If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ok, it's not intolerance in the way I think it is then, it's still stupid, and bigoted. You know there are plenty of religious people who also accept other religions - I mean thats basically what sikhism is based on. Of course you get fundamentalists who will use their religion as a conduit of hate, but that is just as common in religion as it is in atheism in my opinion. The reason you can list off more atrocities with religion involved is because more people than not - historically - were religious.
There are no 'sides', it's all in your mind, and it's a dangerous idea at that. The more you believe it, the more other people believe it, and thats when you get two arbitrary groups squaring up and creating that conflict.
I think the worst act of religion-facilitated hate was probably the inquisition but even that wasn't just because of religion, it was because of in no small part politics.
Sorry I've probably come across all wrong. I believe Atheists no doubt have complicated beliefs, but I think it's hypocritical to form groups to preach beliefs when there is no 'atheist bible' or some such, such as a doctrine or way of life they can share. Because that's just what religion is.
Your personal beliefs are no more or less valid than anybody elses of course, and anyone has the right to put whatever signs up they want. But if you are religious you have a collective belief and a justification to do so. If you are not religious then you don't need to convert people.
Like I said, I myself am probably atheist though the definitions are pretty narrow really - I just believe everyone has the right to free expression and belief. If you want to tell people to join your group, fair enough, but some atheists are too sensitive it seems and want to tell people to leave everyone elses group and not be in a group.
Kind of like running a political campaign to vote for nobody.. what's the point
lolwut
To me, it's not particularly about the beliefs, it's the way the person has come to them. So for example, one person could be anti-immigration after years of studying the subject academically, and another person could be anti-immigration because of an article they read in The Sun. Which is deserving of more respect? I'm quite clear which one it is: the one based on rational factual analysis. I don't have to agree, but it's up to you to then put your counter reasons. Either way, neither should be deserving of so much respect that it's considered offensive to even question it in polite conversation, like is the case with certain religions, or that "it's my religious beliefs" is consider a valid reason worthy of respect. What does that even mean? Is "I don't really like black people" a respectable reason to refuse to serve a black person in your job? If not, then why is "It's against my religion" a valid reason protected by law for getting out of other roles? Of course you shouldn't just be a dick to anyone with religious beliefs, but when they choose to bring them into the public arena, they can't then complain of "intolerance" when they're ridiculed. As far as religion is concerned, intolerance seems to just mean criticising it, or bizarrely, arguing against people with particular beliefs being given special treatment. And just to clarify, that's secularism, not atheism.
Beliefs can be validated with empirical proof or a priori knowledge. Thats where the hilarity in debates about theism and atheism comes from, we often just don't know for certain.
So given that you think intolerance is only linked to action not words I assume you're going to go back on your beleif the BNP should be banned. After all they're only saying things...
And frankly religion can't force you to do anything in the UK or any Western country . 99% of the time they have the same powers as you or me (with the exception of some Anglican Bishops being in the HoL, so few as to have not made a difference in any vote for years - especially as they don't neccessarily vote as a bloc)
trust me that ain't true. I can remember as a kid our Minister continually preaching against intolerance, a Minister in the church a few miles away got a bullet through the post so successfully did he rail at it. In fact it was the churches which often made attempts to bring us together.
same with Bos - which makes Northern Ireland look like sunny Hampstead - the intolerance wasn't religous led, the majority on all sides were pretty agnostic at best
Yes, but not all the second group are religous and a fair chunk of the first group are. And there are plenty of atheists are in each group....
Well not all dictators destroy the church, you're right. Hitler killed those elements of the church he was hostile to and allied (or at least tolerated) the remainder.
However, in other cases there is a 'theological' disagreement which leads to killing. i can't see the Lenin and the Church as anything but - over time that may give way to a pragmatic acceptance of the Church once it knows its place or because the people feel more attachment to it than they do you (Stalin and Orthodox). this may be allied to various repressive measures, of course, which fall short of shooting every priest.
But that's often the same in religion, which is why despite the Catholic Church being banned under Henry there are still plenty of Catholics in this country
I particularly like this: from the chair of Christian Voice
:yes:
Ridiculous
I prefer this: from Richard Dawkins.
What I said was a response to the idea that it's ok for atheists to have a low opinion of religious people as long as they're not persecuting them. I don't think it's acceptable for anybody to think they're completely right about everything, especially when it comes to things like how the earth was made and what happens when we die, because we don't know the answers. Atheists have as much right to their opinion as anyone else, and should have the right to advertise if they want to.
Subtext - if you don't agree with me you're stupid*
And people wonder why I see in atheism the mirror image of religion (without the hymns)
That said none of these people strike me as men who didn't think...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
* to be fair most of us probably think that though we're seldom so arrogant to be so blunt about it
But anyway, Dawkins is correct on the whole though. Rates of religiosity reduces as education levels increase. That's undeniable.
Surely you know it's not as simple as that. It is because of religion and religious beliefs that euthanasia is not legal, or that full embryo research is not yet a reality and might in the future be scrapped, or that gay rights are still having to be fought hard. I have nothing against people not approving of such things, but that doesn't mean they have to vote against them and try to make them unavailable for others. Yet many of them continue to do so.
If some people want to believe it is wrong to end my own life or ask others to do it for me, because only "God" can do that, fine. Let them believe I'm going to hell. But when they fight hard to stop me and others from having that option, that's when unacceptable interference takes place. All we ask is that they keep their beliefs to themselves and let us make our own decisions. I don't think its a lot to ask.
This is what puts me off associating with some atheists, as well as reading the New Humanist. The whole "you're an idiot" or "you're wrong unless you're an atheist" reeks of the same smugness as "you're wrong unless you believe in my god/s/ess".
Freedom of speech and all, but religion ain't gonna go away and I think that the message on a bus is kind of sniping at people who hold different beliefs when we should be listening to each other rather than dividing.
CS Lewis was someone who's thought processes led him to religion - he was born into an Anglican family, but lost religion when his Mom died and he went to private school. However, his later thinking about religion and whether there was a God did lead him back into Anglicanism (to the dissapointment of his staunchly Catholic friend Tolkien).
I'm prepared to accept that rates of religious observance decrease with education, however I take issue with the argument that it's as simple as intelligent people don't believe in God* or that intelligent thought is the enemy of religion. The enemy of religion isn't atheism, it's ill thought out agnosticism (ie people who just don't care one way or the other).
(* any more than I'd accept the argument that because because better educated people vote Tory, voting Tory is sign of intelligence. Both cases atheism and religion may be correct, but there could be other factors. For example in the Tory argument it's also true that better educated people are paid more and people who are paid more are likely to vote Tory).
From some of the reactions I've heard either on message boards or on the press, it would seem to me that some people are suggesting is perfectly okay for religious people advertise the existence of God, but non-religious people advertising the probable non-existance of it are somehow aggresive, militant or intolerant.
Thank fuck the advert didn't say "there is no God" (without the word 'probably') or there'd have been a massive outcry if not a ban on the adverts (despite the religious lot categorically stating that there is a God on a daily basis without any protestation).
And we are the intolerant ones? LOL!
I'm sorry Namaste but if you believe the adverts are divisive and wrong, then you must believe adverts placed by religious groups are exactly that too.
Really I didn't know that, perhaps because I'm against euthanasia and my being against it has nothing to do with my non-existent religion. I'm also not sure whether I support embryo research either (whereas my wife who goes to Church most Sundays and works in medical research is very supportive of it). Come to that when she was pregnant with our first ones, she was also willing to discuss whether we were ready and if not whether she should have an abortion.
Some of the most homophobic people I met wouldn't have known the inside of the church - there homophobia was much more viscreal and rooted in a view that it was unnatural and wrong for men to have sex with other men and had nothing to do with what was said in a book they'd never read.
It's also the pot calling the kettle black - when they religous people try and say how they want society to be run its 'unacceptable interference' when you say how you want society ran its expressing your opinion.
They're not divisive - any more than adverts to go to Chruch are (in both cases I think they're a waste of money - but it's not coming from my taxes so it's there money to do with as they like).
Just because one group of people can come off as agressive, intolerant or preachy as some Christians (and other groups) can does not give other groups the same right.
Personally I don't give a shit what other people think... Just don't preach your shit at me from the side of buses and tell me I am wrong... Because as somebody who isn't an atheist, but also not a Christian, I find them both as patronising as each other... To be told I some how cannot be happy, or am inferior in some way.
People do not need to be told how to feel about spirituality, doing this creates division.
Fuck's sake... All as bad as each other in concept. I think a lot of people should get off their high horses and live and let live.
One might even believe that entity is still alive, and actually is more or less the God described by one of the many beliefs held on this one planet.
However, with a few exceptions, the more a person believes in the literal interpretation of the various holy books, the less intelligent they are likely to be. There are exceptions of course, and there might be explanations for some of the others. It's possible for a person to be reasonably intelligent in some areas but rather ignorant and irrational in others. I suspect in many cases an indoctrination to religion from early childhood simply proves too strong to shake off. But having said all of that, it becomes rather difficult to describe a person who believes, for instance, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, as intelligent.
I would say the same for any advert saying "god exists" and then somehow assumes that not having a faith in God somehow means you can't be happy, which is what the ad suggests.
I'd agree -I'm taking issue with your belief they're divisive, because they're not
The funniest part of the Christian Voice statement about this story was the bit where they said "people don't liked being preached to". You really couldn't make it up...
But that's a different argument one against fundametalism, rather than against religion - I'm not sure any of the major Christian religions accepts the literal truth of Genesis. There are some fundamentalist groups who do - such as the wee frees or some of the US Baptist groups, but it's not mainstream Christian thought any more. And I suspect the mainstream find the wee frees et al as irritating as you do...
I just stated my belief in the above paragraph.
Religion or lack thereof, learn some humility.