Altfish
Veteran Member
Interesting but in line with what most Humanists believe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The UK is no longer majority Christian
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
As someone born after WWII, I have seen much change, mostly for the better, and any negative issues I would put down to politics more than much else if referring to any decline, since overall, the freedoms for many people have increased as well as there being more tolerant attitudes generally. I can't see such coming from any religious beliefs given these often opposed such freedoms - sexuality issues and such. Fortunately, we have religious establishments in the UK that tend to move with the times. An influx of Muslims might change this, but it is more likely that they will change than the UK reverting to past values and attitudes - given the revulsion often seen towards those countries that are still so backwards with regard such freedoms. Much of Scandinavia seems to be having the same issues too.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not wrong, but misleading. While science is still internally consistent and in accord with observations under the premises, the same can not be said about almost all of religion.
So you are a religious humanist? Humanism started out as a heretic Christian movement and was religious until the early 20th c.
Augustus
…
The HoL is mostly fine imo, although only on the proviso they stop the shameless cronyism regarding appointments which is disgraceful.
It doesn't have a great deal of power and can only really delay legislation, so it's pretty much there to act as a check against more controversial legislation.
Imo it would be worse at this job if it was a party political elected chamber.
If it was under the control of the ruling party then it doesn't really offer much of a check. If it is under the control of opposition then it will probably end up being used like the US senate to obstruct and delay to score political points.
Given the nature of the British system, I don't really see many advantages of an elected upper chamber.
How often can you remember the Lords doing something you were outraged by? On the other hand, how often does the US senate do things that US voters are outraged by?
The grass isn't always greener..
Augustus
…
Now we can see in real time why people who bemoan that the Christian philistines destroyed all of the glorious pagan culture of Classical Antiquity are wrong.
We don't look at this as being secularist hooligans destroying Christian culture, it's just an economic and social consequence of the decline of a religion in a particular culture. Pretty much the same as it was back then (with a few exceptions, but not really that many).
Of course there will also always be a segment of society that cheers the latter, but views the former as one of the great historical tragedies while remaining oblivious to the incongruity of the 2 views
You sound like the religions you hate.
Altfish
Veteran Member
I don't hate religions.
I only hate it when they try to use their influence on my and my family's life
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, it depends on what axiomatic assumptions/premises you use. As far as I can tell strong coherence is not possible. It seems you can reduce the amount of inconsistency, but in practice you always hit a problem with some variant of the hard problem of consciousness and in effect morality.
Personally since I am neuro diverse, when it comes to what matters as to being a human, I just accept that to a subset of neurotypical humans I am wrong and/or any other variants of a negative value as a human.
Well, it is now many years ago, but one of my psychiatrists told me, that I was too literal and logical for how I tried to understand the world. So to me and as me, I am not a standard religious person, but I still consider myself religious, because I in effect hold some ontologically idealistic beliefs about the world as such and thus I am religious. But in practice I am not doing it in the standard supernatural sense for theism/idealism and as a skeptic I try to avoid woo-woo and all that.
In short to hold that humans have positive value, is without evidence and an ontological idealistic claim.
Regards
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
For instance, it is very likely that it will stop being a Christian nation in few decades.
It can become a totally atheistic nation.
Or it can become a nation whose majority professes a different theistic religion, other than Christianity (much more likely).
Since Christians have become a minority, should there now be affirmative action for Christians, where the Christian gets preferential treatment in the name of diversity?
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
They would have to be an oppressed minority. In Christianity's case, they have been oppressors.
Sad. I'll pray for the UK.
Altfish
Veteran Member
You could have offered to do something useful.
You could, as well, like keeping your rude comments to yourself.
Altfish
Veteran Member
A statement of fact is rude?