to be enjoyed - as something fun - due to their catholic upbringing.

I can relate to that with some Catholics, but I bet they are the horniest buggers going Eddie

They may shun sex openly, but crave it more then those non-religious

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:They are his views and he has obviously studied and written about various religions, including Catholicism and Mother Theresa in depth.

Yes she was against birth control and abortion, that was her religion and she was a very religious woman, so obviously she would teach that, and like he said, that's not very helpful when people are dying of hunger and disease.

She did devote her life, and live amongst the unfortunate and the dying, so its easy for him to sit on his comfy chair and criticise.

Another example of brainwashing

She devoted her life to warp peoples minds, that did nothing for women. How on earth you can even look up to her after she ensured many women never had empowerment. I am sorry but many people daily live by people dying Syl. Does that excuse their wrongs. She taught women to be nothing more than baby machines. How you as a free minded woman can defend her is appalling. She stood against everything that feminism is about.

Don't confuse her charity, when it endorses slavery of women

As I don't agree with the Catholic view that birth control and abortion are a sin I am hardly defending her views concerning either Thor.

It is however a fact that she devoted her life to the sick and the dying, living amongst the poverty herself, She opened hospitals for the dying. for lepers, for the most ill and the poorest in India, as her work spread she opened hostels all over the world.
She greatly deserves praise for the good things achieved in her lifetime.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:06 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Another example of brainwashing

She devoted her life to warp peoples minds, that did nothing for women. How on earth you can even look up to her after she ensured many women never had empowerment. I am sorry but many people daily live by people dying Syl. Does that excuse their wrongs. She taught women to be nothing more than baby machines. How you as a free minded woman can defend her is appalling. She stood against everything that feminism is about.

Don't confuse her charity, when it endorses slavery of women

As I don't agree with the Catholic view that birth control and abortion are a sin I am hardly defending her views concerning either Thor.

It is however a fact that she devoted her life to the sick and the dying, living amongst the poverty herself, She opened hospitals for the dying. for lepers, for the most ill and the poorest in India, as her work spread she opened hostels all over the world.
She greatly deserves praise for the good things achieved in her lifetime.

Oh my goodness. She set her life to brain wash women, to not use birth control and you praise this?

Do you not even see how and why she was even there to help only religiously?

OMG stop the press she opened hospitals? Fuck me, did it combat poverty?

You really are so small minded Syl. I love you to bits but you cannot think for yourself.

You think opening a hospital for the dying, makes her a great person?

That is your claim

What the fuck did she do for the living?

And you defend that

What can i say

by eddie Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Do they?

Now i am interested, as that seems a poor stereotype?

My family are all Catholics, except me and one of my sisters.

I've known a few Irish people and a couple of non-Irish and they've all told me that due to their early teachings they had a problem with seeing sex as something to be enjoyed - as something fun - due to their catholic upbringing.

I can relate to that with some Catholics, but I bet they are the horniest buggers going Eddie

They may shun sex openly, but crave it more then those non-religious

But of course! Nowhere did I mention that any of them were frigid! Laughing

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:22 pm

eddie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I can relate to that with some Catholics, but I bet they are the horniest buggers going Eddie

They may shun sex openly, but crave it more then those non-religious

But of course! Nowhere did I mention that any of them were frigid!

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:26 pm

Right have things to do and to be honest Syl has sold out women in her replies to me backing Mother Teresa. Mainly as she is ignorant of her. I hope Syl will come to learn for herself how Mother Teresa was far from a saint.

Night all

by Original Quill Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:53 pm

Syl wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

Exactly. I believe we don't see that there is another step above religion: metaphysics. Literally: beyond or above the physical world, the world of perception. Religion is just another kind or incident of metaphysic.

Religion presumes a uniquely intelligent designer/manipulator, who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. What if there is no being, or spirit? There still is chance and necessity...the result of which, we call nature. Nature is a physical world that just happens to be...that is, it exists around us. Even though we don't personify that world, we recognize its existence and the existence of certain laws (ie, gravity, procreation, chemistry, etc.) that govern it.

Sometimes we call it Mother Nature, and sometimes, like tommy once did, it is imbued with an intentional purpose, which is another term for intelligent design/manipulation.

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature. If that sounds convoluted, consider what is chance and necessity?. But really, with science we have simply switched from the question of: what is it? (which is called ontology); to the question of: how do we know? (which is called epistemology). Hence, we no longer speak of god, but method.

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:59 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

As I don't agree with the Catholic view that birth control and abortion are a sin I am hardly defending her views concerning either Thor.

It is however a fact that she devoted her life to the sick and the dying, living amongst the poverty herself, She opened hospitals for the dying. for lepers, for the most ill and the poorest in India, as her work spread she opened hostels all over the world.
She greatly deserves praise for the good things achieved in her lifetime.

Oh my goodness. She set her life to brain wash women, to not use birth control and you praise this?

Do you not even see how and why she was even there to help only religiously?

OMG stop the press she opened hospitals? Fuck me, did it combat poverty?

You really are so small minded Syl. I love you to bits but you cannot think for yourself.

You think opening a hospital for the dying, makes her a great person?

That is your claim

What the fuck did she do for the living?

And you defend that

What can i say

Maybe instead of 'saying' you could try reading.
This is what she was instrumental in achieving throughout her life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

"By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered about 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.["

She did help the living, the poor, old, ill, diseased.....these are the people she helped.
You are concentrating on one aspect of her work, the fact that she didn't believe in birth control or abortion.
Try to look beyond that and see the good she really did do.

Night Thor.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature. If that sounds convoluted, consider what is chance and necessity?. But really, with science we have simply switched from the question of: what is it? (which is called ontology); to the question of: how do we know? (which is called epistemology). Hence, we no longer speak of god, but method.

Er no it is not.

So by your definition, do you think science was able to refute the former theory that the earth was claimed to be flat?

Science is based on method and testing, not faith

It has no comparison to religious method

Only an religious fuckwit would think it does

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think having a faith, a belief in something or someone is different to being religious,
My view is that people follow religion, whichever one it is they choose , and avidly believe the words that are written by some man, or group of men long long ago....giving the words a lot more power than they deserve.

A faith is harder to explain, mainly because people can believe in so many different things, but the basis of it is that they/we believe that there is something more than this life.

Exactly. I believe we don't see that there is another step above religion: metaphysics. Literally: beyond or above the physical world, the world of perception. Religion is just another kind or incident of metaphysic.

Religion presumes a uniquely intelligent designer/manipulator, who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. What if there is no being, or spirit? There still is chance and necessity...the result of which, we call nature. Nature is a physical world that just happens to be...that is, it exists around us. Even though we don't personify that world, we recognize its existence and the existence of certain laws (ie, gravity, procreation, chemistry, etc.) that govern it.

Sometimes we call it Mother Nature, and sometimes, like tommy once did, it is imbued with an intentional purpose, which is another term for intelligent design/manipulation.

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature. If that sounds convoluted, consider what is chance and necessity?. But really, with science we have simply switched from the question of: what is it? (which is called ontology); to the question of: how do we know? (which is called epistemology). Hence, we no longer speak of god, but method.

Thank you for somehow understanding what I was trying to say.
You (of course) say things far more intelligently. Laughing

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:06 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Oh my goodness. She set her life to brain wash women, to not use birth control and you praise this?

Do you not even see how and why she was even there to help only religiously?

OMG stop the press she opened hospitals? Fuck me, did it combat poverty?

You really are so small minded Syl. I love you to bits but you cannot think for yourself.

You think opening a hospital for the dying, makes her a great person?

That is your claim

What the fuck did she do for the living?

And you defend that

What can i say

Maybe instead of 'saying' you could try reading.
This is what she was instrumental in achieving throughout her life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

"By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered about 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.["

She did help the living, the poor, old, ill, diseased.....these are the people she helped.
You are concentrating on one aspect of her work, the fact that she didn't believe in birth control or abortion.
Try to look beyond that and see the good she really did do.

Night Thor.

Sorry she was instrumental in achieving more poverty?#
By promoting Catholicism

Have you no comprehension what the empowerment of women is Syl?
Oh why they built schools to teach children that it was a sin to have sex

Is that your argument

It shows you have no clue how to tackle poverty

The empowerment of women

Your defense, ensures by her beliefs, women are slaves to men

Good night to you dinosaur

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:08 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Exactly. I believe we don't see that there is another step above religion: metaphysics. Literally: beyond or above the physical world, the world of perception. Religion is just another kind or incident of metaphysic.

Religion presumes a uniquely intelligent designer/manipulator, who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. What if there is no being, or spirit? There still is chance and necessity...the result of which, we call nature. Nature is a physical world that just happens to be...that is, it exists around us. Even though we don't personify that world, we recognize its existence and the existence of certain laws (ie, gravity, procreation, chemistry, etc.) that govern it.

Sometimes we call it Mother Nature, and sometimes, like tommy once did, it is imbued with an intentional purpose, which is another term for intelligent design/manipulation.

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature. If that sounds convoluted, consider what is chance and necessity?. But really, with science we have simply switched from the question of: what is it? (which is called ontology); to the question of: how do we know? (which is called epistemology). Hence, we no longer speak of god, but method.
Thank you for somehow understanding what I was trying to say.
You (of course) say things far more intelligently.

Understanding how to bow to down sexism, and by man telling you so

definition of Irony, a women, knowing a man is arguing to control her, thanking him

What a fuckwit

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:13 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
Thank you for somehow understanding what I was trying to say.
You (of course) say things far more intelligently.

Understanding how to bow to down sexism, and by man telling you so

definition of Irony, a women, knowing a man is arguing to control her, thanking him

What a fuckwit

If that was the case I would be thanking you, you are the one doing the arguing. Laughing

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Understanding how to bow to down sexism, and by man telling you so

definition of Irony, a women, knowing a man is arguing to control her, thanking him

What a fuckwit
If that was the case I would be thanking you, you are the one doing the arguing.

That is how you are so easily manipulated

I have throughout defended women

Have you thank me for that?

All you have done is defended someone who was instrumental in causing thousands of deaths. Mother Teresa, as you ignorant of her and think this is a joke

Be my guest, continue to be ignorant on this

by Syl Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Maybe instead of 'saying' you could try reading.
This is what she was instrumental in achieving throughout her life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

"By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered about 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.["

She did help the living, the poor, old, ill, diseased.....these are the people she helped.
You are concentrating on one aspect of her work, the fact that she didn't believe in birth control or abortion.
Try to look beyond that and see the good she really did do.

Night Thor.

Sorry she was instrumental in achieving more poverty?#
By promoting Catholicism

Have you no comprehension what the empowerment of women is Syl?
Oh why they built schools to teach children that it was a sin to have sex

Is that your argument

It shows you have no clue how to tackle poverty

The empowerment of women

Your defense, ensures by her beliefs, women are slaves to men

Good night to you dinosaur

I would tackle poverty by controlling the birth rate and clamping down on world greed...the latter being employed by the haves not the have nots.

Alas...I am not in the position to do either, and neither are you.
Mother Teresa did do a lot to help the unfortunates in this world....more than you or I ever did.

Have to go. night night.

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:20 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry she was instrumental in achieving more poverty?#
By promoting Catholicism

Have you no comprehension what the empowerment of women is Syl?
Oh why they built schools to teach children that it was a sin to have sex

Is that your argument

It shows you have no clue how to tackle poverty

The empowerment of women

Your defense, ensures by her beliefs, women are slaves to men

Good night to you dinosaur
I would tackle poverty by controlling the birth rate and clamping down on world greed...the latter being employed by the haves not the have nots.

Alas...I am not in the position to do either, and neither are you.
Mother Teresa did do a lot to help the unfortunates in this world....more than you or I ever did.

Have to go. night night.

Hilarious

Your first point went against everything Mother Teresa did

Your next points conflict with her beliefs

How to show up someone utterly stupid that backs religious idiocy

Please continue to venerate someone that caused the deaths of Tens thousands you idiot

Night dummy

by Guest Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:32 pm

by Ben Reilly Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:07 am

Thorin wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:A lot of Christians won't say they have a religion - such as myself I am not religious I have a faith .

When it comes to filling is surveys I do not answer as I can't as I'm not in any religion .

You are religious Dibs, which is not an issue

I really have never understood how and why people try to distance themselves from being religious when they believe in a God, as that is what fundamentally a religion is.

You are a Christian, which as beliefs go, has one of the better teachers in Jesus.

Sadly most Christians follow more the teachings of Paul, who corrupted the teachings of Jesus.

Or worse yet, the Old Testament, which contradicts the message of Jesus at every turn.

by Guest Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:52 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are religious Dibs, which is not an issue

I really have never understood how and why people try to distance themselves from being religious when they believe in a God, as that is what fundamentally a religion is.

You are a Christian, which as beliefs go, has one of the better teachers in Jesus.

Sadly most Christians follow more the teachings of Paul, who corrupted the teachings of Jesus.

Or worse yet, the Old Testament, which contradicts the message of Jesus at every turn.

Indeed Ben and the most confusing aspect of Jesus. As he states:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Which really does not make any sense. As we see him stop people stoning a woman. Its hardly fulfilling the old testament laws but going against it. Which makes me wonder if Matthew made that verse up.

In fact its mainly the Gospel of Matthew that we have verses by Jesus in regards to the Old Testament.

Just imagine, how different Christianity could have been today, if like other Gospels, Matthew had been omitted when they compiled the New Testament centuries later? And even more so without Paul's teachings?

Interesting to think about.

by 'Wolfie Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:07 am

Considering the first full edition of the Bible, in Latin, was compiled some 600 years after JC's death...

And then a few hundred more years before English versions appeared; and even then, most people still couldn't read -- so had to depend on sermons and lectures one day a week..

That left plenty of time for revisionism, added stories, and embellishments, to fill out the eventual result -- and so on and on, until nowadays you have dozens of authorised, unauthorised, expanded and abridged versions available. Including copies in the original Hebrew..
grin angel

by Original Quill Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:50 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature. If that sounds convoluted, consider what is chance and necessity?. But really, with science we have simply switched from the question of: what is it? (which is called ontology); to the question of: how do we know? (which is called epistemology). Hence, we no longer speak of god, but method.

Er no it is not.

So by your definition, do you think science was able to refute the former theory that the earth was claimed to be flat?

No...I said science was the next step up in metaphysics. Religion is just an answer to a question: what's going on? That's the same question asked by scientists.

But instead of offering answers having to do with folk tales and magic, science substitutes empiricism, in the form of scientific methodology.

Thorin wrote:Science is based on method and testing, not faith

You reached the obvious conclusion, and yet you didn't realize that was what I was saying. Think things through, didge. It would help if you read a little...you don't know metaphysics. The equivalency is between a spiritual being and empiricism...neither can be proven, so both are metaphysical.

Thorin wrote:It has no comparison to religious method

Only an religious fuckwit would think it does

What is a "religious method"? Reading a book? Listening to a preacher? The Bible is just another book of fairy tales. That is not a method. That is simple speculation.

Science supplants reading a book with a material method, which is a series of tests based upon empirical research. Still, empiricism cannot be proven. It is just accepted. So it is another form of metaphysics.

by Guest Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:53 am

Original Quill wrote:

No...I said science was the next step up in metaphysics. Religion is just an answer to a question: what's going on? That's the same question asked by scientists.

.

Really?

You said the following, which all can see

Original Quill wrote:

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature.

Hence idiocy, as explain how science is an extra-religious method?

You then even end with more idiocy

Original Quill wrote:Science supplants reading a book with a material method, which is a series of tests based upon empirical research. Still, empiricism cannot be proven. It is just accepted. So it is another form of metaphysics.

You say that science cannot be proven?

Does the earth rotate around the sun?

by Original Quill Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:05 am

Thorin wrote:Really?

You said the following, which all can see
Original Quill wrote:

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature.

Hence idiocy

Yes, you haven't understood a thing. Science is not 'intrareligions' so it must be outside of religion. It is: "extra-religious". Both religion and science are alternative forms of metaphysics.

Again, you demonstrate no ability to follow a train of thought. Look up 'intra' and 'extra'...it may be an inability to use the language. You appear to go off your course when you don't understand the words being used.

by Guest Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:12 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Really?

You said the following, which all can see
Original Quill wrote:

Science is an extra-religious method of looking into the nature of nature.

Hence idiocy

Yes, you haven't understood a thing. Science is not 'intrareligions' so it must be outside of religion. It is: "extra-religious". Both religion and science are alternative forms of metaphysics.

Again, you demonstrate no ability to follow a train of thought. Look up 'intra' and 'extra'...it may be an inability to use the language. You appear to go off your course when you don't understand the words being used.

PMSL at what has to be the most dumbest response I have heard to date that contradicts itself

So science is outside religion but is extra-religious

One moment

lol!

Oh I follow your train of thought, its simple hilarious to read such simple-mindedness

Metaphysics is not even a science, but forms of philosophy, ie, the views and concepts of people. Poor examples of this is the concept of human races. Which led to scientific racism, which science has proven emphatically incorrect.

Metaphysics, helps look at the possibilities and science can either show that can or cannot happen.

They are two separate things in methods, that may go in the same search of knowledge, but does not mean they are the same.

I really hope Victor reads what you have written as he will no doubt spend a week laughing.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:15 am

Thorin wrote:You then even end with more idiocy

Original Quill wrote:
Science supplants reading a book with a material method, which is a series of tests based upon empirical research. Still, empiricism cannot be proven. It is just accepted. So it is another form of metaphysics.

You say that science cannot be proven?

Does the earth rotate around the sun?

We don't really know. We have scientific tests, based upon empiricism...but we have to accept empiricism as the real world. We don't know that because we can't prove it. We could be living inside a dream, as in the demon hypothesis put forth by René DesCartes (a demon is determining our thoughts and our realization of our world).

But empiricism does seem to be more operational than religion, the other dominant metaphysical answer. After all, we instinctively avoid harm on the basis of empirical experience. We don't jump off of cliffs...we don't jump into fire, etc.

by Guest Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:20 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:You then even end with more idiocy

Original Quill wrote:
Science supplants reading a book with a material method, which is a series of tests based upon empirical research. Still, empiricism cannot be proven. It is just accepted. So it is another form of metaphysics.

You say that science cannot be proven?

Does the earth rotate around the sun?

We don't really know. We have scientific tests, based upon empiricism...but we have to accept empiricism as the real world. We don't know that because we can't prove it. We could be living inside a dream, as in the demon hypothesis put forth by René DesCartes (a demon is determining our thoughts and our realization of our world).

But empiricism does seem to be more operational than religion, the other dominant metaphysical answer. After all, we instinctively avoid harm on the basis of empirical experience. We don't jump off of cliffs...we don't jump into fire, etc.

So you are saying we cannot prove the earth rotates around the sun?

Or that gravity exists?

You then claim we could be living in a dream based off a view and nothing scientific. Yes we can all have views, but science is able to prove or disprove such views. Science can even continually disprove former scientific theories. Hence why scientific thinking, continually questions itself. Quite happy to be proven wrong with conclusive evidence. Yet we know for a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. Even with your view that we live in a dream, that earth would still rotate around the sun, making it a factual reality within that dream.

Thanks Quill, you really have made my day and proven further in how you are in fact a very poor teacher.

We avoid harm, because of the reality we are hardwired to feel pain neurologically. Its warning system, that helps educate us to the harm that can come to us. With more to the point, we know certain things will cause death and unless you are suicidal, you will avoid jumping off a cliff, as we fundamentally understand the frailty of the human body.

That is science, not metaphysical .

by Original Quill Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:36 am

Thorin wrote:So science is outside religion but is extra-religious

One moment

lol!

Oh I follow your train of thought, its simple hilarious to read such simple-mindedness

Metaphysics is not even a science, but forms of philosophy, ie, the views of people.

Metaphysics, helps look at the possibilities and science can either show that can or cannot happen.

You really have never taken a course in philosophy? It's obvious you are in over your head. Again, I think you suffer from a lack of familiarity with the English language.

'Meta' means above. 'Physics' means the physical world. So, metaphysics means that which is above, or beyond knowing. Both religion and science are metaphysical answers to what is reality (?). Religion is a book of folk tales; science is a reliance on Empiricism.

Thorin wrote:They are two separate things in methods, that may go in the same search of knowledge, but does not mean they are the same.

They are two separate, metaphysical answers to the same question: what is real?

Thorin wrote:I really hope Victor reads what you have written as he will no doubt spend a week laughing.

Yes, I know when you start feeling hesitant and unsure of yourself, you start grooming others to side with you. Lol...as if truth and logic were a democracy.

Well, I do think that victor has had a bit more education than you, and he may be more versed on DesCartes and the Enlightenment. Seventeenth century skepticism is essential to understanding the metaphysical. Here is an entertaining short course I have found for you:

by Guest Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:46 am

Original Quill wrote:
You really have never taken a course in philosophy? It's obvious you are in over your head. Again, I think you suffer from a lack of familiarity with the English language.

'Meta' means above. 'Physics' means the physical world. So, metaphysics means that which is above, or beyond knowing. Both religion and science are metaphysical answers to what is reality (?). Religion is a book of folk tales; science is a reliance on empircism.

Thorin wrote:Ah, when all else fails, make unfounded accusations and not actually deal with the points I made to you.

Some science is fact, religion is a leap of faith, two separate things in entirety. Religion is certainly a form of Metaphysics. As it hopes to seek the answers of things it cannot explain, where as science can explain them with facts. Like how we know that when there is a big Volcanic eruption. We know that certain insects and reptiles can thrive, as their predators are all killed off. Its no doubt something that might have some historical reality within the bible. With the ten plagues after the eruption of Thera. Which might have well effected Egypt. How there was a plague of frogs. The same thing happened after the eruption of Mount Saint Helen.

They are two separate, metaphysical answers to the same question: what is real?

Yes, I know when you start feeling hesitant and unsure of yourself, you start grooming others to side with you. Lol...as if truth and logic were a democracy.

But I do think that victor has had a bit more education than you, and he may be more versed on DesCartes and the Enlightenment. Seventeenth century skepticism is essential to understanding the metaphysical. Here is an entertaining short course:

Ah yet more claims to education, when as seen its myself educating you on things you simple do not understand. You then end with more philosophy, something I constantly debate on this very forum. Showing you simple do not even read many views I post. Now you may want to suck up and plagiarize other Philosophers, whereas I simple come to my own understanding by reading many different Philosophers myself.

I also know you are upset and have become emotional. As you then use the bog standard charge you always use, claiming I and others groom people. It emphatically shows you have conceded the debate, when you resort to such infantile accusations.

So the view as to what is real is simple a view point, but science and the fact you and I actually exists, proves we are real, whether that is within the realms of this world or even within a computer simulator. As within the later, our characters exist.

I mean, you simple are arguing off a concept. A concept you cannot even prove and are reliant on a leap of faith, making you quite ironically like someone religious. Arguing off faith.

by veya_victaous Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:39 am

Science is faith based too, Unless everyone is going to go through every experiment and prove for themselves every law and Theory it is reliant on faith in the work already done.

Let alone cutting edge science, where new knowledge is created, that is almost entirely faith based, it requires unsupported beliefs in a hypothesis. if you don't have that first step then the resources required to build a supported hypothesis would never be invested.

it is really pathetic to see some pseudo intellectuals try and claim it is not systematic faith. I think this comes down to their 'primitive' intellect preventing them from understanding self held hypothesis which are part of the broader scientific system. Beliefs are only unquestionable in the primitive, the more advanced minds can understand 'belief by degrees', much like sciences system of Laws, Theories and Hypothesis. A belief doesn't have to be 100% certain, you can believe something is Definite, plausible, possible or probable additionally belief can be held in the negative, that something is implausible, Impossible or improbable.

by Sponsored content