A poster saying "There's probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy life." is hardly an example of 'forcing belief on others'. Chill out.
But for people to think that they should be putting that message on the side of buses to try and dissuade believers is a little sad IMHO.
Its like me putting posters up all over town just before Christmas telling kids that Santa doesnt exist ...... :eek:
If somebody believes in something that you dont why try and spoil it for them ???
Im not in either camp really but i think for either side to force their view on others is wrong. In some ways, however, I can understand it more from the religious side as at least they believe that by trying to 'convert you' they think they might save you ??
What are atheists doing with spreading their message ?? being the ultimate killjoys ???
But for people to think that they should be putting that message on the side of buses to try and dissuade believers is a little sad IMHO.
Its like me putting posters up all over town just before Christmas telling kids that Santa doesnt exist ...... :eek:
If somebody believes in something that you dont why try and spoil it for them ???
Im not in either camp really but i think for either side to force their view on others is wrong. In some ways, however, I can understand it more from the religious side as at least they believe that by trying to 'convert you' they think they might save you ??
What are atheists doing with spreading their message ?? being the ultimate killjoys ???
You seem to be under the naive impression that it is simply beliefs that people have a problem with. The problem is, religion isn't just a private eccentricity. You need to consider the wider context of the discussion and the wider extent of the issues and concerns involved.
If religion was just a personal belief about life or the world, or personal preference or taste, and was unobtrusive and harmless to everyone else, it wouldn't be worthy of so much open criticism. But it is not just that. It is a collective, often hysterical and irrational mass belief and school of thought that has so much stranglehold on the world that it affects millions of lives every day whether they agree with it or not, whether they want it to or not. It affects things from who gets to govern the most powerful secular (apparently) nation on earth, to if homosexuals deserve to live or die on the other side of the planet.
When the religions of the world offer themselves up as a complete system of life - law, policy, social, economical, educational, philosophical, even military, and with pretty much the sole aim of converting and controlling the masses - we can criticise them as thoroughly, shamelessly and ruthlessly as we can any constitution or political ideology, or any collection of ideas and principles. As soon as we can’t, we can no longer consider ourselves a democracy.
Mainly due to the fact that the ideology had another figurehead rather than a god for people to laud over. The ideology required that the figurehead be Earthly and real rather than invisible.
Nonsense. Atheism was an essential part of Marxism long before the cult of personality.
You seem to be under the naive impression that it is simply beliefs that people have a problem with. The problem is, religion isn't just a private eccentricity. You need to consider the wider context of the discussion and the wider extent of the issues and concerns involved.
If religion was just a personal belief about life or the world, or personal preference or taste, and was unobtrusive and harmless to everyone else, it wouldn't be worthy of so much open criticism. But it is not just that. It is a collective, often hysterical and irrational mass belief and school of thought that has so much stranglehold on the world that it affects millions of lives every day whether they agree with it or not, whether they want it to or not. It affects things from who gets to govern the most powerful secular (apparently) nation on earth, to if homosexuals deserve to live or die on the other side of the planet.
When the religions of the world offer themselves up as a complete system of life - law, policy, social, economical, educational, philosophical, even military, and with pretty much the sole aim of converting and controlling the masses - we can criticise them as thoroughly, shamelessly and ruthlessly as we can any constitution or political ideology, or any collection of ideas and principles. As soon as we can’t, we can no longer consider ourselves a democracy.
Indeed on another thread today people have been defending the right of religions to influence the laws we must all conform to. If they want to use religion in this way there can be no resort to the 'leave us alone it is just a personal belief' position.
I will withdraw 'sad excuse' if you are taking it seriously as an attempt to de-humanise and will offer ignorant as a substitute.
Thanks :-)
What was that reference to Germans provoked by anyway?
It wasn't provoked. I just saw no reason to beat about the bush, I simply escalated to burst the boil as it were.
Those demonstrators aren't all fanatics was my point. Same as in 1940. Sure, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, so the immediate guide to action is to assume a duck. In 1945, we had to cut Germany some slack, and that was a good thing for everyone.
So let's distinguish those who inflame the mob from those who are swept up by the mob.
Nonsense. Atheism was an essential part of Marxism long before the cult of personality.
Marxism is primarily about economics, and consequentially about politics. B-all to do with atheism, other than trivially in that it doesn't explicitly address supernatural intervention.
Indeed on another thread today people have been defending the right of religions to influence the laws we must all conform to. If they want to use religion in this way there can be no resort to the 'leave us alone it is just a personal belief' position.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that you still do not understand the right to lobby. It goes for any group, any ideology, any faction and any religion.
Take away this right to lobby and what are we left with in your atheist Secular Society Richard? Because it is you who are not understanding it.
Even the Irish Secular Society understand the problems presented by an atheist argument. You see yourself as secular but you always present an atheist argument and refuse to see it. It is no more useful than a hardline protestant argument in encouraging change.
It wasn't provoked. I just saw no reason to beat about the bush, I simply escalated to burst the boil as it were.
Those demonstrators aren't all fanatics was my point. Same as in 1940. Sure, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, so the immediate guide to action is to assume a duck. In 1945, we had to cut Germany some slack, and that was a good thing for everyone.
So let's distinguish those who inflame the mob from those who are swept up by the mob.
Well I would tend to grant the followers some awareness of why they are demonstrating even if they are ignorant of other things. Many Bangladeshis; presumably; are not supporting these ideas. It is not a stance being imposed by their government and in that respect is totally different from Nazi Germny.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that you still do not understand the right to lobby. It goes for any group, any ideology, any faction and any religion.
Take away this right to lobby and what are we left with in your atheist Secular Society Richard? Because it is you who are not understanding it.
Even the Irish Secular Society understand the problems presented by an atheist argument. You see yourself as secular but you always present an atheist argument and refuse to see it. It is no more useful than a hardline protestant argument in encouraging change.
Of course religions can lobby on political issues; my point over two threads has been that they cannot do that and then demand that faith is immune from comment.
Of course religions can lobby on political issues; my point over two threads has been that they cannot do that and then demand that faith is immune from comment.
So are you now changing your position that Catholics are imposing their doctrine/law by statute? Because that is what you were insisting upon on the other thread? And, I do not recall anyone saying that on the other thread, so maybe this conversation should be continued on the other thread?
So are you now changing your position that Catholics are imposing their doctrine/law by statute? Because that is what you were insisting upon on the other thread? And, I do not recall anyone saying that on the other thread, so maybe this conversation should be continued on the other thread?
Marxism is primarily about economics, and consequentially about politics. B-all to do with atheism, other than trivially in that it doesn't explicitly address supernatural intervention.
Association fallacy again .
Try telling Marx that
"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Or Lenin
"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."
Atheism is fundamental to Marxism, if all history is the history of the class struggle, what room is there for God. Not only is supernatural intervention incompatible with dialetical materialism, the central concept within Marxism, but the for Marx the abolition of religion was essential to achieve a communism
"The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being."
It is a truth universally acknowledged that if murderous backward-thinking nut-jobs attack peaceful, forward-thinking, sane human beings, hordes of DS forum members will choose to attack those being attacked by said nut-jobs.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that you still do not understand the right to lobby. It goes for any group, any ideology, any faction and any religion.
Take away this right to lobby and what are we left with in your atheist Secular Society Richard? Because it is you who are not understanding it.
Even the Irish Secular Society understand the problems presented by an atheist argument. You see yourself as secular but you always present an atheist argument and refuse to see it. It is no more useful than a hardline protestant argument in encouraging change.
But religious beliefs are based on ancient myths, rather than science and reason, so it stands to reason that they shouldn't influence the masses.
The UK has been at its most secular / atheist and most science-based over the last 100 years and yet far from becoming a more violent and scary place, we're safer and healthier ( apart from obesity problems ) than ever before and we've even abandoned violent concepts such as hanging and don't throw gay people in prison.
Even abortion is an atheist concern as much as a religious one, as although I believe in the right to abortion, the numbers need to be brought down.
Two points. Athiests (well some of them) have killed, imprisoned and caused untold suffering throughout the world just like som religious nutters have (whatever religion you might mention. Even Budhidsts are proned to committing suicide by setting themselves on fire.
One very big point...did these atheists you talk about kill, imprison or cause suffering in the name of atheism? If not, then it's irrelevant.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that if murderous backward-thinking nut-jobs attack peaceful, forward-thinking, sane human beings, hordes of DS forum members will choose to attack those being attacked by said nut-jobs.
Funny old world isn't it?
I think so. But are you on atheist side i.e. atheists have never been violent?
I think so. But are you on atheist side i.e. atheists have never been violent?
I think anyone who would make that statement would have to be completely barmy, but as far as I'm aware, none of us atheists have. (Or would ever dream of doing so for that matter.)
This is way off topic. Look at the other thread. I have just bumped it. Don't have time to comment now.
My powers of psychic deduction don't seem to be working today, so I have no idea what other thread you are talking about or why you are directing me there.
Well, no, your initial point (the one I objected to) was that atheism is a belief. Which I think you've conceded on. But we've shifted from that point and are now onto a slight tangent.
I'm not saying they've never considered it. Obviously nearly everyone in the world has considered it. And a lot of atheists were once believers, lets not forget. I'm saying that many atheists just don't care about it. God does not figure into the formula of their worldview in any significant sense. It's a valueless concept for many people. An ad hoc component of a theistic model, completely absent for so many people.
Responding with rejection or non-commitment about it when prompted is a different kettle of fish to actively harboring an actual belief and asserting it when opportunity arises.
Not at all. We can belabour the point, but the idea that atheism is the belief that no gods exist can be found right there in the dictionary.
As for the rest, I just don't see the evidence for it. What you are saying might apply to an uncommon belief, like the belief in werewolves, but it is telling that there is no particular word for rejecting a belief in werewolves. The very fact that the word atheist exists; that movements and conferences are convened to promote atheism (complete with atheistic symbols that are becoming increasingly common); that research shows that atheists tend to be more educated about religion than the religious; that it is practically considered a matter of identity on census forms, dating profiles, and the like, suggests that it is much more than some incidental intellectual position arrived at on-the-fly when an atheist bumps into a believer in God.
When you disbelieve in gods in a god-obsessed world, when you find yourself rejecting this idea that the religious consider fundamental to their identity, it's something that you are almost always aware of, and thus becomes a fundamental part of how you view the world. There are few facets of life that have not in some way been shaped by religion. It only makes sense in response to how others perceive the world, but it is no less a worldview.
Not at all. We can belabour this point, but the idea that atheism is the belief that no gods exist can be found right there in the dictionary.
It varies from dictionary to dictionary. The first dictionary I looked it up in was "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." So clearly a dictionary is not solid enough a foundation to build your argument on.
You're better off listening to actual atheists describe themselves instead of using a dictionary definition to sum them up with.
As for the rest, I just don't see the evidence for it. What you are saying might apply to a belief in werewolves, but it is telling that there is no word for rejecting a belief in werewolves. The very fact that the word atheist exists; that movements and conferences are convened to promote atheism (complete with atheistic symbols that are becoming increasingly common); that research shows that atheists tend to be more educated about religion than the religious; that it is practically considered a matter of identity on census forms, dating profiles, and the like, all suggests that it is much more than some incidental intellectual position arrived at on the fly when an atheist bumps into a believer in God. There are few facets of life that have not in some way been shaped by religion.
I'm afraid that's just the way it is. Most atheists (at least in UK) really don't care.
Even most actual religious people don't seem to care that much. Religion is typically no more than a social outlet. Something to do on a weekend. No more spiritual an experience than a backyard family barbecue. Dress up in their Sunday best, meet with friends, family and neighbours, go through the rehearsed motions of prayer, sing some hymn, mime or mumble the words they don’t know, fall asleep during some boring sermon, go home. Same again next week.
Religion and god is reduced to the occasional wedding and funeral for most people in UK. I don't know why this is such a controversial point. It seems trivially obvious to me.
When you disbelieve in gods in a god-obsessed world, when you find yourself rejecting this idea that the religious consider fundamental to their identity, it's something that you are almost always aware of, and thus becomes a fundamental part of how you view the world. It only makes sense in response to how others perceive the world, but it is no less a worldview.
You seem to be under the naive impression that it is simply beliefs that people have a problem with. The problem is, religion isn't just a private eccentricity. You need to consider the wider context of the discussion and the wider extent of the issues and concerns involved.
If religion was just a personal belief about life or the world, or personal preference or taste, and was unobtrusive and harmless to everyone else, it wouldn't be worthy of so much open criticism. But it is not just that. It is a collective, often hysterical and irrational mass belief and school of thought that has so much stranglehold on the world that it affects millions of lives every day whether they agree with it or not, whether they want it to or not. It affects things from who gets to govern the most powerful secular (apparently) nation on earth, to if homosexuals deserve to live or die on the other side of the planet.
When the religions of the world offer themselves up as a complete system of life - law, policy, social, economical, educational, philosophical, even military, and with pretty much the sole aim of converting and controlling the masses - we can criticise them as thoroughly, shamelessly and ruthlessly as we can any constitution or political ideology, or any collection of ideas and principles. As soon as we can’t, we can no longer consider ourselves a democracy.
Indeed on another thread today people have been defending the right of religions to influence the laws we must all conform to. If they want to use religion in this way there can be no resort to the 'leave us alone it is just a personal belief' position.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that you still do not understand the right to lobby. It goes for any group, any ideology, any faction and any religion.
Take away this right to lobby and what are we left with in your atheist Secular Society Richard? Because it is you who are not understanding it.
Even the Irish Secular Society understand the problems presented by an atheist argument. You see yourself as secular but you always present an atheist argument and refuse to see it. It is no more useful than a hardline protestant argument in encouraging change.
So are you now changing your position that Catholics are imposing their doctrine/law by statute? Because that is what you were insisting upon on the other thread? And, I do not recall anyone saying that on the other thread, so maybe this conversation should be continued on the other thread?
My powers of psychic deduction don't seem to be working today, so I have no idea what other thread you are talking about or why you are directing me there.
I dont have any powers of psychic deduction any day of the week. It is helpful just to read the thread and read what YOU are replying to. There were only two religious threads it wasn't hard.
Comments
But for people to think that they should be putting that message on the side of buses to try and dissuade believers is a little sad IMHO.
Its like me putting posters up all over town just before Christmas telling kids that Santa doesnt exist ...... :eek:
If somebody believes in something that you dont why try and spoil it for them ???
Im not in either camp really but i think for either side to force their view on others is wrong. In some ways, however, I can understand it more from the religious side as at least they believe that by trying to 'convert you' they think they might save you ??
What are atheists doing with spreading their message ?? being the ultimate killjoys ???
Really? What changed?
I do. But I don't think they did it because of their atheism.
Thank you but I do not regard myself as an advocate of atheism; whatever that is; I am an advocate of secularism.
If religion was just a personal belief about life or the world, or personal preference or taste, and was unobtrusive and harmless to everyone else, it wouldn't be worthy of so much open criticism. But it is not just that. It is a collective, often hysterical and irrational mass belief and school of thought that has so much stranglehold on the world that it affects millions of lives every day whether they agree with it or not, whether they want it to or not. It affects things from who gets to govern the most powerful secular (apparently) nation on earth, to if homosexuals deserve to live or die on the other side of the planet.
When the religions of the world offer themselves up as a complete system of life - law, policy, social, economical, educational, philosophical, even military, and with pretty much the sole aim of converting and controlling the masses - we can criticise them as thoroughly, shamelessly and ruthlessly as we can any constitution or political ideology, or any collection of ideas and principles. As soon as we can’t, we can no longer consider ourselves a democracy.
Nonsense. Atheism was an essential part of Marxism long before the cult of personality.
Indeed on another thread today people have been defending the right of religions to influence the laws we must all conform to. If they want to use religion in this way there can be no resort to the 'leave us alone it is just a personal belief' position.
Thanks :-)
It wasn't provoked. I just saw no reason to beat about the bush, I simply escalated to burst the boil as it were.
Those demonstrators aren't all fanatics was my point. Same as in 1940. Sure, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, so the immediate guide to action is to assume a duck. In 1945, we had to cut Germany some slack, and that was a good thing for everyone.
So let's distinguish those who inflame the mob from those who are swept up by the mob.
Marxism is primarily about economics, and consequentially about politics. B-all to do with atheism, other than trivially in that it doesn't explicitly address supernatural intervention.
Association fallacy again .
I find it absolutely extraordinary that you still do not understand the right to lobby. It goes for any group, any ideology, any faction and any religion.
Take away this right to lobby and what are we left with in your atheist Secular Society Richard? Because it is you who are not understanding it.
Even the Irish Secular Society understand the problems presented by an atheist argument. You see yourself as secular but you always present an atheist argument and refuse to see it. It is no more useful than a hardline protestant argument in encouraging change.
Well I would tend to grant the followers some awareness of why they are demonstrating even if they are ignorant of other things. Many Bangladeshis; presumably; are not supporting these ideas. It is not a stance being imposed by their government and in that respect is totally different from Nazi Germny.
Of course religions can lobby on political issues; my point over two threads has been that they cannot do that and then demand that faith is immune from comment.
So are you now changing your position that Catholics are imposing their doctrine/law by statute? Because that is what you were insisting upon on the other thread? And, I do not recall anyone saying that on the other thread, so maybe this conversation should be continued on the other thread?
I said they where trying to IIRC.
Try telling Marx that
"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Or Lenin
"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."
Atheism is fundamental to Marxism, if all history is the history of the class struggle, what room is there for God. Not only is supernatural intervention incompatible with dialetical materialism, the central concept within Marxism, but the for Marx the abolition of religion was essential to achieve a communism
"The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being."
This is way off topic. Look at the other thread. I have just bumped it. Don't have time to comment now.
Funny old world isn't it?
But religious beliefs are based on ancient myths, rather than science and reason, so it stands to reason that they shouldn't influence the masses.
The UK has been at its most secular / atheist and most science-based over the last 100 years and yet far from becoming a more violent and scary place, we're safer and healthier ( apart from obesity problems ) than ever before and we've even abandoned violent concepts such as hanging and don't throw gay people in prison.
Even abortion is an atheist concern as much as a religious one, as although I believe in the right to abortion, the numbers need to be brought down.
One very big point...did these atheists you talk about kill, imprison or cause suffering in the name of atheism? If not, then it's irrelevant.
I think so. But are you on atheist side i.e. atheists have never been violent?
I think anyone who would make that statement would have to be completely barmy, but as far as I'm aware, none of us atheists have. (Or would ever dream of doing so for that matter.)
Not at all. We can belabour the point, but the idea that atheism is the belief that no gods exist can be found right there in the dictionary.
As for the rest, I just don't see the evidence for it. What you are saying might apply to an uncommon belief, like the belief in werewolves, but it is telling that there is no particular word for rejecting a belief in werewolves. The very fact that the word atheist exists; that movements and conferences are convened to promote atheism (complete with atheistic symbols that are becoming increasingly common); that research shows that atheists tend to be more educated about religion than the religious; that it is practically considered a matter of identity on census forms, dating profiles, and the like, suggests that it is much more than some incidental intellectual position arrived at on-the-fly when an atheist bumps into a believer in God.
When you disbelieve in gods in a god-obsessed world, when you find yourself rejecting this idea that the religious consider fundamental to their identity, it's something that you are almost always aware of, and thus becomes a fundamental part of how you view the world. There are few facets of life that have not in some way been shaped by religion. It only makes sense in response to how others perceive the world, but it is no less a worldview.
You're better off listening to actual atheists describe themselves instead of using a dictionary definition to sum them up with.
I'm afraid that's just the way it is. Most atheists (at least in UK) really don't care.
Even most actual religious people don't seem to care that much. Religion is typically no more than a social outlet. Something to do on a weekend. No more spiritual an experience than a backyard family barbecue. Dress up in their Sunday best, meet with friends, family and neighbours, go through the rehearsed motions of prayer, sing some hymn, mime or mumble the words they don’t know, fall asleep during some boring sermon, go home. Same again next week.
Religion and god is reduced to the occasional wedding and funeral for most people in UK. I don't know why this is such a controversial point. It seems trivially obvious to me.
Please watch this video:
YouTube - Lack of belief in gods
It explains things succinctly and isn't very long.
I dont have any powers of psychic deduction any day of the week. It is helpful just to read the thread and read what YOU are replying to. There were only two religious threads it wasn't hard.