[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

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

Of course it will still exist. No one, well no one sensible, is arguing that all the worlds ills would be removed if religion were removed but many of think that religion perpetuates some of those ills. Were it not for religion then there wouldn't be any debate going on about the proposal to allow gay marriage in scotland, it would just be happening.

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

Most of the reasons why atheists are angry about religion can be found here: http://www.secularism.org.uk/media-round-up.html

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

yes it does, but it is also vindicated by religion, if i vindicate something the fact that i didn't invent it is irrelevant.

Most of the reasons why atheists are angry about religion can be found here: http://www.secularism.org.uk/media-round-up.html

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases ]and here[/url]

All blind belief is bad, whether it is in religion, atheism or politics. The problem with many Angry Atheists is that they do not really understand the arguments they are reading.

Some (not all) of Richard Dawkins arguments are just as fatuous as the religious doctrine he is trying to de-bunk - he has become a personality cult in his own right.

To dip into gratuitous philosophy, sadly, human society is defined by a group of people with common beliefs (at least goals and methods, which sort of equate to beliefs). Therefore we will always be saddled with either politics or religion. While we form tribes, people will want to join one or another of them. Some of these people will not have thought through their reasons, beyond wanting to fit in. They are the blind believers, from whom the zealots will be drawn. And so it goes.

Depressing, but that is what i believe. 😉

[url= http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please ]Hey Atheists, Just Shut Up Please[/url][vice]
This is, for me, the perfect internet atheist vitriol.

And along came Islam.

Junkyard - Member

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

GMB.ORG.UK "http://www.gmb.org.uk/pdf/Struture+diagram+2010.pdf"

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

I'm in alright, DD from salary, Union letters to the house

never a ballot paper for an offical nor an invite to a meeting to elect one

no consultation on sponsorship of an ice hockey team, not exactly a sport where "inclusion" is the first thing you would think of. I wonder who gets to eat the prawn sandwiches at home games?

democracy?

I struggle with long sentences, but atheists who define themselves (and people who define atheists) based on the principles of what they oppose is plain dumb.

of course it does but having the word of god telling you they are an abomination is possibly casual in the cardinals views of homosexuality and same sex marriage.

In some cases perhaps, but there are many atheist homophobes and plenty of non-homophobic christians. So it's fairly clear that it's not quite as simple as you make out.

The problem with many Angry Atheists is that they do not really understand the arguments they are reading.

Quite. The commonest atheist argument (on here at least) is about refuting creationism. That's all well and good, but there's obviously an awful lot more to religion than creationism. Obvious, and very significant but it's still dismissed quite readily by militant atheists, because it's a lot harder to trash religion if you consider it a simply spiritual issue. As many many religious people do.

never a ballot paper for an offical nor an invite to a meeting to elect one

For a ballot to be called someone has to oppose the sitting official, this usually requires a seconder and one or two other proposers/supporters.

If the re-election is not being publicised then you should read up on the rule-book and find out when the next election is supposed to be. If you don't take an active interest in branch activities it would be inappropriate to complain when things are not run correctly. It's a bit like Westminster politics, fail to engage and you get a shower who carve things up for their own ends.

it's a lot harder to trash religion if you consider it a simply spiritual issue. As many many religious people do.

Indeed 🙂

The commonest atheist argument (on here at least) is about refuting creationism.

Well you are the only one whose mentioned it on this thread.

because it's a lot harder to trash religion if you consider it a simply spiritual issue. As many many religious people do.

Not really no. Most of the objections that I and others have concerns the position of privilige currently enjoyed by religion in our society. Your beliefs be they based on a pasta monster, an invisible tea pot, zombies or canabilism are entirely your own affair and you are welcome to them. When you start to impose them on others or claim special treatment is when many people start to object.

Logically fallacious arguements don't help your cause either.

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

I am amazed (and somewhat perturbed) than anyone genuinely believes this.

because it's a lot harder to trash religion if you consider it a simply spiritual issue. As many many religious people do.

For a ballot to be called someone has to oppose the sitting official, this usually requires a seconder and one or two other proposers/supporters.

If you don't take an active interest in branch activities it would be inappropriate to complain when things are not run correctly.

maybe they could spend some of the £100K+ p.a. spent sponsoring an ice hockey team on communicating with their members

it must be really expensive to set up an email list, send out a monthly update etc. It's not as if they don't know where I am they write to me often enough....

dogtiredandwired - Member

Some (not all) of Richard Dawkins arguments are just as fatuous

Perhaps you would care to grace us with an example.

When you start to impose them on others or claim special treatment is when many people start to object

Hmm.. yes this comes up a lot. I am not entirely convinced that such privileges are widely handed out though.

The heads of the church deserve to be listened to because they represent a large group of people. As do trade union leaders, hence my above comment. Personally, I would hope someone's also listening to Sustrans and the CTC too.

As for the imposition of beliefs on others - when does that happen? I've been approached by people trying to convert me, and trying to get me to go to their church. I've also been approached by people tempting me to go to their restaurant or buy a VW. Not an issue for me, and I don't see a difference. Also I don't think religious people get state backing for this - do they?

However I would object if for example a religious group was given special access to say, a school, to try and convert my kids. If it happens to me then I will indeed object.

So..... how many of us are celebrating Christmas/Easter/Whitsun? (Yes, I'm aware that they have pagan roots, but I doubt many of us don our robes, long hair and go frolic amongst the stones whilst feasting on cream eggs et al).

ANY form of extremism is quite frankly, tedious and does little to serve anyone or anything, including the extremists.

I tend to agree towards disliking religion, in the same way that I dislike the way the United States is governed. It's the outdated administration of belief systems if you like.

However, I'm deeply Spiritual. Perhaps the DoE could think about breaking into the 21st Century and rethink the syllabus and rename it at the same time?

FWIW, the New Testament is a very good 'how to live your life' book, just remember that the stories were told by travelling storytellers who had to embellish their tales of wonder in order to get fed/bed or not stoned outta the village.

As far as whether it can be categorically proven that there is, or is not, a God... Looks like we'll just have to wait until we leave our mortal bonds. I for one am looking forward to finding out.

How about you? Or does the idea of this planet existing without you feel disturbing in some way?

The heads of the church deserve to be listened to because they represent a large group of people. As do trade union leaders, hence my above comment. Personally, I would hope someone's also listening to Sustrans and the CTC too.

I'm pretty sure the heads of Sustrans and CTC aren't automatically given seats in the House Of Lords.

However, I'm deeply Spiritual.

What does that actually mean?

slackalice - Member

So..... how many of us are celebrating Christmas/Easter/Whitsun? (Yes, I'm aware that they have pagan roots, but I doubt many of us don our robes, long hair and go frolic amongst the stones whilst feasting on cream eggs et al).

Heh. How many of us practice a christian chrismas/easter? I don't put on my druidic robes, but neither do I go to church (well- occasionally I do, for the candlelit late night service, purely because it's kinda cool.)

I eat chocolate eggs because chocolate is pretty damn tasty, not for any tenuous miraculous connotation.

When you start to impose them on others or claim special treatment is when many people start to object

.

The heads of the church deserve to be listened to because they represent a large group of people.

Plenty of catholics and CoE are perfectly fine about gay marriage, the head guys are still kicking up a fuss tho.

SO how exactly are they representing this large group of people, they weren't even voted in by the plebs who actually bolster the congregation numbers. Maybe if religious leaders want a say they should have to get their members to vote on it, a la union action?

Big n daft your union sounds shite but it's not atheisms fault 🙂

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

I am amazed (and somewhat perturbed) than anyone genuinely believes this.

+1

With thanks to the BACP, [url= http://www.bacp.co.uk/ethical_framework/ ]these[/url]

However, I'm deeply Spiritual.

I am not entirely convinced that such privileges are widely handed out though.

Well the catholic church (amongst others) in scotland seems to think that it's opinions matter when it comes to the matter of gay marriage to the point that they have cut off contact. Why their thoughts are sought never mind considered is beyond me. This is also an example of them trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Privilege such as this is generally so deeply ingrained that it is difficult to see from the inside. It is analagous to the privilege that I have of being white and male. It's the default setting in this country and not matter what I am privileged as a result.

The heads of the church deserve to be listened to because they represent a large group of people.

This would be more convincing if the large group of people in question had chosen who "represents" them.

I'm pretty sure the heads of Sustrans and CTC aren't automatically given seats in the House Of Lords.

Ah yes.. that House of Lords. Who DOES deserve a seat there then?

Well the catholic church (amongst others) in scotland seems to think that it's opinions matter when it comes to the matter of gay marriage to the point that they have cut off contact.

With whom have they cut off contact?

Maybe if religious leaders want a say they should have to get their members to vote on it, a la union action?

An internal matter for an organisation of which membership is voluntary. And which does not concern me.

molgrip's statement was about atheism (lack of belief in god) and the arguments atheists hold.
The two are different issues and should not be so casually linked together, lest threads like these arise.

Good point Scuzz, but we do seem to have strayed into disestablishmentarianism 🙂

Good question Mr Woppit, thanks 🙂

Without wanting to get shot down/[s]stoned[/s] pelted with rocks by the assembled hoards...

My definition is personal to me, however If I were to put it succinctly, the Universe exists because it has a will to exist and that will is founded on an infinite amount of unconditional love.

I also believe in life between lives

The heads of the church deserve to be listened to because they represent a large group of people.

And those people already have votes. Why should their opinions have more weight than the irreligious? Or the differently religious?

he Universe exists because it has a will to exist

Presumably, you are using "will" in this case to mean the product of self-concious intelligence.

So the universe is a self-concious entity that has willed itself into being.

Do you have some evidence of this? And can you explain how something that does not yet exist can excercise a "will"?

If so, your Nobel Prize awaits.

PS: ... and what is it about these thoughts that makes them "spiritual", exactly?

With whom have they cut off contact?

The scottish parilament

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19305232

In this report it says it only relates to gay marriage, in others the extent of the "boycott" for want of a better term is less clear.

Do you have some evidence of this?

Does he need any? He's not trying to convince anyone of anything he he?

Why should their opinions have more weight than the irreligious?

Do they? It's not like the church is the only lobby group, is it? Trade union members also seem to have more influence than one vote would allow.

With whom have they cut off contact?

The scottish parilament

Again, I don't see how that matters. A membership based organisation not talking to the government.

Oh dear 🙄

I'll gladly provide you with a reading list. Please PM me

Try to lose the human conditioning in the thought process too 😉

Again, I don't see how that matters. An organisation that doesn't matter to me not talking to someone.

You questioned whether or not there really was religious privilege in this country and I provided a recent example of that privilege. The fact that it doesn't matter [i]to you[/i] is irrelevant it remains an example of the priviliged position held by religion in this country.

I also believe in life between lives

Genuine question - is that a form of reincarnation concept or multiverse theory or a 'resting' place until the next incarnation?

You could start with 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra

He considers the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism.

[quote=molgrips ]Good point Scuzz, but we do seem to have strayed into disestablishmentarianism Meh. How many times has the chance to use that word come up on this forum?
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

Rogerthecat - refer to Dr Michael Newton 'Journey of Souls' Excellent mind opening read and he has 2 other publications along the same lines.

I'm not talking to the Scottish government either.

Hey Mr Woppit

While you're at it, here's a couple more:

'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart

[url= http://www.metaphysics-for-life.com/zero-point.html ]Zero point field[/url]

Happy days 😀

You questioned whether or not there really was religious privilege in this country and I provided a recent example of that privilege.

Sorry.. not following. You're saying that their ability to talk to the government is the privilege? That is a privilege yes, but it's not unique to religious groups.

Slackalice.. there is some wolly-arsed pseudoscience on that link!

great isn't it?!!!! 😀

But then again, it's my world/my universe and I'll do any amount of wooly-ness I like that helps me spread a little LOVE!!

peace out bikers!! 8)

Slackalice ... soulful 8)

molgrips - Member

Do they? It's not like the church is the only lobby group, is it? Trade union members also seem to have more influence than one vote would allow.

There's a wee bit of a difference between being a lobby group, and being in the House of Lords.

Trade Unionists sometimes make it to the House of Lords too.....
____________________________________

Hi GW - * waves *

He considers the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism

There is a hypothesis beloved by the "open minded", that the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a "spiritual" relationship with the star constellation of "Drago" because if you draw lines between "cardinal points" on the building and then repeat the exercise with the star constellation in question, they match! Wow. Amazing. Must "mean" something, eh? Maybe the building was erected by ancient mystics who knew something about the star constellation that we don't because the "higher wisdom" has been lost. Or perhaps in ancient days, aliens.... etc etc etc.

If you select cardinal points in the modern City of New York (Penn Street station, the Empire State Building, Central Park and so on), then draw connecting lines, it matches the same image that you get if you connect the stars of the constellation of "Leo"! Wow. Amazing. Must "mean" something, eh? Maybe the building was erected by... and so on.

If you can't see how you are being bamboozled by the writing of flim-flam artists and nitwits, you will not understand why your "beliefs" are nonsense.

Anyway - have a nice day and don't fall down any holes in the road.

Wopptit ... soulless

And what do you mean by that, exactly? (Having responded not with a counter-argument, but resorted to some sort of accusation...).

slackalice - Member

Rogerthecat - refer to Dr Michael Newton 'Journey of Souls' Excellent mind opening read and he has 2 other publications along the same lines.

Well there's 10 mins of my life I'll never get back - I'll park that over on the shelf with the crystal healing and magic memory water - but thanks for the link.

If you select cardinal points in the modern City of New York (Penn Street station, the Empire State Building, Central Park and so on), then draw connecting lines, it matches the same image that you get if you connect the stars of the constellation of "Leo"! Wow. Amazing. Must "mean" something, eh? Maybe the building was erected by... and so on.

Don't forget all those Woolworths stores that are built on perfect straight lines. Aliens, I tell ya!

You're saying that their ability to talk to the government is the privilege?

To be included in direct discussions with the first minister for no reason beyond your position in a religious organisation is most definately a privilege.

There is a hypothesis beloved by the "open minded", that the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a "spiritual" relationship with the star constellation of "Drago" because if you draw lines between "cardinal points" on the building and then repeat the exercise with the star constellation in question, they match!

I know you are a non- believer. But in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World has a lot to answer for IMO.

Mr Woppit

I forgive you for your damning of my personal beliefs, I am sure that you are a kind and loving and open minded person.

I refer you to my earlier post:

But then again, it's my world/my universe and I'll do any amount of wooly-ness I like that helps me spread a little LOVE!!

I also reserve the right to change them any time I choose - go figure that one 😆

I am not questioning yours if you have any, or anyone else's belief's, please accept that I have mine and I'm VERY happy with them. 😀

So the universe is a self-concious entity that has willed itself into being.

in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

... and it's a three-dimensional arrangement, not a flat image. But of course, during the days of the ancient wisdoms, before the invention of computers, the stars were all stuck onto a flat surface, as any fule kno.

it's my world/my universe and I'll do any amount of wooly-ness I like that helps me spread a little LOVE!!

Amen. That's what I've been trying to argue for the last dozen or so STW religion threads.

But in an expanding universe how can that theory ever hold water, the points in space are ever changing in relation to one another, whereas the building is pretty much a fixed structure?

You really want to talk about cosmology? There's a big difference between questions that have no answer and therefore expose limitations in modern science, and [i]questions to which you do not know the correct answer[/i].

Just your normal charmless comments/stories.

Negative ALL the time.

So yeah .... soulless.... shame.

PS spacetime itself is expanding, but not evenly all over I don't think.

ooops.... double post

Except to say... Ro5ey, thank you 8)

So yeah .... soulless

Far from it.

I am not questioning yours if you have any, or anyone else's belief's, please accept that I have mine and I'm VERY happy with them.

Of course I accept that you have them, but if all you can do in their defense is to say that although you know they are "woolly", you use them to spread "love", then I'm not impressed.

1: You have adopted beliefs that you know, or at least suspect, are wrong.

2: You try to convince strangers that you know nothing about and have never met, on a website forum, that you "love" them. This sounds like some sort of neurotic displacement activity to me.

I don't love you. I don't hate you, either. I just expect more challenging responses that are actually related to my various points.

druidh - Member

Trade Unionists sometimes make it to the House of Lords too.....

Aye- and so do other religious people, but there not Lords Union as there are Lords Spiritual Temporal, and they're not there specifically to represent a Union. As you well know 😉

Ro5ey - Member

Just your normal charmless comments/stories.

Negative ALL the time.

So yeah .... soulless.... shame.

So, you don't have any actual points of discussion, just some sort of attempt at character assassination. THIS is from someone who has a "soul" (whatever that is).

Of course my argument sounds negative to you - I don't agree with your claims. I don't know why you find this so unusual.

Sorry Mols ... not you dude.

You have adopted beliefs that you know, or at least suspect, are wrong.

2: You try to convince strangers that you know nothing about and have never met, on a website forum, that you "love" them. This sounds like some sort of neurotic displacement activity to me.

For these points to matter, you're assuming that these activities are in some way wrong. Kant, is ought and all that:
How are they wrong?

woppit are you clearly stating there is no god, no higher power, no after life, no spiritualistic eternal existence and then complaining about someone stating you have no soul?

really?

Ro5ey - Member

Sorry Mols ... not you dude.

Me, presumably. Care to explain how such a "soulfull" person can descend so rapidly from discussing the subject into morbid accusations of character defect?

 

Interesting stuff Mr Woppit

If I told you the basis of my beliefs, here is not the place, how about we go for a ride?

1. They are right for me

2.I'm not trying to convince anyone, you asked, I provided you with an opportunity to find out where I am in my journey.

3. Here is an interesting point. How do you define love?

I define it in 2 ways:
1. The cathexis - an object of desire
2. The will to extend oneself for the purpose of nuturing one's own or another's spiritual and personal growth
(with thanks to M Scott Peck)

I'll let you work out which one I endeavour to live by. 😀

No claims from me and no need for discussion on the point of someone posted a heartfelt belief that you rubbished.... charmless.

how about we go for a ride?

No thank you.

edited: don't want to add to any offense.

Ro5ey - Member

No claims from me and no need for discussion on the point of someone posted a heartfelt belief that you rubbished.... charmless.

If you want robust discussion on controversial subjects, let's have one.

If you want to express hurt because your holy flower of universal love has been tarnished by the nasty man who seems impervious to being moved by the universal spirit of one-ness, stay away. That's my advice, anyway.