Is the simple act of insisiting on avoiding reality (and leaving the rest of humanity with your share of the existential heavy lifting) an inherently anti-social act?

I fail to see how someone who happily goes to church on a Sunday and maybe prays during the week but otherwise doesn't bring their religion into everyday life is doing much to cause society as a whole too many problems.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

BBN - thanks, I agree.

If someone is inclined to do something good, and through attending a church or mosque or friends' meeting house or wherever meets likeminded people and is thus encouraged to put their thoughts into action, great.

If someone thinks mad thoughts, and through going to a church/mosque/etc meets more mad people who agree with them, and thinks this gives legitimacy to their mad thoughts and translates this into whatever horrible action, bad.

For that matter, replace church/mosque with pub or social club or football club or political party or whatever and you get the same result.

Onto the current 'debate', it seems to be that many people are arguing that it is not necessary to attend a church (save for the occasional wedding or funeral), know the Bible or express any 'Christian' feeling to be a Christian. Almost as if one is, through being resident in Britain (or indeed 'the west'), by default Christian until they actively choose another (or no) faith. That's getting worryingly close to the BNP/EDL 'Cultural Britishness' argument.

As an atheist/humanist, I believe that faith is a human construct and a personal choice. I also believe that many use it - for good and bad reasons - to give legitimacy to whatever they happen to be thinking. "God says..." is just another way of saying "Well, everyone else was doing it so...". I'm also aware though that my beliefs and values are moulded to a degree by upbringing and experience. I was brought up in a relatively liberal household, with access to a wider than average spectrum of humanity's creative output (i.e. I read a lot and widely, and watched tons of TV and movies). Someone living next door to me may have been exposed to a different range of stuff, but there was probably - at least in early years - a pretty good overlap. I travelled a lot, went to university, did lots of stuff. The guy next door may have stayed at home and watched Gladiators a lot. So, am I any more or less culturally British than the guy next door?

I think that, just as we joke about the DDR being not particularly democratic, a lot of the people on the 'Christian' side of the current debate have a very particular idea about the sort of Christianity they mean. What they want is that old cliche, 'the Tory party at prayer'. So they get shirty when bishops flex their legislative muscles and side with the underdog. They want a form of Christianity in public life that reinforces their outlook. They want religion to be part of public life as long as it backs up what they already think. The moment it doesn't do that, they're the ones crying out for the splitting of the sacred and profane.

In the end, both polar sides of the debate - the Wilsons and the Dawkinses seem to want everyone to agree with them, and both sides have shown themselves to be equally capable of immense childishness - Wilson in particular with his "Ooooh, he can't remember a book title! HE'S WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!". Whatever did happen to live and let live?

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

I'd just as soon they did it anyway, without needing encouragement or an audience.


This angle is relentlessly pushed. I've seen British born atheists being invited to leave the country for not fitting in. Religion is dangerous - always. There is no form of religion that is not. It always boils down to a self-interested refusal to face reality. All this bleating about persecution of Christians is driven by their rage at having to operate on a level playing field. It's about power, specifically the power to dictate the dominant narrative. They don't want to lose their unearned and undeserved privileges.

Yup, the 'That's how it's always been' argument.

Bit like the one dacre, Littlejohn etc are pushing at the moment regarding why the tabloids should be allowed to just carry on doing whatever they want, while all other media have to (and manage to) play by the rules.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

The 'appeal to traditition' argument is child's play to refute. We used to drown witches - shall we keep doing so?

Sadly, you come up against some fuck-nugget who privately likes the idea of knocking off problematic people and bringing back slavery. They're not interested in convincing you, or making sense. They're interested in what comes with appearing to be the victor, i.e. power and personal gain.

Going back to the little old lady who enjoys going to church and helping out in the charity shop and never bothers anyone. She is trading much of her autonomy, and probabably some cash, with people who sell her the comforting illusion of security. This often involves deception, misrepresentation or drawing out private fears. I don't think this is benign.

I had to take my one year old daughter to A and E the other day (She'd banged her head earlier in the day and was then very lethargic and being sick.. We thought concussion, but it was an unrelated virus and all is ok now.... if you were wondering..)

When I was going through the details with the woman on reception, she asked her religion....

'None..'

'I'll just pur C of E then shall I?'

'Erm'

Couldn't be arsed arguing the toss. Mildly panicky first time parenting does that to you.

Whats more disconcerting is why they needed a religious affiliation at all. Do different religions get different treatments?

Yes, in some circumstances they do. It's called diversity.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Jehova's Witnesses object to blood transfusions, and according to the EDL, if you get injected with Muzblood, that makes you a Muslim or something. Or that may be Harry Potter. Or halal meat. Or something.

Snarkiness aside, yes, some religions have health-related requirements/rules, just as some have dietary ones.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

I don't fancy being injected with doner kebab meat. Am I a knuckle-dragger?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I've been asked that a few times - and they've been insistent that that they had to put "something" down and "None" was not an option. Buddhist or Rastafarian soon shuts them up.

_________________
Si vas a plagiar noticias, no uses un sitio de noticias falsas como fuente.


Last edited by Carlos The Badger on Thu Feb 31, 2021 18:60 am, edited 666 times in total.

Tough. Why should someone's particular brand of fairy tale require that the NHS offer differing treatment regimes?

If that isnt acceptable then perhaps adherents should ask why an ostensibly loving God prohibits the treatment that might save their life.

You've not lived.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.