prayer ban 2
Church of England

Cinema Lord's Prayer 'ban' was a retroactive policy to chuck the Church of England

 

Today the General Synod debates the public perceptions of Jesus (GS Misc 1126):

What do people in this nation know and believe about Jesus? What do they really think of us, his followers? Do those outside our churches know a practising Christian? Have they ever had a conversation about Jesus? If they have how did that conversation impact them? How do people come to faith in Jesus and begin to follow him for themselves? Answers to these questions will shape our evangelism strategy and help us understand those outside our churches better..

Because:

43% of the population believe Jesus rose from the dead
40% of the population don’t know Jesus was a real historical figure
67% of the population know a practising Christian
66% of practising Christians have talked about Jesus to a non-Christian in the past month.

The contentious matter of the Lord’s Prayer advert and the Church of England’s new website JustPray.uk are mission cogs in an evangelistic strategy designed to introduce people to Jesus or nudge a few perceptions: if 40% of the population don’t know that he was a real historical figure, it makes cultural sense to begin that introduction with exposure to some of his ethical teachings, and to use Christmas – the traditional festival celebrating his birth – as the social-missional context. It is one thing to challenge erroneous public perceptions of Jesus: Christians tend to be quite good at correcting and rebuking, with love and without it. But it is quite another to inaugurate a public perception of divinity by which the whole plan of salvation may be understood. This was and is the Church of England’s challenge: mobile Nativity scenes no longer quite cut it. You may pour scorn upon the initiative, but when did you last bring someone to the Lord?

The argument about whether or not the Odeon, Cineworld and Vue cinemas ‘banned’ the Lord’s Prayer advertisement is a political deflection, if not a historical distortion. People point to the cinemas’ ‘blanket’ policy of not accepting any advertising which is either political or religious for fear of causing offence to their patrons, and that, they aver, is an equitable, free and fair approach. These are, after all, private companies, and their contractual arrangements for doing business are a matter for them.

Except that when the Church of England entered into negotiations, the advertising executives welcomed them with open arms. Advertising with a ‘Star Wars’ epic was always going to be expensive, and the church was unable to afford the the first four weeks so were negotiating for a reduced price for a shorter run, even before the film was out of the edit suite. The advertising company DCM (Digital Cinema Media) responded:

From: David Woolford [dcm.co.uk ]
Sent: 03 July 2015 16:10
To: Arun Arora <churchofengland.org>
Subject: RE: Star Wars advertising

Afternoon mate,

I hope you’re well? Great catching up with you earlier.

Please could you fill out the attached form so I can get you on our system in order to draw up some paperwork?

Right, I’ve spoken to my boss and after a lot of toing and froing I’ve managed to get you a better offer. We’re offering 55% off if you were to sign this campaign off in the next 2 weeks. Obviously we need to move quickly to get the sign off anyway (the reel is 60% full for Star Wars already) but we’re extending this offer as a one off to incentivise an initial spend. This is the absolute limit of what we’re able to offer (I’m very surprised I’ve managed to get you this!) so let me know if you’re happy to go ahead, and I’ll put the paperwork together.

Cheers,
David

David Woolford
Agency Assistant

Mr Woolford was not engaging with the Church of England’s Communications Director, the Rev’d Arun Arora, unprofessionally (apart, perhaps, from “Afternoon mate”, but we’ll let that go): there was clearly an emerging contractual understanding which had to be signed off by a more senior figure within the company. Surely, if there had been a ‘no religion’ advertising policy, the ‘boss’ at DCM might have known about it, and ‘@churchofengland.org’ might have rung a few bells. The deal was struck:

From: Arun Arora
Sent: 27 July 2015 19:34
To: David Woolford
Subject: RE: Star Wars advertising

David
It’s a yes from here
Can you call me tomorrow and talk me through what we need to do in terms of next steps ?
Speak soon
Arun

Rev. Arun Arora
Director of Communications

But a week later:

From: David Woolford
Sent: 03 August 2015 10:08
To: Arun Arora
Subject: RE: Star Wars advertising

Hey Arun,

Hope you’re well and had a good weekend?

Massive apologies for the delay in getting back to you, it’s been crazy here over the last few days! Just tried to give you a call but couldn’t get through but will try again in an hour or so.

Mate, I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news, it looks like we’re going to be unable to carry your ad in our cinemas. Really sorry about this, as I know a lot of work has been put into the planning of this from both ends and it’s a really disappointing outcome for both of us. We initially thought it would be fine as long as the BBFC and CAA approved the copy (which would be more than likely). However, after our exhibition team spoke to our exhibitors themselves, Vue, Odeon and Cineworld have told us that they can’t carry any ads of a religious nature. It’s similar to the rules about political advertising- basically the exhibitors can’t be seen to have any manifesto or motive of their own, be it political or religious. Our hands are tied by these guys so it’s a massive shame and I’m pretty gutted about it, apologies again for any inconvenience this has caused.

Please give me a call if you have any questions about this or would like any more information.

Cheers,
David

David Woolford
Agency Assistant

Here follows the correspondence which then ensued:

On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:06, Andy Edge <odeonuk.com> wrote:

Dear Arun,

I was sent an email by my Head of Brand Marketing, Delia Atkinson, this morning that you had sent to her a few weeks ago but seems to have been held in our email filter.

I’d be more than happy to discuss the DCM position on this as a Board Member of DCM but also as a member of the ODEON (UK & Ireland) management team. My contact details are below. I am travelling up to Manchester at the moment but could make a call later if you are free at all ?

Regards,

Andy Edge | Commercial Director (UK & Ireland) ODEON Cinemas

_____________

From: Arun Arora
Sent: 26 August 2015 11:08
To: Andy Edge
Subject: Re: Your Email.

Andy
Many thanks indeed for this email.
Would you be free anytime between 2-3pm today to talk ?
With many thanks
Arun

Sent from my iPhone

_____________

From: Arun Arora
Sent: 26 August 2015 18:19
Subject: Go Pray Update

I have just got off the telephone with Andy Edge Commercial Director for Odeon (who jointly own DCM with Cineworld) and a Board Member of DCM.
I go into some detail below as this note serves as an aide memoir of the conversation.
He began by saying that this was a straight decision on the basis that DCM had a policy which is that they don’t carry religious or political advertising.
I pushed a little on whether it was a “policy” given that this policy seemed to be unknown to their account executives.
I explained that at the outset of our negotiations with DCM we had clarified that as long as it had approval form the Cinema Advertising Authority there was no issue with DCM carrying the ad.
Andy suggested that the matter had been discussed by the Board of DCM at their q1 2015 meeting ahead of the General Election and they had decided that carrying political or religious adverts might offend people and they didn’t want to do that.
I (gently) raised the issue as to whether he can considered that the “policy” might not be legal given that it might be arguably discriminatory and used the B&B owners case as an example where businesses need to offer their services to all without discrimination.
He recognised the issue immediately, conceded that there had been no legal consideration of the policy, that it might not be so much a policy as a “steer” and that he could understand entirely where we were coming from.
He thought it was an interesting issue and volunteered that the cinemas might be offending people who had lost loved ones in road traffic accidents by carrying car ads and hence was alive to the “philosophical” nature of the decision and where lines had to be drawn. I suggested that this might be in a different category that “philosophical” given the legal requirements on businesses to offer services to all those covered by equality legislation on an equal basis.
He took the point and wants to works with us to resolve the issue.
He asked to see the ad letter we sent to the CAA which he will take to his managing director and discuss with her tomorrow.
He is keen for a resolution next week and we have booked a conference call to follow this up on 8.30 Wednesday morning next week.
We may yet be in the Star Wars ad reel.

After a fortnight’s silence:

On 8 September 2015 at 21:33, Arun Arora wrote:

Evening Andy
Wondering whether there had been any progress as yet ?
Would be very grateful for a response.
Many thanks
Arun.

Sent from my iPhone

________________

From: Andy Edge
Sent: 09 September 2015 09:37
To: Arun Arora
Subject: Re: Progress ?

Arun,

One of the DCM Directors, Paul Maloney, has been looking into this and he told me yesterday that according to the ASA, as a media owner it is at the discretion of DCM as adverts that it decides to carry or not carry. I am also speaking to our legal council today just to check that it’s her interpretation too.

I have also spoken to Paul and said that I would like to discuss as an agenda item at our board meeting on Friday.

Regards,

Andy Edge | Commercial Director (UK & Ireland) ODEON Cinemas

______________

On 14 September 2015 at 14:13, Arun Arora wrote:

Dear Andy
I hope this email finds you well.
I have a meeting this Thursday where I need to make some final decisions about the ad in terms of funding and would therefore very much welcome an update from the board meeting on Friday and update from your legal counsel.
Consequently I would be very grateful indeed if you might be able to update me on your decision whether to carry this advert or not.
With many thanks
Arun

Rev. Arun Arora
Director of Communications

___________________

From: Andy Edge
Sent: 14 September 2015 17:32
To: Arun Arora; Paul Maloney <dcm.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Progress ?

Arun,

We did indeed discuss this at the board meeting as promised. I have copied Paul on this note so that he can give you the DCM policy situation so that you have clarity ahead of your meeting on Thursday.

I hope that all is well with you,

Regards,

Andy Edge | Commercial Director (UK & Ireland) ODEON Cinemas

__________________

On 15 Sep 2015, at 07:51, Arun Arora wrote:

Dear Andy
Many thanks for your email. It sounds like we are nearing some form of resolution.
Paul I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Many thanks
Arun

_____________________

From: Paul Maloney
Sent: 16 September 2015 13:30
To: Arun Arora
Cc: Andy Edge
Subject: Re: Progress ?

Dear Arun,
I write further to your contact with one of our Members Andy Edge.
Having now fully looked into the matter, I am afraid that we will be unable to take forward the proposed Church of England advertising campaign.
As I think you are aware, DCM has a policy not to run advertising connected to personal beliefs, specifically those related to politics or religion. Our Members have found that showing such advertisements carries the risk of upsetting, or offending, audiences. We at DCM had first-hand experience of this risk recently when we and our members received considerable negative feedback from audiences following our decision to allow both Yes and No campaigners to run adverts in the lead up to the last year’s Scottish independence referendum.
Having learned from this episode, as well as paying close regard to our obligations under the CAP Code and equality legislation, the Board of DCM took the decision not to run any advertising promoting any religion or political views in the future.
For this reason, we are unable to take your request forward. I know that this will come as a disappointment; however, I hope you can understand and accept the rationale for our decision.
Kind regards
Paul

Paul Maloney

Finance and Operations Director DCM

___________________________

From: Arun Arora
Sent: 17 September 2015 10:21
To: Paul Maloney Cc: Andy Edge
Subject: Re: Progress ?

Dear Paul
Many thanks for your email.
You are right, of course, when you say this news comes as a disappointment.
You refer to “a policy not to run advertising connected to personal beliefs, specifically those related to politics or religion”.
Reflecting the spirit of openness and amicable (dis)agreement in which Andy and I have approached this matter I would be very grateful if you might send me a copy of the policy so that I can further understand the reasons for the decision. Whilst understanding your actions in relations to political campaigns following the comments you received after the Scottish referendum I am unclear where the link to religion comes in and am hopeful the policy will make that a little clearer to me.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Arun

___________________________

 

From: Paul Maloney
Sent: 17 September 2015 18:23
To: Arun Arora
Cc: Andy Edge
Subject: Re: Progress ?

Dear Arun

Many thanks for your email. There is no formal policy document that I can share with you, but the policy is as set out in my earlier email, in which I also explained why it was adopted.
I am sorry not to be able to help further.

Kind regards

Paul

Paul Maloney Finance and Operations Director

A ‘policy’ which is not written in a policy document is not a policy. A ‘policy’ which was not previously disclosed to the client and only subsequently set out in an expedient email is not a policy. A ‘policy’ of which the cinemas’ own media agency – “the market leader in UK cinema advertising” – is not aware, but then conveniently posts to its website when the Church of England goes public (and Stephen Fry gets involved), is not a policy.

Stephen Fry Just Pray tweet 2Digital Cinema Media have every right to decline an advertisement which fails to comply with their company policies, but it is not unreasonable to assume: i) that conditions would be pre-disclosed; and ii) that DCM employees would be familiar with those conditions and make them clear to their prospective clients.

And reading DCM’s Advertising Policy further, one wonders whether, having decided that the Lord’s Prayer ad doesn’t meet ‘Required Standards’ 2.1.3 and 2.2, the DCM Team bothered to pursue the ‘Invitation to Amend’ process outlined in 3.2ff. Or is it that any advertisement proposed by the Church of England would constitute ‘political or religious advertising’? If so, why did DCM engage in “a lot of toing and froing” to negotiate a deal? How come “a lot of work (was) put into the planning of this from both ends”, if one end was unable to see the project through to its end?

 

  • Malcolm Smith

    If 43% of the population think that Jesus rose from the dead, why aren’t they in the pews on Sunday singing His praises? Or do they think rising from the dead is a run-of-the-mill event these days?

    • Biblical Scholar

      It’s one thing for Jesus to rise from the dead. It’s quite another for the ‘believer’ to rise from his bed 🙂

      • IrishNeanderthal

        HO-HO-HO!

        (if it’s not a month early for that, but I do tend to be a bit Santa-monious.)

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Only a month? In our local Tesco it’s been “Christmas” since September

          • IrishNeanderthal

            “Nowadays we worship at Saint Tesco”

            — Pam Ayres

          • Anton

            Great! That’s most likely the time of year He was born (ie, Tabernacles).

    • Jon Sorensen

      Maybe because they think Jesus is irrelevant or they have started to think for themself?

      • Albert

        I think Malcolm’s point is that their position is self-contradictory in practise, which would be a sign that they aren’t thinking.

        • Jon Sorensen

          I agree with Malcolm. See my response to him. Religion is hindering their thinking and critical thinking development

          • Albert

            My response was to your response to Malcolm. The position he describes boarders on unintelligible: it is what happens when people stop thinking.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I agree it boarders on unintelligible. Religions stops people from thinking…

          • Albert

            Except that, of course, it is as they are becoming less religious that their position is becoming more thoughtless.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Well, you need to think yourself out of religion…

          • Albert

            Why? I think it is the other way around: you need to think yourself out of atheism.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Out of atheism to where? by picking up one of the most popular ancient holy books…. that is not thinking…

          • Albert

            You could accept theism or deism without accepting any particular holy book. But if you think that religious people just pick up a holy book and follow it with nothing more being said, you have’n’t begun to think about these issues, and your atheism is even less rational.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You could accept theism or deism without accepting any particular holy book”
            But practically this never happens. Religions have saturated that info space already.

            Of course you can “accept” anything, I don’t see how your thinking can lead to that considering there is no evidence. You need to make baseless assumptions.

          • Albert

            Your assumption that religious people always believe without evidence, is a belief without evidence and is contrary to evidence.

          • Jon Sorensen

            These is no evidence or supernatural. It comes to the definition of evidence; is a broken window an evidence that someone has broken into the house…

          • Albert

            I find this post unintelligible. You say that “there is no evidence” and then say “it comes down to the definition of evidence.” How can these two statements be coherently held?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sorry about my typos, my bad.
            I meant the there is not evidence of supernatural world/events. People just claim that it exists, and claim that they have evidence.
            my question was about evidence;
            is a broken window an evidence that someone has broken into the house…

          • Albert

            There is plenty of evidence that the physical universe (or multiverse) is not capable of existing without a metaphysical cause.

            A broken window is evidence that someone has broken into a house.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “There is plenty of evidence that the physical universe (or multiverse) is not capable of existing without a metaphysical cause”
            Like what?
            “A broken window is evidence that someone has broken into a house.”
            How do you know it was a bird that broke that?

          • Albert

            I would defend the following arguments as providing evidence for the impossibility of the physical universe existing by itself:

            Kalam Argument

            Aquinas Way 1-3 and 5.

            The Fine-tuning argument.

            In contrast, what evidence can you show that the physical universe (or multiverse) is capable of existing by itself?

            How do you know it was a bird that broke that?

            You are confusing evidence and proof and that is currently a fundamental flaw of your line or arguing.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Kalam Argument, Aquinas Way 1-3 and 5, The Fine-tuning argument”
            You are offering argument not evidence; standard apologist bait-and-switch. If you had evidence you would not need arguments.

            “what evidence can you show that the physical universe (or multiverse) is capable of existing by itself?”
            I don’t need any. Let’s just say that we don’t know. This does not provide any evidence for supernatural.

            “You are confusing evidence and proof and that is currently a fundamental flaw of your line or arguing.”
            Another classic apologist bait-and-switch. They can provide evidence of “that someone has broken into a house” when nobody ever broke in. Just like they can provide evidence of non-existent God.

          • Albert

            You are offering argument not evidence; standard apologist bait-and-switch. If you had evidence you would not need arguments.

            Hilarious! Evidence has to be interpreted. Let me show you what I mean. Evidence for God may be found in motion, becoming, contingency, beginning, regularity, and fine-tuning. By itself, none of those thing is evidence for anything except themselves. Thus, anyone wanting to draw a conclusion about things has to insert evidence into a wider framework to work out the significance of the evidence.

            I don’t need any. Let’s just say that we don’t know. This does not provide any evidence for supernatural.

            I never said that it did. I’m simply pointing that, even in the absence of evidence for the supernatural, it still wouldn’t be possible to be an atheist – at least not if one wishes one’s atheism to evidential.

            Another classic apologist bait-and-switch.

            Is English your second language? Evidence does not have to be compelling for a conclusion for it to be evidence. If it did, then when the judge called for “evidence for the prosecution” he would be begging the question of the guilty of the accused. It’s your word. What do you mean by evidence?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Evidence for God may be found in motion, becoming, contingency, beginning, regularity, and fine-tuning.”
            Evidence for Unicorns may also be found in motion, becoming, contingency, beginning, regularity, and fine-tuning

            “anyone wanting to draw a conclusion about things has to insert evidence into a wider framework”
            yep.. the apologist hidden premise… “framework”

            “I’m simply pointing that, even in the absence of evidence for the supernatural, it still wouldn’t be possible to be an atheist”
            LOL… So even in the absence of evidence for the garden gnomes we should make our mind about it. Again apologist nonsense.

            “Is English your second language?”
            No, forth.

          • Albert

            Evidence for Unicorns may also be found in motion, becoming, contingency, beginning, regularity, and fine-tuning

            As my original point made clear, I was talking about the physical universe or multiverse as whole. Necessarily, if unicorns existed they would be physical and therefore part of the physical universe or multiverse, and therefore can be logically excluded or you would have to believe they cause themselves.

            Do I need to explain why that is impossible?

            Beyond that, your point is the one I’m making. You need an argument to interpret the evidence in order to find what the cause of a event is. The evidence is evidence of something, not of nothing.

            yep.. the apologist hidden premise…

            It’s not a hidden premise. It’s obvious! Every interpretation of evidence requires a framework. You’re using one now! Much of the discussion of evidence is around what is the appropriate framework.

            LOL… So even in the absence of evidence for the garden gnomes we should make our mind about it. Again apologist nonsense.

            That’s just embarrassing. See my point above about unicorns.

            No, forth.

            Well then, your confusing of the concepts of evidence and proof is all the more surprising. Google the question and see.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You are trying to debunk the Unicorn I don’t believe in. The Unicorn does not live in physical universe or multiverse, just her manifestation is in our universe. Unicorn did not cause themselves as she has always existed.

            “Do I need to explain why that is impossible?”
            Do explain why that is impossible please

            “Every interpretation of evidence requires a framework”
            But the frameworks are not all equal. Material world framework can be demonstrated, supernatural cannot be just like fairy tale framework cannot be demonstrated to be real. That is what you try to hide.

            “[the absence of evidence for the garden gnomes argument is] just embarrassing”
            True. It is embarrassing that same evidential argument that dismisses the garden gnomes also dismisses God.

          • Albert

            I don’t think you’ve understood a word I’ve said. You, like most atheists, think that God is just one possible explanation in a whole basket of explanations and you wonder why we pick that one rather than unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. The reason you end up with God rather than those things, is that they are part of the thing to be explained and therefore cannot be the explanation.

            Do explain why that is impossible please

            I’m staggered. What you are asking for is that something cause itself. For something to cause itself it would need to exist before it existed. But that’s absurd. Thus, all explanations of that type fail.

            Material world framework can be demonstrated, supernatural cannot be just like fairy tale framework cannot be demonstrated to be real.

            That’s just begging the question. If an explanation of the material universe (or multiverse) is needed, it cannot be something material that explains it.

            It is embarrassing that same evidential argument that dismisses the garden gnomes also dismisses God.

            Except that I’ve just explained the difference. I’m surprised I had to. You really haven’t given any of this any thought, have you?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The reason you end up with God rather than those things, is that they are part of the thing to be explained and therefore cannot be the explanation.”
            Because you don’t understand Unicorns. They are the explanation that does not need explanation like God who they created.

            Albert: “Do I need to explain why that is impossible?”
            Jon: “Do explain why that is impossible please”
            Albert: “all explanations of that type fail.”
            Jon: “LOL”

            So what causes radioactive decay? Or is it selfcaused? What about the multiverse; could it be self caused?

            “That’s just begging the question. If an explanation of the material universe (or multiverse) is needed, it cannot be something material that explains it.”
            The issues was not about explanation. It was about framework. Please try again.

            “Except that I’ve just explained the difference.”
            Maybe you didn’t get it. There is no difference.

          • Albert

            Because you don’t understand Unicorns. They are the explanation that does not need explanation like God who they created.

            You don’t understand what the word “God” names – despite the fact that I have talked about the relevant elements here. So you keep making the same fallacious points. What are the similarities between God and unicorns that make unicorns just as much a suitable explanation of the universe?

            So what causes radioactive decay? Or is it selfcaused? What about the multiverse; could it be self caused?

            No.

            The issues was not about explanation. It was about framework. Please try again.

            Well, this is what you said:

            Material world framework can be demonstrated, supernatural cannot be just like fairy tale framework cannot be demonstrated to be real.

            What do you mean by “framework” and “demonstrated”?

            There is no difference.

            So what do garden gnomes, unicorns and God have in common that makes them equally good or bad explanations of the physical universe (or multiverse). I’ve given a reductio ad absurdum on this. You’ve given some assertions.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “What are the similarities between God and unicorns that make unicorns just as much a suitable explanation of the universe?”
            Unicorns are better (or more likely) explanation that God. Other than that they are similar.

            “No”
            Assertions without evidence are the best kind for belly laugh. DO you want to expand?

            Material world can be “demonstrated”, supernatural, hypernatural or seminatural not. That’s why material framework is justifiable.

          • Albert

            First you say:

            Unicorns are better (or more likely) explanation that God. Other than that they are similar.

            Then you say:

            Assertions without evidence are the best kind for belly laugh. DO you want to expand?

            Can you not see the problem here?

            It’s particularly ironic, because, I answered No to the question of whether something is self-caused. I was within my rights to do that, because I had already given logical proof of the matter. So I didn’t just give an assertion. But in this post you have made an assertion without evidence or reasoning:

            Unicorns are better (or more likely) explanation that God. Other than that they are similar.

            You go on:

            Material world can be “demonstrated”, supernatural, hypernatural or seminatural not. That’s why material framework is justifiable.

            Whether the material world can be demonstrated is a disputed question. What’s your answer to Berkeley? But setting that aside, it does not follow that that because the material world can be demonstrated that therefore materialism is true. So your position at the moment is actually a non-sequitur. But that’s the same thing as the conclusion being asserted without evidence. But now you’ve said:

            Assertions without evidence are the best kind for belly laugh.

            Quite – and the laugh is all the harder when I am not guilty of that, and you have done it tiwce in the very same post! I wonder why you’re an atheist.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I answered No to the question of whether something is self-caused”
            So what causes atomic decay? Or virtual particles to appear and sometimes to become real ones?

            “Whether the material world can be demonstrated is a disputed question.”
            You don’t actually believe that…

            “What’s your answer to Berkeley?”
            I don’t get this.

            “Can you not see the problem here?”
            I do. Can you see it?

            I forgot to ask… is a broken window evidence of God?

          • Albert

            So what causes atomic decay? Or virtual particles to appear and sometimes to become real ones?

            I don’t know. But that wasn’t your question. Your question was are these thing self-caused. I know they are not. Therefore, my answer was correct and nothing more was needed and your comment about assertion merely showed up what you had done, not me.

            I don’t get this.

            I thought you wouldn’t. Berkeley is the most famous philosopher to argue that the physical world does not exist but is simply something of the mind. He has a string of surprisingly impressive reasons for thinking this. I have no answer to him.

            I do. Can you see it?

            Good, so we both see that in your post you complained about me making an undefended assertion (which I had not done) while you did make two undefended assertions.

            I forgot to ask… is a broken window evidence of God?

            That rather depends on whether you allow events without causes or an infinite regress.

            Now to the outstanding issues from your assertions. I asked:

            What are the similarities between God and unicorns that make unicorns just as much a suitable explanation of the universe?

            And you replied:

            Unicorns are better (or more likely) explanation that God. Other than that they are similar.

            Even a child will notice you have not answered the question. Why are unicorns better or more like explanations than God? In what ways are unicorns and God similar other than that? Finally, how do you answer my argument that unicorns can be excluded as explanations for the universe.

            Secondly, given that you obviously cannot move from “the material world is real” to “therefore materialism is true”. What is your evidence for materialism?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Your question was are these thing self-caused. I know they are not.”
            LOL. talking about ignoring the reality…

            “Berkeley is the most famous philosopher to argue that the physical world does not exist but is simply something of the mind.”
            So? Some solipsists do that too and we don’t have answers to hard solipsism. So what? Can you answer my question?

            “Even a child will notice you have not answered the question.”
            You just don’t like the answer.

            “Finally, how do you answer my argument that unicorns can be excluded as explanations for the universe.”
            They can’t as they are the answer. My inner witness of unicorns proves and my faith is the evidence.

            “What is your evidence for materialism?”
            No evidence for supernatural so materialism is the good starting point. (note: I’m not really a materialist)

          • Albert

            LOL. talking about ignoring the reality…

            You’re not understanding the issue. Things can no more themselves than hyperfertile women can give birth to themselves. Now amount of science can change that, as it entails a logical absurdity.

            So? Some solipsists do that too and we don’t have answers to hard solipsism. So what? Can you answer my question?

            Solipsists do that on the basis of extreme scepticism. That’s not Berkeley’s way. He has arguments against. How do you answer him?

            Your question (if you can call it a question) was this:

            Me: “Whether the material world can be demonstrated is a disputed question.”

            You: You don’t actually believe that…

            Of course I believe it is a disputed question in philosophy. It is.

            You just don’t like the answer.

            You didn’t give an answer to the question. This is how it went:

            Me: What are the similarities between God and unicorns that make unicorns just as much a suitable explanation of the universe?

            And you replied: Unicorns are better (or more likely) explanation that God. Other than that they are similar.

            In other words, the question from me was “What makes unicorns as an explanation at least as good as God?”, and you replied “Unicorns are a better explanation.” You haven’t addressed the question. I asked “In what way are they similar?” and you did not answer. As I say, even a child can see how poor your position is.

            They can’t as they are the answer. My inner witness of unicorns proves and my faith is the evidence.

            You honestly think that that’s how we think about God being a better explanation? What is it about atheists that they are so ignorant of things they hold such strong opinions about? Your position at moment is charged with literal absurdity and evidential falsehood. As such, your atheism is irrational.

            No evidence for supernatural so materialism is the good starting point. (note: I’m not really a materialist)

            That you haven’t looked at the evidence for the supernatural is evident from the poverty of your argument here. You don’t know how the arguments work, and you don’t even seem to be able to see basic contradictions in your own position.

            There is little point in arguing with someone for whom basic logic means nothing. You think things can cause themselves to exist. But to do that, they must exist before they exist. That’s a contradiction. Contradictions convey no information whatsoever (except perhaps about the people that use them). You’re not capable of basic reasoning. Now argument will convince you of anything if you just violate basic logical truths.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Things can no more cause themselves than hyperfertile women can give birth to themselves.”
            LOL. Reality disagrees with you and you just ignore my rebuttal.

            “How do you answer [Berkeley]?”
            I would go for a walk with and let him cross a busy street to see if he actually believes that material world does not exist. People like him don’t live according to their claims

            “you replied “Unicorns are a better explanation.” You haven’t addressed the question. I asked “In what way are they similar?” and you did not answer. As I say, even a child can see how poor your position is.”
            A Child does not understand the personal revelation from unicorn. The spirit of unicorn will live within us if you accept an unicorn to your heart.

            “What is it about atheists that they are so ignorant of things they hold such strong opinions about?”
            Why do you dismiss my testimony and evidence of truth?

            “Your position at moment is charged with literal absurdity and evidential falsehood. As such, your atheism is irrational.”
            I know it might sound irrational, but once you accept Unicorn as you personal saviour you will understand the truth. But first you must accept the Unicorn way.

            “That you haven’t looked at the evidence for the supernatural is evident from the poverty of your argument here.”
            I have. You said the a broken window might be and evidence. I’m not convinced.

            “You think things can cause themselves to exist. But to do that, they must exist before they exist. That’s a contradiction.”
            You forgot that unicorns have existed forever. They are also omnipotent and can cause themselves to exist if they want, but outside of time.

          • Albert

            LOL. Reality disagrees with you and you just ignore my rebuttal.

            No it doesn’t. You just heard of thing called “radioactive decay”. You’ve heard that it’s spontaneous, and you’ve invalidly inferred from that, that therefore it is self-caused. All that shows is that you haven’t understood it at all. But we can also see that from the fact that your position is contradictory. Now no scientist can hold a contradictory position.

            would go for a walk with and let him cross a busy street to see if he actually believes that material world does not exist. People like him don’t live according to their claims

            That doesn’t answer him at all. You clearly know nothing more about Berkeley than you do about radioactive decay. But you’re still going hold firm views on the subject. That’s just irrational.

            A Child does not understand the personal revelation from unicorn. The spirit of unicorn will live within us if you accept an unicorn to your heart.

            A question which asks “Why is X a good explanation?” is not answered by claiming “X is a better explanation”. Obviously.

            Why do you dismiss my testimony and evidence of truth?

            Because you are mis-describing the things you are defending and attacking.

            I know it might sound irrational, but once you accept Unicorn as you personal saviour you will understand the truth. But first you must accept the Unicorn way.

            I was thinking of your self-contradictory believe that something can exist before it exists.

            You forgot that unicorns have existed forever. They are also omnipotent and can cause themselves to exist if they want, but outside of time.

            That doesn’t make any difference. A unicorn, being a physical being is necessarily part of the physical universe (or multiverse), and therefore, even if it has existed for ever, cannot be the cause of the physical universe (or multiverse).

          • Jon Sorensen

            “All that shows is that you haven’t understood it at all.”
            LOL. radioactive decay had stumped you…

            I only know Berkeley based on what you said. I don’t have any firm view on his views, so you are just setting a strawman you killed…

            “”Why is X a good explanation?” is not answered by claiming “X is a better explanation”. Obviously.”
            Because you are not in the know. If you would accept unicorn to your life you would understand.

            “A unicorn, being a physical being is necessarily part of the physical universe (or multiverse), and therefore…”
            Like I said before only his physical manifestations is here. He is an eternal being outside the time and space.

          • Albert

            LOL. radioactive decay had stumped you…

            My claim is that something cannot cause itself, for to do so it must exist before it exists, which is absurd. Please explain your understanding of radioactive decay in such a way as to show that my position is false.

            I only know Berkeley based on what you said. I don’t have any firm view on his views, so you are just setting a strawman you killed…

            Well then it’s rather difficult to see why you poured scorn on him (or tried to).

            Because you are not in the know. If you would accept unicorn to your life you would understand.

            If you want to defend some kind of pseudo-unicornian fideism that’s fine. But I’ve asked for the analogy to God, and that’s a philosophical question. You haven’t answered it.

            Like I said before only his physical manifestations is here. He is an eternal being outside the time and space.

            Okay, is the unicorn itself physical?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “My claim is that something cannot cause itself”
            I know. And I told you that radioactive decay is self caused.

            “Well then it’s rather difficult to see why you poured scorn on him”
            Based on your comment. I responded to your comment about him and now you see this on some kind of attack on Berkely. LOL.

            “But I’ve asked for the analogy to God, and that’s a philosophical question.”
            I answer that, but you don’t seem to like it. Unicorn it is.

            “Okay, is the unicorn itself physical”
            His manifestation in physical world is physical. But unicorns can also appear and disappear, and go through walls.

          • Albert

            This is what I asked:

            My claim is that something cannot cause itself, for to do so it must exist before it exists, which is absurd. Please explain your understanding of radioactive decay in such a way as to show that my position is false.

            And you replied:

            I told you that radioactive decay is self caused.

            How precisely is that an answer to the question? If you don’t want to answer yourself, I’d settle for a webpage, if you can find one.

            Based on your comment. I responded to your comment about him and now you see this on some kind of attack on Berkely. LOL.

            You directed your comments at what you thought was Berkeley. But I find it odd that you hold such strong views on things you don’t know anything about. How is that rational?

            I answer that, but you don’t seem to like it. Unicorn it is.

            No you haven’t.

            His manifestation in physical world is physical. But unicorns can also appear and disappear, and go through walls.

            Either a unicorn is physical or it isn’t. Which is it?

            Not only do you not understand the various philosophical and scientific elements about which you hold such strong opinions, but you’re not even very good at sending it all up.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “My claim is that something cannot cause itself, for to do so it must exist before it exists, which is absurd.”
            Maybe energy/material has existed forever. We don’ seem to be able to get rid of it… And decay is uncaused. You just don’t want to explain that…

            “But I find it odd that you hold such strong views on things you don’t know anything about. How is that rational?”
            Good strawman…

            “Either a unicorn is physical or it isn’t. Which is it?”
            Why would a God head need to be either/or. It can be non-physical outside physical world and physical in material world or outside material world at the same time. Is’t you God supposed to a bit like that too..

            “Not only do you not understand the various philosophical and scientific elements about which you hold such strong opinions, but you’re not even very good at sending it all up.”
            LOL. This comes from a strawman king….

          • Albert

            I’ve asking this twice now:

            Please explain your understanding of radioactive decay in such a way as to show that my position is false.

            What I get is this:

            Maybe energy/material has existed forever. We don’ seem to be able to get rid of it…

            Which is irrelevant and then this:

            And decay is uncaused. You just don’t want to explain that…

            But that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that it is “self-caused”, and it was that that I was objecting to. Now what’s happened here? A few possibilities spring to mind: (i) you’ve done some reading and had to correct your view to make it accord with science. (ii) You can’t tell the difference between “self-caused” and “uncaused”. The trouble now is that you needed it to be “self-caused” for your defence of another position. You’ve dropped that now, and with it, your position fails.

            Why would a God head need to be either/or. It can be non-physical outside physical world and physical in material world or outside material world at the same time. Is’t you God supposed to a bit like that too..

            If you’re trying to draw a comparison with the incarnation then again you need to do some research. For the point about the incarnation is that God as creator is not part of the universe, for if he were, he would cause himself – the very point you seem to be making. So if there is any analogy here at all you would have to say that the unicorn, as creator is non-physical. Is that the parody you’re trying to make?

            LOL. This comes from a strawman king….

            Well, I accused you of self-contradiction and messing up the science. You’ve now corrected both. So, unless you are completely failing to follow the argument here, even you know I’ve not set up a strawman.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You still avoid to say your view about radioactive decay. And you think this is bizarre… There is no outside cause for radioactive decay so it is uncaused. The product of it; radiation with random phase is self-caused.

            “If you’re trying to draw a comparison with the incarnation then again you need to do some research.”
            LOL. As if you could study “the incarnation”. You should have said the view of incarnation.

            “So if there is any analogy here at all you would have to say that the unicorn, as creator is non-physical.”
            Unicorns are hyperphysical. Unicorns are not limited by your terms and definitions.

            “your fallacies… Is this really where atheism is at the moment?”
            Just because you claim that there are fallacies it does not make so. You should show what the fallacies are not just claim those? Try “non sequitur” for example. If one would mess up the science and do fallacies it is a fallacy of non sequitur to link it to where atheism is at the moment.

          • Albert

            You still avoid to say your view about radioactive decay. And you think this is bizarre… There is no outside cause for radioactive decay so it is uncaused. The product of it; radiation with random phase is self-caused.

            No I’m not. I know full well about radioactive decay. You’ve never asked for my view, but have spent post after post avoiding answering the point. You’ve switched back to saying it is self-caused, which it isn’t. I’ve asked you for evidence of this, and you haven’t provided it. The truth is that, as far as we can see, radioactive decay is unpredictable in principle. In other words, although we know statistically how much decay there will be over time, it is not possible to provide a scientific cause that determines which atoms will decay. Now that’s not saying radioactive decay is self-caused, it is saying that it is uncaused, or, since what constitutes “cause” is a disputed question, it would be better to say that it is unpredictable in principle.

            LOL. As if you could study “the incarnation”. You should have said the view of incarnation.

            You don’t make your assertions any more rtational by added “LOL” all the time. All ideas can be studied, even if they aren’t true. LOL at you for thinking otherwise.

            Unicorns are hyperphysical. Unicorns are not limited by your terms and definitions.

            If a unicorn is the creator of the physical universe, then, if it is in any meaningful sense physical, it has created itself. This is the same as saying it existed before it existed. But that’s a contradiction, so it cannot be true. Therefore, unicorns are excluded from the possible causes of the universe if they are physical. If they are not physical, then they are not unicorns, for to be a unicorn it does at least need a horn.

            You should show what the fallacies are not just claim those?

            I have done that repeatedly, but you don’t seem to understand that you can no more have something cause itself than you can have a square circle.

            If one would mess up the science and do fallacies it is a fallacy of non sequitur to link it to where atheism is at the moment.

            I was just trying to get you to up your game here, but apparently you don’t want to.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Jon: “So what causes radioactive decay?”
            Jon again: “So what causes atomic decay?”
            Jon again: “You still avoid to say your view about radioactive decay.”
            Albert: “No I’m not [avoiding]. I know full well about radioactive decay. You’ve never asked for my view..”
            This is the level of you running away.

            “Now that’s not saying radioactive decay is self-caused, it is saying that it is uncaused, or, since what constitutes “cause” is a disputed question, it would be better to say that it is unpredictable in principle.”
            I’m not sure if are you saying it is uncaused or disputed [by whom?]. predictability is just unrelated to this “causing” issue. Can you clarify and comment if our universe came to existence in a same way; uncaused?

            “You don’t make your assertions any more rtational by added “LOL” all the time.”
            LOL

            “If a unicorn is the creator of the physical universe, then, if it is in any meaningful sense physical, it has created itself.”
            No. You premise is wrong. It has existed forever as I said.

            “I have done that repeatedly, but you don’t seem to understand that you can no more have something cause itself than you can have a square circle.”
            I didn’t claim unicorn caused itself. Unicorn has existed forever and outside time.

            “I was just trying to get you to up your game here, but apparently you don’t want to”
            I was just pointing out the fallacy you made… I guess you needed to ignore that…

          • Albert

            I’m sorry if it’s appeared that I have been avoiding the question of radioactive decay. I have stated my view on that. The reason I hadn’t answered sooner is that it is irrelevant to your argument, until you have established that it is self-caused. So this is quote you are making:

            You: So what causes radioactive decay? Or is it selfcaused? What about the multiverse; could it be self caused?

            Me: No.

            The question I answer with “No” is the only one that is relevant: is anything self-caused, and we can show by the same logic that tells us that no circles are square, that nothing causes itself. The problem here is that you seem to think that if soemthing has no cause, then it is self-caused. Now not only have you not given any evidence for that, it is evidentially self-contradictory on two grounds.

            I’m not sure if are you saying it is uncaused or disputed [by whom?].

            I’m saying that idea of cause is disputed. For example, some philosophers seems to think that cause must determine the outcome, this is explicitly disputed by GEM Anscombe.

            predictability is just unrelated to this “causing” issue

            On the contrary, that is the issue – we cannot predict which and when an atom will decay because we do not see a cause, which necessitates the outcome.

            Can you clarify and comment if our universe came to existence in a same way; uncaused?

            It came into existence, and it was caused to do so.

            You premise is wrong. It has existed forever as I said.

            This is just wrong: something eternal can still be created, it’s just that in that case, the cause and the effect are both eternal.

            I didn’t claim unicorn caused itself. Unicorn has existed forever and outside time.

            Is the unicorn physical or not? If it is then it is part of the physical universe or multiverse and therefore had to cause itself (which is absurd), if it isn’t part of the physical universe or multiverse then it isn’t a unicorn.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So if you don’t know if atomic decay is uncaused then you should probably hold the judgement of things can be uncaused. Same with the appearance of virtual particles. Same might be with our universe. Maybe our universe was uncaused. Maybe mater/energy has always existed and unverses within are uncaused. Or even in a sense self-caused, if it is in timeless non-gravity state like photons which can live forever but do not get older as from their point of view everything happens at the same time.

            “For example, some philosophers seems to think that cause must determine the outcome, this is explicitly disputed by GEM Anscombe.”
            You can always find a philosopher who supports any view and you always find a philosopher who disputes any view. Their views don’t tend to merge. Philosopher’s don’t even seem to agree what Wheeler’s experiment tells about causality.

            “we cannot predict which and when an atom will decay because we do not see a cause”
            The leading view is that there is no cause; not that we can’t see it.

            “It came into existence, and it was caused to do so”
            You are assuming your conclusion.

            “something eternal can still be created, it’s just that in that case, the cause and the effect are both eternal.”
            Sure. Unicorns can create things that have existed forever in the past. They have that power.

            “Is the unicorn physical or not? If it is then it is part of the physical universe or multiverse and therefore had to cause itself (which is absurd), if it isn’t part of the physical universe or multiverse then it isn’t a unicorn.”
            Why is this so hard for Christians who tend to believe eternal Jesus is bodily resurrected; probably not from baryonic material body which can go thought walls and disappear? It is not “or” question. Unicorn is both eternal immaterial hypernatural and material natural. The ultimate cause.

          • Albert

            So if you don’t know if atomic decay is uncaused then you should probably hold the judgement of things can be uncaused. Same with the appearance of virtual particles. Same might be with our universe. Maybe our universe was uncaused. Maybe mater/energy has always existed and unverses within are uncaused. Or even in a sense self-caused, if it is in timeless non-gravity state like photons which can live forever but do not get older as from their point of view everything happens at the same time.

            I do wish you would make up your mind: are you arguing it is self-caused or uncaused? For your argument (from where you started) only self-caused is useful. It can be excluded as a matter of logic. I did not say, I do not know if atomic decay is uncaused, I will have said something like “scientifically uncaused” and what I mean be this is that the decay is unpredictable in principle. None of that could possibly be used to explain the existence of the physical universe/multiverse.

            You’re now moving to a different position. Yes, you could say that the universe/multiverse can exist without being metaphysically caused (obviously, any cause or explanation of the universe at this level is in the category of metaphysics). I see no contradiction there. I simply observe that there is no evidence for it and that, and that all the evidence and reasoning are on the other side.

            You can always find a philosopher who supports any view and you always find a philosopher who disputes any view.

            Why did you ask then? And why did you query me earlier when I said a position was disputed?

            The leading view is that there is no cause; not that we can’t see it.

            You’re not following the argument. I was talking about our inability to predict when an atom will decay. We cannot see it’s physical cause (as there isn’t one), therefore, we cannot predict when it will happen.

            You are assuming your conclusion.

            You really need to keep up with the argument. You simply asked me whether I thought the universe had a beginning and was caused to begin. It was a yes or no question. I simply gave an answer, I didn’t have to give an argument.

            Sure. Unicorns can create things that have existed forever in the past. They have that power.

            But they cannot be one of the things that they create.

            Why is this so hard for Christians who tend to believe eternal Jesus is bodily resurrected; probably not from baryonic material body which can go thought walls and disappear?

            Because we do not equivocate as you do. Jesus’ body was transformed, but it was still physical.

            It is not “or” question.

            Yes it is, by the most basic law of logic: no-contradiction (albeit that that law doesn’t seem to have an purchase for you.

            Unicorn is both eternal immaterial hypernatural and material natural. The ultimate cause.

            Unless you are talking about something analogous to the incarnation, in which the unicorn has two natures, that is simply a contradiction and since a contradiction conveys no information whatsoever, you aren’t saying anything.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I do wish you would make up your mind: are you arguing it is self-caused or uncaused?”
            I already said my opinion “There is no outside cause for radioactive decay so it is uncaused. The product of it; radiation with random phase is self-caused.” which you didn’t comment.

            I disagree with “self-caused is useful” as if material/energy has always existed uncaused events can be the explanation for our universe.

            You still try to mix “scientifically uncaused” and unpredictability which are unrelated issues, and I don’t know what “scientifically uncaused” is; is there something like un/non-scientifically uncaused?

            “We cannot see it’s physical cause (as there isn’t one), therefore, we cannot predict when it will happen.”
            Again this is irrelevant when we talk about cause issue

            “None of that could possibly be used to explain the existence of the physical universe/multiverse”
            Multiverse (matter/energy) might have existed forever so you don’t need a “cause” explanation.

            “I see no contradiction there. I simply observe that there is no evidence for it”
            But don’t you see broke window might be evidence for it? Your picking of “evidence” seems to be too inconsistent to find the truth.

            Jon: “You are assuming your conclusion”
            Albert: “I didn’t have to give an argument.”
            Jon: until you give me an argument I assume you are assuming the conclusion

            “But [unicorn] cannot be one of the things that they create.”
            Because you you don’t understand hypernatural world. Unicorns are not limited by your understanding.

            “Jesus’ body was transformed, but it was still physical.”
            So how did the atoms attached to Jesus’ and where did those atoms go after his death as he was able to go through walls or disappear?

            “Yes it is, by the most basic law of logic: no-contradiction (albeit that that law doesn’t seem to have an purchase for you.”
            The law of non-contradiction does not even apply in quantum level in superpositions, so it can be ignored for hypernatural world. I get that Christians apologists argue about “potential” of having two properties, but this is not true. If the wave does not collapse we have two positions at the same time.

            “Unless you are talking about something analogous to the incarnation, in which the unicorn has two natures, that is simply a contradiction and since a contradiction conveys no information whatsoever, you aren’t saying anything”
            Unicorn has all natures. I get that you think I’m not “saying anything”, but if you accept Unicorn in your heart you’ll understand.

          • Albert

            I already said my opinion “There is no outside cause for radioactive decay so it is uncaused. The product of it; radiation with random phase is self-caused.” which you didn’t comment.

            I have repeatedly answered that point, you just don’t understand the philosophy at play here. There does not appear to be a scientific cause, but it is not therefore self caused. Your position is directly contradictory. On the one hand you say it is without a cause, but then you say it has a cause – itself. I don’t really see how I can make this point any simpler. Either it has a cause or it doesn’t, there is no third position.

            I disagree with “self-caused is useful” as if material/energy has always existed uncaused events can be the explanation for our universe.

            I don’t get this. I can’t believe I ever said “self-caused is useful.”

            You still try to mix “scientifically uncaused” and unpredictability which are unrelated issues,

            They are one and the same issue, but you’ll never see one, while you keep saying things like this:

            and I don’t know what “scientifically uncaused” is

            You continue:

            is there something like un/non-scientifically uncaused?

            Yes, of course. Science just deals with how the universe changes from state to the next. It does not address the question “Why is there any universe at all?” that question would be unaddressed, even if the universe turned out to be eternal. You need to distinguish between physics and metaphysics.

            But don’t you see broke window might be evidence for it?

            How can a broken window possibly be evidence that the physical universe/multiverse can exist without a metaphysical cause?

            Your picking of “evidence” seems to be too inconsistent to find the truth.

            Really? So what is your evidence that the universe exists without a metaphysical cause? I can hardly be faulted here if you cannot find any evidence for the claim.

            until you give me an argument I assume you are assuming the conclusion

            That’s rather irrational. You asked me a yes or no question and I gave a yes or no answer. I have already implicitly shown you what my answer would be when I said which arguments for God’ existence I would accept. Thus, your assumption is without evidence, is contrary to the evidence, and actually wrong.

            Because you you don’t understand hypernatural world. Unicorns are not limited by your understanding.

            Since nothing can cause itself, it follows that it does not matter what bizarre category you invent, or place your unicorn in, it still will not be able to cause itself. Now if it is part of the universe, it is one of the things caused by whatever causes the universe. Therefore, it cannot be the cause of the universe.

            Again this is irrelevant when we talk about cause issue

            On the contrary, it is exactly the scientific point. If scientists could see a cause that would determine the outcome, it wouldn’t be unpredictable.

            So how did the atoms attached to Jesus’ and where did those atoms go after his death as he was able to go through walls or disappear?

            The atoms make up his body. For the rest, I don’t know. How do you know that it is impossible in principle for a physical body to pass through another? Aren’t all atoms mainly empty space?

            The law of non-contradiction does not even apply in quantum level in superpositions, so it can be ignored for hypernatural world.

            This is a self-refuting misconception. It stems from the failure to describe what is going on correctly.

            Unicorn has all natures.

            A unicorn is a being with a horn. Therefore, a unicorn cannot have the nature of something without a horn, and therefore, it does not have all natures.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sorry I’ve been away.

            “Your position is directly contradictory. On the one hand you say it is without a cause, but then you say it has a cause – itself”
            You seem to go on about the same point even when you explained uncaused and self-caused difference in radioactive decay. I agree that “Either it has a cause or it doesn’t” and that is my point. “radioactive decay so it is uncaused” as I said.

            “Only “self-caused is useful” to your argument, which was to say that the universe could be self-caused, but it wouldn’t follow from that that therefore uncaused events are the explanation of the universe.”
            I didn’t claim that it “follows”. Multiverse might have existed forever and our universe is uncaused.

            I still don’t get why you try to add “unpredictability” to the cause issues. It doesn’t seem to add anyting.

            “Science just deals with how the universe changes from state to the next. It does not address the question “Why is there any universe at all?””
            Well this is the old nonsense to limit science. Of course science can address this and it has already done so. There are several books about this. And no, there is no need to land grab and claim that they are making philosophical statements when interpreting results.

            “How can a broken window possibly be evidence that the physical universe/multiverse can exist without a metaphysical cause?”
            In a same way it might be evidence our your God.

            “So what is your evidence that the universe exists without a metaphysical cause? I can hardly be faulted here if you cannot find any evidence for the claim.”
            Nice shifting the burden of proof and blaming me that you don’t have evidence of your claim…

            Jon: “until you give me an argument I assume you are assuming the conclusion”
            Albert: That’s rather irrational.
            Jon: LOL
            Albert: You asked me a yes or no question and I gave a yes or no answer.
            Jon: Welcome to comment section. You must be new here
            Albert: I have already implicitly shown you what my answer would be when I said which arguments for God’ existence I would accept.
            Jon: But you are already defending God’s existence. What is your evidence
            Albert: Thus, your assumption is without evidence, is contrary to the evidence, and actually wrong.
            Jon: LOL

            “[The law of non-contradiction in quantum level] is a self-refuting misconception. It stems from the failure to describe what is going on correctly.”
            You clearly don’t understand quantum physics or unicorns

          • Albert

            Sorry I’ve been away.

            No worries!

            You seem to go on about the same point even when you explained uncaused and self-caused difference in radioactive decay. I agree that “Either it has a cause or it doesn’t” and that is my point. “radioactive decay so it is uncaused” as I said.

            This is what you said:

            I already said my opinion “There is no outside cause for radioactive decay so it is uncaused. The product of it; radiation with random phase is self-caused.” which you didn’t comment.

            You are using both terms at the same time, but only one of these terms (uncaused) is coherent.

            I didn’t claim that it “follows”. Multiverse might have existed forever and our universe is uncaused.

            That is a coherent concept, but at some points you have argued for the universe being self-caused (e.g. the unicorn causing it, despite being part of it, or the universe itself). But self-causation will not help to provide evidence for uncaused. But if you want to go for uncaused, then that makes more sense. But notice, only one argument for the existence of God requires the universe to have a beginning. All the others assume the universe did not have a beginning and nevertheless argue that it needs a cause. So I would like to know your evidence or reasoning (by which I mean non-circular reasoning) for believing (if you do) that the universe/multiverse exists uncaused.

            I still don’t get why you try to add “unpredictability” to the cause issues. It doesn’t seem to add anyting.

            The science is that these events are unpredictable, from which scientists tend to draw the conclusion (or at least the terminology) “uncaused”. But they are not uncaused in any way that is relevant to arguments for the existence of God, for on closer examination, they are not uncaused, but require a lot of prior conditions to be in place for them to occur. It so happens that even when we have all those prior conditions, we still cannot determine what will happen and when. Thus they are only “uncaused” if we hold an event is uncaused if it has necessary prior conditions, but the necessary prior conditions do not necessitate the event (i.e. the prior conditions are necessary for it to happen, but they do not determine the outcome).

            Thus, it is not so clear that you can go from “There are uncaused events in the universe” to “Therefore, the multiverse could be uncaused.” You could, at most make this kind of move:

            “There are events in the multiverse which require prior conditions, but which are not determined by prior conditions.”

            Therefore,

            “The multiverse may only require prior conditions but not be determined by it’s prior conditions.”

            I wouldn’t call that uncaused, and it is unclear how it would help the atheist, since we still need some kind of prior conditions, and we would need those prior conditions to be sufficient to explain the universe. Obviously, that wouldn’t leave you with God in one leap, but the old atheist stuff of Russell “The universe is just there, that is all” is not supported by this.

            Now I think that’s adding quite a lot to the discussion.

            Well this is the old nonsense to limit science. Of course science can address this and it has already done so. There are several books about this. And no, there is no need to land grab and claim that they are making philosophical statements when interpreting results.

            What is science? Properly named, science is physical science or natural science. It can only examine what is physical or natural. It cannot look outside that, the moment it does, it becomes philosophy. Of course, this does not stop scientists trying to do the philosophy, but often they do it poorly (the man of science makes a poor philosopher, as Einstein says) and often they don’t realise that they are no longer doing science.

            Now if science deals only with what is physical or natural, and we ask for a cause or explanation of all the physical and natural things, then that cause or explanation must come from outside of the collection of physical and natural things, and thus be outside of science. Science just is limited, otherwise it isn’t science, this is why secularism is really silly when it tries to reduce everything to science, or say science encompasses everything. The only way to do that is either to ignore things that aren’t science or claim them for science. On either route, the sunny shore of reason have been left behind.

            In a same way it might be evidence our your God.

            Not true. I would hardly use the window as evidence for God, but if I have an argument like this:

            1.Every change needs a cause.

            2. The series of causes causes cannot go on for infinity.

            3. Therefore, there must be a first cause who is itself not cause.

            then the window breaking is evidence for God, but I cannot see how it is evidence for the multiverse existing without a cause.

            Nice shifting the burden of proof and blaming me that you don’t have evidence of your claim…

            You seem not to have noticed, but I have named probably about 5 arguments for God, and you have given nothing to defend your claim (if it is your claim) that the multiverse can exist without a cause. Now if you claim the multivese exists without a cause, then the burden of proof is on you. To be honest, I think that a priori we do not know either way, and so the burden is even. So where’s your part in this?

            The dialogue that follows does not seem to me even to be a remote parody of what happened. It also defeats your own position. One does not have to give an argument for every position when you give it, for if you did, the following would be off-side:

            You clearly don’t understand quantum physics or unicorns

            So go on then. What is it that I don’t understand about these things?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Can you not see the problem here?”
            No. I have inner witness of Unicorn that confirm I’m right.

            “I had already given logical proof of the [non-self cause]”
            I refuted that with atomic decay, but you ignored it. You view is right only if you ignore the reality

            “Whether the material world can be demonstrated is a disputed question.”
            So you are not sure if you are surrounded by material world like computer, desk, chair and gravity?
            LOL…

            “What’s your answer to Berkeley?”
            What do you mean?

            “because the material world can be demonstrated that therefore materialism is true”
            Agree. I never claimed that.

          • Albert

            I’ve answered most of this already.

            So you are not sure if you are surrounded by material world like computer, desk, chair and gravity?
            LOL…

            I never said that. You’re just a typical pop atheist, who draws invalid conclusions from things you haven’t understood.

            Agree. I never claimed that.

            Good. In that case, it is difficult to see how your argument works.

      • Malcolm Smith

        I’m talking about the 43%, mate. Whether or not they are thinking for themselves, they can’t logically believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that He is irrelevant.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Well people are not thinking logically. Most religious people believe that their God answer their prays even when every study has shown other wise. Christianity grooms people not to think logically and it is hard to unlearn religious beliefs.

        • sarky

          Its back to cultural christianity. They are just regurgitating what they heard at school/sunday school. Do they actually believe it, or find it relevant? Doubt it, in fact I doubt they have even thought about it properly.

    • johnb1945

      Because you don’t need any of that to be a Christian.
      Haven’t personally been to a church service for years yet still consider myself such.

    • magnolia

      That would seem to be an enormous question. Either the 43% is wrong, or some were thinking it was a quiz question and they had the right answer. It hasn’t fully permeated the consciousness or the heart or they would be turning off all those tedious soaps and assorted distractions and hotfooting it to Church and/or Bible Study.

  • len

    We are living in perverse times that the Bible has predicted, these times when the media promotes all sorts of evil and has inverted goodness and Light much as the IS death cult which is becoming prominant in todays society (the two might be mutually inclusive?) ‘ Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter’.(Isaiah 5:20)

  • Andym

    Does anyone know whether these cinemas carried adverts for major Christian based charities- e.g. Christian Aid? Christian Aid had TV advertising campaigns, but not being a cinema goer (I’m “offended” by the ticket prices) I wouldn’t have seen any at the cinema. If they did/do, wouldn’t the name of the charity fall foul of this “policy”?

    • Moley

      It’s the content of the advert not the name of the company funding it that is the issue. The reason you saw the Christian Aid advert on TV? The advert wasn’t a prayer, it was asking for donations and detailing what they do with the money.

  • Moley

    Where is the email detailing the nature of the content of the advert?

    But at least we know why you’re continuing to milk this story, you’re beginning to realise your increased irrelevance to society in 2015.

  • carl jacobs

    Even if I attach the most uncharitable interpretation to these emails I arrive at the following:

    1. DCM didn’t do a good job distributing it policies to its employees – perhaps because they didn’t write it down on paper until after this request by the CoE.
    2. The reason they decided to write in down on paper was a sudden realization that the B&B case might apply.

    However, this statement …

    DCM has a policy not to run advertising connected to personal beliefs, specifically those related to politics or religion. Our Members have found that showing such advertisements carries the risk of upsetting, or offending, audiences. We at DCM had first-hand experience of this risk recently when we and our members received considerable negative feedback from audiences following our decision to allow both Yes and No campaigners to run adverts in the lead up to the last year’s Scottish independence referendum.

    … is totally believable because it should be provable in Court of Law. There would be a paper trial in the meeting minutes and there are attendees who could testify. You can’t argue DCM created the policy in September 2015 just to exclude the CoE and then backdated it to Quarter 1, 2015.

    Several questions immediately come to mind:

    1. When did DCM formalize the policy on paper?
    2. Why did DCM formalize the policy on paper?
    3. What legal liabilities attach in the absence of a written policy?
    4. What other prior ads (if any) might have triggered this policy?
    5. Was this the first time DCM associated the B&B case with its policy?
    6. When was the content of the ad first exposed to DCM?

    Because what it sounds like is the CoE asked this quesrtion …

    I (gently) raised the issue as to whether he can considered that the “policy” might not be legal given that it might be arguably discriminatory and used the B&B owners case as an example where businesses need to offer their services to all without discrimination.

    … and that caused someone at DCM to say “Oh, sh*t! We better get the lawyers involved.” Which would explain the subsequent three weeks of silence.

    This statement …

    He recognised the issue immediately, conceded that there had been no legal consideration of the policy, that it might not be so much a policy as a “steer” and that he could understand entirely where we were coming from.

    … indicates the company thought it had no exposure, and perhaps wanted to leave itself some flexibility to accept certain kinds of ads that it thought would be publicly acceptable (say, General Election ads). But then the B&B case got mentioned, and the lawyers demanded a defensible written policy to allow for that outcome.

    • John Airey

      If anything they may be hoping that paying lots of money to “lawyers” might get them out of this mess. I don’t think they can defend this because if the basis for not showing it was because of the complaints previously why wasn’t that said? Almost everything in your post comes across as a smokescreen to cover up their mistakes.

  • Albert

    It does rather look like they simply banned the Lord’s Prayer. Certainly, they did so because of concerns about other things they might have to screen as a result, but ban the Lord’s Prayer they did. And they look pretty silly.

    Great cartoon at the top. There has been much more publicity about all this. It reminds me of St Paul:

    I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel

    And perhaps, with hindsight, it is providential. Does marrying the Lord’s Prayer with the power of the force look potentially confusing to a society that is pretty clueless about Christianity and thinks the whole thing is made up? I wouldn’t talk about Jesus and Santa in the same breath, so perhaps the whole thing is just providential: more and better publicity.

    I hope the CofE continues to push the point.

    • William Lewis

      Actually I think that depicting ordinary people praying to their God is really quite subversive. How dare these people demonstrate their faith outside of a church in this day and age?

      • Albert

        It should probably just not go on in public at all – someone outside might hear and be offended.

      • DanJ0

        I was in Kashmir recently and a section of the road was cordoned off on the Friday so that people could communally pray. Perhaps you lot should do that? It certainly looked very effective, and there was no doubt what was going on. Mind you, the whole lake area of Srinagar was resounding with the sound of multiple muezzins doing their thing, followed by a rather shouty imam using a pa system to make an angry-sounding sermon. It was enough to drive me to drink!

        • William Lewis

          Shame. Lake Srinagar is beautiful as I recall. Do they still have the house boats?

          • DanJ0

            They do. Lots. In fact, we stayed in one. Fabulous carved walnut all over it. The Muslim [1] boat bloke stocked the fridge with beer for us, and offered to procure some hash too. But it was next door to a tin mosque, which wasn’t that great at 5am. 🙂 There was a devastating flood a couple of years ago (15ft high or something) and it caused a lot of damage. The lake was nice, but not beautiful. Perhaps it was before the flood.

            [1] Well, I say that but he didn’t seem very committed, other than to attend the mosque on Fridays.

          • William Lewis

            Certainly seems a stronger Islamic influence than when I was there, though that was in the late 80s!

    • Anton

      The National Anthem is a prayer too!

  • jsampson45

    Archbishop Cranmer writes, “If 40% of the population don’t know that Jesus was a real historical figure, it makes cultural sense to begin that introduction with exposure to some of his ethical teachings”.

    I am not sure what “cultural sense” is, but “common” sense would suggest providing some of the evidence that he existed, and that the events mentioned in the Creed actually took place.

    A fictitious Jesus might well give ethical teachings. The stories about the incredible mulla Nasrudin do that too.

  • John Rollins

    The cinemas ran adverts for The Alpha Course a few years back.

    • William Lewis

      Given that the Alpha Course represents an invitation to explore Christianity and become a Christian, that would seem to be more “offensive” than a mere invitation to pray. It seems these atheist types are getting more and more sensitive by the decade.

      • Albert

        Poor loves.

      • sarky

        Nah, weve got you on the run.

        • William Lewis

          This, and any, success in gagging Christians represents the hollow victory of a totalitarian mindset and betrays a distinct lack of confidence in your own position.

          • sarky

            How does it show lack of confidence when you are challenged on every point? I think it shows the opposite.

          • William Lewis

            Banning an advert promoting Christian prayer is not a challenge, on any point.

          • DanJ0

            It was atheists that banned it, right? To gag Christians?

          • William Lewis

            Certainly it’s atheists in the form of the NSS who support the ban, whereas faith leaders from other religions appear not to see what the fuss is about. So I would say that those of an atheist world view agree the most strongly with having the advert banned. There are exceptions of course.

          • Moley

            The cinema is clearly following the Freedom of Expression standard set by the CofE in recent years.

            In light of their negative views on yoga in their church halls, you’d think the CofE would appreciate someone not bending over backwards for them.

  • Inspector General

    It’s been over three decades since your Inspector last needed to have a grasp of the Law of Contract. But even rusty on it all as he now is, there is definite proof in that email trail that ‘An Invitation to Treat’ has been established. (For the uninitiated, that is treat as in treaty, a binding agreement, not the offer of a trip to the zoo with ice cream thrown in). And such an invitation, if revoked, can constitute a breach of contract. And we are talking compo then.

    Looks like this CoE enterprise is going to pay off handsomely then, what! Screening after all and even some money back on the deal. Lots of money!

    {SNIGGER}

    It’s commerce, you see. You have to know what you are doing, for if you take a salary from a firm you represent, you are in law their agent, they being the principle. Thus, to personally let a potential customer down means in law that your company is letting them down. If could be effectively the ruination of your career, if not the company you work for, financial and / or reputational.

    • Moley

      The CofE should cite the Equality Act.

    • Maalaistollo

      I think the Inspector will find, if he blows the dust off his books on contract law, that an invitation to treat is not capable of being accepted in order to form a binding contract. The response to it is the offer and it is only when that offer is accepted that a contract comes into existence. The classic illustration is a shopkeeper mistakenly displaying the wrong price on an article in his shop window. This is an invitation to treat and not an offer, so a prospective customer cannot compel him to sell the item at the price indicated. The customer asking to buy at that price is the one making the offer. If the shopkeeper declines to accept the offer, there is no contract. See Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394.

      • Inspector General

        One is obliged to you, Maalaistollo, for your knowledge in the matter.

        Best leave purchase and supply to them that knows what they are doing, says I.

  • Tutanekai

    If 40% of the population groups Jesus with Santa Claus and Bilbo Baggins, secularism is doing a pretty good job of getting its message across. That’s a great base to build on.

    Conversely, Christianity is doing a very poor job. I don’t know what the age split is in those figures, but I’d be willing to lay bets that a large proportion of the 40% are young.

    You’ve lost an entire generation. Why is that? Does it not cause you to ask yourselves what you’re doing wrong?

    • William Lewis

      Yes. Liberal Christianity is the problem. That’s why it’s declining in the west and growing everywhere else.

      • Tutanekai

        Numbers may grow in isolated cases, but the overall trend is towards decline and there’s no evidence this is changing.

        Still, as Christians seem to cling to anecdotal evidence as if it were Gospel truth, there’s probably no persuading you that the recent rise in attendance of your local Evangelibigot or Cathofascist church isn’t mirrored nationwide.

        The truth of the matter is when the right-on lady vicar of your local Anglican church (she of the cropped hair and the licorice all-sorts earrings, and her lady partner who makes dry, tasteless vegan scones and organizes bring-and-buy sales in aid of oppressed Palestinian transgender orphans…) preached a sermon about welcoming refugees with open arms, the local UKIP contingent decamped in horror and all 10 of them are now swelling your ranks. Doubled your numbers overnight, didn’t they?

        Good oh. You must be winning then. One can only imagine your song of victory. Does it go something like “Denn heute da hört uns Frimley, morgen die ganze Welt…”? Will all 20 of you rise up and take England back for Christ?

        • William Lewis

          You claim that we are clinging to anecdotal evidence and then declare the truth of the matter is some trumped up anecdote of your own! Wrong on both counts but this has always been your party piece. Only it has happened so often now, under your various pseudonyms, that I suspect you must truly believe it.

          • Tutanekai

            My evidence is far from anecdotal. You can look it up yourself. It’s all confirmed and verified beyond reasonable doubt. The number of people identifying as Christian has plummeted over the past couple of generations. Set that against your claims of a Christian renaissance based on a few more bums on seats in your local church.

    • Inspector General

      Now, let’s recall. Well over 50% of the population in the last UK census put themselves down as Christian. What do you think of THAT!

      • sarky

        Nothing. Most of those have probably never seen the inside of a church.

        • Inspector General

          Aimless fool…

      • Tutanekai

        I should think that the death rate over the next 30 years or so should pretty accurately reflect the decline in Christian numbers.

        Few under the age of 40 identify as Christian now. Most over the age of 40 do. As the Baby Boomer generation withers and die, Christianity will wither and die with it.

        But chin up! You won’t live to see it. Be thankful for small mercies.

        • chiefofsinners

          Do your credibility a favour. Read up about the growth of Christianity in China and Brazil before you prophesy that the end is nigh.

          • Anton

            Well spoken!

          • Tutanekai

            Is it surprising that some favela kid scraping by in poverty turns to fantasies and chimeras for salvation? Not really. If I had to live in such an unjust society, I too might choose religious escapism as the easiest way out.

            Should we be shocked that some Chinese wage slave dreams of saints and paradise as she nods off after her 20th consecutive hour chained to her sewing machine? Not at all. Religion is the opium of the masses, after all.

            Educate the Brazilians and the Chinese and introduce principles of equality and justice into their fundamentally corrupt societies and your churches will melt away like they have in the UK. It’s only a matter of time.

          • chiefofsinners

            In Brazil opium is the religion of the masses. They have discovered it’s futility.
            In China it is the experiment in equality that has failed so that people are turning to Christ.
            The UK has not been to either of the extremes of hedonism or equality and so people like you foolishly want more of both, believing it will bring happiness.
            Rather than introducing justice, Christianity introduces forgiveness. Give it a try.

          • Tutanekai

            Rather than any of your escapist alternatives, I prefer reality.

            The world sucks. Get used to it. Don’t build yourself fantasies about a big daddy in the sky who’ll make everything better. That’s just another form of opium.

            Drugs and religion don’t buy us happiness. All they do is dull the pain, which can be an acceptable alternative to suicide for some people. Not all minds are capable of dealing with the essentially futile nature of existence.

            I accept the world for what it is and try to find as much happiness in the here and now as I can. As long as there’s potential for happiness, life is worth living, although I can imagine circumstances where that would no longer be the case. But they don’t apply to the here and now, and the here and now is all I’m concerned with.

            I have no more reason to believe in Christ and heaven than I do to believe in Bilbo Baggins and The Shire. Both stories exist only in books, and although one book has been around a lot longer than the other, age is no indicator of truthfulness. If it were, there are plenty of religions older than Christianity.

            If there were a god and he wanted us to believe in him, he would leave us convincing evidence of his existence. We’re rational creatures and understand the world by rational means. The fact that no rational evidence exists for god can only mean one of two things. Either he does exist but doesn’t care whether we believe in him or not, in which case it makes no difference to me whether he’s there because belief carries no upside for me. Or he doesn’t exist and the fictional character dreamed up by man is just our attempt to deify ourselves and in doing so flee from the essential futility of the universe.

            Of the two alternatives, only the second makes sense to me because it requires no explanation of exactly how an omniscient and omnipotent being could be aware of, and yet so totally indifferent to, the suffering of intelligent creatures. If indifference is just a mindless characteristic of the universe, that question need never be asked. We just suffer, like the sky is just blue and water is just wet.

            All of this is much easier to accept than the fantastic proposition that there’s an invisible Sugar Daddy lurking beyond the confines of what we know, who’ll make everything all better if only we grovel in the mud before his invisible feet, renouncing everything that other people who also can’t see him say he doesn’t like. Trying to appease the anger these people say my actions cause this invisible deity to feel, even though they can’t see him to know if he’s angry or not, seems like a colossal waste of time.

          • chiefofsinners

            My, my granny, what great lengths you go to, trying to convince me to be as miserable as you are. Thank you for your concern.

        • The Explorer

          Christianity is a religion of the old, and as the old die off, so will Christianity: leaving secularism to take over.

          That’s one possibility, certainly, but I can think of at least two others.

          It may be that we are entering the time of the great apostasy (which will happen at some time in the future if it isn’t happening now) in which case the decline in the faith is to be expected, and is an indication that the return of Christ is near.

          Islam, rather than secularism will triumph. It is your expressed view on an earlier thread that Islamic immigration into Europe will soon be halted, and that the Islamic threat will thereby cease. That ignores the demographic of those already here: Muslims may not be a large percentage of the current population, but they are a significant factor in the current population under the age of ten.

          Secularism might replace Christianity, but it, too, will become a religion for the old, and as the old secularists die off, Islam will replace them. But chin up! You won’t live to see it. Be thankful for small mercies.

          • Tutanekai

            As with all immigrant populations, after 2 or 3 generations Muslim birth rates fall into line with those of the general population.

            So where are all these Muslim babies who are going to swamp us and turn Europe into a Caliphate going to come from?

            I’d suggest that the only thing in the West fertile enough to produce them is your imagination. You’re actually not alone. Others have suffered from the same racist paranoid delusions in the past. In the 19th century it was the “Yellow Peril”. Apparently all it takes to turn human beings into implacable breeding machines second only to rabbits is a different skin tone. A different religion seems to help too.

          • The Explorer

            Where are the babies going to come from? From mummy’s tummy. (Womb actually, but we’ll go into that when you’re a bit older, and more able to deal with the concept.)

            You love recycling “Yellow Peril” don’t you? Actually, those who feared it were quite prophetic. It destroyed the British and French Empires in the East. And a new global economic and military superpower is currently rising. It’s called China.

          • Moley

            China is currently rising? What year is it for you, 1985?

          • The Explorer

            Put your question to Tutanekai. His view of ‘Yellow Peril’ dates from the era of H G Wells.

        • Inspector General

          Wishful thinking. In an age when the aims of Islam are so apparent, the young will flock to Jesus. And there’s nothing you can do to stop that…

          • Tutanekai

            It’s not happening though. And there’s nothing you can do to stop that…

          • bockerglory

            Young Christians do not bother with church.

            You see Jesus was not about the unbearable yoke of religious customs and religious institutions – Jesus could not care less if you are circumcised or not or pork eating or not or menstruating or not …

            God and Jesus kept saying throughout the bible – what house can you build that is fit for God. The answer not a man made structure by devout saints or prophets!

            Young Christians know this. So church attendance figures are mis leading. Also there are no “churches” that are not part of Anglicans that are growing rapidly.

      • Anton

        Given the proportion of that 50% who go to church and pray regularly according to surveys, I think they should read Matthew 7:21.

    • Albert

      Considering how inaccurate Religious Education is in this country, I’d say the figures reflect pretty badly on secularism.

      • Moley

        To be fair, I don’t think school is the place to discuss covering up decades of child molestation so they have to sugar coat it in some capacity in the interests of taste.

        • Albert

          I see your education failed.

          • Moley

            But I thought all religious education teachers were militant atheists? If so, surely me being an atheist means it was a complete success?

          • Albert

            They failed to teach you much about religion – for an RS teacher to fail in that is simply a failure regardless of their religious beliefs. If you think militant atheists make poorer teachers then I have to take your word for it.

    • The Explorer

      Surely you don’t want to ask Christians that question? After all, you wouldn’t want them to start doing it right, would you? Your dream, after all, is the disappearance of Christianity from public life.

      • Tutanekai

        Christians have been asking themselves that question for a generation now and nobody’s come up with the right answer yet. So there’s little danger of some bright spark figuring it out now.

        Pigeons learn faster than Christians. Geriatric Alzheimers patients have a greater capacity to adapt and survive.

        Adapt or die is a basic premise of evolutionary theory. Isn’t it ironic that Christians are providing us with evidence of its accuracy?

        • The Explorer

          You’re like a fox hunter who on the one hand wants to exterminate foxes, and on the other wants to keep them alive in order to have something to hunt. Think of all the Christian-baiting fun you’d lose out on if Christians really did die out.

          • Tutanekai

            So we need to add a victim mentality to the whole paranoid Muslim Peril thing you have going on, do we?

            Careful. Next you’ll be trotting out the “I’m a martyr for Christ” spiel and the men in white coats will come to take you away…

          • The Explorer

            Careful, old chap. You’re projecting your own sense of belonging to a victim group onto others.

          • Moley

            But British Christians are being oppressed still, right?

          • The Explorer

            You’d have to clarify ‘still’. When is your starting point?

          • Tutanekai

            Teetering on the edge of persecution hysteria is more your style than mine. Poor Christians! All they do is vomit the hatred of their sincerely held beliefs over everyone they don’t like, and they get such a hard time for it. It just isn’t fair, is it?

          • The Explorer

            A severe case on your part of refusal to look in the mirror.

    • Phil R

      Simple…

      RE in schools. Taught by militant atheists

      • sarky

        Think there’s a bit more to it than that. Don’t know anyone converted by RE.

        • William Lewis

          That would seem to reinforce Phil’s point.

          • sarky

            Ever.

          • William Lewis

            That’s quite a claim covering at least 800 years, I’d have thought

        • Phil R

          They have a captive audience for half truths, lies and secular propaganda.

          As my kids have found. No debate is allowed outside set parameters. Challenging this worldview soon leads to them being removed from RE. In the case of one of my children, this was for two years (GCSE RE Lessons)

          • sarky

            Half truths and lies? So they do teach christianity.

          • Phil R

            Is that the best you can come up with?

          • The Explorer

            Presumably. That’s why he came up with it.

          • Anton

            With 1960s technology it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than fake those shots to the necessary standard.

          • Phil R

            My comment was not about moon landings!

          • Anton

            Mine was!

          • John Airey

            Indeed – even Neil Armstrong’s famous transmission doesn’t even have the word “giant” audible.

          • DanJ0

            Shite father, or shite school. It’d be interesting to hear the teacher’s version to determine which.

          • Phil R

            They were private schools.

      • Tutanekai

        I have to say, there’s a certain elegant simplicity to your theory. It’s a bit like a WWII German anti-Semitic or anti-Communist propaganda movie. The evil atheists will stop at nothing to destroy you. And what better way to do that than to target your children?

        I bet secret NUT meetings are taking place behind closed doors right now where these evil atheist teachers are gloating “Ve haff zeir tchildren und ve vill brainvash zem all into being homozexuals und Gott haters! Mwah hah hah!!!”

        • The Explorer

          Alan Ginsberg is on record for making the statement, “We’ll get you through your children.” Lukacs made that state policy during his time in Bela Kun’s short-lived government.

          • Tutanekai

            Why am I not surprised that your example harks back to the Communist and Fascist regimes of the first half of the twentieth century? My comment was quoted in jest. Your response is deadly serious.

            Along with the whole “Muslim Peril” delusion you cling to, is this further evidence that your paranoia is spiraling out of control?

          • The Explorer

            It might simply illustrate the point that your joke is truer than you know. (By the way, are you identifying Lukacs and Ginsberg as Communist or Fascist? From your comment, it isn’t clear.)

            Brussels was in lockdown for a few days. Ridiculous over-reaction to an illusionary peril, wasn’t it? Sign of paranoia spiralling out of control. And without the excuse of being Christian.

          • Ivan M

            Edit: I expect Tutanekai to run away again when presented with facts. Run Linus, run.

          • Ivan M

            The Belgian elite are or were seamed and honeycombed with pedophiles, including the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Once these perverts are in charge, there is no telling what would happen to the kingdom. The Belgians have it easy, since Muslims are generally stupid.

          • Tutanekai

            Don’t ask me to justify the acts of the Belgian government. Belgium has a Catholic monarchy, so go ask a Belgian Catholic why they felt they had to paralyse their capital city for days on end.

            Remember that Belgium is the country that let one of its former kings abdicate for a day rather than oblige him to sign an abortion bill into law. The Church is heavily involved in public life in that benighted, drab little kingdom. Hence all the recent paranoia and hysterical overreaction.

          • The Explorer

            The French rather over-reacted too, don’t you think? Given the absence of genuine threat?

          • Tutanekai

            Now you’re just raving.

          • The Explorer

            Why am I raving? You aren’t suggesting that there was a genuine threat are you?

          • Tutanekai

            I’m suggesting nothing at all. The suggestions have come from you.

            That’s what you generally do when someone has revealed your racist and xenophobic beliefs for what they are. You try to drag a red herring … any red herring … across their path in a vain attempt to divert attention away from you and onto them.

            It’s almost as though you’re ashamed of your beliefs. And well you might be. Setting up brown and yellow bogeymen in the form of Muslims and the Chinese and then claiming they’re going to swamp us and we’ll be slaves in our own country is exactly how Hitler proceeded against the Jews.

            How much further does your xenophobia go? We haven’t even touched on suitable punishments for the crimes of these people yet, have we? What suffering should be inflicted on brown Muslims for not being white and Christian? And what about the Chinese? What dire retribution should we exact from them for daring to be prosperous, powerful and … Chinese?

            UKIP really does heark back to the past, doesn’t it? Many of its members would be right at home in the 1930s.

          • The Explorer

            Actually, I don’t believe the Chinese are going to swamp us by immigration. Where did I say so? I don’t think even Wells did: he was simply talking about the global balance of the races. I was simply thinking of China overtaking Europe economically (and thereby having more political clout than Europe) and becoming the manufacturing base for things that were once made in Europe. (A lot of people seem to think that that has already happened. Look at a range of items, and see where they were made.)
            And, of course, you’re quite right about Muslims. The events in Paris and the current tensions in Germany have nothing to do with the present or future situation of the Continent. You must be growing a very long neck to be able to bury your head so deeply in the sand. But keep it there, that’s a good fellow, and don’t bring it out again. That way you can stay happy.

          • Ivan M

            In the end its racist or sexist or homophobic with you. For all your fake intellectualism that is the sum of your position when at a loss. You are just a fucking idiot. But don’t let that stop you.

          • Tutanekai

            Expressed with all of the finesse and elegance I’ve come to expect of mindless Christian bigots. Thank your imaginary God that brutish halfwits like you are no longer in charge of anything, except possibly your own families, and then only until they realise who you really are and get the hell out.

            But don’t worry, God will punish them for their rebellion against you. He’ll punish me too! He’ll punish everyone who dares to contradict you! That’s what he’s for, isn’t it? That’s his only use.

            What an utterly contemptible fool you are. Still, that’s your problem rather than mine.

          • Ivan M

            Ginsberg said that? Figures, since he was a fart imbibing homosexual. And I thought that according to Saul Bellow he was the conscience of America.

            Lukacs was one of the fellows Uncle Stalin missed in the Purges, or more likely Stalin had some use for in clearing Hungary by means of racial outsiders.

          • The Explorer

            Ginsberg said it to Norman Podhoretz when they fell out. (Quoted in ‘Ex-Friends’).
            Lukacs’ ‘History and Class Consciousness’ was hailed in its day as the most significant Marxist work after ‘The Communist Manifesto’. No wonder Stalin was suspicious. Lukacs survived that, but got in trouble for saying Scott gave an accurate rendering of the class struggle; although seen from the wrong perspective. For saying so, he was duly punished

          • Ivan M

            Please enlighten me on the man Scott. Who is he?

          • The Explorer

            Sir Walter Scott.

          • Ivan M

            Thank you.

        • Inspector General

          You are Linus, aren’t you? That homosexual entity that plagued this site the other month. Now come on, reveal your true self, and let your reason for your hatred of Christianity be known…

        • Phil R

          I don’t think closed doors are needed.

          The NUT’s stance is well known. That is why more and more teachers are becoming members of the far more moderate NASUWT and ATL.

          For the NUT, education is political theory it seems.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Remember when those gay activists chose a Christian baker to ask to bake a cake with a slogan supporting imitation marriages for gays? I wonder how many of the journalists, politicians, celebrities etc. who supported the gay activists are supporting the Church of England in this case?

  • Dominic Stockford

    Their first ‘can’t do it comment’ is “basically the exhibitors can’t be seen to have any manifesto or motive of their own, be it political or religious” – which is a political or religious statement.

  • Marketing is a pound notes game. Had the Church made them an offer they couldn’t refuse they would have got their ad aired.

    • John Airey

      Have you read the emails above? They were offered a 55% discount then the offer was withdrawn on legally dubious grounds. Paying more money wasn’t mentioned.

      • Yes I read the whole article. The Church could not afford the whole run. It might not have been the ad company’s worth while running a few ads tor something they thought in their experience might give them grief through complaints, Had the Church turned round after the 1st rejection email and asked, Ok how much extra to cushion the blow? I’m sure a deal would have been struck.

        • John Airey

          No you’re not that’s just conjecture. If DCM wanted to go back on its offer of 55% discount it would have said so. Nothing to do with money they broke the contract and discriminated against the Church of England.

          • And DCM only had conjecture as to any controversy the ad may cause.
            There was no contract signed as far as I can understand. There was just a load of waffling emails. The Church were too slow and the fact it couldn’t afford the full run. Saying that, I do think DCM are being rather petty.

          • John Airey

            Yet another person who doesn’t understand contract law. A contract doesn’t have to be signed to be a contract, plenty of contracts exist merely verbally (our economy would grind to a halt if this weren’t true). A contract is an agreement to provide goods or a service – to use the legal vernacular “an invitation to treat”. The first email offering a 55% discount clearly was.

            There are of course many ways to get out of a contract, like a mistake. You could lie and say “sorry mate, it’s fully booked now, my mistake” but that would be very easy to uncover. However to blatantly say it’s because of your faith will cause problems since the passing of the Equality Act (and possibly before that). There was no “we’ll think again if you’ll pay for the full run”.

            DCM have made a very big mistake – that’s pretty obvious when the Prime Minister says you should think again.

            One thing to take away is to be very careful what you say in emails.

          • And are you a contract lawyer?

  • Mike Stallard

    It is nice to see that the managers of our religion are so very friendly and that they are so compliant and considerate, mate. Heavens! What if…….

    People who are out of touch and indeed second raters everywhere are gutless because they are thinking only of their jobs, not the greater good.

    But they take an enormous salary for being cowardly and slimy.

  • Phil R

    I think that there have never been any attempt by the NUT to be anything other than political extremists.

    That is probably why they are no longer the largest union

    • Tutanekai

      Whether they’re members of the NUT or not, it seems that most teachers incline towards the liberal end of the political spectrum. Which in the Cranmer universe makes them stupid and ignorant at best, or downright evil at worst.

      And yet they’re teaching your children. How’s that for parental neglect?

      I expect some of you have withdrawn your offspring from the state system and placed them in religious establishments, where Fr Paddy and Sr Immaculata Concepta of the Seven Wounds can (respectively) pump and pummel the fear o’ Christ into them. Good luck! Ten to one, the priests’ extracurricular activities are, shall we say, a teeny bit unorthodox, and the nuns are probably affiliated with the LCWR and surreptitiously reading Germaine Greer in their cells at night. Heaven knows what they’ll be filling your children’s heads with.

      Looks like you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Or your children are.

      Is homeschooling the only solution? It’s illegal in many European countries, but still possible in the UK. No big bad teachers unions or predatory clergy to worry about if you take your own children’s education in hand. And then ban them from fraternising with kids who do go to school.

      Now, all you’ll have to do is convince social services you’re not an extremist nutter and your children will be safe from secular contamination.

      Good luck to you! You’re going to need it.

      • Phil R

        What ARE you on?

  • Barry

    Slight side issue here; but isn’t it ironic that Cineworld and Vue ban the Lord’s prayer but allow churches to meet in their cinemas? Cineworld in Enfield hosts Jubilee Church, and Vue in Finchley hosts Trinity Church London – at which presumably the Lord’s Prayer is occasionally said.

    • William Lewis

      I suspect that the Lord’s prayer is fine muttered in an essentially private space amongst like minded people. It’s when it is demonstrated in the public square that people become “offended” by it.

      • John Airey

        But the cinema itself is a private space, one that you normally have to pay to get into. Do cinemas really want to get into the murky area of pandering to people who may be offended by what goes on in their cinemas? On this basis a whole audience could complain they were offended by a movie and demand their money back. How would the cinema deal with that one?

    • Donalbain

      No. It isn’t ironic at all. Hiring out a venue to a private group is very different to broadcasting an advert to the general public.

      • John Airey

        Actually it isn’t any different. Plenty of cinemas are still open when churches are in (particularly multiscreens) and it’s certainly not a private event – anyone can walk in and they don’t even have to buy a ticket.

        • Donalbain

          But they go in knowing it is a church.

          • John Airey

            Not necessarily – I used to go to a church that met in a cinema and it was a common occurrence for people to wander in looking for a movie that was on in a different screen. Some undoubtedly stayed and some of them probably became christians too.

  • lily

    I really wonder what all the fuss is about. As a Christian I would be far more impressed if the C.O.E. got it’s act together and did what the “church” should be doing i.e. Preaching the good news of the Lord Jesus Christ, making disciples and caring for their flock. Adverts in cinemas are just a side show. Get real and do what we are called to do.

    • John Airey

      Seems you’ve missed the point – if they can’t advertise in cinemas then they’ve just had one potential location removed. DCM’s policy seems unlawful under the Equality Act so I expect a u-turn soon.

      • lily

        Sorry John – I haven’t missed the point at all. All this fuss about an advert, surely there are more important things to be concerned about? The C.O.E. has lost it’s way big time. There is nothing special about “the Lord’s prayer” it isn’t a mantra. He never prayed it so it isn’t His, it is simply a guide on prayer given to His disciples in response to their question. Please get real.

        • John Airey

          It’s you that keep’s replying to me. You have most definitely missed the point if you don’t think the Lord’s prayer is important. Seems to me you don’t even believe the Bible either.

          • lily

            John Airey – I have replied to you once only! This is the second time. Please don’t over-egg the pudding! I have NOT missed the point at all. I did not say it wasn’t important – I repeat that the Lord’s prayer is, as I said, a guide to prayer only. Scripture does not say we should pray these exact words, but to pray after this fashion. The fact that the C.O.E and others chant it does not change anything. The Lord never prayed these words as far as we know. They are for guidance only. The fact that the cinemas won’t show the advert is very small fry indeed. There are much more important issues by far. as for your assumptions regarding my opinion of the Bible – that is disgraceful. I am a committed, born-again believer, and have been for many years. This is very much a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while she slowly sinks.

          • John Airey

            I agree Jesus said this is how we should pray, however it’s splitting hairs to say that this isn’t actually a prayer. To claim that Jesus never prayed it is making assumptions – Jesus’ entire life isn’t in the Bible. Surely even when he said it the first time it counted as a prayer? Granted we have a lot more freedom in this country than other places in the world, but can we really stand by while we are shut out of cinemas on the basis of some supposed equality? I think it matters a great deal.

          • lily

            This is my third and last reply to you – I won’t be wasting any more of my time on such a triviality. Firstly, from the evidence that we have, Jesus did not pray this as a prayer, it was a guide on how to pray given to His disciples in response to their question. Secondly, I never made any assumption that Jesus didn’t pray “The Lord’s prayer”, only that we have no record of Him ever doing so., and as it isn’t a prayer perhaps there is a good reason for that. we are after all warned about vain repetition aren’t we! It is a storm in a teacup regarding the advert. but I guess that banning the advert has done the C.O.E. a favour as far more people will be aware of it than those who would have seen it had it been shown.

  • Owen Richards

    If they were warned in August, and officially told in September, why carry on making the ad and why wait until November to publicly complain?

    And why assume it is to spite the CoE when it applies to all religious and political ads and follows widespread public annoyance during the Referendum campaign in Scotland?

    Other than wanting to play martyrs and gain publicity of course….

  • Mr B J Mann

    I hope they won’t be screening anything promoting the Jedi Knight religion then!