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.[/quote]

“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.[/quote]

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 summation 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 summation 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.

I must be missing all the good threads.

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 summation 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? [/quote]

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 followers 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?

Having quickly skimmed through the thread, I feel that it’s important to point out that it seems that Mr Woppit doesn’t seem to have resorted to a single ad hom, whereas ultra right-on Molgrips, has. It’s weird how people are accusing people of being intolerant and nasty, by actually BEING intolerant and nasty. Damn atheists, eh?

Which is more offensive?

I wasn’t aware that it was a competition.

It’s ok to be offensive to someone because someone (probably someone else entirely even) was more offensive? I thought we were supposed to be the logical ones.

I do take your point, and would possibly agree if we’re talking about shouty evangelists, but we’re really not.

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.

Precisely.

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.

I’m sad about that too. As we’ve discussed it just kills discussion stone dead and makes people entrenched. “I called him an idiot and he changed his mind” said no-one, ever.

Still, we are one vocal atheist down at the moment it seems.

Cougar – Moderator

Which is more offensive?

I wasn’t aware that it was a competition.

It’s ok to be offensive to someone because someone (probably someone else entirely even) was more offensive? I thought we were supposed to be the logical ones.

I do take your point, and would possibly agree if we’re talking about shouty evangelists, but we’re really not.[/quote]

Valid, allow me to rephrase – why be so considerate of the feelings of people who ( in some instances) will actually dismiss your very life as void for not believing their doctrine? Why tippy toe around the feelings of people who categorise you as subhuman?

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?

Not entirely sure the Sikh’s, Hindu’s, Buddhist’s, Taoist’s et al subscribe to a fiery eternity.

Good to see the ignorant have all coalesced again.

why be so considerate of the feelings of people who ( in some instances) will actually dismiss your very life as void for not believing their doctrine?

But here’s where it gets interesting…… As per my earlier post, most people who have religious beliefs, normal people not nutters, are perfectly capable of being respectful, loving, caring for and tolerant of their fellow man/woman who has different or no beliefs. Some even settle down with them.

There’s only a tiny, tiny proportion on both religious and non religious sides of the fence who take entrenched and intolerant views. The rest of us use the simple dick/not a dick metric to our interactions and view religious belief or otherwise as just another part of the rich tapestry that makes each person different.

So then who are you to tell me how to live my life? If you don’t live your life by the religious teachings of your holy book you’re little better than an atheist. You’ve just attached religious terminology to the basic human morality any atheist (or any normal human) would follow.

The rest of us use the simple dick/not a dick metric to our interactions

This, +1 Dawkins

I love a sensible debate, but dicks get trolled.

So then who are you to tell me how to live my life?

Has that actually happened?

Cougar – Moderator

So then who are you to tell me how to live my life?

Has that actually happened? [/quote]

Many, many times. But even if it hadn’t literally happened in one on one interaction there would still be the belief or inference that irreligious living was wrong.

Many, many times.

andyrm has?

there would still be the belief or inference that irreligious living was wrong.

How is that any different to the belief or inference that every religious living was wrong?

I’m a comitted atheist of 30 years or more

Commitment to not believing? I’m an Aethiest and it has taken precisely zero commitment. I don’t like 9/10th of the BBC output, but the other 1/10th is what appeals. Isn’t that the the point of it, tohave a large array of programming? I’m not a fan of religion but don’t mind others believing. I have the exact same feelings towards football

Cougar – Moderator

Many, many times.

andyrm has? [/quote]

No, of course he specifically hasn’t because he’s lapsed. His views are even less valid than that of an atheist because he’s aware of the scriptures but chooses to ignore them. There is a super special level of hell reserved just for him.

How is that any different to the belief or inference that every religious living was wrong?

It’s wrong when you use the teachings of fictional characters to oppress others who believe in different fictional characters or who don’t belive in any fictional characters.

No, of course he specifically hasn’t

So how does

who are you to tell me how to live my life?

apply then?

It’s wrong when you use the teachings of fictional characters to oppress others who believe in different fictional characters or who don’t belive in any fictional characters.

So it’s alright for us to oppress them and their beliefs because we believe we’re right?

Good to see the ignorant have all coalesced again.

just so we know; are you an unpleasant and condescending atheist or an unpleasant and condescending theist? Someone’s got to keep a count…

Cougar – Moderator

No, of course he specifically hasn’t

So how does

who are you to tell me how to live my life?

apply then?[/quote]

Jesus Christ Cougar I thought it was obviously not a direct question to the poster, but somewhat rhetorical.

It’s wrong when you use the teachings of fictional characters to oppress others who believe in different fictional characters or who don’t belive in any fictional characters.

So it’s alright for us to oppress them and their beliefs because we believe we’re right?

Did I say that? Just because religion says we should stone adulterous women to death and throw gays off cliffs, I don’t believe the atheist hand book says we should reciprocate.

Have you lot not get any family you could spend some time with?

Jesus Christ Cougar I thought it was obviously not a direct question to the poster, but somewhat rhetorical.

I know. Point is, you’re apparently attributing the behaviour of a minority and applying it to everyone.

Did I say that?

You’re complaining about being told what to think and how to act, whilst telling people what to think and how to act.

No, of course he specifically hasn’t because he’s lapsed. His views are even less valid than that of an atheist because he’s aware of the scriptures but chooses to ignore them. There is a super special level of hell reserved just for him.

Blimey. I’d say “lapsed” as in doesn’t go to church like my Irish Catholic descendants did, but not necessarily lapsed as in belief.

But just as I can see the law, or the highway code is a good framework but not without it’s flaws, so too I can recognise many of the abrahamic books aren’t entirely right either.

Thing is, I get the feeling that me trying to bring examples of tolerance and mutual respect are not wanted here as it doesn’t fit the black & white agenda that some here seem unable to see past.

Cougar – Moderator

I know. Point is, you’re apparently attributing the behaviour of a minority and applying it to everyone.

No, I’m applying the text to everyone.

You’re complaining about being told what to think and how to act, whilst telling people what to think and how to act.

I’m not telling anyone how to act – I’m stating that no one’s beliefs are beyond criticism.

they are worse than you lot 😉

they are worse than you lot

Holy shit!

No, I’m applying the text to everyone.

I’m not sure as I follow.

I’m not telling anyone how to act – I’m stating that no one’s beliefs are beyond criticism.

That’s not how it read to me, but fair enough then. On that we are in agreement, I said as much earlier.

My point was really that that statement applies equally to you / us also.

there would still be the belief or inference that irreligious living was wrong.

Yeah, I’m not sure about this point. In fact, I suspect there may well be religious people who think that, just as there are non-religious who think the same about religious.

But the vast majority of folk on both sides, in my experience, live by the ‘don’t be a dick’ principle.

So, I trust that all the logical , right thinking scientific atheists out there will be completely eschewing any trappings of Christmas, be they Christian, Pagan, Roman or otherwise this year?

Can’t let yourselves get drawn into any superstitious hocus pocus can you?

You should instead celebrate the winter solstice by lighting a single electric bulb and leaning away from it a 13 degree angle. It’s the logical thing to do.

Meanwhile, my imaginary friend is providing mince pies, Bond films and an Xbox.

Which is nice.