[Closed] An Atheist goes to Church

I interrupted myself before I finished and had to edit.

The full text is:

I was just thinking about the atheist church-goers singing hymns and making baptism promises and the like. I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.

In the fantastic book by the amazing writer Hillary Mantel, "Bring Up The Bodies", Thomas Cromwell is in conversation with the soon to be executed Thomas More.

More claims that his words define him and to say what he didn't believe would render him effectively non-existent. They are the rock on which he stands.

Cromwell reminds him of when they met as children.

"You were reading a book and I asked you what it was and you said - words. Just words. .."

Are they a rock that defines one, or "just words", I wonder.

" I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe."
Sing the songs hum the bits that contain promises or vows. Silent thoughts with heads bowed for the prayers avoid amens. Stay in my seat for the ritual cannibalism, shake hands and say peace or shalom as the mood takes me for the peace .
But basically I only go for christenings weddings funerals , and when my mum needs support.

Hey up Rusty, thanks for asking. I'm a bit of a Spazzy McGee these days, but lucky to have support from family and friends, so, you know, mustn't grumble. I've been lurking on here for a while, and it's no surprise that religion threads are still attracting such fervour from the usual suspects. Personally speaking, I realise that I used to invest far too much time arguing and trying to defend my position with some of the professional irritants on here, but here's an update. Around a year or so ago, a relative, who happened to be a vicar, turned out (surprise surprise) to be a bit too fond of kids, and is now enjoying a lovely holiday at her majesty's expense. Now I'm not saying all members of the clergy are paid up members of the Jimmy Saville fan club, but it made me seriously consider my attitude toward organised religion. I fully understand the social aspects of the church, and yes, they do often provide support and help for the more vulnerable members of society. I'm obviously fine with that, it's the hypocrisy and 'thou shalt not' bollocks that trouble me. I realise that not all vicars, etc, are like this, but at its core, organised religion is all too often misogynistic and homophobic. As far as 'faith' is concerned, well, that's a whole other issue that means different things to different people. I used to firmly believe that my own faith, whilst not 'proveable' in a scientific sense, was important to me and caused no harm to others. However, something happened more recently that made me question this. My sister in law was diagnosed with MND, and basically, there isn't going to be a happy ending. Her husband has had to accept this, but her sister and mother are going absolutely batshit mental with alternative therapies and (to my mind) crazy theories involving, amongst other things, crystal healing and earth energies. Now, if I'm allowed the opinion that their faith in this sort of stuff is harmful and misguided, then surely I have to question my own faith. Ultimately, it all comes down to "just be kind to one another and stop blowing shit up, thank you. Oh, and leave them kids alone, you dirty bugger". Other than that, I'm fresh out of answers.

Oh hello mitch.

Now that is what I would [i]not[/i] describe as "Words, just words."

It's an interesting mirror image of the claim that "there are no atheists in foxholes".

Theoretical dialectic is all very well but nothing produces change like personal experience, hey?

Very interesting process. Please keep us updated. 8)

It is well known that people will cling to pre-existing beliefs that they like and disregard evidence to the co teary all day long.

[b]Note I am not passing comment on religion with that comment, just people's general irrationality.[/b]

Phew, you need some long legs to step over that elephant 😉

Homeopathy? Irrational, no evidence to support
Witchcraft? Irrational, no evidence to support
Astrology? Irrational, no evidence to support
Fortune-telling? Irrational, no evidence to support
Aliens...
Bigfoot...
Mothman...
(Non-scriptural) ghosts
Vampires
Pixies
Fairies
[s]Angels[/s]
Unicorns
Dragons
Gnomes
Reptoids
Werewolves
The transformative power of woo-woo
Brexit = better healthcare/save the NHS

Feel free to comment on all of the above. Just don't dare question/mention belief in deities, demons, exorcism, miracles and prophecies in the same vein because it [s]may[/s] will upset someone religious? And if they subsequently punch you/cut your head off/banish you from the village then you really did step over the mark, you [s]naughty rationalist[/s] evil God-less enemy of God!

But (even though we are told that Evolution is like a religion for atheism) feel free free to question the rationality of evolution and abiogenesis all day long. Not many (if any) atheists will punch you/cry into their chips for questioning their beliefs/calling them crazy. Unless you call them 'evil', then they might take it to the level of calling out hypocrisy.

... as trollgrips has just reminded me in the other thread...

.

Ok first of all, I rarely troll and when I do it's lighthearted. I am not trolling on this thread. I do not like arguments. I wish I didn't feel it necessary.

MalvernRider - not sure your point. I'm saying people ARE generally irrational. You seem to be agreeing with me?

Feel free to comment on all of the above. Just don't dare question/mention belief in deities, demons, exorcism, miracles and prophecies in the in same vein

I will question them if I feel the need. What I won't do is be a dick about it. That's been my underlying point this whole time.

And if they subsequently punch you/cut your head off/banish you from the village then you really did step over the mark, you naughty rationalist evil God-less enemy of God!

Do you really think I'm condoning that behaviour? In case you need it clearing up:

1) I do not condone being-a-dick in any situation. Dickish behaviour includes, to different levels:

- ISIS beheadings
- The Spanish Inquisition
- Islamophobia
- Being unnecessarily unpleasant to religious people whilst pretending to be intellectually challenging their beliefs

2) I am not arguing in favour of the existence of God. I do not believe in it.

3) All humans are irrational in some way or other, some more than others.

Yeah, I realise that I should probably have posted in the other thread, but I responded to rusty spanner's comment on this one. (In response to a comment that now has disappeared for some reason).

I always suspected trollgrips' air of rational calm was a construct.

I think Molgrips has made some really nice points in this thread. Fair play.

The world is a vast planet with lots of different people. It'd be ****ing boring if everyone was the same homogeneous, Vulcan-like pillar of joyless logic with nothing else.

By definition that means lots of people with lots of different beliefs and things that help them live better lives - I don't care if your "thing" is God, Allah, Jehovah, Man Utd, Triathlon, modified cars or whatever. If it makes you happy, helps you focus and live a better life, and you can do so without the need to "prove" to every man and his dog your superiority, then it's cool with me.

The issue comes in when intolerance and prejudice (on any side) kicks in.

😀

I spent many years as an atheist in church. I went to a church-run youth group from 12 to 19, got married in the same church, attended weekly, was on the tech and coffee rotas, helped lead a marriage preparation class, went to dinner with the vicar, helped out at socials, etc.

My wife is still heavily involved. She's on the PCC, is licensed to preach, leads some services, is on first name terms with the local Bishop, and keeps being told that she should get ordained. So, I'm still on good terms with the local congregation, and go along to social events and attend occasional services.

I thought the Metro article was pretty patronising toward believers, to be honest. I thought [url= https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4952/preaching-to-the-converted ]this article on giving a sermon in church as an atheist[/url] was much better. (The section on the differing beliefs of the "theologically sophisticated" and the majority of churchgoers was particularly relevant to the last couple of religion threads on here.)

If, unlike the execrable BBC Radio 4 "thought for the day", the sermon isn't just a convenient hook to hang the central message of superstition on, but is simply a philosophical or ethical message, why take the trouble to go to the church in the first place when a wealth of this kind of subject material is available elsewhere without all the ceremonial folderol accreted around it?

I wrote about this earlier too, and it got lost.

I occasionally catch R2's "thought for the day" on my morning commute, depending on how late I'm running and which radio station I randomly happen across.

They generally follow a similar format. They have a groovy vicar or similar to tell an anecdote, it's all very gentle. Essentially it's the radio version of a motivational poster. "I was talking to a friend last week, who told me about something bad that happened. Then someone did something nice and unexpected, and it was all ok.

And in a way that reminded me of the parable of Jesus is $some_book, where something bad happened and then someone did something nice and unexpected, and it was all ok."

There's a couple of things here. The first is that the religious bit often feels superfluous, they could get the same message across without needing to bring their religion into it.

Second, it's as though they're using the anecdote to frame religion, when surely it'd make more sense to do it the other way around? Though I suppose, maybe that's the BBC's way of diluting it so that it's being less preachy.

Third, it's almost always a Christian speaker. They do have a nice Muslim lady on occasionally but I don't recall ever hearing a Sikh, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist psychologist or some such. If they're going to persist with this feature then maybe it'd be nice to hear from a broader spectrum of people.

Third, it's almost always a Christian speaker. They do have a nice Muslim lady on occasionally but I don't recall ever hearing a Sikh, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist psychologist or some such. If they're going to persist with this feature then maybe it'd be nice to hear from a broader spectrum of people.

They have a regular outing of non-Christian religious people, but never an atheist. I actually think they're banned from having a non-religious speaker in the slot.

The BBC's religious output is a little odd. They had a discussion on TV about the survey saying 53% of Britons report as having no religion - they had 6 religious guests and one atheist.

it's as though they're using the anecdote to frame religion

Yes, C., I think that's precisely what they're doing.

Third, it's almost always a Christian speaker.

The only one I've heard often enough to name is Rabbi Lionel Blue.

They have a regular outing of non-Christian religious people, but never an atheist. I actually think they're banned from having a non-religious speaker in the slot.

Potentially confirmation bias on my part then, I don't listen to it, erm, religiously.

The BBC's religious output is a little odd. They had a discussion on TV about the survey saying 53% of Britons report as having no religion - they had 6 religious guests and one atheist.

I suppose there's a degree of balance there if those religious guests were all representative of different religions. There's little point in having say four different denominations and three who all 'believe' the same thing.

Potentially confirmation bias on my part then, I don't listen to it, erm, religiously.

Clearly because it is on Radio 4

It may be on Radio 4 as well, but it's on R2 in the mornings as part of Chris Evans' show.

It may be on Radio 4 as well, but it's on R2 in the mornings as part of Chris Evans' show.

That's a different thing.

The BBC's religious output is a little odd. They had a discussion on TV about the survey saying 53% of Britons report as having no religion - they had 6 religious guests and one atheist.

I suppose there's a degree of balance there if those religious guests were all representative of different religions. There's little point in having say four different denominations and three who all 'believe' the same thing.

It was this:

An Anglican, a Humanist, a Rabbi, a Pentecostal pastor, a Muslim and a Hindu. (There were six, not seven.)

Aren't some activities associated with Cycling a bit religious?

E.g You were really happy with your 1yr old wheels when you bought them. However the industry has since started preaching that these 2mm wider wheels are better, which makes you feel unfulfilled until you spend lots of money in those new wider wheels, based on the belief of the difference they will make to your life.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05h5z15#play ]Most recent TFTD on the website.[/url] Delivers a good point and references the Bible along the way but not in the punchline. Find it hard to argue with that one.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05gxhvt ]From the previos day.[/url] Similar format - a good point, delivered with a bit of a heavier reference to Jesus. Also Christian.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05gsyk0 ]Last link, from Friday[/url] from someone who seems to be Muslim. Just talks about the question of why do bad things happen to good people, and says she nor apparently Islam can come up with a good answer.

Seems a bit obvious.

Bad things happen to good people because bad people do bad things to them.

Otherwise it's an accident (ie: tsunamis or inattentive car drivers) because the good person was randomly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course the religious, being fixated on everything being the will of a god, are caught up in having to first figure out why their god thing would be nasty to nice people.

One of their explanations is that it's because the nice people aren't being nasty enough to homosexuals, for example.

Hence the atheist's view that religion is just risible gibberish and that theology isn't even a subject.

Thanks for engaging in the debate now.

The lady in question simply said she didn't know the answer - which is honest enough. I don't want to get drawn into actually having that particular argument myself though.

Hence the atheist's view that religion is just risible gibberish and that theology isn't even a subject.

Speak for yourself. I'm an atheist, and to me theology is definitely a subject and a rather interesting one.

One of their explanations is that it's because the nice people aren't being nasty enough to homosexuals, for example.

That needs re-wording, because it sounds like it's an answer accepted by the whole religious community. You should have said something like: "Some religious people think it's because homosexuals etc". That would have been true.

molgrips - Member
Thanks for engaging in the debate now.

I haven't been doing anything else, trolly.

I saw a cartoon once, a couple turned up at the pearly gates and asked "god, why do you send us diseases and earthquakes and tsunamis? Is it because of the homosexuals?"

God replied, "yes - it's because of the shitty way you treat them."

I haven't been doing anything else, trolly.

Insulting people isn't engaging in the debate. It's just insulting. Many of your posts contain nothing of value above 'it's all rubbish'.

When you take the time to respectfully explain why you think it's all rubbish, then the debate moves on. However we've not had any threads about 'does God exist?' so you could be accused of hijacking the thread.

And I don't troll.

And I don't troll much.

Fixed

🙂

The lady in question simply said she didn't know the answer - which is honest enough. I don't want to get drawn into actually having that particular argument myself though.

Well that's one way of avoiding my response and continue to sit there with the fence up your excuse me.

Speak for yourself. I'm an atheist, and to me theology is definitely a subject and a rather interesting one.

I suppose it is interesting in the same way that a discusson of the dressing habits of giant moon penguins might be.

Insulting people

Cite.

That needs re-wording, because it sounds like it's an answer accepted by the whole religious community. You should have said something like: "Some religious people think it's because homosexuals etc". That would have been true.

Nit. Pick. Clearly you knew exactly what I was getting at. Good to see you agree with me anyway.

I don't troll

Is that the abridged version? 😆

I suppose it is interesting in the same way that a discusson of the dressing habits of giant moon penguins might be.

It must be interesting or you wouldn't be here. Or do you routinely take part in discussions you have no interest in? There's a word for that... I can't quite remember... begins with a 't' I think...

Truffle? Trillabite? Tantamount?

Oh wait - you're trying to be... insulting, are you? Go on, spell it out. Don't be shy. And you a moderator. For shame.

Theology is interesting as a risible target for epithets, I'll give you that.

Well that's one way of avoiding my response and continue to sit there with the fence up your excuse me.

What was your response, can you explain please?

Was it that there can't be a God because of all the bad things? I said I wasn't going to get into that debate from a personal point of view. I was just repeating what that lady said because I thought it was interesting. It does show that it's a difficult question.

And I wasn't nitpicking. Such details are important because they change the tone of conversation from accusing everyone and therefore stereotyping negatively (bad) to calling out the bad people (okay)

No, I'm saying that either you must find it interesting at some level, or you're just trying to wind people up and derail the conversation.

Funny that you think me suggesting that you're either interested or trolling is "insulting" yet you were happy to call Molgrips "trolly" a few posts back. (There's your cite for insulting people incidentally, by your own definition right here.)

Anyway, now that we've successfully derailed the conversation again, can we get back on topic please?

One of their explanations is that it's because the nice people aren't being nasty enough to homosexuals, for example.

One of the frustrating things about this assertion - besides the fact that I have tried to dispel it before - is the fact that in all the world there are over a billion Catholics, about 400 million Orthodox, and almost 100 million Anglicans, not to mention all of the other mainline Protestant denominations (eg. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodist, etc.), and not one of those Churches would countenance such an idea.

There may, of course, be individuals within [b]any group[/b] that could think such things, but to attribute such thinking to religious people as if it is somehow intrinsic to being religious is either plain lazy or disingenuous or a little bit of both.

Just an example: I remember when Rock Hudson died of AIDS back in 1985, and became the first well-known figure to bring the disease to light. My parish priest - and the whole Church in Canada - made it crystal clear that anyone who suggested that somehow God was exercising vengeance on 'gays', was completely contradicting the Christian religion.

Funny that you think me suggesting that you're either interested or trolling is "insulting"

Aha. I had a different word in mind. You should have said what you meant then I wouldn't have accused you of deriliction of duty.

It's not at all insulting to describe a troll as a troll if you think they're a troll. It's just an opinion based on perceived behaviours and it seems in this case my perception has company.

Anyway, an atheist walks into a church and the barman says...

@SaxonRider

I'll give you that in so far as it contradicts a version of said religion. His, obviously...

"Some" religious people, would probably have been strictly accurate but not more pertinent as there are an awful lot of that type in America as well as much of the Middle East...

A barman walks into a church and the atheist says: "Thank christ you're here, I'm parched".

Boom, boom.

I think there are probably a lot of homophobic atheists too though Woppit, aren't there?

It suggests to me that intolerance and bigotry are not caused by religion.

an awful lot of that type in America as well as much of the Middle East

As someone arguing in favour of faith, there is simply no way of ducking out of this one. The mind boggles and the heart breaks in the face of such examples.

The thing I wonder, though, is about the degree to which post-war political culture exacerbated this. If you watch Adam Curtis' 'The Power of Nightmares' and consider the manipulative nature of neoconservatism as far as it affects the American religious landscape, and Wahhabism as it has affected the Muslim world since about 1955, then it becomes plausible that such fundamentalist and destructive potential as religion(s) may have is being harnessed in favour of politics. Not that this would exonerate religion, mind you...

I was thinking that maybe certain religious sects attract people who are already innately conservative, who may then be more likely to be homophobic and discriminatory?

EDIT that's basically what you said SR.

Some people use the bible (or insert other holy text here) as an excuse to persecute homosexuals, but by and large that speaks more about the people than the religion. If they didn't have their faith "telling" them to be shits to folk, I don't doubt for a moment that they'd find another reason or cause to hang their hat on.

As SR says, there's rather a lot of Christians (and variations thereof) in the world. If modern-day Christianity as a whole promoted the stoning of gay people, there wouldn't be any left. (See also, Islam and suicide bombers, etc.)

That said, it's blinkered to suggest that it doesn't happen, either individually or as a group. As Woppit said, just look across the pond for plenty of organised extremist nut-jobs (I think the term is "Conservative Christians"?) There's every militant atheist's poster-boys the Westboro lot, for example:

[img] [/img]

Thankfully in the UK we've more or less established that this sort of weapons-grade cretinousness is unacceptable, but as the recent rise of the far right has shown with all the racist mouth-breathers coming out of the woodwork, socially acceptable behaviour can turn on a dime.

If they didn't have their faith "telling" them to be shits to folk, I don't doubt for a moment that they'd find another reason or cause to hang their hat on.

Exactly this.

The fact you have millions of Christians justifying homophobia with Bible verses, and you have millions of other Christians accepting and supporting homosexuals in spite of said Bible verses backs this up. Whether or not you accept homosexuality is not based on whether or not you are Christian - but your faith does seem to affect how you justify criticising it.

Insulting people
Cite.

religion is just risible gibberish and that theology isn't even a subject.

religion is just risible gibberish and that theology isn't even a subject.

Can't read any people being insulted there...

There was an excellent "fly on the wall" doc about a (London) East End pub called the Lord Nelson in which a pithy and, to the misanthropic amongst us, wholly acceptable philosophy was propounded.

(Caveat: one of my staff, before I retired, who lives on the Isle of Dogs and drinks in said pub told me that some of the regulars saw the doc but didn't recognise anybody...). However -

Two of the characters are at the bar. One is tall and podgy, with a "hipsters" ginger beard and hair dressed in a yellow tshirt. The other is slight, coming only up to his shoulder, dressed in a tshirt under a dinner jacket with an oversize bowler hat and daffodil in his lapel. They are discussing the world's problems. (Usual *'s for swear words).

Daffodil: "I've decided what'll make it easier to get along with everybody. In fact it'll make it easier for everybody to get along with everybody else - you just have to accept that you're a c. Now, look at all these people. They're all cs. You're a c. I'm a c. We're all cs. As soon as we realise everybody's a c, the easier life will be."

Beard: "I don't like that word."

Daffodil: "What, c?"

Beard: "Yeah. I prefer w*r. Rolls off the tongue better.

(Pause)

I'm thinking of making w*r the new c"

Mine's a Bloody Mary. Cheers.

Can't read any people being insulted there...

You clearly wrote it in an attempt to insult anyone with religious views or an interest in theology.

Well if you want to keep going on about it. That's not clear at all.

I wasn't talking about the people, I was talking about theology itself and religion itself.

That link is in your own mind. You might want to ask yourself why.

That link is in your own mind.

No, it really isn't. Most people on the thread agree that you are being insulting.

Most people could see that insulting something very dearly held and personal to someone is going to cause offence.

Just wondering Woppit - have you ever been told you're on the autism spectrum?

Well I suppose that's a small improvement on calling me a dick.

It could explain your inability to put two and two together in a social interaction context.

What explains your inability to distinguish criticism of a subject from those who espouse it?

Oh wait - think I had that covered in a previous post...

What explains your inability to distinguish criticism of a subject from those who espouse it?

I can see the difference.

What I am trying to explain is that the way YOU do it, there is implicit criticism of the person when you criticise the belief.

It's not what you are doing, it's the way you're doing it that's the problem.

What I am trying to explain is that the way YOU do it

I know what you're trying to explain, I'm not stupid.

You're wrong. You're creating a link where there isn't one.

All you're achieving is a derailment of the thread in pursuit of your obsessive little agenda.

You're wrong. You're creating a link where there isn't one.

You might not intend there to be a link - but there is. You might not see it that way, but everyone else seems to. That's why people are criticising you and calling you insulting. It's not just me.

Bit of advice - listen to other people.

I'm beginning to get upset, so I'm going to leave this one now.

I bet I know what happens next!

Actually - I'm back, but on-topic 🙂

The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...

DezB - Member
I bet I know what happens next!

Were you right?

The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...

Agreed. A really good read, and goes to show that you don't have to be a joyless, ranty, aggressive and binary thinker just because you're atheist! Sadly a tiny vocal minority of atheists behave as if that's the case, much like a tiny vocal minority of people of varying religious persuasions act unpleasantly too. From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life, each hell bent on "proving" everyone else is wrong, rather than just thinking "live and let live" and focusing on enjoying life in their own bubble.

There was an excellent "fly on the wall" doc about a (London) East End pub called the Lord Nelson in which a pithy and, to the misanthropic amongst us, wholly acceptable philosophy was propounded.

Sounds like a Derek & Clive sketch.

From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life,

Aren't there.

Sounds like a Derek & Clive sketch.

Yes and we know which one, eh.

Much more wide-ranging and profound, though! 😀

PS: What's the worst job you ever had? 😉

The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...

Agreed. A really good read, and goes to show that you don't have to be a joyless, ranty, aggressive and binary thinker just because you're atheist! Sadly a tiny vocal minority of atheists behave as if that's the case, much like a tiny vocal minority of people of varying religious persuasions act unpleasantly too. From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life, each hell bent on "proving" everyone else is wrong, rather than just thinking "live and let live" and focusing on enjoying life in their own bubble.

Indeed.

Many of my issues with religion are based on the excessive influence it has (head of state/church, seats in the Lords, faith schools, etc) rather than what individuals choose to believe. It's entirely possible to be against these issues and to be religious.

The interesting part of that article, to me, was the difference between the opinions/beliefs of the higher-ups in the church compared to the general congregation. I don't think sermons in church focus enough on how people who've studies theology interpret the texts.

For example, the church round the corner from me had a family service on Sunday afternoon, where they looked at the story of Noah's Ark. I'm pretty certain nobody will have said "there wasn't an actual flood" at any point.

"there wasn't an actual flood"

What do you mean there wasn't an actual flood?!? 😯

I thought that was how the dinosaurs died out and Pangea broke up.

[i]Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.

The original statement of the adage, by Nathan Poe, was: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."[/i]

Oh shit.

😉

Dinosaurs never existed. The bones were planted by God to wind up scientists.

Are you mocking someone's beliefs there, Mol?

Might be.

Any creationists on the thread? If so I apologise for offence.

But I will take up that particular argument.

So, you're offending actual people, then.

Gosh.

No, I wasn't. But it was better than I thought