Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not sure your personal beliefs affect me at all. I'm happy, or rather complacent, about it.I don't see how I'm bothering you. I'm putting my point of view and supporting it on a forum where the MO is to put a point of view and then support it.
As for certainty, I'm not sure why you should think that. I love history. It is an indulgence of mine, and the main feature of history is that there is no certainty.
However, I will admit to not being fanciful. Wishing things were true does not make it happen. But I am, in many ways, spiritual. Yesterday I stood in Herschel's studio where he made his mirrors, and wandered around the small garden where he did when discovering Uranus. It was a big kick.
If me putting my point of view does affect you, then maybe you are understanding my point that magic doesn't exist. If it did it would be repeatable.
You don't bother me, let's make that clear. Everyone should be allowed to follow their own beliefs however ridiculous. But religions, now there's something I'm against.
From what you've said in your many posts, it would appear you are not a close follower of any religion so seem to have invented your own. Fair enough, that's how most religions started. Indeed it is how the current christianity started, with Constantine thinking he'd cracked it. You have no say in the government of this country over and above that of every individual adult. You will not receive tax concessions because of your belief in magic. You don't preach that women are inferior to men and that gay people will burn in hell for all eternity.
Continue in that vein and I'll have no concerns about what you do.
Except, if you post on here, I'll challenge. If you don't want me to, then why do you post?
You don't pose a challenge Derek. There is no issue with questioning each other if it is appropriate and thoughtful.
It was a comment about your general attitude and preachy nature to encourage a little self reflection on your behalf. Once again I think you share many traits with religious fundamentalists. A conservative, hardline, jihadist Muslim would think the Western lifestyle is evil and needs to be erased. They pick up issues such as the particularly negative aspects of alcohol use and sexual attitudes as justification for their opinion that it's all bad. There are problems with alcohol, there are problems with sexual attitudes in some cases but actually alcohol can be beneficial in some respects and our approach to sexuality can be liberating. On the whole there are many good things about life in the West, but the hardliners do not want to accept that and cannot see it. That is how you, and a select few are about religion. When you think we say that you are treating science or atheism as a religion your prejudices about the term 'religion' blind you to what we really mean. It's the manner in which you apply and adhere to your opinions that highlights the similarities between you and religious zealots. You spend all your time pursuing your distaste for them, aiming your comments at people simply because they might have an element of spirituality or faith in their lives, all the time you've spent doing this you've never realised that you are no better than what it is you are attacking.
It was a comment about your general attitude and preachy nature to encourage a little self reflection on your behalf. Once again I think you share many traits with religious fundamentalists. A conservative, hardline, jihadist Muslim would think the Western lifestyle is evil and needs to be erased. They pick up issues such as the particularly negative aspects of alcohol use and sexual attitudes as justification for their opinion that it's all bad. There are problems with alcohol, there are problems with sexual attitudes in some cases but actually alcohol can be beneficial in some respects and our approach to sexuality can be liberating. On the whole there are many good things about life in the West, but the hardliners do not want to accept that and cannot see it. That is how you, and a select few are about religion. When you think we say that you are treating science or atheism as a religion your prejudices about the term 'religion' blind you to what we really mean. It's the manner in which you apply and adhere to your opinions that highlights the similarities between you and religious zealots. You spend all your time pursuing your distaste for them, aiming your comments at people simply because they might have an element of spirituality or faith in their lives, all the time you've spent doing this you've never realised that you are no better than what it is you are attacking.
otolith said:
How does Derek holding and expressing his views affect you? Either you agree with his reasoning or you don't. You've yet to make a theist argument which troubles me, is that my problem or yours?
That's your problem. My main concern is not to preach theism but simply to highlight the hypocrisy and irony in the manner in which certain PHers pursue their anti-religious and pro-atheist agendas. ///ajd said:
Indeed.
If Derek was lecturing your kids 3 times a week with his ideas and there was little (short of moving their school) you could do to stop it, then you might have a point. But he's not, is he?
On the other hand, do you think its OK to push your ideas on everyones kids every week at school? Because that is happening now.
I can remember studying some educational theory sometime last century which was that there are several ideas that are pushed on kids. Some of them religious.
Mrs Standards works in many schools and we have reflected on how 'neutral' schools could/should be in that and other areas with the varied beliefs/views of pupils, staff, parents, governors, governments...
If Derek was lecturing your kids 3 times a week with his ideas and there was little (short of moving their school) you could do to stop it, then you might have a point. But he's not, is he?
On the other hand, do you think its OK to push your ideas on everyones kids every week at school? Because that is happening now.
I can remember studying some educational theory sometime last century which was that there are several ideas that are pushed on kids. Some of them religious.
Mrs Standards works in many schools and we have reflected on how 'neutral' schools could/should be in that and other areas with the varied beliefs/views of pupils, staff, parents, governors, governments...
There is a certain irony in your post.
You've accused me of being similar to a jihadist and then suggested my attacks are personal.
Let me be clear, yet again, on my point of view.
I don't care what you believe. If you want to believe in a god, then go ahead. I don't care. If you want to believe in magic, go ahead. I don't care.
If you suggest that a person (particularly a child) is somehow better than others just because they say they believe in a certain religion, then I do care. If you suggest women are inferior, then I do care. If you care about whom a person sleeps with, then I do care. If you push weird non-supported beliefs in schools, then I care. And I'm selfish, so I don't want you to have access to my taxes.
I don't want you to have any special considerations in governing me.
So unlike jihadists, I don't care what you think or believe.
You suggest I am prejudiced. I would point out that I have studied a number of religions and my disbelief is informed. When you consider how the anglican church developed, first as catholic and then going through various changes until nowadays, then it is a stretch to believe that it is inspired.
Go back further and the way the christian sect changed, was changed, into the empire's religion would ensure that anyone who was not prejudiced would have his doubts.
But you believe what you want. Do what you want, but don't affect my life.
You've accused me of being similar to a jihadist and then suggested my attacks are personal.
Let me be clear, yet again, on my point of view.
I don't care what you believe. If you want to believe in a god, then go ahead. I don't care. If you want to believe in magic, go ahead. I don't care.
If you suggest that a person (particularly a child) is somehow better than others just because they say they believe in a certain religion, then I do care. If you suggest women are inferior, then I do care. If you care about whom a person sleeps with, then I do care. If you push weird non-supported beliefs in schools, then I care. And I'm selfish, so I don't want you to have access to my taxes.
I don't want you to have any special considerations in governing me.
So unlike jihadists, I don't care what you think or believe.
You suggest I am prejudiced. I would point out that I have studied a number of religions and my disbelief is informed. When you consider how the anglican church developed, first as catholic and then going through various changes until nowadays, then it is a stretch to believe that it is inspired.
Go back further and the way the christian sect changed, was changed, into the empire's religion would ensure that anyone who was not prejudiced would have his doubts.
But you believe what you want. Do what you want, but don't affect my life.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Did he?Had his neighbours invited them around? Seems strange for him to block an invited guest!
Or were they actually trying to impose their views uninvited? Hmmm. Now why would a religious person think someone else might want them to preach to them? Surely the church doesn't encourage foisting their views on others uninvited!! Errr.
This thread on is voluntary - no obligation to read or post. Come and go at will, opinions and debate in here are free. Certainly I can say that it is offensive for a religious person to imply morals are only come from religion - this can be said fairly freely in here, in response to the implication that perhaps they are by VK. Its far from clear that VK understands this is offensive - do you VK?
otolith said:
ATG said:
otolith said:
Didn't say it was, I was responding to the claim that the removal of religion would lead to the loss of morality.
Did anyone make that claim? Efbe said:
it does.
any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
If you agree religion has no special claim on morals, and religion is irrelevant to whether someones moral code is to be judged acceptable, then we are in agreement.
otolith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What agenda is that? Having believers accept that their beliefs give them no right to dictate how non-believers live their lives? Having believers accept that whether other people find their beliefs ridiculous (and say so) is none of their business?anonymous said:
[redacted]
Its not hypocrisy though is it?Why do you think it is?
Saying please don't indoctrinate my kids, is not the same as saying I want to indoctrinate them. Not forcing religious belief down their throats is not the same as making them atheist - you seem to be mixing this up.
///ajd said:
Sorry VK I may have mixed your views up with the Efbe post above.
If you agree religion has no special claim on morals, and religion is irrelevant to whether someones moral code is to be judged acceptable, then we are in agreement.
I disagree with you. I think there's a valid discussion to be had first.If you agree religion has no special claim on morals, and religion is irrelevant to whether someones moral code is to be judged acceptable, then we are in agreement.
Some see religion as a kind of humility. Think of a decision you want to make where you feel you'll gain but someone else will suffer as a result. Now think of what an outsider will think of the situation, putting aside any material desire or profit. That's what most of us do however to some that third person is their God or Jesus for example. To them their God represents only good pure desire, free of the complications that cloud a pure decision. It's a process that benefits some. In that respect do you think that it can be useful?Do you think that the world is perfect enough not to promote that way of thinking? Do you think that, if left to nature, we'd be just lovely? It's just a question.....
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Thanks, I was pretty sure you did agree with Efbe hence my earlier post.Its been covered but morality comes from humans, not religion. So no, there will not be a huge moral vacuum without religion. The fact you think there might be is rather offensive. As an atheist do you really think I have no empathy for others? Did I get that from religion or was religion necessary? Of course no ot! I know why religion lays claim to morality but thats another issue.
The world would be more perfect without religious bigotry against women and gays, wouldn't it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff