[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

I'm not angry. I do find it ridiculous that, on matters of sex, the opinion of a celibate bloke in a dress is important.

Surely this is a troll? 🙄

No - some folk really do feel like that...

What he said and the active campaign of Catholics re gay marriage shows w there antiquated and ill evidenced believe system is still an influence

People can believe what they want in thier own homes/head. When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system and its influence still affects me and folk I know - right to doe for example then I think it is not hard to see why some are still cross with having to listen to and respect this superstitious mumbo jumbo.

And of course they are wrong and they take guidance from a being that does not exist and then tell me how to behave in accordance with this fictional character

In the UK it is an even smaller minority who sucribe to american church organizations such as Answers In Genesis (A[b]L[/b]iG)

Is this the same guy that stabs bikers in trails in California?

Yeah if people want to believe ghost stories then that's fine, just don't let it have anything to do with the rest of us, Church and politics is a dangerous mix.

I was impressed with the scottish head catholic suspending direct contact with the government due to the gay marriage thing, just hoping he makes it permanent. WhyTF does he get direct contact? and why is he throwing a big tantrum and coming bringing a big downer to the open inclusive society party when many of his congregation are cool with it all?

dunno whether I'd class myself as an angry atheist but I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

They will be sorry and that Dawkins if you look close you can see the 666 on his forehead.

Anyone listen to Old Harry's Game? It's not a comedy it's the truth.

I'm atheist, I have the same attitude to Religion as my missus has to MTB's. They exist, at a detriment to my life but on the whole harmless.

I do find it ridiculous that, on matters of sex, the opinion of a celibate bloke in a dress is important.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

I would like to state that I agree with the OP. Militant atheism is a tribe.

When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

What about trade unionists?

dunno whether I'd class myself as an angry atheist but I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

This.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

What I dismiss is the idea that what he says on the subject is any more important than what anyone else has to say, and I find it ironic that celibate religious people seem obsessed with sex.

In the UK, bishops sit in the House of Lords, the head of state is also the head of the state church, you can't get into some state schools if you weren't baptised in the right religion, evangelical christians fund some academy schools and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

In our local anglican church there was a petition opposing equal marriage (though thankfully lots of the congregation were angry about it).

It's not as bad at the States over here, but there are signs that it's potentially heading that way.

I'm not at all angry. I find the best response to the attempts by church leaders to tell us how to live our lives is to ignore them.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

Not always. Much of the RE I was taught in school was solely about catholocism, to the extent that until I was in secondary school I was unaware of the existence of most of the worlds religions. Even in secondary school the focus was very much catholocism and other religions were only taught about much later on.

I also disagree that it is "very important" to teach about religion. I don't see it as being any more important than any other subject.

What about trade unionists?

Trade unionist are elected to their position by member of that union, religious leaders are not. Trade unionist do not enjoy the privilige of seats in the house of lords solely on the basis of their position as a leader of a trade union.

What I dismiss is the idea that what he says on the subject is any more important than what anyone else has to say

Er... what? We all ascribe different levels of importance to different people, depending on what we value. I don't have much interest in what Andrew Strauss says, but apparently a lot of people do. I'm fine with that.

If you want to listen to what a priest has to say, then that's also fine. It's between you and him after all.

I also disagree that it is "very important" to teach about religion. I don't see it as being any more important than any other subject.

I didn't say it was more important than anything else. However, history, politics and religion have a massive impact on the world, so ignoring it would be seriously remiss, in terms of education.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

What about trade unionists?

When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

But it is still a legal requirement that all state schools have a daily act of collective worship...

But, I wonder how many non-christian RE teachers there are and how impartial and fact-based that makes the lessons?

I went to a "normal" (i.e. multi-denominational in theory) school, and I was always made to feel weird and different for not joining in during the religious services. Even had a minister in primary school come and push my head down when I wouldn't pray with the others.

That's why I'm a little peeved at the influence religion has.

right so its very important[ its not as it is wrong ] that you teach me about religion which must include what they believe in but you are not preaching to me

Teaching: Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet
Preaching: Mohammed is the one true prophet.

Can you not see the difference?

But, I wonder ... how impartial and fact-based that makes the lessons

Very.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

Our school didn't have a religious assembly, almost all don't.

when they start preaching to me and having it taught in schools, knock on my door to get e to join and say I will burn in hell for all eternity if i dont join their club then I will agree with you otherwise silly hyperbole

They are a group of non-political people with moral beliefs that have political influence. Not silly at all.

I didn't say it was more important than anything else.

Well it is strongly implied by your use of the word very. If on the other hand you meant that everything that is taught in school is "very" important then that is fairly useless hyperbole on your part. If everything is very important then nothing is very important.

The Education Act 1944 introduced the requirement for daily prayers in all state-funded schools, but later acts changed this requirement to a daily "collective act of worship", the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 being the most recent. This also requires such acts of worship to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".[3] The term "mainly" means that acts related to other faiths can be carried out providing the majority are Christian.[4]

Given what % are faith schools I will say you are incorrect Molly

They are a group of non-political people with moral beliefs that have political influence. Not silly at all.

Well it is strongly implied by your use of the word very.

Not at all. Kanchenjunga is very high, but it's not higher than anything else. Very is not a superlative.

It is very important, as are a number of other subjects. Some more than others imo.

If everything is very important then nothing is very important.

At the risk of spurious thread derailment, there are lots of things that are NOT taught in schools because they are not very important. The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important. I would not like to see it dropped, because I think it is important.

Can't see any hyperbole, but I can see a lot of very silly hair splitting instead of sound rebuttal.

Given what % are faith schools I will say you are incorrect Molly

Do faith schools count as state schools?

The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important

Can you name another non fact based discipline where opinions are given as much weight in education?
Everything else is factual in education but this and it compulsory

or perhaps that religious folk get to decide what is important and what is not

They do?

RE is about facts. It is a fact for example that Jewish people celebrate Yom Kippur.

What was RE about when you were in school? Do you even know what it's about nowadays?

Teaching: Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet
Preaching: Mohammed is the one true prophet.

Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:

[i]"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"[/i]

And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.

...and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

Oh dear

What about trade unionists?

I'm a trade unionist, proud of it, i belong to a democratic organisation that looks after my interests(mostly), don't see the relevance with an appointed 'cleric'--

There must be smoke in the air, Paddy Power have a market for the next pope, there is a steamer called Cardinal Peter Turkson, you can get Father Dougal Maguire from craggy island a 1000/1

I'm sure I've seen this thread before.
Angry atheists attack broad-minded atheist for being tolerant.
It's almost religious. 😉

Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:

"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"

And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.

Exactly my experiences too. Maybe it's changed now?

...and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

I very, very much doubt that will happen, despite what the Daily Mail et al might have us think.

[quote=GrahamS ]Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:
"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"
And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.
It's certainly a LOT different to that at my daughters school.
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

despite what the Daily Mail et al

angry atheist here.

what am i angry about? i'll try and explain.

The world is full of problems, some big, some small. Problems like:

Overpopulation.
pollution.
war.
famine.
disease.

and so on.

Religious leaders consistently do one of 2 things about these important problems.

1) sod all
or
2) make them worse

Now, i wouldn't mind, but people seem to listen to them, and instead of doing anything useful, they seem more than happy to waste decades/centuries arguing about whether women should be allowed to read from the big book of stories. or even allowed to read at all.

it's the contrast between their degree of influence (quite high, even in a reasonably non-goddy country like the uk), and their inclination to do anything even slightly useful, that annoys me.

('angry' is too strong a word, but i do get a bit cross about it sometimes)

Fair enough druidh, it was 25 odd years ago. 😳
I'm quite prepared to believe things have improved for the better.

At the risk of spurious thread derailment, there are lots of things that are NOT taught in schools because they are not very important. The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important.

It's taught so it must be important so it's important because it's taught. Well that's just a circular argument. It may well be important to you but that doesn't make it important by any objective measure

Do faith schools count as state schools?

Well as there are a large number that are funded by the state, I'm going to say yes.

It is very important, as are a number of other subjects. Some more than others imo.

So where exactly does it lie in subject ranking?

It seems to me that religion is improtant to you, but my experience of a catholic upbring was less than positive. Religion was used as a badge to define tribes and engendered a "them and us" mentality. It did have one positive outcome for me though as it forced me to think about religion and realise how ludicrous it all is.

In response to the OP,

I'd like point out that Richard Dawkins is not a poster-boy for all atheists. He believes what he believes, but attacking him is a straw man, he is not (and doesn't claim to be) the voice of atheism.

Why are there angry atheists? Because we as a nation still cling to the idea that millennia-old superstitions, parables and a belief in the supernatural have a valid, influential place in the decision making process, I expect. That, and being presented with circular reasoning makes me argumentative.

Big dresses, funny hats, wine, must be a party going down somewhere.......

Why I get drawn to thread like these as a moth to a flame I do not know, but here goes.

Seriously the only true path to follow has to be Agnosticism surely if we're being pedantic? You don't seem to get many extreme or fanatic Agnostics.

The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught. Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries. You can hardly point at the State and say things are right or wrong on the say so of politicians and everyone knows how easy it is to get kids to do what parents tell them is right or wrong. (well you will if you have any - not).

That's about it, so until such times as a latter day L Ron Hubbard comes along with something modern deep and meaningful to point them at, these conversations will continue and Religious schools will still have queues forming with no doubt Atheist parents within them (That should better call themselves Agnostic because they really don't know anything for sure).

Sorry about that, Rant ends.

I feel much better now, thanks.

Well that's just a circular argument.

You call that a circular argument?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-are-you-atheists-so-angry

[quote=igrf ]The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught. Regretably [b]there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries[/b]. Yes there is - it's called parenting.
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries.

Not planning on using that one tbh.