You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
*sigh*
Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it's a clever arguing tactic.
Actually I'd rather the Attorney General didn't comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him. It's a bit worrying and entirely inappropriate to have the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).
Presumably you'd rather only priests commented on stuff about religion then?
*sigh*
Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time
Good point Grum, but why follow it up with...
(describing them as deluded).
I can't see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing. He is playing the ball - the beliefs - not the men. Perfectly valid approach irrespective of whether he is correct or not.
kerching!
I can't see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing.
Petty semantics. He is saying 'if these atheists don't agree with my opinion they are deluding themselves' - how is that different from them being deluded exactly?
Not the same thing as ernie is doing at all.
It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.
You are also ignoring the massive straw man here - who has argued it is 'going to disappear overnight'?
Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it's a clever arguing tactic.Actually I'd rather the Attorney General didn't comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him.
And yet articles which involve people expressing their personal opinions is an established character of newspapers, the Guardian has several pages to cover precisely that. It's one of the reasons why people buy newspapers.
And if Daily Telegraph readers are interested in reading about the Attorney General's opinions regarding, religion, gardening, holiday destinations, or any other subject, then I can't see a problem.
I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all, it's clear that you are unhappy with the Attorney General's opinions so that's why you think Daily Telegraph readers shouldn't read about them.
[quote=grum ]Petty semantics.
Except it's not is it? There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false. You're deluding yourself to miss that point (DYSWIDT?)
It's not semantics at all. There is a it difference between separating views/behaviour from the people concerned. Hence good people can do bad things and vice versa. The danger in ignoring this is that you may misrepresent others.
Except it's not is it? There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false.
So a person deluding themselves is not deluded? Ok then. 🙄
There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning
Go on then.
It doesn't make it a character trait (which is the basis of your allegation), no.
Where did I say that? You're straw manning again.
Forgotten already?
[quote=grum ]the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).
Where did I mention anything about character traits?
However - if I was to say that christians' beliefs are delusional, how is that different from saying christians are deluded?
It's ridiculous to claim there's any significant difference.
He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.
“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.
So being deluded isn't a character trait?
If you didn't mean that it is, why on earth do you think the AG might be prejudiced against somebody because of something that isn't a character trait?
Not sure why you've started going on about character traits - your argument doesn't make sense and is still covered under what I said a few posts back.
Petty semantics.
Next is someone going to tell me that when IDS says 'those denying Britain is a Christian country are “absurd” ' - he's not really saying they are absurd.
He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.
I'm afraid that the only one revealing a lack of partiality is you, because thats what the evidence does say - sorry if you don't like it or believe they're all wrong, but the stats support his point
I'm not debating the statistics - I'm debating his use of them. Using belief in the supernatural as an argument in favour of christianity and against atheism is quite a stretch.
IIRC more people believe in 'the supernatural' than God.
Time to put the shovel down?
Anyway, I "see" a Guardian article and "raise" a Spectator one.... 😉
I say all this as a lapsed agnostic, open to the idea of a disestablished church and booting the bishops out of the Lords. But to deny that we are a Christian country is progressive revisionism of the highest order. Some people do not like the fact that we are a Christian country – but they should say so, rather than pretend otherwise. [b]Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage, as well as our current governing structure, is at best delusional.[/b] At worst it shows metropolitan liberal society attempting to cleanse the parts of Britain it finds distasteful.
Leaving aside the partisan last sentance, the rest seems pretty spot on. And the bold bit is playing the ball not the man - a bit like the AG!!
Time to put the shovel down?
Great argument - well made. Really playing the ball not the man etc
But to deny that we are a Christian country
That depends how you define 'a Christian country' though - which renders his whole argument totally pointless.
Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage
Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.
But to deny that we are a Christian country
Personally, I'd say we were once a Christian country but aren't any more.
According to IDS, you're 'absurd', and according to our Attorney General you're [s]deluded[/s] deluding yourself.
As I go around and look at the way we make laws, and indeed many of the underlying ethics of society are Christian based and the result of 1500 years of Christian input into our national life. It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.”
TBH I feel sorry for them they know they have lost the battle , they know their influence will decline be it from the moral voice of authority re gay marriage to its literally declining and dieing church attendance figures. Its floundering like a fish out of water still able to thrash around and get folk to notice it but its decline is inevitable and very difficult for them to address/alter.
Saying Christianity shaped the country is just to state a historical fact however given some of the laws they shaped - might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb, deportation, slavery, etc I think they probably want to cherry pick which laws reflect their values.
FWIW - I assume THM will agree- the morals argument for religion is pretty weak - Adams was it iirc while since i did this- either there is a reason why morals are good [ then we can all see this reason, god, devout and atheist], or god chose them on a whim and we just follow them. Its not hard to work out which is the case.
Whilst we are being pednantic
Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
So if you were christened or baptised as a kid, is there something you legally need to do later in life to be officially "no religion" ?
Has bigger implications in other countries. Germany is one, where the church is owned by the state.
IIRC more people believe in 'the supernatural' than God.
Yes, but the Theos study put some interesting contradictions out there, like people not believing in god, but believing in angels and the devil...
The problem is you're suffering confirmation bias - you presuppose that answering the question 'does god exist?' is a binary yes or no answer - that unless you say 'yes' then the only possible answer is 'no' - Whereas in fact a great many people would answer 'possibly' or 'maybe'
The point about christianity is that questioning the or doubting existence of god is entirely consistent with the faith, in fact its what much of the basis of theology is about.
The theos report was very interesting with this comment:
[i]the proportion of people who are consistently non-religious – i.e. who don’t believe in God, never attend a place of worship, call themselves non-religious, and don’t believe in life after death, the soul, angels, etc. – was very low, at about 9%[/i]
We're not trying to rewrite history; show me one person denying that Britain [i]was[/i] a Christian country. We're criticising people for rewriting the present.
I'm confused that people still seem to think the stats support the "christian country" argument though, I thought we'd done that to death. But perhaps I'm absurdly deluding myself (while not being deluded)
grum - MemberI'm not debating the statistics - I'm debating his use of them. Using belief in the supernatural as an argument in favour of christianity and against atheism is quite a stretch.
You should read your link again. He doesn't do that. He's using the statistics to explain what he claims is the lack of progress that atheism has made.
It's not unreasonable to claim that a belief in the supernatural or a deity hinders the progress of atheism.
I don't know where you get the [i]"quite a stretch"[/i] from.
BTW why did you provide a link to an article which you claim is full of holes and which you think shouldn't have been written anyway ?
[quote=grum ]Not sure why you've started going on about character traits
Well it was you who introduced the idea of the AG being prejudiced, which presumably being an intelligent man he isn't against people who simply hold a particular viewpoint.
Petty semantics.
Now you're just repeating discredited arguments.
I'm not debating the statistics - I'm debating his use of them.
Well in the particular bit you've quoted he's using them to explain what the statistics say - clearly that's completely unacceptable.
"Argument", grum? It was a question hence the ? - is it time to put the shovel down? Yes or no?
And referring to the argument (the ball) not the writer (the man) - its important not to misrepresent here!
The point about christianity is that questioning the or doubting existence of god is entirely consistent with the faith, in fact its what much of the basis of theology is about.
That's fine - but continually trying to make out that 'we are a christian country' when hardly anyone goes to church, most people don't consider themselves religious, and more people believe in aliens than god ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/alien-believers-outnumber-god_n_1968259.html 😉 ) is pretty daft.
"Argument", grum? It was a question hence the ? - is it time to put the shovel down? Yes or no?And referring to the argument (the ball) not the writer (the man) - its important not to misrepresent here!
Exactly - you weren't making an argument. You were just criticising me with no attempt to justify why or counter any of my points.
I was having a debate on Saturday with some devout Catholics, some atheists, some agnostics over lunch. Take the Apostles Creed - if you only believe some but not all of it - does that rule you out of calling yourself a Christian? Ditto, the one devout Catholic has a homosexual sibling, so the debate was intriguing to say the least.
Anyone going to answer this question?
Whilst we are being pednanticCan I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
Or this one?
Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritageWho is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.
No I was criticing your argument and specifically your point that the AG called atheists deluded - from the quote, that seems to be untrue.
No reference to you nor any criticism of you, so the point that I was criticising you is invalid for the same reason.
I countered the point v specifically.
[quote=grum ]That's fine - but continually trying to make out that 'we are a christian country' when hardly anyone goes to church and more people believe in aliens than god ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/alien-believers-outnumber-god_n_1968259.html ) is pretty daft.
Hmm - an online survey. Yes I read what they say about it being a legitimate sample, but presumably they didn't actually include any of the older people who don't own a computer in their survey.
'Time to put the shovel down' is nothing more than a childish dig (and a sign you've lost the argument).
If you don't want to accept that it's up to you.
Hmm - an online survey. Yes I read what they say about it being a legitimate sample, but presumably they didn't actually include any of the older people who don't own a computer in their survey.
Did you notice the wink I put in after it? I realise it's not the most reliable source.
Anyone going to answer this question?
Whilst we are being pednantic
Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
Or this one?
Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage
Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.
when hardly anyone goes to church
You're [i]still[/i] hung up on the church thing?
My dad was brought up in full on hardcore catholic tradition, latin mass and everything- turned his back on the RC church when he married a divorcee in 1971, which created huge ructions within the family.
You're telling me he wasn't religious, or wasn't a christian, because he didn't go to church? because he didn't have me baptised?
I can tell you you're wrong
Take the Apostles Creed
Rocky lost to him then beat him IIRC
HTH
as for believing all the Bible I think you will be hard pushed to find a christian who believes it all so cherry picking and dsaying some of it is the word of god [ 10 commandments] an some not true but an allegory - genesis] seems to be the "rational" for accepting much of what it says is factually inaccurate whilst still keeping the faith
Seriously how can i be deluding myself and not be deluded - granted its a politer way of saying it but that is all.
You are lying to yourself about that one if that is what you think....did i just call you a liar*?
Have we stopped doing deductive logic on here or something?
* done for effect I am not suggesting anyone is actually lying here just that we disagree
[quote=grum ]Did you notice the wink I put in after it? I realise it's not the most reliable source.
Ah, sorry - shall we just discount the post you included that in then? 😉
1. sorry, dont feed trolls
2. Yes the argument that this is not a Christain country is doing exactly that. To use a specific if trivial example - look at what is engraved on a pound coin and ask why it is there?
You might as well argue that we do not have a monarchy.
I can tell you you're wrong.
Anecdote (with added confirmation bias) ? evidence.
1. sorry, dont feed trolls
🙄
Play the ball not the man etc. Pretty clear sign you've lost the argument there.
Ah, sorry - shall we just discount the post you included that in then?
If you like.
I was having a debate on Saturday with some devout Catholics, some atheists, some agnostics over lunch.
**** me that sounds boring.
[quote=grum ]Can I both be deluding myself and not be deluded?
Yes we have covered that one - yes, you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait (in the context that you claimed the AG was prejudiced against people because of it).
2. Yes the argument that this is not a Christain country is doing exactly that.
Yet again - that depends how you define 'a Christian country'. I'm not denying the important historical/cultural role of the church, and I don't see anyone else doing that either. So unless you can provide some actual specific examples, your argument is very weak indeed.
Yes we have covered that one - yes, you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait
No-one except you has mentioned anything about 'inherently deluded as a character trait' - classic straw man from you yet again.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]**** me that sounds boring.
Well to be fair it probably beats most of the religion threads on here.
[quote=grum ]No-one except you has mentioned anything about 'inherently deluded as a character trait' - classic straw man from you yet again.
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Oh and please play the ball not the man!!!!
[img] http://cimg2.ck12.org/datastreams/f-d%3Ac240cfa744d39103959a93b0fd3efdc6234846203d14a269d5e9e0ad%2BIMAGE%2BIMAGE.1 [/img]
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Nope, you invented that bit. I didn't imply anything of the kind.
Well then we can agree to differ! BTW, (1) was not referring to you. There is also no argument there - I simply do not feed trolls even if I enjoy reading their stuff from time to time.
E_L, it was the atheist who dived into the religious stuff. Everyone else was enjoying the fish 😉
Anecdote (with added confirmation bias) ? evidence.
Its evidence that I can point to at least one example of your point being wrong, and its the exception that proves the rule!
Now, can you point me to any evidence that failure to attend church regularly precludes one from being either of faith or religion as you have claimed?
you can be deluding yourself without being somebody inherently deluded as a character trait
I see the distinction and we could debate it but it is not a pin dance i wish to do today.
I dont agree if you say someone is deluding themselves you are clearly saying they are deluded...even if only on that one issue.
I see no way of denying this tbh.
ernie_lynch » **** me that sounds boring.
You need an englishman, a scotsman and a Irishman to really have agood time in a pub iirc
To be fair, the argument that you can delude yourself without being deluded seems no less convincing than the argument that you can be a christian without believing in god or christ.
[quote=grum ]
You simply implied it as a reason for prejudice - a point you consistently snip and ignore.
Nope, you invented that bit. I didn't imply anything of the kind.
Ah, so I was imagining you calling the AG prejudiced because he considered atheists to be deluded?
Ah, so I was imagining you calling the AG prejudiced because he considered atheists to be deluded?
No - but the bit you've invented about 'inherent character traits' isn't essential to being prejudiced.
Using inflammatory phrases such as 'deluding themselves' is quite an insulting and inappropriate way for the AG to be describing the reasonably-stated views of a fairly varied bunch of leading figures. He also totally misrepresents their stated views. To me this indicates prejudice on his part.
All your petty semantic arguments don't change any of that.
Why do you think he used inappropriate and insulting language, and misrepresented their views so badly?
Right thanks for clearing that up. So you don't think the AG believes that atheists have a particular character trait, and that an intelligent man like him is prejudiced against some people simply based on one POV they hold. Presumably you'd be similarly upset if he mentioned which football team he supports?
So you don't think the AG believes that atheists have a particular character trait, and that an intelligent man like him is prejudiced against some people simply based on one POV they hold.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here - I think I've made what I think quite clear in my last post.
Presumably you'd be similarly upset if he mentioned which football team he supports?
Oh dear. Is this really the level of argument we're at? Can you [i]really[/i] not see the rather large difference?
(This from the man who's been strongly arguing that there's a huge difference between being deluded and deluding yourself 😆 )
Why did he use the language that he did?
Mr Grieve said: “As I go around and look at the way we make laws, and indeed many of the underlying ethics of society are Christian based and the result of 1500 years of Christian input into our national life. It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.”
Perhaps because he believes that folk are deluding themselves if they believe that the underlying ethics of Christian society or the input that they have had into national life will disappear overnight? Seems pretty clear to me and broadly correct. Hardly inappropriate or insulting.
Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year?
teamhurtmore - MemberPerhaps because he believes that folk are deluding themselves if they believe that the underlying ethics of Christian society or the input that they have had into national life will disappear overnight?
So the next question is, why is he misrepresenting the entire argument so badly? That's much worse than just being a bit impolite. Maybe he's just [s]deluded[/s] deluding himself.
If you could provide some examples of anyone saying christian historical influence on society is 'going to disappear overnight', you might have a tiny bit of a point - but it seems you can't.
So the next question is, why is he misrepresenting the entire argument so badly? That's much worse than just being a bit impolite.
Exactly.
Also, WTF does the Attorney General think he should be voicing his personal opinions about religion in a newspaper?
Actually I'd rather the Attorney General didn't comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him. It's a bit worrying and entirely inappropriate to have the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on who the Attorney General is. He is not a civil servant or (primarily) a lawyer. He is an MP and cabinet minister. He is not an adviser to the government, he is a member of it. The role is a political one and he is entitled to stick his oar into political debates.
He also didn't describe atheists as deluded. He said people who didn't think the UK is a Christian country are deluded. That's an important difference. It's "a bit worrying" that you didn't pick up on it. 😉
He is not an adviser to the government
[b]the Attorney General serves as the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government in England and Wales.[/b]
He is an MP and cabinet minister.
[b]The Attorney General is a non-cabinet minister [/b]who leads the Attorney General's Office.
Wikipedia only I'm afraid - perhaps you have a better source?
He didn't even say that kb, he said that to follow one idea would be to delude oneself. From the quotes given, there is no reference to calling anyone deluded.
[quote=grum ]I think I've made what I think quite clear in my last post.
You've not exactly made it clear why thinking somebody is incorrect on one POV they hold makes somebody prejudiced about that person. I'm assuming here that the AG isn't going to be making any legal rulings directly related to whether atheists think we still live in a Christian country any more than he's going to be making any legal rulings related to which football team somebody supports. If that assumption is correct, in what other way exactly is he prejudiced against them? Do you think he will make a different ruling because of this disagreement?
Let me just remind you of your original concern about his comments:
It's a bit worrying and entirely inappropriate to have the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).
Edit: oh and I'm impressed to see you're still busy playing the man in your edit (whilst complaining about others doing the same).
Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year?
Seeing as we are 'a Christian country' - perhaps we should - Christmas too. Christmas and Easter are largely pagan in origin.
You've not exactly made it clear why thinking somebody is incorrect on one POV they hold makes somebody prejudiced about that person.
Saying they are incorrect would be one thing. Saying they are deluding themselves is a very loaded and partial phrase. For someone so concerned with the specific use of language I would have thought that distinction would be important to you.
Edit: oh and I'm impressed to see you're still busy playing the man in your edit (whilst complaining about others doing the same).
How so? I just thought it was amusing/ironic that you made such a poor analogy between two completely different things, while claiming there is a huge difference between two statements that mean the same thing.
"Perhaps we will cancel Easter next year? "
Please don't while I am an atheist myself I really enjoy my pre Christian fertility festivals next you will be saying we should cancel Saturnalia/Sol Invictus.
As specific as "inappropriate" and "insulting"?
CB - as much as like my fish and lamb, too much chocolate becomes a trial! Not a fan of simnel cake either. 😉
As specific as "inappropriate" and "insulting"?
What does that mean?
Like Ronseal?
I was having a debate on Saturday with some devout Catholics, some atheists, some agnostics over lunch.
I am jealous of your life!
[quote=grum ]Saying they are incorrect would be one thing. Saying they are deluding themselves is a very loaded and partial phrase.
Yet still a world away from suggesting that somebody is deluded in a way which would make you prejudiced against them. Do you really not understand that the issue is not the language used, but your suggestion of prejudice? A prejudice which you've consistently failed to justify. Well that and completely failing to see the context of the expression.
Yet still a world away from suggesting that somebody is deluded in a way which would make you prejudiced against them.
Not really.
Do you really not understand that the issue is not the language used
So you say.
A prejudice which you've consistently failed to justify.
In your opinion.
I see no-one is going to answer this question:
So the next question is, why is he misrepresenting the entire argument so badly? That's much worse than just being a bit impolite.
From the quotes given, there is no reference to calling anyone deluded.
So despite the fact he is saying some folk are deluding themselves he is not calling anyone deluded 😯
Anyone who thinks like that has shit for brains*
I assume i have not insulted anyone with that one then.
There are literally loads of way to do this
* reductio ad absurdum I am not really saying that to anyone to be clear but even if i was i am not really saying it apparently anyway so I did not even need to say that did I ?
To be worth answering, a question needs to have a valid premise.
Where in the letter from the 55 public figures does it suggest that Christian historical influence on our society is going to 'disappear overnight', or that it should?
SIR – We respect the Prime Minister’s right to his religious beliefs and the fact that they necessarily affect his own life as a politician. However, we object to his characterisation of Britain as a “Christian country” and the negative consequences for politics and society that this engenders.Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense that we continue to have an established Church, Britain is not a “Christian country”. Repeated surveys, polls and studies show that most of us as individuals are not Christian in our beliefs or our religious identities.
At a social level, Britain has been shaped for the better by many pre-Christian, non-Christian, and post-Christian forces. We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives, and we are a largely non-religious society.
Constantly to claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society. Although it is right to recognise the contribution made by many Christians to social action, it is wrong to try to exceptionalise their contribution when it is equalled by British people of different beliefs. This needlessly fuels enervating sectarian debates that are by and large absent from the lives of most British people, who do not want religions or religious identities to be actively prioritised by their elected government.
Seeing as it doesn't - anywhere - suggesting that it does (and saying they are deluding themselves on that basis) is a total misrepresentation of their views. So the premise of the question is perfectly valid.
The reason you don't want to answer is because you can't.
So despite the fact he is saying some folk are deluding themselves he is not calling anyone deluded
Just to clear up here - there is a difference betwen being deluded and deluding onesself. Deluding onesself is simply a coarse way of saying that someone is wrong on a particular point - it's a figure of speech.
Being deluded is a continued state of ignorance, most likely by an external influence.
According to what laws of language molgrips? Just sounds to me like your opinion - others are available.
If someone on here were to say "people who believe in some sort of supernatural higher power are deluding themselves", would anyone complain?
If someone in a high position of government were to say "people who believe in some sort of supernatural higher power are deluding themselves", would anyone complain?
Oooh yes. A few, I suspect. Haven't seen barnesleymitch around lately although PigFace did tell me my opinions were "vile" the other day...
😀
Wikipedia only I'm afraid - perhaps you have a better source?
I do take back that he is a cabinet minister which is quite incorrect - in fact, he only attends cabinet. The idea that the AG can be advisor to government is an absurdity - government cannot advise itself. Possibly one could say the AG advises cabinet.
In any case - the point is that he is a political figure who is not expected (or desired to be) neutral, his political prejudices are what recommend him for the job, and it's quite open to him to spout off any ill-advised old bollocks he likes. Your mock concern that he is doing so is entirely misplaced.
What "this country" is, may well be based on centuries of broadly Christian thinking and practises, but that doesn't preclude us being a broadly secular and multi denomination country now.
"This country" is also what it is because of years of child labour (industrial revolution), imperial conquests, and slavery, but that doesn't mean that we all support such things now. Absurd examples yes, but they make the point that the path that got us to where we are today, can be separated from what we think and do now and in the future.
kb - that's just about the worst apology for getting pretty much everything wrong (while being incredibly haughty about it) that I've ever seen. 😆
Have you ever thought about becoming an MP?
+1 kelvin