So you think promoting atheism at the expense of religion (basically what you described as 'forcing religion out of the public square') isn't militant?
I don't see how you can get more militantly atheist, short of actually killing off religious people, which is certainly not what the phrase means in this day and age
The Crusades and things?
'War' may be the wrong word, but the Roman's certainly killed enough people in the name of expanding the empire, and by proxy, Catholicism.
I've had a little read about Hitler and it seems you're right in the sense that it appears he became more cynical of the church the older he got, and by 1941 he'd outright renounced any belief he once had.
No. What I'm saying is that some atheists think it okay to promote their atheism at the same time as them trying their hardest to prevent religious people from promoting their faith. Can't you see the contradiction here?
The Roman Empire ended in the West in AD 476. They were hammered by the Goths.
The Romans also killed many Christians for the first three hundred years of Christianity's existence. That might not interest you though.
As for Hitler, I think he was deeply into occultism. And he never, as far as I'm aware anyway, wanted to conquer the world in the name of Christianity.
Religion played a somewhat significant role in World War 2
Absolutely not, it played no significant role as a cause of that war at all. You wouldn't be able to find any reputable historian who would claim that it did. Here's a long list of many causes - with explanations - that have been given for World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II. Religion nowhere to be found.
With regards to the Romans, perhaps you're confusing them with the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages. The Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century and only became Christian at a late stage (they waged no wars in its name). The Holy Roman Empire was a later invention by some European kings to give themselves more legitimacy by calling themselves Emperors. To quote Voltaire, it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
No. What I'm saying is that some atheists think it okay to promote their atheism at the same time as them trying their hardest to prevent religious people from promoting their faith. Can't you see the contradiction here?
The Roman Empire ended in the West in AD 476. They were hammered by the Goths.
The Romans also killed many Christians for the first three hundred years of Christianity's existence. That might not interest you though.
As for Hitler, I think he was deeply into occultism. And he never, as far as I'm aware anyway, wanted to conquer the world in the name of Christianity.
Um.. yes?
I think maybe you've got the wrong end of my initial post somewhere along the lines. This is precisely why I'm not a militant atheist despite the fact I think religion is made up nonsense. I believe people have the freedom and rights to worship whatever ideas or ideologies they want.
And yes I'm aware the Romans killed Christian's, as well as those from other religions...? Why would it not interest me?
You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder and I'm not sure why. From what I can see, we agree with each other.
I think maybe you've got the wrong end of my initial post somewhere along the lines. This is precisely why I'm not a militant atheist despite the fact I think religion is made up nonsense. I believe people have the freedom and rights to worship whatever ideas or ideologies they want.
And yes I'm aware the Romans killed Christian's, as well as those from other religions...? Why would it not interest me?
You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder and I'm not sure why. From what I can see, we agree with each other.
BIB -
I think that is quite possible.
I thought you said that you had been a militant atheist somewhere along the line, and what you described to me didn't seem militant at all. I then spoke about your 'promoting' your atheism and explained what some other atheists out there - 'out there' can be: read any comments such as those on the OP's article in the DM for example to see exactly what I'm talking about.
However; 1) I wasn't implying that was you in any way and 2) I don't really see these online evangelical atheists as 'militant' either. It is all just hot air and words. If, however, they ever got into any aspect of authority in our country then I could see that there would be true militancy. Seeing their fervour in their anti-religious cause makes me think that they would truly like all of these totalitarian things to happen to us.
I don't have any chips on my shoulder Hypnodisc. Not at all. I am defending my faith, which is my life. And I have every right to do that, just as you do in 'promoting' your atheism too.
Absolutely not, it played no significant role as a cause of that war at all. You wouldn't be able to find any reputable historian who would claim that it did. Here's a long list of many causes - with explanations - that have been given for World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II. Religion nowhere to be found.
With regards to the Romans, perhaps you're confusing them with the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages. The Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century and only became Christian at a late stage (they waged no wars in its name). The Holy Roman Empire was a later invention by some European kings to give themselves more legitimacy by calling themselves Emperors. To quote Voltaire, it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
Er ----surely the census figures show that the UK is becoming less Religious, not more?
A Muslim colleague of mine insists that the UK will have 30% of people describe themselves as Muslim by 2050, purely because of the birth rate differential. When you think about it, he's probably not far off the mark.
As less people put the default 'Christian' answer on the census form, you could interpret the data as this country becoming more religious.
A Muslim colleague of mine insists that the UK will have 30% of people describe themselves as Muslim by 2050, purely because of the birth rate differential. When you think about it, he's probably not far off the mark.
As less people put the default 'Christian' answer on the census form, you could interpret the data as this country becoming more religious.
Sadly just as Christianity is finally declining at last we have a far more violent and just batshit insane cult that is on the rise.
Islam in this country is not generally a "violent cult".
Really?
Just you wait.
Look at the life of it's founder.
And it is not generally violent now, wait until (if) it becomes the majority belief system in a century or so and see how Muslim countries around the world treat other faiths and those with no belief in Allah (Yahweh) at all.
A Muslim colleague of mine insists that the UK will have 30% of people describe themselves as Muslim by 2050, purely because of the birth rate differential. When you think about it, he's probably not far off the mark.
As less people put the default 'Christian' answer on the census form, you could interpret the data as this country becoming more religious.
I don't follow your logic here. According to figures in 1964 74% of people said they belonged to a Religion and only 3% said they followed no Religion at all. By 2005 the figures were 31% belonging to a Religion and 38% belonging to no Religion. This seems to suggest to me that the UK is becoming less Religious. Your answer seems to suggest that Christians aren't Religious.
I don't understand how anyone can look at figures that say that more and more people are not affiliated to any Religion at all and say this means the country is becoming more Religious.
I'll take the official figures over one man and his opinion in the conservative, christian promoting Daily Mail thanks.
I think you and other people are misunderstanding what he is saying. He is not talking about census statistics. He is talking about whether religion is 'mainstream', and gives as an example the popularity of the Alpha course. Since he is talking about something that you might call a general impression, there is no point in trying to dispute what he says with statistics. I think you could very reasonably point to the growth in faith schools as an example of religion becoming more mainstream.
On the other hand, lowering the same-sex age of consent and bringing in equal marriage were probably opposed by most traditionally religious people, which suggests that their influence is on the wane.
The Romans fought wars to conquer and spread Catholicism. They were religion-centric.
Whatever? The Romans did not overlap with anything that would normally be described as Catholics. And the Romans were almost infinitely tolerant of vernacular religions until they became a political threat. They never liked the Jews because they were relatively wealthy, cohesive and powerful, but they were always happy to add local gods to the pantheon until towards the end of their empire.
Religion played a somewhat significant role in World War 2. Hitler's ideas were partially motivated by white supremacy, but he was also a Christian and thought he was doing the right thing religiously speaking. He of course wanted the eradication of other religions, particularly Judaism as we well know.
He was a lapsed catholic who systematically took money and power from the church, seeing it as a threat to his own power. He promoted excommunicated Catholics, atheists and pagans to the highest positions in the government. Those who knew him talked of his unvarying and powerful contempt for the church, but his desire to defer open war with it until he felt more secure in his power.
A Muslim colleague of mine insists that the UK will have 30% of people describe themselves as Muslim by 2050, purely because of the birth rate differential. When you think about it, he's probably not far off the mark.
As less people put the default 'Christian' answer on the census form, you could interpret the data as this country becoming more religious.
Except in rare circumstances, high birth rates among immigrants seem to last for a single generation. The children of immigrants, growing up in the UK, have a birth rate much closer to the average.
Well that's disappointing as god doesn't exist so these people are idiots. It is actually quite scary that grown adults who are part of our everyday society believe this drivel.
Absolutely not, it played no significant role as a cause of that war at all. You wouldn't be able to find any reputable historian who would claim that it did. Here's a long list of many causes - with explanations - that have been given for World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II. Religion nowhere to be found.
With regards to the Romans, perhaps you're confusing them with the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages. The Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century and only became Christian at a late stage (they waged no wars in its name). The Holy Roman Empire was a later invention by some European kings to give themselves more legitimacy by calling themselves Emperors. To quote Voltaire, it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
No he is confused with the Eastern Roman empire which was later known as the Byzantine Empire. The original empire was split in two East and West.
And yes it did fight several religious wars in favour of Christian orthodoxy after Constantine (hint Constantinople helps to place the empire) made it the official state religion.
No he is confused with the Eastern Roman empire which was later known as the Byzantine Empire. The original empire was split in two East and West.
And yes it did fight several religious wars in favour of Christian orthodoxy after Constantine (hint Constantinople helps to place the empire) made it the official state religion.
That Ronan empire lasted until the 25th century.
Are you predicting the imminent rise of some empire, lasting several centuries into the future, dominated by worship of the nasal bleater, Ronan Keating?
Such a terrifying vison of the future would indeed drive most of us back to Christianity.
Comments
No. What I'm saying is that some atheists think it okay to promote their atheism at the same time as them trying their hardest to prevent religious people from promoting their faith. Can't you see the contradiction here?
The Roman Empire ended in the West in AD 476. They were hammered by the Goths.
The Romans also killed many Christians for the first three hundred years of Christianity's existence. That might not interest you though.
As for Hitler, I think he was deeply into occultism. And he never, as far as I'm aware anyway, wanted to conquer the world in the name of Christianity.
I always thought that Simon Schama was a Jewish atheist.
Anyway, his article is actually in next week's Radio Times. Nothing Christian about them, I don't think.
I didn't realise that the DM was Christian either.
Absolutely not, it played no significant role as a cause of that war at all. You wouldn't be able to find any reputable historian who would claim that it did. Here's a long list of many causes - with explanations - that have been given for World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II. Religion nowhere to be found.
With regards to the Romans, perhaps you're confusing them with the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages. The Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century and only became Christian at a late stage (they waged no wars in its name). The Holy Roman Empire was a later invention by some European kings to give themselves more legitimacy by calling themselves Emperors. To quote Voltaire, it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
Um.. yes?
I think maybe you've got the wrong end of my initial post somewhere along the lines. This is precisely why I'm not a militant atheist despite the fact I think religion is made up nonsense. I believe people have the freedom and rights to worship whatever ideas or ideologies they want.
And yes I'm aware the Romans killed Christian's, as well as those from other religions...? Why would it not interest me?
You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder and I'm not sure why. From what I can see, we agree with each other.
BIB -
I think that is quite possible.
I thought you said that you had been a militant atheist somewhere along the line, and what you described to me didn't seem militant at all. I then spoke about your 'promoting' your atheism and explained what some other atheists out there - 'out there' can be: read any comments such as those on the OP's article in the DM for example to see exactly what I'm talking about.
However; 1) I wasn't implying that was you in any way and 2) I don't really see these online evangelical atheists as 'militant' either. It is all just hot air and words. If, however, they ever got into any aspect of authority in our country then I could see that there would be true militancy. Seeing their fervour in their anti-religious cause makes me think that they would truly like all of these totalitarian things to happen to us.
I don't have any chips on my shoulder Hypnodisc. Not at all. I am defending my faith, which is my life. And I have every right to do that, just as you do in 'promoting' your atheism too.
Hope that explains my position a little better.
Very good post. Thank you.
A Muslim colleague of mine insists that the UK will have 30% of people describe themselves as Muslim by 2050, purely because of the birth rate differential. When you think about it, he's probably not far off the mark.
As less people put the default 'Christian' answer on the census form, you could interpret the data as this country becoming more religious.
https://humanism.org.uk/2014/06/17/british-social-attitudes-survey-finds-people-religion-just-41-7-christian/
Sadly just as Christianity is finally declining at last we have a far more violent and just batshit insane cult that is on the rise.
It is frightening.
Islam in this country is not generally a "violent cult".
He probably means islam.
Really?
Just you wait.
Look at the life of it's founder.
And it is not generally violent now, wait until (if) it becomes the majority belief system in a century or so and see how Muslim countries around the world treat other faiths and those with no belief in Allah (Yahweh) at all.
I don't follow your logic here. According to figures in 1964 74% of people said they belonged to a Religion and only 3% said they followed no Religion at all. By 2005 the figures were 31% belonging to a Religion and 38% belonging to no Religion. This seems to suggest to me that the UK is becoming less Religious. Your answer seems to suggest that Christians aren't Religious.
I don't understand how anyone can look at figures that say that more and more people are not affiliated to any Religion at all and say this means the country is becoming more Religious.
On the other hand, lowering the same-sex age of consent and bringing in equal marriage were probably opposed by most traditionally religious people, which suggests that their influence is on the wane. Whatever? The Romans did not overlap with anything that would normally be described as Catholics. And the Romans were almost infinitely tolerant of vernacular religions until they became a political threat. They never liked the Jews because they were relatively wealthy, cohesive and powerful, but they were always happy to add local gods to the pantheon until towards the end of their empire.
He was a lapsed catholic who systematically took money and power from the church, seeing it as a threat to his own power. He promoted excommunicated Catholics, atheists and pagans to the highest positions in the government. Those who knew him talked of his unvarying and powerful contempt for the church, but his desire to defer open war with it until he felt more secure in his power.
Except in rare circumstances, high birth rates among immigrants seem to last for a single generation. The children of immigrants, growing up in the UK, have a birth rate much closer to the average.
Well that's disappointing as god doesn't exist so these people are idiots. It is actually quite scary that grown adults who are part of our everyday society believe this drivel.
No he is confused with the Eastern Roman empire which was later known as the Byzantine Empire. The original empire was split in two East and West.
And yes it did fight several religious wars in favour of Christian orthodoxy after Constantine (hint Constantinople helps to place the empire) made it the official state religion.
That Ronan empire lasted until the 25th century.
You really need to work on your jokes, they're not as funny as you think.
Are you predicting the imminent rise of some empire, lasting several centuries into the future, dominated by worship of the nasal bleater, Ronan Keating?
Such a terrifying vison of the future would indeed drive most of us back to Christianity.