Not atheist, not religious: Typical Briton is a 'fuzzy believer'

reply to post by stevcolx


Josephus, Polycarp, Iraneus, Clement, Justin?

Of course, the Jesus we know from history would have been forgotten like all the other prophets, healers, seers, magicians, rebels and do-gooders of that time except that he had one thing going for them that they lacked: Paul.

Paul, no matter what else you may think of him, was a religious genius who took Jesus out of the backwaters of the Empire and universalized him to the Greek and Roman world. Indeed, he turned him into a demigod and savior of humanity in ways that his family and early followers could not comprehend. After all, Paul probably never met Jesus in real life and was not particularly interested in his earthly life anyway, but only his death and supposed rebirth--all of which he saw only in his visions.

No one at the time saw those things, any more than they really thought that Jesus was born of a virgin--all that was added decades later.

Without Paul, Jesus would have been just another one of those Jewish prophets, mystics and messiah types who were always giving the Romans trouble, which is exactly what they thought of him. That's why they had so many of his relatives and early followers put to death, despite Paul's reassurances that the 'real' Christians were not out to overthrow the state, but were only waiting for Jesus to return and take them all away to heaven.

reply to post by Mike_A

Could you start a new thread setting out your argument for there being a god/afterlife? I'd be very interested to read it but I don't think it's fair to derail this thread.

Socratic argumet for/against afterlife/God...
_____________________________________________
In Reply to Djin:

Where exactly do you observe the organization and structure in not believing something my friend ? Even if atheists became organized and structured this would be just a group of people who happen not to believe something, rubbing shoulders in an organized and structured manner for whatever reason with whatever goals.

Is there or is there not organized group meeting for Atheists to attend? Is your train of thought that there is no God, dogma, etc an organized and structured set of thought?

No my friend, I observe there is no evidence of a particular deity and therefore am not persuaded of its' existence without evidence of such, I therefore do not believe it. So, for example there is no evidence that would prove the existence of Thor and if I lived in the land of Thorans I would be labeled an Atheist.

There was no evidence in the 1700's of flying planes, engines, or the Internet or even the possibility of such things to exist. So therefor, had you been around in the 1700's you are saying you wouldn't believe in eve the possibility of these three things because there was no evidence for them?

Yes indeed my friend, my Dad never had patches on his elbows but he knew bollocks when heard it and fortunately a little rubbed off on me.

Do you agree then that bollocks are/is relative and that lets say for example some one who has claimed to experience God can very well say that you being an atheist and your arguments are bollocks?
__________________________________
In Reply to Waynos:

Quite possibly, which just reinforces my view that organised religion is the biggest travesty ever perpetrated on the Human race. ALL of them. If everyone truly believes there is ONE god, what the hell are they all arguing about?

Its the same thing as people arguing which car is the best model and why. No one is doubting the existence of Cars but everyone is arguing over which when is the most dependable, best color, fastest, etc etc. Quite simple actually, and no not all of them are arguing with each other. Many are content to simply rest in the experience of God, or as in the example many simply enjoy driving and have no need to argue over the debates of cars.

Careful with that straw, it may break. What organisation and structure? I believe in right and wrong and good and evil, and living life for the best. not deities and angels. I am fine that people think differently to me and will not be burning anyone at the stake or beheading them at any point in the near future. I don't need someone in a funny costume to rant at me on a weekly basis to keep me in line, thank you.

You just said "I believe in: _____" so you just admitted you have a belief system that includes right, wrong, evil, life for the best etc. So you are admitting you have a thought out organized belief system that you adhere to?

As far as costumes and beheadings, thats neither nor nor there as I also am against that. Although it does beg the question, are you atheist because you have been offended by people who have committed such acts in the name of God? Is that the motivation behind it?
_________________________
In reply to Quasar La Zar

It's hard to believe that you've stumped anyone intellectually in a god vs no god argument. Religion and the concept of an afterlife are unarguably man-made because we are are all simply human and need reassurance that we will one day be with our dead ancestors.

Who I've stumped does not matter neither does whether you believe so or not. Aren't all concepts man made including the argument you just made?

The afterlife cannot be anything like what you are thinking it to be

Isn't everything not like what we think it is. The thing itself is as it is and our thoughts of it, are just thoughts, imagination, a representation of the actual is this not true?

where you have a blasty blast with you and your friends, which is the usual picture most people think of - Heaven(like). However much so I want there to be a place where me and my family that passes away goes to reunite, I know that just like Santa, that place simply cannot exist.

But isn't that what you also are doing? Just like those that project that heaven is such and such, isn't you also saying that it cannot be like that also you projecting what it can or can't be just like what they do?

You don't remember what happened to you BEFORE you were born, but we can guess can't we? Which I think is how religion was founded to begin with. So does this all not paint a gloomy picture?

Well, I for example remember pre-existing, being just bodiless awareness without the instilled faculties that were taken on by culture, peers, country, etc and remember discussing with others being born on this planet. I have found many others to have remembered pre-existing. If this is so, could we not also say that you simply don't remember your own pre-existence?

Religion, sadly for people like yourself, dies off quickly as just another "How-To" book on life/afterlife that one group of people uses to control another group of people, simple as that friend

But isn't it still here? How many thousands of years old is buddhism, Xtianity, and the like? IS it religion that is controlling people or is it people controlling people?

Like a certain movie, If there was no such thing as the ability to tell a person a lie, do you think there would be religion?

If I could not lie, I would still tell you that I know for a fact that I have definitely experienced some sort of reality that can be ascribed to having the characteristics of omnipresence and omniscience and that out of 300 people I know 2 other people who have experienced the same. What you took that to be would be on you.

reply to post by witness63


agree for the most part and nicely put also! definately see that "according to the law-perfect" attitude came to a screaching halt while on the road to continue persecuting the first church of individuals and by direct revelation at that, could you imagine?

reply to post by dominicus

Is there or is there not organized group meeting for Atheists to attend? Is your train of thought that there is no God, dogma, etc an organized and structured set of thought?

I don't know , if there is so what ? there are group meetings for Tupperware and alcoholics if your reasoning is to be followed then any time 2 or more people gather and happen to share an opinion that is a religion.

Is your train of thought that there is no God, dogma, etc an organized and structured set of thought?

No

There was no evidence in the 1700's of flying planes, engines, or the Internet or even the possibility of such things to exist. So therefor, had you been around in the 1700's you are saying you wouldn't believe in eve the possibility of these three things because there was no evidence for them?

I was under the impression we were originally discussing absolutes, now your off on possibilities which is something else. To be very brief I'm happy to go with - There is probably no Apollo, Zeus, Orion, Yahwehe Mithras Jesus eta al.

Do you agree then that bollocks are/is relative and that lets say for example some one who has claimed to experience God can very well say that you being an atheist and your arguments are bollocks?

No definitely not that's bollocks.

Originally posted by Parallex
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know all about LAWFUL REBELLION. (Written here in the language of LEGALESE.)

I do know what I'm talking about.

Everybody's property and land that they own, does not actually belong to them.

Put it this way: if I wanted to grow some ''alternative'' plants in my back garden, that are prohibited to grow by law, then how can my back garden be my property, when I could have action taken against me for growing them ?

The land is clearly the property of the State, because I am subject to their laws on ''my'' land.

Effectively, I'm a tenant that has to obey the rules that the landlord tells me to, otherwise I'll be kicked out !

Originally posted by Parallex
A right granted to us under Magna Charter, that allows any citizen of the UK, that does not wish to submit to sovereign rule - to have life, liberty and hold property rights, without being subject to the crown's laws in LEGALITY (Different to common law). I know of people who have enacted this right. These people, along with myself, can filibuster ANY maritime admiralty law based court on land - it's a joy to watch.

You are talking about becoming a ''freeman'', are you not ?

I do not know of anyone that has enacted this right. It is something I've been looking in to, as I've seen a lot of talk about it, but I have yet to see anyone successfully accomplishing this.

Originally posted by Parallex
You are arguing a technicality here. Technically, old Lizzy is indeed the head of state. But the monarch has not been IN CHARGE for hundreds of years.

It is not a technicality. It is the actuality.

The monarch, by definition, is in charge, because the monarch is Head of State.

You can argue about this until you're blue in the face, but it won't alter the facts of the matter.

To be a secular country, you have to make a clear legal distinction between the State, and any religious body.

This is clearly not the case in Britain, as the Head of State is also the head of the Church of England.

Once more, the two positions are inseperable; ergo, Britain is a Christian country.

Originally posted by spikey
Are you saying that simply because the monarch, our Queen Liz claims to be Christian, that automatically makes all of the population of the UK Christian?

It doesn't matter whether Queen Elizabeth II is a Christian, atheist, Muslim or an adherent of a South Pacific cargo cult.

What matters, is that she is Head of State and head of the Church of England.

The fact that the State and the Anglican Church are one, and the same in Britain, means that Britain is a Christian country.

Nobody is suggesting that that makes the populace Christian, no more than the fact that the USA is a secular state, means that that country's entire populous is non-religious.

Originally posted by spikey
It doesn't work like that mate.

It does work like that.

As previously stated: if the population of the USSR were less than 49.99% communist supporters, does that mean that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country ?

Originally posted by spikey
The Queen is welcome to believe anything she wishes, as are anyone, but if she suddenly started worshiping a banana tree tomorrow, we wouldn't all be banana-ists would we!

The Queen may be the monarch of the UK, but her beliefs are her own, not mine.

Again, her personal beliefs are irrelevant.

It's the position she holds, that is relevant.

Originally posted by infinite
Numerous privacy cases have invoked sections of the Bill of Rights 1689 - A Tory MP was the example I used from 1993. The reason why Damien Green never went to court, over leaking government information, was Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. EU Carbon Tax or any direct European taxes is unconstitutional in the United Kingdom, because under the Bill of Rights, only Parliament has the authority to raise taxation.

Thanks for that information.
Who was the Tory MP in 1993, and what was the case ?

Was the Damian Green court case ( or lack of ) actually ruled one way or another, because of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights ?

Originally posted by infinite
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act, Britain is not a Christianity country because the European Convention of Human Rights (which the Act is based on) prevents any State from being bias towards any religion.

I'm sure that means being biased in law towards any religion.

Otherwise, Britain wouldn't have been able to have been a signatory to the ECHA, if it included the constitutional bias towards religions by some of Europe's countries.

Originally posted by infinite
You, and others, clearly do not understand the uncoded Constitution of the United Kingdom. As
Parallex has stated, Parliament is sovereign under the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Succession - Parliament can refuse to acknowledge an heir and elect someone else i.e see William of Orange. The power does not rest within the Monarch. Parliament is the highest authority of the United Kingdom.

You've still provided no evidence to back this up. It's easy to say these things.

Members of Parliament have to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the monarch to sit, and vote there; so if Parliament is the Highest authority, then people can only attain that position by pledging allegiance to the monarch.

Originally posted by infinite
As for your argument, if Christianity is not mandatory in the United Kingdom, how can we be an official Christian country?

Nobody said that Christianity is mandatory. I don't understand where some of you lot are getting this idea from.

Once again, I'll point out that being a member or supporter of the Communist Party in the USSR was not mandatory. Does that mean that the Soviet Union was not a Communist country ?

reply to post by waynos


Thanks, mate.

this seems to also be the case for most people here in the us, at least for the younger generation.

We Brits like our religion fuzzy and have always been a tad nervous with any kind of zealotry - it just doesn't sit well with our national psyche.
Eddie Izzards Death or Cake routine sums it up nicely

The Bible actually predicted this state of quasi-belief thousands of years ago. It was to occur during the final apostasy and the rise of the antichrist.
2 Timothy 2:3

1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

I think this sums up the current situation quite well.

Australia is pretty much the same as Britain. Most people I know are agnostic and the Catholics that I know either don't practice their faith or they're fair weather Catholics. Our new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard is also an Atheist.. as well as being the first female Prime Minister of Australia. I think a country runs far more smoothly without religion getting in the way of legislation. Those who have faith are free to practice it in their personal life and it should always stay that way, so long as it doesn't infringe on the privacy and rights of other citizens.

iRM 2.0

Religion is as void of genuine spirituality as the moon is of breathable air. Britain's secular stance actually allows free expression of people's genuine compassionate humanity. The secular compassion of the British people is not stifled by the ridiculous creeds and dogmas and rituals of religion, which in themselves are anathema to genuine spirituality. It sees past the religious divisions, the spiritual aparthieds of each religion, and holds out the hand of humanity to all. When religions can do that without strings attached, without proselytizing or evangelising their beliefs or agendas of control, then come and speak to me about the benefits of religion. Until then, there is nothing in religion that interests me in the slightest...it is all pish!

Originally posted by azzllin
even though Satanism is a made up Christian control effort,

That's simply untrue my friend. I've been involved in the deprogramming and exorcism of people involved in satanic cults, and FYI demons are most definitely real.

The trouble with modernity is that people have been let down by religion and are kicking out against it. Understandably. Like when a teenager rebels against its parents.

God doesn't change, merely manifests differing aspects of himself. He is - after all is said and done - the totality.

Britain will see miracles in the streets in the near future. As will every country on Earth. That's when the satanist leaders will stand up and claim it as alien invasion. The ultimate false flag!

Why vilify agnostics and undecided people (= healthy, normal minds) as "fuzzy"? Its actually the firm proponents of one "side" who are the fuzzy-brained.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Mr. Holmes, you speak sense, and you speak it sensibly.

Parallex - what jurisdiction are you in? For some reason it doesn't feel like you are talking about (or are familiar with) the UK legal system.

Originally posted by Parallex
These people, along with myself, can filibuster ANY maritime admiralty law based court on land - it's a joy to watch.

How exactly do you filibuster court proceedings? Do you understand the process of filibustering? Do you understand court proceedings? Do you understand how a judge would react to this? If you have genuinely done this, please post as much information as possible to identify the courts, the cases, when and where they were heard. If you can identify the judges that would also be useful.

Originally posted by Parallex
You are trying to force your opinion, with no evidence or proof. The UK is NOT a Christian country, only a Christian fundie would persist in trying to make this point...

...or someone who has read the Bill of Rights?

Link to Bill of Rights 1689
...it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist...

There are also several issues with understanding how (and why) the legal system operates the way that it does and the relevant contexts within which it was built up, but that would derail the thread and I come here to get away from work, not do more of it

Originally posted by EvillerBob
Mr. Holmes, you speak sense, and you speak it sensibly.

Parallex - what jurisdiction are you in? For some reason it doesn't feel like you are talking about (or are familiar with) the UK legal system.

I am in the UK, and referring to the difference between LEGALITY and COMMON LAW. The former is based in commercial, contractual codices. The latter is based upon 'natural law' as our colonial friends once put it.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
How exactly do you filibuster court proceedings? Do you understand the process of filibustering? Do you understand court proceedings? Do you understand how a judge would react to this? If you have genuinely done this, please post as much information as possible to identify the courts, the cases, when and where they were heard. If you can identify the judges that would also be useful.

At the risk of letting you self-ingratiate using your knowledge of contract law, I do understand what filibustering is, and how it works. Perhaps it was the wrong word for me to use in describing my efforts to torpedo said commercial enterprises known as courts.

I refer you to www.TPUC.org

Originally posted by EvillerBobThere are also several issues with understanding how (and why) the legal system operates the way that it does and the relevant contexts within which it was built up, but that would derail the thread and I come here to get away from work, not do more of it

Indeed, it would derail the thread. However, I am fully conversant with Hobbes, Locke and the many others who brought the current 'proxy' legal system into it's current form. I do have to point out however, that if you are indeed a practitioner of law - you are part of the problem. You are reinforcing the 'cartel' and it's false hold over the people of the UK by conversing in LEGALESE, and garnering jurisdiction to maritime admiralty courts on land that LAWFULLY hold NO jurisdiction on land. You make money from the lies, and indeed reinforce the oppression of unbeknownst-freemen everywhere. I no longer comply with contracts that refer to the legal fiction designated to me unlawfully by the state. I instruct others around me to do the same, and they have saved an awful lot of money and heartache because of this. LEGALITY is FICTION, COMMON LAW is the REAL LAW.

Parallex.

Ah. I take it you're familiar with Mike Burke and his opinions on "constitutional" law? He raised some points that were very worthy of debate. In fact, his comments did trigger a long and very thorough debate, but the outcome was a fairly unanimous decision that they were flawed.

Originally posted by Parallex
LEGALITY is FICTION, COMMON LAW is the REAL LAW.

I agree entirely with that statement, but the context surrounding its accuracy is fairly complicated. My understanding of the statement is probably different to yours.

Edited to add: Oh, and maritime admiralty courts? Could you please explain this point further? I've heard this argued quite a lot, but in reference to a different jurisdiction - which is why I asked if you were in the UK.

Here's another recent discussion about a ''freeman'' from Wales.

The video is quite entertaining, but he still ends up having to pay the fine he was arguing against.

UK- Freeman on the land wins court case.