[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

.....but He loves you!

I'm an atheist (that does not exclusively define who I am, just like being a mountain biker does not define all of who I am).

My point is just that:
The vast majority of religious people cannot be defined by a) the most extreme cases of the worst examples of a minority who practice harmful rituals of other religions, and b) many don't define themselves by their beliefs of the afterlife and what influences those beliefs. Some people just so happen to find themselves being born in an environment where christians- for example are the majority and concepts such as morality and the afterlife heavily influence their thinking. In such cases when they are asked what religion they belong to or if they believe in a god they say christian as default. It is wrong to say all religious people are delusional, wife beating, slave loving, child killing, skin wearing, racist, fascist, dogmatic, science devouring, delusional bleepers who are a drain on society.

If all religions/religious people did that, there would be no 'angry atheists'

And if all atheists realised that then there wouldn't be no 'angry atheists'. Just as it is wrong to say all atheists are the same in their beliefs about morality it is wrong to assume all religious people are the same nor are all christians or muslims or whatever.

Saying that I would argue that all fools are fools though...

p.s. I'm not calling anyone a fool 😆

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

Really.
Have a think about that.

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.

Just a wee correction to point out; that's all for England (and Wales, I suppose), not UK.
The bishops are CofE, so no Church of Scotland influence in House of Lords (or Catholic, for that matter). Church of Scotland was heavily involved in the devolution movement, but has no constitutional role in the Scottish parliament, as far as I am aware.
Queen is head of CofE only.
We do unfortunately have denominational schools in Scotland, but I know that some non Catholics do attend them, so not totally exclusive. Still a divisive system, in my opinion, and I would prefer to see explicitly secular education.
I don't believe there is any chance of Evangelical creationists influencing the Scottish education system.

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

Really.
Have a think about that.

Still a divisive system, in my opinion, and I would prefer to see explicitly secular education.

I'm thinking where are those figures from and I am very sceptical that they are true reflection

I'm thinking where are those figures from and I am very sceptical that they are true reflection.

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

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

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

Buddhism is inside the religious umbrella so it is hardly an alternative to religious belief

Well, if you do a bit of research you'll find these figures confirmed by both religious and secular sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#United_Kingdom
A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, [i]two-thirds of respondents[/i] (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism.
A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the Origin of Humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[59]

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

There is:
[i]Mary don't steel Joseph's handy many chisels.
why not daddy
Because it is not very nice. how would you feel if Joe took your barbie doll from you, it wouldn't be very nice would it?
no daddy 😳
So before you take someone elses toys think how sad it would make you feel if someone took your toys.[/i]
Essentially it's the Golden Rule, treat others how you wish to be treated everything will fall into place.

As I say to my 3 year old and we also say "Olivia you must share, sharing is caring."

Buddhism is inside the religious umbrella so it is hardly an alternative to religious belief

Buddhists don't derive their morality from an outside source, and also this demonstrates the problem I have with angry atheists who umbrella all religious people the same.

Angry atheist "he is a religious person therefore a stupid person who is hindering the progress of science and mankind"

Me, "Really...? The Dali Lama?"

Some scared people hate religion to help them put order into their world.

I may have to call alanis morrisette again.

I get your point re Buddhism being unlike christian religions but it remains a fact that it is a religion. Its morality is external in the sense it comes from Dharma [teachings] and from the Buddha
Given the importance placed on no self i doubt they would say it [ or anything much] comes from within or self.
We also have the 8 fold path of which morality [ethical conduct]is one branch [ i forget the name [Sila from Google] with some rules etc

Granted i would rather be like the his holiness than the other one [the Pope].

Granted i would rather be like the his holiness than the other one [the Pope].

I'd be the Pope - you get a big hat and a massive house in Rome. The other fella just gets grief.

Mind you, I'm an atheist so I apparently have no moral rules to my guide my tawdry little life.

Me, "Really...? The Dali Lama?"

You may want to read up on exactly what sort of society Tibet was before you proclaim that the Dali lama is all sweetness and light. Oh and the straw man arguments really are getting very very old.

With you all the way CountZero 🙂

It's easy to be fearful of that we don't know.

As regards Buddhism, I tend to regard it as more of a philosophy, even though it is generally thought of as a religion. Much of my current beliefs are founded on Buddhist principles/teachings, letting go of stuff, silencing the chattering mind through observation and many more.

Mindfulness, acceptance and attitude are 3 words I came to understand and appreciate whilst working at a Buddhist Monastery in Sussex, building them a new Dhamma Hall.

The Dali Lama

Is the misspelling of "llama" part of the surreality?

seriously though, how many people reallly beleive that there religion will involve them ascending to the sky and living a life with wings and halos?
how many people following there beleifs have lived by these 10 commandments? as far as i can tell purgatory will be a very busy place from what ive experienced in my life so far, heck even the people preaching it are going to hell.
is there an animal heaven as well , and how do they know what way to live by?

Some links:

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bloody-athiests/page/6#post-4107807 ]Christian Today.[/url]

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism ]Rescuing Darwin.[/url]

Also lets assume these figures are correct why does this make you feel any hostility towards all religious people? If you don't what was the reason for posting the figures?

I don't feel any hostility toward religious people, just toward irrational belief, which degrades everything that we have strived toward since we crawled out of the slime.

seriously though, how many people reallly beleive that there religion will involve them ascending to the sky and living a life with wings and halos?

And if they do believe that then why do they still cry at funerals?

living a life with wings and halos

And if they do believe that then why do they still cry at funerals?

...because Wings are a truly sh!te band..?

Rusty Spanner - Member

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

That's a pretty dicey sounding stat... Only 53% of people identified themselves as christian in the last census, even with the leading question. A followon survey found that of people that did so, only 48% believe in god. (the rest are obviously very confused, but I do enjoy the fact that half of all christians are apparently atheists)

So that gives you a stat barely over 25% believing in the christian god at all, let alone creationism. So I call shenanigans.

The above 😆

25% of Britons believe in creationism

I'd like to see the survey.

If it asked 'do you believe that the universe was created or at least initiated by a superior being' then maybe 25% is about right.

If on the otherhand it asked 'do you believe the universe was created c6000ya over the course of 6 days by the god of the Judeo-christian tradition' then I'd question it.

Creationism comes in different flavours and science hasn't yet shone light into all the possible hideyholes of a creator.

I don't feel any hostility toward religious people, just toward irrational belief, which degrades everything that we have strived toward since we crawled out of the slime

Some archaeologists think that organised religion was actually a precursor to man becoming forming organised civil structures rather than as a result of it ie. it's been an important part of mans development. There's a little bit of it at the bottom of this article about [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe ]Göbekli Tepe[/url]

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

25% of Britons believe in creationism

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

You may want to read up on exactly what sort of society Tibet was before you proclaim that the Dali lama is all sweetness and light. Oh and the straw man arguments really are getting very very old.

we are referring to the [i]current[/i] Dalai Lama (that's Lama with one L not the animal :?) the one traveling the world promoting peace, dialogue over conflict and the continual request of the Tibetan people to use non violent protests? Maybe because he comes under the banner of a "religious person" by default he is the bad guy.
There is a common factor with all militant arguments and that is the use of the term "straw man argument" I'm not sure if you fully grasp the meaning of this phrase?

If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

Protection from discrimination, yes, protection from ridicule, no.

Some archaeologists think that organised religion was actually a precursor to man becoming forming organised civil structures rather than as a result of it ie. it's been an important part of mans development.

So what?
A misguided belief in a non existent creator may once have served a purpose.
That doesn't make it any less of a dangerous lie.

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule - there must be no blasphemy laws, no protection form ridicule about a particular belief system (protection from discrimination, of course).

But of course if anyone were to ridicule your [i]lack of belief[/i] in a god you would welcome it and encourage it? Ridiculing is not exactly helpful in dialogue and communication!

But of course if anyone were to ridicule your lack of belief in a god you would welcome it and encourage it? Ridiculing is not exactly helpful in dialogue and communication!

Yep, speaking for myself, you can ridicule away.
It's part of human nature.

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

My beliefs will stand up to any rational and scientific investigation you care to subject them too.
Yours on the other hand do not.

No they can't.
They can request it, but as there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god then their request is not reasonable - there is no right not to be ridiculed.

In this case I think you are wrong. If they believe something and they are a part of society they they have a right to ask for something whether or not another part of society thinks it is correct for whatever reason. That's just part of society. It's why the religious lobby is so strong in the US

[i]They can request it, but as there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god then their request is not reasonable - there is no right not to be ridiculed.[/i]
Does a just society ridicule others for holding different beliefs on the grounds of a lack of evidence, lack of evidence is no more proof against something than it is for it. That isn't a reason to ridicule something nor should ridicule be encouraged, there are much more effective forms of communication.

I see where you are coming from Rustyspanner, however I think ridiculing a Creationist would be futile and a complete waste of time.
I remember a thread recently about good sayings in life where someone said
"Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience."

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

I see no reasonable argument that suggests a position/faith/opinion is less open to criticism due to the number of people who believe in it.

And where do you define the boundaries of a 'population'? If 25% of a village believe you should sleep with your sister, does that make it OK? Village too small, what about city, or a country?

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

Ridiculing any belief based on human scientific knowledge, which fails even to rationally explain the origins of life on our planet, may also make you look daft. No-one has all the answers and the biggest cocks are the ones who think they have a definite answer.

Does a just society ridicule others for holding different beliefs on the grounds of a lack of evidence, lack of evidence is no more proof against something than it is for it. That isn't a reason to ridicule something nor should ridicule be encouraged, there are much more effective forms of communication.

Well, rational analysis is how we determine whether things are true or not. It's the best system we have evolved to separate fact from fiction. Do you not believe in it?

there are much more effective forms of communication.

No-one has all the answers and the biggest cocks are the ones who think they have a definite answer.

I've never said I have the answer.
I've just said that based on the systems we've evolved to explain and rationalise every other single aspect of our lives, it is reasonable to assume that there is no god.

I see no reasonable argument that suggests a position/faith/opinion is less open to criticism due to the number of people who believe in it.

The idea is that if you are part of a society they you are also part of setting what the agreed rules of that society are. It doesn't mean there isn't a logical reason for the criticism, rather that as a group you can say that you don't find it acceptable

I'm not sure that criticism it the correct word here either. The point is that if there are a significant group of any sort they they have an influence on what is acceptable in society

Maybe because he comes under the banner of a "religious person" by default he is the bad guy.

There's the problem. If 25% of society believe in something they can reasonably request that society doesn't ridicule them for it.

An unevidenced superstitious historical belief systems with a demonstrably false account of creation and some daft laws [ and some good ones] seems to me the perfect target of ridicule no matter what number believe in it.

you could always tell people that they will suffer for all eternity if they don't believe what you tell them.

😆

EDIT: leffeboy I think we all get what you are trying to say but it really does depend. What if enough think theft is ok, infanticide, female circumcision has high belief status in some cultures or example. Some think a rape victim has to marry the perpetrator. Do we treat them all equally because [ the majority in some cases] of numbers?

If 25% of a village believe you should sleep with your sister, does that make it OK? Village too small, what about city, or a country?

Unfortunately that is [i]exactly[/i] how society works. The alternative is a dictatorship. You can argue that morality dictates that that particular action isn't correct but then we are back to the 'whose morality' question 🙁

eg. faith healers in Zimbabwean villages promoting the idea that sleeping with virgins cures aids ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm). Completely acceptable in the local society but not in the global one

It's part of human nature.

However, ridiculing a rational belief backed by scientific evidence just makes you look a bit daft.

My beliefs will stand up to any rational and scientific investigation you care to subject them too.
Yours on the other hand do not