cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Jan 5, 2021 2:27:41 GMT
That's a relatively recent definition which was very rarely used before the advent of the "new atheism" in the early 2000s. Philosophers continue to use the older definition of "the belief that God(s) do(es) not exist", as do plenty of ordinary atheists who aren't part of the new atheist crowd.
That's not how I remember it from the 1980s, which was some time before the 2000s. In the circles I moved in, atheism was then stated to be an absence of a belief in god(s), not a belief in the absense of god(s), in much the same way that it was described that you can't "believe" in evolution any more than you can "believe" in tables. I suppose you can qualify it as hard atheism and soft athiesm to clarify things, much the same as the hard anthropic principle (the universe is so convivial for life-forms, fundamental physics must cause life-forms to arise) and the soft anthropic principle (the universe appears to be so convivial for life-forms because we are life-forms in that universe, if it wasn't convivial for life-forms we wouldn't be here to admire how convivivial it is). Peddlers of woo have been operating a cross-platform re-branding exercise as being a product in 'the marketplace of ideas' and that believing they have no product to actually present to the marketplace is not an observation but a belief itself.
Very shrewd operational adaptation from an organisation that had a speciality in vicious and often violent disagreements over literally nothing and then developing lines of thought/justification on the differences across centuries.
When you see a priest think consultant and it adds an interesting tone to the colour pallet of it all.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jan 5, 2021 6:36:24 GMT
I have been avoiding the national news and the general discussion area of this site deliberately for the last few days, but issues spill over into the more psephological areas of the site. Given the new lockdown I can only see this site going round in circles for the next few months, I have therefore decided for my own sanity and to get real life sorted, (as much lockdown allows 😁) all it's good, bad, ugly but real stuff done, that I am going to take a break from the forum until the run up to the next set of elections, which I suspect will be in 2022 but hope will be in 2021. See you then.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jan 5, 2021 7:03:54 GMT
Good luck to you alien8ted, I hope everything works out well for you. Your contributions will be missed.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jan 5, 2021 7:06:00 GMT
I was talking toone of my Quaker friends a few years ago and said that I would be a Quaker if I believed in God. She said, "Oh, don't worry dear, plenty of Quakers don't believe in God!"
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 5, 2021 8:05:50 GMT
I was talking toone of my Quaker friends a few years ago and said that I would be a Quaker if I believed in God. She said, "Oh, don't worry dear, plenty of Quakers don't believe in God!" Yes. There are certainly non-theistic Quakers.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 5, 2021 10:09:43 GMT
If only. But as only one of two nations on the planet that reserves spaces in its legislature for clerics (the other being Iran), that day is a long way away. I think if we're going to have an unelected second chamber (and I'm not keen on either element of that) then it's not that daft to reserve seats for religious leaders, as they represent a sizeable current in society that ought to have its voice heard. There's no very good reason to solely afford that privilege to Anglican bishops or to have 26 of them, but any appointed house would benefit from having a handful of them. You both seem to be forgetting that the reason the Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords is because Parliament has specific, and quite substantial, powers over the Church of England's internal affairs (including complete power of veto over the church's General Synod). The relationship between these two institutions is very heavily weighted in Parliament's favour. I'd say it's closer to the relationship between the Chinese state and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (its state-controlled church) than it is to Iran's theocracy. But Parliament also has the power to veto the decisions of, to pick an example entirely at random, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. These days it's also substantially more likely to use those powers than it is to interfere in the business of the General Synod. Does that mean the LGBCE's chair should be entitled to a seat in the Lords?
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,369
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 5, 2021 10:16:15 GMT
One's belief absolutely can be contested or debated. Where on Earth have you been for the last 5 years? Doing that is called "hate speech" now, and "denying someone's existence"...
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 5, 2021 10:18:12 GMT
I agree, as an example, I am currently trying to come up with a "coherent" rationale for my opposition to faith schools but my support for Gaelic-medium schools. I don't see them as being at all related? Because they are both state-sponsored reinforcements of decisions made by parents on behalf of children. I have had a wee think, now, and have come up with the following distinction. People do not need a religion to function in society. People do need a language to function in society.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 5, 2021 10:21:56 GMT
I don't see them as being at all related? Because they are both state-sponsored reinforcements of decisions made by parents on behalf of children. I have had a wee think, now, and have come up with the following distinction. People do not need a religion to function in society. People do need a language to function in society. That's one way of looking at it Or you can simply decide that it is not beneficial to have religious influence in school organisation.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 5, 2021 10:23:23 GMT
Why would not want people to know the truth though? John 8:32? Wonderful verse. Perhaps I should make it my new signature. How about Ezekiel 23:20 ?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 5, 2021 10:26:50 GMT
One's belief absolutely can be contested or debated. Where on Earth have you been for the last 5 years? Doing that is called "hate speech" now, and "denying someone's existence"... How many actual criminal convictions have there been in the UK for purely hate speech? I see endless examples posted all over the place, but no court cases. How come?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 5, 2021 10:48:20 GMT
John 8:32? Wonderful verse. Perhaps I should make it my new signature. How about Ezekiel 23:20 ? naughty Alan
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,247
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 5, 2021 10:49:07 GMT
Because they are both state-sponsored reinforcements of decisions made by parents on behalf of children. I have had a wee think, now, and have come up with the following distinction. People do not need a religion to function in society. People do need a language to function in society. That's one way of looking at it Or you can simply decide that it is not beneficial to have religious influence in school organisation. As you know Mike, without religious influence, most children would never have been considered worthy or in need of an education. We also wouldn't have a probation service, hospital care for the poorest, food for the hungriest, etc. The things we now accept as required of a civilised society were formerly provided by those pesky religious types, who then agitated for national reform and provision. Makes my point that history is a poorly taught subject in our schools today.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 5, 2021 10:55:30 GMT
That's one way of looking at it Or you can simply decide that it is not beneficial to have religious influence in school organisation. As you know Mike, without religious influence, most children would never have been considered worthy or in need of an education. We also wouldn't have a probation service, hospital care for the poorest, food for the hungriest, etc. The things we now accept as required of a civilised society were formerly provided by those pesky religious types, who then agitated for national reform and provision. Makes my point that history is a poorly taught subject in our schools today. I'm not necessarily saying that is my view. But it is legitimate to believe that there are problems with the influence that churches have on some issues within schools today , irrespective of what they have done in the past - clearly I am concerned about the way some faith schools approach sex and relationship education, which from my perspective is perfectly consistent with my wider views. I do think faith schools should have to work within the secular law if they wish to have secular state funding. And that should be the case irrespective of the contribution they have made in the past. What they believe within the church is their business but school is not 'within the church'
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,753
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 5, 2021 12:14:35 GMT
John 8:32? Wonderful verse. Perhaps I should make it my new signature. How about Ezekiel 23:20 ? Bit inappropriate without context, even then it’s pushing the envelope a little....
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 5, 2021 12:55:50 GMT
I have been avoiding the national news and the general discussion area of this site deliberately for the last few days, but issues spill over into the more psephological areas of the site. Given the new lockdown I can only see this site going round in circles for the next few months, I have therefore decided for my own sanity and to get real life sorted, (as much lockdown allows 😁) all it's good, bad, ugly but real stuff done, that I am going to take a break from the forum until the run up to the next set of elections, which I suspect will be in 2022 but hope will be in 2021. See you then. Fair enough mate. Come back soon but when it feels right. Oddly, I feel this place helps keep me sane, it's the real world that challenges my sanity! Whatever works best for you though. You will be missed during your sabbatical
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 5, 2021 13:08:14 GMT
I have been avoiding the national news and the general discussion area of this site deliberately for the last few days, but issues spill over into the more psephological areas of the site. Given the new lockdown I can only see this site going round in circles for the next few months, I have therefore decided for my own sanity and to get real life sorted, (as much lockdown allows 😁) all it's good, bad, ugly but real stuff done, that I am going to take a break from the forum until the run up to the next set of elections, which I suspect will be in 2022 but hope will be in 2021. See you then. Stay safe. Look forward to your return.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 5, 2021 13:13:32 GMT
That's one way of looking at it Or you can simply decide that it is not beneficial to have religious influence in school organisation. As you know Mike, without religious influence, most children would never have been considered worthy or in need of an education. We also wouldn't have a probation service, hospital care for the poorest, food for the hungriest, etc. The things we now accept as required of a civilised society were formerly provided by those pesky religious types, who then agitated for national reform and provision. Makes my point that history is a poorly taught subject in our schools today. True, but "religious influence" has not always been a benign influence within education. I won't mention Northern Ireland but my mother to her death at 88 resented the influence the Anglican, Tory and English-speaking Vicar had over the overwhelmingly Nonconformist, Liberal* and Welsh-speaking children at her primary school. * Drawn from families who supported the Liberal cause. It was a very bicultural society!
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,176
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jan 5, 2021 13:21:03 GMT
As you know Mike, without religious influence, most children would never have been considered worthy or in need of an education. We also wouldn't have a probation service, hospital care for the poorest, food for the hungriest, etc. The things we now accept as required of a civilised society were formerly provided by those pesky religious types, who then agitated for national reform and provision. Makes my point that history is a poorly taught subject in our schools today. True, but "religious influence" has not always been a benign influence within education. I won't mention Northern Ireland but my mother to her death at 88 resented the influence the Anglican, Tory and English-speaking Vicar had over the overwhelmingly Nonconformist, Liberal* and Welsh-speaking children at her primary school. * Drawn from families who supported the Liberal cause. It was a very bicultural society! Not just churches these days ...
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 5, 2021 15:49:27 GMT
You both seem to be forgetting that the reason the Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords is because Parliament has specific, and quite substantial, powers over the Church of England's internal affairs (including complete power of veto over the church's General Synod). The relationship between these two institutions is very heavily weighted in Parliament's favour. I'd say it's closer to the relationship between the Chinese state and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (its state-controlled church) than it is to Iran's theocracy. But Parliament also has the power to veto the decisions of, to pick an example entirely at random, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. These days it's also substantially more likely to use those powers than it is to interfere in the business of the General Synod. Does that mean the LGBCE's chair should be entitled to a seat in the Lords? There are also other bits of the church's internal affairs that are currently completely under the control of Parliament (e.g. redrawing parish boundaries can only be done via act of Parliament), but I'm not particularly familiar with those details. This is a rather odd state of affairs for an organisation that isn't part of the civil service.
|
|