Why is the UK not religious anymore?

[estebanrey]

prescott28, Castiel is a theologian and an apologist. He'll never accept that religion is mostly bollards even though he claims not to be religious.

Basically he's spent a lot of time studying religious history and theology and wants to maintain the illusion to himself that it actually means something (rather than accept he's been learning about a load of carp for years).

He reminds me of Lisa Kennedy Montgomery..


I'd handle Castiel in the same manner as Maher if I were you

 

[Castiel]

prescott28, Castiel is a theologian and an apologist. He'll never accept that religion is mostly bollards even though he claims not to be religious.

Basically he's spent a lot of time studying religious history and theology and wants to maintain the illusion to himself that it actually means something (rather than accept he's been learning about a load of carp for years

Which means that you neither understand what I actually do (I am a Linguist, therefore a Scientist) not a theologian (understanding biblical exegesis is inherent in the work I do, as well as being an interest of mine)! And even if I were a theologian, that doesn't imply being religious... In fact a colleague and teacher of mine is a foremost authority on theology and is also an Atheist.... You obviously do not actually understand what apologetics are either and it appears that the only illusions being maintained here are those relating to absolute positions being pushed without definitive evidence to support them, be they religious or not. In fact the discussion with Prescott28 is not one of religion, but one of philosophy and ontology.

Interesting that your automatic response is one of disparagement of the individual and not attempting to engage in the debate itself. You should take a leaf out of Prescott28's book and learn to engage in a civil and constructive way. You may learn something.

 

[estebanrey]

Which means that you neither understand what I actually do (I am a Linguist, therefore a Scientist) not a theologian

I wasn't referring to what you did for a profession.

, you obviously do not actually understand what apologetics are either

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120-220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.

Sounds like you so far no? You defend the Gospel and it's teachings which makes you an apologist.

 

[FARGO]

I'd always assumed that Castiel discussed theology based on past & existing belief systems, texts and teachings - regardless if it was "real" or not.

 

[Castiel]

I'd always assumed that Castiel discussed theology based on past & existing belief systems, texts and teachings - regardless if it was "real" or not.

Quite. I approach these discussions objectively, I make no assumptions of faith or truth of the positions.

 

[FARGO]

Quite. I approach these discussions objectively, I make no assumptions of faith or truth of the positions.

Seems more than reasonable to me. I suppose some people may feel that you have taken a side as you discuss issues by using textual or historical examples/references as opposed to opinions/feelings/"real world" analogies.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

One of the things we would like to ascertain, though, Castiel, is whether religious people are right or wrong, hence the assumptions we make.

 

[Castiel]

I wasn't referring to what you did for a profession.

You stated that I was a theologian....a profession.

Sounds like you so far no? You defend the Gospel and it's teachings which makes you an apologist.

Actually I don't, I give my critical opinion on the Gospels (and not only the Gospels, but religious texts in general)...I make no Faith based defence of them or presume to suggest that Christianity is a prefered tenet or worldview. Ask any number of Christians on this forum who I have debated with either on the forum or privately on their interpretation of Scripture. Hence you do not really understand what apologetics are if you think they relate to me, particularly with regard to Christian Apologetics.

 

[Castiel]

One of the things we would like to ascertain, though, Castiel, is whether religious people are right or wrong, hence the assumptions we make.

I would love to know who is right and who is wrong, I have no objective answer to give you, plenty of questions, but no answers.

Personally I don't think it really matters, each of us will find their answers in various ways, some in their faith, others in their philosophy, others in their understanding of science........I am not one of those lucky ones to have found such answers as yet, so I simply keep asking the questions.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I would love to know who is right and who is wrong, I have no objective answer to give you, plenty of questions, but no answers.

Personally I don't think it really matters, each of us will find their answers in various ways, some in their faith, others in their philosophy, others in their understanding of science........I am not one of those lucky ones to have found such answers as yet, so I simply keep asking the questions.

I can understand your position, and I know you will oppose what I'm about to say, but because religion causes so many bad things to happen in the world, I would love to know the answers. To a lot of people the answers and the hypocrisy are obvious, but others cannot seem to see it, and I think you can recognise that this if frustrating for someone who has a very definite belief, or lack thereof.

 

[Elixir]

I am not a scientist but I have investigated scientific and historic evidence that provides a case for faith in a God. You don't need to be a scientist to make up your own mind.

Then please stop talking about science (the origin of life, Darwin's theories) as if you understand or have any knowledge on them. It's painful how much you're missing the point.

Have you ever looked into Darwins Tree of life illustration and how it lines up against the fossil record? Darwin himself acknowledged that major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. His theory of a gradual modification from a common ancestor, with the differences gradually increasing are not in line with the rapid appearances of phyla in the fossil records. .

Does it not occur to you that this record of evolutionary history may be incomplete? Perhaps the fossils were not in a situation where they could be preserved at all?

You also asked someone when they thought time began. My answer? I don't know when time began. I know there are strong scientific theories supporting the notion that the universe has existed for millions and millions of years. Not knowing these things doesn't mean I'm going to guess, it makes me want to research more.

I have religious family, I have religious friends. I do not question their beliefs, and I do not question yours. Just please have the same respect for mine and stop discussing things you haven't researched enough.

 

[Castiel]

I can understand your position, and I know you will oppose what I'm about to say, but because religion causes so many bad things to happen in the world, I would love to know the answers. To a lot of people the answers and the hypocrisy are obvious, but others cannot seem to see it, and I think you can recognise that this if frustrating for someone who has a very definite belief, or lack thereof.

I don't oppose the idea that religious belief can be used to justify and in some cases maintain morally questionable positions...I do oppose the assumption that religion is responsible for all immorality or is the cause of the majority of evil in the world, my position is that regardless of religion, man is predicated toward such immorality anyway and that religion is a tool that can be used to justify either good or evil depending on the motivation and intention of the person wielding it.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I don't oppose the idea that religious belief can be used to justify and in some cases maintain morally questionable positions...I do oppose the assumption that religion is responsible for all immorality or is the cause of the majority of evil in the world, my position is that regardless of religion, man is predicated toward such immorality anyway and that religion is a tool that can be used to justify either good or evil depending on the motivation and intention of the person wielding it.

I completely agree with you, and it works both ways; often religious people claim that without religion humans cannot have morality, which is obviously incorrect. It is true, though, that religion is often used to justify immoral acts under its own banner of morality, for example, hatred towards homosexuals (which is not a common Christian position in England, but is more prevalent elsewhere).

 

[Castiel]

Seems more than reasonable to me. I suppose some people may feel that you have taken a side as you discuss issues by using textual or historical examples/references as opposed to opinions/feelings/"real world" analogies.

There are some statements made, particularly relating to scripture or religious practice and interpretation that simply do not hold up under scrutiny, I will try to highlight these and try to explain the error or why I think they are in error as simply and objectively as possible, whether the poster is religious or non-religious is unimportant.

I have argued positions and theology with Christians, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Agnostics, Atheists and all number of people both on and off these forums....I have been accused of being a Muslim, a Christian, a Creationist, a Darwinian, an Atheist and many other things, generally by those who seek to discredit me personally rather than justify their opposition to my opinion objectively.

Personally with regard to whether there is a God, I have no idea, I have found no convincing argument to suggest a definitive answer either way, so I continue to ask the questions and research the various religions, philosophies and scientific hypotheses that may offer some insight...I think ultimately that is all any of us can really do.

 

[Castiel]

I completely agree with you, and it works both ways; often religious people claim that without religion humans cannot have morality, which is obviously incorrect. It is true, though, that religion is often used to justify immoral acts under its own banner of morality, for example, hatred towards homosexuals (which is not a common Christian position in England, but is more prevalent elsewhere).

Quite, and you do not need religion to be a moral person, and I have opposed Catholic interpretation of Paul's epistles regarding homosexuality on this very forum.

 

[prescott28]

Castiel, this is getting a bit out of hand here, so I am going to deal with juts consciousness here and return to the other topics later.

You deal in absolutes for which there are no definitive answers, whether you believe or disbelieve, the individual Consciousness of the individual is not fully, or even partially understood, therefore you cannot be certain that your absolute definitive position is valid. There is no definitive proof that individual consciousness is limited to corporeal existence, hence the whole 'life after death' debate that has raged on since mankind first drew a sentient breath. Scientists like Dr Sam Parnia think there is or may be evidence that consciousness continues after the Brain is clinically dead, others dispute this....we simply cannot make any definitive evaluation based on evidence alone.

I don't know about absolutes but I think it is plain to the vast majority of the population that the death of the brain is the end of the personality - the end of consciousness. Now this is the way things are despite the claims made by religion that there is life after death.

the fact is, that whether we understand the consciousness fully or not we all can see that it dies with a person, linking it directly to brain activity.

Dr Sam Parnia deals with Near Death experiences which are different from death since death is not involved.

 

[estebanrey]

You stated that I was a theologian....a profession.

Or someone who takes an interest in theology.

theologian Pronunciation: /θɪəˈləʊdʒɪən, -dʒ(ə)n/
Translate theologian | into Italian into Spanish
Definition of theologian
noun

a person who engages or is an expert in theology.

No where in that definition is a form on remuneration mentioned.

I'm crediting your knowledge of theology (even though I think it's a rather pointless subject), take it as a compliment.

Actually I don't, I give my critical opinion on the Gospels (and not only the Gospels, but religious texts in general)...I make no Faith based defence of them or presume to suggest that Christianity is a prefered tenet or worldview. Ask any number of Christians on this forum who I have debated with either on the forum or privately on their interpretation of Scripture. Hence you do not really understand what apologetics are if you think they relate to me, particularly with regard to Christian Apologetics.

You think what's written in the Bible actually contains something of value, that makes you an apologist to me (and btw it isn't necessarily a negative word, many apologists are proud to call themselves as such) so no need to be so defensive about it.

 

[Morbius]

I have argued positions and theology with Christians, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Agnostics, Atheists and all number of people both on and off these forums....I have been accused of being a Muslim, a Christian, a Creationist, a Darwinian, an Atheist and many other things, generally by those who seek to discredit me personally rather than justify their opposition to my opinion objectively.

Whenever I've argued with you it's been quite clear that you've been arguing from a literary/linguistical position. In fact I'd have been hard pressed to gauge your own religious position.

Accusing someone of being of a certain persuasion is just a cop out. If that's the only argument that someone has got left then they need to reexamine their position and see if their opinion is justified.

 

[Morbius]

You think what's written in the Bible actually contains something of value, that makes you an apologist to me (and btw it isn't necessarily a negative word, many apologists are proud to call themselves as such) so no need to be so defensive about it.

There's some good stuff in the bible. There's also some bad stuff in the bible. But the content makes no difference really. Is the book proof of a God? No.

 

[Castiel]

Or someone who takes an interest in theology.

No where in that definition is a form on remuneration mentioned.

I'm crediting your knowledge of theology (even though I think it's a rather pointless subject), take it as a compliment.

You used Theologian as a titular description, implying that it was my occupation or my official title...it is neither. I have extensive knowledge of scripture and the lingustic and exegetical study of ancient texts, particularly religious ones....that doesn't make me a theologian of any description, Theogians generally deal with Religious Truths, I make no such distinctions in the way I interpret or translate texts or apply textual criticism or critical examination of certain texts and scriptures. Having an interest in theology doesn't a theologian make, any more than having an interest in Space Travel makes me an Astronaut.

Also the context in which you made the comment was negative and disparaging, you are now attempting to retract what was a fallacious statement in order to salvage what little self respect you may have. The entire post was contextually negative as illustrated by the content and references within it, it was not a compliment. At least be honest about your intent.

You think what's written in the Bible actually contains something of value, that makes you an apologist to me (and btw it isn't necessarily a negative word, many apologists are proud to call themselves as such) so no need to be so defensive about it.

Again, the context in which you used the word, and you have done so on previous occasions also was negative, there was no implied compliment or understanding about what an apologist actually is beyond attempting to disparage and discredit. Again, do not make such commentaries if you are not even honest enough to stand by them.