No true apatheist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure some of them do. I'm pretty sure most atheists, however, find the fact that people believe the implications of the gospel have merit, and try to legislate other peoples lives on those implications, to be more of an issue, and it was those people we were talking about.

So am I to take it you have nothing against christianity per se, but just like blaming all christians for anything you don't like?

I'd imagine most atheists are troubled by the implications of the gospel itself to pretty much the same extent they are troubled by the implications of Ragnarok.

Sounds bollocks to me, Viking salvation seems to be dependent on doing ''man things like fighting, drinking and wenching'' so I would imagine that's ripe for a comeback....just look at the beards and tattoos (Doesn't look to good for New Atheism does it). That observation aside, I don't think there is much self analysis because it's a blamers field.
Any body who doesn't seem to think that myths contain a moral for them isn't prone to thinking much in my book.

To paraphrase the old hymn ''Take it to the lord in prayer''
Have we trials and temptations
Is there trouble anywhere
We should never be discouraged
When we blame some other C***

The other diversions from self analysis is of course include infantilisation and the modern adult interest in toys for boys and acquisitive materialism
[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection).

But certainly in the UK a tiny number of people become christians as adults who were not brought up as christians in childhood. The notion of all these children brought up in atheist, agnostic, non-religious, muslim, jewish etc etc households suddenly becoming christians as adults is fantasy - it hardly ever happens.

So it is you with the ego problem - desperate to demonstrate that the christian message is so strong that people who weren't brought up as christians flock to it when they find out about it as adults. The reverse is true - the christian message is so weak that virtually no-one who has not had that message pumped into them at birth become christian as adults, and even for those who have been brought up christian about 50% reject it as adults and become non religious.

[Gordon]

Most people Gordon and the avoidance modes used by most people are varied. Some never approach religion by choice. These are the true freedom from religionists, some choose a cacophany of anti God propoganda, some try forms of religion which demand no real commitment.

I come from a family background of no religious involvement: I wasn't christened, which would be rare for a child born in 1952, and none of my children or grandchildren are either, and religion doesn't feature much in education any more. I'm no more inclined towards religion than I am, say, inclined towards, say, ballroom dancing and seem to be able to function quite well without either.

You feel a great deal of offence obviously a feeling you have not explored, I would imagine beyond those who you feel are offending you.

I'm not in the least offended: I'm simply disinterested in acquiring religion on a personal basis.

It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection). After all there were once no christians and that turned into millions.

No I don't: I get than some people are cultural Christians and I get that some people acquire Christianity as a lifestyle choice - nice to see an ad pop get an outing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree.

Vlad you need to think of this from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that god exists.

Been there and done that. Since you are still there then I have to wonder why you have not only apparently not dipped your toes in the water but have constructed a veritable Hadrians wall round your position

From that perspective all the stuff in the gospels about Jesus being the son of god redemption, everlasting life at god's side etc etc is no more plausible nor relevant as the wrath of Thor

I have to admit that the bible seemed dusty, archaic and impeneratable and unapproachable and then miraculously it became illuminated to me yeah, in its King James version. I give credit to God for that rather than any skill or scholarship from me (and frankly giving God credit might put off an ego of intellect) although there also is an element that sadly you have not recieved a rounded education to enable you to respect past human achievement. Either that or you reject, presumably on material grounds any education you regard as superfluous

  or any other deity claim. So when you strip that out what are you left with. Well firstly a fairly 'vanilla' ethical 'love your neighbour narrative - so very humanist and so 'fine, what's the issue'.

Great topic for a new thread.

What is also left, which probably exercises atheists most, is the impact that the gospels have on christians and how that also impacts on others. Now some of that impact is very beneficial - helping others etc, but there again this is no different to humanism in terms of actions and impact, despite a different motivation. But some is clearly negative - broad intolerance towards many groups justified on biblical grounds - most notably against homosexual people but also a systematic lack of equality for women and in some denominations the use of the bible to justify racist attitudes. Then there is the expectation of special privileges for christianity embedded within our system.

Many people view history differently and end up not blaming religion for the bad things in life. They campaign on issue rather than genetic fallacy. Sadly Humanism is largely derived from Christianity despite your revisionist history. Look at the tagline Prof, It's possible to be moral without religion....well the God bits anyway.
Specific and personal rejection of God writ large.

So no, as I do not believe in god the god-type gospel claims don't bother me.

Maybe because as seems the case you have lacked or rejected a comprehensive education.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But certainly in the UK a tiny number of people become christians as adults who were not brought up as christians in childhood. The notion of all these children brought up in atheist, agnostic, non-religious, muslim, jewish etc etc households suddenly becoming christians as adults is fantasy - it hardly ever happens.

The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it? Christianity has always been the narrow road Prof but maybe not as narrow as you think. In my biology a level class of 12 half of us are now Christian up from about 2 already professing making most of our little group converts.

So it is you with the ego problem - desperate to demonstrate that the christian message is so strong that people who weren't brought up as christians flock to it when they find out about it as adults. The reverse is true - the christian message is so weak that virtually no-one who has not had that message pumped into them at birth become christian as adults, and even for those who have been brought up christian about 50% reject it as adults and become non religious.

Weak? or so ego disturbing it is best forgotten? The Christian message has been strong enough for you to  spend much of your time opposing it.

[Gordon]

The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it?

That would be in England, Vlad, so don't blame us Scots for both of those catastrophies. Even so, how does voting Tory/Brexit equate to secularism?

[Gordon]

The Christian message has been strong enough for you to  spend much of your time opposing it.

It's not the 'message' of Christianity that troubles me, Vlad, since I regard this 'message' as incoherent nonsense - what bothers me is the activities, and the desire to influence society at large, of some of those who proselytise this 'message'.

[ProfessorDavey]

The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it? Christianity has always been the narrow road Prof but maybe not as narrow as you think.

But the UK is actually identical in terms of trends with other countries that have the following features (that I think we'd probably accept as being desirable):
1. Broad freedom of religion so that whether or not someone is religious, nor which religion they follow is respected as equally valid choices.
2. A education and cultural system that is sufficiently broad and balanced that most children grow up with an awareness and understanding that religion exists and a choice that they could follow if they choose, and also that being non religious/atheist exists and a choice that they could follow if they choose (see above).
3. An acceptance that if someone chooses to change religion or to move from being non religious to religious or vice versa that is a personal choice and should be respected.

Sure there are countries that don't show the same trend as the UK, but they tend to be ones that do not support the openness of freedom of religion (including freedom to be non religious) and education/awareness to be able to make a choice.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Christian message has been strong enough for you to  spend much of your time opposing it.

I've explained my position on the christian message above, namely:

1. The 'god' bits are irrelevant to me as I don't believe god exists
2. Many of the non god ethical bits are basically humanism motivated in a different manner, so basically if people are acting in a broadly humanist manner I'm franky pretty relaxed as to whether that is due to adherence to the humanist 'golden rule' or Jesus' help thy neighbour. However in many cases they aren't adopted in practice - see 3 and 4.
3. The christian message has been adopted to support ethical stances which I strongly oppose - most notably attitudes towards gay people, women and ethnic minorities and, of course, adherents of other religious and non religious/atheist people.
4. As a broader point to 3, the underlying biblical (and christian) message of collected inherited guilt has been one of the most caustic and destructive propositions throughout history. I am not to blame for what people like me did generations ago, but the whole biblical/christian notion of being born sinful and in need of redemption (underpinned all the way from the first book in the bible) embeds this notion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've explained my position on the christian message above, namely:

1. The 'god' bits are irrelevant to me as I don't believe god exists
2. Many of the non god ethical bits are basically humanism motivated in a different manner, so basically if people are acting in a broadly humanist manner I'm franky pretty relaxed as to whether that is due to adherence to the humanist 'golden rule' or Jesus' help thy neighbour. However in many cases they aren't adopted in practice - see 3 and 4.
3. The christian message has been adopted to support ethical stances which I strongly oppose - most notably attitudes towards gay people, women and ethnic minorities and, of course, adherents of other religious and non religious/atheist people.
4. As a broader point to 3, the underlying biblical (and christian) message of collected inherited guilt has been one of the most caustic and destructive propositions throughout history. I am not to blame for what people like me did generations ago, but the whole biblical/christian notion of being born sinful and in need of redemption (underpinned all the way from the first book in the bible) embeds this notion.

Yes but as i've pointed out there is a right, sweet smelling way of campaigning against things one doesn't like, the campaigning on issues and campaigning motivated by the genetic fallacy. I believe by campaigning on this forum you have chosen the latter path and have used it as a diversion from the philosophical and theological issues involved, the potential for personal relationship with God indeed the need for one given one's own rather inherited capability to sin. Also by saying ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?'' doesn't seem much of an argument Davey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be in England, Vlad, so don't blame us Scots for both of those catastrophies. Even so, how does voting Tory/Brexit equate to secularism?

Trouble is, if you think about it a vote for SNP rather than labour has meant the return of the tories across the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but as i've pointed out there is a right, sweet smelling way of campaigning against things one doesn't like, the campaigning on issues and campaigning motivated by the genetic fallacy. I believe by campaigning on this forum you have chosen the latter path and have used it as a diversion from the philosophical and theological issues involved, the potential for personal relationship with God.

Blimey Vlad - you are an uber snowflake if you think that posting on a forum represents some dark corner of extreme response to things I oppose. Perhaps you'd prefer it if I:

1. Actively refused to provide my services to christians
2. Demanded that the law protected me if I did 1, above
3. Engaged in highly damaging 'conversion' therapy if children looked as if they might become christian
4. Demand that my children should only marry non religious people (or even specifically atheists)
5. Demand that when someone marries an atheist that they must bring up any children as atheists
6. Demand to be exempt from a range of taxes for organisations if they are non religious (but not applied to religious organisations)
7. Expect the state to pay for schools that actively promote atheism and that discriminate on the basis of faith in their admissions
etc, etc

And on a broader sense my 'campaigning' as you like to call it is motivated by my beliefs and principles - namely those of fairness and equality and, of course, of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Sack me if you don't like that, but my principles are no less valid or worthy than yours just because they aren't justified on the basis of a man-made god.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also by saying ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?'' doesn't seem much of an argument Davey.

Eh - where do you get that one from.

[Gordon]

Trouble is, if you think about it a vote for SNP rather than labour has meant the return of the tories across the UK.

Don't be silly - the Tories and Brexit are diseases that primarily infect a proportion of the electorate in England that proved sufficient to see the Tories in government and Brexit happen.

Labour don't really count any more as regards Scottish  MPs - there is only one of them.

Anyway, you didn't explain why you associated voting Tory with secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eh - where do you get that one from.

Your continual appeal to social statistics.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your continual appeal to social statistics.

Oh you mean data, in other words evidence, factual information etc. Sure much better to base your arguments on 'I once know a guy, who said his brother knew a man who was once an atheist and is now the Archbishop of Dover'.

When discussing prevalence and transmission of religion amongst a population if your arguments aren't backed up by data and research then they are ... let's face it Vlad ... wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your continual appeal to social statistics.

I still don't understand, where does anything I've said (including using factual data) translate to ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey Vlad - you are an uber snowflake if you think that posting on a forum represents some dark corner of extreme response to things I oppose. Perhaps you'd prefer it if I:

1. Actively refused to provide my services to christians
2. Demanded that the law protected me if I did 1, above
3. Engaged in highly damaging 'conversion' therapy if children looked as if they might become christian
4. Demand that my children should only marry non religious people (or even specifically atheists)
5. Demand that when someone marries an atheist that they must bring up any children as atheists
6. Demand to be exempt from a range of taxes for organisations if they are non religious (but not applied to religious organisations)
7. Expect the state to pay for schools that actively promote atheism and that discriminate on the basis of faith in their admissions
etc, etc

And on a broader sense my 'campaigning' as you like to call it is motivated by my beliefs and principles - namely those of fairness and equality and, of course, of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Sack me if you don't like that, but my principles are no less valid or worthy than yours just because they aren't justified on the basis of a man-made god.

You seem to have acquired amnesia over why you oppose the christian message.
Guilt tripping
Treatment of Gays etc. These are issues which may or may not be worth campaigning against. For you though they are the christian message rather than what they patently are. A list of things you don't like. You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?

Your Gospel is therefore not the gospel for somehow it leaves you innocent at heart and religious people the sinners. There is no avoiding your position here.

The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I still don't understand, where does anything I've said (including using factual data) translate to ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?''

We know we can use data but why use data, more than once, to show a minority convert to Christianity.

My use of data is to show yes conversions can decline but yes they can go up too.

[Gordon]

The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.

And I've heard that that Mary had a little lamb, but I'm not convinced there are good reasons to believe the story!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I've heard that that Mary had a little lamb, but I'm not convinced there are good reasons to believe the story!

Which bit do you find unbelieveable?

[Outrider]

So am I to take it you have nothing against christianity per se, but just like blaming all christians for anything you don't like?

As I've explained to you before, Christianity is just the sum of the actions of Christians - not that I was limiting my concern to purely Christians, you're all of an ilk. I do have something against even the relatively moderate and inoffensive Church of England style Anglicanism, inasmuch as it seeks to validate religious belief, and therefore implicitly provides a bulwark against the more egregious expressions of god-bothering.

Sounds bollocks to me, Viking salvation seems to be dependent on doing ''man things like fighting, drinking and wenching'' so I would imagine that's ripe for a comeback....just look at the beards and tattoos (Doesn't look to good for New Atheism does it).

Are you showing that 1st iteration prejudice against haircuts, or are you suggesting that because there's a particular fashion in vogue now for facial hair that somehow atheism is therefore not viable, because that's a stretch even for you.

That observation aside, I don't think there is much self analysis because it's a blamers field.

And it's a rich, rich harvest. There probably isn't a great deal of self-analysis - just as you don't consider the implications of Ragnarok, so I suspect few if any of us are spending much time concerned about your gospels.

Any body who doesn't seem to think that myths contain a moral for them isn't prone to thinking much in my book.

There's nothing wrong with looking for the morals in myth; the problem comes when people who don't seem to realise it's a myth think that the allegories should be written literally into the law.

The other diversions from self analysis is of course include infantilisation and the modern adult interest in toys for boys and acquisitive materialism.

Let's get back to sack-cloth and ashes! Apart from infant mortality, lack of education and malnutrition it never did us any harm, right...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

We know we can use data but why use data, more than once, to show a minority convert to Christianity.

Firstly because more data provides greater credence to an argument. But also to rebut your obsession with the 'conversion' 'exceptions' (people brought up non religious becoming christian) rather than 'the rule' (people brought up christian becoming non religious). For every one of the former there are more than ten of the latter (12 for anglicans). And your only argument for the latter (the norm) is your no true Scotsman view that they weren't really christians.

My use of data is to show yes conversions can decline but yes they can go up too.

What data, you've never used any data - your arguments seem to stem from a bloke you once knew (but not enough to know anything about his upbringing) who was an atheist when you met him and is now a catholic. That's not data, that is anecdote of the weakest kind.

[jeremyp]

The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it?

Only about a quarter of the people voted for Brexit and I wouldn't be at all surprised if voting Conservative and being a Christian is correlated, what with the demographics of both groups.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to have acquired amnesia over why you oppose the christian message.

Don't think so Vlad.

Guilt tripping
Treatment of Gays etc. These are issues which may or may not be worth campaigning against. For you though they are the christian message rather than what they patently are. A list of things you don't like. You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?

Yup that is one reason. As from my perspective (note I need no 'spiritual father' for this) I see a number of religions, not just christianity, at the forefront of key opposition to equality and fundamental human rights that I strongly believe in. And it isn't just rights for gay people, women etc, religions have a terribly poor record in affording equal rights to people of other religions (let alone non religious people and atheists).

The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.

Indeed and from there leads the concept of collective inherited sin - you have sinned because one of your forebears sinned - and that is one of the most, arguably the most, corrosive notions ever derived by man. It allows development of the view that someone is guilty not for what they have done but for who they are.