[Closed] More Religion on the Beeb

Stigmatising people's faith is wholly wrong.

For years I've seen regular religion-bashing and heavy pro-atheism from many members of singletrack. What these people don't appreciate is the richness of life that faith gives a lot of people. It is entirely up to them if they believe in something, if they want to talk about it to other people, and providing tv programmes relating to faiths is appropriate and right.

Seeing a vocal minority stamping out displays of faith, such as wearing a cross at work or putting ornaments in a window makes me sad and a bit embarassed to be british! I wonder how many countries see these sorts of things happening on such a regular basis. If people move to an area away from their home they should learn to fit in or live with, not learn to change the locals.

Frankenstein - Member
I don’t watch BBC at all.

I pay the licence fee for..?

Wish I had a choice instead of forced to pay for this $hit.

I subscribe to Sky/Virgin etc.

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

Choose not to pay the license fee then.

Odd choice to have religious programmes at this time of year. Shouldn’t it just be Lidl adverts?

As a Seventh Day Lidlist, I would always accept more Lidl adverts this time of year.

Praise Josef Schwarz.

Religious displays are about recognition, segregation and isolating communities from outside influences. I hate it when I see a yashmak or niqab proudly (?) displaying a woman's oppression.
I was in a hotel health suite a couple of months ago when a group of overweight and long-haired blokes came in. I assumed they were rock fans up for a gig. Anyway, it gradually dawned on me they were hasidic jews over for a wedding. Oddly, they did trash the place in heavy metal tradition (glass in the steam room, towels strewn everywhere). I'm sure they'd 've been happier watching Iron Maiden but would they get the chance?

glasgowdan - Member
Stigmatising people's faith is wholly wrong.

For years I've seen regular religion-bashing and heavy pro-atheism from many members of singletrack. What these people

Arguing against the resurgence of superstition and anti-human propaganda is needed more now than ever.

After all, I'm not using torture or imprisonment or bombs or knives or an inquisition.

I'm using words in defence of an idea in a war of ideas.

Any who seek to stamp out opposition to religion are vile.

Stamping on an argument is always the last resort of those who've lost it.

Your use of the patronising "these people" says a lot. About you.

Woppit, you sound like a radicalist. What % of people with personal faiths do you think torture and imprison others?

Woppit, does your bigoted outspokenness extend to everything you don't like, or is it just religion?

What happened to tolerance, live and let live, and seeing beyond narrow stereotypes?

As Glasgow Dan says, do you think all people of faith kill, main, torture or worse?

Open your mind, stop drinking the Dawkins kool aid, but more importantly cheer the **** up or pipe down. We don't all want to hear your constant negativity.

Any who seek to stamp out opposition to religion are vile

Said, without a hint of irony, by the rather sad man seeking to stamp out religion.

Stigmatising people's faith is wholly wrong.

Religious people , read your history, are in no position to lecture anyone on extremism or tolerance.

Rationality has beaten your bigotry, judgemental nonsense and I suggest you deal with it by your own faith, praying or forgiveness or whatever else you wish bit FFS stop lecturing me on how to love my life will you We have had a couple of millennia of that shit

Mrry Chrismas

Open your mind, stop drinking the Dawkins kool aid, but more importantly cheer the **** up or pipe down. We don't all want to hear your constant negativity.

And yet, here you are.

Also, the idea that I should respond to you chucking orders about in an open forum just makes me

😆

So, thanks.

do you think all people of faith kill, main, torture or worse?

Lots of folk do things good and bad but the history of religion is many things but the history of peace, tolerance and brotherly love it is not ...not even WITHIN the same faiths or sometimes to its own faith!

Also, the idea that I should respond to you chucking orders about in an open forum

or anywhere else, actually.

Pffft. Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

I love grumpy atheists. It’s like there’s something missing in their life

I've no idea why you think I'm grumpy.

Perhaps you're reading something into my words that isn't there.

A bit like religion claims there's something there that self-evidently isn't.

It’s like there’s something missing in their life

Woppit do you realise you are adding nothing to anyone's life with these posts. Why do you do it?

If you are trying to stimulate discussion you are doing a shit job of it, because all you are doing is pissing people off. Including atheists, which should tell you something.

Please, for the sake of the forum, shut the **** up.

molgrips - Member

If you are trying to stimulate discussion you are doing a shit job of it, because all you are doing is pissing people off. Including atheists, which should tell you something.

I'm an atheist (agnostic atheist, but y'know) and he's not pissing me off.

Please, for the sake of the forum, shut the **** up.

I'm interested to know if you truly believe that religion impacts more negatively on humanity than the inescapable neo-liberal framework that the global economy is based on woppit?

I'm a comitted atheist of 30 years or more, and I went through your fanatical phase upon realising that I was surrounded by delusional god fearing folk.
It was a scary time in my life and provoked an extreme reaction in me, adjusting to accommodate people with beliefs outside my own was challenging.
But is religious belief really more dangerous, on an individual basis, than the financial institutions that exploit religious divides as a tool for perpetuating their enslavement of the global populace?
Honestly?

Did some diving force ordain you voice of the forum now molgrip?

no, but he does now seem to be the resident virtue-signaller.

I am also an aetheist and Mr Woppit is not pissing me off 🙂

He is justified in his anger - look at how much of the recent wars and violence can be attributed to religion?

and the argument about religion giving you better morals has also shown to be baloney.

But is religious belief really more dangerous, on an individual basis, than the financial institutions that exploit religious divides as a tool for perpetuating their enslavement of the global populace?

But religious belief on an individual basis is a lot more volatile, and therefore dangerous. The financial institutions you reckon are manipulating religious divides rely on that volatility.

He is justified in his anger - look at how much of the recent wars and violence can be attributed to religion?

If you think that recent wars are purely motivated by actual religion, and that everything would be fine if we didn't have it, then you are an absolute imbecile.

Or more likely you like hating.

If you think that recent wars are purely motivated by actual religion, and that everything would be fine if we didn't have it, then you are an absolute imbecile.

That would be cutting if it was from anyone else...

so what defines 'actual religion' and how many people follow it ?

that's the problem, isn't it. Everybody has their own interpretation and then the argue about it. Look at that immovable ladder rubbish for a crazy example.

And Islam seems to have much more scope for different interpretations.

this is somewhat amusing :

I guess the issue I have is the need to shout down and attack all religions and people of faith. What happened to accepting others of different views?

I'm lucky enough to have Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist friends as well as atheists and "not sures" - nobody feels the need to preach at or over each other, nobody needs to "prove" their point, and as far as I know, nobody has killed, mutilated, groped, gone to war or otherwise. We all just get along respectfully, accepting people have different beliefs.

It riles that the vocal minority like Woppit feel the need to attack, tarring all people of faith with the same brush as a few nutcases. After all, I wouldn't dream of badging all atheists as grumpy, argumentative and provocative dicks just because of his posts on here. He's just one outlying voice and I'd argue not representative of the majority. Statistically insignificant you might say.

I'm not meaning to be obtuse, but I can't think of a great many examples of religion being the primary motivation for argument without a more sinister driving force manipulating division from behind the scenes.

I'm not meaning to be obtuse, but I can't think of a great many examples of religion being the cause of arguments without a more sinister driving force manipulating division from behind the scenes.

^^^ This.

andyrm - Member

I guess the issue I have is the need to shout down and attack all religions and people of faith.

So is Woppit out on the streets pamphletting, screaming at passers by about how there is no god, picketing abortion clinics and trying to convert alcoholics and drug addicts to atheism by stealth tactics? Are any atheists? Is he telling stories to children that they must believe in and love and also be terrified of a magic invisible wizard?

This is what most major religions do to lesser or greater degrees (except Judaism as far as I know) but when an atheist pipes up online he's a bigot who's attacking people.

What happened to accepting others of different views?

You are allowed to have your views, no matter how stupid. But your views should never be free from criticism. Religious taboos and superstitions are only relevant to those who wish to believe in them. To everyone else they are bullshit.

Just a reminder folks we are handing out free Xmas break from the forum, we’ve already had some winners but there may be more.

Drac - Moderator

Just a reminder folks we are handing out free Xmas break from the forum, we’ve already had some winners but there may be more.

Which means?

So is Woppit out on the streets pamphletting, screaming at passers by about how there is no god, picketing abortion clinics and trying to convert alcoholics and drug addicts to atheism by stealth tactics?

Most people of faith aren't either.

This is the problem when you judge a whole group on the behaviour of a misbehaving minority that aren't representative.

And yeah, challenge away, discuss cordially and politely, but it's possible to disagree respectfully. Something Woppit seems unable to do.

I'd argue use of "sky fairies" and it's ilk is deliberately done to provoke and undermine, hardly the tactics of intelligent, considered and useful two way conversation.

This is what most major religions do to lesser or greater degrees

Whoah there.

Religions aren't single entities collectively responsible for every butter who cites part of their teachings. Thinking that is called prejudice.

The Catholic Church might be saying that abortion is wrong, but it isn't telling people to go out and harrass people at abortion clinics is it?

You are allowed to have your views, no matter how stupid. But your views should never be free from criticism.

That doesn't sound very accepting of peoples views.

Have to say a number of the atheists on this thread are coming across as nasty intolerant people, in same way as religious extremists would. Whereas everyone in the middle just gets on fine, regardless of religion.

Which means?

Play well within the rules.

andyrm - Member

So is Woppit out on the streets pamphletting, screaming at passers by about how there is no god, picketing abortion clinics and trying to convert alcoholics and drug addicts to atheism by stealth tactics?

Most people of faith aren't either.

This is the problem when you judge a whole group on the behaviour of a misbehaving minority that aren't representative.

"Most" may not be, but the most pious likely will. Committed literalists and fundamentalists might make casual or lapsed religious people feel uncomfortable but they are at least consistent and reliably well read on their chosen faith. You're burning in hell with the atheists if you don't accept their version.

molgrips - Member

This is what most major religions do to lesser or greater degrees

Whoah there.

Religions aren't single entities collectively responsible for every butter who cites part of their teachings. Thinking that is called prejudice.

Major abrahamic faiths are proselytizing in their teachings and in their nature and structured as such. Nothing prejudiced about stating the mission statements of major religions, oh and crying prejudice doesn't earn you any special points.

Have to say a number of the atheists on this thread are coming across as nasty intolerant people, in same way as religious extremists would. Whereas everyone in the middle just gets on fine, regardless of religion.

I get on fine with religious people until it comes to stating facts about religion. As an adult I've chosen not to engage with religious people in such discussions because I don't like undermining their beliefs, in the same way I don't enjoy telling children there's no Santa Claus. However, I decided to engage here because I see something very insidious happening.

Woppit may be unapologetic in his stance, but that's because his stance in unarguably correct. Logical, rational criticism of religion is now being met with accusations of bigotry, hatred and racism.

I'd argue use of "sky fairies" and it's ilk is deliberately done to provoke and undermine, hardly the tactics of intelligent, considered and useful two way conversation.

I would argue that it's not a tactic, it's a quick and useful somethingion of the ideas you are critiquing.

Jimjam.

He's free to criticise. That's good debate, I like that.

You have to appreciate the difference between considered criticism and abuse, surely?

Imagine you see a film you don't like, and then you bump into the director later in the pub and he asks you if you liked the film.

Do you say:

a) It didn't really work for me, I felt the pace too slow and the characterisation too weak.

Or

b) It was pathetic you idiotic half wit, you're a disgrace to your trade and producing that pile of shite was an insult to the movie going public!

See the difference? I'd love a theological debate but this is NOT what Woppit is doing even if you thinks he is.

I would argue that it's not a tactic, it's a quick and useful somethingion of the ideas you are critiquing.

No, it's a valueless dismissal. You wouldn't get very far presenting it as a thesis at a university would you?

i’ve no idea why you think I'm grumpy

Well, you’re spending time on a forum complaining about something that doesn’t appear to impact you unless you go out of your way to let it.

I was making a gala pie.

Ding dong merrily on high and all that

^^^ Bravo Molgrips. I've not always agreed with everything you have said on this forum (as would be expected), but you've just summed up what I was trying to say in a more eloquent way than I could. Well said mate.

Drac - Moderator
Just a reminder folks we are handing out free Xmas break from the forum, we’ve already had some winners but there may be more.

You have to appreciate the difference between considered criticism and abuse, surely?

good point :

He is justified in his anger - look at how much of the recent wars and violence can be attributed to religion?

If you think that recent wars are purely motivated by actual religion, and that everything would be fine if we didn't have it, then you are an absolute imbecile.

I appreciate your considered critism of my view that a lot of recent wars and violence can be attributed to religion.

molgrips - Member

Jimjam.

He's free to criticise. That's good debate, I like that.

You have to appreciate the difference between considered criticism and abuse, surely?

Imagine you see a film you don't like, and then you bump into the director later in the pub and he asks you if you liked the film.

Do you say:

a) It didn't really work for me, I felt the pace too slow and the characterisation too weak.

Or

b) It was pathetic you idiotic half wit, you're a disgrace to your trade and producing that pile of shite was an insult to the movie going public!

See the difference? I'd love a theological debate but this is NOT what Woppit is doing even if you thinks he is.

Honestly, ignoring Woppit for a minute I am torn. I understand completely what you are saying, and furthermore I believe in some utility of religiosity but I can't really accept your example because when we dig RIGHT down to the core of it, there is no debate to be had. Woppit's stance and his technique is just the raw truth. If you want to argue against him it's abrasive and maybe not pleasant, but there is no god.

I would argue that it's not a tactic, it's a quick and useful somethingion of the ideas you are critiquing.

No, it's a valueless dismissal. You wouldn't get very far presenting it as a thesis at a university would you?

I don't believe we're debating at a uni thesis level here, just shooting the shit. Just to elaborate though, God is a loaded term. From a purely atheistic stance it's a nonsense and other than the number of people who believe in God vs fairies they are roughly analogous. It might be low hanging fruit, it might be insensitive, but it's true.

@ jimjam - it's true for you. We all find and make our own truths, it's one of our greatest freedoms as sentient individuals 🙂

Consider 'respect'. For ourselves, for others. It's not what we say sometimes, it's how we say it.

The pot calling kettle black routine from the more fanatical atheists doesn't inspire me to want to engage and discuss. One of my first lessons here. Which I find sad.

The Catholic Church might be saying that abortion is wrong, but it isn't telling people to go out and harrass people at abortion clinics is it?

Come now. It isn't directly telling people to go and harass others, but it's giving those who tend to be a bit harassy a good reason to do so. You can't possibly be surprised that when an organisation tells its [b]followers [/b]something, some of them might get it into their heads to think, hey, I'm going to do something about that!

That doesn't sound very accepting of peoples views.

I think the point he was trying to make perhaps is that not all views hold equal merit. If held the view that the moon was made out of carrots, that all non-caucasian people should be shot, or that Brexit is a fantastic idea, are they views that should just be accepted or something that should be challenged?

Challenging opinions and beliefs is a good thing (generally, not specifically in regards to religion). It's how we learn things.

Religion sometimes seems to think it has special privilege here. It does not.

You have to appreciate the difference between considered criticism and abuse, surely?

And the thing that some seemingly fail to grasp is that it's possible to disrespect someone's opinion whilst still being respectful to the person.

And the thing that some seemingly fails to grasp is that it's possible to disrespect someone's opinion whilst still being respectful to the person.

Which is where use of language is super important.

Combative phrases and language turn it into a battle rather than a considered or respectful debate, and from that point onwards, the value of the discussion is lost.

Cougar

And the thing that some seemingly fail to grasp is that it's possible to disrespect someone's opinion whilst still being respectful to the person.

Position a) You and everyone you love will suffer intense never ending pain burning in hell if you don't subscribe to my particular interpretation of a book that is the word of god.

Position b) You are stupid if you believe postion a.

Which is more offensive?