[quote=“5432golf” post=1148]I think they should also ditch any use of the Lords prayer with an ACO specific one.
Our Bader,
Who failed on Monday,
Exams be thy bain…[/quote]
:lol:
Definately. Let’s do this now.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=1151]It thinks it does. But it doesn’t really. All it does is take one system of belief and replace it with another. [/quote]Sorry, but you are wrong. Atheism cannot be said to be a system of belief: It is not a system of anything. It is a personal stance (though admittedly a belief) which rejects the concept of god. It isn’t associated with particular places or practices.
Within the “Atheism” cloud you will have those who take an absolute belief in the non-existence of gods (you could call them antitheists) but there are others who simply do not factor the concept of gods into anything they think or do and go about quite happily without the “religion” app installed.
The reason we are seeing an upsurge in outspoken atheism is because it is necessary for us to protect our interests from the interests of the church which are very often at odds with ours. The best way to do this is as organised groups of like-minded individuals rather than as tiny voices lost in the bluster of the clergy.
I take a secular view in this argument because it represents the best way of protecting the rights of every individual not to have their personal beliefs ignored or abused by an established church. Were I to follow my heart I would have religion stricken from the lands, the churches burned, the clergy and their minions re-educated and those who harm others in the name of a religion severely punished; however, that is not what is best for everybody.
[quote=“incubus” post=1159][quote=“tango_lima” post=1151]It thinks it does. But it doesn’t really. All it does is take one system of belief and replace it with another. [/quote]Sorry, but you are wrong. Atheism cannot be said to be a system of belief: It is not a system of anything. It is a personal stance (though admittedly a belief) which rejects the concept of god. It isn’t associated with particular places or practices.
Within the “Atheism” cloud you will have those who take an absolute belief in the non-existence of gods (you could call them antitheists) but there are others who simply do not factor the concept of gods into anything they think or do and go about quite happily without the “religion” app installed.
The reason we are seeing an upsurge in outspoken atheism is because it is necessary for us to protect our interests from the interests of the church which are very often at odds with ours. The best way to do this is as organised groups of like-minded individuals rather than as tiny voices lost in the bluster of the clergy.
I take a secular view in this argument because it represents the best way of protecting the rights of every individual not to have their personal beliefs ignored or abused by an established church. Were I to follow my heart I would have religion stricken from the lands, the churches burned, the clergy and their minions re-educated and those who harm others in the name of a religion severely punished; however, that is not what is best for everybody.[/quote]
Thank you for illustrating my point. Your belief in no-God is exactly the same as someone elses belief in God.
I don’t understand why you can’t read what you’ve written to yourself and understand that it perfectly describes what I’m talking about.
I’m not on either side, but I am opposed to people who can’t be bothered to think.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=1161]Thank you for illustrating my point. Your belief in no-God is exactly the same as someone elses belief in God.[/quote]Yes, exactly. So why is it less valid in your view?
I’m strongly against religion. I would love to see a world without all the inequalities religion brings, but I’m also a realist and so I would personally support a secular stance.
(Note, secularism and atheism are not the same). By removing the issue of “God” we make it acceptable to all. I’m all for people having their own, private, moments of reflection, prayer or whatever, but IMO this should not be an entrenched part of any modern organisation.
It isn’t fair on those who believe in other religions or no religions at all to have a reference to the Christian God (and it is a reference to the Christian God, no matter what you say) included in a ceremony for an organisation that is supposed to be inclusive.
IMO we should be apolitical and areligious, in order to a) attract the most people possible to the organisation and b) to ensure we’re equal to everyone.
It’s not. I’m just saying that ‘God’ (as pointed out to me by the Squadron chaplain when I made the promise at 13) can be a lot of different things to different people. More accurately, ‘doing your duty to God’ could be lots of different things to different people. Including refusing to believe in Him.
That’s utterly absurd!
Nice attitude! I make a valid and provable point - that not everyone accepts the term “god” as an acceptable decription of their belief - you disagree with that point, so clearly the problem must be that I am wrong… :huh:
Really!? I know pleanty! I’m one of them!
[quote=“tango_lima” post=1174]More accurately, ‘doing your duty to God’ could be lots of different things to different people. Including refusing to believe in Him.[/quote]I would personally and strenuously refute that. I find the concept of religion so distasteful that I would be deeply offended if I were expected to imply an acceptance of any “god” and would not consider any such promise on my part to be binding. Similarly, I find the idea of smoking (and smokers) so distasteful that I refuse to handle cigarettes as morally I cannot bring myself to be a part of someone else’s insanity.
I have always held these views and I certainly held them at 13 when, had I joined the ATC, I would have been expected to make a false promise and most likely to listen to some religious drivel at the same time.
[quote=“incubus” post=1181][quote=“tango_lima” post=1174]More accurately, ‘doing your duty to God’ could be lots of different things to different people. Including refusing to believe in Him.[/quote]I would personally and strenuously refute that. I find the concept of religion so distasteful that I would be deeply offended if I were expected to imply an acceptance of any “god” and would not consider any such promise on my part to be binding. Similarly, I find the idea of smoking (and smokers) so distasteful that I refuse to handle cigarettes as morally I cannot bring myself to be a part of someone else’s insanity.
I have always held these views and I certainly held them at 13 when, had I joined the ATC, I would have been expected to make a false promise and most likely to listen to some religious drivel at the same time.[/quote]
I don’t think what you personally find ‘distasteful’ should have anything to do with it. I find short sleeved shirts ‘distasteful’ and an insult to tailoring, but I haven’t demanded that the RAF stop issuing them.
Isn’t ‘promot(ing) and encourag(ing) among young men and women a practical interest in . . . the Royal Air Force’ more likely to put them in harms way or lead them into personal danger than having them use the word ‘God’?
So everyone’s belief is equally valid, except for the belief that there is no god - which is unimportant and worthless?
Nobody is forcing you to wear a short-sleeved shirt or to join the military, just as nobody should force a cadet (or any person) to make a promise to god they may not accept.
This is an easy fix and shouldn’t inconvenience anybody. Removing the churches (or banning the wearing of short-sleeved shirts, you madman) is something altogether different
I don’t think that. Do you?
No, but it is how your view is coming across.
OK, lets look at it this way- plenty of cogent arguments have been made as to why any reference to religion/god should be removed from the promise, the question I have for those that think it should remain, is why? What argument - that takes into account and doesnt disadvantage/offend ANY group, believer or not - can you advance to support it remaining as is?
If it was stated god in place of God that would make it all encompassing. I do though think there is no reason for it being changed but an adjustment is needed in the understanding of its purpose.
We had a discussion about this before commissioning with the Bish’s over the Forces oath. It is done in a Church and with reference to God. It was explained the reasoning behind it being in the oath.
It is not that you are showing loyalty to God but that you will behave in accordance to religious teaching. Although you may find that uncomfortable if you look at it the core principles are simply those expected in daily society and becoming of someone in the uniformed service. Its not that you are saying you are religious but basically saying you will behave and conduct yourself in a proper manner.
[quote=“flago” post=1222]If it was stated god in place of God that would make it all encompassing.[/quote]I’m not sure how many times we need to repeat ourselves on this! No it wouldn’t be all encompassing. It would simply encompass everyone who believes in a god.
[quote=“flago” post=1222]We had a discussion about this before commissioning with the Bish’s over the Forces oath. It is done in a Church and with reference to God. It was explained the reasoning behind it being in the oath.
It is not that you are showing loyalty to God but that you will behave in accordance to religious teaching. Although you may find that uncomfortable if you look at it the core principles are simply those expected in daily society and becoming of someone in the uniformed service. Its not that you are saying you are religious but basically saying you will behave and conduct yourself in a proper manner.[/quote]Religions don’t have a monopoly on good behaviour. If adherence to a particular set of values is what’s required then those values should be stated - if they happen to be the same as those in the bible then fine.
So we should have a list or principles mid oath? Its for practicality that I would say no need to change it.
As for all encompassing its semantics, in a sense. In this context it represents a set of beliefs not a signing up to a religion. If you say that you have no belief we can have a fun discussion on that one as well. You could replace god with invisible pink unicorn or china tea pot if you wanted to as it represents the principles. Its symbolic not oppressive, exclusionary or abhorrent.
It’s assuming and arrogant is what it is.
[quote=“flago” post=1222]It is not that you are showing loyalty to God[/quote]…riiiiight, but we have to say “God”…but it’s not actually about god?
[quote=“flago” post=1222]but that you will behave in accordance to religious teaching.[/quote]That’s even worse!
I couldn’t give a toss whether the core principals might be the same, I don’t need to promise to any idea of ‘god’ or ‘religious teachings’ just to be a good person.
As far as the cadet promise goes, that base is already covered “…I further promise to be a good citizen…”
i suggest you book an interview with CAC and explain it to her.
Timothy 2.
" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
it will be an entertaining experience, but i think you ought to take your own coffee and biscuits, as i doubt she’ll be supplying any…
[quote=“redowling” post=1152][quote=“5432golf” post=1148]I think they should also ditch any use of the Lords prayer with an ACO specific one.
Our Bader,
Who failed on Monday,
Exams be thy bain…[/quote]
:lol:
Definately. Let’s do this now.[/quote]
New thread anyone? 