To accept JC is the son of God and our saviour, requires thought about religion and faith, therefore, making a person Christian when they accept this. I firmly believe, while this is the basic requirement of Christianity, following a lifestyle in line with this is needed to be truely Christian.

I think what makes me feel this is no longer a Christian country is many people do not follow that way of life. Many would not give a great deal of time to thinking about whether Jesus is their saviour, and just get on with day to day life, religion rarely being factored in to it. Yet, when asked what religious group they fall into, unless they say none, many people would be inclined to say Christianity, because perhaps their parents were, or because they celebrate Christmas etc. It is not because they necessarily are Christian or even give it any thought, but it is the closest group they would say they fell into.

 

Not not sure whether we are agreeing or not now?

My feel for this is, if you ask people in this country is JC our saviour they tend to recoil. Ask the same question is parts of the US for example you'd get a very different response, hence their high church attendance

 

What do you mean instead, it's not either or. Agnosticism isn't the middle ground on a linear transition from theism to atheism, it's orthogonal.

Theism is a positive belief, you have to believe in a god or gods. Atheism just requires that you don't believe in a god, no matter what the reason, choice, ignorance, or anything else. There are lots of things I haven't even considered because I don't know anything about them and I don't believe in those either.

 

looks at thread title again. Seems we have gone a touch off piste, oops! Sorry!

FWIW, if you have reasonable grounds to believe that she is genuinely illegal, I'd make a phone call and make my concerns known, being clear you may be wrong. Otherwise, leave it alone.

 

FFS any chance you girls can get back on topic - or maybe start a thread or revieve on of the many, many religious threads already covered.

agree to disagree or something

 

Or just turn to Tom Cruise:

ONLY he can save you......

Well, according to that Scientology video!

 

Basically Atheism is a philisophical view, so we are into a debate as to whether a child is capable of a philisophical view about religion/god/spirituality.

I've attached a definition which hopefully clears things up

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

We seem to have derailed this thread somewhat.

I gave my very basic definition of a Christian, is it everybody's? I doubt it. What I'm getting at is that the best person to determin a person beliefs / faith is that person and they may have a different definition to me. As is my way, my definition is rather abrupt and yes you may get a shocked response if you asked that question directly, but if you asked:

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian
Do you believe God sent his only son JC to earth for the salvation of man kind
Do you believe in JC
Do you believe you will go to heaven through your belief in JC

I suspect you'd get Yes or sort of to most of those question when asking one of our self defined 70%. It boils down to much the same definition, just delivered in a more fluffy way.

 

From your link
So that would cover most young children that have not been introduced to the concept of a god then?

 

You're right, easily done though!

Back on topic..... why did I get infracted on this thread?

 

Well I posted the whole lot up so as not to be selective, the primary definition is a 'philosophical view'. Implied aetheism is a new one on me I'm afraid.

 

LEAVE IT!

you got infracted, must have bin an aethiest or an agnostic, or a muslim, or a jew or bhuddist or a.......

I blame religion or a lack of it in some cases

 

Well maybe you should read the article you refer to, you may find it interesting reading, in particular this section where the very point we are discussing is covered.

 

Well that very section you have highlight is all contention and doesn't set out to be definitive or fact, and is a sub section of the article as whole which is headed by the definition 'Aetheism is a philisophical view'.

I think you need to be less selective.

But I take the point there are some that hold that view, which I didn't know before we had this discussion.

 

Philosophy isn't a mathematical science, what are you expecting? They've observed, hypothesised and developed a theory, a falsifiable one at that. All you need to do to show he is wrong is find a child who knows about god(s) before they have been told about them by somebody else.

The whole article is Titled "Atheism". The implicit atheism is sub-heading of "Definitions and distinctions " The bit you are referring to is the first definition of Atheism, not the title. And it's "Atheism , as a philisophical view," Note the AS not IS and the comma.

That first definition, to me, just reads "Atheism, from a dispassionate perspective,..." which is what considering something philosophically means.

It doesn't say "Atheism is a philosophy" which seems to be what you're reading it as. I do agree that Atheism is something that is discussed at length by Philosophers, but that in itself doesn't make it a belief system or a philosophy.

The irony!

Well that's progress!

 

I think you are right I was reading the article a bit too literally, and I guess I've always felt that non-believing was a choice, not an absense of knowledge (which I still do). I guess it proves we're not the only folks to have had this discussion. But this has been a very interesting discussion and I think I'm a bit more in the middle of the road on the whole aetheist versus agnostic bit now, so cheers.

Until next time

 

That's very big of you!

It's certainly a choice once you know there are choices to make.

Indeed, it's dicussed in some form or another quite freqently on the JREF forums.

Welcome, I look forward to it.

 

Of course, December the 25th wasn't "his" birthday and "Christmas" celebration on thsi day has origins in paganism. January the 7th is "his" birthday.

Easter is the celebration of the goddes of spring, Eostre, again a Pagan festival hijacked by Christianity.

 

Actually, no it's not. It is however the responsibility of the immigration department to assess poeple who enter the country on grounds of need and merrit. Some entrants seek assylum and the UK is duty bound (By UN mandate) to review each case, as is almost all other countries in the EU, Australia and New Zealand etc.

 

Religion is the tool used to persuade the masses that in support of war. War is the tool used to aquire resources.

Islam, is taught from a very early age. Young muslims have to read the Qua'ran from an early age, and understand it's content and use it as a guide to how to live. This is not a requirement in Christianity.

 

I've never read the Qua'ran (what IS the correct spelling of that? Does anyone know?) but what I DO know is that if you tried to use the Bible as a guide to how to live, you'd pretty soon have a myriad of screwed-up, confused, militaristic, mysogynistic, expansionist, homophobic homicidal maniacs on the streets.

 

We already have had and do now. Recall your history lessons about the Crusades? And "God" is always on the right side of any conflict.

Many cultural skills, language, technology etc were brought to Europe by muslims at a time when Londoners were living in huts. They were stopped in Spain by Christians.

 

from the original post ::::

personally i would torture the funker then report them to the authorities theres far far far too many of these "illegals" in our country

 

No not just treated. They way i see it if they have/do pay tax they get to use the services provided if they dont/havent then they should have to take out insurance Just like everyone else does if they go to a diffrent country. This is the only way things like the nhs can carry on. We are not the worlds health service and can not afford to be, just like we are not the world police like this goverment seem's to think we are. If however someone is ill and can't get the treatment they need as they live in a 3rd world country then if we can CURE them without pushing back someone who has payed in to the service then we should help out just like every other civilized country should. But if they can work they should to help pay for it even by helping out by cleaning the hospital along side the other staff as i know our hosptal find it hard to get and keep staff so they have to hire cleaning firms which costs more which means less money goes where its needed.

But would i report someone who may or may not be an illegal immigrant yes.

 

**** England here we come!

 

But would i report someone who may or may not be an illegal immigrant yes.

Yes by definition that means he has to report EVERYONE!

 

Innocents "convicted" by "gestapo"? You jest?

 

Yes, sir.

Quran or Qua'ran are scholastic versions of Koran. To my knowledge, the word itself is spoken as Kuraan by the Middle Eastern and Eastern Islamic population. Eastern words are usually spellified in favour/convenience of tongue-twisting Euro lingos.

Online Etymology Dictionary says:

Quran-

1876, variant spelling (preferred by scholars) of Koran (q.v.), from Arabic qur'an, lit. "book, reading, recitation," from qara'a "to read."[/quote]