Watch Targett and Reed examine and answer the deep philosophical questions of our time. Starting with which came first the chicken or the egg?
2 Likes
Originally posted by @KRG
This is why I fall short of labelling myself an atheist. Mostly due to not wanting to be associated with atheism, which is religion like in its devotion. Acting not much different than religious followers they think so little of.
Like all people, I was born an atheist. My mind must have been elsewhere during my culturally driven indoctrination to a religion during my childhood. While catching up on the stories bihind religions in later years I never saw anything in those stories to convert me at an older age. It never even occured to me to lable myself as an aitheist or any other such label.
It was only after living in the US for about a year that I found the need to claim a label, and speak my mind on the subject when it comes up in conversation. Religion is everywhere here and the assumption is that a white person is Christian or Jewish. When somebody starts a conversation with something like “What church do you attend?” Without even asking first if I am religious, I have to admit to taking a little offence. It makes me feel like I have been taken for a fool.
Just like most religious people, most atheists don’t usually bring up the subject in the first place. In my opinion it is a falacy to suggest that atheists in the USA, at least are equally or more ardent than religious people. Here, we just tend to stand out a lot more when we speak on the topic of religion. Atheists in the US are the most mistrusted group of people. Even compared to those terrorist Muslims and those depraved gays.
Being a non believer in the main is a luxury of the Western World rich, that said we are much more enlightened not having such a dogma in our lives (regards to womens right, sexual equality and racism etc etc), CofE for me is by far the most tolerant and accepting faiths I have come across, something at least we can be proud of.
I can not think of many wars where religion did not play some part.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
CofE for me is by far the most tolerant and accepting faiths I have come across, something at least we can be proud of.
Someone here once asked me if there is a lot of religion in the UK. It was very convenient for me to say that we have the CofE…So, no.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Ohio-Saint
Originally posted by @KRG
This is why I fall short of labelling myself an atheist. Mostly due to not wanting to be associated with atheism, which is religion like in its devotion. Acting not much different than religious followers they think so little of.
Just like most religious people, most atheists don’t usually bring up the subject in the first place. In my opinion it is a falacy to suggest that atheists in the USA, at least are equally or more ardent than religious people. Here, we just tend to stand out a lot more when we speak on the topic of religion. Atheists in the US are the most mistrusted group of people. Even compared to those terrorist Muslims and those depraved gays.
Oh yeah, for sure man. Seeing all those atheists shot dead in the street by the police in the states, it’s heartbreaking.
Huh? Please clarify.
Edit:- Never mind. I was wondering what I said wrong, so I Googled “least trusted group in america” You should try it.
Thats the beauty of it, it really is an amaing fusion of two intolerant versions of a story.
Originally posted by @KRG
I’m heartened at reading people’s responses n here, and glad no one has really gone down the “man sat in the clouds route”. Something that is often forgotten is that for the most part, religion was more metaphorical than literal. It’s a pretty recent phenomenon where religious ideologues have started taking religious texts as absolute statements. This is why I fall short of labelling myself an atheist. Mostly due to not wanting to be associated with atheism, which is religion like in its devotion. Acting not much different than religious followers they think so little of.
people like Dawkins and Hitchens have a lot to do with this. For them, mocking religion and religious people is something of a sport. It’s pretty unbecoming, the former has also amassed something of an army of loathsome followers ready to jump all over anyone he happens to point at. Fuck that guy.
On the first count, I’d have to say you’re massively wrong. It may seem to be only recently in your own lifetime (or indeed in mine) that people have viewed religious texts as absolute truth, but I think that if you looked back a couple of hundred years (or indeed less), you’d see that such belief was very much the norm. Religion has, in many cases, become metaphorical (or at least more metaphorical). In its roots it is entirely lliteral.
On the second point, who exactly are these loathsome followers of Richard Dawkins? To what extent are their views reported? I’ve heard various people complain about what they see as militant (or proselytising) atheism, but to be honest I see very little evidence that it is any sort of real force. Have we yet had a Prime Minister (or even a potential one) who was willing to proclaim himself or herself an atheist, for example? In the answer to that question you see the enduring power of religious belief (or maybe rather more of organised religion) - what similar power has semi-organised atheism? The thoughts and statements of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Chief Rabbi and others are frequently reported in mainstream media, but I’ve yet to see the thoughts and statements of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins be similarly treated.
On a broader point, if you don’t believe that there is a deity then you’re an atheist. It doesn’t mean that you have to feel the need to convince others of the non-existence of a god, or that you have to identify with Richard Dawkins. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deity, nothing else.
1 Like
Really well put Fowllyd
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
Originally posted by @KRG
I’m heartened at reading people’s responses n here, and glad no one has really gone down the “man sat in the clouds route”. Something that is often forgotten is that for the most part, religion was more metaphorical than literal. It’s a pretty recent phenomenon where religious ideologues have started taking religious texts as absolute statements. This is why I fall short of labelling myself an atheist. Mostly due to not wanting to be associated with atheism, which is religion like in its devotion. Acting not much different than religious followers they think so little of.
people like Dawkins and Hitchens have a lot to do with this. For them, mocking religion and religious people is something of a sport. It’s pretty unbecoming, the former has also amassed something of an army of loathsome followers ready to jump all over anyone he happens to point at. Fuck that guy.
On the first count, I’d have to say you’re massively wrong. It may seem to be only recently in your own lifetime (or indeed in mine) that people have viewed religious texts as absolute truth, but I think that if you looked back a couple of hundred years (or indeed less), you’d see that such belief was very much the norm. Religion has, in many cases, become metaphorical (or at least more metaphorical). In its roots it is entirely lliteral.
Agreed, and well put. What we are seeing at an ever increasing rate are fundamentalists pushing back as the basic tenants of religion are being questioned by science and pushing any gods further away with an ever-widening boundary of knowledge. As this boundary expands, any leap of faith for anyone wanting to hold on to their religion becomes bigger, and there is no longer any room for cherry picking. Many fundamentalists are going to the extreme in taking scriptures literally, in my opinion to cut out any awkard questions and thinking involved in justifying their faith to themselves.
3 Likes
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
Originally posted by @KRG
I’m heartened at reading people’s responses n here, and glad no one has really gone down the “man sat in the clouds route”. Something that is often forgotten is that for the most part, religion was more metaphorical than literal. It’s a pretty recent phenomenon where religious ideologues have started taking religious texts as absolute statements. This is why I fall short of labelling myself an atheist. Mostly due to not wanting to be associated with atheism, which is religion like in its devotion. Acting not much different than religious followers they think so little of.
people like Dawkins and Hitchens have a lot to do with this. For them, mocking religion and religious people is something of a sport. It’s pretty unbecoming, the former has also amassed something of an army of loathsome followers ready to jump all over anyone he happens to point at. Fuck that guy.
On the first count, I’d have to say you’re massively wrong. It may seem to be only recently in your own lifetime (or indeed in mine) that people have viewed religious texts as absolute truth, but I think that if you looked back a couple of hundred years (or indeed less), you’d see that such belief was very much the norm. Religion has, in many cases, become metaphorical (or at least more metaphorical). In its roots it is entirely lliteral.
On the second point, who exactly are these loathsome followers of Richard Dawkins? To what extent are their views reported? I’ve heard various people complain about what they see as militant (or proselytising) atheism, but to be honest I see very little evidence that it is any sort of real force. Have we yet had a Prime Minister (or even a potential one) who was willing to proclaim himself or herself an atheist, for example? In the answer to that question you see the enduring power of religious belief (or maybe rather more of organised religion) - what similar power has semi-organised atheism? The thoughts and statements of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Chief Rabbi and others are frequently reported in mainstream media, but I’ve yet to see the thoughts and statements of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins be similarly treated.
On a broader point, if you don’t believe that there is a deity then you’re an atheist. It doesn’t mean that you have to feel the need to convince others of the non-existence of a god, or that you have to identify with Richard Dawkins. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deity, nothing else.
Religion has been around thousands of years, so yeah the last couple of hundred years (the period of time I was initially referring to) is relatively recent.
who are they? What do you want? Names and addresses of all of them? The atheist ‘community’ has huge problems with militants. Just because you haven’t seen them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Any time Dawkins makes a comment about someone, that person is then subjected to days of online harassment. There’s also a large number of atheist you tubers that are just vile people. There’s plenty out there who act like religious fundamentalists.
Yeah, definitely, Hitchens & Dawkins opinions thoughts never get any attention. That’s why literally no one has heard of them, or read there books, or know what they think? Imagine if they could start a school to push their thoughts…
Spare the woe is the American (I assume you aren’t actually American, but the point still stands) atheist, so downtrodden and mistrusted.
Given the background of what is actually going on in America at the minute trying to make such a claim feels pretty crass.
On a lighter note I’d like to claim huge cudos and a badge here as my great great grandfather was prosecuted and found guilty of publishing a blasphemous libel.
I throw myself to the mercy of this court…thank you.
4 Likes
Fuck, we give out badges to people who say they’re never going to post again.
This is an easy one to dish out 
Will sort it this week.
That sounds interesting. Have you any idea what sort of thing it was?
Will have t’ go back and read t’ rest of t’ thread (sorry, Yorkshirites), but thus far this is a most enlightened position.
Where’s the thing for smileys…? Found it …
< no idea what it represents, but it is quite pretteh.
1 Like
'Lo Burp,
Quoting is a bit different on this site. Fixed your post up, but keep an eye on it to ensure that you’re not writing your post in the quoted bit.
Oh, and informally (bletch and Fowlly D will kill me otherwise), welcome to the site. The About Us page should give you some good places to start.
My point stands, I think. I did not suggest that nobody knows the views of Dawkins or Hitchens, just that they are not spoken to or consulted as figures of authority (this would be particularly tricky with Hitchens of course, what with him being dead and all). Religious leaders are, frequently.
I’ll take your word for it on the other point, as it’s something that I’m simply not aware of to be honest. But then the online world does seem to be filled with people who’ll take any opportunity to heap abuse on others; the fact that some who purport to follow Richard Dawkins do so should come as no surprise I suppose. If Dawkins is encouraging this then that’s a different matter, but I doubt that he is.
Finally, was that tone really necessary? I asked a couple of questions and made a couple of points, but I don’t think I was rude or offensive in doing so. If you think I was then please accept my apologies, as I certainly intended no such thing.
3 Likes
The apology is appreciated, but certainly not necessary. I didn’t think you were rude in the slightest. If I came across as such I’m also sorry. Tone is easily lost here. My ‘style’ appears to come off as such, so perhaps this is something I should work on.
maybe you’re right, I’ve just spent too long staring into the online cesspit. I guess it’s easily done when you work online, and there’s a pretty large online cesspit that surrounds the industry you work in, which regularly overlaps with over shitty circles, particularly atheists.
i have no reason to believe you, Ohio or any other stated atheists here do engage in some of the shittier behaviours I have seen or spoken about. I was aiming to talk about specifics, but I can see how what I was saying could be interpreted as broadbrush. Noted, I’ll try to do better in future.
on Dawkins, part of my distaste for him is that I have seen him do this. He has made seem pretty nasty comments about groups at bad times that pander to some nasty types, the sort of things that would get lapped up, ‘over there’. An example would be;
“not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims”
apologies, that may not be word for word, but it’s along the right lines. This came on the back of a terrorist attack (I think the Charlie Hebdo? I may be wrong on that). It’s clearly designed to stir shit up, and it’s only really true if your view on what makes a terrorist comes straight of the Daily Mail. It’s the same sort of view that will dismiss terrorists such as Dylan Roof ‘mentally ill’ and not hugely racist or Elliot Roger as a loner, instead of an extreme misogynist. It suits their agenda to not class these people as terrorists, because they can further push the ideal that on religion creates terrorists, or in many cases that it is in fact Islam creates terrorism.
it’s pretty unsightly, also when stepping out of the atheist sphere, he can often act a bit of a jerk. He makes some pretty shitty comments about women, and feminism at times when it’s not always necessary.
Again, if I came off as aggressive or adversarial I am sincerely sorry. That was not my intention.
3 Likes