Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time

[otolith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't see that at all, unless you are of the mind that objecting to religious privilege to impose religious views on others is the same thing as imposing non-religious views on believers. Jim saying "don't try to impose upon me who I can marry or when I can shop" is not the equivalent of Bob sitting in the House of Lords.

[Eric Mc]

Nobody should try to impose their views on such matters on anybody - no matter what side of a debate they are on.

Of course, everybody should be given the freedom to allow them to explain why they hold such views - whatever they are. That is not evangelising or prosletising. That is just explaining.

[otolith]

Quite. But then we have words like "heresy", "blasphemy", "apostasy", etc.

[Eric Mc]

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

Just words in the UK, but punishable by death according to some religious teachings.

[Eric Mc]

Luckilly, I live in the UK - so such issues don't impinge hugely on my life

[Troubleatmill]

Eric Mc said:

Luckilly, I live in the UK - so such issues don't impinge hugely on my life

There are plenty of ex-muslims living in the UK who don't get to say that.

[Eric Mc]

Troubleatmill said:

Eric Mc said:

Luckilly, I live in the UK - so such issues don't impinge hugely on my life

There are plenty of ex-muslims living in the UK who don't get to say that.

Tough for them. I 'm not going to get involved in other peoples' religious problems. However, if they are having problems, the laws of the UK is on their side.

[Derek Smith]

RYH64E said:

Eric Mc said:

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

Just words in the UK, but punishable by death according to some religious teachings.

Blasphemy was an offence in this country in my lifetime, and probably most of the posters on PH. Not only that, I remember a massive trial in the 70s.

Pope Blair tried to bring back a form of blasphemy law into the UK. Blair brought in religious schools, giving them a favoured position. It was enough to get the other pope a meeting with him.

This what concerns me, religious people promoting their partial point of view on this country, making decisions based on their beliefs or the strictures of their religion.

The place of religion in this country is not in school governors' board room. That, in this day and age, is an anathema to me.

There was a certain irony in that there was an attempt to prosecute the publishers of The Satanic Verses for blasphemy but it fell at the first hurdle as the law only protected christians.

[Eric Mc]

Derek Smith said:

Blasphemy was an offence in this country in my lifetime,

The operative word is "was".


"The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. See also the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006".

As I said - I live in the UK and am happy with the current rules.

[otolith]

Eric Mc said:

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

The point is that we only understand what those mean because of a long history of religious intolerance. The complaint now about religion being "attacked" is simply that it is no longer able to silence dissent. Losing privilege is not the same as being picked on.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well there are parts of it that are a bit binary.

When you say "do you think that if left to nature, we'd be just lovely?"

There is a suggestion here that we won't be lovely without believing in a deity or religion. Is that what you believe? I respect your right to have that belief, but you should see that is also a bit offensive if you conclude that means an atheist can't be lovely without a religiously derived moral compass. Or perhaps you think atheists can only be lovely as a bit of religion runs off on them anyway?

Of course - in my view - religion is man made so any implied loveliness is by definitions man made anyway. In other words, left to nature man created religion. But man has also advanced his understanding of the world quite a bit since that was beneficial in evolutionary terms. Its time to put the bigotry in the history books along with slavery and the like.

[Eric Mc]

otolith said:

Eric Mc said:

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

Losing privilege is not the same as being picked on.

Sometimes it can be. I'm against any form of bullying - whether it's religious types on non-religious types or the other way round.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression and tolerance for the views of others - even if they are views I may not hold myself.

[otolith]

Eric Mc said:

otolith said:

Eric Mc said:

So.

They are just words.

Ignore them if you don't like them. Freedom of choice also means freedom to ignore.

Losing privilege is not the same as being picked on.

Sometimes it can be. I'm against any form of bullying - whether it's religious types on non-religious types or the other way round.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression and tolerance for the views of others - even if they are views I may not hold myself.

You would say that the removal of the ability to silence dissent can amount to being picked on?

[Eric Mc]

I wouldn't.

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

Luckilly, I live in the UK - so such issues don't impinge hugely on my life

There are plenty of issues that don't imact upon my life, poverty, hunger and war to name but three, I still feel able to say that such things are bad and that the world would be a better place without them.

[Eric Mc]

Absolutely - you can say what you like (mostly). That's why I like it here.

Even if I may not agree with what you are saying.

It's great, isn't it.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

Derek Smith said:

Blasphemy was an offence in this country in my lifetime,

The operative word is "was".


"The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. See also the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006".

As I said - I live in the UK and am happy with the current rules.

I think you missed my point. As I said, a prime minister of this country tried to reimpose a blasphemy law and managed to get considerable support for it. In the end he had to be satisfied with the extension of a previous bit of legislation.

Why not a law to say that it is a crime to stir up hatred against any group? But no, we have religions mentioned as if they were in some way special. They are not.

As I say, I'm happy for anyone to believe what they want, but religions should not be given special considerations.

So I, unlike you, am not happy with the fact the the current laws favour religions.

[///ajd]

looking again at the original post, the shift in numbers is huge

2011 - 25% atheist
2015 - 49% atheist

by 2020 that could be well into 60-70%

it would be interesting to know if the majority of these atheists would vote for a secular state and schooling.

now that would be a worthwhile referendum, rather than this EU nonsense!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

But it's not 49% atheist, it's 49% no religion. 2 entirely separate things. I wish it were 49% atheist, or better still 100% atheist, but alas it's not the case.