[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

I'm not angry. I do find it ridiculous that, on matters of sex, the opinion of a celibate bloke in a dress is important.

Surely this is a troll? 🙄

No - some folk really do feel like that...

What he said and the active campaign of Catholics re gay marriage shows w there antiquated and ill evidenced believe system is still an influence

People can believe what they want in thier own homes/head. When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system and its influence still affects me and folk I know - right to doe for example then I think it is not hard to see why some are still cross with having to listen to and respect this superstitious mumbo jumbo.

And of course they are wrong and they take guidance from a being that does not exist and then tell me how to behave in accordance with this fictional character

In the UK it is an even smaller minority who sucribe to american church organizations such as Answers In Genesis (A[b]L[/b]iG)

Is this the same guy that stabs bikers in trails in California?

Yeah if people want to believe ghost stories then that's fine, just don't let it have anything to do with the rest of us, Church and politics is a dangerous mix.

I was impressed with the scottish head catholic suspending direct contact with the government due to the gay marriage thing, just hoping he makes it permanent. WhyTF does he get direct contact? and why is he throwing a big tantrum and coming bringing a big downer to the open inclusive society party when many of his congregation are cool with it all?

dunno whether I'd class myself as an angry atheist but I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

They will be sorry and that Dawkins if you look close you can see the 666 on his forehead.

Anyone listen to Old Harry's Game? It's not a comedy it's the truth.

I'm atheist, I have the same attitude to Religion as my missus has to MTB's. They exist, at a detriment to my life but on the whole harmless.

I do find it ridiculous that, on matters of sex, the opinion of a celibate bloke in a dress is important.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

I would like to state that I agree with the OP. Militant atheism is a tribe.

When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

What about trade unionists?

dunno whether I'd class myself as an angry atheist but I am bothered about the political clout religious leaders have.

This.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

What I dismiss is the idea that what he says on the subject is any more important than what anyone else has to say, and I find it ironic that celibate religious people seem obsessed with sex.

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.

In our local anglican church there was a petition opposing equal marriage (though thankfully lots of the congregation were angry about it).

It's not as bad at the States over here, but there are signs that it's potentially heading that way.

I'm not at all angry. I find the best response to the attempts by church leaders to tell us how to live our lives is to ignore them.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

Not always. Much of the RE I was taught in school was solely about catholocism, to the extent that until I was in secondary school I was unaware of the existence of most of the worlds religions. Even in secondary school the focus was very much catholocism and other religions were only taught about much later on.

I also disagree that it is "very important" to teach about religion. I don't see it as being any more important than any other subject.

What about trade unionists?

Trade unionist are elected to their position by member of that union, religious leaders are not. Trade unionist do not enjoy the privilige of seats in the house of lords solely on the basis of their position as a leader of a trade union.

What I dismiss is the idea that what he says on the subject is any more important than what anyone else has to say

Er... what? We all ascribe different levels of importance to different people, depending on what we value. I don't have much interest in what Andrew Strauss says, but apparently a lot of people do. I'm fine with that.

If you want to listen to what a priest has to say, then that's also fine. It's between you and him after all.

I also disagree that it is "very important" to teach about religion. I don't see it as being any more important than any other subject.

I didn't say it was more important than anything else. However, history, politics and religion have a massive impact on the world, so ignoring it would be seriously remiss, in terms of education.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

What about trade unionists?

When they preach to me about it to the extent that RE is compulsory in an education system

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

But it is still a legal requirement that all state schools have a daily act of collective worship...

But, I wonder how many non-christian RE teachers there are and how impartial and fact-based that makes the lessons?

I went to a "normal" (i.e. multi-denominational in theory) school, and I was always made to feel weird and different for not joining in during the religious services. Even had a minister in primary school come and push my head down when I wouldn't pray with the others.

That's why I'm a little peeved at the influence religion has.

right so its very important[ its not as it is wrong ] that you teach me about religion which must include what they believe in but you are not preaching to me

Teaching: Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet
Preaching: Mohammed is the one true prophet.

Can you not see the difference?

But, I wonder ... how impartial and fact-based that makes the lessons

Very.

I find it ridiculous that you'll dismiss anything someone has to say based on what they are wearing or whether or not they have sex.

RE is not preaching, for the third or fourth time on here. It's teaching about the world's religions, which is very imporant.

Our school didn't have a religious assembly, almost all don't.

when they start preaching to me and having it taught in schools, knock on my door to get e to join and say I will burn in hell for all eternity if i dont join their club then I will agree with you otherwise silly hyperbole

They are a group of non-political people with moral beliefs that have political influence. Not silly at all.

I didn't say it was more important than anything else.

Well it is strongly implied by your use of the word very. If on the other hand you meant that everything that is taught in school is "very" important then that is fairly useless hyperbole on your part. If everything is very important then nothing is very important.

The Education Act 1944 introduced the requirement for daily prayers in all state-funded schools, but later acts changed this requirement to a daily "collective act of worship", the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 being the most recent. This also requires such acts of worship to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".[3] The term "mainly" means that acts related to other faiths can be carried out providing the majority are Christian.[4]

Given what % are faith schools I will say you are incorrect Molly

They are a group of non-political people with moral beliefs that have political influence. Not silly at all.

Well it is strongly implied by your use of the word very.

Not at all. Kanchenjunga is very high, but it's not higher than anything else. Very is not a superlative.

It is very important, as are a number of other subjects. Some more than others imo.

If everything is very important then nothing is very important.

At the risk of spurious thread derailment, there are lots of things that are NOT taught in schools because they are not very important. The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important. I would not like to see it dropped, because I think it is important.

Can't see any hyperbole, but I can see a lot of very silly hair splitting instead of sound rebuttal.

Given what % are faith schools I will say you are incorrect Molly

Do faith schools count as state schools?

The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important

Can you name another non fact based discipline where opinions are given as much weight in education?
Everything else is factual in education but this and it compulsory

or perhaps that religious folk get to decide what is important and what is not

They do?

RE is about facts. It is a fact for example that Jewish people celebrate Yom Kippur.

What was RE about when you were in school? Do you even know what it's about nowadays?

Teaching: Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet
Preaching: Mohammed is the one true prophet.

Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:

[i]"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"[/i]

And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.

...and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

Oh dear

What about trade unionists?

I'm a trade unionist, proud of it, i belong to a democratic organisation that looks after my interests(mostly), don't see the relevance with an appointed 'cleric'--

There must be smoke in the air, Paddy Power have a market for the next pope, there is a steamer called Cardinal Peter Turkson, you can get Father Dougal Maguire from craggy island a 1000/1

I'm sure I've seen this thread before.
Angry atheists attack broad-minded atheist for being tolerant.
It's almost religious. 😉

Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:

"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"

And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.

Exactly my experiences too. Maybe it's changed now?

...and intelligent design might be appearing on the curriculum.

I very, very much doubt that will happen, despite what the Daily Mail et al might have us think.

[quote=GrahamS ]Things may have changed, but in my day RE was very much:
"Muslims believe that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't we children?"
And yes, we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every day at assembly in a supposedly secular school.
It's certainly a LOT different to that at my daughters school.
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

despite what the Daily Mail et al

angry atheist here.

what am i angry about? i'll try and explain.

The world is full of problems, some big, some small. Problems like:

Overpopulation.
pollution.
war.
famine.
disease.

and so on.

Religious leaders consistently do one of 2 things about these important problems.

1) sod all
or
2) make them worse

Now, i wouldn't mind, but people seem to listen to them, and instead of doing anything useful, they seem more than happy to waste decades/centuries arguing about whether women should be allowed to read from the big book of stories. or even allowed to read at all.

it's the contrast between their degree of influence (quite high, even in a reasonably non-goddy country like the uk), and their inclination to do anything even slightly useful, that annoys me.

('angry' is too strong a word, but i do get a bit cross about it sometimes)

Fair enough druidh, it was 25 odd years ago. 😳
I'm quite prepared to believe things have improved for the better.

At the risk of spurious thread derailment, there are lots of things that are NOT taught in schools because they are not very important. The fact that RE is taught seems to me that it is very important.

It's taught so it must be important so it's important because it's taught. Well that's just a circular argument. It may well be important to you but that doesn't make it important by any objective measure

Do faith schools count as state schools?

Well as there are a large number that are funded by the state, I'm going to say yes.

It is very important, as are a number of other subjects. Some more than others imo.

So where exactly does it lie in subject ranking?

It seems to me that religion is improtant to you, but my experience of a catholic upbring was less than positive. Religion was used as a badge to define tribes and engendered a "them and us" mentality. It did have one positive outcome for me though as it forced me to think about religion and realise how ludicrous it all is.

In response to the OP,

I'd like point out that Richard Dawkins is not a poster-boy for all atheists. He believes what he believes, but attacking him is a straw man, he is not (and doesn't claim to be) the voice of atheism.

Why are there angry atheists? Because we as a nation still cling to the idea that millennia-old superstitions, parables and a belief in the supernatural have a valid, influential place in the decision making process, I expect. That, and being presented with circular reasoning makes me argumentative.

Big dresses, funny hats, wine, must be a party going down somewhere.......

Why I get drawn to thread like these as a moth to a flame I do not know, but here goes.

Seriously the only true path to follow has to be Agnosticism surely if we're being pedantic? You don't seem to get many extreme or fanatic Agnostics.

The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught. Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries. You can hardly point at the State and say things are right or wrong on the say so of politicians and everyone knows how easy it is to get kids to do what parents tell them is right or wrong. (well you will if you have any - not).

That's about it, so until such times as a latter day L Ron Hubbard comes along with something modern deep and meaningful to point them at, these conversations will continue and Religious schools will still have queues forming with no doubt Atheist parents within them (That should better call themselves Agnostic because they really don't know anything for sure).

Sorry about that, Rant ends.

I feel much better now, thanks.

Well that's just a circular argument.

You call that a circular argument?

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/why-are-you-atheists-so-angry

[quote=igrf ]The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught. Regretably [b]there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries[/b]. Yes there is - it's called parenting.
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

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

Not planning on using that one tbh.

druidh - Member

"igrf » The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught. Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and sets boundaries."

Yes there is - it's called parenting.

+1

Catholic Church, probably the worst of the lot, still according to them there is a nice big fire waiting to keep me warm, and plenty of devil's music to be entertained by, along with endless supply of harlots, .....thinking about it thats pretty good.... better than some of the other offers out there .....

I was an Atheist, but then Richard Dawkins annoyed me so much with his banging on about the whole thing I thought if that's what Atheists look like, then I'll just be an Agnostic.

Seriously the only true path to follow has to be Agnosticism surely if we're being pedantic? You don't seem to get many extreme or fanatic Agnostics.

Even Dawkins allows for the fact that there may well be a god or gods, but we don't have any evidence for their existence.

gmandavison - Member

Recently however I have been buying books along the theme of atheism and it's the same mantra that's been reapeted over and over

It would be, wouldn't it. Reason being, it's hard to write 400 pages about how some people believe in god, I don't personally, and that's all OK. Would you buy it?

I find it ironic that celibate religious people seem obsessed with sex.

I must say that it's all I think about if I've not had a any for a week or two!

Atheist parents within them (That should better call themselves Agnostic because they really don't know anything for sure).

So whether you believe or not, you're an agnostic due to your ignorance? I don't think it works like that with a [u]belief[/u] system...

Agnostic just means you can't be bothered thinking about the question - atheists don't say there's no god, they say there's no [i]evidence[/i] for god.

RE is about facts. It is a fact for example that Jewish people celebrate Yom Kippur.

Can you name another non fact based discipline where opinions are given as much weight in education

It is fact I think the world is round...so lets teach it eh 😕

What was RE about when you were in school?

Do you even know what it's about nowadays?

Do faith schools count as state schools?

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

this is an old arguent and tbh you have two views.
god chose morals on a whim and we obey them because god says so
Or
There is a reason for these morals and anyone can see this and also come to the same conclusion

It is arrogant offensive pish to claim that people who do not believe in a religion have no morals or cannot bring up their kids well.
I dont have my kids foreskin cut off for a belief - is that good parenting? What about female circumcision for religious reasons - good morals again? So called "honour killings" etc

I left high school in the early 90s. They didn't have religious assemblies, and RE taught us about world religions. It was very interesting, and there was no preaching in it at all.

I think atheists DO think there's no god. Agnostics don't know, which doesn't mean they don't think about it.

if your belief system is communism, then all this religious guff is deleted

I was loking at this years syllabus with an RE teacher friend of mine a few days ago and we chatted for a few hours, I have ids in school enduring it and your expertise ?

I'd love to see the evidence of preaching, as I imagine would an AWFUL lot of people.

The reason folk want and let their kids (including my own) become Catholics or queue up for Catholic schools is simply because of the moral guidelines taught.

You can teach moral guidelines without requiring an organised religion, you know. The two are quite separate.

The reason folk "let" their kids become Catholics is, largely, because they're Catholics themselves and that's what they've been told to do.

The reason Catholic schools are popular amongst the godless is nothing to do with morals, it's to do with them often having better resources and equipment, presumably due to the additional funding provided by the church.

In my opinion.

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

Codswallop.

That should better call themselves Agnostic because they really don't know anything for sure

Nice try, but no, I'm not going to passively validate your belief system. Sorry.

I'm an atheist, not an agnostic, because whilst it's impossible to know for sure that something doesn't exist, I know for as close to certain as makes no odds. I don't know for 100% certain that there aren't invisible unicorns in my loft either, but that doesn't mean I should be describing myself as unicorn-unsure. That would be lunacy. For all practical purposes, and until evidence presents itself to the contrary, I can confidently state that there aren't any.

It's that tricky 'proving a negative' logic bomb. The burden of proof, if such a thing is required, lies with the religious to prove the existence of gods, not the atheists to disprove it.

I was an Atheist, but then Richard Dawkins annoyed me so much with his banging on about the whole thing I thought if that's what Atheists look like, then I'll just be an Agnostic.

I think atheists DO think there's no god.

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't think there's no god. I think there's no evidence at all for god so using Ockham's Razor there probably is no god. Therefore I don't believe in him/her/it.

molgrips - Member

I think atheists DO think there's no god.

We had an epic, terrible thread on this a while back... Atheists come in different flavours, some believe there are no gods, some believe in no gods, which ends up being quite different. It can be a belief or an absence of belief.

It's mostly just bad terminology- caused I think by the fact that the language used was developed and codified in more religious times. The fact that we have a word for people who don't have any religion is weird- we don't have a word for people who don't ride bikes.

I would love you to answer my question

Can you name another non fact based discipline where opinions are given as much weight in education

we know you cannot and that is the power of religion

I would also like to say what an awful lot of other folk think but i lack your arrogance/mind reading

god chose morals on a whim and we obey them because god says so

And the ones God picked and passed down are written in the Old Testament and they are not very pleasant. Surely if God is proposed as wiser than us, we should take these morals and apply them to the letter rather than have his representatives on earth moderate or change them to suit the circumstances?

Surely if God is proposed as wiser than us, we should take these morals and apply them to the letter rather than have his representatives on earth moderate or change them to suit the circumstances?

Ah, but you see, God also gave us the wisdom to know when he was serious, and when he was just having a laugh 🙂

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

Frankly this a load of tosh!

I am not religious, and was not bought up in a religious environment.

I know how to behave, I know the difference between right and wrong, and I know how I like to be treated by people, and treat others in the same manner.

I don't need promises of an eternally wonderful afterlife to make me a good person, or the threat of eternal damnation if I'm a bad person. I am a good person because I want to be, and because life is nicer that way.

If a person needs some form of spiritual bribery to be a good person, then actually, they probably aren't that good after all.

[quote=bencooper ]Ah, but you see, God also gave us the wisdom to know when he was serious, and when he was just having a laugh God was from Edinburgh then? I always wondered why Scotland was called Gods Country.
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

You really don't have to be very bright to realise there is no god, as is evidenced by so many atheists. 🙂

I'm a trade unionist, proud of it, i belong to a democratic organisation that looks after my interests(mostly),

I belong to a Union, I've never had the opportunity to vote for a branch officer or any member of the union heirarcy

I definitely didn't vote for corporate sponsorship of an ice hockey team

http://order-order.com/2012/08/22/gmb-boss-the-new-sheriff-of-nottingham/

democratic?

😆
might steal that one

Regretably there is no alternative to a Religious belief system that gives kids moral guidance and set boundaries. don't hit your little brother timmy or god will send you to the big fire.

Not planning on using that one tbh.

I know of someone who treats their kids like that. Can't wait until the kids hit adolescence and give them a proper reality check!

I'll be content when RE is only in the curriculum as part of the history syllabus.

If a person needs some form of spiritual bribery to be a good person, then actually, they probably aren't that good after all.

It was so much easier before Martin Luther stuck his nose in - you could be as horrible as you liked, then bung some money the way of the church, and they'd put in a good word with God for you and get you ushered into heaven. Sorted.

Or of course there were all those poor Africans who's souls were saved from eternal damnation when they were christened. Of course they were also enslaved and shipped off to cut sugar cane at the same time, but the good that was done to their immortal souls far outweighed the temporary harm done to their bodies.

My school was heavily Christian-biased and had regular religious assemblies, hymn singing etc. I sort of let all that just wash over me although it was also a requirement of being in the school Combined Cadet Force that you attended Remembrance Sunday Parade. Just an embuggerance to put up with in exchange for all the good bits of blowing shit up and flying. 😉

On the other hand RE was actually quite interesting and not preachy. One of the years was very badly taught (basically a teacher who couldn't be arsed so just put videos on) but religious history and the faith/belief system is actually (IMHO) very interesting. Richard Dawkins covers some aspects of it quite well in some of his books as well.

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

And yes, this is incredible cobblers.

Ironically, despite not being at all religious, and coming from an irreligious family, I've ended up with a fairly "christian" set of morals. Reason being, they mostly make sense, which is why they're shared with most other religions. And the reason for that, is that religions don't create morals- they coopt them.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet

Not a trace of religion in that. And the rest is basically copy protection.

Union officials* are elected by members - are you sure you are in one?

* even paid ones[employees] are often elected but not all.

We are fortunate to be living in (arguably) the most secular country in the world. Elsewhere, the problem of the religious attack on reason and the education of children, not to mention the denial of human rights to gay people and women (often resulting in murder and torture) and the denial of free speech and expression is much more acute.

So, yes. There is a reason why some atheists are angry.

I struggle with long sentences

Anyone fancy a pint?

Oooo, the first post 'day of the big banhammer' religion thread. Lets see how we do

But there's a huge question there.

Are those bad things BECAUSE of religion, or is religion being used as an excuse?

Does for example homophobia exist without religion? I think it does.

All Hail the mighty god Emmteebee!

Does for example homophobia exist without religion? I think it does

Agreed. I remember back when I was at school (some time ago) homophobia was the default for most people. It's very different now. Also, most churchgoers that I know (but not all) are in no way homophobic and that includes many ministers. It's just the structural part of religion that is slow in catching up for lots of reasons.

Does for example homophobia exist without religion? I think it does.

Sure. But a shared belief system, by definition, could also encourage the spread of less desirable beliefs.

It also gives it a friendly face, a whiff of acceptability. Without religion, perhaps many people would be less keen to share ill-conceived controversial views; whereas if you can instead spout bilious rhetoric in the name of God, you're safe in the comfort of your own righteousness.

Maybe.

Though TBH, the whole 'god hates fags' movement isn't particularly widespread this side of the pond anyway. It seems to be mostly restricted to the likes of Westboro, and to be fair Al-Qaeda probably view them as a bit extreme.

As ever, religion gets dragged kicking and screaming into a modern ethical outlook by advances made in secular society. In some places.