Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
church so most of them did.

By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%.  Falling
further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990.    Currently only 6.3% attend
church.  It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
others attend for social reasons.

I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
has much declined.  People no longer take their children to church and
most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.

At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
support.  


-- 
********
David WG
********

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439482E98FA88@zetnet.co.uk...
> Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
> church so most of them did.
>
> By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%.  Falling
> further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990.    Currently only 6.3% attend
> church.  It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
> many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
> others attend for social reasons.
>
> I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
> has much declined.  People no longer take their children to church and
> most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.
>
> At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
> before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
> support.
>
>
> -- 
> ********
> David WG
> ********


Church of Scotland on the rocks:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=44868&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Gordon Hudson wrote:
> 
> Church of Scotland on the rocks:
> 
> http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=44868&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a 
> 

The original article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908957.ece

I found this on the Richard Dawkins forum:

"Church of Scotland membership figures:

2000 607,714
2005 520,940
2006 504,363
2007 489,118

has lost 118,596 members in 7 years
16,942 per year
At this rate it will have no members in 28 years time"

<ScotsAccent>We're all dooomed, Captain Mainwaring,! 
dooooooooomed!</ScotsAccent>

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Gordon Hudson"  wrote in message 
news:697ka5F30a5b5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
> news:3130303031303439482E98FA88@zetnet.co.uk...
>> Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
>> church so most of them did.
>>
>> By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%.  Falling
>> further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990.    Currently only 6.3% attend
>> church.  It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
>> many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
>> others attend for social reasons.
>>
>> I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
>> has much declined.  People no longer take their children to church and
>> most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.
>>
>> At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
>> before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
>> support.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
>
>
> Church of Scotland on the rocks:
>
> http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=44868&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


Encouraging also to read of the new Spanish government and it's approach to 
secularity.
Taking away the insistence of religious instruction in schools it is 
replacing it with citizenship classes, it has threatened to withdraw 
some/all of the state funding of churches  - which is an incredulous £3 
billion !!!!!  a year....  the catholic church has responded by replacing 
their representative (..a moderate) with a more austere right wing 
philosophy driven one...
Talk of  cultural fragmentation because of secular values and lack of 
morality   [...where have we heard this rubbish before?] is bringing to the 
forefront a move by a hitherto religiously intergrated state away from such 
religious influence.   Brilliant.
[...alongside the new spanish governments appointments of a large number of 
women into the cabinet........]

Mark

X-No-Archive: yes


> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
> news:3130303031303439482E98FA88@zetnet.co.uk...
>> Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
>> church so most of them did.
>>
>> By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%.  Falling
>> further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990.    Currently only 6.3% attend
>> church.  It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
>> many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
>> others attend for social reasons.


>> I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
>> has much declined.  People no longer take their children to church and
>> most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.

Not so unfortunately david.... in the uk there is still over 63% of schools 
(albeit most at primary level) that have church association and/or religious 
teachings..

>> At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
>> before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
>> support.

According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
numbers fool you...!
They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
avoid confronting evidence.
I saw a poll the other day (can't recall what or where just at this moment) 
that asked if there was absolute proof  that this entire universe came about 
by 'accident' rather than by design  over two thirds, about 70%  said they 
would still believe in god (of god believers in the first place, of course). 
Similar numbers, to the idea that, if evidence proved jesus did not exist, 
siad they would still believe in god.
This is a deep rooted pyschological  disease in my view...



Mark

The message 
from "mark"  contains these words:

> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
> numbers fool you...!
> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
> proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
> The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
> avoid confronting evidence.

Despite what they may want to believe the evidence is that religion is
declining at a very fast rate in the UK.  I do not suppose it will ever
disappear but it is already a minority interest!

-- 
********
David WG
********

"mark"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
pdidnWasReJZQ7PVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes

<SNIP>

> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
> numbers fool you...!
> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
> proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
> The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
> avoid confronting evidence.
> I saw a poll the other day (can't recall what or where just at this 
> moment) that asked if there was absolute proof  that this entire universe 
> came about by 'accident' rather than by design  over two thirds, about 70% 
> said they would still believe in god (of god believers in the first place, 
> of course). Similar numbers, to the idea that, if evidence proved jesus 
> did not exist, siad they would still believe in god.
> This is a deep rooted pyschological  disease in my view...

Mark, you should see the latest reply to me in ukrc, here:

293e0562-2cca-46fe-a57c-08e13798c8de@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com

It sums up the problems we're facing when challenging theists and their 
beliefs. The quote is entirely self-sufficient, needs no context, no 
introduction from me. A believer answered:

[quote]"""In any case, I really don't intend to be smug or condescending,
although I do intend to be dismissive.  You're talking with people who
have in their scripture, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of
unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."  We really believe that
your mind has been blinded and you cannot see the light unless God
reveals Himself to you, so just matter-of-fact (rather than smug or
condescending) if you (or Giles) think you're going to make much
headway attacking our beliefs then you just prove our point for us
that your actions are not rational (given what we demonstrably
believe).  My challenge is - why are you bothering to try to talk us
out of our beliefs?

If you want to argue reasonably then you must take into account the
way we do think, not they way you think we should think.  But then you
don't want to discuss things assuming the existence of God the way we
do, and we don't want to discuss things assuming a post-modern world
view (etc).  So, hmm, what are we to do?"""[unquote]

I could just imagine the 9/11 bombers saying precisely the same thing, or 
supporters of an extreme political movement, or just about any follower of 
any superstition around the globe. The irony is that the writer doesn't see 
how this puts him in conflict not only with the likes of atheists, but with 
anyone who thinks, believes, differently.

Faith (and its effect, more or less exaggerated) in a perfectly succinct 
nutshell. Something we have to bear in mind when debating with theists, 
whether fundamentalists or moderates. How do we confront this tunnel vision 
view of reality effectively? I say not sit around on upa congratulating 
ourselves on how much more insightful/rational etc we are, or taking pot 
shots at the occasional nutter who happens by, but by calmly debating with 
theists on their own ground. It may not get through to every believer, but 
it will raise a few doubts.

pga

David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> Despite what they may want to believe the evidence is that religion is
> declining at a very fast rate in the UK.  I do not suppose it will ever
> disappear but it is already a minority interest!

If there were a real general christian (or any other sect) audience for the
"God Slot" on UK Sunday TV, ITV would not be moving heaven and earth[1] to
give up on its public service requirements right now.

[1] that's the irony - many of the best metaphors are based in religion.

-- 
Gustaf Lindborg: The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail

X-No-Archive: yes

"Geoff Lane"  wrote in message 
news:rrc3g5-k7n.ln1@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> Despite what they may want to believe the evidence is that religion is
>> declining at a very fast rate in the UK.  I do not suppose it will ever
>> disappear but it is already a minority interest!
>
> If there were a real general christian (or any other sect) audience for 
> the
> "God Slot" on UK Sunday TV, ITV would not be moving heaven and earth[1] to
> give up on its public service requirements right now.


> [1] that's the irony - many of the best metaphors are based in religion.


:-))
Personally, I find the notion that religion should have ANY air time most 
inappropriate...
I hope they are moving it to 3.00am tuesday!!!
It is one aspect, in my view,  that can be addresed along with the religious 
integration of many public institutions (including schools).
[council meetings of elected representatives that start with prayers is 
deplorable and a clear sign of just how far we have to go, perhaps, to 
dislodge religion (christianity) from our lives..
The symbolism of the queen being head of the church is another..... crikey, 
I sound like an anarchist!!



Mark

mark wrote:

> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
> numbers fool you...!
> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
> proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??

This has been claimed for years.

There was a survey about a year ago, from memory by the CofE 
themselves, which showed that the situation is the reverse - a fair 
proportion of those going to church don't have any belief. They 
simply go for the singing and companionship - a nice friendly club 
with no entry fee.

They are in terminal decline almost everywhere. A few years ago, the 
attendance in the UK was 7.5% (which broke down almost evenly into 
2.5% CofE, 2.5% other christian, 2.5 other). This is now nearer 6% 
if recent reports are to be believed - despite massive support by 
incoming eastern Europeans and Muslims!

The decline can only be called catastrophic!

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"PG"  wrote in message 
news:482eefb2$0$863$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>
> "mark"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
> pdidnWasReJZQ7PVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
>> numbers fool you...!
>> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
>> proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
>> The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
>> avoid confronting evidence.
>> I saw a poll the other day (can't recall what or where just at this 
>> moment) that asked if there was absolute proof  that this entire universe 
>> came about by 'accident' rather than by design  over two thirds, about 
>> 70% said they would still believe in god (of god believers in the first 
>> place, of course). Similar numbers, to the idea that, if evidence proved 
>> jesus did not exist, siad they would still believe in god.
>> This is a deep rooted pyschological  disease in my view...
>
> Mark, you should see the latest reply to me in ukrc, here:
>
> 293e0562-2cca-46fe-a57c-08e13798c8de@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>
> It sums up the problems we're facing when challenging theists and their 
> beliefs. The quote is entirely self-sufficient, needs no context, no 
> introduction from me. A believer answered:
>
> [quote]"""In any case, I really don't intend to be smug or condescending,
> although I do intend to be dismissive.  You're talking with people who
> have in their scripture, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of
> unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the
> glory of Christ, who is the image of God."  We really believe that
> your mind has been blinded and you cannot see the light unless God
> reveals Himself to you, so just matter-of-fact (rather than smug or
> condescending) if you (or Giles) think you're going to make much
> headway attacking our beliefs then you just prove our point for us
> that your actions are not rational (given what we demonstrably
> believe).  My challenge is - why are you bothering to try to talk us
> out of our beliefs?
>
> If you want to argue reasonably then you must take into account the
> way we do think, not they way you think we should think.  But then you
> don't want to discuss things assuming the existence of God the way we
> do, and we don't want to discuss things assuming a post-modern world
> view (etc).  So, hmm, what are we to do?"""[unquote]
>
> I could just imagine the 9/11 bombers saying precisely the same thing, or 
> supporters of an extreme political movement, or just about any follower of 
> any superstition around the globe. The irony is that the writer doesn't 
> see how this puts him in conflict not only with the likes of atheists, but 
> with anyone who thinks, believes, differently.
>
> Faith (and its effect, more or less exaggerated) in a perfectly succinct 
> nutshell. Something we have to bear in mind when debating with theists, 
> whether fundamentalists or moderates. How do we confront this tunnel 
> vision view of reality effectively? I say not sit around on upa 
> congratulating ourselves on how much more insightful/rational etc we are, 
> or taking pot shots at the occasional nutter who happens by, but by calmly 
> debating with theists on their own ground. It may not get through to every 
> believer, but it will raise a few doubts.


I agree with you wholeheartedly..
I search myself for inspiration at times to deal meaningfully with some of 
the mindset you speak of and of the poster you refer to from ukrc.
I have in the past tried to question the biblical literalism from which this 
all encompassing faith derives in some senses.
To arrive at a notion, such as the ukrc poster,  you just HAVE to have 
studied the biblical parts that address 'unbelievers' to eventually 
encompass that into your faith and belief system....
Interestingly a red herring of *rational* is levelled at you (or Giles) sic 
which we all know is just the absolute example of what faith and beleif in 
god is......... irrational.
Whether atheists are right or wrong about all of this,  "irrational"  is not 
something easily levelled at them, in my view.
One discussion I had along the lines of biblical (in)errancy evolved into 
such abstract notion as to be farcical.  Apart from pointing out the myriad 
on contradictions contained therein - usually skipped over under the guise 
of that's not what was written!! ... that's not how to interpret it!  that's 
not what it means! [talk about slippery eels], the obvious inaccuracies 
contained therein, particularly in the context of science discovering them 
to be absolutely wrong - usually explained as analogy!!   ... the notion 
that the inaccuracies are EXACTLY how the people of the time perceived the 
world/universe around them - usually explained as god works in mysterious 
ways!! [...you could not begin to make this up, could you].
Discussions about the writings of the gospels (Mark being accepted as the 
first around 75ad - the rest some time later), the writer(s) - some had more 
than one - having almost impossibly (..but not quite to christians!) never 
met this jesus character - explained that they mathematically *could* have 
but in any event the tales were perfectly ok to be oral tradition!!   Each 
one being remembered word for word after 50 years or so!!!! Just incredible.
Then we discussed that in any event, the bible was "spiritually inspired" by 
god...!!  [...a burning bush to an illiterate man who then carved stone 
tablets takes some understanding..] and on asking how a god that created all 
of this could inspire a tome that was riddled with inaccuracies (that he 
*would* have known about but man would not) and contradictions,  the 
explanation was that only the 'chosen' few could understand this.....!!!
A god that wanted all people to worship him just didn't need to do it this 
way.....
Anyway,  On explaining that, as there WERE inaccuracies in the bible - in 
part accepted by many/most christians - how could one then decide which 
parts were correct and which were not....
The answer was, of course, that only some people could understand that!  and 
on asking how did those people come to be able to understand it,  the answer 
was because god chose them...1
So there we have it, just like your poster in ukrc, the whole notion of 
faith is just that......  an entire, encompassed, self referencing notion 
that just keeps well..... self referencing!
It is a mindset that is almost impossible to address and I am coming to the 
idea that dealing with individual christians is so time consuming and 
pointless it might be better to use energies on a different scale and in a 
different arena.
The worst part of the reply you had is that there is an underlying 
insistence that discussion is not wanted, needed or in general entered 
into...  and when it is, it is along the battle lines of you are an atheist, 
we are christians .......



Mark

On May 17, 2:36 am, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
> church so most of them did.
>
> By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%.  Falling
> further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990.    Currently only 6.3% attend
> church.  It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
> many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
> others attend for social reasons.
>
> I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
> has much declined.  People no longer take their children to church and
> most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.
>
> At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
> before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
> support.  
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:   Its a shame the UK has fallen to this drastic level.  One can
easily see how morally degraded England has become since decidedly
turning its back on God for the purpose of Hedonism in its many
forms.  The Culture is doomed if it continues on this same road to
'liberation' and 'freedom to do as one wishes' . If all the Church
doors close, God still exists  regardless. God isnt going away . Ever.
(sorry for the dismal news...)

On May 17, 4:48 pm, "Lying fuckwadd IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped BS)

Go peddle your LIES & STUPIDITY somewhere else, you asshole

"PG"  wrote in message 
news:482eefb2$0$863$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>
> "mark"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
> pdidnWasReJZQ7PVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
>> numbers fool you...!
>> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out of 
>> proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
>> The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
>> avoid confronting evidence.
>> I saw a poll the other day (can't recall what or where just at this 
>> moment) that asked if there was absolute proof  that this entire universe 
>> came about by 'accident' rather than by design  over two thirds, about 
>> 70% said they would still believe in god (of god believers in the first 
>> place, of course). Similar numbers, to the idea that, if evidence proved 
>> jesus did not exist, siad they would still believe in god.
>> This is a deep rooted pyschological  disease in my view...
>
> Mark, you should see the latest reply to me in ukrc, here:
>
> 293e0562-2cca-46fe-a57c-08e13798c8de@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>
> It sums up the problems we're facing when challenging theists and their 
> beliefs. The quote is entirely self-sufficient, needs no context, no 
> introduction from me. A believer answered:
>
> [quote]"""In any case, I really don't intend to be smug or condescending,
> although I do intend to be dismissive.  You're talking with people who
> have in their scripture, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of
> unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the
> glory of Christ, who is the image of God."  We really believe that
> your mind has been blinded and you cannot see the light unless God
> reveals Himself to you, so just matter-of-fact (rather than smug or
> condescending) if you (or Giles) think you're going to make much
> headway attacking our beliefs then you just prove our point for us
> that your actions are not rational (given what we demonstrably
> believe).  My challenge is - why are you bothering to try to talk us
> out of our beliefs?
>
> If you want to argue reasonably then you must take into account the
> way we do think, not they way you think we should think.  But then you
> don't want to discuss things assuming the existence of God the way we
> do, and we don't want to discuss things assuming a post-modern world
> view (etc).  So, hmm, what are we to do?"""[unquote]
>
> I could just imagine the 9/11 bombers saying precisely the same thing, or 
> supporters of an extreme political movement, or just about any follower of 
> any superstition around the globe. The irony is that the writer doesn't 
> see how this puts him in conflict not only with the likes of atheists, but 
> with anyone who thinks, believes, differently.
>
> Faith (and its effect, more or less exaggerated) in a perfectly succinct 
> nutshell. Something we have to bear in mind when debating with theists, 
> whether fundamentalists or moderates. How do we confront this tunnel 
> vision view of reality effectively? I say not sit around on upa 
> congratulating ourselves on how much more insightful/rational etc we are, 
> or taking pot shots at the occasional nutter who happens by, but by calmly 
> debating with theists on their own ground. It may not get through to every 
> believer, but it will raise a few doubts.
>
> pga
>

Do not despair.
Something IS happening.

I was out playing with an orchestra last night and we were in a church.
The subject of chat went round to religion and it turned out there were two 
other people
who had discovered that they didn't beleive in God in the past six months or 
so and had dropped out of church.
Not just that, but they were quite forthcoming about it and didn't feel 
ashamed.

wrote in message 
news:f36c0bb5-84d8-4945-acf2-21e9be630379@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 2:36 am, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> Going back a few centuries people were fined if they did not go to
> church so most of them did.
>
> By 1900 the percentage attending church had dropped to 30%. Falling
> further to 19% in 1970 and 15% in 1990. Currently only 6.3% attend
> church. It would be wrong to equate attendance with belief because
> many, including children at some schools, are compelled to attend while
> others attend for social reasons.
>
> I think the trend is related to the fact that childhood indoctrination
> has much declined. People no longer take their children to church and
> most state schools no longer instruct children in a specific religion.
>
> At the current rate of attrition it will clearly take not many years
> before churches will everywhere be forced to close through lack of
> support.
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:   Its a shame the UK has fallen to this drastic level.  One can
easily see how morally degraded England has become since decidedly
turning its back on God for the purpose of Hedonism in its many
forms.  The Culture is doomed if it continues on this same road to
'liberation' and 'freedom to do as one wishes' . If all the Church
doors close, God still exists  regardless. God isnt going away . Ever.
(sorry for the dismal news...)

----------------------------
Since I discovered that I don't believe in God any more I have become a 
drunken, drug using, promiscuous homosexual.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:   Its a shame the UK has fallen to this drastic level.  One can
> easily see how morally degraded England has become since decidedly
> turning its back on God for the purpose of Hedonism in its many
> forms.  The Culture is doomed if it continues on this same road to
> 'liberation' and 'freedom to do as one wishes' .

Two points:
- there is no god to turn our back on (see below)
- the evidence, (it is difficult to decide a measure but violent 
crime and murder is a useful starting point) appears to be quite the 
opposite. Those states with the highest religious belief (US, 
Nigeria...) seem to have the worst record and those states with the 
lowest (UK, Scandinavia) seem to have no worse or even a better record.

> ...God still exists  regardless. God isnt going away . Ever.
> (sorry for the dismal news...)

Don't apologise! We keep giving you a chance to demonstrate that 
this is the case and you keep failing to take it.

So, Dave, now is your chance - let's have no more sniping at 
science, let's see the real positive, convincing evidence for your 
claim that god exists...

regards, Ian

Sers Ian et all 

Ian Smith schrieb:

> let's have no more sniping at 
> science, let's see the real positive, convincing evidence for your 
> claim that god exists...

LOL



richie
-- 
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two

"Gordon Hudson"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
69a5hvF31faeiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:f36c0bb5-84d8-4945-acf2-21e9be630379@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

[DILV uttered]:

>> REPLY:   Its a shame the UK has fallen to this drastic level.  One can
>> easily see how morally degraded England has become since decidedly
>> turning its back on God for the purpose of Hedonism in its many
>> forms.  The Culture is doomed if it continues on this same road to
>> 'liberation' and 'freedom to do as one wishes' .

> ----------------------------
> Since I discovered that I don't believe in God any more I have become a 
> drunken, drug using, promiscuous homosexual.

Pah, that's nothing. In my case I've taken up solvent abuse, polygamy, S&M 
and drive-by shootings. Still, despite now being free to carry out 
completely immoral acts as a result of my recently acquired atheistic 
freedoms, I've been getting rapidly bored. So currently I'm looking into 
random acts of violence on pensioners, and torturing small animals. All and 
any other suggestions welcome.

pga

"mark"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
TeCdnQFOVahCtbLVRVnyiQA@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "PG"  wrote in message 
> news:482eefb2$0$863$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>>
>> "mark"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
>> pdidnWasReJZQ7PVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> According to our christian friends over in ukrc, don't let the falling 
>>> numbers fool you...!
>>> They argue away that faith in god is still strong and numerous and out 
>>> of proportion to church going numbers............. who knows??
>>> The usual mystical intangency that some religious people descend into to 
>>> avoid confronting evidence.
>>> I saw a poll the other day (can't recall what or where just at this 
>>> moment) that asked if there was absolute proof  that this entire 
>>> universe came about by 'accident' rather than by design  over two 
>>> thirds, about 70% said they would still believe in god (of god believers 
>>> in the first place, of course). Similar numbers, to the idea that, if 
>>> evidence proved jesus did not exist, siad they would still believe in 
>>> god.
>>> This is a deep rooted pyschological  disease in my view...
>>
>> Mark, you should see the latest reply to me in ukrc, here:
>>
>> 293e0562-2cca-46fe-a57c-08e13798c8de@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>>
>> It sums up the problems we're facing when challenging theists and their 
>> beliefs. The quote is entirely self-sufficient, needs no context, no 
>> introduction from me. A believer answered:
>>
>> [quote]"""In any case, I really don't intend to be smug or condescending,
>> although I do intend to be dismissive.  You're talking with people who
>> have in their scripture, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of
>> unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the
>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God."  We really believe that
>> your mind has been blinded and you cannot see the light unless God
>> reveals Himself to you, so just matter-of-fact (rather than smug or
>> condescending) if you (or Giles) think you're going to make much
>> headway attacking our beliefs then you just prove our point for us
>> that your actions are not rational (given what we demonstrably
>> believe).  My challenge is - why are you bothering to try to talk us
>> out of our beliefs?
>>
>> If you want to argue reasonably then you must take into account the
>> way we do think, not they way you think we should think.  But then you
>> don't want to discuss things assuming the existence of God the way we
>> do, and we don't want to discuss things assuming a post-modern world
>> view (etc).  So, hmm, what are we to do?"""[unquote]
>>
>> I could just imagine the 9/11 bombers saying precisely the same thing, or 
>> supporters of an extreme political movement, or just about any follower 
>> of any superstition around the globe. The irony is that the writer 
>> doesn't see how this puts him in conflict not only with the likes of 
>> atheists, but with anyone who thinks, believes, differently.
>>
>> Faith (and its effect, more or less exaggerated) in a perfectly succinct 
>> nutshell. Something we have to bear in mind when debating with theists, 
>> whether fundamentalists or moderates. How do we confront this tunnel 
>> vision view of reality effectively? I say not sit around on upa 
>> congratulating ourselves on how much more insightful/rational etc we are, 
>> or taking pot shots at the occasional nutter who happens by, but by 
>> calmly debating with theists on their own ground. It may not get through 
>> to every believer, but it will raise a few doubts.
>
> I agree with you wholeheartedly..
> I search myself for inspiration at times to deal meaningfully with some of 
> the mindset you speak of and of the poster you refer to from ukrc.
> I have in the past tried to question the biblical literalism from which 
> this all encompassing faith derives in some senses.
> To arrive at a notion, such as the ukrc poster,  you just HAVE to have 
> studied the biblical parts that address 'unbelievers' to eventually 
> encompass that into your faith and belief system....
> Interestingly a red herring of *rational* is levelled at you (or Giles) 
> sic which we all know is just the absolute example of what faith and 
> beleif in god is......... irrational.
> Whether atheists are right or wrong about all of this,  "irrational"  is 
> not something easily levelled at them, in my view.
> One discussion I had along the lines of biblical (in)errancy evolved into 
> such abstract notion as to be farcical.  Apart from pointing out the 
> myriad on contradictions contained therein - usually skipped over under 
> the guise of that's not what was written!! ... that's not how to interpret 
> it!  that's not what it means! [talk about slippery eels], the obvious 
> inaccuracies contained therein, particularly in the context of science 
> discovering them to be absolutely wrong - usually explained as analogy!! 
> ... the notion that the inaccuracies are EXACTLY how the people of the 
> time perceived the world/universe around them - usually explained as god 
> works in mysterious ways!! [...you could not begin to make this up, could 
> you].
> Discussions about the writings of the gospels (Mark being accepted as the 
> first around 75ad - the rest some time later), the writer(s) - some had 
> more than one - having almost impossibly (..but not quite to christians!) 
> never met this jesus character - explained that they mathematically 
> *could* have but in any event the tales were perfectly ok to be oral 
> tradition!!   Each one being remembered word for word after 50 years or 
> so!!!! Just incredible.
> Then we discussed that in any event, the bible was "spiritually inspired" 
> by god...!!  [...a burning bush to an illiterate man who then carved stone 
> tablets takes some understanding..] and on asking how a god that created 
> all of this could inspire a tome that was riddled with inaccuracies (that 
> he *would* have known about but man would not) and contradictions,  the 
> explanation was that only the 'chosen' few could understand this.....!!!
> A god that wanted all people to worship him just didn't need to do it this 
> way.....
> Anyway,  On explaining that, as there WERE inaccuracies in the bible - in 
> part accepted by many/most christians - how could one then decide which 
> parts were correct and which were not....
> The answer was, of course, that only some people could understand that! 
> and on asking how did those people come to be able to understand it,  the 
> answer was because god chose them...1
> So there we have it, just like your poster in ukrc, the whole notion of 
> faith is just that......  an entire, encompassed, self referencing notion 
> that just keeps well..... self referencing!
> It is a mindset that is almost impossible to address and I am coming to 
> the idea that dealing with individual christians is so time consuming and 
> pointless it might be better to use energies on a different scale and in a 
> different arena.
> The worst part of the reply you had is that there is an underlying 
> insistence that discussion is not wanted, needed or in general entered 
> into...  and when it is, it is along the battle lines of you are an 
> atheist, we are christians .......

Yes - "slippery" about sums them up! I suppose it stands to reason that the 
more fundamentalist believers will protect their belief systems and 
therefore themselves by all means necessary, but I do sometimes see this 
mindset as so irrational as to suggest a degree of mental illness. And there 
is no arguing with people that have such a radically different perspective 
that they genuinely see us as at best deluded, at worst evil. Still, the 
main point is that for every creationist or bigot that responds aggressively 
and is beyond rational discussion, calm discussion will alert at least a few 
other members and lurkers to the viability of alternate views.

pga