is it time for britain to ban religon??

It was not the case that the west needed another enemy, the Soviet Union and its empire kept a lid on
this problem. They were always an allay with the west in this sense. A great nation along with the US

ps the King James version is a masterpiece

The Rennaisance if anything began after the intellectuals fled the Ottomans to Italy, this is an bizarre argument for the Ottomans causing it though.
Islam in Spain and the Reconquista did nothing but dehumanise an army of State mercenaries in preparation for south america.

an evil empire
quote from Ronald Reagan

exactly what was the Vietnam, Korean wars about than a fight against communism

after your all male race of Neanderthal males cross breeding with an all female race of humans theory
(how on earth did they reproduce before they met)
I would question your knowledge of biology lfc1971
does it need to be recent history as well
anyway I am off

you do put up some interesting theories lfc1971, it has to be said

you seem obsessed with the Ottomans Polybot

if we exterminate all Muslims...
not sure who is suggesting that.

"one day there wont be any of us left, we will have killed everybody"
You mean like most of the mideast which has been cleansed of any diversity?

thanks ebulgery, better go as well

I'm off too, shopping for a low upholstered seat or footstool without a back or arms that typically serves also as a box, with the seat hinged to form a lid.

EBULGERY is exceptionally wise.. hat off to you sir!
Religion is an almost inevitable result of human evolution and cannot be banned as there will always be believers. TO suggest  evolution should have ended religious belief shows a total lack of understanding I'm afraid.
Don't think OP should take on a challenge he cannot possibly complete or win tbh!
(Ifor is a 'militant' atheist)

polybot - I'm sorry. I make this mistake every time on chit-chat. I make the assumption that I'm talking to adults who don't feel a desperate psychological urge to score points by quoting out of context.
My mistake. Carry on.
No wonder the forum is slowly dying on its @rse.

see I was right what I said last night

In the Future of an Illusion, Freud said that religion will be around as long as we are afraid of death.
So it'll be a good while before it's gone.

Believers are not afraid of death. If they are wrong and death is FINAL they won`t know about it, but if they are right, all you atheists are DOOMED Believers have the best part of the argument

oh  bugger :(

May 25, 2013 -- 7:16PM, themightymac wrote:

Believers are not afraid of death. If they are wrong and death is FINAL they won`t know about it, but if they are right, all you atheists are DOOMED  Believers have the best part of the argument

Apparently the pope has changed the churches position on that, Atheists can now go to heaven, because he talks to god and is infallible so it must be true.

And point Freud was making that you missed mightymac is that you only believe in the afterlife because you are afraid of death.

Freud is talking sh*t, imo

I`m not afraid of death.

That was the pope speaking in Rome on Wednesday this week.
I suspect he has irritated some of his followers

Don`t think so. Most of his followers pray for atheists.

May 25, 2013 -- 8:07PM, themightymac wrote:

Freud is talking sh*t, imoI`m not afraid of death.

But you've admitted if you were an atheist you would be afraid of death, so you've proved his point.

For me contemplating ones morality is a very sobering thought, makes you want to seize the life you have left.

q

don`t know what you`re talking about bobtoe. I admitted no such thing. Faith is a personal thing. If people believe, whatever religion, that`s fine with me. If people choose not to believe, that is also fine by me. Intolerance, is what I can`t stand.

are you intolerant towards intolerance?

Freud is talking sh*t, imo

I`m not afraid of death.

I hope you are not planning on blowing yourself up mac

everybody is afraid of death..in my opinion
it is evolved in us....our brains cannot cope with it
we cant plan ahead..

although actually it is dying that is the problem
once we are dead, nothing matters, as we don't exist

the best death I thought was Michael Caine in Get Carter
...he had just killed the last of the bad guys

and gets a bullet through the middle of his skull
would not even have known about it
and went out on a high

I`m afraid you`re wrong gery. I know 4 people who have had died and all experienced life after death. That`s a fact mate.

I doubt whether a suicide bomber knows much about it either
but he knows what is going to happen..
so he will inevitably feel some fear

apologies mac
you are in touch with them
on the other side I mean

Gery, I was even more cynical than some of the "loonies" on here until I saw for myself

then I wont contradict you mac
you died and came back, I assume..

I am a little confused over that..
some would claim that was dream...I will look that up

But that puts you in a different position than the rest of us

anyway one life is bad enough
do we really want another one????

If you did Cardiff , Hull and Palace would have to stay where they are.

I would not mind going back in my life and having another go
its a real bummer, remembering our mistakes
but being totally powerless to do anything about them
makes life seem pointless to me

If I could only go back to before todays racing that would be a start
now I have seen the results

Mac. Perhaps you can help to answer a question that has troubled me for years...Is the grass REALLY greener over there?

mac - what's the weather like?

No, you misunderstand, I`ve never died.

I thought you'd seen for yourself. You wouldn't need to die to just get a quick glimpse!
What did it look like?

I`m afraid you`re wrong gery. I know 4 people who have had died and all experienced life after death. That`s a fact mate.

yeah its a fact.

I thought that, when we are close to death, we can reach the Pearly Gates without actually going through. The clue is in the name. It's not called 'The Pearly High Wall' is it?

I am getting lost
am I conversing with ghosts here

May 25, 2013 -- 10:39PM, themightymac wrote:

Gery, I was even more cynical than some of the "loonies" on here until I saw for myself

Problem is, that people who have suffered brain damage have had changes in their memories and personality. Yet your lot would have us believe that when we are die, and are brain dead, we can go to some place with all our cognitive processes intact.

As poster's have said Freud's explanation is still the simplest and most obvious

It is to cope with out fear of death. Our brains are always thinking in advance, we cannot help it
We have to construct our language in advance. So death is a big problem to us, we cannot work out what is going to happen,
We fear losing our friends, everything ..we feel we are plunging into a deathly black isolation of nothing with absolutely
no control.

I also think that even in life we feel the need to reach outside of reality, we like to think there is some divine justice
or someone is looking our for us, or perhaps, surely there has to be something better than this.

I do not think we should ban religion, but it may be an idea , that at all schools, including faith schools,
there are compulsory lessons, neither for or against religion, but to make children see there are different ways
of looking at religion. Is it real, is it a psychological need, etc.. just so they can think for themselves that is all.

with all our cognitive processes intact.

I think some posters have already lost that ability on here, let alone dying Bobtoe

**** me this bollocks still going

If someone gets comfort out of religion, is that a bad thing?

To ban religion because you don`t believe or understand is a very dangerous concept and a stupid suggestion.

What next?

Whether you believe or not, the fabric of our society is based on the 10 Commandments. Without these laws we would have Anarchy.

I`m telling you BB - they are worse than religious zealots

**** ****s the lot of you

"polybot - I'm sorry. I make this mistake every time on chit-chat. I make the assumption that I'm talking to adults who don't feel a desperate psychological urge to score points by quoting out of context.
My mistake. Carry on.
No wonder the forum is slowly dying on its @rse."

No problem Pan, apologies and excuses accepted.
Try a moderated atheist website which has any dissenting heretics removed so that the believers can recite their simple dogma free from any argument.

It is to cope with out fear of death. Our brains are always thinking in advance, we cannot help it … We fear losing our friends, everything ..we feel we are plunging into a deathly black isolation of nothing with absolutely
no control … I also think that even in life we feel the need to reach outside of reality, we like to think there is some divine justice
or someone is looking our for us, or perhaps, surely there has to be something better than this.

These three things – our brains always thinking, the need to reach outside of ‘reality’ and the hope for divine intervention on our behalf – are at the heart of Buddhism.

There are many interpretations of Buddhism but ideas commonly held are that we do not look to outside agencies to solve our problems. We can very much do something about our brains always thinking and peace and happiness can only be found in the present moment.

Mindfullness allows you to be aware of your self without judgement, want or fear. It shows you that the intellect is just a part of you but a lesser part and the ego can be subdued. Mindfullness practise has some very definite benefits in that it is being used in the West in ‘proper’ medicine more and more to treat physical and mental disorders. And at Harvard in 2011 it was discovered for the first time that such practise changes DNA in a positive way.

I wouldn’t ban a religion and its offshoots and interpretations that on the whole has been about attaining contentment (which surely we all want), dealing with the here and now and for the most part has been a peaceful, beneficial to physical/mental wellbeing, non-exclusive and orange affair.

banning it would never work, it just plays into the hands of the fanatics.

What's needed is to genuine separation of religion and state rather than the half-hearted system we have now.  We need to stop giving religion power, those who listen to the fairy stories have no more right to pontificate on how the country should be run than attendees at a Star Trek convention.  Just because you're a bishop shouldn't entitle you to a seat in the House of Lords.... will gay marriage get through the House of Lords next week, if it doesn't, that will be largely down to religion and it's so wrong that this antiquated hocus-pocus is still allowed to rule us.

it is a set of values

no it is not the same as our secular values, at the moment granted

but I certainly don't think gay marriage is right

tbh I doubt our Government have any more capabilities than attendees at a Star Trek Convention

A Klingon's opinion

To insinuate that only religious people are against Gay marriage is a rather naïve statement.

the Klingons are against it ....I can tell you that

true Mac

it's not a set of values, it's a set of rules, and because those rules are very specific, unless you are a very half-hearted Muslim or live in a country that operates by those rules, you are going to have to largely segregate yourself and/or find yourself at odds with much that goes on around you.  Committed Muslims knew that before they moved here, but they still came, and then expected our society to adapt to theirs.  It is that which causes so many problems, they can't/won't change because it's their "religion", and if WE don't change, then we're guilty of religious persecution!


Civil war looms

When in Rome do what the Roman`s do.

re: themightymac  27 May 13 22:48   
To insinuate that only religious people are against Gay marriage is a rather naïve statement.

I didn't say that.  The bill passed the House of Commons (and there were religious believers and objections there), but now that it faces the House of Lords, certain members are there for no other reason than their association with religion. That's my objection, the HOL needs to take its members from all of society, and those bishops need to be kicked out and pronto.

And what about the members that are there for no reason but their Wealth and hereditary titles?

And help pass bills to favour big business and the gentry?

we have left gay marriage then

actually you have a point there yeahyeah, but then, was anybody actually asked whether we should
allow,(in fact we encouraged) Muslims to come here, our Governments of the last 60 years(both parties)
over rode democracy...there was no referendum on this.

I believe all religions must abide by secular law, or they leave our shores. Although they are still allowed
their  belief's and whatever rules they may set themselves, but we are under no obligation,
and in fact should not change our own society to accommodate them

If we are to be religious, we are in fact, nominally, a Christian society

I am referring to your Muslim post

As I said, ALL society.  I agree with you about hereditary titles and I don't think the amendments of 1999 went anywhere near far enough - the changes are moving at a snail's pace - but at least there have been SOME attempts to ultimately end hereditary titles, religious entitlement is still alive and kicking.

As to how members are selected though... could we just randomly select X amount people for 12 months and set them up with video links?  Having sat on a jury it fills me with absolute dread to see what random selection of people can actually get you - the people on my jury didn't give a flying fig about participating in justice, even when someone had died!  We need to improve on the jobs-for-ex-politicans though, perhaps limit it to a one-off period of 12 months.

as far as Gay Marriage goes, I hope the Lords returns it with a recommendation for a referendum,
democracy means rule be majority, so although I am against it, I would accept a majority decision
..if we do not do that, the government may yet again have over ridden democracy..
I cant say for sure, because I don't what the outcome of a referendum would be,
but opinions polls are not good enough...this must be a secret vote, then people can make
their own decision.

I`ve been on Juries where some members were as bright as a 50 watt bulb. Imagine being 100% innocent of the charge and depending on a bunch of half wits for your freedom.

We elect these people to represent us, so must rely on them to do so. If they support a law in Parliament which we don`t agree with, we don`t vote for them next time round, simples. It would be highly uneconomical and unattainable to hold a Referendum on all political policies and laws.

I cant see whats wrong with gay marriage. What difference does it make? Its hardly a sacred institution these days, more of a blingy day out prior to the divorce party. Whats the objection?

re:I believe all religions must abide by secular law, or they leave our shores. Although they are still allowed  their  belief's and whatever rules they may set themselves, but we are under no obligation,
and in fact should not change our own society to accommodate them


and that is a wonderful sentiment, but it's also a completely impractical one.  You cannot say they are allowed whatever rules they may set themselves, and also say that they must follow secular law.  If those [religious/cultural]rules contravene secular law - what do you do then?  Are you going to deny them their religious beliefs - heyho, heyho it's off to the Hague we go.... 

That's exactly the mess we're in with, for example, gay marriage.  Religions (not all I know) have been conveniently let off the hook because the government can't face standing up to them.  It's a very dangerous precedent and religions will continue to push and push to get more of their own way.

I know themightymac, I was horrified when I was a juror, others jurors hadn't even listened to the evidence.  One didn't mind what we did as long as we were finished by 4pm as she had to get home.  Two others just giggled and flirted their way through the whole thing.  As you say, it's an utter lottery.

If those [religious/cultural]rules contravene secular law - what do you do then?

I did say they must abide by secular law what is the confusion???

Dobbo
I think it is divisive
but that is only my opinion
which is why I think we should have a referendum.

anyway if they pass it, I am moving to Zambia

oh my god you're going to persecute me based on my religious beliefs!  For centuries my people have lived in this way (nothing like a good ol' stone age fairy story round the campfile...) and now you deny me my most basic of human right... the right to practice my religion.

chuck in a few scummy  legal aid chasing solicitors, shammi-bloody-chakiribati, appeals to the ECHR, blah blah blah and i reckon this one could run and run...


So how would you stop all of that ebulGerry?

make me your ruler and I well tell you

actually it is very simple

we withdraw from the EU justice system

The government introduces new laws clearly defining the laws and limitations of all religions..

it is not that hard..


and although the government does everything it can to avoid democracy

we do need referendums for all important issues

the government must listen to 'the great unwashed'

or we might as well appoint a Dictator

sb the rights

One of the problems is that the Church of England is the established church. Its own Canon Law is part of the law of the land, and the head of the Church is also the head of the state. And an un-elected head at that.

This is why the church is so worried that it might be forced to conduct gay marriage, and yet it doesn't want to lose it's state religious privileges.

There is also an amendment in the equal marriage bill which will allow Humanists to be able to conduct marriages legally, as in Scotland. At the moment only Christians and Jews can be married by a representative of their religion in England & Wales.
Muslims and other religions have to have two weddings, one religious ceremony and one for the civil register. This why sometimes you hear about muslims want sharia, it's because it'll allow them to wed people legally as is the case for Jews and kosher.

I have to agree with ebulGery here.

Democracy for everything important like equality, women's rights, gay rights, human rights, immigration, freedom of speech, death sentence, abortion, welfare state, foreign interventions and aid, national debt, austerity, eu membership, UN membership etc.

So we would hold a referendum on those issues alongside our multiple national elections or even every 6 months and any issue can only come back to the electorate once every 10 years and the result will be binding until the next referendum.

That will ensure that most people will have a say all important issues and the decisions of one generation of voters will not be binding on subsequent generations.

It might bring about mob rule and the majority might oppress minorities but that is the price of democracy which we hold as sacred.

"It might bring about mob rule and the majority might oppress minorities but that is the price of democracy which we hold as sacred."
Not sure you've thought this one through

polybot

To me there are two options: either we follow democracy and apply the will of the majority all the time regardless of principles or the politicians and judiciary decide that certain principles like equality, freedom of speech, human rights etc are so important and the majority will have no say whatever on the matter.

We can either have have certain sacred principles or democracy but not both.

Didn't you just say democracy WAS sacred.

No I am saying we need to choose which one is sacred!!!

Is it democracy as the will of the majority must prevail at all times?

Or is it that we hold certain absolute values like human rights, equality, free speech, tolerance etc so dearly we won't allow the wishes of the majority of the population to be taken into consideration if they opposed those values?

The will of the majority at all times is imposible in that you can't vote every 5 minutes on everything, where every resolution can be turned over at will. Concepts like property rights would either collapse almost immediately or be so unstable it would bring down the rest of the dominos soon after. There's a reason why socialist countries become authoritarian.
Constitutional republics, constitutional law, parliamentary systems, representative democracy all exist because they've proven to work depending on implementation. They're not perfect and they don't change easily or quickly but handing power over to the people would be disastrous, have you seen the comprehension some chit chatters have on even simple matters.
Personally I'm not optimistic considering what the schools and media are churning out, but the political structures offer some insulation from it for the moment.

It seems like you share Churchill's contempt for the intelligence of the electorate then!!!

The Swiss and Californians show us it is possible to consult the people on most important matters so it is not that unfeasible.

So do you think holding on to some absolute values in society are more important than following the will of the people ie democracy?

As dumb as saying "It is time for Britain to ban atheism!" - you can't ban a belief or a non belief!

the majority might oppress minorities polybot

at the moment some of us think

the minorities are oppressing the majority

well said boris the animal


If we do not trust 'the great unwashed'

what on earth is the point of democracy

anyway the media probably makes most of our decisions now

so 'the great unwashed' will still be easily led

Referendums are at least an attempt at real  democracy

of course we cannot hold them on every piece of legislation

but we should for the important ones

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it is first and foremost a set of principles to allow a free and
civil society. Democracy does not of necessity mean that everyone has the vote...this is not democracy
in and of itself

fine lfc1971

then exactly what is the point of having elections at all

who decides these set of principles you speak off

because if the majority do not have a say in this

we do not have a democracy

democracy only meant that a sizeable `minority` should have the vote...not everyone!
the very idea is absurd.

the idea of everyone having a vote is absurd

I don't think you quite understand what democracy is lfc1971

because in fact that is what it is

ebulGery

It is purely a practical thing, when everyone is allowed to vote nothing can change, a country will go into a long
and slow decline....This is inevitable.

nobody should be elected to parliament. This should be done on purely a voluntary basis. Plenty of pensioners,
unemployed, weekenders etc would be happy to give up their time

we are just two lost souls swimming in a fish boal. Year after year.
Running over the same old ground, what have we found?
The same old fears..

Maybe time to go

LFC
Democracy does not mean majority rule, it is first and foremost a set of principles to allow a free and
civil society. Democracy does not of necessity mean that everyone has the vote...this is not democracy
in and of itself

Democracy by definition means rule of the people or people power. So it is fundamental that the will of the people is prioritised.

but of course there are different forms of democracies each giving different weightings to different factor. You have given some features of liberal democracy where individual rights and freedoms are cherished which is fine but you need to realise that many people prefer other forms of democracies.

agree Boris

I think our current democracy, government and media are being used by aggressive minority groups

to further their own cause. So in fact the will of the people may be being subverted.

There is surely no harm in referendums on certain important issues.

There are committees all over the world who decide things by a show of hands

which is basically all democracy is about.

at least you are probably right in calling me a lost soul lfc19171

For me islam drops into the same category as communism and early 20thC variants of National Socialism, this explains the support it gets from the likes of the bbc.
This lecture sums up the situation perfectly, the last few minutes are especially relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r-pOwv6ZIbM#t=2196s

Islam is a religion it has nothing to do with communism or the Nazis

this clip is an incredibly nasty twisted bigoted personal view...I only listened to first two minutes

but at last I see where you are coming Polybot..you are Greek

The Greek's hate the Turk's(and vice versa), hence your waffling about the Ottoman empire all the time

and the Turks are Islamic.... explains a lot

Only Athens was democratic, and that ceased when the Spartans invaded them(also Greek)

although they had true democracy everybody had a vote, excepts slaves of course

Also according to Basil Fawlty Greek's invented Homosexuality

apologies Polybot
I have no right to make assumptions about you nationality
I have no idea what it is
we are all anonymous on here...

your views seem very Greek though

neither am I implying you are homosexual...my last line was a poor joke