Athiest bus campaign

[corydoras]

Well that does surprise me seeing that the advert stated that there is Probably Not a God it would seem to me that actually believing in God is a fundamental requirement for Christians, and would I thought be a point that would need to be clarified to non believers.

The thought that a Christian group would actually help fund such a stance is doubly surprising, I like my ministry to be unwavering John. enough of this understanding your detractors and more of the Fire and Brimstone...pleeease

Fire and Brimstone filleth not the Anglican pews in the 21st Century. I suggest migrating to Pennsylvania or Arkansas if that's your bag. I do wish you would spit out what you believe and what you don't. Edited January 12, 2009 by corydoras

[DavyR]

You obviously are including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other oil rich countries

 

No, that's why I said "almost universal" and not "universal". The most glaring exception worldwide is of course the USA, which is a rich country with an apparently high level of religious belief. Some have attempted to explain this by blaming the wide disparity between rich and poor in the USA with poorer groups showing a higher level of belief than richer ones.

[kleinboet]

This "lapsed Presbyterian" will still defend his faith, no matter how much he is goaded!

The funny thing is, Cory, you are coming over as a VERY committed Christian, with all the excerpts from the bible. (either that, or a SDA - jehovas witness)

 

KenL, Thanks for the link.

If the thread has "evolved" then why have the two questions I asked, not been answered.

 

The simple reason is that NO-ONE "knows" the answer and MUST assume, which brings us back to Christianity!

The way that non-believers then try to justify their stance is to talking "probabilities" and trying to blind everybody with theories!!

Edited January 12, 2009 by kleinboet

[Ken Davison South Wales]

No, that's why I said "almost universal" and not "universal". The most glaring exception worldwide is of course the USA, which is a rich country with an apparently high level of religious belief. Some have attempted to explain this by blaming the wide disparity between rich and poor in the USA with poorer groups showing a higher level of belief than richer ones.

 

Well that goes down the pan when you look at their politicians

 

Why I raised KSA is simple here we have one of the richest countries in the world not only with a 99.9% religious involvement but also breeding some of the worlds most religious fanatics.

 

And if you look through the ages right up to present times even in the UK the rich and powerful are the most devout church goers. i.e. middle and upper classes which I hasten to add includes the better educated portion of society.

 

Without wishing to appear rude I would say it is back to the drawing board on that one Dave.

[DavyR]

And if you look through the ages right up to present times even in the UK the rich and powerful are the most devout church goers. i.e. middle and upper classes which I hasten to add includes the better educated portion of society.

 

Without wishing to appear rude I would say it is back to the drawing board on that one Dave.

 

I thought we were discussing numbers of believers, not how "devout" those attending church happen to be (How do you measure "devoutness", btw?).

 

If we're talking about the UK, the working classes in rural areas up until the First World War felt obliged to attend church because it was expected of them, by most of their neighbours as well as by the "ruling classes", who could dismiss them from their employment for non-attendance. It's impossible to say how many attended because of their true beliefs. The educated classes were the ones most likely to embrace Darwinism when it appeared.

 

In the cities, the Victorian dissenting church movements (Methodists, Baptists, Salvationists, etc) drew huge popular support from working class people, often driven by wives attracted by the prospect of converting their husbands to total abstinence from alcohol; the cause of much poverty and misery at the time.

 

These days, CoE church attendance appears to be bolstered mainly by elderly people of all classes, some of whom seem to have been drawn in for social reasons following the death of a spouse. The only "growth areas" appear to be in the evangelical groups, often meeting in each other's houses rather than in churches, who seem to be composed largely of younger people of all classes.

 

There's no doubt that the rich and powerful, whatever their true beliefs, have always used the established church to further their own ends, but I think you need to clarify the point you're trying to make.

[corydoras]

This "lapsed Presbyterian" will still defend his faith, no matter how much he is goaded!

The funny thing is, Cory, you are coming over as a VERY committed Christian, with all the excerpts from the bible. (either that, or a SDA - jehovas witness)

 

KenL, Thanks for the link.

If the thread has "evolved" then why have the two questions I asked, not been answered.

 

The simple reason is that NO-ONE "knows" the answer and MUST assume, which brings us back to Christianity!

The way that non-believers then try to justify their stance is to talking "probabilities" and trying to blind everybody with theories!!

Im an atheist, I don't believe in Big-Daddy, Junior and the Spook any more than I believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. Just because I am an atheist does not mean that I don't know my scripture. It would be difficult to debate Christians and their belief in the contents of a dusty old book if one had not read the book.

 

Help me out KB remind me what your two questions are, and what are the theories you are being blinded by. If it is a scientific theory, it may help me if you give me your definition of what the word 'Theory' means when it is used in science. Your always telling us you were an analytical chemist, that makes you a scientist in my book so it shouldn't be too hard for you to give a quick definition of what the word Theory means in science.

[Ken L]

KenL, Thanks for the link.

If the thread has "evolved" then why have the two questions I asked, not been answered.

It has been answered KB. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. We can explain the inflation of the universe. We can explain the evolution of all of the heavy elements from the primordial Helium, Hydrogen and energy but as yet, we can't explain the precise trigger conditions.

My world view requires me to accept that we can't yet explain how we got to the starting point containing only simple basic energy and matter.

A religious worldview on the other hand requires “God” as a starting point and fails to address the question of how a being came into existence that is man shaped (Man is made in his image) with full consciousness, omniscience, and omnipotence.

Both positions can be used to explain how the universe came about but without a full explanation of where “God” came from, Ocam’s razor forces me to accept the scientific model.

 

Why I raised KSA is simple here we have one of the richest countries in the world not only with a 99.9% religious involvement but also breeding some of the worlds most religious fanatics.

 

And if you look through the ages right up to present times even in the UK the rich and powerful are the most devout church goers. i.e. middle and upper classes which I hasten to add includes the better educated portion of society.

 

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Islam is the official religion; the law requires that all Saudi citizens be Muslims. Religious freedom is virtually non-existent.

Not a lot of choice there.

 

As to why the wealthy (upto and including the US president, the Queen and the PM) are overtly religious, that's a sham that has been known and exploited since ancient Greece.

 

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." -- Aristotle.

 

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

 

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I thought we were discussing numbers of believers, not how "devout" those attending church happen to be (How do you measure "devoutness", btw?).

 

If we're talking about the UK, the working classes in rural areas up until the First World War felt obliged to attend church because it was expected of them, by most of their neighbours as well as by the "ruling classes", who could dismiss them from their employment for non-attendance. It's impossible to say how many attended because of their true beliefs. The educated classes were the ones most likely to embrace Darwinism when it appeared.

 

In the cities, the Victorian dissenting church movements (Methodists, Baptists, Salvationists, etc) drew huge popular support from working class people, often driven by wives attracted by the prospect of converting their husbands to total abstinence from alcohol; the cause of much poverty and misery at the time.

 

These days, CoE church attendance appears to be bolstered mainly by elderly people of all classes, some of whom seem to have been drawn in for social reasons following the death of a spouse. The only "growth areas" appear to be in the evangelical groups, often meeting in each other's houses rather than in churches, who seem to be composed largely of younger people of all classes.

 

There's no doubt that the rich and powerful, whatever their true beliefs, have always used the established church to further their own ends, but I think you need to clarify the point you're trying to make.

 

Quite a complex one now

 

It stemmed from a simple statement which I found very amusing and I quote:

Interestingly, although religions love to claim moral superiority (and even ownership of the morals themselves), statistics for divorce rates, crime rates and proportions of the prison population who claim to be christian just don't bear this out.

 

My reply:

Ken you are clutching on some shaky ones there 80% of church marriages are because it is the done thing, even chavs like a church wedding. And this prison deal is a bit of a joke as well, 80% of prisoners when asked religion will call C of E very easy to write down and spelling atheist would be beyond most, plus they pick up a few brownie points within the prison system.

 

I could troll through miles of rubbish to find a few atheist war mongers but you know they are there as well as I do.

 

I have to smile when people talk about religion and they are putting it down because 99.9% choose Christianity and it makes me wonder how much home work they have put in

 

As stated I am a fence sitter, not hedging my bets, just don't believe either side 100%, one could say I am taking the high ground

 

Dealing with church attendance relating to Christian beliefs in the UK, middle and upper classes are without doubt the main contributors to C of E , Methodist, Baptist indeed all but the most radical Evangelist churches.

 

Throughout the world covering all religions the poorer elements of society will be more likely to follow some form of religious belief, but again leading the vast majority of these religions will be the richer middle to upper classes of society and one would reason the better educated.

 

So for what ever reasons they have I am quite confident in stating that being well educated does not mean one would automatically be an atheist, in fact I am quite confident instating that there are more well educated people following religion than atheism.

 

Now as a fence sitter and a gambler I would have to place my bet on the vast majority not the minority as neither side has a 100% case of what if anything occurred before the big bang.

[corydoras]

It has been answered KB. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I don't know why so many people have a problem understanding this simple concept.

[DavyR]

Dealing with church attendance relating to Christian beliefs in the UK, middle and upper classes are without doubt the main contributors to C of E , Methodist, Baptist indeed all but the most radical Evangelist churches.

 

Ken, you're no doubt correct in this statement, although you've retrenched your postion to talking about the situation in the UK today rather than your original statement "through the ages right up to present times", which is the one I addressed in my answer to you.

 

If you start to look at actual religious belief by social class, rather than simply counting bums on church pews, you get a rather different picture and one that broadly agrees with the view put forward in my original link, i.e. that those at the bottom end of society are more likely to be religious believers than those at the top (see pages 25 onwards of this Google book: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gJa_p4x...esult#PPA25,M1)