a secular society by 2030

[The Flash]

Theflash, I wouldn't bother mate, having read through the past few pages its clear the guy you quoted is not going to engage in debate. He hasn't addressed any of the points put forward by skyblueflux and is talking gibberish

Truedat.

 

[roaminblue]

Theflash, I wouldn't bother mate, having read through the past few pages its clear the guy you quoted is not going to engage in debate. He hasn't addressed any of the points put forward by skyblueflux and is talking gibberish

Delusion is a strange thing, but I've been called likeable so fuck it, that is delusional

I'm sure your veg likeable, and hat it is us who are delusional ;-)

 

[Blue Tooth]

If you are living only by your so called logic, you are living by the logic society gave you. If you are living by logic you don't need to visualize hell. You're already in it. It's not a way i'd like to live.

I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you. The gaping chasm, representing the complete and utter non existence of anything resembling logic in your posts, suggests you'll be alright.

 

[andyhinch]

Theflash, I wouldn't bother mate, having read through the past few pages its clear the guy you quoted is not going to engage in debate. He hasn't addressed any of the points put forward by skyblueflux and is talking gibberish

Delusion is a strange thing, but I've been called likeable so fuck it, that is delusional

I'm sure your veg likeable, and hat it is us who are delusional ;-)

;)

 

[roaminblue]

Delusion is a strange thing, but I've been called likeable so fuck it, that is delusional

I'm sure your veg likeable, and hat it is us who are delusional ;-)

;)

I can't believe how bad my spelling was in that post. Damned phone.

 

[andyhinch]

I'm sure your veg likeable, and hat it is us who are delusional ;-)

;)

I can't believe how bad my spelling was in that post. Damned phone.

I just assumed you were taking the piss out of mine, I know what it's like

 

[roaminblue]

;)

I can't believe how bad my spelling was in that post. Damned phone.

I just assumed you were taking the piss out of mine, I know what it's like

Yeah I should have gone with that, that's better

 

[andyhinch]

I can't believe how bad my spelling was in that post. Damned phone.

I just assumed you were taking the piss out of mine, I know what it's like

Yeah I should have gone with that, that's better

Delete your post, I'll forget :)

 

[Weloveyoucitywedo]

Your whole precise that logic is somehow a thing you learn from other people, is just wrong. If I were born and left on an island by myself, I would still develop logical skills, if we met aliens from a distant civilisation, they would use logic in much the same way we do. Logic is a product of the universe we live and how beings like ourselves can make sense of it. We're not even the only animals on earth that use logic.

You say that this is because I've been through a Western education system which 'indoctrinated me', which is interesting because I actually was home schooled for much of my childhood because I was very ill. I taught myself by reading widely, anything and everything. You also use the example of 'switching off the logic' and using emotional intelligence to help get over depression. Which is a contradiction in and of itself. By switching off 'what you see to be logical' you are benefiting from it which instantly makes it a 'logical' thing to do. Emotions are complex, but ultimately they have been crafted to benefit humans in wider society and allow them to succeed.

Being a City fan to me was an entirely logical decision, I was taken to watch them by my uncle, my dad and my cousin. Now what is the most socially beneficial thing to do when you're in that situation as an eight-year-old? Support the other team? No, you see, humans are tribal creatures and we like being part of something in a social context, because it is/was beneficial to our evolution. It's certainly not a logical fallacy to support City, and this indicates to me that you have an overly simplified view of what the logic in these systems implies.

You seem to think that our emotional intelligence can't be logical because logic is 'simplistic, cold and mechanical'. If you ask me, you're thinking about it all wrong, the logic which drives our emotions is so complex it is beautiful, and it is something to be marvelled at and not simply written off as being something 'supernatural and unexplainable'. The reason that scientists have become less spiritual over the years is because science itself has transcended into the realm of the fantastical, we don't need gods to be amazed by things any more, we see that the universe itself is an amazing place to be.

When you say 'be open to new ideas', you haven't actually proposed anything new other than 'not everything can be explained by empirical logic'. Well then, if you don't explain things via that then propose something which is better and we will use that. Until then all you've done is derided science without actually proposing anything better.




From Clip: To question, to be logical, to doubt... any fool can do it. To open up, to relax, to live in grace, you need intelligence. If you are living only by your so called logic, you are living by the logic society gave you. If you are living by logic you don't need to visualize hell. You're already in it. It's not a way i'd like to live. I acknowlege it's how modern society works, but to hear people use words such as 'enemy of reason', wasn't that a book? Shows that we are in a pretty sad state and a long way from being enlightened.

As for supporting city being logical, to me there's nothing less logical than being at notts county or gillingham on a tues night when i could have walked to old trafford and watched United against barcelona or juventus, but no i repsected my initial emotion, and remember emotion always arises before logic and i'm glad that I did.

Left alone on that island, logic and reason wouldn't lead you to think that there was a God. God is a concept of humans trying to order other humans in society. On your own, there's no need for a God.

Truly free thought, as you would have on your island of exile, would never lead you to the conclusion that a bearded zombie that who was his own Dad created all you saw around you. Religion is collusion.

Religion is for idiots.

truly free thought and free from the dogma of science and people like dawkins with an agenda of their own, would be unlikely to leave you an atheist. In cultures, where there is no tv, no books, no internet, you'll find there's always some sort of spiritual belief, in places like that people are free to nourish their soul.

 

[andyhinch]

Your whole precise that logic is somehow a thing you learn from other people, is just wrong. If I were born and left on an island by myself, I would still develop logical skills, if we met aliens from a distant civilisation, they would use logic in much the same way we do. Logic is a product of the universe we live and how beings like ourselves can make sense of it. We're not even the only animals on earth that use logic.

You say that this is because I've been through a Western education system which 'indoctrinated me', which is interesting because I actually was home schooled for much of my childhood because I was very ill. I taught myself by reading widely, anything and everything. You also use the example of 'switching off the logic' and using emotional intelligence to help get over depression. Which is a contradiction in and of itself. By switching off 'what you see to be logical' you are benefiting from it which instantly makes it a 'logical' thing to do. Emotions are complex, but ultimately they have been crafted to benefit humans in wider society and allow them to succeed.

Being a City fan to me was an entirely logical decision, I was taken to watch them by my uncle, my dad and my cousin. Now what is the most socially beneficial thing to do when you're in that situation as an eight-year-old? Support the other team? No, you see, humans are tribal creatures and we like being part of something in a social context, because it is/was beneficial to our evolution. It's certainly not a logical fallacy to support City, and this indicates to me that you have an overly simplified view of what the logic in these systems implies.

You seem to think that our emotional intelligence can't be logical because logic is 'simplistic, cold and mechanical'. If you ask me, you're thinking about it all wrong, the logic which drives our emotions is so complex it is beautiful, and it is something to be marvelled at and not simply written off as being something 'supernatural and unexplainable'. The reason that scientists have become less spiritual over the years is because science itself has transcended into the realm of the fantastical, we don't need gods to be amazed by things any more, we see that the universe itself is an amazing place to be.

When you say 'be open to new ideas', you haven't actually proposed anything new other than 'not everything can be explained by empirical logic'. Well then, if you don't explain things via that then propose something which is better and we will use that. Until then all you've done is derided science without actually proposing anything better.




From Clip: To question, to be logical, to doubt... any fool can do it. To open up, to relax, to live in grace, you need intelligence. If you are living only by your so called logic, you are living by the logic society gave you. If you are living by logic you don't need to visualize hell. You're already in it. It's not a way i'd like to live. I acknowlege it's how modern society works, but to hear people use words such as 'enemy of reason', wasn't that a book? Shows that we are in a pretty sad state and a long way from being enlightened.

As for supporting city being logical, to me there's nothing less logical than being at notts county or gillingham on a tues night when i could have walked to old trafford and watched United against barcelona or juventus, but no i repsected my initial emotion, and remember emotion always arises before logic and i'm glad that I did.

Left alone on that island, logic and reason wouldn't lead you to think that there was a God. God is a concept of humans trying to order other humans in society. On your own, there's no need for a God.

Truly free thought, as you would have on your island of exile, would never lead you to the conclusion that a bearded zombie that who was his own Dad created all you saw around you. Religion is collusion.

Religion is for idiots.

truly free thought and free from the dogma of science and people like dawkins with an agenda of their own, would be unlikely to leave you an atheist. In cultures, where there is no tv, no books, no internet, you'll find there's always some sort of spiritual belief, in places like that people are free to nourish their soul.[/quote

I've got tv and my soul is nourished, your point is?

 

[ElanJo]

I'm no Damocles, but I'm bored and this looks fun.

Why am i on a wum?

The guy is a cambridge educated biologist, author of more than 80 scientific papers. His book 'the science delusion' has sold more than 1 million copies worldwide.

These powerful assumptions, have led science down the wrong path according to Rupert. He explains how originally the scientific field held a kind of Cartesian dualistic view of spirit and matter, which eventually was replaced solely by matter.

According to Sheldrake, the ten dogmas of science hold that:

*Everything is mechanical; only mechanistic explanations will do. Dogs for example are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines 'lumbering robots in richard dawkins vivid phrase with brains that are like chemically programmed computers

This is not inherently an assumption of science or scientists, but it is the only way that science can be successful with our current level of knowledge. Science is, by its very definition, empirical and based upon repeatable experimentation. 'Mechanical' in the context used by Sheldrake is completely ambiguous and has no proper definition. If by 'mechanical' he means, 'things are measurable and describable by mathematics'... well yes... but mathematics isn't a human invention, it is integrated into the very fabric of the universe, we are simply witnessing it as best as our minds can comprehend. We can't measure things empirically in any other way (at the moment). Thus with no maths, we can do no science.

*Matter is unconscious / inanimate.

Science (and scientists) again, make(s) no such assumptions. But if you make an assertion that matter has some sentience then it is your burden to prove it. He doesn't do that here, he places a claim of negative proof upon science. It's a bit like me saying "science says there is no such thing as unicorns". Believe it or not, science doesn't ever say there is no such thing as unicorns, it simply says that as there is no proof of unicorns existing and so it is currently not included in the accepted scientific paradigm. If proof is found of unicorns/matter having sentience, then it will be. It's that simple.

*The matter and energy of the universe is constant, and always the same (with the exception of the big bang where it just suddenly appeared)

This point shows a staggering lack of understanding of the big bang for a Cambridge educated scientist. It didn't 'appear', because the big bang was not a causal event, meaning there was no 'before' it in terms of our own laws, because our laws don't apply the same way at the time of the big bang, they break down. For things to 'appear' there has to be a time before where they weren't there, but in the case of the big bang, no such time exists. Time itself didn't exist until the big bang.

*The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning and they will stay the same for ever.

Now he could mean two things here, if he means 'the human interpretation of the laws of nature' then:
This is absolute brain-curdling bollocks, enough to be insulting and goes against everything science is about. Newton's Laws are called Newton's 'Laws' but guess what? They're wrong! Amazing I know. But they have been superseded by more modern theory. There is absolutely nothing in science which is fixed in the furniture, there is just a lot of stuff which is our best answer until somebody comes up with something better.

If he is talking about the law's of nature themselves then:
We know for a fact that the laws of physics have changed because they break down at the big bang, we accept as scientists that our laws are only necessarily true for our locality in space-time (i.e. our visible universe). So his assertion is false.

*Nature is without inherent purpose, and evolution has no goal.

This is again, not an assumption made by science or scientists (certainly not myself). Science has no opinion on the motive of things. It is just a useful tool for measuring where things are now and where they are going.

*Biological inheritance is a purely material process.

An assertion without proof, much like his 'sentience of matter' bit above. Show scientists that biological inheritance is not 'purely material' (whatever that actually means, again it's very poorly defined stuff), and it will happily be included into the paradigm.

*Minds are located within heads, and are nothing but the activities of brains.

Michio Kaku, one of the world's most renowned scientists often talks about the interesting anomaly of teleportation and the preservation of what is thought of as 'the soul'. i.e if you replicated every cell in your body, and built another one of you, would that 'you' share your intrinsic characteristics and personality? This is something which is far from being disregarded by scientists, on the contrary it's become something of an ethical dilemma. If somebody is teleported down a wire and they come out of the other end a murderous psychopath, then we will know there is something more to it and try to figure it out, until then, the above statement is complete conjecture and puts our level of knowledge at a level somewhat greater than that which we currently possess.

*Memories are stored in the brain, and are wiped out at death.

Again, some proof that this isn't the case, would be excellent. This isn't an assumption of science, naturists or scientists, this is simply something which has never been proven.

*Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.

I see now that about six of these 'dogmas' have actually been the same one. It all comes down to the roll of negative proof in science. Science/scientists is/are only interested in what can be shown to be true, it says nothing (and I mean NOTHING) of what CANNOT be true.

*Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

And again, I'm not going to repeat my point.

If religion is to be constantly challeneged, then i feel it's important to do the same with science.

So having read through his 'ten dogmas', (which are actually more like two points or maybe even all the same point repeated ten times) I have deducted his umbridge is with the logic that underpins science and not science itself.

Arguing against logic is asinine. Why would I argue against the only thing that helps me distinguish as a human what happens and what doesn't?

I would advise that, in future, you don't base all your opinions on one really badly written book (I read two chapters and it was full of wonderful praise for scientists which is great, but it actually seems to prove none of his dogmas). The whole thing would not stop somebody being a good scientist, because it is the logic under the science which he doesn't seem to grasp and not the science itself.

I think this guy is a genius actually, he knows as a Cambridge scientist that if he makes a book which goes against the grain he will make tons, and he has, so fair play to him...

Point of reference: I am a mathematical physicist, with all of one scientific paper to my name.

You talk as if logic is the only intelligence, anyone who has ever recovered from depression or anxiety for example knows you have to switch off the logic and use your emotional intelligence to deal with whatever the issue is.

You say arguing against logic is asisnine, that's only because from the age of 4 you've been through a dogmatic western education system that ONLY teaches logic, certainly when you go to university, logic is all that's taught. sadly in my opinion.

As city fans, we don't use logic. If we did we'd all be United fans. Logically there is no reason whatsoever for any of us to support city. When i was growing up United we're the best team in england, arguably the world, whilst we we're in division 3, if i'd used logic i'd go to watch united, but like most people on here I had an emotional attachment to City so that would overide any logical thought and i'm glad it did. Supprting city in itself is a logical fallacy but i'm sure we're all glad that we do.

COuld we prove we have an emotional/spiritual bond with city? No, we couldn't, but we all know it's true.

Only when you pull away from logic can science move forward, I would advise you to be a bit more open to new ideas and not base your opinions on your university indoctornation.

Remember, all logic is, is things that you've learned from other people, nothing more.

I also think dawkins is a genius, by going agaisnt the grain of british society he has made millions.

-- Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:56 am --

I'm not paul ainsworth by the way, what's the story with him?

An emotional attachment or addiction, whether it be with a football club, with a person or set of persons is a reality, it occurs, but it has nothing at all to do with gaining knowledge, which is what the scientific method is all about.

Logic is not "just things that you've learned from other people, nothing more", this is just preposterous. And science can't move forward by "pulling away from logic", nothing can move forward by doing so - your arguments, as poor as they may be, are based on logic! 'A can only do B by giving up C' is an argument based in logic. I'm sorry, but you can't argue against logic by using logic, if you really thought that we should move away from logic you should at least make the argument based in something other than logic ...but even then, you'd still be utilising logic in order to determine that you shouldn't use logic...

Pulling away from reason and logic is to reel in insanity and madness. A truly non-logical being would be a random noise generator in continual spasm.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

An emotional attachment or addiction, whether it be with a football club, with a person or set of persons is a reality, it occurs, but it has nothing at all to do with gaining knowledge, which is what the scientific method is all about.

Logic is not "just things that you've learned from other people, nothing more", this is just preposterous. And science can't move forward by "pulling away from logic", nothing can move forward by doing so - your arguments, as poor as they may be, are based on logic! 'A can only do B by giving up C' is an argument based in logic. I'm sorry, but you can't argue against logic by using logic, if you really thought that we should move away from logic you should at least make the argument based in something other than logic ...but even then, you'd still be utilising logic in order to determine that you shouldn't use logic...

Pulling away from reason and logic is to reel in insanity and madness. A truly non-logical being would be a random noise generator in continual spasm.

This more eloquently sums up why I stated that arguing against logic is asinine.

I have given up trying to debate with this person though, as instead of countering and responding to my points he has just responded with increasingly confusing sound-bite arguments, with the odd sneer at Richard Dawkins thrown in for free (I don't even particularly like Richard Dawkins as a person and haven't mentioned him once in my arguments).

truly free thought and free from the dogma of science and people like dawkins with an agenda of their own, would be unlikely to leave you an atheist. In cultures, where there is no tv, no books, no internet, you'll find there's always some sort of spiritual belief, in places like that people are free to nourish their soul.

This one, for example.

For a start the first line of thought is incoherent. Whether or not you grow to be an atheist or superstitious/religious person when left to your own devices does not attest to the truth of either train of thought. If he looks up the work of B.F. Skinner, he will see that it has been proven that pigeons exhibit superstitious behaviour as a means of getting food. It doesn't mean the superstition is correct, it simply means that this is what we exhibit as it is the way we are biologically inclined to do so. Unless weloveyoucitywedo proposes that pigeons also have this 'emotional/spiritual knowledge', which is detached from logical thought?

As for the second sentence, well... you do realise what you're doing there right? You are creating a causal connection between source and effect. This is kind of awkward... but you are using a scientific assertion to argue against science.

I mean... your assertion is almost certainly wrong because of the number of mitigating third party factors such as... cultural heritage, lack of religious freedom in societies. Not to mention there are many examples where this is not the case (see a lot of isolated Native American tribes who were atheist/pantheist). This doesn't change the fact that you are using logic and science to argue against the truth of logic and science.

Unless you counter this major sticking point in your argument, I probably won't bother replying again, but I thought I'd give you another chance (how very Christian of me).

 

[tonea2003]

An emotional attachment or addiction, whether it be with a football club, with a person or set of persons is a reality, it occurs, but it has nothing at all to do with gaining knowledge, which is what the scientific method is all about.

Logic is not "just things that you've learned from other people, nothing more", this is just preposterous. And science can't move forward by "pulling away from logic", nothing can move forward by doing so - your arguments, as poor as they may be, are based on logic! 'A can only do B by giving up C' is an argument based in logic. I'm sorry, but you can't argue against logic by using logic, if you really thought that we should move away from logic you should at least make the argument based in something other than logic ...but even then, you'd still be utilising logic in order to determine that you shouldn't use logic...

Pulling away from reason and logic is to reel in insanity and madness. A truly non-logical being would be a random noise generator in continual spasm.

This more eloquently sums up why I stated that arguing against logic is asinine.

I have given up trying to debate with this person though, as instead of countering and responding to my points he has just responded with increasingly confusing sound-bite arguments, with the odd sneer at Richard Dawkins thrown in for free (I don't even particularly like Richard Dawkins as a person and haven't mentioned him once in my arguments).

truly free thought and free from the dogma of science and people like dawkins with an agenda of their own, would be unlikely to leave you an atheist. In cultures, where there is no tv, no books, no internet, you'll find there's always some sort of spiritual belief, in places like that people are free to nourish their soul.

This one, for example.

For a start the first line of thought is incoherent. Whether or not you grow to be an atheist or superstitious/religious person when left to your own devices does not attest to the truth of either train of thought. If he looks up the work of B.F. Skinner, he will see that it has been proven that pigeons exhibit superstitious behaviour as a means of getting food. It doesn't mean the superstition is correct, it simply means that this is what we exhibit as it is the way we are biologically inclined to do so. Unless weloveyoucitywedo proposes that pigeons also have this 'emotional/spiritual knowledge', which is detached from logical thought?

As for the second sentence, well... you do realise what you're doing there right? You are creating a causal connection between source and effect. This is kind of awkward... but you are using a scientific assertion to argue against science.

I mean... your assertion is almost certainly wrong because of the number of mitigating third party factors such as... cultural heritage, lack of religious freedom in societies. Not to mention there are many examples where this is not the case (see a lot of isolated Native American tribes who were atheist/pantheist). This doesn't change the fact that you are using logic and science to argue against the truth of logic and science.

Unless you counter this major sticking point in your argument, I probably won't bother replying again, but I thought I'd give you another chance (how very Christian of me).

i'm afraid paul doesn't answer, never has and never will, what you might get
is a few bobs and weaves with a few smoke and mirrors thrown in for good measure

 

[Matty]

Your whole precise that logic is somehow a thing you learn from other people, is just wrong. If I were born and left on an island by myself, I would still develop logical skills, if we met aliens from a distant civilisation, they would use logic in much the same way we do. Logic is a product of the universe we live and how beings like ourselves can make sense of it. We're not even the only animals on earth that use logic.

You say that this is because I've been through a Western education system which 'indoctrinated me', which is interesting because I actually was home schooled for much of my childhood because I was very ill. I taught myself by reading widely, anything and everything. You also use the example of 'switching off the logic' and using emotional intelligence to help get over depression. Which is a contradiction in and of itself. By switching off 'what you see to be logical' you are benefiting from it which instantly makes it a 'logical' thing to do. Emotions are complex, but ultimately they have been crafted to benefit humans in wider society and allow them to succeed.

Being a City fan to me was an entirely logical decision, I was taken to watch them by my uncle, my dad and my cousin. Now what is the most socially beneficial thing to do when you're in that situation as an eight-year-old? Support the other team? No, you see, humans are tribal creatures and we like being part of something in a social context, because it is/was beneficial to our evolution. It's certainly not a logical fallacy to support City, and this indicates to me that you have an overly simplified view of what the logic in these systems implies.

You seem to think that our emotional intelligence can't be logical because logic is 'simplistic, cold and mechanical'. If you ask me, you're thinking about it all wrong, the logic which drives our emotions is so complex it is beautiful, and it is something to be marvelled at and not simply written off as being something 'supernatural and unexplainable'. The reason that scientists have become less spiritual over the years is because science itself has transcended into the realm of the fantastical, we don't need gods to be amazed by things any more, we see that the universe itself is an amazing place to be.

When you say 'be open to new ideas', you haven't actually proposed anything new other than 'not everything can be explained by empirical logic'. Well then, if you don't explain things via that then propose something which is better and we will use that. Until then all you've done is derided science without actually proposing anything better.




From Clip: To question, to be logical, to doubt... any fool can do it. To open up, to relax, to live in grace, you need intelligence. If you are living only by your so called logic, you are living by the logic society gave you. If you are living by logic you don't need to visualize hell. You're already in it. It's not a way i'd like to live. I acknowlege it's how modern society works, but to hear people use words such as 'enemy of reason', wasn't that a book? Shows that we are in a pretty sad state and a long way from being enlightened.

As for supporting city being logical, to me there's nothing less logical than being at notts county or gillingham on a tues night when i could have walked to old trafford and watched United against barcelona or juventus, but no i repsected my initial emotion, and remember emotion always arises before logic and i'm glad that I did.

You are aware that your response has not addressed any of the questions or points raised, right?

If you're going to argue your point at least have the common decency to interact in a legible, intelligent manner when someone else has the common decency to do the same with you. Simply quoting something some else has said and assuming that is a suitable response is lazy and smacks of someone who either is unable to continue the debate, or else is unwilling to do so.

 

[tonea2003]

not for me but interesting all the same

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/375622/The-church-of-the-non-believers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/375 ... -believers</a>

THE CHURCH OF THE NON-BELIEVERS

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby takes office while church numbers in the UK are falling

Tuesday February 5,2013

By Simon Edge


ATHEISTS are filling the pews at their services, while the new Archbishop of Canterbury sees his own congregations continue to dwindle.

It's said the devil has the best tunes but maybe they just mean atheists. The nearly 300 people who gathered at a former church in north London this weekend opened their Sunday Assembly with a full-throated rendition of the Queen karaoke classic Don’t Stop Me Now, with its chorus “Yes I’m having a good time/I don’t wanna stop at all”. Whatever your religious stance you have to admit that sounds more fun than miming I Vow To Thee My Country.

As Justin Welby takes office as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury, the average Sunday attendance in each of the Church of ­England’s 16,000 churches is 58 and falling. But at the former St Paul’s Church in the muesli-eating north London enclave of Stoke Newington the godless congregation that meets on the first Sunday of every month is going from strength to strength.

“This was only our second service,” says Sanderson Jones, the atheist comedian who co-hosts the event. “The first service had about 200 to 250 people. This one had 250 plus 35 who couldn’t fit in so they watched from a pub. Next month we’ll be having a morning and afternoon service. It should let people who have to travel get there easily – as well as the hungover.”


The first service had about 200 to 250 people. This one had 250 plus 35 who couldn’t fit in so they watched from a pub. Next month we’ll be having a morning and afternoon service

Sanderson Jones
There is a long tradition of non-religious people holding gatherings specifically for those with no faith. The British Humanist Association, which evolved from the dissident Ethical Societies of the 19th ­century, has groups up and down the country that organise book clubs and weekly meetings with social meetings afterwards. But it doesn’t call them services.

The Sunday Assembly has no such qualms. The brain child of Jones and agnostic fellow comic Pippa Evans it begins with the group sing-song and includes a reading, a moment of reflective silence and a collection. This week a sermon on the theme of “wonder” was given by a young particle physicist from Cambridge University after which everyone sang a Stevie Wonder song. “At first we thought it was going to be comedy led but we’re discovering that people who turn up don’t necessarily want that,” Jones tells me. “This month I was congratulated that my address was less funny. It’s all right to leaven it with humour and make it fun but people really want to learn and improve themselves.”

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, says his own organisation was much like a church when it was first established and even published a book of secular hymns. Its office is in Conway Hall, a traditional meeting place for freethinkers in Blooms­bury, where the South Place Ethical Society holds Sunday events. But he is dismissive of the north London atheist initiative.

Atheists and those who oppose religion in government gathered for a rally in Washington DC last year

“It’s tragic they’re trying to recreate religion without belief in God,” he says. “It’s an absolute nonsense really that they can’t think outside a religious box. ­

“Anyone who thinks there should be a church without God is barking up the wrong tree. When my mother wants community she goes to the bingo. She doesn’t need the church and I don’t think anybody does really, real or synthetic.”

Pavan Dhaliwal, head of public affairs at the British Humanist Association, is less critical. “Most non-religious people probably won’t find their sense of community in being part of a group defined by their non-religiousness but some will and this is certainly one of the reasons that people join the BHA or local humanist groups.”

She adds: “If people want to get together to listen to an interesting talk and be ­entertained then there are many opportunities for doing so and this looks like a good addition to that selection.”

However she does have reservations about the Sunday Assembly. “The analogy with a church seems a bit flawed. Churches have ­doc­trines and clergy and an ­institutional existence.

“This seems more like a thought-provoking entertainment with the possibility of a social network attached.”

But for Jones it makes sense to talk about not believing in God in the language of religion because that’s how he has always seen it. “For me, not having a God makes things totally wonderful,” he says. “You get given a life and at the end of it nothing bad happens. Viewed through that lens, everything in between can become miraculous, wonderful, awe-inspiring. We’re celebrating the good things about life and trying to find evidence-based tools, tips and techniques to help people improve it. It’s a grand experiment and one that I hope other people will find useful.”

Over at Lambeth Palace, where Archbishop Welby’s challenges will involve dealing with the evangelical hardliners who made the established church a national laughing stock by forcing it to maintain its ban on women bishops, he has to find ways of making his creaking institution look less out of touch.

As he contemplates that task he must be looking with envy at the fun this swelling congregation has.

I'm not religious but I go to Mass

I’ve never been to the Sunday Assembly in north London but having recently become a Mass-going atheist I can see why people might want to.

My atheism isn’t new. I concluded God didn’t exist when I was 16. I’m irritated by religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on my life and I don’t think bishops should have automatic seats in the House of Lords. I’m what Tony Blair might call an aggressive secularist.

But my Italian partner is a devout Roman Catholic and in the past few months we have started going to Mass. It all takes place in Italian, which is good language practice for me, and there’s a beaming priest who cracks jokes, tells us what to have for lunch and wishes us all a happy Sunday.

I don’t believe in any of the religious stuff. But as a piece of calming ritual that draws you into a community and sets you up for the day with a spirit of infectious cheer I can see that it’s got something and I don’t think God should have a monopoly on it.

 

[tonea2003]

more evidence for the reduction of religious belief in britain

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/02/surge-in-atheism-amongst-young-britons-bolsters-case-for-a-secular-uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/ ... secular-uk</a>

<a class="postlink" href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/12/third-british-adults-dont-believe-higher-power/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/12/th ... her-power/</a>

A third of British adults don't believe in a higher power
A third of British adults don't believe in a higher power
Join YouGov to take part in interesting surveys and earn points and rewards!
Privacy Policy + Join
I’m already a member of YouGov, log me in
With British people and spirituality, 'it's complicated' – and many young people are opting out altogther

While religious issues continue to stir controversy in American politics, they haven’t featured at all in the general election campaign in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that this time around two major party leaders – Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband – are openly atheists. Part of the explanation may be cultural – as Tony Blair said in 2013, “One big difference between the U.S. and the U.K. is that it’s okay to talk about faith openly. In the U.K. we’re a little more ... British about that.”

But as a new YouGov survey for the Times shows, the lack of religiosity in British politics also reflects the varied and often non-traditional beliefs of many British voters.

Overall, a third (33%) of British adults do not believe in God or a greater spiritual power of any kind – roughly the same number as believe in “a God” (32%). The rest either believe in a higher power but not a God (20%) or don’t know what they believe (14%). This is a slight shift from 2012, when YouGov found that 37% believed in a God, and 29% did not believe in a God or a higher spiritual power.

Younger Britons tend towards non-belief. Only 25% of 18-24 year olds believe in a God and 46% deny the existence of any greater spiritual power whatsoever. Among over-60s the numbers are flipped: 41% believe in a God and 24% are non-spiritual.


In comparison, Gallup has consistently found more than nine in ten Americans believe in God or a universal spirit of some kind.

RELIGION

The findings also show that 42% of British adults don’t have any religion, while about half (49%) identify as Christian.

Here, too, there are big differences between older and younger generations. 60% of 18-24 year olds and 53% of 25-39 year olds have no religion, compared to 41% of 40-59 year olds and just 26% of over-60s.


The survey also reveals how much British Christian identity does not line up with a conventional belief in God.

Only 55% of self-identified Christians believe in a God while 23% believe in “some sort of greater spiritual power”, but not a God. Nearly one in ten Christians (9%) don’t believe in any higher power, and 12% don’t know what they believe in. At the same time, 22% of non-religious people believe in some kind of higher power.

This may have something to do with having an officially established church. As YouGov's previous research has shown, most people consider Britain to be a "Christian" country, even though most people don't see themselves as religious.

<a class="postlink" href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6v34wr1cpg/TimesResults_150209_atheism_Website.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... ebsite.pdf</a>