Topic: Atheist Bus coming to a stop near you...

[Rafas Tapas]

This begs an interesting question. Why do you believe what you believe? I mean, if as a "modern day catholic", you accept some of your church's teachings but not others, isn't it really all down to your conscience, rather than what your church teaches? If you can accept one rule but not another, then you're really just picking and choosing what suits you, which gives lie to the idea that any of it is handed down from above, so to speak. For example, if you don't trust your church to guide you correctly on contraception, do you trust them to guide you on anything?

I agree with you - this is an interesting question.  To relate it back to the general atheism v theism debate, I am a Catholic because I was born into a particular family at a particular time and I was baptized as such - and I have chosen not to leave.  I don't kid myself: if I'd been born in Saudi Arabia or Senegal or wherever I'm sure I would be a Muslim, in India a Hindu, in Thailand a Buddhist etc etc.

So my answer to your question involves carts and horses: I retain a belief in God (not an unquestioning belief, by the way, I admit the possibility that there is no God) and therefore remain in the RC Church while recognizing its many imperfections.  My belief is intuitive or even innate; as far as I can tell I do not believe simply because I am told to by the Church or anybody else.  But who knows, I might be wrong: maybe I have been led astray, or maybe deep down I'm just playing Pascal's Wager.

I suppose this sounds tentative or wishy-washy but I'm not apologizing for that, since I think certainty on this question - either way - is impossible.
 
 

[Rafas Tapas]

isn't it really all down to your conscience, rather than what your church teaches? If you can accept one rule but not another, then you're really just picking and choosing what suits you

By the way there is a world of difference between following your conscience and "picking and choosing what suits you".

[corkboy]

Well then we've come full circle.  The poll doesn't always make it clear, but I'd go with you as far as for the respondents of this poll then it is better to have any religion than to be anti-religion. 

Had to pop that in, didn't you? The poll didn't say "anti religion", it said atheist. It's the respondents who seem to equate one with the other. Maybe they're right, of course, but that wasn't the question they were asked.

I've said before in this thread that there are atheists out there (and I'm one of 'em) who think that religion should not have the influence that it does have, so maybe that's the threat these respondents perceive.

[corkboy]

I suppose this sounds tentative or wishy-washy but I'm not apologizing for that,

Far from wishy washy, it's one of the most honest and realistic responses I've ever heard from a believer, and you deserve credit for that.

[firing squad]

I'd prefer this as a billboard

yeah right,Islam is only to blame for 9/11,nothing to do with Western(Christian),American led exploiting of the rest of the world.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Far from wishy washy, it's one of the most honest and realistic responses I've ever heard from a believer, and you deserve credit for that.

I enjoyed that too. It resonated nicely with a newspaper article about the CofE that I read once. The writer was described his conversion as a general dissatisfaction with certain things which led to going to his local church a few times, after which he "decided to believe".  Not true for all I'm sure but a nice description.

[yorkykopite]

I'm repeating myself here: modern day Catholics are not blind followers of the Pope.

They will be if they ignore the rules and keep on wanking though.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Had to pop that in, didn't you? The poll didn't say "anti religion", it said atheist. It's the respondents who seem to equate one with the other. Maybe they're right, of course, but that wasn't the question they were asked.

I've said before in this thread that there are atheists out there (and I'm one of 'em) who think that religion should not have the influence that it does have, so maybe that's the threat these respondents perceive.

Well it is the nub of it isn't it.  The problem is with the word atheist really, it has many definitions. The main distinction is between Strong Atheists who explicitly affirm that Gods do not exist and Weak Atheists which is essentially the rest of us non-theists.  I think, that largely thanks to Dawkins / Grayling and their ilk most theists (or at least western Christians) now most closely associate Atheism with Strong Atheism and are resistant to it as a result.

This has essentially been the main thrust of my arguments in most of these threads in the last three years of RAWK, whereas I am as committed as yourself and Yorky to the type of rational, secular societies that we want to live in, I believe that Dawkins and Grayling are actually damaging that cause rather than helping it.

[corkboy]

Well it is the nub of it isn't it.  The problem is with the word atheist really, it has many definitions. The main distinction is between Strong Atheists who explicitly affirm that Gods do not exist and Weak Atheists which is essentially the rest of us non-theists.  I think, that largely thanks to Dawkins / Grayling and their ilk most theists (or at least western Christians) now most closely associate Atheism with Strong Atheism and are resistant to it as a result.

You seem to know more about Dawkins' views than I do, but I have never met one atheist who "explicitly affirms that gods do not exist". In fact, any atheist that did would be a fucking idiot. It's not a proposition which is capable of explicit affirmation one way or the other.

I can say it is extremely unlikely, on all the evidence, but by no means definite.

[Rafas Tapas]

They will be if they ignore the rules and keep on wanking though.

 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

You seem to know more about Dawkins' views than I do, but I have never met one atheist who "explicitly affirms that gods do not exist". In fact, any atheist that did would be a fucking idiot. It's not a proposition which is capable of explicit affirmation one way or the other.

I can say it is extremely unlikely, on all the evidence, but by no means definite.

Well they did want to put "There is no god" on the sides of those buses.

[corkboy]

Well they did want to put "There is no god" on the sides of those buses.

As myself and Dannyboysdad agreed earlier, the American ones were much better.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

As myself and Dannyboysdad agreed earlier, the American ones were much better.

Well I'd agree with you both.

So just what is "goodness" then

[DowntheLine1981]

DTL. You were right. It was off topic and you have also posted exactly the same thing before in this thread.  Nobody nibbled at your stunning destruction of your own straw men that time either. 

Sorry de Mayo, but I did say it was off topic.  Its just something that I read in the Metro (concerning the subject of the threads topic) and wanted to address it.  Is that a crime?

And yes, I have mentioned it in other threads, but then again, in other threads (including this one) certain RAWK posters do tend to whiz in with the arguement that atheism is immoral because 'Hiter was one'.  As an atheist this gets on my tits, as it makes no sense and has no basis in fact even if true.

[Danny Boys Dad]

I like the way that those US ads ask people why they should believe in God but dress someone up as Santa 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Sorry de Mayo, but I did say it was off topic.  Its just something that I read in the Metro (concerning the subject of the threads topic) and wanted to address it.  Is that a crime?

And yes, I have mentioned it in other threads, but then again, in other threads (including this one) certain RAWK posters do tend to whiz in with the arguement that atheism is immoral because 'Hiter was one'.  As an atheist this gets on my tits, as it makes no sense and has no basis in fact even if true.

If it were in other threads it would be fine, but it was the second time you'd mentioned it in THIS thread. Here's the previous one:

Oh, and there has never been one documented instance where an atheist has committed a crime IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.  Ever.  Yes Stalin may have been an atheist, but he committed his atrocities not for atheistic or humanistic reasons, but for his own political ends.  Let’s not keep bringing him up as an example of the so called 'immorality' of atheists.  It’s a bad example (Hitler was born a Catholic by the way and was interested in the occult.)

In both cases it was an off-topic destruction of your own straw man argument and in each case it was rightly ignored. The shot across the bows was to try and stop you posting the same thing a third time. It failed clearly.

Can you show me where someone in this thread has said "atheism is immoral because 'Hitler was one'? 

[DowntheLine1981]

Well it is the nub of it isn't it.  The problem is with the word atheist really, it has many definitions. The main distinction is between Strong Atheists who explicitly affirm that Gods do not exist and Weak Atheists which is essentially the rest of us non-theists. 

Raised an interesting point, and one which I've been pondering on for a while (I think Corkboy touched on this as well).

The word 'atheist' is a somewhat loaded term, as is 'non-theist', as it encourages a sense of 'other'.  You are a believer or a non-believer.  Two different classifications, which one defining itself by asserting that it is 'other' than than the term believer.  'Humanist' seems to be a better term, but as humanists can also contain people who are spiritual then some atheists won't classify themselves as one (although come to think of it, why do people need to classify themselves as anything?)  'Rationalist' is loaded to, as it implies that people who believe are irrational and thus is insulting.  'Anti-theist' doesn't wash, as most atheists I know don't actually hate religion - or actually campaign against it - they simply either don't get it or have made a critical decision not to partake in it.

As the poll indicates, there is a lot of mistrust in the US (and possibly in Britain) regarding atheists.  Could this be addressed by re-examining 'atheist'?

[DowntheLine1981]

True, but I always feel a bit weird reading the Guardian or the Times on the bus.  Don't know why, but I defo feel self-concious.

As for the shot across the bows, point taken.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

DTL and Corky (and anyone else who fancies it).  If you were filling in a census type thing and came across:

Religion: ________________

What would you put?

[corkboy]

DTL and Corky (and anyone else who fancies it).  If you were filling in a census type thing and came across:

Religion: ________________

What would you put?

None. That's what I always put. They usually give you that option.

[DowntheLine1981]

DTL and Corky (and anyone else who fancies it).  If you were filling in a census type thing and came across:

Religion: ________________

What would you put?

Atheist.  Purely as that term seems to be the one given.  Not happy with it though.


Having said though, during the last UK census, I was one of the nobheads who put down 'Jedi'.  Makes be cringe now when I think of it.

Supposed a question mark would be more accurate..eg:

Religion: ?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I put "None" also.

You see I perceive there to be a difference in position between entering "None" and entering "Atheist".  With "Atheist" definitely being the stronger / harder position of the two.  Which is back to my take on the results of that US poll you posted Corkboy.

[corkboy]

I put "None" also.

You see I perceive there to be a difference in position between entering "None" and entering "Atheist".  With "Atheist" definitely being the stronger / harder position of the two.  Which is back to my take on the results of that US poll you posted Corkboy.

And therein lies the difficulty with being activist about the issue. If you genuinely feel religion has too much influence on society and that it should be a personal, private thing, then in order to mobilise support for the position, you need to identify yourself as a group or movement or whatever. In those circumstances, it is difficult to describe yourself without getting people's backs up.

For example, I don't like describing myself as atheist because I think not having religion should be the default position, but "Society for Those Who Believe Religion Should Not Be The Default Position" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Even the word "secular" (which really just means separation of church and state) is used as a pejorative term by the less enlightened members of western society. Like Bill O'Reilly.

In fact, it's worse than I thought. Here's a quote from Newt Gingrich...

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.
" Source

I'm beginning to understand that poll a little better now.

[zero zero]

For example, I don't like describing myself as atheist because I think not having religion should be the default position, but "Society for Those Who Believe Religion Should Not Be The Default Position" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Even the word "secular" (which really just means separation of church and state) is used as a pejorative term by the less enlightened members of western society. Like Bill O'Reilly.

Surely an effective movement would be helped by trying to convince those that actually can be?

A 'secularist' position would be/could be supported by people who have a religion, myself for instance, whereas a being an 'atheist' is a direct challenge to those with 'Theist beliefs'. And easier to reject.

[corkboy]

Surely an effective movement would be helped by trying to convince those that actually can be?

Can be what?

[yorkykopite]

And therein lies the difficulty with being activist about the issue. If you genuinely feel religion has too much influence on society and that it should be a personal, private thing, then in order to mobilise support for the position, you need to identify yourself as a group or movement or whatever. In those circumstances, it is difficult to describe yourself without getting people's backs up.

I agree with this. There does seem to be an implicit assumption on this thread that if you're a non-believer that's ok but, really, you should shut up about it. The merest signs of going public with non-belief, even in an impeccably non-evangelical way, are shouted down as 'militant prosleytising', 'a criminal waste of money and resources', 'shoving atheism in my face' etc.

Get a grip, people. A healthy society should be able to air these questions without feeling threatened and without perpetually questioning the motives of the people who raise them.   

[DowntheLine1981]

Surely an effective movement would be helped by trying to convince those that actually can be?

A 'secularist' position would be/could be supported by people who have a religion, myself for instance, whereas a being an 'atheist' is a direct challenge to those with 'Theist beliefs'. And easier to reject.

Why is being an atheist a direct challange to those with theist beliefs?  And why do most theists see it as a challange?

Why the drawing of battle lines?

Being an atheist doesn't necessary mean that you HATE religion.  Or does it?

Is the atheist/theist debate intrinsicly antagonistic in nature?

[zero zero]

Can be what?

convinced

[zero zero]

Is the atheist/theist debate intrinsicly antagonistic in nature?

It is the way I see it, as they are (obviously) opposites positions. The line kinda draws itself.

[Finn Solomon]

Even the word "secular" (which really just means separation of church and state) is used as a pejorative term by the less enlightened members of western society. Like Bill O'Reilly.

In fact, it's worse than I thought. Here's a quote from Newt Gingrich...

I'm beginning to understand that poll a little better now.

That's an absolutely ridiculous slant from Gingrich, secularism is a value that should be embraced and protected. Isn't the separation of church and state a core American tradition?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I agree with this. There does seem to be an implicit assumption on this thread that if you're a non-believer that's ok but, really, you should shut up about it.

My position is that it's a personal thing so whether you are a believer or not then you should shut up about it anyway.  So guilty as charged Yorky but at least I'm consistent.

As for Corky's original point it is surely possible to be religious but also to support moves to reduce the influence that religion has on our governments.  So why do we need to bring atheism to the party at all.  It's a side issue in what I maintain is essentially a political problem.

[corkboy]

As for Corky's original point it is surely possible to be religious but also to support moves to reduce the influence that religion has on our governments. 

Possible, if you are a sane, responsible individual like our Finn Solomon, but not if you're Newt Gingrich.

[yorkykopite]

My position is that it's a personal thing so whether you are a believer or not then you should shut up about it anyway.  So guilty as charged Yorky but at least I'm consistent.

It is a personal thing - we agree on that. But I'm not as rigid in my definition of 'personal' as you are I think. I tend to oppose 'personal' with 'the State' not with 'the public', which is a very different thing. Because religion ought to be a personal matter only it follows, for me at least, that no religion should have connections to the State or tax-breaks from it. This means disestablishment and it means no religious instruction in schools.

But it doesn't follow that it should be eliminated from the public sphere. Churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdawas, druid incantation centres should all be allowed to drum up business. Their adherents are perfectly entitled to argue their case in public - by hiring Wembley Stadium as Billy Graham used to do or by standing outside Brixton tube (my station) every single day telling us we're all going to hell. So long as there's no public order issue involved I can live with this. It's a small thing.

But by the same token atheists or non-believers or rationalists or humanists (or whatever we want to call them) should be allowed their public space as well, if they want it.

I see that as a good thing. It leads to an active democracy - the cut and thrust of civilised debate. It also allows ideas into the public realm that often wouldn't normally get aired in some families. I'm thinking of a Muslim family in Whitechapel (Jewish in Stamford Hill, RC in Liverpool, baptist in Ebbw Vale etc) where the kids are browbeaten into being devout. What chance have they got to truly make religion/non-religion 'personal' if they never get access to the opposing point of view?   

[Immoral King Brian Blessed]

Why is being an atheist a direct challange to those with theist beliefs?  And why do most theists see it as a challange?

Why the drawing of battle lines?

Being an atheist doesn't necessary mean that you HATE religion.  Or does it?

Is the atheist/theist debate intrinsicly antagonistic in nature?

Being atheist doesn't mean you think all religion is evil, I think that's more an anti-theist approach.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

But by the same token atheists or non-believers or rationalists or humanists (or whatever we want to call them) should be allowed their public space as well, if they want it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should be denied it. I think the bus ad is a waste of money but I'm not attempting to prevent them from doing it.

As for the education thing. Surely religion has to be taught in schools.  Any attempt to educate our children which ignored it would be like trying to educate people about Liverpool FC without mentioning Shankly.

[corkboy]

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should be denied it. I think the bus ad is a waste of money but I'm not attempting to prevent them from doing it.

As for the education thing. Surely religion has to be taught in schools.  Any attempt to educate our children which ignored it would be like trying to educate people about Liverpool FC without mentioning Shankly.

History of religion should be taught, which means you get all the religions, not just the western ones, or even the major ones. In that respect, they would be taught about Shankly, but also Souness. And Sean Dundee.

[yorkykopite]

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should be denied it.

Sorry VdM, I must have misunderstood you when you said

My position is that it's a personal thing so whether you are a believer or not then you should shut up about it anyway.

I thought that was a bit tough on the believers as well as non-believers  .

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Sorry VdM, I must have misunderstood you when you said

That's akin to my feeling that Man Utd supporters should be burnt at the stake.  I still believe it's right and would make for a better world but I'm not about to try and enforce it on everyone.

[Uncle Ronnie]

History of religion should be taught, which means you get all the religions, not just the western ones, or even the major ones. In that respect, they would be taught about Shankly, but also Souness. And Sean Dundee.

Would he be the equivalent of Scientology?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

History of religion should be taught, which means you get all the religions, not just the western ones, or even the major ones. In that respect, they would be taught about Shankly, but also Souness. And Sean Dundee.

Agreed. With two caveats. The history would have to include the beliefs / ethics or it would be pointless.  You only have limited curriculum time so although I agree that all religions should be covered it is logical to spend more time on those that have had the greatest cultural impact on the society in which the children are growing up in.  ie. the same rules that are applied to the teaching of other areas of history.