I found an interesting article in the Guardian reporting on work done by a group that analysed the British social attitudes survey for the last 30 years.

The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.

“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.

“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

I think I read somewhere the religion in general is on a decline. I could be wrong though

I can believe it, I feel like something similar is going on in the USA, although some places like the bible belt and Utah will probably hold out for a long time.

I've not seen any statistics about it, but I know I'm definitely in that "nones" camp, probably the first person in my family to stop practicing if that gives you an idea (and I have an uncle who's an evangelical priest, so that could be one heck of a fallout if he ever hears about it)

Other areas though seem to already have largely given up on it. I've met dozens of Californians and can only think of one who was religious for example.


I would expect that if a similar survey was done, you'd see a similar trend, but I doubt "nones" would outnumber religious folk at the moment unless you picked some very blue urban areas. In most areas, it's still considered the norm to go to church, even if only to keep up appearances on Easter and Christmas, so I doubt as many people would check a "none" column.

That would match the trend in the US, although Christianity still has a strong foothold here.

We're coming for your daughter MWAHAHAHAHA.

This isn't a surprise honestly, and has been a trend for a long time. Less so in God's own country of course. *salutes flag while a single tear rolls down the cheek*

Why is this a surprise?

The UK has historically been one of the most secular nations.

I will however continue to promote and spread the word of Jedi teachings and lightsabre any non-believers as I see fit.

 notprop wrote:
Why is this a surprise?

The trend isn't a surprise, but that difference is huge for a 3 year time period.

That comparison is slightly suspect since the figures are from the 2011 Census and the 2014 Social Attitudes Survey. These are two different surveys done with very different methodologies and can be expected to produce different results.

For example in the Census, it is the head of household who must record all the data for all members.

However it is true that Britain is a fairly irreligious nation and has been getting more secular for decades.

Not sure if I am upset or glad...

Well, the decline in religion is almost certainly why crime has rising inexorably - that's expected when you slowly walk away from the source of morality

 Ouze wrote:
Well, the decline in religion is almost certainly why crime has rising inexorably - that's expected when you slowly walk away from the source of morality.

We were never close to the source of morality. We can't even begin to get close. We are still human.

I think you missed the sarcasm there...

 Peregrine wrote:
I think you missed the sarcasm there...

Sarcasm? There was no Ork-moticon to insinuate that it was sarcasm so I took it at face value.

Well Ouze isn't a moron so I doubt he said that seriously.

Sorry, I've added an Orkmoticon.

The trouble with these sorts of questions is very much in the way they are worded. I remember Richard Dawkins campaigned against the wording of the 2011 national census. That came back with the population saying it was 1/3 non-religious. Now we have a separate census from 2014 saying we are 1/2 non-religious. I don't doubt the way the barometer is swinging, but I'm not necessarily convinced of the accuracy.

I'm surprised it's that low to be honest.

I don't know a single person; friend or work colleague that claims to be religious or has indicated any sort of religious inclination except one Hindu chap from India, but I don't think people are completely honest about these things in the UK.

It's like the old CoE thing which I think is atypical of the majority of Brits. For example I can remember my parents stopping and discussing what to put in the Census when I was a kid, then agreeing that they were CoE. The last time they went to church was their wedding and were completely non-religious, but put CoE anyway because well everyone one is in England.

My generation and younger are less inclined to that sort of schooling so are more inclined to put non-religious.

That's not to say I don't see allot of these heathens jumping through hoops to get into the CoE school or pitch up at the very scenic local village church when they want to use it for a wedding!

I put C of E for myself, being a confirmed but non-practising member. I put Shinto and Buddhist for my wife, as the Japanese are very relaxed about religion, and "none" for my daughter.

My father is a Methodist, but I don't think he's been to chapel for over 50 years.

The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

Because it's the 21st century and people are starting to see the lack of relevance of bronze age mythology???

I don't think it is as intellectual as that. I think there are many social changes at play that are affecting different areas of life. The evangelical churches are increasing membership, for what that means.

Crispy78 wrote:

The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

Because it's the 21st century and people are starting to see the lack of relevance of bronze age mythology???

Surprisingly, it still holds relevance. Could give it a try you know...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it is as intellectual as that. I think there are many social changes at play that are affecting different areas of life. The evangelical churches are increasing membership, for what that means.

I feel in America at least, we're very much encouraged to " pick a side" by social media and the news.

You're either a red blooded "one nation under God" extreme conservative or a granola munching hippy pothead socialist. Or at least, that's how it feels sometimes. A lot of people get left out in the cold who are in between those spectrums, and that makes them more likely to join an extreme I guess. They don't want to feel alone and pick a side even if they normally wouldn't agree with it, similar to how politics goes.

I mean, it's unsurprising. Godless whores are statistically more likely to be pumping out children.

 Goliath wrote:
Godless whores are statistically more likely to be pumping out children.

My kind of girl.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Surprisingly, it still holds relevance.

Evidently less and less relevance year on year.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Surprisingly, it still holds relevance.

Evidently less and less relevance year on year.

I think it still does, but I just might be... puffin' it up.

This is because Brits don't know how to drive. You are limited by your socialist worker's paradise non-straight roads.

Because as well all know, there are no atheists at 120mph. If you lived in God's Country, and drove its straight Freedom Roads, you would talk to God on a daily basis.

"In order to converse with his equal and Irishman is forced to talk to God."

First we invented well-known Englishman God.

Then we invented bendy roads so the locals wouldn't see the Redcoats coming.

Then we invent America.

Obvious difficult third album there.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it is as intellectual as that. I think there are many social changes at play that are affecting different areas of life. The evangelical churches are increasing membership, for what that means.

I feel in America at least, we're very much encouraged to " pick a side" by social media and the news.

You're either a red blooded "one nation under God" extreme conservative or a granola munching hippy pothead socialist. Or at least, that's how it feels sometimes. A lot of people get left out in the cold who are in between those spectrums, and that makes them more likely to join an extreme I guess. They don't want to feel alone and pick a side even if they normally wouldn't agree with it, similar to how politics goes.

Why can't I be a red blooded-one nation under God-granola munching-pothead?

You do have a point though in that with the advent of social media, peer pressures is turned up to eleventy-billion.

 notprop wrote:
First we invented well-known Englishman God.

Then we invented bendy roads so the locals wouldn't see the Redcoats coming.

Then we invent America.

Obvious difficult third album there.

Beatles?

saw bits of this documentry from sweden about an american pastor visiting their it has some interesting things about religon with the majority being atheists but still celebrating xmas and christening and weddings in church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kANR1vJkM

 notprop wrote:
First we invented well-known Englishman God.

Dr. Who?

And yet Cameron claimed we are a Cristian country..... lol

 Ahtman wrote:

 notprop wrote:
First we invented well-known Englishman God.

Dr. Who?

Ian McCellan

 Ahtman wrote:

 notprop wrote:
First we invented well-known Englishman God.

Dr. Who?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I found an interesting article in the Guardian reporting on work done by a group that analysed the British social attitudes survey for the last 30 years.

The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.

“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.

“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

No real surprise. It's been long prophesied that Christians would be largely outnumbered and persecuted in the end times. We're just on our way towards that.

There's been a similar trend down here, although I think it's been more of a gradual thing. Somewhere in the last 20-30 years it's flipped from just being assumed that anyone you met was Christian and it being a bit weird if they weren't (when I joined the Army 25 (crikey!) years ago, I had to select one of three denominations on my enrolment paperwork (I went with RC, purely because I had met the priest and he seemed a nice enough bloke) with no option for any other religion or for none.) to it generally being assumed that anyone you meet isn't unless they say otherwise...

My wife is a church-goer, as are a couple of my friends... but by and large people just ignore the whole religion thing unless there's a wedding or a christening to be done, and I strongly suspect that a lot of the people still having church weddings are just doing so for the ambience, rather than through any actual religious leanings.

Relapse wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I found an interesting article in the Guardian reporting on work done by a group that analysed the British social attitudes survey for the last 30 years.

The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.

“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.

“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

No real surprise. It's been long prophesied that Christians would be largely outnumbered and persecuted in the end times. We're just on our way towards that.

Now all you need is for them to start predicting the end of the world a bunch of times like the JWs

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I found an interesting article in the Guardian reporting on work done by a group that analysed the British social attitudes survey for the last 30 years.

The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.

“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.

“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

No real surprise. It's been long prophesied that Christians would be largely outnumbered and persecuted in the end times. We're just on our way towards that.

Now all you need is for them to start predicting the end of the world a bunch of times like the JWs

One does not simply predict the end times

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I found an interesting article in the Guardian reporting on work done by a group that analysed the British social attitudes survey for the last 30 years.

The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.

“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.

“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”

No real surprise. It's been long prophesied that Christians would be largely outnumbered and persecuted in the end times. We're just on our way towards that.

Now all you need is for them to start predicting the end of the world a bunch of times like the JWs

I tune out anyone who says they know when the world will end since in scripture it says no man will know. There are a lot of things happening, though, that were prophesied, and it's only going to gather steam.

Relapse wrote:
I tune out anyone who says they know when the world will end since in scripture it says no man will know. There are a lot of things happening, though, that were prophesied, and it's only going to gather steam.

There's always parts of prophesy coming true, when you take something as vague as scripture and apply it to something as complex as world politics, you'll always find consistencies.

This is why there always Christians who are certain the end times are just about here... but so far those guys have batted 0 out of 2,000.

I always found it easier to be privately faithful in the supernatural than religious. Something about organized religion really sticks in my craw- maybe it's the judgement by my fellow humans, like it's some sort of contest where they are finding me lacking while they are the "true winners".

It's weird because real-world religion aggravates me so badly that I actually immediately and thoroughly dislike things the moment it is mentioned and can't do anything but roll my eyes at all the preachyness, but I can play extremely faithful characters in RPG's with no problem. Maybe that's telling?

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I tune out anyone who says they know when the world will end since in scripture it says no man will know. There are a lot of things happening, though, that were prophesied, and it's only going to gather steam.

There's always parts of prophesy coming true, when you take something as vague as scripture and apply it to something as complex as world politics, you'll always find consistencies.

This is why there always Christians who are certain the end times are just about here... but so far those guys have batted 0 out of 2,000.

Your belief, not mine.

Relapse wrote:
Your belief, not mine.

What's my belief? That the world's end has been predicted by Christian groups pretty consistently for close to 2,000 years? That's not a belief, that's a thing that we know has happened.

Is it a belief that the world hasn't actually ended at any point during those 2,000 years? Nope, not a belief, but a thing that is true.

Is it merely my belief that vague and highly subjective text can be applied to any reasonably complex system? Again, that's not a belief.

My belief, then, is to put all that together and find that, when people keep predicting something and it doesn't happen, then the current predictions are probably about as likely to succeed. Your belief is different, of course, you think this time is different.

And that's fine, nothing wrong with believing this time is different. But don't reduce it down to something a simple as I believe one thing and other people belief something different. Doing that is basically a well worn method for not thinking about things, ever.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your belief, not mine.

What's my belief? That the world's end has been predicted by Christian groups pretty consistently for close to 2,000 years? That's not a belief, that's a thing that we know has happened.

Is it a belief that the world hasn't actually ended at any point during those 2,000 years? Nope, not a belief, but a thing that is true.

Is it merely my belief that vague and highly subjective text can be applied to any reasonably complex system? Again, that's not a belief.

My belief, then, is to put all that together and find that, when people keep predicting something and it doesn't happen, then the current predictions are probably about as likely to succeed. Your belief is different, of course, you think this time is different.

And that's fine, nothing wrong with believing this time is different. But don't reduce it down to something a simple as I believe one thing and other people belief something different. Doing that is basically a well worn method for not thinking about things, ever.

What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it. That's your mistake because I have thought about it a lot and see a pattern between what has been spoken of in scripture and what is currently happening. The number of earthquakes is increasing each year, for instance:

http://www.livescience.com/46576-more-earthquakes-still-random-process.html

I know that here in the US the decline of Christianity and religion as a whole has been much more gradual... but there are still a few trends going on.

Over the last decade or so, there has been a major see-saw like trend for Christianity, while generally maintaining an overall decline. It began with people ditching formal congregations (Catholic, Baptist, etc.) and opting instead for "non-denominational" services... Much more recently, that has swung back, and people are ditching the non-denoms in favor of organized differentiated denominations.... and all the while, Mormonism, has been gaining in numbers fairly steadily through it all.


@sebster... yeah, Millenial Christianity has been around in an organized fashion largely since the Reformations, but really has been around the whole time. FYI, "Millenial" here is a specific term for any denomination that believes we're in the end times, or near it, coupled with a belief of a literal second coming of jesus.

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it. That's your mistake because I have thought about it a lot and see a pattern between what has been spoken of in scripture and what is currently happening.

People have said those exact same things every time they've predicted the end times. And yet somehow we're all still here.

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it. That's your mistake because I have thought about it a lot and see a pattern between what has been spoken of in scripture and what is currently happening.

And he's pointing out that people just like you have been doing so since the bible was written.... and each time has been wrong.

My grandparents read the bible daily, and in the months/year or so before Y2K, were incredibly adamant that the calendar kicking over to a new millennium would signal the end times.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it. That's your mistake because I have thought about it a lot and see a pattern between what has been spoken of in scripture and what is currently happening.

And he's pointing out that people just like you have been doing so since the bible was written.... and each time has been wrong.

My grandparents read the bible daily, and in the months/year or so before Y2K, were incredibly adamant that the calendar kicking over to a new millennium would signal the end times.

When did I predict the world was going to a crashing end on any particular date?

Relapse wrote:
When did I predict the world was going to a crashing end on any particular date?

You didn't. But people have been saying the same "soon" things that you're saying, and the world is still here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
When did I predict the world was going to a crashing end on any particular date?

You didn't. But people have been saying the same "soon" things that you're saying, and the world is still here.

What do you think I mean when I say we are approaching the end times? Next week, a month or a year from now? That's not what I mean. It could be a few generations down the road for all I know, but I see a enough going on that, to me, relates to Biblical Prophecy of those days.

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it.

No, that is not what I'm saying. It is fine to have any belief on the issue - how can anyone possibly be certain to be right or wrong on the supernatural? What is not fine is to announce a belief, and then defend it purely on the grounds that different people believe different things, which is exactly what you did with your 'that's you belief...' comment.

The greater effort you make in your post, on increasing earthquakes, that's the start of trying to form a real basis for your views. And that's cool.

And look, I'm not even saying you have to defend your views on here (although you were the guy who raised this issue). But just don't use 'that's your belief...' thing - that's how non-thinking happens.

This is one of the most depressing things I've seen in a long time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster... yeah, Millenial Christianity has been around in an organized fashion largely since the Reformations, but really has been around the whole time. FYI, "Millenial" here is a specific term for any denomination that believes we're in the end times, or near it, coupled with a belief of a literal second coming of jesus.

Yeah, they're called millenials because the end times stuff really spiked around the year 1000, but they'd been around long before then, and have been around ever since. It's kind of natural, really, many people think of themselves living at a decisive point in history, it'd be similarly natural to believe that the apocalypse predicted by your religion is going to happen sooner rather than later.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it.

No, that is not what I'm saying. It is fine to have any belief on the issue - how can anyone possibly be certain to be right or wrong on the supernatural? What is not fine is to announce a belief, and then defend it purely on the grounds that different people believe different things, which is exactly what you did with your 'that's you belief...' comment.

The greater effort you make in your post, on increasing earthquakes, that's the start of trying to form a real basis for your views. And that's cool.

And look, I'm not even saying you have to defend your views on here (although you were the guy who raised this issue). But just don't use 'that's your belief...' thing - that's how non-thinking happens.

I'm sure you've heard it all before, Earthquakes in diverse places, prophecies having to do with Israel, storms, the general breaking down of humanity, etc. so I won't go into detail on those, but they do shape my thoughts on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster... yeah, Millenial Christianity has been around in an organized fashion largely since the Reformations, but really has been around the whole time. FYI, "Millenial" here is a specific term for any denomination that believes we're in the end times, or near it, coupled with a belief of a literal second coming of jesus.

Yeah, they're called millenials because the end times stuff really spiked around the year 1000, but they'd been around long before then, and have been around ever since. It's kind of natural, really, many people think of themselves living at a decisive point in history, it'd be similarly natural to believe that the apocalypse predicted by your religion is going to happen sooner rather than later.

How many times in history has humanity been sitting on enough weapons of various types to end all existence on the planet?

Relapse wrote:
What do you think I mean when I say we are approaching the end times? Next week, a month or a year from now? That's not what I mean. It could be a few generations down the road for all I know, but I see a enough going on that, to me, relates to Biblical Prophecy of those days.

I don't know what you mean, though at some point the length of time gets so long that "the end times are approaching" ceases to have any real meaning. But whether it's next week or a few generations from now people have been saying the same things for as long as there has been a bible to quote from, and yet nothing happens.

Relapse wrote:
It could be a few generations down the road for all I know, but I see a enough going on that, to me, relates to Biblical Prophecy of those days.

Events have been relating to biblical prophecy since long before the bible was written and they will still be occurring long after the bible is forgotten.

"There will be wars and rumours of wars..." Surely not!

Good. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, no matter the age of the claim. I am not surprised to see this opinion growing.

Relapse wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
What you are doing is saying anyone who believes differently from you on this is automatically wrong because they havn't thought about it.

No, that is not what I'm saying. It is fine to have any belief on the issue - how can anyone possibly be certain to be right or wrong on the supernatural? What is not fine is to announce a belief, and then defend it purely on the grounds that different people believe different things, which is exactly what you did with your 'that's you belief...' comment.

The greater effort you make in your post, on increasing earthquakes, that's the start of trying to form a real basis for your views. And that's cool.

And look, I'm not even saying you have to defend your views on here (although you were the guy who raised this issue). But just don't use 'that's your belief...' thing - that's how non-thinking happens.

I'm sure you've heard it all before, Earthquakes in diverse places, prophecies having to do with Israel, storms, the general breaking down of humanity, etc. so I won't go into detail on those, but they do shape my thoughts on this.

Coming from someone that had a very casual Christain background, no I do not. You could share these prophecies with us.

Relapse wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster... yeah, Millenial Christianity has been around in an organized fashion largely since the Reformations, but really has been around the whole time. FYI, "Millenial" here is a specific term for any denomination that believes we're in the end times, or near it, coupled with a belief of a literal second coming of jesus.

Yeah, they're called millenials because the end times stuff really spiked around the year 1000, but they'd been around long before then, and have been around ever since. It's kind of natural, really, many people think of themselves living at a decisive point in history, it'd be similarly natural to believe that the apocalypse predicted by your religion is going to happen sooner rather than later.

How many times in history has humanity been sitting on enough weapons of various types to end all existence on the planet?

I am going to jump in on this with the answer: "never, not even now". The current worldwide nuclear arsenal is estimated to be at around 15,375 which includes weapons such as bombs and nuclear weapons without a reliable deployment method. In the United States alone there are 19,354 incorporated places (a town or city as defined by the United States Census bureau), along with a large number of people that live outside these areas. Assuming that a nuclear weapon can completely destroy two incorporated places, It would still take half of the world's nuclear arsenal to wipe out the towns of the United States before having to move on to target rural communities. Many areas that are still developing or are still agrarian have dispersed populations, making them even more difficult to target.

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you've heard it all before, Earthquakes in diverse places, prophecies having to do with Israel, storms, the general breaking down of humanity, etc. so I won't go into detail on those, but they do shape my thoughts on this.

Earthquakes is an interesting one, I'll spot you that. Israel is a bit weak, though, because periods of time in which Israel has been peaceful have been pretty scarce - just going back 60 years to the foundation of modern Israel, there's been about a half dozen actual wars involving Israel. The general breaking down of humanity is a bit of a funny one - if measured on declining numbers of Christians it's right, but if you measure generally gakky behaviour - murders, assaults, property theft and so on then we're nicer than we've ever been.

How many times in history has humanity been sitting on enough weapons of various types to end all existence on the planet?

Is God going to end the planet, or man?

So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

To be fair there isn't really an inconsistency there. Relapse isn't predicting the end of the world, the prophecies are, he's simply interpreting them as referring now.

That's predicting,,,,,?

 notprop wrote:
That's predicting,,,,,?

If I read a book that says that trees are blue, and then read it and say "This book says that trees are blue", am I the one making the claim? Or am I simply repeating the claim made by the book?

The prophecies also say that Anakin Skywalker will bring balance to the force.

While pedantics is really fun, the chap says he believes it. I merely pointed out an inconsistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
The prophecies also say that Anakin Skywalker will bring balance to the force.

Not if Jar Jar gets there first!

The whole End Times thing won't happen for a very very very long time... or it'll happen tomorrow. Nobody knows.

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

The funny (sad?) thing about the Book of revelations is the people who quote it and believe it the most are the most ignorant about it. Many have no idea where and how it came about or how all of it pretty much directly contradicts Jesus Christ himself and has zero divine evidence as the word of god outside the ravings of a lunatic. John Patmos's revelations is not even included in all versions of the Bible.

And from a basic aspect... Christians claiming 'preemptive' persecution... when people stop following the Christian Faith, it *IS* the end times... for them. So the end of the world for them is when their children grow up, go off to college, have a family and say 'Mom, Dad, I don't follow your religion and raising my kids not to have any formal spiritual training or philosophy outside 'don't be a dick.'

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The whole End Times thing won't happen for a very very very long time... or it'll happen tomorrow. Nobody knows.

WHFB is not real life.

The end times will come, but not in another billion years or so for us, and much longer for Earth itself.

nkelsch wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

The funny (sad?) thing about the Book of revelations is the people who quote it and believe it the most are the most ignorant about it. Many have no idea where and how it came about or how all of it pretty much directly contradicts Jesus Christ himself and has zero divine evidence as the word of god outside the ravings of a lunatic. John Patmos's revelations is not even included in all versions of the Bible.

And from a basic aspect... Christians claiming 'preemptive' persecution... when people stop following the Christian Faith, it *IS* the end times... for them. So the end of the world for them is when their children grow up, go off to college, have a family and say 'Mom, Dad, I don't follow your religion and raising my kids not to have any formal spiritual training or philosophy outside 'don't be a dick.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those that want to believe to do so in peace and those that don't to do the same. My daughter goes to a CoE school and regularly we chat about God and such but it's her decision to carry on with that or not. I don't poo-poo the idea but I will make sure that it is only a positive experience for her. To date (and in keeping with the UK) its all good natured learning by biblical example and extolling the virtues of decent behaviour and society. No threats of hell or banging on about the end of the world, just as it should be really. .

I think the end times will come eventually, as that's the natural cycle of life. But I think it will either be manmade or just due to natural decay, not some doom and gloom prophecy. I also think the end times will not happen for at least another thousand years.

Because that's not gloomy is it?

This thread makes me laugh.

It's about Brits moving away from religion and along come the Yanks to show exactly why we're no longer bothered by it!

Cheer up, Brian. You know what they say:
Some things in life are bad.
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble. Give a whistle.
And this'll help things turn out for the best. And...

Once again, I wonder if the survey is overly shaping the results. The question posed is religious identification, not belief. So it is very possible that those none would also say they believe in "God" or the supernatural (ghosts, etc.). But I don't think it was a disputed fact that the large Christian institutions and faith have been in decline in the west for some time. A 2013 Harris poll indicate that the US has seen a similar decline in belief with God, down to 74% from 82% in 2009
(http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Americans__Belief_in_God__Miracles_and_Heaven_Declines.html). Interestingly, it also found less than half of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (47%). And that 23% define themselves as "not religious". Which is less than the percentage that believes in witches (26%)!

A subsequent poll found American teens trending more religious, with 80% stating a belief in God. (http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/U_S__Teens_More_Likely_than_Adults_to_Believe_in_God__Heaven_and_Angels.html). Bafflingly, teens also seem slightly more skeptical on UFOs and witches compared to adults.

Not sweating End of Times. Well till at least this guy shows up.

 notprop wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those that want to believe to do so in peace and those that don't to do the same. My daughter goes to a CoE school and regularly we chat about God and such but it's her decision to carry on with that or not. I don't poo-poo the idea but I will make sure that it is only a positive experience for her. To date (and in keeping with the UK) its all good natured learning by biblical example and extolling the virtues of decent behaviour and society. No threats of hell or banging on about the end of the world, just as it should be really. .

I think Bible study is great. It allows people to learn about their faith and look at it with a critical eye and understand why they believe what they do which in turn creates a stronger faith. Critically investigating allows people who have problems with 'aspects' of their faith to understand that they are not bad at their faith if they choose to not see the divinity in John Patmos's unsubstantiated, contradictory statements.

What I don't care for is blind indoctrination when people thump the bible but have never actually read it or simply don't understand it because it is too confusing and live by what 'others' have told them it says. And in my experience, that is a majority of the 'end of days' crowd. They get what they 'KNOW' from an angry person yelling at them on Sunday, telling them what to think and how to understand it. They don't believe the Bible, they believe what someone else told them to believe about the Bible.

nkelsch wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

The funny (sad?) thing about the Book of revelations is the people who quote it and believe it the most are the most ignorant about it. Many have no idea where and how it came about or how all of it pretty much directly contradicts Jesus Christ himself and has zero divine evidence as the word of god outside the ravings of a lunatic. John Patmos's revelations is not even included in all versions of the Bible.

And from a basic aspect... Christians claiming 'preemptive' persecution... when people stop following the Christian Faith, it *IS* the end times... for them. So the end of the world for them is when their children grow up, go off to college, have a family and say 'Mom, Dad, I don't follow your religion and raising my kids not to have any formal spiritual training or philosophy outside 'don't be a dick.'

It's spoken of more than just in Revelations, you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you've heard it all before, Earthquakes in diverse places, prophecies having to do with Israel, storms, the general breaking down of humanity, etc. so I won't go into detail on those, but they do shape my thoughts on this.

Earthquakes is an interesting one, I'll spot you that. Israel is a bit weak, though, because periods of time in which Israel has been peaceful have been pretty scarce - just going back 60 years to the foundation of modern Israel, there's been about a half dozen actual wars involving Israel. The general breaking down of humanity is a bit of a funny one - if measured on declining numbers of Christians it's right, but if you measure generally gakky behaviour - murders, assaults, property theft and so on then we're nicer than we've ever been.

How many times in history has humanity been sitting on enough weapons of various types to end all existence on the planet?

Is God going to end the planet, or man?

The fact that Israel has been reformed is one of the things spoken of coupled with the fact it has been repeatadly attacked and kicked major ass each time when people thought it would be overrun.
Nicer than we have been? I guess it depends where you live:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/armed-conflict-deaths-increase-syria-iraq-afghanistan-yemen

I would venture my own end is far closer than the world's, though, so the best I can do is try to live as well and kindly as I can, even though I fall far short many times.

As far as the world being ended by God or man, it's going to be a lot of both, judging from scripture. Man is going to run things into the ground and God is going to step in before everyone is totaly destroyed.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster... yeah, Millenial Christianity has been around in an organized fashion largely since the Reformations, but really has been around the whole time. FYI, "Millenial" here is a specific term for any denomination that believes we're in the end times, or near it, coupled with a belief of a literal second coming of jesus.

Yeah, they're called millenials because the end times stuff really spiked around the year 1000, but they'd been around long before then, and have been around ever since. It's kind of natural, really, many people think of themselves living at a decisive point in history, it'd be similarly natural to believe that the apocalypse predicted by your religion is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Actually, Millennialism has much less to do with when it spiked, but rather the biblical concept of the "1000 year kingdom of heaven" (1000 year reich anyone?)... Like I said, it's dependent on jesus coming back literally and physically, to rule the planet for 1000 years, and that biblical prophesy points to this happening "now" or "soon."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

And from a basic aspect... Christians claiming 'preemptive' persecution..

Which is a strain of rhetoric that has been in American Christianity since the pilgrims landed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
What I don't care for is blind indoctrination when people thump the bible but have never actually read it or simply don't understand it because it is too confusing and live by what 'others' have told them it says. And in my experience, that is a majority of the 'end of days' crowd. They get what they 'KNOW' from an angry person yelling at them on Sunday, telling them what to think and how to understand it. They don't believe the Bible, they believe what someone else told them to believe about the Bible.

This is why I personally am raising both of my kids without any religion whatsoever. Once they have developed their critical thinking skills and I can work with them on analyzing texts and whatnot (like I do with pretty much any history I read) and are exposed to religion, they can analyze and make the decision for themselves.

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

The funny (sad?) thing about the Book of revelations is the people who quote it and believe it the most are the most ignorant about it. Many have no idea where and how it came about or how all of it pretty much directly contradicts Jesus Christ himself and has zero divine evidence as the word of god outside the ravings of a lunatic. John Patmos's revelations is not even included in all versions of the Bible.

And from a basic aspect... Christians claiming 'preemptive' persecution... when people stop following the Christian Faith, it *IS* the end times... for them. So the end of the world for them is when their children grow up, go off to college, have a family and say 'Mom, Dad, I don't follow your religion and raising my kids not to have any formal spiritual training or philosophy outside 'don't be a dick.'

It's spoken of more than just in Revelations, you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you've heard it all before, Earthquakes in diverse places, prophecies having to do with Israel, storms, the general breaking down of humanity, etc. so I won't go into detail on those, but they do shape my thoughts on this.

Earthquakes is an interesting one, I'll spot you that. Israel is a bit weak, though, because periods of time in which Israel has been peaceful have been pretty scarce - just going back 60 years to the foundation of modern Israel, there's been about a half dozen actual wars involving Israel. The general breaking down of humanity is a bit of a funny one - if measured on declining numbers of Christians it's right, but if you measure generally gakky behaviour - murders, assaults, property theft and so on then we're nicer than we've ever been.

How many times in history has humanity been sitting on enough weapons of various types to end all existence on the planet?

Is God going to end the planet, or man?

The fact that Israel has been reformed is one of the things spoken of coupled with the fact it has been repeatadly attacked and kicked major ass each time when people thought it would be overrun.
Nicer than we have been? I guess it depends where you live:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/armed-conflict-deaths-increase-syria-iraq-afghanistan-yemen

I would venture my own end is far closer than the world's, though, so the best I can do is try to live as well and kindly as I can, even though I fall far short many times.

As far as the world being ended by God or man, it's going to be a lot of both, judging from scripture. Man is going to run things into the ground and God is going to step in before everyone is totaly destroyed.

Israel needs a Davidic king for any of that to be remotely true. And I am pretty sure Netanyahu isn't from the line of david

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

It says no one, knows what the exact time will be, not that no man will receive Revelation and give prophesy about it.

People in all ages have believed that exactly in their life-time, the world will end. It's been like this today, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago and it will be so in thousands of years to come.

"Can't you see the signs?"

Baxx wrote:
People in all ages have believed that exactly in their life-time, the world will end. It's been like this today, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago and it will be so in thousands of years to come.

"Can't you see the signs?"

Of course, there's also the old saying of "they only need to be right once."

 notprop wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those that want to believe to do so in peace and those that don't to do the same. My daughter goes to a CoE school and regularly we chat about God and such but it's her decision to carry on with that or not. I don't poo-poo the idea but I will make sure that it is only a positive experience for her. To date (and in keeping with the UK) its all good natured learning by biblical example and extolling the virtues of decent behaviour and society. No threats of hell or banging on about the end of the world, just as it should be really. .

It could be even better discarding most of the crimes against humanity conducted by the omnipotent dictator of the bible.

It's good that your source of morality can trump the morality in scripture, specially for your daughter. But it would be even better without CoE school, and just normal school which takes into account all sources of good morality, not just the parts of the bible. And which also does not endorse a religion which has so much source of bad morality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Baxx wrote:
People in all ages have believed that exactly in their life-time, the world will end. It's been like this today, 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago and it will be so in thousands of years to come.

"Can't you see the signs?"

Of course, there's also the old saying of "they only need to be right once."

That's a nice one, yeah!

And since there's always some person saying the end is now, eventually one of them is bound to be right. It's like playing lotto with all the numbers.

Baxx wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those that want to believe to do so in peace and those that don't to do the same. My daughter goes to a CoE school and regularly we chat about God and such but it's her decision to carry on with that or not. I don't poo-poo the idea but I will make sure that it is only a positive experience for her. To date (and in keeping with the UK) its all good natured learning by biblical example and extolling the virtues of decent behaviour and society. No threats of hell or banging on about the end of the world, just as it should be really. .

It could be even better discarding most of the crimes against humanity conducted by the omnipotent dictator of the bible.

It's good that your source of morality can trump the morality in scripture, specially for your daughter. But it would be even better without CoE school, and just normal school which takes into account all sources of good morality, not just the parts of the bible. And which also does not endorse a religion which has so much source of bad morality.

Relapse wrote:
The fact that Israel has been reformed is one of the things spoken of coupled with the fact it has been repeatadly attacked and kicked major ass each time when people thought it would be overrun.

Israel purely as the attacked is a fairly adventurous interpretation of history. Sues Crisis? Six Day War? The First Lebanon war?

Nicer than we have been? I guess it depends where you live:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/20/armed-conflict-deaths-increase-syria-iraq-afghanistan-yemen

Sure, at any given point in time there'll be something really gak happening to some group of people. That's just a product of being on a planet with lots of people. But taken across the whole, those really gak events are trending down.

As far as the world being ended by God or man, it's going to be a lot of both, judging from scripture. Man is going to run things into the ground and God is going to step in before everyone is totaly destroyed.

Ah, I see how that works with what you were saying. Thanks for the answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, Millennialism has much less to do with when it spiked, but rather the biblical concept of the "1000 year kingdom of heaven" (1000 year reich anyone?)... Like I said, it's dependent on jesus coming back literally and physically, to rule the planet for 1000 years, and that biblical prophesy points to this happening "now" or "soon."

Ah, I didn't know that. Thankyou.

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

Well this thread went from fun back to the usual diatribes. Clearly I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue. On the positive the wife is in the process of baking 10 cakes. Yes ten cakes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So Relapse believes in prophesies in a book that s/he states the world will end but no man will predict. Relapse also predicts the world is on its last legs. So has given the issue deep thought but not seen the obvious contradiction there.

The whole fire and brimstone bit is not something we see in the UK from religious leaders or indeed their followers as its all just a bit risible really, especially compared to the real hells that exist in the world. Conversely It always seems peculiar that the USA has so much doom and fear mongering despite being beyond secure and wealthy.

You can see why the educated/informed peoples of Western Nations turn away from religion it just seems a bit silly given the realities of the world.

Well this thread went from fun back to the usual diatribes. Clearly I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue. On the positive the wife is in the process of baking 10 cakes. Yes ten cakes.

Can see this happening in Frazz home

I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

 jreilly89 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries. Christianity in the West isn't where we need to number of true believers to be reduced.

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries. Christianity in the West isn't where we need to number of true believers to be reduced.

You'd have to be blind not to see the religious motivations behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Christian sectarianism has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people in the uk in the last 100 years.

 General Kroll wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries. Christianity in the West isn't where we need to number of true believers to be reduced.

You'd have to be blind not to see the religious motivations behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Christian sectarianism has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people in the uk in the last 100 years.

Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

 feeder wrote:


Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

A lot of it was about a Protestant majority impacting/oppressing/slighting a Catholic Minority, which is what a lot of the issues related back to... groups of people who had beef due to opposing religious views/culture.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The fact that Israel has been reformed is one of the things spoken of coupled with the fact it has been repeatadly attacked and kicked major ass each time when people thought it would be overrun.

Israel purely as the attacked is a fairly adventurous interpretation of history. Sues Crisis? Six Day War? The First Lebanon war?

.

There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
It's not adventurous at all when you consider it's been under attack since the time of it's reincarnation in 1948, and there are countries vowing it's elimination. The fact that it came back into existence with it not being there one day, then suddenly, the next, it is a new country, is spoken of in Isaiah 66.

 feeder wrote:

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries.

The English and Scots were really, really good at it though. Even Isis would have been impressed.

 feeder wrote:

Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

Their roots lie in the reformation. Ireland was predominately Catholic (aside from the protestant plantations in Ulster) while the rest of the isles were mostly various shades of fundamentalist protestant which heavily repressed the remaining catholic population. This lead to the invasion of Ireland by Oliver Cromwell and then a rebellion in support of the deposed Stuart kings. These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since, ultimately they led to various rebellions, the creation of Northern Ireland, the Easter Rising, the Irish civil war and decades of civil unrest and terrorism. The 'troubles' are outwardly the desire to unify Ireland/remain as part of the UK but they are driven by centuries of religious strife.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since

Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

The 30 years war, also a sectarian conflict, killed around 30-40% of the population of Germany...

Christianity has an extremely bloody history.

The Taiping rebellion killed 20 million people in the 1850's through 60's in china and that was a christian war (though a very weird perverted form of christianity)

 feeder wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries. Christianity in the West isn't where we need to number of true believers to be reduced.

You'd have to be blind not to see the religious motivations behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Christian sectarianism has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people in the uk in the last 100 years.

Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

It's far more layered and complex than that. On one level they were/are about some people in NI wanting to be part of Eire, and some wanting to stay in the uk. But underneath that, driving the bitterness and the bigotry is a current of sectarianism. Basically Catholic Vs Protestant. If it were as simple as right to self rule, the issue would have been solved with a referendum years ago.

Indeed many historians cite the 30 years war as seminal in beginning the pivot away from religious conflict in Europe. Frankly a few more of those wars and there wouldn't have been a Europe left.

I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

Lol that basically sums up my feelings on all the different denominations etc and why I think faith should be a personal thing, sure have organised religion and go to a church or whatever, but it doesn't matter WHICH church various people want to go to, or if they even want to go at all.

I'm not at all religious, and I don't have faith, but I'm not going to try and convince anyone that their God doesn't exist or that they are worshipping that God in the wrong way. As long as that worship doesn't harm people, do whatever the hell you like. If God is as he's described in most of these religions, he'll love you all the same surely?

 General Kroll wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

Lol that basically sums up my feelings on all the different denominations etc and why I think faith should be a personal thing, sure have organised religion and go to a church or whatever, but it doesn't matter WHICH church various people want to go to, or if they even want to go at all.

I'm not at all religious, and I don't have faith, but I'm not going to try and convince anyone that their God doesn't exist or that they are worshipping that God in the wrong way. As long as that worship doesn't harm people, do whatever the hell you like. If God is as he's described in most of these religions, he'll love you all the same surely?

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people. Even those who screw up are not going to be cast into an eternal hell. Jesus asked on the cross for God to forgive people, for they know not what they do. In order to be condemned, someone would have to have a full and sure knowledge of God and his plan, then sin against that, becoming a son of perdition. There really havn't been many of those through history. Even the Apostles, who lived and walked with Jesus, didn't have a full knowledge until after his crucifiction and return to them.

Relapse wrote:

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people..

Maybe. I'm less sure about a God who would punish unborn future generations due to the actions of two people who were deliberately created with no concept of right or wrong, however...

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people..

Maybe. I'm less sure about a God who would punish unborn future generations due to the actions of two people who were deliberately created with no concept of right or wrong, however...

He doesn't hold people accountable for what others have done, though.

You might want to reread Genesis... He most assuredly did. The punishment for Adam and Eve's huge sin of doing exactly what they were created to do was very specifically targeted at future generations.

That's not the behaviour of a 'loving God'. That's the good ol'fashioned Old Testament Vengeful God. The one who gets angry enough to wipe out entire civilisations for not doing what they're told.

That's not a God who is going to open his door to someone who screwed up just because they meant well...

 insaniak wrote:
You might want to reread Genesis... He most assuredly did. The punishment for Adam and Eve's huge sin of doing exactly what they were created to do was very specifically targeted at future generations.

That's not the behaviour of a 'loving God'. That's the good ol'fashioned Old Testament Vengeful God. The one who gets angry enough to wipe out entire civilisations for not doing what they're told.

That's not a God who is going to open his door to someone who screwed up just because they meant well...

Adam and Eve, by their actions, brought mortality into the world. Christ, by dying and being ressurected ensured all would be ressurected whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. Aside from that, we are not held accountable except for our own actions.

I'm LDS, and here is a teaching that outlines what we believe concerning this:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-3-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng&_r=1

Relapse wrote:
[There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

Which wasn't included because that was an attack by Arab countries on Israel. The wars I listed were initiated by Israel, to counter your statement "the fact it has been repeatadly attacked". Israel has done its fair share of attacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

To be fair, the religiously motivated brutality of guys like Cromwell is nothing like the situation today. The troubles are incredibly complex, but throughout the 20th century there's been a very large number of working very hard to simply stop the conflict, with a purely humanitarian motivations.

It isn't really fair to judge modern Christians by the actions of Christians in much more brutal times.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
[There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

Which wasn't included because that was an attack by Arab countries on Israel. The wars I listed were initiated by Israel, to counter your statement "the fact it has been repeatadly attacked". Israel has done its fair share of attacking.

.

To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war


In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Two sides of the Suez Crisis

http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852517304630655.html

http://archive.adl.org/israel/record/sinai.html

Relapse wrote:
To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

Sure, and as you said there are surrounding states that have been, more often than not, hostile to Israel's very existence. But that doesn't mean we should pretend that Israel have only been on the receiving end of hostility, they've been more than willing to use military action to meet their national objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Sort of. There was reason to believe that outright conflict was inevitable, but also reason to believe it wasn't - the woeful state of preparedness of Egypt's air wing and their own problems with internal revolt, means they were very unlikely engage in large scale war with Israel But whatever we think about that, ultimately Israel made the choice to attack, and did it under the cover of a false Egyptian attack.

I've really got no interest in yet another dakka Israel debate. And this isn't about who's right and who's wrong in the region. But the reality is that your statement, "the fact it has been repeatedly attacked" is not an accurate description. Israel has done the attacking about as often as its been the attacked.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

Sure, and as you said there are surrounding states that have been, more often than not, hostile to Israel's very existence. But that doesn't mean we should pretend that Israel have only been on the receiving end of hostility, they've been more than willing to use military action to meet their national objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Sort of. There was reason to believe that outright conflict was inevitable, but also reason to believe it wasn't - the woeful state of preparedness of Egypt's air wing and their own problems with internal revolt, means they were very unlikely engage in large scale war with Israel But whatever we think about that, ultimately Israel made the choice to attack, and did it under the cover of a false Egyptian attack.

I've really got no interest in yet another dakka Israel debate. And this isn't about who's right and who's wrong in the region. But the reality is that your statement, "the fact it has been repeatedly attacked" is not an accurate description. Israel has done the attacking about as often as its been the attacked.

We'll just have to disagree on this with no hard feelings. The matter originally presented, though, is that Israel has been reformed and Jews are gathering there from the corners of the Earth as prophesied in scripture. It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Relapse wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on this with no hard feelings. The matter originally presented, though, is that Israel has been reformed and Jews are gathering there from the corners of the Earth as prophesied in scripture. It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

No argument there. The creation of Israel has been absolutely extraordinary.

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

What I refer to, though, is the fact that one day that area was a British mandate, the next it was Israel. Of course there was diplomatic work, but that doesn't take away from the fact of how quickly it became a country.

There was already a country there too and that makes it easier to get the ball rolling.

Relapse wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

What I refer to, though, is the fact that one day that area was a British mandate, the next it was Israel. Of course there was diplomatic work, but that doesn't take away from the fact of how quickly it became a country.

Did the supposed predictions you put so much stock in include that in the actual prophesy?
Did the supposed prediction talk about how it would be done pretty quickly and involve the work of a bunch of people over a substantial amount of time?

Or

is this the supposed prophesy you are talking about;

Isaiah 66:7-8: Before going into labor, she gave birth; before her pains came, she delivered a male child. Who ever heard of such at thing? Who has ever seen such things? Is a country born in one day? Is a nation brought forth all at once? For as soon as Tziyon went into labor, she brought forth her children



Also when we are talking about how quickly it happened one should keep in mind that the movement of Zionism (re-establishment of a Jewish homeland) began in the 1890's - with the nation of Israel being recognised by the UN in 1948.
Comparing to the US again, we see the movement of independence beginning in 1765, and concluding with the formation of the nation is 1776.
Simple maths shows that particular country "coming into being" way faster.

I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Maybe Modern Isreal is just, you know Israel. While many Jews were forced out by the Romans, there were always some remaining, and those numbers started growing at the turn of the 20th century.

Not sure how that in any way related to this thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

The Russian propaganda machine is going to love this. More ammunition to use against those godless liberast bastards.
Kinda ironic considering it is only a few decades ago that the West was calling Russia "godless commie bastards". I wonder how did things shift around so radically and so quickly?

 feeder wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since

Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

Russia tried that. China too. It led to millions of deaths. The simple truth is people will kill in the name of non-religion just as easily as they do in the name of religion. Religion is merely an justification that is used for killing each other (the real reasons for war are often in economical, political or cultural differences). If religion was somehow taken away people would not be killing each other any less, they'd just come up with a different justification.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Are you saying Israel wasn't recreated as a country after a couple thousand years and Jews havn't been returning?

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Are you saying Israel wasn't recreated as a country after a couple thousand years and Jews havn't been returning?

I'm saying it did not happen in a day.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.

Even if we don't agree, the fact is, it's reformation was prophesied, and there it is today.

Relapse wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.

Even if we don't agree, the fact is, it's reformation was prophesied, and there it is today.

When the disagreement is on what the so-called "prophecy" was supposed to be in the first place, your "fact" is not so rock-solid as you seem to believe.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.

Even if we don't agree, the fact is, it's reformation was prophesied, and there it is today.

When the disagreement is on what the so-called "prophecy" was supposed to be in the first place, your "fact" is not so rock-solid as you seem to believe.

It's actually quite more solid than you give it credit, and there are other Biblical Prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel.
I can see we are getting into a , "no it isn't, yes it is loop" that will go nowhere. I respect your view, but don't agree, and leave it at that.

Relapse wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.

Even if we don't agree, the fact is, it's reformation was prophesied, and there it is today.

The reformation was predicted to happen in a certain way.
The reformation did not happen in that way.
The prediction was wrong (or unfulfilled).

QED

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

That's very interesting, but I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, so if this report is accurate I'm bizarrely both saddened and gladdened by the news.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's very interesting, but I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

From my admittedly small sample size of "british people I personally know," that woulld be none. And I suspect that of any that doe believe that.... most of them can be found either in the mental wards, or wherever your tinfoil hat population tends to live (Caravans, maybe?)

Relapse wrote:


I can see we are getting into a , "no it isn't, yes it is loop" that will go nowhere.

We can all see who is bringing us into that loop.

One side is presenting coherent arguments while the other side is going; "lalalalalala I can't hear you. I am just going to repeat my dis-proven assertions so I can protect my irrational religious beliefs".

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I can see we are getting into a , "no it isn't, yes it is loop" that will go nowhere.

We can all see who is bringing us into that loop.

One side is presenting coherent arguments while the other side is going; "lalalalalala I can't hear you. I am just going to repeat my dis-proven assertions so I can protect my irrational religious beliefs".

Perhaps the prophesy was not fulfilled, but that does not mean it won't be in the future.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I can see we are getting into a , "no it isn't, yes it is loop" that will go nowhere.

We can all see who is bringing us into that loop.

One side is presenting coherent arguments while the other side is going; "lalalalalala I can't hear you. I am just going to repeat my dis-proven assertions so I can protect my irrational religious beliefs".

Perhaps the prophesy was not fulfilled, but that does not mean it won't be in the future.

Yes, that is indeed the very case of intellectual charity I have demonstrated throughout this discussion. I have consistently been careful in saying unfulfilled or wrong when addressing the supposed prediction.
Just look back through my posts.

It won't save Relapse bare-faced assertion, as it claims that it has been fulfilled by the formation and acknowledgement by the UN of the state of Israel.

Hey guys as interesting as the formation of modern day Israel is as a subject topic, I really don't see how it relates to the topic of this thread.

Relapse wrote:


Adam and Eve, by their actions, brought mortality into the world. Christ, by dying and being ressurected ensured all would be ressurected whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. Aside from that, we are not held accountable except for our own actions.

Actions that are preordained and all part of God's plan, supposedly.... Which makes being held accountable for them pretty much the greatest example of douchebaggery imaginable.

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Adam and Eve, by their actions, brought mortality into the world. Christ, by dying and being ressurected ensured all would be ressurected whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. Aside from that, we are not held accountable except for our own actions.

Actions that are preordained and all part of God's plan, supposedly.... Which makes being held accountable for them pretty much the greatest example of douchebaggery imaginable.

Nothing is preordained, if by that you mean people's free choice means nothing. Consequences for actions performed through free will are, though. The actions themselves are the choice of the individual.

Can we change the thread title to "Relapse's sect's strong beliefs and prophecies" or "opinions based on interpretations presented as historical, global facts"?

Or we could go back on topic and be less about (elements of one part of) Christian prophecy* and Israel.

 Ahtman wrote:
Can we change the thread title to "Relapse's sect's strong beliefs and prophecies" or "opinions based on interpretations presented as historical, global facts"?

Or we could go back on topic and be less about (elements of one part of) Christian prophecy* and Israel.

Agreed. Get a room funboys and take it offline. Posts are being made about people's serious religious beliefs. Whether or not we agree it is not appropriate for neither this thread not this forum. It also has nothing to do with scones and bacon. Seriously

What does Jerusalem er bacon mean to you?
Nothing...everything!

 Ahtman wrote:
Can we change the thread title to "Relapse's sect's strong beliefs and prophecies" or "opinions based on interpretations presented as historical, global facts"?

Or we could go back on topic and be less about (elements of one part of) Christian prophecy* and Israel.

Fair enough.

Relapse wrote:

Nothing is preordained, if by that you mean people's free choice means nothing. Consequences for actions performed through free will are, though. The actions themselves are the choice of the individual.

This philosophy is not consistent with the acceptance of prophecy as actually meaning anything. You can't have accurate prophecy and free will both at the same time.

To tie this back to the actual topic, this is a very large part of the reason I turned away from religion... It's just too contradictory, and those contradictions make the whole thing fall apart.

I wonder if overall prosperity in the west combined with technological improvement has pushed down religious tendency while religious fundamentalism has seemed to prosper in areas where there is less prosperity and stability? Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. Is there a comparable study of Asian or African trends? I would guess more prosperous nations in the regions also trend less religious.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Russia tried that. China too. It led to millions of deaths. The simple truth is people will kill in the name of non-religion just as easily as they do in the name of religion. Religion is merely an justification that is used for killing each other (the real reasons for war are often in economical, political or cultural differences). If religion was somehow taken away people would not be killing each other any less, they'd just come up with a different justification.

If you take away murderous ideology, people will just make new murderous ideology? What new justification for killing poeple did Japan come up with?

I'm not defending communism, responsible for millions of deaths. Truly inhuman. And I'm certainly not defending books that explain how to punish people to death for crimes that doesn't exist or any similar nonsense.

Because some non-religious ideology is inhuman, is that in any way excuse for inhuman religious ideology? Advancements in secular ethics and reason the past centuries at the cost of religious dogma make no difference?

Anyone today could come up with a superior moral than what is found in religious books thousands of years ago. Easily.

 jmurph wrote:
Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. .

Ironically enough, yes, at least according to the Bible...

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Nothing is preordained, if by that you mean people's free choice means nothing. Consequences for actions performed through free will are, though. The actions themselves are the choice of the individual.

This philosophy is not consistent with the acceptance of prophecy as actually meaning anything. You can't have accurate prophecy and free will both at the same time.

To tie this back to the actual topic, this is a very large part of the reason I turned away from religion... It's just too contradictory, and those contradictions make the whole thing fall apart.

If you want, we can carry this on in PM so I can better clarify what I have said.

 jmurph wrote:
I wonder if overall prosperity in the west combined with technological improvement has pushed down religious tendency while religious fundamentalism has seemed to prosper in areas where there is less prosperity and stability? Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. Is there a comparable study of Asian or African trends? I would guess more prosperous nations in the regions also trend less religious.

Im not sure about Asiatic countries, but just last week, when discussing the spread of certain forms of Christianity, a stat regarding the religion of Africans kind of stood out... Some 60 or 70% of Africa's Christians are Pentacostal, and account for a huge proportion of the global pentacostal population.



I think I would agree with your statement more if you had said "prosperity and/or stability" .... States like Louisiana are definitely stable, and yet, contrary to constitutional rulings are still teaching Creationism in schools as a valid science. And I think if we were to pull up demographics and religiosity stats for the US, we'd see the general trend of poorer states having a higher level of religious practice/fervor.

On the importance of Israel to Christian prophecy... note all the end times predictions that occurred between the end of the old Israel and formation of the new one. Clearly having Israel reformed wasn't important to all those other prophecies... but now that there's a new Israel it becomes an important part of the prophecy.

This is how prophecies work, world events happen, and then people retro-fit them back in to their prophecies. Find me a prophecy where people were saying things are going to happen, and then those things actually happen, and then you'll be on to something.

 jmurph wrote:
I wonder if overall prosperity in the west combined with technological improvement has pushed down religious tendency while religious fundamentalism has seemed to prosper in areas where there is less prosperity and stability? Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. Is there a comparable study of Asian or African trends? I would guess more prosperous nations in the regions also trend less religious.

Religious belief is lower in people with higher educational attainment.

The west is generally better educated than Africa, due to greater prosperity. As Africa gradually becomes more prosperous, presumably there will be more education and religious belief will decline.

 jmurph wrote:
I wonder if overall prosperity in the west combined with technological improvement has pushed down religious tendency while religious fundamentalism has seemed to prosper in areas where there is less prosperity and stability? Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. Is there a comparable study of Asian or African trends? I would guess more prosperous nations in the regions also trend less religious.

There have been studies that support this, they have been referenced in books on the subject of atheism and religion. (I don't have any sources to hand, but they are out there somewhere).

 Baragash wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
I wonder if overall prosperity in the west combined with technological improvement has pushed down religious tendency while religious fundamentalism has seemed to prosper in areas where there is less prosperity and stability? Perhaps their is a correlation with prosperity. Is there a comparable study of Asian or African trends? I would guess more prosperous nations in the regions also trend less religious.

There have been studies that support this, they have been referenced in books on the subject of atheism and religion. (I don't have any sources to hand, but they are out there somewhere).

There definitely is a connection. In Russia (which had been very much areligious in Soviet times) the collapse of the Soviet Union also destroyed prosperity and stability. This led to a huge increase of poverty and a huge revival of religion with it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
(which had been very much areligious in Soviet times)

The state was areligious, the people are a different story. If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them they to say they are an atheist that won't actually make them an atheist. It wasn't like the Soviet Union collapsed and suddenly people converted.

Isn't it funny how countries with a more educated populace are less religious?

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Isn't it funny how countries with a more educated populace are less religious?

'Funny' in what way?

The USA is much more religious than the UK while being a similarly educated country.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA is much more religious than the UK while being a similarly educated country.

In totality maybe. I'm fairly sure at least one study looked at it on a state basis and the results correlated.

 Baragash wrote:
In totality maybe. I'm fairly sure at least one study looked at it on a state basis and the results correlated.

Yeah, the state-by-state thing is important. The US is huge, and not uniform at all in education or religion. And it turns out that the "bible belt" states also happen to have really bad education levels. The actual reasons behind that correlation are probably a lot more complicated than "lol religious people are stupid", but it's definitely a trend.

 Peregrine wrote:
And it turns out that the "bible belt" states also happen to have really bad education levels.

Hey I lerned gud!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
In totality maybe. I'm fairly sure at least one study looked at it on a state basis and the results correlated.

Yeah, the state-by-state thing is important. The US is huge, and not uniform at all in education or religion. And it turns out that the "bible belt" states also happen to have really bad education levels. The actual reasons behind that correlation are probably a lot more complicated than "lol religious people are stupid", but it's definitely a trend.

Yeah I'm sure I saw a study a couple of years back showing a correlation.

It does stand to reason that a more educated populous would question the existence of God and the need for organised religion, that's in no way saying religious people are stupid. There are plenty of very educated people who have a very strong faith. I just think that you reach a point where you question more and more things the more educated you are, and are less likely to follow along with something blindly. The more people there are questioning somethings validity, the more likely they are to reject it.

 insaniak wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Isn't it funny how countries with a more educated populace are less religious?

'Funny' in what way?

In a sarcastic way.

In that case, you might need to take more time to explain what you actually mean.

There certainly seems to be some correlation between the education level of the country overall and that country's religiosity... however, various studies over the years have delivered conflicting results about level of education vs religious belief. And a 2002 Gallup poll found that there wasn't actually that big a gap in the US between less well-educated people vs better-educated people and religious belief... and that the better educated people were actually more likely to go to church.

It's not actually as simple as 'better education means less religion'... and, of course, whether or not education that leads people away from religion is even a good thing in the first place is going to be entirely down to personal opinion on religion...

 insaniak wrote:
In that case, you might need to take more time to explain what you actually mean.

There certainly seems to be some correlation between the education level of the country overall and that country's religiosity... however, various studies over the years have delivered conflicting results about level of education vs religious belief. And a 2002 Gallup poll found that there wasn't actually that big a gap in the US between less well-educated people vs better-educated people and religious belief... and that the better educated people were actually more likely to go to church.

It's not actually as simple as 'better education means less religion'... and, of course, whether or not education that leads people away from religion is even a good thing in the first place is going to be entirely down to personal opinion on religion...

In general, education has an inverse relationship with religion. There is still a gap between well educated and poorly educated people in that gallup poll, and For every one poll that showed little gap you would find five that showed a comparatively large one.

In general, well educated people tend to be more active in a lot of things. More active in politics, volunteering, community, etc. Guess what church tends to involve?

All education leads people away from religion.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
In that case, you might need to take more time to explain what you actually mean.

There certainly seems to be some correlation between the education level of the country overall and that country's religiosity... however, various studies over the years have delivered conflicting results about level of education vs religious belief. And a 2002 Gallup poll found that there wasn't actually that big a gap in the US between less well-educated people vs better-educated people and religious belief... and that the better educated people were actually more likely to go to church.

It's not actually as simple as 'better education means less religion'... and, of course, whether or not education that leads people away from religion is even a good thing in the first place is going to be entirely down to personal opinion on religion...

In general, education has an inverse relationship with religion. There is still a gap between well educated and poorly educated people in that gallup poll, and For every one poll that showed little gap you would find five that showed a comparatively large one.

In general, well educated people tend to be more active in a lot of things. More active in politics, volunteering, community, etc. Guess what church tends to involve?

All education leads people away from religion.

All education? That's a bold statement. So you assume that anyone intelligent would be against religion?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So you assume that anyone intelligent would be against religion?

That's not what they said. "All education leads people away from religion" and "intelligent people are all against religion" are two very different concepts. A person can be intelligent but not highly educated, or intelligent and educated but have family ties/habits/etc offsetting the education factor and keeping them religious.

Of course, even if you consider the actual claim, it's obviously false. Religious education is a thing, and I don't think you can plausibly argue that things like far-right Christian homeschooling lead people away from religion. A more reasonable claim would be that secular education tends to lead people away from religion, since it reveals the incorrect factual claims religions often make (young-earth creationism, for example) and gets people to question their reasons for having religious beliefs. And it turns out that most, if not all, reasons for religious belief are bad ones and can only survive if you don't think about them too hard.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So you assume that anyone intelligent would be against religion?

That's not what they said. "All education leads people away from religion" and "intelligent people are all against religion" are two very different concepts. A person can be intelligent but not highly educated, or intelligent and educated but have family ties/habits/etc offsetting the education factor and keeping them religious.

Of course, even if you consider the actual claim, it's obviously false. Religious education is a thing, and I don't think you can plausibly argue that things like far-right Christian homeschooling lead people away from religion. A more reasonable claim would be that secular education tends to lead people away from religion, since it reveals the incorrect factual claims religions often make (young-earth creationism, for example) and gets people to question their reasons for having religious beliefs. And it turns out that most, if not all, reasons for religious belief are bad ones and can only survive if you don't think about them too hard.

Gee, and here I thought you were going to objective.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:


In general, education has an inverse relationship with religion. There is still a gap between well educated and poorly educated people in that gallup poll, and For every one poll that showed little gap you would find five that showed a comparatively large one.

In general, well educated people tend to be more active in a lot of things. More active in politics, volunteering, community, etc. Guess what church tends to involve?

All education leads people away from religion.

It depends on who is the educator. Before mandatory government controlled secular education, the major players in the education market were the religious institutions. It was through education that religious institutions spread and maintained their beliefs. Mandatory government controlled secular education was pioneered in Britain by modernist secular captains of industry during the late Victorian period explicitly for breaking the market share of the religious institutions over education, as a generational project for making britain a substantially secular nation.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Gee, and here I thought you were going to objective.

I am being objective. "Objective" does not mean "not criticizing bad ideas".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Gee, and here I thought you were going to objective.

I am being objective. "Objective" does not mean "not criticizing bad ideas".

And there you go again. I'd say the scientific theory of how we came to be is a bad idea, but you might say that is a subjective because I believe my religion is infallible and nothing you say will make me think otherwise.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there you go again. I'd say the scientific theory of how we came to be is a bad idea, but you might say that is a subjective because I believe my religion is infallible and nothing you say will make me think otherwise.

No, I wouldn't say it's subjective, I'd say it's wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there you go again. I'd say the scientific theory of how we came to be is a bad idea, but you might say that is a subjective because I believe my religion is infallible and nothing you say will make me think otherwise.

No, I wouldn't say it's subjective, I'd say it's wrong.

I'd I would say you are wrong. This leaves us at a stalemate. Now would you like to continue the disagreement train or exit at the next station?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I'd I would say you are wrong. This leaves us at a stalemate. Now would you like to continue the disagreement train or exit at the next station?

Let's continue the disagreement train. On my side is all of modern science. On your side is one piece of literature and a stubborn refusal to accept that your religion is fallible. I think the winner here should be obvious.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I'd I would say you are wrong. This leaves us at a stalemate. Now would you like to continue the disagreement train or exit at the next station?

Let's continue the disagreement train. On my side is all of modern science. On your side is one piece of literature and a stubborn refusal to accept that your religion is fallible. I think the winner here should be obvious.

On my side is a book about God, an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being. On your side is man, with limited knowledge and power and very mortal. I think the winner should be obvious.

I wrote a book about my god Peregrine, which proves he is one.

Oh my, suddenly the balance shifted.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I'd I would say you are wrong. This leaves us at a stalemate. Now would you like to continue the disagreement train or exit at the next station?

Let's continue the disagreement train. On my side is all of modern science. On your side is one piece of literature and a stubborn refusal to accept that your religion is fallible. I think the winner here should be obvious.

On my side is a book about God, an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being. On your side is man, with limited knowledge and power and very mortal. I think the winner should be obvious.

Written by men, and translated badly throughout the ages.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I wrote a book about my god Peregrine, which proves he is one.

Oh my, suddenly the balance shifted.

Are you mocking me?

The Bible is has much more meaning than you'd like to think.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
On my side is a book about God, an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being. On your side is man, with limited knowledge and power and very mortal. I think the winner should be obvious.

And? There are lots of books written about all-powerful all-knowing eternal beings. They're still fiction.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
On my side is a book about God, an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being. On your side is man, with limited knowledge and power and very mortal. I think the winner should be obvious.

And? There are lots of books written about all-powerful all-knowing eternal beings. They're still fiction.

My God is the true God and he is Blind Lo. He has tons of books written about him

The bible is a book written by a guy/bunch of guys who want you to think their god is real. So it is exactly the same as my Peregrine Cult book.

Sure, their book is older, but I really hope you have a better argument than 'appeal to tradition' to make me accept the existence of a an omnipotent being without any evidence. If we wait five thousand years so that the age difference becomes minor, will you then accept the divinity of our feathery lord?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Bible is has much more meaning than you'd like to think.

Personal meaning? Perhaps. I won't deny that many people find meaning in it. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no credible evidence for its truth of its claims about things like the existence of god, how the world was created, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
On my side is a book about God, an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being. On your side is man, with limited knowledge and power and very mortal. I think the winner should be obvious.

And? There are lots of books written about all-powerful all-knowing eternal beings. They're still fiction.

And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

 Ashiraya wrote:
So it is exactly the same as my Peregrine Cult book.

I wouldn't go quite that far. The Peregrine Cult book does have the very important quality of not having any chapters full of endless "begat"s.

And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

Yes, mine. It has just as much evidence as the bible ever had.

 Ashiraya wrote:

And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

Yes, mine. It has just as much evidence as the bible ever had.

Heretic you dare besmirch the honor of Blind Lo written by the great prophet Terry Pratchett?!

 Ashiraya wrote:

And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

Yes, mine. It has just as much evidence as the bible ever had.

Except its written about a mortal man in a parody of my God.

You can't prove that he is mortal, whereas my book proves he is divine.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

On your side you have your declaration that your religious text is true, because you said so.

On my side I have mountains of scientific evidence about things like evolution, planet formation, etc, all of which can be verified experimentally if you insist on checking them yourself. And many of these things have been confirmed in multiple independent ways (for example, DNA and fossil evidence for evolution agree on a single answer), making it even less likely that there is any mistake in the theories.

Your move.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

On your side you have your declaration that your religious text is true, because you said so.

On my side I have mountains of scientific evidence about things like evolution, planet formation, etc, all of which can be verified experimentally if you insist on checking them yourself. And many of these things have been confirmed in multiple independent ways (for example, DNA and fossil evidence for evolution agree on a single answer), making it even less likely that there is any mistake in the theories.

Your move.

And all of that, the universe, all living things, our planet... Came from nothing? You cannot simply get something from nothing. That is quite solid reasoning, yet you believe that.

So tell me, oh wise Peregrine, what does the Bible contain?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

On your side you have your declaration that your religious text is true, because you said so.

On my side I have mountains of scientific evidence about things like evolution, planet formation, etc, all of which can be verified experimentally if you insist on checking them yourself. And many of these things have been confirmed in multiple independent ways (for example, DNA and fossil evidence for evolution agree on a single answer), making it even less likely that there is any mistake in the theories.

Your move.

And all of that, the universe, all living things, our planet... Came from nothing? You cannot simply get something from nothing. That is quite solid reasoning, yet you believe that.

So tell me, oh wise Peregrine, what does the Bible contain?

Horrid mistranslations, missing sections, dietary restrictions and what not

If atheism is so smart why are there still igloos? Checkmate atheism.

And you argue God came from nothing, or that he always existed.

So we can just apply that to the real universe too.

It is certainly not a field in favour of religion.

 Ashiraya wrote:
You can't prove that he is mortal, whereas my book proves he is divine.

Find his IP Address and go to his house or internet cafe. This isn't a Schodinger's experiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And there is one that is true.

Your move, Peregrine.

On your side you have your declaration that your religious text is true, because you said so.

On my side I have mountains of scientific evidence about things like evolution, planet formation, etc, all of which can be verified experimentally if you insist on checking them yourself. And many of these things have been confirmed in multiple independent ways (for example, DNA and fossil evidence for evolution agree on a single answer), making it even less likely that there is any mistake in the theories.

Your move.

And all of that, the universe, all living things, our planet... Came from nothing? You cannot simply get something from nothing. That is quite solid reasoning, yet you believe that.

So tell me, oh wise Peregrine, what does the Bible contain?

Horrid mistranslations, missing sections, dietary restrictions and what not

I agree with the first. There is an interesting verse in the New Testament that talks about false teachers and telling people they can't eat certain things.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And all of that, the universe, all living things, our planet... Came from nothing? You cannot simply get something from nothing. That is quite solid reasoning, yet you believe that.

So where did your god come from? Proposing the existence of god doesn't do anything to solve this problem, it just moves the problem back one level. You still have to answer the same questions that I do about where things came from. Except I can at least prove that the universe exists and must have come from something, while you can't do the same for your god.

And of course once you consider the small-scale things like our planet and life rather than the entire universe it's pretty easy to explain where things came from. Astronomy has told us quite a bit about how planets form, evolution tells us how life developed into what we see now, etc. And that picture doesn't leave any room where a god is required.

So tell me, oh wise Peregrine, what does the Bible contain?

A whole lot of boring "begat"s, some decent moral principles that are also included in other religious and secular sources, some horrifying evil, some interesting historical records for scholars to analyze, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Find his IP Address and go to his house or internet cafe. This isn't a Schodinger's experiment.

What exactly would that prove? If you found Jesus in a cafe 2000 years ago you'd have seen someone who looks an awful lot like a normal human (according to your religion).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And all of that, the universe, all living things, our planet... Came from nothing? You cannot simply get something from nothing. That is quite solid reasoning, yet you believe that.

So where did your god come from? Proposing the existence of god doesn't do anything to solve this problem, it just moves the problem back one level. You still have to answer the same questions that I do about where things came from. Except I can at least prove that the universe exists and must have come from something, while you can't do the same for your god.

And of course once you consider the small-scale things like our planet and life rather than the entire universe it's pretty easy to explain where things came from. Astronomy has told us quite a bit about how planets form, evolution tells us how life developed into what we see now, etc. And that picture doesn't leave any room where a god is required.

According to the Bible, God exists outside of time. He has no creator.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Find his IP Address and go to his house or internet cafe. This isn't a Schodinger's experiment.

What exactly would that prove? If you found Jesus in a cafe 2000 years ago you'd have seen someone who looks an awful lot like a normal human (according to your religion).

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
According to the Bible, God exists outside of time. He has no creator.

How is that any different from a parent universe for our universe existing outside of time and having no creator? And how can you simultaneously say "everything must have a cause/creator" and "there is at least one thing with no cause/creator"?

And of course there's the very important question here of why we should care what the bible says. Simply saying "because I said so" is not a compelling argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
And of course there's the very important question here of why we should care what the bible says. Simply saying "because I said so" is not a compelling argument.

I know I said I was done, but I needed to answer this.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You don't need to care. You have the free will to reject the Bible in its entirety. I am only doing what the Bible says and spreading the Word, albeit badly. My gifts do not lie with teaching and there is someone better suited to tell you. I pray you find him or her.

That isn't an answer, that's preaching at me.

Religious beliefs cannot exist in the face of two words; "prove it". Or indeed one; "evidence".

The correlation between education and lack of belief goes hand in hand with education typically teaching critical thinking and an evidence based view to understanding. With the massive explosion of information in the last 50 years, learning and education is now more than ever focused on equipping people with the skills to find and critically appraise information rather than just rote learn things; a trend that will further erode religions grip on people's minds.

If the same 2 posters managed to fill up 2 entire pages with alternating posts that suggests that it is well past the time when both parties should walk away.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
If the same 2 posters managed to fill up 2 entire pages with alternating posts that suggests that it is well past the time when both parties should walk away.

Alternatively, if you don't want to look at a discussion between two people, you could always walk away.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
If the same 2 posters managed to fill up 2 entire pages with alternating posts that suggests that it is well past the time when both parties should walk away.

You're not wrong.