[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better,

I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds. If we are here through Intelligent Design, the creator is having a right laugh at our expense.

Are "we" any angrier than followers of the various religions? I suspect there are equal numbers on both sides who display the same behaviour.

I am an atheist but do not have an unshakeable faith that there is no god(s). IMO it's 50/50 and I accept that there is as much chance I'm wrong as right.

I have a real problem with Richard Dawking as he just can't seem to see that he is a "religious" zealot of a different shade.

I think I'd be safe in saying that the majority of Christians globally don't, and never have, treated the Bible in that fashion.

Fair enough. I was always under the impression that the Bible was the Christian, ah, "player's handbook." I've heard many, many times that Christians know something unquestionably because it's "in the Bible," though I couldn't in honesty tell you how many of those were American or fundamentalists or both.

I am an atheist but do not have an unshakeable faith that there is no god(s). IMO it's 50/50 and I accept that there is as much chance I'm wrong as right.

See, I can quite happily get along with that. Someone openly and confidently expressing their onion, yet without needing to resort to insults, abuse or mocking and belittling others. And that rare thing; someone accepting that they may possibly be 'wrong'.

When you look at us and the universe we live in, you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better, you wonder why

Well, the inkling that [i]"things are not the way they are meant to be"[/i] is a frequent starting point for people's journey of discovery, whether religious or otherwise. The Christian story starts off with a creation myth that suggests things are not as the creator intended - I think several other religions do a similar thing.

What interests me more, is why an atheist would think in categories of [i]'right'[/i] and [i]'wrong'[/i] when viewing the universe and not simply think in terms of causality? I'd have assumed that, from the standpoint of scientific determinism, the nagging feeling that something is amiss which appears to have been a feature of human existence up until this point is something that needs to be left behind?

"I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds."

LOL

and on that note I'm outta here... It been fun and a help.

I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds. If we are here through Intelligent Design, the creator is having a right laugh at our expense.

Hmm.. I fear this is in danger of turning into a two-person debate thread which is never very productive, so if anyone else would like to contribute to this bit then please speak up (or tell me to shut up).

I just find this lazy racism and generalisation offensive. No different from '****' jokes.

It's really quite a lot different in my view. He isn't being derogatory or inciting hatred for one thing. And it isn't about race either.

The point is that you could chose a different categorisation and make a whole new bunch of people responsible for the actions of people like them.

Yes I understood your point, but it's the folks blowing themselves up [i]"in the name of"[/i] that categorisation, that are doing the categorising, not us.

They could all be called Dave, have ginger hair, moustaches and one leg, but if they claim to be blowing themselves up for Greenpeace then it would naturally fall to Greenpeace to say [i]"no they're blimmin' well not"[/i] - the other categories would be irrelevant.

the 'nutters' do not claim to represent the majority

No, but they do claim to represent Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.

If I was a follower of Islam and a member of that brotherhood then I'd want to challenge that - just as I would challenge the EDL if they claimed to represent me.

I've not once said that what he says is an offence against Islam, I've said it's racist. So, not so simplistic there.

Racist against what race?

What you might clarify for me is the difference between this and a joke.

Sorry no, I've tried a couple of variations but I can't manage it without sounding like a patronising git which I don't want to do.

So you don't think 'beardy, veily...' is pejorative at all?

Nope. Irreverent? Yes. Deliberately overly-familiar and matey? Yes.
Disrespectful? Yes. Intended as slur, abuse or a derogatory insult? No.

If you applied it to another group, say "a bunch of beardy bikers", would that be insulting to them?

It is lazy, played for cheap laughs, no different from Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning.

If find it to be intelligent and played for laughs but with a deeper meaning. I don't see the comparison to those two bigots at all. Sorry.

I’m new to this malarkey, doing the confirmation course at the moment, and the call and response stuff, is one of the things I’m struggling with.

I think the answer there is that some people like stability and a framework whereas others prefer a somewhat more open approach to worship but with the randomness that that may bring. In the same way that some folks feel that the ornate darkness of a Russian Orthodox church puts them in the right frame of mind while others prefer the openness of a modern US church which they may feel puts less between them and God.

Cougar, I liked it when I thought you were a woman.

😯

I've heard many, many times that Christians know something unquestionably because it's "in the Bible," though I couldn't in honesty tell you how many of those were American or fundamentalists or both.

There's a very definite anti-intellectualism about some traditions within Christianity that, sadly, is frequently quite "shouty" and because they're happy to trot out simplistic soundbites at the drop of the hat, are loved by the media as a result. Some of them are kind and generous people, even though they're not very bright, others are really unpleasant folks like the Westboro Baptist Church crowd.

The whole religion business will now put me in mind of diamond cutting erections and the contents of Mrs Barnsleymitches jumper. What this means in terms of intelligent design, eternality, and the literal versus figurative nature of scriptural interpretation remains open to question.

I grew up thinking God was a woman. Who looked like the woman from the PG tips box.

[img] [/img]

??

^ 😆

It's really quite a lot different in my view. He isn't being derogatory or inciting hatred for one thing. And it isn't about race either.

Yeah, but it does reinforce a negative stereotype though, dun't it, and it is a bit lazy. I like Marcus and think he's a funny, clever bloke. Not overly bothered about this comment, as I can appreciate the context in which it was made, but he might be mindful to consider this as a small 'mistake' or slight error of judgment, [url= http://www.****/news/article-1164742/Sir-David-Jason-forced-say-sorry-making-racist-joke-live-radio.html ]as might David Jason[/url] (There were worse 'jokes' on the 'Jokes' thread imo).

[img] [/img]
!!!

The whole religion business will now put me in mind of

You've room to talk, weren't you in the bath earlier?

Just read the David Jason thing. Sure, it was ill-conceived but,

last night Mohammed Shafiq, of Muslim charity the Ramadhan Foundation, said:

'These are inappropriate remarks about a stereotype that may have held a little water in the 50s and 60s but is not true to today. He should've known better.'

... does that make any sense to anyone? What stereotype is he referring to, that was appropriate in the 50s but not now? It sounds more like he's objecting to the implication that someone from the Indian subcontinent would be working in the service industry. Have I missed something here?

Re: David Jason

I liked this quote:

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, who is of ****stani origin, said he did not see the joke as racist. 'It really is a storm in a tea cup,' he said. 'I'm a big fan of David Jason.

'The only thing is he's let me down because it's not very funny.'

I don't see that joke as particularly racist either. It's just a (bad) joke about a (very bad) pun on someone's name.

We've had quite a few [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/one-for-the-amusing-names-pile-fanny-chmelar ]threads on here about folk with funny sounding names[/url], both "foreign and domestic".

A spokesman for Absolute Radio said there had been no complaints to the station from listeners

So a complete non-story then? How unlike The Daily Mail.

You've room to talk, weren't you in the bath earlier?

Yes, but that was yesterday, and, as documented, there was a distinct lack of tumescence owing to the retraction of what I choose to describe as a sleeping tiger.

It sounds more like he's objecting to the implication that someone from the Indian subcontinent would be working in the service industry. Have I missed something here?

TBH, it's something that's hard to put yer finger on really, but there is a certain cultural ignorance about the 'joke', for sure:

It is a play on words around the name of the political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi - who was from India, not ****stan.

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name, whereas ****stan is a predominantly Muslim country. But if you made the joke more culturally accurate:

[i]'What do you call a ****stani cloakroom attendant? Mohammed' [/i]

does not in any way really work, does it? 😐 It is a teeny bit 'oh well they all look the same'. Bit like making a joke about an Englishman, who's name is François....

I think this just about sums it up really:

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, who is of ****stani origin, said he did not see the joke as racist. 'It really is a storm in a tea cup,' he said. 'I'm a big fan of David Jason.
'The only thing is he's let me down because it's not very funny.'

Yup, as usual Elfin is right. 😯

I like Marcus, he's usually a smart politically incisive comedian. This stuff was just a bit like 'the french, how come they all stink?"

Ok, we can have an argument about what constitutes a race, but call it what ever 'ist' you like, it was rude.

Yup, as usual Elfin is right.

I'm going to print this out and frame it. 😀

A lot of people get hung up on the idea that Christians 'believe' the Genesis account

Indeed, isn't the whole creation versus evolution debate centred around several red herrings. Studying the creation story is far more entertaining when it is considered as a poem (particularly the Hebrew rhyming apparently) and enjoyed for the symmetry of the story rather than literal meaning of the text. Plus isn't it really about the idea of a single creator rather than the multiple creators that the pagans believed and more importantly a message that humans were special to "their" God (?) rather than people who should fear their gods?

But is the message of Job the real answer, of merely a theological cop-out? So God refuses to answer Job (apparently) and poses questions to him instead. So what is going on here? Is it correct that there are things in life (including illness) etc that are simply beyond human comprehension? Or is that merely a convenient way of ducking the challenges posed?

does that make any sense to anyone?

he's usually a smart politically incisive comedian. This stuff was just a bit like 'the french, how come they all stink?"

Indeed, isn't the whole creation versus evolution debate centred around several red herrings. Studying the creation story is far more entertaining when it is considered as a poem (particularly the Hebrew rhyming apparently) and enjoyed for the symmetry of the story rather than literal meaning of the text.

I know it's a bit of a 6th form argument and some people have already said it today, but anyway: That's all well and good, but what about the burning bush? The feeding of the 5000? The tablets given to Moses? The Ark? The virgin birth? Doesn't the God part of the bible (as opposed to viewing it as a sort of let's-all-be-nice-to-each-other handbook) rest on at least some of it being taken literally? If so how do you decide which parts?

[i]Sevenundred.[/i] 😐

I don't think I've ever had a Sevenundred before.

I reckon as time goes on that religions will slowly mythologise most of their holy books and be left with just the "Be excellent to each other*" bit, jettisoning the rest.

* And party on, dude!

..a more fitting epitaph would be hard to find, Adam.
God bless us, one and all.

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name, whereas ****stan is a predominantly Muslim country. But if you made the joke more culturally accurate:

... it'd be, "what do you call a Hindu cloakroom attendant?"

It's crap (and as we've highlighted, factually inaccurate), but hardly racist.

Compare,

"What do you call a bloke from Dover with a seagull on his head? Cliff!"

"What do you call an Englishman with a shovel on his head? Doug!"

A bit more Hitch on religion. Worth a listen right through but to stay right on topic go to about 19:00.

Hitchens to god - "At least I didnt curry favour". Brilliant.

i think you mean you disagree with what he said but it was a bit more nuanced [ if not any less offensive] than the french line above.

I was making a reference to a Lee Evans gag a good few years back, but the point is that it was well below his usual standard and playing to an easy audience.

Worth a listen

Nah, you're alright. That [b]Marxist's[/b] voice sends me to sleep, tbh. And he's not saying owt I jolly well have not heard before, if other stuff I've heard from him is owt to go by.

I'm certainly not going to waste 30 minutes of my life listening to him droning on. Maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he's going on about?

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name

Isn't it a title, or an accolade rather than a name?

playing to an easy audience.

That's Radio4 for ya 🙂

Incidentally, I do agree he was rude, but that's quite a different thing from being racist (or Islamististist).

Isn't it a title, or an accolade rather than a name?

It is indeed. I fought his name was Mohandas or something like that.

Mahatma - does it mean teacher?

Yeah but the point is it's a Hindu term rather than a Muslim one.

Y'know, I do enjoy reading a debate between a bunch of white* ** IT guys about what's racialisticism and what's not.

*And Effin.
**Presumably.
Racist!! *
*Yeah, I know. 😐

I don't really think Marcus or David were being 'racist' at all, tbh. Just a bit naive.

It's not really a big deal. Bravissimo's said worse about the Oirish....

I've tried but Christ alive I can't stomach 18 pages of this. Any good bits?

I'm not white

I'm certainly not going to waste 30 minutes of my life listening to him droning on. Maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he's going on about?

Given the amount of time you have spent on this thread and the content of your argument (such as it is) it would be an education and consequently time well spent.

[img] [/img]

I'm not white

Hence why I said "presumably"; point of information accepted though CM. 🙂

I'm white. Is that good or bad?

I'm white

You're special mol.