In support of Woppit.
Heres LINK an area that religion wandered into and poisoned that was hidden for years. (I’m surprised its not still front page news today, weeks later, but I guess thats the times we live in)

An apparently small decision taken by a person with 1) the best intentions but also 2) an unfortunate fetish for elderly virgins and jewish zombies.

Result: monthly pain for countless women for 40 (?) years.

When you’re living in an environment where something like religion is the accepted norm, its hard to see all the little ways in which it influences things and all of the knock on effects.

Attitudes towards gay people, women, medical advances, politics, the right to live for some, the right to die for others.

All buggered about with, by idiots, on behalf of “beings” that don’t exist and don’t matter.

I agree with others that religion is not the only area where fundamentalism or dogma, can be a malign influence. But those other areas don’t claim extra special protection for their proclivities.

I’m free to go to school and tell teacher that I don’t want little jimmy taught about about “no damned queers” or whatever.

But it probably won’t result in worthy understanding articles in newspapers about the conflicting rights of bigots and teachers.

Why is religion different?

edited to correct parents to bigots 🙂

so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?

extremist atheist

Count me in whatever that is. I was happy being a Fundamentalist atheist (once I knew it was a thing) but extremist sounds well cool

Second vote for becoming an extremist atheist. Does it mean I get to not believe whilst partaking in extreme sports?

The real enemy is an unwillingness of people to engage, to learn, to be challenged

….. to read the article properly before getting on their high horse?

🙄

Gods are not real, ok?

So you say

There’s some real nonsense on this thread, and it betrays the ignorance of those who seem to blame religion for every wrong in the world.

I should preface this by saying that I am not a theist, and have a healthy dislike of many of the organised branches of religion. However, to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.

JP

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, including the Catholic church.
I would argue simplistic generalisations poison everything.

There’s plenty who don’t too, but evolution is broadly accepted by the majority of modern Xtian religions, yes.

I’ve said this many times before, but with any demographic it’s a shouty extremist minority that give the rest a bad name.

so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?

Um… yes?

Evolution is a well-established, observable and demonstrable scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of rigorous research trying and failing to prove it wrong, and the bible is a book made from a collection of fables written several hundred years after the events they purport to document at a time when most of the populace was illiterate.

Anyway. Modern thinking is that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. As far as I can see, this is by dint of revisionism saying that the bits which don’t align with science are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. Which will come as a great posthumous comfort to people like Galileo I’m sure.

Which will come as a great posthumous comfort to people like Galileo I’m sure.

Figaro magnifico.

jj,

to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.

You realise that you’re decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?

(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)

These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:

Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.

This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.

Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.

This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.

Makes perfect sense to me…..

I read this on another thread on here, roughly, ‘there are 2400 religions in this world, each of them believe that the other 2399 are wrong’

jj,

to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.

You realise that you’re decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?

(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)

These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:

Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.

This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.

Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.

This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.

Makes perfect sense to me…..

I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism with the kind of zeal that is just as excessive and negative as the theists he despises for doing the same. He also has an unwillingness to accept the limitations of empirical science (read Popper for a nice summary of these limitations) and a purely materialist philosophy, that is, perhaps, typical of biologists, who believe that they have answered most of the larger questions of their area of study, and, who seem to extrapolate from this that they understand everything. I doubt you would find many astrophysicists, or particle physicists with the same degree of unshakeable belief.

I think this review provides some interesting points on the “New Atheists”:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens

JP

I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism

I’ll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.

In any case, he doesn’t represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He’s a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.

I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism

I’ll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.

In any case, he doesn’t represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He’s a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself. It’s a funny kind of agnostic who devotes so much of his energies to the task of decrying theists.

Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins, not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

JP

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.

It’s still irrelevant as you’re

not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

N’est-ce pas?

The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW’s owners don’t have many red lines but that’s one of them, it’s a zero-tolerance policy.

Trailrider Jim
Gods are not real, ok?

Of course they’re not.

Apart from Odin and his crew that is.

The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email.

And as if by magic a new poster appears , coincidentally named after a moistened teddy bear

Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”. Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.

AdamW

Member

Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”. Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.

Did you read my post at all, or are you just making assumptions?

JP

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.

It’s still irrelevant as you’re

not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

N’est-ce pas?

The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW’s owners don’t have many red lines but that’s one of them, it’s a zero-tolerance policy.

I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here – if it’s a point of semantics, please look up the list of fallacious arguments.

JP

So, describing Richard as “shrill” isn’t part of your complaint about how he “conducts” himself?

What’s wrong with the way he “conducts himself”, then?

Yawn. I don’t want to reiterate what has already been written before, but read the Guardian article I posted. It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really – his God Delusion is a bad imitation of Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not A Christian.

JP

I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here

Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?

It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really

So he’s a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of “yes, but Dawkins says…” It’s a straw man.

I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here

Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?

It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really

So he’s a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of “yes, but Dawkins says…” It’s a straw man.

If we’re going down the pedantic route here then I have to call you out for being factually incorrect – I’m not a theist, as clearly stated in my original post, nor am I using Dawkins as a straw man. I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.

JP

Who on earth reads secularism.org ?

Members of a secularist organisation?

so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?

What do you think?
Here’s a clue:

Evolution is a well-established, observable and demonstrable scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of rigorous research trying and failing to prove it wrong, and the bible is a book made from a collection of fables written several hundred years after the events they purport to document at a time when most of the populace was illiterate.

I have to call you out for being factually incorrect – I’m not a theist

I didn’t say you were – I’d be daft to assume that unless for some reason I thought you were lying as you said you weren’t a few posts earlier. Factually incorrect again. (-:

I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.

To what end?

If you don’t like “straw man” maybe “non-sequitur” is more appropriate? Or “whataboutery”?

Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

6 pages and 2 bans?

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”.

“Shill” surely?

I’ve completely lost track of wtf this thread is on about. But what I can accurately comment on is that I know normal people of almost every faith, and normal atheists, normal agnostics too. Not one feels the need to try and preach/convert/disprove/prove/evangelise. For 99.999999% of people their faith (or lack of) is a personal belief that’s part of the framework they live their life by, and a private thing that guides them in just being a decent person.

There’s then a tiny but noisy minority in each group that needs to try and prove themselves “right” and everyone else “wrong”.

A bit of live and let live is probably the sensible way forward. Dicks doing dickish things in the name of religion aren’t generally representative of the religion they claim to represent, they’re just hanging their dick coat on a convenient peg. The sooner we separate the acts of the individual from the faith (or otherwise) they are connected to (or claim to be connected to), the better. Just as an ISIS bomber isn’t representative of most normal Muslims, or an IRA bomber of normal Catholics, neither is one of the new wave of angry atheists representative of any of the atheists I know.

6 pages and 2 bans?

One, technically.

@andyrm – precisely.

The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

@trailriderjim, brilliant sir. Respect.

Teal’c sums it up properly….

Gods are false

And from me:

Religions are a nasty evil control.

Trailrider Jim

The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

This was your response to someone having a philosophical and ‘enlightened’ debate about whether to send religion to other planets if we colonised them.

Your reply is anything but enlightened. I am in no way religious but I am not minded to pick a fight with the substantial number of humankind that does believe in a god. I get angry about many things but people’s religious beliefs is not one of them. Anything I say to try to convince them of the error of their ways will be about as successful as your attempts through telling them they are brainwashed. Be angry with creationists by all means but it will get you nowhere.

The fact that fact that so many people believe in god in so many forms means that perhaps we need religion as a species.

The promotion of good evidential based science and technological development should not go hand in hand with a denigration of other people’s deeply held religious beliefs.

To be fair evolution is just a theory. There is good documented evidence for adaptation of species, but not evolution which is where a species grows or develops an entirely new characteristic which makes it become a totally different species. Added to the fact that science has only determined
what around 4 percent of the universe is made of would mean 96 percent is still unknown.. so on that basis it is impossible to rule out whether God exists (unless you can prove what the other 96 percent is made from?). And the argument that ‘well if God exists then who created God?’ (i.e he can’t exist as no one could create him) holds no water since scientist would have us believe that the universe created itself randomly out of nothing, a question Dawkins failed to answer in debate. My point is that God or evolution both involve a degree of faith so we shouldn’t denounce people for believing what they want to believe, whatever it is that they choose to believe. There are many “religious” people who could and do give “religion” a bad name but to the same or greater extent there are many scientists, atheists and evolutionists who would do the same, pol pot, Hitler etc with their views on the master race – I don’t judge every evolutionist based on their atrocities so why then judge every religious person based on the actions of a very small minority? The real issue is intolerance to other people’s views and beliefs and unfortunately for the unbelieving non religious this works both ways, you expect your views to be respected but then don’t show the same respect to anyone who has a different view or opinion- as I have said, everyone ultimately has a faith, whether it be science or religion and everyone is entitled to their faith without having someone else telling them they are wrong and trying to force another faith down their necks.

Awaits Godwin….

The latter nutters are reading secularism.org

Whether someone is secular or not has no relation to whether they are religious or not. Outside of extreme religious zealots anyone sensible would be in favour of secularism (just in case their religion loses out if not any better reason).

who accept evolution, including the Catholic church.

They dont. At best they go for Theistic Evolution eg evolution is broadly correct but god intervened to make it happen.

Gets crisps ready.

Didn’t yer dads give you that helpful advice not to talk politics or religion in the pub 🙂