Maybe, but many antitheists think they are immune to the ''both ways'' e,g, antitheists think they can't be fundamentalist or evangelical.
You'd have to explain what 'fundamental' a fundamentalist antitheist was cleaving to, but I can see that there are some evangelical atheists - I don't accept that they're seen in the same light, and it's surely apparent to you that religious evangelists are given a broader scope than the atheist equivalent.
What I'm talking about here is antitheists exaggerating the implications of statistics for example when the number of religious slipped down to over 40% by census. Humanist UK as reported particularly in the Guardian and Independent commented that the religious infrastructure in UK life could now be dismantled on a 'let's face it, religions time is up' basis.
It's a trend that's been happening for some time, and in the latest iteration it's not slowing down - it's a valid take that religion has had its day, and to predict that the explicitly religious as a proportion of the populace will be negligible soon. You could do a more detailed statistical analysis if that shows that they're mistaken, you could argue that despite that small proportion religion still has an important place in society at large, or you could argue that even if the religious proportion is small that it's still of cultural significance and should be respected or treasured or supported. It's not an unreasonable stance to take, though, on the face of the available information.
Measurement of membership of the Houses of Parliament. Several Hundred members of members representing secularism and 24 representing spirituality.
No. Several hundred representing the spread of belief systems because they are not reserved particularly based on faith, and then 26 reserved seats for one particular cult of one sect of one religious branch, with divested powers to also manage their own affairs and exemption or partial exemption from some of the legislation (taxes, equality) that everyone else has to abide by. Regardless of whether religion remains relevant in the UK, now or in the long term, the special privilege for the Church of England in a notionally multi-cultural, egalitarian society is untenable.
The various religious faiths are already adequately represented amongst the various Lords, some of whom are religious and some of whom are not, some of whom are Church of England, or other Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu - what is the justification for additional reserved seats for the CofE?
Subjective? Not if someone can have somebody penalised perhaps to the point of imprisonment for not allowing a wedding in that ''nice little church.''
And, currently, they can't be. At the same time, though, they want to be able to conduct state business, but be able to exclude some members of the state. Again, untenable in the long term, something has to give. Like Archbishop Welby, I can see disestablishment as the way forward.
Since posting these laws we have had a claim on this forum that Atheism was on the rise. Yes but in only a few countries and the rise is unable to match the rise in the numbers of religious globally.
Only in a few countries? I'd suggest in many countries, perhaps even most - it might remain a small contingent in some, but I suspect it's increasing (or, at least, the reporting of it is?). Is it approaching the numbers of the explicitly religious worldwide, perhaps not yet, but given that we see a direct correlation between formal education and reduction in religiosity we either have to commit to keeping third-world places uneducated or face the prospect that it's growth is likely to spread.
Certainly when a secular countries legal situation looks more like it could have been written by Humanist UK than theists.
As it should. Humanists focus on the humanity, not the ideology, but theists are at least influenced by the theology. A legislature without overt religion does not necessarily exclude the religious, but a legislature with overt religion does exclude the non-religious, or those of different religions, or those with heretical views from within the religion...
When there are section 28 type rules against religion in the UK perhaps?
If that happens, let me know. If it's not just, you know...
...exaggerating the implications...
Subjective.
Absolutely, so probably shouldn't be legislated on.
I am conceding to the prevailing cultural empiricism here
I think that's paraphrased as 'acknowledging reality'.
...however some atheists around here have offered Unknown unknowns to get round theistic argument, Circular heirarchies of causation, revoking the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress, Brute fact etc all weird in their way. All with a straight face.
Circular reasoning, if you find, should get called out. Revoking the principle of sufficient reason is only a fair complaint if you've established the principle in the first place - I've not been involved hugely in those arguments, it's not a concept I'm up to speed on.
Infinite regress, as I've said before, is not an argument it's a description. If you wish to argue against the notion of an infinite regress you need, you know, an argument, and not just a header.
Brute fact? If there were brute facts in support of theism we wouldn't have the discussions.
Straight faces... humour is as subjective as anything else. I can characterise, say, group prayer as ritual spellcasting, where the congregation makes an entreaty to a supernatural being, drinks a special potion and then seals their pact with a magic word at the end. That's amusing, to me, and not inaccurate, but I appreciate that's my viewpoint - that you might not find it funny doesn't make it wrong, and the fact that atheists might be saying something that seems funny to you at first glance without cracking a smile doesn't meant that they're wrong either.
O.
