Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

jayzusb.christ

You are choosing to ignore the large group of atheists who are anti-religion. Who do have an agenda against religious believe and who are instinctly hostile towards it.

Isn't that exactly how he described 'John Doe'?

While you do your best to seperate anti-theism from atheism Im not so sure the line is as clear as you argue it is.

It seems clear enough to me: The prefix 'a-' means 'not' or 'without', while the prefix 'anti-' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. There may be overlap between these seperate groups, but there is certainly a difference between them.

As in the royal "we" or "we" as in a group of like minded atheists?

I think it's the 'we' that's often used in (for example) academic texts, meaning 'both readers and writer'.

You are not saying anything you are writing it down. In your own head you may be hearing it aloud but your actually writing it.

The word 'say' is very often used as a synonym of 'write'. For example, 'In book x, author y says that...'

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

You are not saying anything you are writing it down. In your own head you may be hearing it aloud but your actually writing it.

Is it really wise to be this pedantic when you evidently don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"?

Dougla2

*EPIC SIGH*

liamw

rational wrote: »

Those theists they just dont understand do they.

No, just you clearly.

liamw

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

I think it's the 'we' that's often used in (for example) academic texts, meaning 'both readers and writer'.

The word 'say' is very often used as a synonym of 'write'. For example, 'In book x, author y says that...'

I can't believe you actually have to explain this! I hope for your sake rational that you were just being annoyingly pedantic

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Is it really wise to be this pedantic when you evidently don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"?

His opening was and I quote "Ok, I'm going to say this as politely as I can possibly can"

Its a statement of intent and to be honest kind of disrespectful. I was pointing that out in a round a bout kind of way.

MagicMarker

rational wrote: »

Another like minded atheist:)

I see your not the only one to thank the poster for his post.

In fairness it was the best post writen by an atheist on here. Hats off to the guy.

If he'd included the word reductionism I bet you'd have thanked it too.

ludwit

It does actually really annoy me that by being an atheist you have to define yourself in the rejection of something.

rational

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

There may be overlap between these seperate groups

Thanks for confirming my original point

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

I think it's the 'we' that's often used in (for example) academic texts, meaning 'both readers and writer'.

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

The word 'say' is very often used as a synonym of 'write'. For example, 'In book x, author y says that...'

Some of those academic texts might refer you to words being used in their appropriate context i.e. we are writing on boards.ie. "We" use academic languqage for academic works.

But We now use the "we" in the academic sense on here now. Good to know.

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

...

Firstly and most importantly, I think you need to read the post again.

"that when arguing changes in legislation these arguments must be made using arguments that members of ALL faiths and those of no faith alike can discuss. Invoking the bible as a means to abhor or approve the civil partnership bill should simply not be allowed."

At no point here have I said that priests or rabbis do not have the right to views based on religious belief. What I've said, is that when it comes to arguing these views the priest or rabbi CANNOT simply just argue their case because their holy text or doctrines declare it to be the case they have to use arguments that are on a common ground with all faiths and people of no faith. It's a simple concept, really. It does not mean they cannot allow religion to influence their morals or judgement or any other discriminatory nonsense like that.

Groups of like minded peoples tend to have an agenda, but as you openly admitted that atheism itself hasn't an agenda so I'll stop there.

If only you could be as pedantic as you are about my colloquial use of the word "say" than you are about reading my post perhaps you could explain how mentioning anti-theism is in your own words "choosing to ignore "the large group of atheists who are anti-religion."? :P Also, perhaps you could point to some surveys or figures that show anti-theists consist of a rather large proportion of atheists. I'm not an anti-theist. The overwhelming majority of atheists I know aren't either. That said I freely admit that personal experience never paints the full picture so if you can provide statistics on anti -theists being a significant proportion of atheists I'll gladly take note of it. Or are you just making the assumption that atheists are largely anti-theist from your own personal experience? If so, then that's hardly a rational move to be honest. The "we" I was referring to was the standard "we" used when explaining something to some using logic and some degree of reason.

The Doe family may be fictional, but the variety to atheism that it illustrates is not fictional and I merely created the family to try to illustrate the ridiculous idea of giving atheism an ideology and as you correctly pointed out paint a diverse view of atheists that do encompass many different strata's of society.

I really don't get the relevance of France's law and Christian thinking to secularism. Many Christian theologians have, in the past and to this day,promoted secularism. PDN, a bishop and one of the moderators of the Christianity Forum, is a supporter of secularism. As for the definition it's not my own, but it's not one from a dictionary either as those definitions tend to be rubbish when describing either scientific,political, and philosophical definitions. I can't remember where I got my one from, but I do see wikipedia's one is largely similar. (Whatever that count's for.)

Edit : Forgot to add I am against the Angelus because it favours one religion over all others. I'm not against televisions showing religious services, but I just feel we should also be showing Islam, Jewish, Hindu etc. call to prayers daily if we are showing the Angelus daily. The state simply should not favour any religion. That doesn't make be anti-theist, in fact as Jakkass know's all too well I quite like Songs of Praise.

rational

MagicMarker wrote: »

If he'd included the word reductionism I bet you'd have thanked it too.

He aluded to it actually. Dam him.

robindch

rational wrote: »

He aluded to it actually. Dam him.

rational wrote: »

Another like minded atheist:) [...] I see your not the only one to thank the poster for his post. [...] In fairness it was the best post writen by an atheist on here. Hats off to the guy.

rational wrote:

etc, etc, etc, etc

rational -- can you try contributing to the debate, please?

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly and most importantly, I think you need to read the post again.

"that when arguing changes in legislation these arguments must be made using arguments that members of ALL faiths and those of no faith alike can discuss.

How very rational using the simplicity and sureness of belief of the atheistic mindset. You dont see the sparks flying do you?

robindch

rational - this is your second and final warning before cards and cluesticks show up.

rational

robindch wrote: »

rational -- can you try contributing to the debate, please?

I see you choose to focus on that post as not contributing much. Which is true. I have actually offered a pretty comprehensive reply to Maltys excellent post. You may disagree with the argument but I think its a contribution to the debate?

rational

robindch wrote: »

rational - this is your second and final warning before cards and cluesticks show up.

I think its very unfair to selectivly misquote me and accuse me of not contributong to the debate. Where did I say "etc etc etc"

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

But We now use the "we" in the academic sense on here now. Good to know.

I nearly always use "we" in that sense when explaining stuff because it's what has become an intuitive habit to me.

Goduznt Xzst

rational wrote: »

In fairness it was the best post writen by an atheist on here. Hats off to the guy.

Not detracting from Malty_T's post in the least, but what he wrote shouldn't have to be written. He's basically had to over simplify an explanation for you due to your ignorence regarding Atheism and how it is defined.

It verges on bigotry. Your generalizations are no different than saying Black people like fried chicken, the Irish are all drunks, French people stink, Atheists want a dominant secular world... etc.

Your bigoted opinion is becoming all too common, especially on this forum, which is why so many people have thanked Malty_T's post, because we want it to end. Sticky it, make people that ignorent read it, educate themselves, then come back and pose some relevant questions to us.

MagicMarker

rational wrote: »

How very rational using the simplicity and sureness of belief of the atheistic mindset. You dont see the sparks flying do you?

Good of you to pretty much ignore his whole post. Are you going to respond to any of it?

robindch

rational wrote: »

I see you choose to focus on that post as not contributing much. Which is true.

At least we agree that you have not contributed much.

Now, please try contributing -- thank you.

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

How very rational using the simplicity and sureness of belief of the atheistic mindset. You dont see the sparks flying do you?

Actually I do but probably not because of what you mean, I see them flying because of your use of "atheistic mindset" didn't you just admit there was no such thing as an "atheistic agenda"? Making the leap that the idea of an "atheistic mindset" is absurd shouldn't prove too hard.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Groups of like minded peoples tend to have an agenda, but as you openly admitted that atheism itself hasn't an agenda so I'll stop there.

God does not have an agenda either but groups of like minded people people do, they are called christians for example.

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, perhaps you could point to some surveys or figures that show anti-theists consist of a rather large proportion of atheists. I'm not an anti-theist. The overwhelming majority of atheists I know aren't either. That said I freely admit that personal experience never paints the full picture so if you can provide statistics on anti -theists being a significant proportion of atheists I'll gladly take note of it. Or are you just making the assumption that atheists are largely anti-theist from your own personal experience? .

Look at the tone of threads on this fourm for example.

The Funny Side of Religion
Ongoing religious scandals
The Hazards of Belief
Disrespectful, hypocritical, dishonest?
Leaving the Catholic Church
Religion is "child abuse" ??
Since you object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTE

Taken from the first page by the way. So are you seriously telling me there is not an anti theist tone to this? Now I want you to be honest with me before you answer that question.

MagicMarker

rational wrote: »

God does not have an agenda either

rational

robindch wrote: »

At least we agree that you have not contributed much.

Now, please try contributing -- thank you.

There you go selectively misquoting me again. Should a moderators job be to constantly try to put down a someone trying to contribute. Maybe you could offer a word of wisdon on the topic yourself rather than being my policeman. (you may notice that I am offering an alternative view) Might be helpful for debate?

liamw

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

...
due to your ignorence
...
make people that ignorent read it...

*ignorant

(I'm such a d**k)

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

I nearly always use "we" in that sense when explaining stuff because it's what has become an intuitive habit to me.

You call it "intuitive" others might call it iritiating.

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

God does not have an agenda either but groups of like minded people people do, they are called christians for example.




Look at the tone of threads on this fourm for example.

The Funny Side of Religion
Ongoing religious scandals
The Hazards of Belief
Disrespectful, hypocritical, dishonest?
Leaving the Catholic Church
Religion is "child abuse" ??
Since you object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTE

Taken from the first page by the way. So are you seriously telling me there is not an anti theist tone to this? Now I want you to be honest with me before you answer that question.

Actually depending on what religion you adhere to God DOES have an agenda. Do you really judge the quality of a newspaper article by the headline or the content within the article? I mean surely it is more rational to judge a forum not on the title of the thread but the actual sentiment expressed within? Also how is poking fun at something the same as having an ideological drive against it? I mean lovers make fun of their OH's all the time; it's called flirting.

MagicMarker

rational wrote: »

Look at the tone of threads on this fourm for example.

The Funny Side of Religion
Ongoing religious scandals
The Hazards of Belief
Disrespectful, hypocritical, dishonest?
Leaving the Catholic Church
Religion is "child abuse" ??
Since you object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTE

Taken from the first page by the way. So are you seriously telling me there is not an anti theist tone to this? Now I want you to be honest with me before you answer that question.

I see what you mean, lets do AH too...

Gardai prepare plan for Queen's arrival - Clear anti Garda tone here
Polish man dead - Anti polish agenda here methinks
Most Manly Job?? - Can you BE any more misogynistic?!

Ya see? I can name threads and say they're all something they're not too.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

"atheistic agenda"?.

Where have I said there is not such thing as an atheistic agenda? Find for me where I have said that?

I said that atheism as a concept does not have an agenda. Concepts dont have agendas. Its the abuse of concepts by like minded individuals that have agendas.

Dougla2

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/evidences/godsagenda.htm