Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,743
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 3, 2023 10:26:41 GMT
And in this they are distinct, because certainly no other organisations quietly cover up the sexual misbehaviour of powerful individuals within their ranks by moving them and their critics from place to place. "Sin" isn't really a concept that seems to come up in Germanic religion, in that there isn't anybody judging your behaviour after death (except insofar as to the manner of death.) Certainly a lack of manliness led to social opprobrium and to a certain extent it's analogous, but then again Óðinn (and presumably therefore Woden) is sometimes himself accused of a lack of manliness, particular in terms of his status as a magic-user and the association of magic-related behaviours with non-normative gender and sexual behaviours. That would be highly unlikely within a Presbyterian polity, it’s no coincidence there were significantly less abuse scandals involving the Presbyterian churches. Churches with a married priesthood should generally be less vulnerable to instances of abuse (but not totally, of course). |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 4, 2023 18:40:24 GMT
The guy has a right to his religious views. He should have a right to express them (as long as they don't extend to advocating violence or discrimination). His party has a right to deselect him if so minded. His electors have a right to vote, or not to vote, for him if the particular issue is of interest to them. His position on the school body depends on what the rules are. The man was elected on a Conservative manifesto. He should stand for a party like the Christian People's Alliance who shares his views, if he cannot effectively represent the Conservative party manifesto he was elected to implement. Nobody who belongs to a mainstream political party agrees with every single line of that party's policy. The only way to implement your ideas would be to completely ban political parties and force everybody to stand as an independent. Which is utterly unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 4, 2023 19:03:51 GMT
No, they all apply to real situations and real legal processes. 'Sin' appears only in works of fiction. Senior Labour cabinet member admits complete inability to recognise the genre of a text. No, of course I've never wasted my time with a book of hoary old myths. What's your point? My underlying point is that there's almost nothing that the existence or non-existence of god(s) must make a difference to. But one thing it must affect, at the fundamental base level, is the thinking of people depending on whether they believe in one. A god must be able to help people do what they should be doing, over a non-believer, and make some difference. If not, if no god has such a power, then they don't have a power to do anything and can be dismissed. So if a religious body which entirely consists of people who absolutely believe and always ask god for help as to what to do, has the same propinquity for making mistakes and doing bad things as a body which consists of nonbelievers, then god's not doing anything. If you're going to put forward an argument against the existence of a particular god, that argument has to apply to what the religion in question actually believes about that god and his/her/its relationship with the world and humanity. Your argument is utterly irrelevant to Christianity because of what Christianity (in all of its mainstream varieties) teaches about human fallenness. Using this kind of anti-intellectual strawman approach simply reinforces the views of Christians who have even a basic understanding of theology and gives the impression that there isn't a substantial case for atheism. I'm not a christian so "heresy" is a nothing. By that "logic" the fact that I'm not a Marxist means that it doesn't matter if I point out problems that are unique to Maoism when I'm claiming that Stalinism is a false belief. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2023 19:08:38 GMT
Your response to the second point is just gibberish save for the last remark which is absolute positive nonsense. Atheism is a state of not believing in god(s). It's something that's either present or not present. It's not a philosophy. So the suggestion that there needs to be a "case for atheism" is a nonsense.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,205 
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 4, 2023 20:26:21 GMT
Your response to the second point is just gibberish save for the last remark which is absolute positive nonsense. Atheism is a state of not believing in god(s). It's something that's either present or not present. It's not a philosophy. So the suggestion that there needs to be a "case for atheism" is a nonsense. Yes yes we know that’s what intellectually dishonest atheists like to claim. Funny how others have managed to debate Christians countless times on their respective views without collapsing down to this rather asinine argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2023 22:28:06 GMT
It is a statement of rather obvious fact.
Atheism does not refer to the existence of gods but to the existence of belief in them. Religious people often discuss the implications "if atheism were true" by which they mean "if there were no god(s)", but that's not what they are saying.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,205
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 4, 2023 23:05:27 GMT
It is a statement of rather obvious fact. Atheism does not refer to the existence of gods but to the existence of belief in them. Religious people often discuss the implications "if atheism were true" by which they mean "if there were no god(s)", but that's not what they are saying. Sounds like a rather philosophically lazy and disjointed conflation of atheism and agnosticism to me. I’ve never heard anyone serious try to pull it off, only keyboard warriors off r/atheism. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2023 23:17:41 GMT
You're not even disputing anything.
Atheism means not having any belief in god(s). It has always meant that. It is not a belief itself, not a philosophy, and not a religion. And that's that.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,205
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 4, 2023 23:29:05 GMT
You're not even disputing anything. Atheism means not having any belief in god(s). It has always meant that. It is not a belief itself, not a philosophy, and not a religion. And that's that. I’m disputing that you’re a smart atheist. The belief *sniggers* that it’s not a philosophy is absolutely raving mad. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 4, 2023 23:39:19 GMT
Is not believing in Santa Claus also a philosophy?
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,205
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 5, 2023 0:01:50 GMT
Is not believing in Santa Claus also a philosophy? No. Category difference. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 5, 2023 0:02:35 GMT
You're not even disputing anything. Atheism means not having any belief in god(s). It has always meant that. It is not a belief itself, not a philosophy, and not a religion. And that's that. I’m disputing that you’re a smart atheist. The belief *sniggers* that it’s not a philosophy is absolutely raving mad. I don’t think there’s an invisible purple hippopotamus floating in the air 200 feet above the centre of Wolverhampton. It’s not because of any particular philosophy, it’s just because I’ve never had any reason to think there is one. Am I raving mad? |
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,205
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 5, 2023 0:03:35 GMT
I’m disputing that you’re a smart atheist. The belief *sniggers* that it’s not a philosophy is absolutely raving mad. I don’t think there’s an invisible purple hippopotamus floating in the air 200 feet above the centre of Wolverhampton. It’s not because of any particular philosophy, it’s just because I’ve never had any reason to think there is one. Am I raving mad? Your name has loony appended on. Do I need to go any further right before bed time? And anyway, you’re comparing apples and oranges. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,743
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 5, 2023 6:42:03 GMT
I’m disputing that you’re a smart atheist. The belief *sniggers* that it’s not a philosophy is absolutely raving mad. I don’t think there’s an invisible purple hippopotamus floating in the air 200 feet above the centre of Wolverhampton. It’s not because of any particular philosophy, it’s just because I’ve never had any reason to think there is one. Am I raving mad? It would be fun if it fell to Earth on top of the Mander Centre. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 5, 2023 7:45:04 GMT
I don’t think there’s an invisible purple hippopotamus floating in the air 200 feet above the centre of Wolverhampton. It’s not because of any particular philosophy, it’s just because I’ve never had any reason to think there is one. Am I raving mad? It would be fun if it fell to Earth on top of the Mander Centre. I work with a scion of the Mander family and he's a nice bloke, so I'd rather it missed. Mind you, he sounds about as un-Wulfrunian as it's possible to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 5, 2023 7:53:48 GMT
It would be fun if it fell to Earth on top of the Mander Centre. I work with a scion of the Mander family and he's a nice bloke, so I'd rather it missed. Mind you, he sounds about as un-Wulfrunian as it's possible to be. He won't mind if it lands on the Wulfrun Centre instead then |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,743
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 5, 2023 8:44:48 GMT
It would be fun if it fell to Earth on top of the Mander Centre. I work with a scion of the Mander family and he's a nice bloke, so I'd rather it missed. Mind you, he sounds about as un-Wulfrunian as it's possible to be. Sir Geoffrey Mander, industrialist and Liberal MP for Wolverhampton East, was a Harrovian, so I rather doubt that he sounded typically Wulfrunian either.
Have you ever visited Wightwick Manor (NT), the old family home in Tettenhall? It's a fascinating place, decorated throughout in the Arts and Crafts style, plenty of Wm Morris & Co furnishings and fitments on display.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,743
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 5, 2023 8:53:37 GMT
I work with a scion of the Mander family and he's a nice bloke, so I'd rather it missed. Mind you, he sounds about as un-Wulfrunian as it's possible to be. He won't mind if it lands on the Wulfrun Centre instead then The two centres opened about the same time - 1970-ish - and join up in a passage above Bell Street. ISTR that the Mander Centre had the higher-quality shops, with the Wulfrun Centre being slightly bargain basement, but that may not be true anymore. The first branch of Sainsbury's in Wolverhampton was in the Wulfrun Centre, however, it was tiny compared with the current store, and even with the store previous to that. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 5, 2023 10:04:04 GMT
Your response to the second point is just gibberish save for the last remark which is absolute positive nonsense. Atheism is a state of not believing in god(s). It's something that's either present or not present. It's not a philosophy. So the suggestion that there needs to be a "case for atheism" is a nonsense. You're seriously claiming that it's both "gibberish" and "absolute positive nonsense" to point out (1) that your argument is a strawman (2) that an argument against a belief has to actually work against the specific belief in question? And if you are going to criticise Christianity it doesn't help your case to claim that you have deliberately avoided learning anything about the Bible (especially when you do so in a form of words that strongly suggest prejudice on your part).
And we've been over the issue of the definition of atheism repeatedly. I've shown you a number of times over the years that dictionaries consistently define atheism as "the belief that god(s) do(es) not exist" and that this is how the term is used in philosophy. And insisting that there doesn't need to be a case for atheism in the same discussion where you have, once again, made a (bad) argument against the existence of God is simple hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 5, 2023 10:50:34 GMT
The 'strawman' accusation is total crap. TOTAL CRAP. I'm making this point from the start; if you wish to unload it, that's for you to do.
I do not understand how you can be so thick to not notice that christianity is an irrelevance to a general issue about any supernatural belief.
Dictionaries record usage and if people misuse words according to their actual definition by philosophers, then the usage will be included in the dictionary.
And that's another one of your tedious rubbish posts dealt with economically. Now go away.
|
|
