If there was a rise in atheist attacks on religious people, then those blathering on about 'militant atheism' might have a case, but the harshest actions I've seen by these supposedly aggressive atheists are a few barbed words and some impatience.
Hardly in the same league as the September 11 attacks or the numerous inquisitions of the Catholic Church.
Or perhaps the several thousand clerics executed by Republicans during the Spanish Civil War?
So now that civil war was between Atheists and religious people? Strange, that's not what I've read.
Funny that nutters accuse a mild-mannered Archbishop of Canterbury of being personally liable for all the crimes of Torquemada, the Borgia Popes and Osama Bin Ladin, yet when atheists execute clerics for their religious conviction, it's all somehow kind of different. They probably did it for other, far more commendable reasons. To stop them buggering choirboys, eh?
Where are these militant atheists, and what are they doing? What specifically is it that you want to stop?
I don't know about the OP, but I would like to see certain types of atheist stop deriding and insulting anybody who believes in a god. It really makes me angry and I'm not even religious.
Where are these militant atheists, and what are they doing? What specifically is it that you want to stop?
I want them to stop making arses of themselves. Atheists don't need manifestos, or organisations, or leaders, or alternative ceremonies.
The majority of people in Britain are atheists not because they have been convinced by the arguments of atheist writers, but because religion has simply lost its place in the modern world. It's not something they need to think about.
And I want them to stop being so rude.
Funny that nutters accuse a mild-mannered Archbishop of Canterbury of being personally liable for all the crimes of Torquemada, the Borgia Popes and Osama Bin Ladin, yet when atheists execute clerics for their religious conviction, it's all somehow kind of different. They probably did it for other, far more commendable reasons. To stop them buggering choirboys, eh?
Perhaps you could enlighten us and tell us the reasons they gave for doing it?
As for this Archbishop guy, well you deserve plenty of attention when you have a title like that and give your opinions on things. Long gone are the days when we just took the words of an old guy in a dress as gospel, if you'll pardon the pun.
Perhaps you could enlighten us and tell us the reasons they gave for doing it?
As for this Archbishop guy, well you deserve plenty of attention when you have a title like that and give your opinions on things. Long gone are the days when we just took the words of an old guy in a dress as gospel, if you'll pardon the pun.
Because they didn't like priests? Just a guess, you know. I'm sure they probably had a jolly good reason for it all.
I want them to stop making arses of themselves. Atheists don't need manifestos, or organisations, or leaders, or alternative ceremonies.
The majority of people in Britain are atheists not because they have been convinced by the arguments of atheist writers, but because religion has simply lost its place in the modern world. It's not something they need to think about.
And I want them to stop being so rude.
Well I want to have a pony, but we don't always get what we want. They have every right to say and do whatever they like - as long as they don't break the law.
Funny that nutters accuse a mild-mannered Archbishop of Canterbury of being personally liable for all the crimes of Torquemada, the Borgia Popes and Osama Bin Ladin, yet when atheists execute clerics for their religious conviction, it's all somehow kind of different. They probably did it for other, far more commendable reasons. To stop them buggering choirboys, eh?
You mean that homophobic sell-out with no principles?
Perhaps the religious types should come with some evidence of the existence of their various deities to shut us atheists up...
Well, I doubt that would work unless God pops down and has a word in person (some might say he already has, several times) - so I think we are just going to have to put up with you
Because they didn't like priests? Just a guess, you know. I'm sure they probably had a jolly good reason for it all.
Lots of people don't like priests, and they aren't all atheists, in fact I'd say they were the minority. It's a bit of a stretch for it to be just about not liking someone. I don't like what the banking sector did, but I'm not about to go and execute a bunch of banking heads!
I agree that some people appear to be trying to enforce atheism and don't respect anyone elses opinions and treat any of their critics even other atheists and agnostics like Taliban supporters.
Lots of people don't like priests, and they aren't all atheists, in fact I'd say they were the minority. It's a bit of a stretch for it to be just about not liking someone. I don't like what the banking sector did, but I'm not about to go and execute a bunch of banking heads!
OK, because they didn't like priests, they were a mixture of anarchists and Marxists, they had guns, and they knew that they could get away with it.
Really, you should pop down the library and read Homage to Catalonia. You'll see how much hostility towards religion there was from atheists in Spain at the time.
I think everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs - however strange they may be - as long as those beliefs do not impinge upon the liberties of other people.
I never really understand atheists who hope to wear down religious types with hard facts and reasoned argument. Faith is, by definition, dependent upon an absence of proof so facts and reason are unlikely to do anything to deter anyone committed to their beliefs. Likewise, I can never understand religious types who think they can convert atheists back to the fold by threatening brimstone and fire.
Live and let live, that's what I say. Let people believe what feels right to them.
It's when people feel their beliefs should allow them to enforce how other people, who don't share their beliefs, live their lives that I have a problem...
I can't take credit for that one I'm afraid but I do agree.
I'd much prefer opinions I oppose were voiced publically so they can be challenged rather than driven underground.
I think everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs - however strange they may be - as long as those beliefs do not impinge upon the liberties of other people.
I never really understand atheists who hope to wear down religious types with hard facts and reasoned argument. Faith is, by definition, dependent upon an absence of proof so facts and reason are unlikely to do anything to deter anyone committed to their beliefs. Likewise, I can never understand religious types who think they can convert atheists back to the fold by threatening brimstone and fire.
Live and let live, that's what I say. Let people believe what feels right to them.
It's when people feel their beliefs should allow them to enforce how other people, who don't share their beliefs, live their lives that I have a problem...
I agree with that. By being rude, all the nutty atheists are going to do is make the religious more steadfast. If they just ignored religion, it would go away eventually.
And whenever I hear someone rail against religion with passion, I can't help but feel that there is a good deal of religious feeling hidden deep down. I'm not surprised that Dawkin's was a Christian when he was younger, because he still seems to have that need to persuade everyone. And he's not even a proper atheist, but a fence-sitting agnostic.
If they just ignored religion, it would go away eventually.
With every major religion working hard at recruiting people, attacking education and facts, even working towards turning their countries into theocracies, if they're not already so?
We can only stop them if they actually do something wrong or hurtful. I think by definition an atheist wouldnt be up for that as they are largely humanist.
The idea of a militant atheist is just a phantom that the religious assume is going to take away their superior rights they dont really deserve anyway... Ie the right to persecute others and not do their job properly.
Comments
Or perhaps the several thousand clerics executed by Republicans during the Spanish Civil War?
So now that civil war was between Atheists and religious people? Strange, that's not what I've read.
Funny that nutters accuse a mild-mannered Archbishop of Canterbury of being personally liable for all the crimes of Torquemada, the Borgia Popes and Osama Bin Ladin, yet when atheists execute clerics for their religious conviction, it's all somehow kind of different. They probably did it for other, far more commendable reasons. To stop them buggering choirboys, eh?
I don't know about the OP, but I would like to see certain types of atheist stop deriding and insulting anybody who believes in a god. It really makes me angry and I'm not even religious.
I want them to stop making arses of themselves. Atheists don't need manifestos, or organisations, or leaders, or alternative ceremonies.
The majority of people in Britain are atheists not because they have been convinced by the arguments of atheist writers, but because religion has simply lost its place in the modern world. It's not something they need to think about.
And I want them to stop being so rude.
Perhaps you could enlighten us and tell us the reasons they gave for doing it?
As for this Archbishop guy, well you deserve plenty of attention when you have a title like that and give your opinions on things. Long gone are the days when we just took the words of an old guy in a dress as gospel, if you'll pardon the pun.
Perhaps the religious types should come with some evidence of the existence of their various deities to shut us atheists up...
Because they didn't like priests? Just a guess, you know. I'm sure they probably had a jolly good reason for it all.
Well I want to have a pony, but we don't always get what we want. They have every right to say and do whatever they like - as long as they don't break the law.
You mean that homophobic sell-out with no principles?
If you like to take that simplistic view, yes, him.
Well, I doubt that would work unless God pops down and has a word in person (some might say he already has, several times) - so I think we are just going to have to put up with you
He's a tit
Lots of people don't like priests, and they aren't all atheists, in fact I'd say they were the minority. It's a bit of a stretch for it to be just about not liking someone. I don't like what the banking sector did, but I'm not about to go and execute a bunch of banking heads!
Indeed, but some religious folks are just as bad.
OK, because they didn't like priests, they were a mixture of anarchists and Marxists, they had guns, and they knew that they could get away with it.
Really, you should pop down the library and read Homage to Catalonia. You'll see how much hostility towards religion there was from atheists in Spain at the time.
It might have been you actually, was it you?
At least the message stuck.
I never really understand atheists who hope to wear down religious types with hard facts and reasoned argument. Faith is, by definition, dependent upon an absence of proof so facts and reason are unlikely to do anything to deter anyone committed to their beliefs. Likewise, I can never understand religious types who think they can convert atheists back to the fold by threatening brimstone and fire.
Live and let live, that's what I say. Let people believe what feels right to them.
It's when people feel their beliefs should allow them to enforce how other people, who don't share their beliefs, live their lives that I have a problem...
I can't take credit for that one I'm afraid but I do agree.
I'd much prefer opinions I oppose were voiced publically so they can be challenged rather than driven underground.
No because the OP is inactive.
I agree with that. By being rude, all the nutty atheists are going to do is make the religious more steadfast. If they just ignored religion, it would go away eventually.
And whenever I hear someone rail against religion with passion, I can't help but feel that there is a good deal of religious feeling hidden deep down. I'm not surprised that Dawkin's was a Christian when he was younger, because he still seems to have that need to persuade everyone. And he's not even a proper atheist, but a fence-sitting agnostic.
With every major religion working hard at recruiting people, attacking education and facts, even working towards turning their countries into theocracies, if they're not already so?
The idea of a militant atheist is just a phantom that the religious assume is going to take away their superior rights they dont really deserve anyway... Ie the right to persecute others and not do their job properly.