Oh, when the saints

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.

Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).

I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.

Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.

As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......The end looks nigh.

[Gordon]

'Go marching in'?

[splashscuba]

Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.

Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).

I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.

Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.

As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......The end looks nigh.

Why are you so keen to use any source to show that atheism is anything more than not believing in gods ?

Most atheists on this board have already said that they use the word to simply mean not believing in gods.

If you insist on stating otherwise, would you please let the rest of us know what the correct word is for not believing in gods.

[Owlswing]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew". 

[Shaker]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew".

Nice one

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism - you use a plethora of ridiculously long words in your posts and your username, presumably to impress other posters with your learning and erudition and the you go and demonstrate your lack of erudition in the matter of short words by using "slough" instead of "slew".

No I think I was quite right using the word ''slough''

slough (slŭf) n. A layer or mass of dead tissue separated from surrounding living tissue, as in a wound, a sore, or an inflammation. v. sloughed, sloughˇing, sloughs

[Outrider]

Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God

No, atheism is DEFINED as the absence of belief in gods - that is not our portrayal.

and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.

And? Cultural influences and social developments have consequent effects.

Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).

These people have been courageous and become celebrities because, when overt atheism was frowned upon and the establishment wanted to maintain the cosy illusion that society was uniformly Christian they stood up to be counted. That we are not maintaining that illusion now is not why they are courageous, it's because they were.

I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.

Sanctified? No, recognised - they're human, they're not super-beings, but they have done some impressive things in the face of quite committed, obstinate opposition.

Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.

Does atheism change the world? Not if it's hidden, no, but if it's overt, yes. It demonstrates to people that it's perfectly possible to be 'good without god', and in partnership with a global broadcasting and communication network, that message becomes apparent - it then starts to undermine some of the nonsense that certain religious regimes and organisations preach, and becomes the thin end of a broadening wedge of a fairer, more informed, more secular society.

As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......

People aren't irritated with Evangelism because of the number of books they produce, they're irritated with the nonsensical content.

The end looks nigh.

The end of what? Religion - that seems unlikely. Religious privilege - here's hoping.

O.

[Hope]

slough - (1) a swamp
            (2) A situation characterized by lack of progress or activity

There is a third use of the word in British English, but it is as a verb and MfPNP uses the term in an adjectival sense, suggesting that this can be discounted in the context.

slew    - (1) Turn or slide violently or uncontrollably (this is the word used when rail tracks are
                    forcibly repositioned whilst still connected to others)
            (2) Past of 'slay'
            (3) A large number or quantity of something informal, chiefly North American

MfPNP, I have taken these from the Oxford Online Dictionary site.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism is portrayed here as just non belief in gods or God

No, atheism is DEFINED as the absence of belief in gods - that is not our portrayal.

and yet there now seems to be a slough of books trumpeting the role of atheism in shaping the modern world.

And? Cultural influences and social developments have consequent effects.

Many talk of the courage of atheists but seem to be talking about the courage of celebs such as Rushdie, Dawkins, Dennett etc. talking (As you know I believe British atheists to be in the majority so what is courageous about British atheism I don't know ).

These people have been courageous and become celebrities because, when overt atheism was frowned upon and the establishment wanted to maintain the cosy illusion that society was uniformly Christian they stood up to be counted. That we are not maintaining that illusion now is not why they are courageous, it's because they were.

I'm sure there are courageous atheists but is their courage of any greater quality than anybody elses? In other words are atheist actions being sanctified in these books.

Sanctified? No, recognised - they're human, they're not super-beings, but they have done some impressive things in the face of quite committed, obstinate opposition.

Finally does atheism actually have the effect of changing the world, is that change positive and where does that leave atheism being nothing except lack of belief.

Does atheism change the world? Not if it's hidden, no, but if it's overt, yes. It demonstrates to people that it's perfectly possible to be 'good without god', and in partnership with a global broadcasting and communication network, that message becomes apparent - it then starts to undermine some of the nonsense that certain religious regimes and organisations preach, and becomes the thin end of a broadening wedge of a fairer, more informed, more secular society.

As their bookshelves swell to match those of Evangelicals, I feel atheism is now on the brink of doorstepping people and donning sandwich boards.......

People aren't irritated with Evangelism because of the number of books they produce, they're irritated with the nonsensical content.

The end looks nigh.

The end of what? Religion - that seems unlikely. Religious privilege - here's hoping.

O.

Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?

That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.

It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?

So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.

How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?

I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.

I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.

Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.

[Outrider]

Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?

No, atheism is just the absence of a belief in gods. Being overt about atheism is a demonstration that it's possible to be good without gods.

That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.

Nice ad hominem there - you punch like a weeble, and reason like one too.

It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?

I've not heard anyone denying the possibility, so there's no real need to demonstrate it.

So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.

Atheism is neither good nor bad, in isolation. It's good or bad in relation to how people then interpret it in a social context.

How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?

... and when did you stop beating your wife? I don't accept your assertion of 'moral non-realism' (which I'm presuming is your latest attempt to be pejorative about the concept of moral relativism).

I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.

... said Mr Kettle.

I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.

1. I don't view fairness predominantly in terms of money.
2. I don't view the improvement in world affairs based solely on the effects in Britain.
3. I think you meant 'well-heeled', right? No-one said the world was perfect, only that it's improving.

Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.

In the UK there has been a growing acceptance, yes. In other countries that's less the case. I'll take your 'Godwin' as an extremely crass, offensive, childish, puerile admission that you're a tool. There is no intolerance of religion, there's an intolerance of religious privilege - that's secularism, not antitheism, but don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of the sort of paranoid victim-mentality thinking that ACTUALLY contributed the predominantly Christian nation of Germany perpetrating the holocaust on a wide number of irrational hatreds: religious, homophobic and ethnic amongst them.

Don't let reality hit you on the arse on your way out...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism is both JUST the absence of belief in God/s AND it demonstrates that one can be good without God?

No, atheism is just the absence of a belief in gods. Being overt about atheism is a demonstration that it's possible to be good without gods.

That answer reflects a moral cowardice since it is a ''hedge'' from the consequences.

Nice ad hominem there - you punch like a weeble, and reason like one too.

It shows that one can be good without God? What about being bad without God?

I've not heard anyone denying the possibility, so there's no real need to demonstrate it.

So far you have it that Atheism can only be a good thing and you have a retreat position for if you are wrong.

Atheism is neither good nor bad, in isolation. It's good or bad in relation to how people then interpret it in a social context.

How do you think being good without God squares with the Moral Non Realism held by many?

... and when did you stop beating your wife? I don't accept your assertion of 'moral non-realism' (which I'm presuming is your latest attempt to be pejorative about the concept of moral relativism).

I'm afraid that and other things show today's atheist thinking of not having matured.

... said Mr Kettle.

I don't see how you can view British society as fairer since the gulf between the highest paid and others is becoming greater and greater as is the value of a private education. You seem to base your view solely that on the acceptance of a generally well healed constituency into a money and status oriented society.

1. I don't view fairness predominantly in terms of money.
2. I don't view the improvement in world affairs based solely on the effects in Britain.
3. I think you meant 'well-heeled', right? No-one said the world was perfect, only that it's improving.

Finally, There has for several decades been an acceptance of atheism.
Any ''Courage'' shown has been in coming out as intolerant about religion....always risky since what happened in Nazi Germany.

In the UK there has been a growing acceptance, yes. In other countries that's less the case. I'll take your 'Godwin' as an extremely crass, offensive, childish, puerile admission that you're a tool. There is no intolerance of religion, there's an intolerance of religious privilege - that's secularism, not antitheism, but don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of the sort of paranoid victim-mentality thinking that ACTUALLY contributed the predominantly Christian nation of Germany perpetrating the holocaust on a wide number of irrational hatreds: religious, homophobic and ethnic amongst them.

Don't let reality hit you on the arse on your way out...

O.

Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting.

The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God. Showing that any country can.

I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.

Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.

[Outrider]

Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting

Only if it's a new realisation for you.

The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God.

And in Return of the King, Gandalf the Grey returns as Gandalf the White...

I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.

No, not really, but I don't see people being carted off to the gas chamber by the authorities in the same sort of numbers, though institutionally sanctioned homphobia is still rampant in third world piss-holes like (the fundamentalist Christian) Nigeria and (the fundamentalist Islamic) Saudi Arabia. 

Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.

Because we're contractually and financially bound not to be seen as racist, right? I see reality really didn't even get close to catching you, did it...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nazi Germany a predominantly Christian country? Interesting

Only if it's a new realisation for you.

The Bible is replete with stories of Israel which frequently abandoned it's general allegiance with God.

And in Return of the King, Gandalf the Grey returns as Gandalf the White...

I think you underestimate the casual homophobic chatter which still remains within secular society and as a society we have to be after all legally, contractually and financially bound though not to be seen as homophobic.

No, not really, but I don't see people being carted off to the gas chamber by the authorities in the same sort of numbers, though institutionally sanctioned homphobia is still rampant in third world piss-holes like (the fundamentalist Christian) Nigeria and (the fundamentalist Islamic) Saudi Arabia. 

Also racism and ethnicism seems to be more acceptable now.

Because we're contractually and financially bound not to be seen as racist, right? I see reality really didn't even get close to catching you, did it...

O.

Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.

[Outrider]

Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.

So your defence is 'I know I am, but what are you...' Resounding rebuttal, there, Vlad.

If you already know the difference between Christian Germans being motivated by their Christian faith to commit genocide against the Jewish people vs atheist Russian leadership using their populace's nationalism to inspire them to purge the land of rival power systems, why do you feel the need to raise an argument you're going to lose? If you don't know the difference, I suggest you go work it out.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, there have been atheist pissholes as well......To which you will now doubtlessly skulk back to your safe hedge position...''Atheism is merely.......etc.....etc.

So your defence is 'I know I am, but what are you...' Resounding rebuttal, there, Vlad.

If you already know the difference between Christian Germans being motivated by their Christian faith to commit genocide against the Jewish people vs atheist Russian leadership using their populace's nationalism to inspire them to purge the land of rival power systems, why do you feel the need to raise an argument you're going to lose? If you don't know the difference, I suggest you go work it out.

O.

What about the ubermensch princip drawn from Neitszche and Galton, and Pagan Aryan mysticism?
Wasn't the ''international jewish finance'' of Nazi lore also ''a rival power system''.

Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.

[Owlswing]

Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.

Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.

The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.

And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.

Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.

The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.

And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

[Owlswing]

Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.

Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.

The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.

And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.

Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that it is difficult to see how the Christian faith in your theory did not also lead other Christian peoples to go down the genocide route. So you see there must have been other ''local factors''.

Hitler and the Nazis "attempted" the genocide of the Jews, the Russian/Slav untermench and Roma/gypsies and failed in all three.

The Christian, well Catholic, church achieved it twice by military action and venerial disease - the Aztecs and the Mayans who refused to give up Sun worship and replace it with Son worship.

And, before the old chestnut of "Oh no, that was done in the name of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Christian (Catholic) church, it was the priests (missionaries) who accompanied the armed forces of Spain and Portugal who ordered the slaughter when their offers of salvation by conversion were refused and failed to halt the army's process of "kill the men and rape the women", and sometimes vice versa.

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.

Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.

The reformation bucked that trend.

[Shaker]

For fuck's sake learn to quote properly.

[Owlswing]

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.

Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.

The reformation bucked that trend.

[/quote]

Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.

[jeremyp]

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

Spain was an overtly Christian nation, run by devout Catholics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.

Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.

The reformation bucked that trend.

Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.
[/quote]
yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.

[Owlswing]

Are you denying that the mission was primarily for the purpose of expanding the territory and wealth of Spain?

The colonial exploits were not after all the crusades.

. . . and had the secondary purpose of spreading the influence of Catholic Christianity, thus attracting the approval of the Pope to the enterprise.

Let's face it, at that time in history, practically nothing happened anywhere without the approval of the Pope and the Catholic (Christian) Church.

The reformation bucked that trend.

Oh yeah! Bloody shame that the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't around to see it happen.

yes...I understand both civilisations practiced human sacrifice.........Bloody catholics.
[/quote]

This does not give the bloody Christians the right to wipe them out!

Let'ds face it, the Christians had been sacrificing humans, so-called "witches", for 100 years before they started on South America.

Pot - Kettle - Black - - - Mote - Beam - Eye.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Well just to educate Matty and other's over in Europe. My ancestors, pagan Crees, lived in fear and hate. We became the largest peoples in N America. How did we achieve this and how come today you find Cree first nations spanning thousands of miles? By war and hunting down and slaughtering those in our way. Matty and many of you Europeans like to crucify Christianity for what you Europeans did over here. Shut up! It's over, have a cookie. If it wasn't for the protestant and catholic missionaries and the Mounted police arriving on the prairie here, we would still be third world, chasing down the Blackfoot confederacy, the Crow and Sioux, taking their scalps, stealing their horses and taking the women. Pagan Europe is a history of bloodshed, hate and fear as well.