Why is the UK not religious anymore?

[Castiel]

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.



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.

You are stating your opinion and passing it off as a fact, Dr Parnia deals with NDE which by definition is predicated by brain death with the patient usually being declared clinically dead, so death is certainly involved.

Also with regard to life-after-death and the continuance of individual Conciousness outside of our corporeal body, again you claim to know the answers definitively, I would like to see all the evidence that supports the claims you are making, because I would be interested to see the evidence that finally lays the age old question of after-life and the related concepts of God and Non-Material existence to rest. As far as I know there is simply no accepted consensus on the issue either positively or negatively, in either the scientific or philosophical disciplines.

I have no issues with your opinion on there being no life after death or that corporeal existence is the only kind, you are as entitled to express your opinion based on your worldview as anyone, relgious or non-religious, only I take exception to the definitive way in which you portray your opinion as being factual and without question. On that I disagree, unless you can offer definitive and incontrovertible evidence of course.....Your position has no more objective validity than the person who believes in life-after-death...it is merely a matter of opinion based on your worldview and what you assess to be true, like I said there is nothing wrong with that, but you cannot assume authority over everyone on that premise alone.

For myself, I simply do not have the information necessary to make a definite judgement on the subject, having been through an NDE twice myself (I spoke about them on the forum before) I still remain unsure of the actual substance of the experience inspite of the similarity and strangeness of both experiences...it may simply be a chemical reaction in the brain, or it may be something more...I cannot say and I remain analytical enough as to not make a faith based judgement on it either way. The only sure thing is that one day we will all know one way or the other......

I'll have to leave the debate for now Prescott as I have a days worth of travel ahead of me.

 

[Castiel]

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.

I am essentially agnostic, ignostic is probably a better fit, but ultimately my position is one of Questioning rather than any particular label of position.

 

[zenf]

It is generally an ontological argument, that doesn't mean it has less value or is an avoidance of anything. The mistake is to assume a single persepective as being the only one. It also doesn't imply an avoidance of logic either, as Godel and others have demonstrated.

I'd argue that ontological arguments do indeed have less value because they're not based in empiricism. True, there are many perspectives but that doesn't make them valid. As I'm sure you know, Godel's ontological argument has many criticisms.

 

[Castiel]

I'd argue that ontological arguments do indeed have less value because they're not based in empiricism. True, there are many perspectives but that doesn't make them valid. As I'm sure you know, Godel's ontological argument has many criticisms.

Indeed, however every argument of every discription on the subject of God has many criticisms, by the very nature of the concept it is going to.....again it largely depends on perspective and the parameters of the debate at hand....there are empirical arguments to be had, although they are largely subjective, so such discussions are generally based on a priori arguments, there are various ways of debating the existence of God not only ontologically and there have been arguments both for and against the Existence of God based on various modes of logic put forth by Kant, Aquinas, Godel, Russell, Hume, and so on. Hence the reason why I disagree with your statement that such discussions avoid logic, not that any particular argument has more validity than another, only the claim you made relating to logic. It is often a claim that such debates lack reason or logic, however it often requires a redefinition or narrowing of such terms to validate that supposition, which in my opinon invalidates such an argument before it begins, better to engage with and disagree (if you indeed do) with the premise put forth on the argument itself rather than simply using disparagement and dismissal without addressing or at least attempting to address the actual argument itself.

As to value, that is entirely dependant on your personal position...if you only accept science as having value then an ontological or any number of other philosophical discussions are not for you, likewise the opposite, if you only accept a metaphysical position then an empirical debate is not suitable.

Anyway, I really do have to leave this here as I must get a move on or I will never get home.

 

[zenf]

Indeed, again it largely depends on perspective and the parameters of the debate at hand....it is difficult, if not impossible to debate the existance or non-existance of God for example as there is little or no empirical evidence to advance, so such discussions are generally based on a priori arguments, there are various ways of debating the existence of God not only ontologically and there have been arguments both for and against the Existence of God based on logic put forth by Kant, Aquinas, Godel, Russell, Hume, and so on. Hence why I disagree with your statement that such discussions avoid logic.

As to value, that is entirely dependant on your personal position...if you only accept science as having value then an ontological or any number of other philosophical discussions are not for you, likewise the opposite.

True, my statement about logic and religion was rash and incorrect but I do think it made sense in the context, if badly worded. And indeed, I do believe science based in empiricism has far more value than philosophy in determining the actualities of the world in which we live. However, this modal/symbolic logic is quite interesting.

Sorry to delay you, your replies are appreciated as always!

 

[estebanrey]

You used Theologian as a titular description, implying that it was my occupation or my official title...it is neither.

Um no I didn't, why are you lying?

prescott28, Castiel is a theologian and an apologist.

Do you see any capitalisation there?

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

No such thing as religious truth. That's an oxymoron.

Having an interest in theology doesn't a theologian make, any more than having an interest in Space Travel makes me an Astronaut.

Would you tell someone who has an interest in photography, has all the equipment, spends a lot of their free time doing and studying it that they weren't a photographer unless they were making money out of it?

It's a stupid claim to say that you have to be doing something as a career to use a term that describes a person who does a certain activity.

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.

I love the irony of this bit.

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.

As a linguist I'd expect you to know a statement that is overall negative in tone can also contain small nuggets of positives.

If I was to say the Bible is full of hatred and bile I'm sure you'd b the first to point out the 'good bits'. Well like the Bible, there was a good bit in my post.

 

[Morbius]

I am essentially agnostic, ignostic is probably a better fit, but ultimately my position is one of Questioning rather than any particular label of position.

I think the Questioning label is a good one. My interest is in the truth and although I label myself an atheist my beliefs are flexible depending on the evidence that is presented to me. If we could prove definitively that there was a God, it would be fascinating. I would have so many questions to ask. Equally, I think a Godless start to the universe is fascinating too.

 

[Castiel]

<snip>

You can attempt to justify yourself as much as you want, it makes no difference to my opinion of you or the misuse of terminology (as demonstrated by your reference to Religious Truth, obviously misinterpreting the term if you think that your statement has any validity) and the disparaging context of your initial post....I am not a theologian or apologist by the accepted definitions of those terms and neither do I conduct my input into debate on this forum in a way that woukd fit into such a definition, the implication as to my being a theologian/apologist in more than a passing interest was clear, so again in that you were wrong in both the application and definition of the terminology, and the entire post was contextually negative and an attempt to disparage me on a personal level rather than attempting to address anything I have said in respect of the actual topic and discussion at hand.

In short, you can try to digress and justify your post to your hearts content, I simpy do not believe you and think that if you were actually being honest you would have apologised for any inference to the contrary, that you have not only reinforces my opinion of you and your motivations.

 

[hurfdurf]

You can attempt to justify yourself as much as you want, it makes no difference to my opinion of you or the misuse of terminology (as demonstrated by your reference to Religious Truth, obviously misinterpreting the term if you think that your statement has any validity) and the disparaging context of your initial post....I am not a theologian or apologist by the accepted definitions of those terms, so in that you were wrong, and the entire post was contextually negative and an attempt to disparage me on a personal level rather than attempting to address anything I have said in respect of the actual topic and discussion at hand.

In short, you can try to digress and justify your post to your hearts content, I simpy do not believe you.

I can see why people think you are an apologist, atheism does present oneself with a world view that means an awful lot of people are very very crazy, and it makes one quite combative on the matter.

 

[estebanrey]

So no apology then for erroneously accusing me of using a capitalised word (or 'titular' and you prefer to call it) when I didn't then?

Oh well.

 

[Morbius]

I can see why people think you are an apologist, atheism does present oneself with a world view that means an awful lot of people are very very crazy, and it makes one quite combative on the matter.

Atheism is not a world view. It's a position on a single issue. It doesn't necessarily mean that atheists think people are crazy, just that they're wrong.

 

[Castiel]

I can see why people think you are an apologist, atheism does present oneself with a world view that means an awful lot of people are very very crazy, and it makes one quite combative on the matter.

It simply means that some people do not understand the terms they throw about.

 

[Castiel]

So no apology then for erroneously accusing me of using a capitalised word (or 'titular' and you prefer to call it) when I didn't then?

Oh well.

You stated and I quote:

Castiel is a theologian and an apologist.

Clearly adhering labels to me and as the former is a specific title for someone who is engaged in the study of theology then that doesn't apply to me, as I am engaged in the study of historical and classical linguistics and exegesis, across a number of languages and religions, not theology, therefore I am not a theologian. As for apologetics, I do not fit into the definition as I apply textual and exegetical criticism to scripture, I do not promote the truth value of scripture....on both counts you were simpy wrong to use the terms as applicable to me. No apology from me to you is necessary as the issue is one of your lack of understanding of the terms and how they relate to practical application and the disparaging and negative context in which you addressed your opinion of me in your post...

So as this has nothing to do with the thread and is simply about your personal opinion of me I see no further need to discuss this.

 

[Castiel]

Atheism is not a world view. It's a position on a single issue. It doesn't necessarily mean that atheists think people are crazy, just that they're wrong.

Quite, Atheism is a philosophical position. It can form a part of a world-view or even a religion, but it is not one on its own.

 

[Castiel]

I can see why people think you are an apologist, atheism does present oneself with a world view that means an awful lot of people are very very crazy, and it makes one quite combative on the matter.

Did you think I was an apologist when I was highly critical of the Catholic Church and their interpretations of scripture in the discussion on homosexual marriage and contraception in which you participated and largely agreed with me on? or on the topic of circumcision, again where I offered scriptural and historical evidence in opposition to the position of various religions on circumcision, again where you largely agreed with me, and if I recall quoted and used that evidence to support your own opinions?....

Or am I only an apologist when I don't agree with them or point out the errors in their assessment of scripture etc?

The fact is that I simply do not fit into the criteria necessary to be an apologist, either in the historical or contemporary definitions.

 

[kwerk]

another parallel... PC self-flagellation.

 

[prescott28]

Quite, Atheism is a philosophical position. It can form a part of a world-view or even a religion, but it is not one on its own.

It is a philosophical position, sure, but it is on a single issue alone - the existence of non-existence of one or more deities. That's it. That's all. What it is not is a religion (even though the Supreme Court in the USA decided it was in relation to certain freedoms.)

Now if what you are saying is that those who are atheists then decide they can ignore the usual societal rules and do just what they like then that is just plain wrong. true an atheist won't be looking to any holy book to decide on morals but that doesn't make a person less moral as a result.

 

[Scania]

Why are we not religious?
Probably because its a load cack that belongs in the middle ages as opposed to 2012.

Damn me!!!

 

[yer_averagejoe]

I guess I could call myself an apatheist. The whole question of the existence of a deity has no bearing on how I live my life and would have no bearing if it were definitively answered. I don't believe in a God and I don't believe there is value in asking if there is one (or more).

The question "Is there a God?" is about as useful to me as "Does Castiel own a rice cooker?"

 

[Morbius]

Now if what you are saying is that those who are atheists then decide they can ignore the usual societal rules and do just what they like then that is just plain wrong. true an atheist won't be looking to any holy book to decide on morals but that doesn't make a person less moral as a result.

That's not what he's saying at all. I have heard some people say that though. They seem to have an issue with the lack of a definitive standard of morality and the idea that morality is subjective rather than objective. I think the idea that there is a safety net to punish wrongdoers who escape punishment on Earth is of some comfort to these people. I just see it as "**** happens".