Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Cyclone 10]

8 hours ago, Mr Fisk said:

And? 

It's a site with a view of someone.

 

No study or anything- just an opinion.

 

It doesn't take away the fact that religious beliefs are on the rise.

 

China by 2030 is projected to be more Christian than the US. This is an atheist state..

 

Leaving aside numbers etc the very fact people question existence and have a wanting to ' know' is in my view, evidence that we are pre wired to search God or look into the spiritual side.

 

Atheism and by extension Naturalism offers no answer to why we have this wanting and need from an evolutionary perspective.

I think Snailyboy might be making the point that this doesn't alter his statement "indoctrination in action".

 

Isn't it true that religion is on the decline in more developed countries though.  Basically the increase/decrease of religious beliefs seems to be directly linked to the level of education of the population.

[Halibut 12]

11 hours ago, danot said:

  Are you even aware of what 'restrive measures' are and how and why they are applied?

You've comprehensively failed to demonstrate that there are any. 

[Halibut 12]

11 hours ago, danot said:

Then perhaps you can demonstrate why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day warrants being stopped by the police in spite of there having been no public order offences committed? 

If this is your sole example of so called 'restrictive measures' it's utterly worthless.

Restrictive - 'imposing restrictions on someones's activities or freedom'

The person who chooses to wear a balaclava on a warm day is completely free to do so - there are no restrictions on that person.

The fact that a police officer might be curious enough to ask about it is neither here nor there.

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

I think Snailyboy might be making the point that this doesn't alter his statement "indoctrination in action".

 

Isn't it true that religion is on the decline in more developed countries though.  Basically the increase/decrease of religious beliefs seems to be directly linked to the level of education of the population.

Indeed, amended my post.

[altus 534]

11 hours ago, Hots on said:

Percentage wise more teachers are paedophiles than Catholic priests, but attacking Catholicism  seems to be an acceptable form of religous hatred .

There isn't a world wide organisation of all teachers that instructed them to cover up paedophilia in their ranks and enabled paedophiles to continue abusing by moving them to areas where their behaviour wasn't known.

[woodview 10]

11 hours ago, danot said:

People are people, religion doesn't better anyone. If anything, religious people are proving to be just as troublesome what with fundamentalists, sexist's, homophobes and paedophiles.

 

 

Lumping 'religious people' together like that, is no different to lumping black or asian people together.

I've got friends who are religious, and they are good people, and they do lots of good as part of their religious group.

 

 

Moved from other thread.

17 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

I absolutely feel entitled to talk about religion on a discussion forum in a thread talking about religion.  If you don't want to talk about it, or feel that it should be immune from criticism then that's fine, but I disagree.

Religion and the people following that religion are instrincically linked, obviously . Religion is a concept, on it's own it can do nothing. Only people following the religion can do the things you are talking about. So making wild claims about a religion is by default talking about followers of that religion.

Your intolerance to the religion is therefore also an intolerance of people who practice the religion 

Edited March 22, 2019 by woodview

[danot 10]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

"

Let's have a recap. 

 

We agree there's no law against covering our faces when out in public. 

 

We agree there's no law against wearing a balaclava when out in public.

 

We agree there's no law against keeping our head warm on a nice day when out it public."

 

That's correct. Yet, doing so becomes a matter of interest to the police. Why is that?

[RootsBooster 24]

41 minutes ago, danot said:

That's correct. Yet, doing so becomes a matter of interest to the police. Why is that?

You mean it may become a matter of interest to the police.

Why? Because police take note of unusual occurrences, things out of the ordinary.

It's not unusual to see people covering their face with a burqa or niqab

It's not unusual to see people covering their face with sunglasses, a beard and moustache

It's not unusual to see someone covering their face with a motorcycle helmet 

It is somewhat unusual (but not illegal) to see someone covering their face with a balaclava on a hot day.  I would fully expect someone doing so to attract the attention of any passing bobbies, who may ask them about it. This does not mean they are being restricted.

 

If you ever find yourself wearing a balaclava on a hot day and the police ask you about it, you would only have to inform them that you are simply exercising your right to do so and enjoying your freedom perfectly within the limits of the law, then you should be able to continue on your sweaty way unrestricted.

[danot 10]

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

You've comprehensively failed to demonstrate that there are any. 

You've yet to explain why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day should be of interest to the police.

[danot 10]

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

If this is your sole example of so called 'restrictive measures' it's utterly worthless.

Restrictive - 'imposing restrictions on someones's activities or freedom'

The person who chooses to wear a balaclava on a warm day is completely free to do so - there are no restrictions on that person.

The fact that a police officer might be curious enough to ask about it is neither here nor there.

Wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day isn't a criminal act though, so why the police would  ask the wearer why they choose to do so when they have no authority to make him remove it is senseless. Wearing a balaclava in public, irrespective of weather conditions isn't a conditional freedom, it's an unrestricted  freedom, just like wearing a niqab is an unrestricted freedom, and as such, there is no reason what so ever for the police treating it any differently to wearing a niqab, but as we know, they do treat it differently, despite it being an unrestricted freedom- why? Because of the restrictive measures that permit it.

Edited March 22, 2019 by danot

[RootsBooster 24]

25 minutes ago, danot said:

You've yet to explain why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day should be of interest to the police.

See my post above

[Halibut 12]

37 minutes ago, danot said:

Wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day isn't a criminal act though, so why the police would  ask the wearer why they choose to do so when they have no authority to make him remove it is senseless. Wearing a balaclava in public, irrespective of weather conditions isn't a conditional freedom, it's an unrestricted  freedom, just like wearing a niqab is an unrestricted freedom, and as such, there is no reason what so ever for the police treating it any differently to wearing a niqab, but as we know, they do treat it differently, despite it being an unrestricted freedom- why? Because of the restrictive measures that permit it.

You're not even making any sense now. Restrictive measures, by definition, don't permit things.

 

Can we explore this bizarre bee in your bonnet a while?

 

You are making a great issue of the idea that the police might (and I use might as it's a rather unlikely scenario) make enquiries of our chap in a balaclava on a warm day and probably wouldn't make similar enquiries of a woman wearing niqab.

 

Why? Why does it bother you?

 

Is it that you feel it's unfair? If so, who is it unfair to?

 

Do you think balaclavas should be banned? Niqabs?