That religious freedoms play a part in the legal process and sometimes the decisions are misguided or one sided, yes I believe that. That this is only ever pertinent in occurring with religion, I'm not so convinced.

You realise of course that living in a secular democracy, we are going to have some imbalances at times, there's going to be give and take and such. I find it tends to be the best model though.

What are you talking about. So I didn't read those links, possibly because it's mainly what I know of it already. Do I have to reference only links you provide.

And to be honest with you the link I did provide, I didn't agree with the verdict.

And I was listening to a Graham Hancock Lecture about this yesterday.

What you actually said was;

People should be made to denounce any and all religions before taking public office or any position of influence. This may sound harsh but far too many believers put religion above all else, which us insane.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=104

Which reads very differently. I am glad to see your actual opinion is more moderate than that appeared to be.

Of course you can provide whatever you like, but I don't know how much you know, or what you think about it - so understand my surprise when you asked if I was referring to an article about pure methamphetamine seizure and the god of drug traffickers.


Sounds interesting.

I provided it because I thought it was broadly what you were speaking of. Forgive my mistake.

Yes it was very interesting.

In fact what with that and the virtual reality doc I watched has basically made me give up on hoping for some clear coherent model of reality that's applicable across the spectrum.

Poorly written so I can understand why you assumed that.

It reads as if they should queue up waiting to go into a room, place their hand on an encyclopedia and denounce their religion.

Thank you for that.

Sorry to go back to a debate that was happening earlier in this thread (just seen it) about whether or not ticking a religious affiliation box on entry to prison means the person is really a follower of that religion.

I would hazard a guess that those saying it is often an indication of the culture the person was raised in, a default answer, rather than an indication of if or how the person themselves actually follows the ticked faith are correct. However, when it is suggested that census results showing that the majority of the UK population are religious are bogus for the same reasons the response is often the opposite - "how dare you suggest this, we're a Christian country blah blah".

It seems to me ticking a box to say you're religious is acceptable evidence if it means more funding is directed towards religious privilege but not if it is used to state the majority of prisoners are religious.

Indeed. Funny how actual credible research into the beliefs and attitudes of census box-tickers is met with derision. Yet the 'evidence' that prisoners are just box-tickers appears to consist of a vague notion that baddies can't be proper Christians.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1629624

I think most of us here recognise that religion in the UK is in decline. I think the only disagreement is that people assume nones means atheist, rather than non religious.

Possibly but surveys should really distinguish between those who believe in God and those who practice, as I see it.

It's one thing to 'believe in God' and another to engage in practices that can help change the brain and mitigate against bad behavior.

It doesn't help much to know if prisoners just have an abstract belief. Or those outside prison.

Certainly. My fault as well for biting on it.


It's good that we have common interests around those areas. Worrying that I find myself arguing for religious privilege and would consider joining one which got the 'incense' right.

Did the Graham Hancock Lecture have a particular theme I could search for? I see some of his talks have been written up.

No worries


I'll have to go take another look, but be warned it does touch on spiritual themes and the religious freedom to ingest entheogens for ritual purposes. GH has a liberal approach to drug taking anyway.

here tis I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21zidDPO_XM

The problem with your first sentence is what does 'practice' actually mean? If this information is to be used (for example) to base policy on, grant funding or determine whether or not someone gets out of their cell more often than someone else how do you decide if they're practising or not? And should that make a difference to any of the above anyway? If so, why?

Then you vastly overrate the capacity of self reporting 'surveys'. At best you will get stats on those who say they do this or that or whatever.

**puts on best Geordie accent**

'Paaage six. The housemates carry on arguing while starry_rune giggles in the corner, planning a coffee cocktail.'

Thanks. I prefer things I can read and found an article about a Ted talk which shows me roughly where he's at. Interesting, but sad, that some of his work has been subsequently rejected by some, on the grounds it was written under the influence of an illegal drug.

His arguments against material science are said to be "strong". I'm not convinced so far.

It's worth listening to a lecture. he's a great speaker no matter which bath house you worship at.

...

added: Just found it on Vimeo (I think). That's me sorted for an hour or two. I may have seen his ayahuasca one... Thanks again.

https://vimeo.com/142370421

I wasn't thinking of it to be used to control anyone.

Just as how the question is used in surveys, because having an intellectual belief that there is a God or higher power, and actively practicing are two different things, if you are trying to find out how religion affects behavior.

For example belief alone may not lead to much. J.D. Vance who wrote Hillbilly Elegy, great book, makes this point about the people of his upbringing. The ones who just believe and don't go to church, don't have the same outcome.

It's a survey not a random controlled study. If you want one of those you can have one.

Just shows me how these stats can be used different ways, even by my side.

Sorry I don't follow. I have not asked for anything, you have.

What I'm saying is that's what you get when you do a survey.

What people report.

The same as people entering prison who list a religion. Maybe they were last connected to that religion at age 8.

Why I say stats can be used by either side.

You have to examine what they mean. What they are actually measuring.

The post of mine you replied to was about using this information to make decisions (about policy, funding, prisoner rights etc) but fair enough.



I haven't read that book but, if true, then it sounds like it could be the community aspect rather than the god aspect that makes the difference. Does being an active member of, say, the WI or the Round Table encourage a similar outcome?