Those without faith are NOT fully human

Discussion in 'The Gash Barge' started by thingy, Mar 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac O'Connor appeared on BBC Radio 4's "Sunday" today and asserted that the non-religious were not fully human. This is odd coming from a man who earlier in the interview claimed life begins at conception. If an humanist described Christians on the radio in this way we'd receive a visit from the police.

    Being charitable I think what he was trying to claim was that the non-religious are incomplete in the philosophical sense of the word. The problem is that militant Christians have not in the main studied philosophy and therefore the semantics will be lost on them - as O'Connor knows perfectly well.
  2. My bold is where i think you hit the nail on the head.
    I grew up going to catholic schools and church every Sunday.
    Cormac Murphy Oconner was the Bishop of my dioscese. He is in my Opinion A very intelligent and good human being.
    He will of course be quoted out of context. But then again Catholic bigwigs usually are in this country.
    (Let me finally state that these days I bear no allegiance to the Catholic church)
  3. I know several recovering catholics
  4. But it's always there in the back of the mind, you will always be god fearing.
  5. Any human being who is capable of free thinking would'nt go to a church/mosque/synagogue etc, But that's another thread.
  6. I think there is a huge difference in the truth of something and having a belief in it. (if you get what I'm trying to say).

    I haven't been to church in umpteen years and can see how science has practically proved the past was imagined (if that's the right word), but I still want my daughter married in a church.
  7. No mate.

    I don't believe in God at all.
  8. I don't either. How can he be classed as good and kind and the church saying he took so and so because he needed them. If that was so, then why does he take them in such a vile manner as in baby P or the poor cat that gets run over and dies in agony.

    But as I said above, I still want my daughter married in a church.
  9. I don't read much into the scandals written about the bloke but i believe from the times i met him as a kid that he was fundamentaly a decent guy. Don't ask me why, I just do.

    Come on bud!!

    Why the feck would you want your daughter married in a church if you don't believe in God?

    It's blatently obvious all that shit lies in the back of your mind.

    Do yerself a favour and Discard it completely.
  10. Who's to say the Romans were wrong?
    They hedged their bets and believed in all the Gods. Religious freedom was had by all, it was only when the intolerant Christians started stamping their feet that things changed
  11. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Why should religious people feel the need to broadcast their belief at every opportunity?

    "I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God."

    And I say no, it's not.

    "Well I believe that it is."

    Well, you know, some people believe they're Napoleon. That's fine. Beliefs are neat. Cherish them, but don't share them like they're the truth.
  12. After a childhood of having it beaten into me at two separate Christian Brothers Schools, being made to go to mass on a Sunday, etc I am now a fully recovered Catholic. I still believe, but refuse to be labelled with any single religion as essentially there are many similarities between them.

  13. Actually, most Christians don't (or shouldn't) believe the Bible is 'the literal word of God'. Much of the material within the New Testament are narrative accounts of a revelation by observers, either first-hand, second-hand or further on depending on what school of biblical criticism you adhere to. Notwithstanding 'This is the Word of the Lord', Christians don't believe that the Bible is the 'uncreated speech of God' in the way Muslims view the Qur'an. 'The Bible-believing' Christians are in a minority in that sense.

    I'm afraid some beliefs imply extended truth claims beyond the person (this is where the analogy with the Napoleon person falls down, unless he tries to re-enact the Battle of Waterloo in Saffron Walden :wink: ). I wouldn't agree with your opponent that the Bible is the literal word of God. Divinely-inspired, yes, but not literal; written by humans and with human failings. But I would argue that for a Christian belief is meaningless unless it involves an acceptance that (a) the belief in the faith is true and (b) is therefore normative in some of its postulates about ethics, salvation etc.

    In that sense it's no different from beliefs about enlightenment rationalism, of which atheism is one strand. From either side of the religious/atheist debate, if couched in the terms of true enlightenment rationalism I haven't seen a decent rebuttal to agnosticism. In short the proposition, since the existence of god cannot be disproved, then it is logically impossible to deny the possibility of a god. You can deny the probability, by all means, but not the possibility. Dawkins can only believe there isn't a god/gods in the same way that religious people believe there is one. And Dawkins and his ilk like to talk about their 'non'-belief (which is a belief in itself) as much (if not much more) as some believers like to talk about their actual belief.

    For both their beliefs are normative, they structure their lives and outlooks. On a more mundane level, beliefs about what our country should be doing in the world, what is morally right (whether divorced from a religious context or not) are normative, universalising beliefs that structure lives; why religious beliefs are treated as somehow more pernicious than these - which also usually lack any absolute referent - strikes me as odd sometimes. Everyone chooses to submit their 'free mind' (only ever free within certain structures of meaning) to some way of organising the world mentally, otherwise you have psychological anarchy. Some choose to do it religiously, others don't, but whichever is the case it has consequences for others beyond the individual because it governs or legitimises the way the individual acts.

    In short religious people don't have a monopoly on broadcasting their beliefs. It's their right to talk about them, just as it's yours to refute them.

    BTW I share a lot of your viewpoints SPB as a one of the few 'liberals' on here, but have to break ranks with regard to religion I think. :wink:
  14. I'm not sure O'Connor does know perfectly well, in the sense that despite the fact that the English church viewed him as a 'worldly', politically-savvy primate on his election, he comes over as a lot less savvy - certainly in PR terms - than people thought. I think you're spot on with the bit after 'being charitable'.

    I'm not sure if a humanist did so they'd receive a visit from the police either; I remember many religious leaders opposed the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 on precisely these grounds - freedom of criticism. Indeed, from wikipedia:

    "The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.

    The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31st January 2006."

    I think it's just been (another) bad day at the office for O'Connor in terms of how his views have been represented; possibly even by himself :(
  15. As Hon.Chaplain my I ask what date she would like?If its is a rush job please be assured of complete discretion, my assistant Moomin will take the deatails
  16. I was forced to Sunday school just because my parents wanted some peace and quiet on a Sunday afternoon. I hated every second of it and the whole thing turned me from any form of religion for life. The only thing I recall about Ross On Wye Baptist Chapel is the cloying smell of bad drains. When I signed on at Victoria Barracks {gateway to the fleet] Southsea I stated religion as atheist. The junior writer informed me that I could not do this as atheist was too all embracing. Whatever the stupid cnuts meant by that? So they put C.Of E. I had many battles over compulsory church parades . I even slapped in a formal complaint whilst still in part one training over being detailed off for the padres hour. The only faith that grabs me is Paganism .But I'd feel a prat dancing around cross roads at midnight in a white sheet. I feel closer to Pan and nature than any Christian or any other deity. Before any body asks;- No! I have not been in a foxhole. But I've been in several typhoons in the South China Sea. You should never say never, but I will ;- I will never embrace Islam.
  17. Who would have believed in the last years of the 19th century that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space. No one even considered the possibility of life on other planets, and yet across the gulf of space minds immesurably superior to ours watched this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely they drew their plans against us.......................and when the fckers come they'll eat the religious amongst us FIRST. So quit religion and lose weight fast.......
  18. Yeah, I know before you start I've spelled 'immeasurably' incorrectly, well I did say they had/have superior intelligence....
  19. I quite liked Church Parade at Raleigh.
    Gave me a chance of an extra kip.
  20. That old trick? we got the money for the "pictures" or cinema,makes no difference,it was time for mammy and daddy to play doctors and nurses 8O 8O

Share This Page