Atheism

[colpepper1]

But aren't we going slightly OT...?

Immediately, as usual.
There's not a lot to say to atheists who claim they're a downtrodden and misunderstood minority. No you're not, tends not to work IME. The established church in the UK doesn't float my boat either, but my response is not to give a damn.

The same with royalism, on the one hand it's absurd that majesty is handed down from robber barons hundreds of years ago, via a little corporate integration through marriage. OTOH it kind of muddles along and my role as 'subject' varies little from European friends who are citizens. I may get worked up about it if I thought too much, but that would be to engage in ostentatious outrage, not a desire to right a pressing wrong.

To overthrow any status quo by revolutionary means, you have to be damn sure the baby isn't going out with the bathwater, and all see is old guys in frocks and funny hats. I wouldn't begin from that point if we were starting out, but it doesn't effect me one iota. That's not conservatism, it's pragmatism.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Again, more anti-atheist propaganda.

No atheists are claiming to be a downtrodden minority, any more than any of them are militant.

Stop misrepresenting the atheist position!

I've given clear examples as to why I do give a damn about the C of E in the UK - persecution of homosexuals and discrimination against women is rife within the established church and I object to it having a voice in my supposedly democratic parliament. I'm equally against the secular part of the house of Lords in its current form, and for similar reasons, I also voice my objections over that.

You may choose to not give a damn about things that you consider wrong - whatever pleases you. But don't then get on your high horse about people who do want to argue against things they consider are wrong. I'd rather be in the latter camp when history evaluates my worth to society, even if I argued on a losing side.

Are you going to peddle this anti-atheist agenda of yours somewhere else Colpepper, because I don't think this is a suitable place for it, and it's incredibly ironic you are pushing it here, whilst accusing atheists (who are only defending themselves against your repeatedly corrected allegations) of rallying to this thread.

 

[colpepper1]

Again, more anti-atheist propaganda.

No atheists are claiming to be a downtrodden minority, any more than any of them are militant.

Stop misrepresenting the atheist position!

I've given clear examples as to why I do give a damn about the C of E in the UK - persecution of homosexuals and discrimination against women is rife within the established church and I object to it having a voice in my supposedly democratic parliament. I'm equally against the secular part of the house of Lords in its current form, and for similar reasons, I also voice my objections over that.

You may choose to not give a damn about things that you consider wrong - whatever pleases you. But don't then get on your high horse about people who do want to argue against things they consider are wrong. I'd rather be in the latter camp when history evaluates my worth to society, even if I argued on a losing side.

Are you going to peddle this anti-atheist agenda of yours somewhere else Colpepper, because I don't think this is a suitable place for it, and it's incredibly ironic you are pushing it here, whilst accusing atheists (who are only defending themselves against your repeatedly corrected allegations) of rallying to this thread.

I'm reporting this response. It's completely inappropriate and disproportionate. The subject will not move on if you cry foul every time someone responds.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Again, more anti-atheist propaganda.

No atheists are claiming to be a downtrodden minority, any more than any of them are militant.

Stop misrepresenting the atheist position!

I've given clear examples as to why I do give a damn about the C of E in the UK - persecution of homosexuals and discrimination against women is rife within the established church and I object to it having a voice in my supposedly democratic parliament. I'm equally against the secular part of the house of Lords in its current form, and for similar reasons, I also voice my objections over that.

You may choose to not give a damn about things that you consider wrong - whatever pleases you. But don't then get on your high horse about people who do want to argue against things they consider are wrong. I'd rather be in the latter camp when history evaluates my worth to society, even if I argued on a losing side.

Are you going to peddle this anti-atheist agenda of yours somewhere else Colpepper, because I don't think this is a suitable place for it, and it's incredibly ironic you are pushing it here, whilst accusing atheists (who are only defending themselves against your repeatedly corrected allegations) of rallying to this thread.

I'm reporting this response. It's completely inappropriate and disproportionate. The subject will not move on if you cry foul every time someone responds.

Report away - I can produce a multitude of examples to back up my claim that you are using this thread to misrepresent the atheist position, and to support your own anti-atheist agenda. The evidence is rather plain and simple.

I am crying foul because you keep playing foul - that's the way it works.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Just to be clear Colpepper, I don't have a problem if you are against atheists - your feelings are your prerogative - I'd like to know why, and I haven't heard any good reasons from you yet, but I just have to accept that in this world, people don't always agree.

The part I have a real problem with is the straw man version of atheism you keep describing here, then attacking. You are repeatedly ignoring it when you are corrected by actual atheists as to what their position is - if you look back in this thread, this has happened many, many times.

 

[colpepper1]

Just to be clear Colpepper, I don't have a problem if you are against atheists - your feelings are your prerogative - I'd like to know why, and I haven't heard any good reasons from you yet, but I just have to accept that in this world, people don't always agree.

The part I have a real problem with is the straw man version of atheism you keep describing here, then attacking. You are repeatedly ignoring it when you are corrected by actual atheists as to what their position is - if you look back in this thread, this has happened many, many times.

I have no problems with atheists or the religious. I do reserve the right not to give a flying one about either or their views and tell them so, repeatedly if necessary. The right to question the absurdity of their positions and the comical nature of the battle in which they're locked, seems a very fortean one.

Your shrill responses are not appropriate to the conduct of the board. You could accuse me of homophobia, racism or any nonsense and expect to get away with it. There is no response I can give to the accusation of being anti-atheist and you know it. I'm anti bullshit wherever it emerges from.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

If you have no problem with atheists Colpepper, why do you keep describing them incorrectly in this thread and then keep attacking that straw man description, despite being repeatedly corrected when that is wrong? I can pull up many examples of this, if requested.

Why would you label atheists as "militant", despite no demonstration of violent intent from any of the atheists you are debating?

Why do you have a problem with someone voicing their concern against something they think is incorrect in society, and choosing not to just lie back and let it be?

What exactly is "BS" about the position presented to you by me in this thread? Can you please pick out some examples, rather than referring to your fabricated version of atheism?

What is BS about being unable to believe in gods?

 

[Jerry_B]

I'm also interested in what's being described as 'BS' here too, as it's not clear which bits colpepper1 thinks is BS...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I have no problems with atheists or the religious. I do reserve the right not to give a flying one about either or their views and tell them so, repeatedly if necessary.

I look forward to your upcoming thread on belief and disbelief with bated breath.

I'm anti bullshit wherever it emerges from.

And I quote, "We do not require re-education. It would be better if people left their stuff at the door on the way in. Otherwise bees escape from bonnets and make normal conversation difficult".

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Supplementary to the above, it's interesting that you would say you have a live and let live attitide towards the church Colpepper, but you don't seem to dispaly that same charity towards atheists, where you seem to have a real problem with them acting on their own conscience. Just a thought....

 

[colpepper1]

Supplementary to the above, it's interesting that you would say you have a live and let live attitide towards the church Colpepper, but you don't seem to dispaly that same charity towards atheists, where you seem to have a real problem with them acting on their own conscience. Just a thought....

No, I think all people who get worked up about stuff without very good reason are tossers basically. I'm quite happy to shout wanker at fire and brimstone preachers or Richard Dawkins equally, I'm completely impartial in that way. Just as I'll smile sweetly at nice clergy and people who keep their disbelief behind closed doors.

It's cheeky to suggest anyone who isn't atheist is anti-atheist but I'm getting used to it, I'd expect hellfire from their opposite number. It just reinforces my opinions of soapbox nutters.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Supplementary to the above, it's interesting that you would say you have a live and let live attitide towards the church Colpepper, but you don't seem to dispaly that same charity towards atheists, where you seem to have a real problem with them acting on their own conscience. Just a thought....

No, I think all people who get worked up about stuff without very good reason are tossers basically. I'm quite happy to shout wanker at fire and brimstone preachers or Richard Dawkins equally, I'm completely impartial in that way. Just as I'll smile sweetly at nice clergy and people who keep their disbelief behind closed doors.

It's cheeky to suggest anyone who isn't atheist is anti-atheist but I'm getting used to it, I'd expect hellfire from their opposite number. It just reinforces my opinions of soapbox nutters.

I'm not suggesting anyone that isn't atheist is anti-atheist - I'm suggesting you are anti-atheist, or at least anti a certain subset of atheists, which if I read your post correctly, is politically active atheists, a subset I'm very pleased to belong to.

And who is the arbiter in deciding what are good reasons to get worked up? Do we need to come to you for permission before we decide which causes are worthy? What if we have different opinions to you as to what is a worthy cause?

For the record, I also smile at vicars, and have many very pleasant conversations with them.and my various religious friends, all of who seem to manage not to be offended by my atheism, opinions, or different political stance to them. Some of them even agree with me on many of the points I make, including representation of their own church in parliament.

My atheism stays behind closed doors until theists (or anti-atheists) come knocking on those doors.

 

[Jerry_B]

Just as I'll smile sweetly at nice clergy and people who keep their disbelief behind closed doors.

So you'd rather people kept their opinions to themselves? If so, in this case it's probably not a good idea to read threads such as these, to save yourself some bother if nothing else

 

[coaly]

Some people genuinely do feel threatened when others weed away at lies. Rather like a magician's trick being exposed. They cry and sneer and curse the likes of Penn & Teller, James Randi etc, because they don't want the magic to fade. What it does do, however, is make magicians think and devise new illusions, stronger and better ones. But manipulative people, people who are control freaks and power crazy megalomaniacs, hate sceptics, because they have no power over them, and yes... I agree that those normally level headed people, who supposedly have nothing to gain, but much to lose from speaking out about supernatural experiences, are either disillusioned, misinterpreting or liars. That is my opinion. But I stick to why some people feel threatened enough to attack rational thinking people. It's because they feel like they have no control, they MUST be right, therefore doubters are all evil enemies, or because they must be somehow more intelligent than them (but admitting that, is admitting a weakness, and control freaks NEVER admit defeat or weakness.
This is a thread about atheism, and this post is on topic, both thread wise, and current topic wise. I am not personally attacking anyone, and I am not throwing in ad homs.

 

[colpepper1]

I find anyone who adopts a position that those questioning their values, and the assumptions on which those values are made, are against them, deeply scary. That's not a trait exclusive to Atheism, but those Atheists who adopt it are toeing a line set by some of the most unpleasant regimes in the world.
Progress will never come from that stuff.

 

[Jerry_B]

That's not a trait exclusive to Atheism, but those Atheists who adopt it are toeing a line set by some of the most unpleasant regimes in the world.

Er... are you impying that aetheists in, say, this country are following some sort of plan set by (for example) North Korea or China...?

 

[colpepper1]

That's not a trait exclusive to Atheism, but those Atheists who adopt it are toeing a line set by some of the most unpleasant regimes in the world.

Er... are you impying that aetheists in, say, this country are following some sort of plan set by (for example) North Korea or China...?

History is littered with groups who say if you're not for us you're against us. Standard divide and rule tactics.

 

[Jerry_B]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're saying/implying...

Are you saying that aethists in general are dodgy because in the past certain nasty regimes were also aethists...?

 

[colpepper1]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're saying/implying...

Are you saying that aethists in general are dodgy because in the past certain nasty regimes were also aethists...?

No, and I don't really think you think I am. I'm saying the vocal atheists who get on the radar represent religion as sinister, the better to distinguish their logical credentials and sell stuff in its wake. My view is some religions are dodgy, others less so and benign and malign individuals inhabit both varieties, as they do atheism.

I don't find religion per se harmful, I do find proselytising preachers who use threats and intimidation dangerous. I don't believe run of the mill religious folk I meet such as Jehovah's Witnesses at the door dangerous, nor the local vicar or priest, just a little sad and worthy, and resent anyone telling me their approach is propagandising my mind or the minds of my children.

We should celebrate the democracy that exists in the UK (I may feel differently if I was US bible belt) and rejoice in its tensions, competing pulls and the bloody mindedness that underpins much of it. In case you hadn't noticed I hold bloody mindedness dearly and the awkward squad in deep regard, especially when they themselves are prepared to take on the self-appointed awkward squad.

 

[coaly]

No one's saying that if you aren't pro-atheist, that you are anti-atheist. No one at all. What was said, was that you, yourself appear to have a great dislike for atheists, especially those who speak up on here. Unless it is very subtle trolling. If it's the latter, one would suspect that it's well worked out, and possibly not just remotely so. But then I don't suspect that, as I'm not vaguely paranoid or interested enough to care.

 

[Jerry_B]

No, and I don't really think you think I am. I'm saying the vocal atheists who get on the radar represent religion as sinister, the better to distinguish their logical credentials and sell stuff in its wake.

Maybe sinister is a bit of a strong word. But then again, perhaps some aspects of some religions are sinister, in terms of their intolerance, etc..

 

[colpepper1]

Unless it is very subtle trolling.

What is there to troll? This is a fortean message board, not a skeptical one. You should expect uncompromisingly pro-atheism posts, vehemently anti ones and a range of doubt and sympathy in between. Disagreeing is not trolling, unless you think this is a corner set aside for atheists alone.

 

[stu neville]

I have been contacted by a few posters about this thread (I know, I did ask..)

Anyway, a couple of points in direct response:

Firstly, each poster currently contributing to this thread only has one ID - no sock puppets (though one has been on the board in various guises passim - we know who they are, and they know we know who they are whether they admit it or not, and any warnable conduct on their part and they're out immediately.)

There have been a few requests for mods to actively marshal the discussion. There are a number of issues I have with this. Apart from anything else, in recent years we've tried to be as hands-off as possible, only getting involved when either discussions turn nasty or they go so far off-topic as to bear no resemblance to the putative subject. The former has certainly happened in this thread, and we've dealt when necessary and now have strictures in place which we shall enact if we have to. As for the latter, to be honest the problem is one of scope. Atheism as a subject has so many potential tributaries - indeed it functions similarly to the way it would were the title "Religion".

As we have observed before, as a forum Religions and Cults often proves by far the most divisive, and has in the past contained some of our most controversial and impassioned threads - and the faith element almost certainly colours the tone. Abstract occurrences that may or may not have happened to someone one rainy Wednesday night are easy to discuss in a calm, dispassionate manner: a belief or set of beliefs that someone holds dear and indeed may base their entire outlook and conduct upon are much harder to debate without one or other party taking umbrage - and in defence of their beliefs, or disbeliefs, posters will get far more impassioned than in a "secular" thread.

So, what to do? Well, without standing on the sidelines and blowing a whistle every time someone goes off-topic (bearing in mind the topic itself has a ten-mile-wide playing field), or even pre-moderating every comment before allowing them to be posted (no, we have lives to live too, thank you), all we can do is allow the conversation to continue as it is. We will only step in if the tone gets personal again, and have already indicated what the results of that will be (immediate one-week suspension and amber warning for any participant directly involved.)

Hope that clarifies the moderatorial position.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're saying/implying...

Are you saying that aethists in general are dodgy because in the past certain nasty regimes were also aethists...?

No, and I don't really think you think I am. I'm saying the vocal atheists who get on the radar represent religion as sinister, the better to distinguish their logical credentials and sell stuff in its wake. My view is some religions are dodgy, others less so and benign and malign individuals inhabit both varieties, as they do atheism.

I can see no religion which is completely benign. All indoctrinate childern, as Dawkins has discussed, so again, my opinion differs from yours, and I am simply voicing my opinion. Can you point to the religions that don't use indoctrination methods on children to me?

I don't find religion per se harmful, I do find proselytising preachers who use threats and intimidation dangerous.

Debating and discussing topics do not fall into this category the last time I looked, and I can only see the atheists you are opposing wanting to do these things.

I don't believe run of the mill religious folk I meet such as Jehovah's Witnesses at the door dangerous, nor the local vicar or priest, just a little sad and worthy, and resent anyone telling me their approach is propagandising my mind or the minds of my children.

"Run of the Mill" Jehova's Witness belief:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... -dies.html
And you have a problem with people voicing concern that kids are indoctrinated into such nonsense?

And on local vicars - rather a broad generalisation, to assume they are somehow all OK and harmless:
http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html

We should celebrate the democracy that exists in the UK (I may feel differently if I was US bible belt) and rejoice in its tensions, competing pulls and the bloody mindedness that underpins much of it.

Who are you to say what we should do? Clebrate it yourself, if you're happy with the status quo, but don't show anger to those who are unhappy with it and simply voicing their concerns.

In case you hadn't noticed I hold bloody mindedness dearly and the awkward squad in deep regard, especially when they themselves are prepared to take on the self-appointed awkward squad.

Again, the seemingly ignored irony - The only group seemingly setting themselves up as an "awkward squad" are those attacking atheists on here. I personally find bloody-mindedness a little "sad and worthy".

 

[colpepper1]

If you see all religion as insidious propaganda, there's nothing anyone can do to convince you it is part of life's rich tapestry. As I've argued repeatedly, the militant end of atheism cannot accommodate vying world views, it seeks to diminish and ridicule them and in that sense it is totalitarian. You can argue it's a nice kind of totalitarianism where everyone would be better off in the end, but it's still totalitarian.

I don't know whether noisy atheists believe people are incapable of making their own minds up about religion, or it suits their polemical purposes to say so, but I hold the average person's ability to discriminate between what they do and don't like quite highly. Ultimately, if enough people hold a religion to be valuable for their group or community, it is so.

All the above applies to politicised atheism. There's no reason believers and disbelievers can't exist in complete harmony, and that's true of believers in different things. I was at a cricket club dinner last night and most shades of belief and disbelief were present and everyone got on marvellously. Pretending the natural position for believers and atheists is to be at one another's throats is complete hogwash, and mischievous hogwash at that.

 

[rynner2]

Pretending the natural position for believers and atheists is to be at one another's throats is complete hogwash, and mischievous hogwash at that.

So why do you keep pushing the opposite attitude? You're a great one for arguing black is white, followed by white is black!

 

[colpepper1]

Pretending the natural position for believers and atheists is to be at one another's throats is complete hogwash, and mischievous hogwash at that.

So why do you keep pushing the opposite attitude? You're a great one for arguing black is white, followed by white is black!

The predominant ideological consensus on this thread is we are atheists and we are right and everyone else is wrong. Within that paradigm you are absolutely correct. The problem is that purview is not shared by much of the rest of the world, or the board or even people within disciplines like science. So the thread either exists as an intellectual atoll in a sea of shifting discourse, or it's fair game like the rest.

BTW you're a great one for flooding the board with threads with a particular ideological slant, but that's your prerogative as someone so committed to it. Last man standing and all that. I hope moderators see that as a moderate response to a moderate ad hom. I don't think 'what about you then' is a great way of engaging but if posters insist on it it's difficult to keep the debate objective.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

If you see all religion as insidious propaganda, there's nothing anyone can do to convince you it is part of life's rich tapestry. As I've argued repeatedly, the militant end of atheism cannot accommodate vying world views, it seeks to diminish and ridicule them and in that sense it is totalitarian. You can argue it's a nice kind of totalitarianism where everyone would be better off in the end, but it's still totalitarian.

I don't know whether noisy atheists believe people are incapable of making their own minds up about religion, or it suits their polemical purposes to say so, but I hold the average person's ability to discriminate between what they do and don't like quite highly. Ultimately, if enough people hold a religion to be valuable for their group or community, it is so.

It's a pity that noisy religionists don't share your view. What on earth is faith schooling save for an attempt to plant the seed of faith no matter when it might bloom? What was that saying about having the boy until he was seven?

Also, it makes little sense to keep talking about the militant end of atheism as though anything thus defined could be contrary to your expectation of it. As pointed out before its the same lazy sin of which you accuse those of debunking religion on the basis of its unrepresentative extremes. And it should hardly be surprising that you find miltant atheism in so many places when you continually misrespresent moderate atheistic views.

 

[colpepper1]

There are atheists who think belief is hokum. There are atheists who think belief is hokum and the world would be a better place without it. There are atheists who think it's hokum and the greatest effort should be put into placing religion into the history bin.

I have no problems with the first and second and the third don't worry me unduly, so long as they're honest about their objectives and ultimate goals. I don't think that's a misrepresentation of the span of atheist positions. In the same way there are believers who think some thing/one nice made everything and we should be nice to one another, there are those who think the wonderful thing has rules and it would be better if everyone followed them and there are some who think they have a hot line to the nice one and everyone must believe it or else they'll be not very nice at all.

So long as atheists restrict their attacks to the latter they are doing great work. When they want to unpick the rest they're on dodgy ideological ground. If hard line atheists claim all believers are the latter variety in waiting - which is more or less what D*****s has claimed - they're up to monkey business.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

But Colpepper - I just don't see these atheists that you seem to place in a "militant" bracket - they certainly have existed in history, and I'm as against them as I am against religion - all I see in the current trend is people arguing their case in a society where this is normally respected as a right, no threats, no violence - this is where we are clashing, beaciuse I keep seeing great swathes of your posts that I kind of agree with apart from this. If I thought such atheists were out there, I'd be facing up to them alongside you.

Also, I think you've misread Dawkins - his case against moderate religion is that it provides a safe refuge for extremists, not that all moderates are at risk of turning in to etremists. His claim is you have to argue against the core religion itself if you are to tackle the extremists. All he's doing is presenting his idea, which he thinks is a compelling argument. He's not threatening anyone or intimidating anyone. He's simply adding his ideas to the mix. Individuals will take or leave these themselves on their own merits, so again, I'm not sure what your problem is with him.

Of course atheists think their ideas are the correct approach - what I can't see is why you seem to view them expressing their ideas as some kind of totalitarian act, when others are free to take or leave the atheist arguments.