Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 23, 2025, 02:41:26 PM
-
It was Dawkins who urged atheists to be more vocal and antitheistic. And they did.
How then, before Dawkins and the rise of religion forums did members make their atheism and antitheism public?
-
In many cases they didn't, I suspect. Professor Dawkins, and others of the era, weren't saying anything particularly new from what I can see, they were just saying it out loud, publicly, apologetically, with the deference religious feeling was due rather than the deference it expected.
The Blind Watchmaker came out when I was 12, although I wasn't aware of it for probably a decade or so after that - by the time I was at university I was aware of atheists making arguments, but it was still on the quiet until the New Atheist movement really came about in the mid 2000s, and really caught the public eye following 9/11.
O.
-
In many cases they didn't, I suspect. Professor Dawkins, and others of the era, weren't saying anything particularly new from what I can see, they were just saying it out loud, publicly, apologetically, with the deference religious feeling was due rather than the deference it expected.
The Blind Watchmaker came out when I was 12, although I wasn't aware of it for probably a decade or so after that - by the time I was at university I was aware of atheists making arguments, but it was still on the quiet until the New Atheist movement really came about in the mid 2000s, and really caught the public eye following 9/11.
O.
I’m afraid what atheists have to say vis a vis their position is limited to They lack belief in God or there is no God. Dawkins therefore stimulated a need or want to tell people about it. What was new about it was more the public antitheism which imho reached swivel eyed proportions.
As an agnostic atheist in the seventies and early eighties. I assumed I held the majority view and that religion and the religious were just quaintly odd but harmless enough.
-
It was Dawkins who urged atheists to be more vocal and antitheistic. And they did.
How then, before Dawkins and the rise of religion forums did members make their atheism and antitheism public?
Why do theists so often think Dawkins is important to atheists? I remember having long debates at university about religion, and that was before Dawkins had published any books except The Selfish Gene, and certainly a long time before I'd read any of his stuff.
I think the internet and discussion forums has had a bigger impact, merely because you don't have to tiptoe around possibly offending people (if they don't want to be disagreed with, then why be on an internet forum?) Back before then, you had to be sure that you were talking to somebody who would treat it as an intellectual discussion and not get offended (much easier in a university setting).
Even after I started reading Dawkins, it was mainly to learn about evolution, rather than his religious stuff. I guess the so called 'new atheists' did make a difference to how publicly some people expressed their atheism and that can only be good IMO, but Dawkins' contribution was hardly pivotal to me, at least.
-
In the forties and fifties I believe a media mogul told his outlets to “Puff Billy Graham”.
Was Dawkins puffed? He seems pretty damned good at self advertisement.
-
Theists won't shut up about God. Why shouldn't atheists put the opposite point of view?
I don't understand why you get so butthurt about atheists pointing out the emptiness of theist arguments...
... oh wait...
-
Theists won't shut up about God. Why shouldn't atheists put the opposite point of view?
I don't understand why you get so butthurt about atheists pointing out the emptiness of theist arguments...
... oh wait...
I think you are deviating somewhat from the thread.
What did you do before Dawkins? Did you announce your atheism publicly and loudly? If so, who, why, what, where, when?
-
Theists won't shut up about God. Why shouldn't atheists put the opposite point of view?
I don't understand why you get so butthurt about atheists pointing out the emptiness of theist arguments...
... oh wait...
It seems to me that most theists have pissed of from here Jeremy. I think it was invincible ignorance on the part of atheists..........
-
It seems to me that most theists have pissed of from here Jeremy. I think it was invincible ignorance on the part of atheists..........
Or maybe there are fewer of them around these days.
-
Or maybe there are fewer of them around these days.
I think you'd have to survey the numbers not only of this forum but successful forums, too, Gordon.
-
It was Dawkins who urged atheists to be more vocal and antitheistic. And they did.
How then, before Dawkins and the rise of religion forums did members make their atheism and antitheism public?
Why do you ask?
-
I think you'd have to survey the numbers not only of this forum but successful forums, too, Gordon.
Don't need to do that - the downturn in people self-identifying as religious gives a good enough indication.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czddp0j488qo
-
I think you'd have to survey the numbers not only of this forum but successful forums, too, Gordon.
Badly done, Vlad.
-
Vlad,
It seems to me that most theists have pissed of from here Jeremy. I think it was invincible ignorance on the part of atheists..........
Or maybe "on the part of" theists who realised that the long-cherished arguments they used to justify their beliefs were full of holes.
-
I think you are deviating somewhat from the thread.
What did you do before Dawkins? Did you announce your atheism publicly and loudly? If so, who, why, what, where, when?
As a kid, I used to play (mini)Rugby on a Sunday. That may be why I still have a religious experience when I'm watching it.
-
Vlad,
Or maybe "on the part of" theists who realised that the long-cherished arguments they used to justify their beliefs were full of holes.
Why is it I feel this post is mostly about your assessment of your own achievements in this field.
-
As a kid, I used to play (mini)Rugby on a Sunday. That may be why I still have a religious experience when I'm watching it.
Do you experience ecstasy?Do you forget about yourself?
-
Why do you ask?
Interest. A whole industry sprung up around Dawkins and his exhorting people to take a stand against religion.
-
What did Walt do before Dawkins? Did he have a similar obsession with Bertie Russell?
-
I’m afraid what atheists have to say vis a vis their position is limited to They lack belief in God or there is no God.
If that were the case you wouldn't keep going on and on and on and on and on about him.
Dawkins therefore stimulated a need or want to tell people about it.
No. 9/11 stimulated a need to talk about it, Professor Dawkins was just one of the more prominent people to do so.
What was new about it was more the public antitheism which imho reached swivel eyed proportions.
Can you explain what was different in his, and others of the time's, position from what had been said before, just more quietly? Can you explain why rejecting unsubstantiated claims and pointing out the very, very prominent (at the time) perils of religion is 'swivel-eyed'? How is 'this religious terrorism is terrible' swivel-eyed in the face of thousands of bodies being searched for in the rubble of the World Trade Centre?
As an agnostic atheist in the seventies and early eighties. I assumed I held the majority view and that religion and the religious were just quaintly odd but harmless enough.
And then in the mid-2000s 9/11 highlighted that religion wasn't necessarily harmless enough, and then people prepared to face up to religion and talk openly highlighted all sorts of other problem areas. Since then we've had numerous scandals and problems highlighted - the undue veneration of Mother Theresa, the ongoing attempts by various churches to try to cover up their inadequate responses to child abuse within their ranks, the religious oppression of women in places like Afghanistan.
You say that in the 70's and 80's atheism viewed religion as a quaint throwback - what Professor Dawkins and others did is highlight that it's not as innocuous as that. The theology didn't change, the sociology did - the impact of religion was no longer limited to 'irrelevant to good'.
O.
-
Interest. A whole industry sprung up around Dawkins and his exhorting people to take a stand against religion.
Not a way of making a point?
-
I think you are deviating somewhat from the thread.
What did you do before Dawkins? Did you announce your atheism publicly and loudly? If so, who, why, what, where, when?
I'm attacking one of the premises in your first post which is that you think atheists who point out that theists are just guessing shouldn't be doing that, or have only recently started doing that.
-
What did Walt do before Dawkins? Did he have a similar obsession with Bertie Russell?
My life was totally bereft Steve, then one day, there he was, That hair, this intellectual Adonis.........
Bertie Russell? Not my type......sorry, It just isn’t.....and there’s the end of it.
-
I'm attacking one of the premises in your first post which is that you think atheists who point out that theists are just guessing shouldn't be doing that, or have only recently started doing that.
I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t do it,nor can I expect they shouldn’t do it.
It just seemed there wasn’t the will or the means to take on so as people did. As an agnostic atheist I never felt so strongly motivated, I never questioned that I might be wrong.
-
You say that in the 70's and 80's atheism viewed religion as a quaint throwback - what Professor Dawkins and others did is highlight that it's not as innocuous as that. The theology didn't change, the sociology did - the impact of religion was no longer limited to 'irrelevant to good'.
O.
When 9/11 occurred I had been a Christian for around 20 years. The process and pretexts for condensing the whole of Religion into that one act or one person strikes me as a form of bigotry. I still chuckle over the tiny Westbrook baptist community held up as typically Christian. Or Trumpite churches held up by atheists as American Christianity while forgetting totally about episcopalian and black churches.
As I understand it, certainly in this country relations between modern celebrity atheists and media Christians are quite cordial with each willing to provide tea and platform for the other
-
Vlad,
...I never questioned that I might be wrong.
And nor it seems do you now, notwithstanding the crapness of the arguments you attempt to justify being right.
-
When 9/11 occurred I had been a Christian for around 20 years. The process and pretexts for condensing the whole of Religion into that one act or one person strikes me as a form of bigotry.
Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.
I still chuckle over the tiny Westbrook baptist community held up as typically Christian.
I don't know that anyone's suggesting they're typical, the problem is that they're undoubtedly Christian. They're not just abhorrent, they're abhorrent because of their Christianity.
Or Trumpite churches held up by atheists as American Christianity while forgetting totally about episcopalian and black churches.
If they were that relevant, Trump wouldn't have been elected on so evidently a Christian Nationalist platform.
As I understand it, certainly in this country relations between modern celebrity atheists and media Christians are quite cordial with each willing to provide tea and platform for the other
And as I've said many, many times, if every religion and religious adherent had had their distasteful edges blunted by a rights-based cultural archetype like ours, no-one would give a shit about religion. They haven't, though - Afghanistan's treatment of women, America's treatment of the non-religious, of women, of the gender-diverse, of the gay community, places like Uganda's treatment of gay people, religious conflicts in Israel, between India and Pakistan... the list goes on.
O.
-
Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.
I don't know that anyone's suggesting they're typical, the problem is that they're undoubtedly Christian. They're not just abhorrent, they're abhorrent because of their Christianity.
If they were that relevant, Trump wouldn't have been elected on so evidently a Christian Nationalist platform.
And as I've said many, many times, if every religion and religious adherent had had their distasteful edges blunted by a rights-based cultural archetype like ours, no-one would give a shit about religion. They haven't, though - Afghanistan's treatment of women, America's treatment of the non-religious, of women, of the gender-diverse, of the gay community, places like Uganda's treatment of gay people, religious conflicts in Israel, between India and Pakistan... the list goes on.
O.
Our 'rights based cultural archetyoe' arises from the influence of religion as well.
-
Our 'rights based cultural archetype' arises from the influence of religion as well.
In part, but increasingly that influence is 'despite' rather than 'because'. Our moderate Anglican Christianity is the result of western secular rights making a more hardline religious stance even more untenable - we aren't where we are because we followed religion, we are where we are because we refused to let religion dictate the terms.
O.
-
In part, but increasingly that influence is 'despite' rather than 'because'. Our moderate Anglican Christianity is the result of western secular rights making a more hardline religious stance even more untenable - we aren't where we are because we followed religion, we are where we are because we refused to let religion dictate the terms.
O.
In a very large part. The exceptionalism you are touting is merely the Brights nonsense reheated.
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but this atheist is doing exactly what he has always done.
Only slower, and with more aches and pains.
-
Another Gem sending a thousand atheists to the bathroom with the kleenex
Do you really think that sort of shite is doing anything other than making Christianity with you as its representative look anything other than a bundle of sab bitterness?
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but this atheist is doing exactly what he has always done.
Only slower, and with more aches and pains.
I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.
-
Vlad,
And nor it seems do you now, notwithstanding the crapness of the arguments you attempt to justify being right.
I seem to recall you consider yourself an Agnostic atheist. Do you consider yourself to be one?
-
Do you really think that sort of shite is doing anything other than making Christianity with you as its representative look anything other than a bundle of sab bitterness?
I’ve withdrawn it, but not before it was subject to your powers of “catching out”
-
In a very large part. The exceptionalism you are touting is merely the Brights nonsense reheated.
I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.
O.
-
I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.
Christians have had a sense of mission and a tradition of apologetics in times of minority for a long time. I don’t think it can be argued that Dawkins didn’t or didn’t want to instil a sense of mission in atheists which he felt lacking.
Would atheists say they had the same sense of mission before Dawkins?
-
Vlad,
I seem to recall you consider yourself an Agnostic atheist. Do you consider yourself to be one?
Actually I’m an ignostic agnostic atheist antitheist.
Ignostic: I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you).
Agnostic: Absent any method to test your claims, their truth or otherwise is unknowable.
Atheist: I’m aware of no sound reasons to accept your theistic claims as true.
Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.
-
I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.
O.
More “Religion is everything bad” thinking?
-
I'll keep an eye out for the slavery apologetics, baked-in racism, institutional misogyny, overt homophobia and anti-science quackery that I'm obviously missing.
O.
Because religion is needed for those? Do you honestly not see that all of those are part of humanity rather than something external? Indeed, your post drips with the sort of tribalism that you seem to think your tribe above.
-
Vlad,
Actually I’m an ignostic agnostic atheist antitheist.
Ignostic: I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you).
Agnostic: Absent any method to test your claims, their truth or otherwise is unknowable.
Atheist: I’m aware of no sound reasons to accept your theistic claims as true.
Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.
Religions don't do anything.
-
Vlad,
On what days of the week are you each of these.
All of them every day – they're not mutually exclusive.
-
I think that applies to all on the board whatever their beliefs.
Indeed, it does. I suppose my point is that I do very little about my atheism. It's just there. I seldom discuss it beyond these four internet walls. So the initial question just seems a little bit silly.
Dawkins has had very little effect on me. My atheism (agnostic or otherwise) predates any awareness of him.
-
NS,
Religions don't do anything.
That’s like me saying that guns do more harm than good and you telling me that guns don’t do anything.
“Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion#:~:text=1.,as%20a%20church%20or%20temple.
-
Indeed, it does. I suppose my point is that I do very little about my atheism. It's just there. I seldom discuss it beyond these four internet walls. So the initial question just seems a little bit silly.
Dawkins has had very little effect on me. My atheism (agnostic or otherwise) predates any awareness of him.
Yep, my atheism is not to me significant in what type of person I am. It's so old it's pretty arthritic.
-
NS,
That’s like me saying that guns do more harm than good and you telling me that guns don’t do anything.
“Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshiping in a building such as a church or temple.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/religion#:~:text=1.,as%20a%20church%20or%20temple.
Except religion arises and exists because of what we are as humans. It's integral in what we are. It has no externalities beyond us
-
Vlad,
All of them every day – they're not mutually exclusive.
Dare I suggest that for you and some of your fellows, the antitheism has become pathological and obsessive?
-
NS,
Except religion arises and exists because of what we are as humans. It's integral in what we are. It has no externalities beyond us
So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?
-
Vlad,
Dare I suggest that for you and some of your fellows, the antitheism has become pathological and obsessive?
You can suggest anything you like, but you'd be as wrong about that as you are about pretty much everything else you post here - ie, very.
-
NS,
So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?
And nazism doesn't do anything either. It's not external. How do you remove whar causes nazim, religion, or altruism from us?
-
NS,
And nazism doesn't do anything either. It's not external. How do you remove whar causes nazim, religion, or altruism from us?
I don't need to. The terms "religions", "nazism" etc don't just mean the texts and artefacts of these beliefs, they mean the practice of them too. That's the "...and the activities that are connected with this belief" part of the definition I gave you.
-
NS,
I don't need to. The terms "religions", "nazism" etc don't just mean the texts and artefacts of these beliefs, they mean the practice of them too. That's the "...and the activities that are connected with this belief" part of the definition I gave you.
And the practice of the is all because of what we are. They aren't external in any sense.
-
NS,
And the practice of the is all because of what we are. They aren't external in any sense.
I don't now what point you think you're making, but "on balance I think religions do more harm than good" is a legitimate position regardless of whether or not they're "external" to us.
-
NS,
I don't now what point you think you're making, but "on balance I think religions do more harm than good" is a legitimate position regardless of whether or not they're "external" to us.
Demonstrate it.
ETA And how you would remove them from what it means to be human. You might as well claim politics dies more harm than good.
-
Maybe this will help make my point clearer. It seems to me that the claim that religion is on balance bad equates to people who are not religious are on balance better than those who are. I don't see how to demonstrate that.
-
NS,
Demonstrate it.
First, you’ve shifted ground from “religions don’t do anything” to “demonstrate that they do more harm than good”, which is a different category of critique.
Second, what I actually said was: “Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.” That was an opinion ("it seems to me"), not a claim to objective fact that requires demonstrating. I’m not sure how you’d go about demonstrating that objectively in any case given the sheer complexity of the task, but as religious faith seems to me to be indistinguishable from guessing and as axiomatically guessing is more likely to be wrong than right, I’d start there I think.
ETA And how you would remove them from what it means to be human. You might as well claim politics dies more harm than good.
Why would I need to? And yes, if there was a model for non-politics (anarchy perhaps?) and a measure for the good vs harm of each modality you could perhaps in principle least at make that claim in response to the outcomes each produced.
Maybe this will help make my point clearer. It seems to me that the claim that religion is on balance bad equates to people who are not religious are on balance better than those who are. I don't see how to demonstrate that.
No, it’s not just “people” – it’s “people carrying out actions pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious faith(s)”, which is a different matter.
-
Because religion is needed for those?
Who suggested that it was?
Do you honestly not see that all of those are part of humanity rather than something external?
And so is the religion that actively supports them, and so is the rights-based culture that is moving us beyond them.
Indeed, your post drips with the sort of tribalism that you seem to think your tribe above.
Where's the tribalism in a rights-based culture that says all people are, for instance, to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity? Or sexuality? Or gender? Where is the tribalism in a system that says rights are available to all?
O.
-
Do you experience ecstasy?Do you forget about yourself?
You mean watching Jeremy Guscott glide through a defence line?
TBH, one of my best and oldest friends is a Christian and my SO spoke to him about 'his' Christianity, so far as I know he's never mentioned any sense of ecstacy or forgotten about himself. He's (I don't want to presume too much but.. ) his Christianity is part of his framework to think about morality and his local community. It's never been about forgetting or ecstasy. I suspect he'd think that, whatever your line was (/is) is on completely the wrong side of the track.
-
NS,
First, you’ve shifted ground from “religions don’t do anything” to “demonstrate that they do more harm than good”, which is a different category of critique.
Second, what I actually said was: “Anti-theist: on balance, it seems me that religions do more harm than good.” That was an opinion ("it seems to me"), not a claim to objective fact that requires demonstrating. I’m not sure how you’d go about demonstrating that objectively in any case given the sheer complexity of the task, but as religious faith seems to me to be indistinguishable from guessing and as axiomatically guessing is more likely to be wrong than right, I’d start there I think.
Why would I need to? And yes, if there was a model for non-politics (anarchy perhaps?) and a measure for the good vs harm of each modality you could perhaps in principle least at make that claim in response to the outcomes each produced.
No, it’s not just “people” – it’s “people carrying out actions pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious faith(s)”, which is a different matter.
Which is people. It appears that your case is you dislike religious people, and you want to dress your prejudice in an empty assertion.
-
Who suggested that it was?
And so is the religion that actively supports them, and so is the rights-based culture that is moving us beyond them.
Where's the tribalism in a rights-based culture that says all people are, for instance, to be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity? Or sexuality? Or gender? Where is the tribalism in a system that says rights are available to all?
O.
The tribalism is you are portraying these lacking religion as superior to those with religion, and also cherry picking a set of values that can be held whether you have a religion or not, and are not indicative of not holding religion.
-
I had forgotten how boring I found the tedious self regard of some atheists based around congratulating themselves for being so clever. So I'll leave those who like to pat themselves on the back for not believing in something to indulge in their little tribalism.
-
The tribalism is you are portraying these lacking religion as superior to those with religion, and also cherry picking a set of values that can be held whether you have a religion or not, and are not indicative of not holding religion.
That's not a use of 'tribalism' that I've ever come across before, I'm not really sure where you're getting it from. Those lacking religion are generally, superior to SOME of the religious. The worst of the religious are bad, in many instances BECAUSE of their stance on their religion, and they restrict and limit those who aren't BECAUSE of their religious stance.
That's not 'tribalism', that's 'having eyes'.
O.
-
NS,
Which is people. It appears that your case is you dislike religious people, and you want to dress your prejudice in an empty assertion.
Are you not reading what I'm actually saying, or not understanding it? Again: it's not "religious people", it's "the harmful actions and behaviours of religious people done pursuant to the rules and instructions of their religious beliefs".
If a religious person happens to collect stamps I really don't care. If he also beats up gay men on a Friday night because he thinks his "holy" texts sanction it then I do. I don't know why you're finding this difficult to grasp just in principle.
Note too by the way that whether or not for every homophobic attack there are ten acts of religiously-inspired goodness is a different matter.
-
NS,
I had forgotten how boring I found the tedious self regard of some atheists based around congratulating themselves for being so clever. So I'll leave those who like to pat themselves on the back for not believing in something to indulge in their little tribalism.
Are you having a bad day or something? I see no reason for you to post this given what people have actually said here. What self-congratulation and tribalism do you think you've identified, and why?
-
You mean watching Jeremy Guscott glide through a defence line?
TBH, one of my best and oldest friends is a Christian and my SO spoke to him about 'his' Christianity, so far as I know he's never mentioned any sense of ecstacy or forgotten about himself. He's (I don't want to presume too much but.. ) his Christianity is part of his framework to think about morality and his local community. It's never been about forgetting or ecstasy. I suspect he'd think that, whatever your line was (/is) is on completely the wrong side of the track.
I don’t think ecstacy is necessary for a Christian just like I don’t think speaking in tongues or understanding Aquinus is. I won’t dismiss them though.
-
Vlad,
...I never questioned that I might be wrong.
And now?
-
NS,
Are you having a bad day or something? I see no reason for you to post this given what people have actually said here. What self-congratulation and tribalism do you think you've identified, and why?
Ah, of course, if I think you're being self congratulatory, or that the idea that atheism is more likely to make you good is tribalism then I must be having a 'bad day', thank you for proving my point.
-
NS,
Ah, of course, if I think you're being self congratulatory, or that the idea that atheism is more likely to make you good is tribalism then I must be having a 'bad day', thank you for proving my point.
You seem to have lost the plot completely now. You effectively accuse me of ad hom tactics (“me/atheists good, you/theists bad”) when I’m talking about the arguments, not the person making them. Some arguments are sound (ie, good) and some are not (ie, bad), regardless of who’s making them. And when some people do rely on unsound arguments for their actions and behaviours ("beating up gay people is fine because the bible says they’re sinners" for example) they’re more likely to do harm than people who don’t in my experience.
This doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me, but hey-ho.
-
NS,
You seem to have lost the plot completely now. You effectively accuse me of ad hom tactics (“me/atheists good, you/theists bad”) when I’m talking about the arguments, not the person making them. Some arguments are sound (ie, good) and some are not (ie, bad), regardless of who’s making them. And when some people do rely on unsound arguments for their actions and behaviours ("beating up gay people is fine because the bible says they’re sinners" for example) they’re more likely to do harm than people who don’t in my experience.
This doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me, but hey-ho.
Keep digging. I like that when I make clear what your position is you complain that it's me accusing you of an ad hom. It's the whole basis of your logic. For theism to be bad then theists have to be worse to you than atheists on balance.
-
Vlad,
And now?
I see no good reason to return to the ‘fold’ of agnostic atheism.
-
I don’t think ecstacy is necessary for a Christian just like I don’t think speaking in tongues or understanding Aquinus is. I won’t dismiss them though.
the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples. ...
May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.
(Back to My Christian Friend...) I'm pretty sure he and I would agree with this sermon. Nothing at all to do with your tongues. Again, I can recall he's an anti-evangelical type (particularly the US type,'give all you money to me,because the Lord has ordered me to buy a ferrari'. type) Nothing to do with ecstasy, nothing with wobbling around and pretending you can speak gibberish, just us walking together. In peace.
That's abut the only type of Christianity I have no objection to at all.
(P.S. Could you try and work out how to use positive terms, not double negatives? Some how they all read like a collection a mangled up buff.)
(P.P.S. quote in full available here; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump )
-
(Back to My Christian Friend...) I'm pretty sure he and I would agree with this sermon. Nothing at all to do with your tongues. Again, I can recall he's an anti-evangelical type (particularly the US type,'give all you money to me,because the Lord has ordered me to buy a ferrari'. type) Nothing to do with ecstasy, nothing with wobbling around and pretending you can speak gibberish, just us walking together. In peace.
That's abut the only type of Christianity I have no objection to at all.
(P.S. Could you try and work out how to use positive terms, not double negatives? Some how they all read like a collection a mangled up buff.)
(P.P.S. quote in full available here; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump )
Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy
Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.
-
Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy
Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.
I think the Internet has had effect on discussions on all subjects. I don't see why Dawkins is responsible for any change in tone, he's generally very gracious. And it seems a bit rich to just ignore people flying airplanes into buildings.
-
I think the Internet has had effect on discussions on all subjects. I don't see why Dawkins is responsible for any change in tone, he's generally very gracious. And it seems a bit rich to just ignore people flying airplanes into buildings.
Ironically though Dawkins exhorted atheists to be less generous to and more vehement against religion.
I also don't think he's very generous toward some physicists except Smolin perhaps on account of his Darwinian cosmology.
-
Ironically though Dawkins exhorted atheists to be less generous to and more vehement against religion.
I also don't think he's very generous toward some physicists except Smolin perhaps on account of his Darwinian cosmology.
The idea that Dawkins has effected the tome of the discourse because of anything he's said about Smolin is ludicrous even for you. Your posts appear unhinged.
-
Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy.
Chunsty, I've been trying to think about this for the last few days and I think almost everytime I try an explanation, it makes me read like a Messianic tosser.
For now; No you are not my worst enemy. You may have many good intentions and I do disagree with some. For now I shall leave it there.
Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.
... anything he's said about Smolin is ludicrous even for you. Your posts appear unhinged.
So, have I been demoted?
-
It was Dawkins who urged atheists to be more vocal and antitheistic. And they did.
How then, before Dawkins and the rise of religion forums did members make their atheism and antitheism public?
Hi Walt.
Did they need to? Times change and so do the people. After the war ended people were so glad to be safe and yet at the same time mourned their lost loved ones' and friends.
Religion was not really an open topic was it?
-
Hi Walt.
Did they need to? Times change and so do the people. After the war ended people were so glad to be safe and yet at the same time mourned their lost loved ones' and friends.
Religion was not really an open topic was it?
Hello Sassy, it’s so nice to have you back where you belong. Times do change indeed.
-
Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.
I'm curious about what was particularly striking to you about this demonstration of the human ability to direct the explosive power of machines and flammable substances to kill people in the US?
Buildings with civilians in them in other parts of the world were getting blown up periodically over the 20th and 21st century by the US and its allies and proxies - the justifications put forth were various political/ economic/ national interest reasons. Many of us watched these events on the news. Why wouldn't there be blowback? The only surprising element was that it did not happen earlier.
The bit I am particularly curious about is why is it worse or "striking" because a god was invoked during the explosions by some of the participants rather than the usual commentary participants cite during mass murder - national security, patriotism, collateral damage etc?
To me that seems irrational - similar to being more horrified when a female police officer kills someone in the line of duty compared to when a male police officer kills someone in the line of duty.
Is it striking to you because of assumptions you hold about religions or religious people - e.g. do you expect them to behave differently compared to non-religious people when it comes to reacting to US aggression - did you have an expectation that the religious would "turn the other cheek"? If there are many of the non-religious voting public voting for politicians with the demonstrable capacity to sign off on violent attacks on civilians in foreign countries, why would you think religious people would refrain from similarly supporting leaders who sign-off on death to civilians for political gain?
In both scenarios the people and their leaders are killing based on their beliefs about what is morally right - why is it more striking to you if their morals beliefs are based on their interpretation of a religious philosophy rather than their interpretation of a non-religious philosophy?
-
NS,
So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?
Religion covers a wide range of ideas and philosophies - if you don't mean all religions, which ones do you mean?
Nazism is a much more specific idea or philosophy.
What aspects of Nazism does more harm than good?
In relation to these aspects, please list some of the similarities between Nazism and all religions.
-
Religion covers a wide range of ideas and philosophies - if you don't mean all religions, which ones do you mean?
Nazism is a much more specific idea or philosophy.
What aspects of Nazism does more harm than good?
The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies necessitated by poor economic management.
I could probably think of more.
In relation to these aspects, please list some of the similarities between Nazism and all religions.
The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies
OK, that's just Christianity and Islam, but there are other similarities such as the cult ideologies.
-
I'm curious about what was particularly striking to you about this demonstration of the human ability to direct the explosive power of machines and flammable substances to kill people in the US?
What made it different was that it targetted the US, and therefore caught the attention of the US media machine who then exported their conversations.
Buildings with civilians in them in other parts of the world were getting blown up periodically over the 20th and 21st century by the US and its allies and proxies - the justifications put forth were various political/ economic/ national interest reasons. Many of us watched these events on the news. Why wouldn't there be blowback? The only surprising element was that it did not happen earlier.
To an extent, yes, and the resulting conversation was overdue, as well.
The bit I am particularly curious about is why is it worse or "striking" because a god was invoked during the explosions by some of the participants rather than the usual commentary participants cite during mass murder - national security, patriotism, collateral damage etc?
Implicit in a political decision to undertake such activities is the idea that a counter-case can be made. You can't argue, though, with the divine revelation that my god wants me to blow you up - religion is authoritarian, by nature, and authoritarianism and violence is a dangerous mix in a way that even politics and violence isn't.
To me that seems irrational - similar to being more horrified when a female police officer kills someone in the line of duty compared to when a male police officer kills someone in the line of duty.
I don't see that the gender of the police officer is really a determining factor in that, so I'd agree that's not a meaningful differentiation.
Is it striking to you because of assumptions you hold about religions or religious people - e.g. do you expect them to behave differently compared to non-religious people when it comes to reacting to US aggression - did you have an expectation that the religious would "turn the other cheek"?
I don't expect them to act any differently at all. I expect everyone else to stop treating religion like it's beyond question, that's it's a demonstrable benefit. That has happened since the conversations that started after 9/11 - it's acceptable to criticise religion, now, it's appropriate to weight the benefits and the detriments. I wonder, if religion were still afforded the diffidence that was the case prior to this, whether things like the child abuse allegations against Christian denominations would have been given the same coverage?
If there are many of the non-religious voting public voting for politicians with the demonstrable capacity to sign off on violent attacks on civilians in foreign countries, why would you think religious people would refrain from similarly supporting leaders who sign-off on death to civilians for political gain?
You could always criticise the politicians, and you could always criticise individual religious people. However, you couldn't criticise religion like you could, say, neocapitalism - political systems weren't 'sacred' like the notion of religion was.
In both scenarios the people and their leaders are killing based on their beliefs about what is morally right - why is it more striking to you if their morals beliefs are based on their interpretation of a religious philosophy rather than their interpretation of a non-religious philosophy?
I hope, by now, I've shown that I don't think that, I'd apparently not adequately made the case before.
O.
-
The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies necessitated by poor economic management.
I could probably think of more.The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies
OK, that's just Christianity and Islam, but there are other similarities such as the cult ideologies.
Please clarify:
You think Islam (a philosophical idea) is antisemitic, racist and expansionist or people are antisemitic, racist and expansionist? If you think Islam is all these things, rather than people, please provide evidence.
For example, the Quran reveres all the Jewish prophets - Adam, Abraham, Moses etc, which is evidence of Islam not being antisemitic.
Similarly, what is your evidence for Islam, the religion, being racist?
Also please clarify what you mean by "expansionist" and why you think it is bad - philosophical ideas are spread by people - that is the nature of all ideas and thoughts.
People form cult ideologies so what is your evidence that cult ideologies are intrinsic to Islam?
-
Implicit in a political decision to undertake such activities is the idea that a counter-case can be made. You can't argue, though, with the divine revelation that my god wants me to blow you up - religion is authoritarian, by nature, and authoritarianism and violence is a dangerous mix in a way that even politics and violence isn't.
I find this assertion to be nonsense unless you can evidence it.
Firstly, I disagree that it is implicit in a political decision that a counter-case can be made. You make it sound like there is some kind of objective counter-case to be made, when in fact any counter-cases hinge on differing political moral beliefs.
Secondly I disagree that a counter-case cannot be made in religions. Similar to opposing and varied political beliefs, there are opposing and varied religious beliefs.
The divine revelation you mentioned is someone's interpretation of an idea communicated to them, and their interpretation is a product of their beliefs and thoughts based on their nature/ nurture. This is also how interpretation of political ideas work e.g. drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to differentiate countries based on race and culture and then killing to protect those demarcated boundaries.
Evidence shows that political beliefs, like religious beliefs, can be deeply held and entrenched views that are not changed by evidence. So no meaningful difference between religion and politics. Similarly, both religious and political beliefs can be less dogmatically held and open to change.
There are numerous authoritarian regimes, religious and non-religious, where regardless of whether they hold elections or not, a counter-case will get you killed/ imprisoned/ tortured, therefore people are not permitted to make counter-cases and brute force is needed to overthrow the regime.
Even in liberal democracies, there are many obstacles to making any counter-case even if a person holding a political belief was likely to be swayed by them, which they often aren't. Obstacles such as corruption, a lack of transparency and lack of information including baked in legal methods e.g. classified information to obscure the truth to prevent a counter-case being made due to "interests of national security" a.k.a. self interest.
If we unpick the "can't argue with divine revelation" assertion so beloved by some atheists, what is the meaningful difference in holding an unevidenced belief in "divine revelation" that means I think I should blow you up versus an unevidenced belief that "my country right or wrong" means I think I should blow you up? Any "divine revelation" claims can be countered by an opposite "divine revelation" that I should not blow you up.
Any "my country right or wrong" justifications to blow you up can be countered by the belief that even if other countries are doing the morally wrong thing, I can believe that my country should do the right thing no matter what the cost to my country or me.
The belief that it is morally right to die for an abstract construct or cause (political or religious) is often nothing more than a moral justification for horrible acts to further some personal cause such as asserting and enforcing personal morality over others, acquiring personal power or wealth or to be celebrated and rewarded as a patriot or a religious or political martyr or hero.
-
I don't expect them to act any differently at all. I expect everyone else to stop treating religion like it's beyond question, that's it's a demonstrable benefit. That has happened since the conversations that started after 9/11 - it's acceptable to criticise religion, now, it's appropriate to weight the benefits and the detriments. I wonder, if religion were still afforded the diffidence that was the case prior to this, whether things like the child abuse allegations against Christian denominations would have been given the same coverage?
You could always criticise the politicians, and you could always criticise individual religious people. However, you couldn't criticise religion like you could, say, neocapitalism - political systems weren't 'sacred' like the notion of religion was.
O.
My experience has been different from yours. I grew up in London in the 70s and 80s.I watched Life of Brian and read Terry Pratchett. Once I was old enough to think through arguments about religion and gods, I found that I could discuss and criticise religion and belief in god with my parents, the wider community and my peers at school.
I did not particularly notice if others felt religion was too "sacred" to critique - many of my peers were either atheists or found religion irrelevant and the few religious in school were considered the weird ones. But I did come across the idea that people's beliefs (whether religious or not) matter to them and for us to all get along as a community in school, school policies would be introduced to try to direct my youthful ardour in challenging religion to more thoughtful, less egotistical, attention-seeking ways to challenge beliefs - ways that actually invited discussion.
This next bit isn't about you. As a teenage atheist my ego preferred to go down a more "confrontational" route when challenging people's moral or religious beliefs but now I look back at my need to be arrogantly confrontational about what people consider sacred and think I might have been enjoying myself but it rarely works in getting people to actually think about why they believe what they believe.
Most people, when confronted this way about their religious and non-religious beliefs, find it easier to dismiss the argument, regardless of how good it may be, and become more entrenched in their beliefs - because if the confrontation of the belief seems to be a personal attack or criticism, rather than a discussion of the idea, people's minds switch off. For some reason that's how human minds work. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/true-believers/201603/5-reasons-why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a
-
Please clarify:
You think Islam (a philosophical idea) is antisemitic, racist and expansionist or people are antisemitic, racist and expansionist?
I think Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents.
I think it's bleedin' obvious that that is the case, if you look at its history and its role in current affairs.
-
I think Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents.
I think it's bleedin' obvious that that is the case, if you look at its history and its role in current affairs.
What is "bleedin' obvious" to you depends on your particular set of unevidenced beliefs.
-
What is "bleedin' obvious" to you depends on your particular set of unevidenced beliefs.
There's nothing unevidenced about (as examples) The Islamic Caliphates or the Hamas charter.
-
There's nothing unevidenced about (as examples) The Islamic Caliphates or the Hamas charter.
You do know that just stating vague words such as "Islamic Caliphates" or "Hamas Charter" is meaningless and therefore not evidence. You've been on this forum long enough to know what counts as evidence for a convincing argument - so do better.
Alternatively, if these words are all the evidence you want for your beliefs, the same way people who believe in gods have all the evidence they want for their beliefs, then no point having a discussion about it. You're free to stick with your beliefs.
-
You do know that just stating vague words such as "Islamic Caliphates" or "Hamas Charter" is meaningless
These are not vague words. They refer, respectively to the expansionist Islamic empires and a document outlining the aims of Hamas.
If you want to suggest that neither really exist(ed), you need to do a bit more research.
-
These are not vague words. They refer, respectively to the expansionist Islamic empires and a document outlining the aims of Hamas.
If you want to suggest that neither really exist(ed), you need to do a bit more research.
I did not suggest that Muslim Caliphates and the Hamas Charter do not exist.
You already linked to the 2017 Hamas charter on another thread, thereby acknowledging that Hamas has revised its charter to say that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project. You also had not come up with anything to counter Hamas leaders saying they do not have a problem with Jews but have a problem with people who are illegally occupying someone else's land, regardless of the race, religious or political beliefs of the occupying force. Presumably you knew all this when you linked to Hamas' Charter and proclamations as evidence for their attitudes.
I asked for evidence to justify your belief that Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents. Given that some Muslims are antisemitic or racist or expansionist and some are not, you need to provide evidence of causation rather than correlation.
Jewish religious books seem to describe the Jews at various times as being racist and prejudiced and expansionist, considering Gentiles as inferior, conquering lands and ruling kingdoms well before the birth of Prophet Mohammed. There is plenty of evidence of Zionist political groups making racist and expansionist statements.
Without Islam being involved, the US, the UK and most of Europe followed policies for centuries that encourage antisemitism, racism and expansionism among their population. Hence I asked for evidence on how you managed to isolate Islam as the cause, given people are a mix of nature and nurture, and given antisemitism, racism and expansionism was an integral part of Western culture.
Rather than your unevidenced black and white beliefs about Islam, evidence suggests the historical reality is a lot more nuanced - e.g the Jews, many of whom were and still are racists, had periods where they could practise their culture and religion under Berber Caliphates and periods were they faced significant restrictions under Berbers. Jews were treated far more harshly under the Visigoths before the Muslim caliphates in Spain, and also treated far more harshly by the Christian kingdoms that overthrew the Muslim Caliphates in Spain and forcibly expelled/ converted/ executed hundreds of thousands of Jews. Many Spanish Jews were given refuge in the Muslim Ottoman Empire. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/turkey-virtual-jewish-history-tour
Jewish people lived continuously in the middle east and north Africa for over 2,600 years, paying taxes to the state and participating in state affairs, although they paid a different tax to the state from the taxes the Muslims paid. In 1945, 856,000 Jewish people lived in the middle east, north Africa and the Gulf region, and it wasn't until the UN partitioned Palestine and Israelis killed or violently expelled Palestinians from their villages, creating a political conflict over land, that a large number of Jews were expelled from the Arab countries or were encouraged by Israel to settle in Israel.
You need to provide evidence that the conflict over land is due to antisemitism as opposed to grievances over Zionist forcible expulsion of Palestinian people from land that those families have lived on for centuries.
Not that I am surprised by your racism or bigotry - you are the idiot who believed and repeated the lies of Israeli first responders about Hamas beheading babies. Of course you're not the only racist idiot - Biden and many Western media outlets and the general public also did not bother to fact check or look for evidence before they adopted beliefs based on Israeli lies. These unevidenced beliefs were their justification for supporting the Israeli government's genocide and war crimes against the Palestinian civilian population.