Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

Turtwig

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

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.

Yeah the whole reason I wrote it was because I know most people here would be irked by the generalisations and lack of understanding. As I was going through a lovely crohns flare up at the time I thought I'd spend the time to type out something trivial in detail as it's about all I was able to do at that time. So that the lurkers out there who didn't realise the misconceptions Rational had wouldn't think atheists are just dismissive of criticism.

And for the love of Jesus call me Malty

Turtwig

rational wrote: »

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.

Well obviously I never heard you say it because you can't say anything on an internet forum.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually depending on what religion you adhere to God DOES have an agenda.

You find it so easy to see the purity of atheism yet your so quick to point out the agenda of God.

Malty_T wrote: »

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?

You mean not "judging a book by its cover"? While I agree with the sentiment I can't agree that you can't make a fairly good qualitive judgement on the anti theist stance of the fourm by the tone of the threads if that tone is consistant.

Malty_T wrote: »

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.

Poking fun would be fine if it was tempered with an attempt at balance and less dirision and ridicule.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Well obviously I never heard you say it because you can't say anything on an internet forum. You may be able to hear it aloud in your own head, but you are actually typing down in digital print.

I will refer you to your own explanation for mine.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah the whole reason I wrote it was because I know most people here would be irked by the generalisations and lack of understanding. As I was going through a lovely crohns flare up at the time I thought I'd spend the time to type out something trivial in detail as it's about all I was able to do at that time. So that the lurkers out there who didn't realise the misconceptions Rational had wouldn't think atheists are just dismissive of criticism.

And for the love of Jesus call me Malty

And of course as I've exposed by reference to the threads on this fourm we know what kind of John Doe atheist lurks around here..

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

Disrespectful, hypocritical, dishonest?

Um, seriously, have you even read the first post on that thread? Because it's referring to pretty much the precise opposite of what you assume.

Leaving the Catholic Church

Many people want to leave the RCC - and let's be fair, who could blame them? Where else would you suggest such a thread be posted? And offering people a way to leave a religion that has a tendency to claim everyone it's ever baptised as a member, whether or not they are, is not anti-theistic.

Religion is "child abuse" ??

The question marks should clue you in that the OP objects to the term. The fact that the thread has run to fifty-four pages suggests that there might be some disagreement on the point.

Since you object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTE

Yes, and you'll notice that several people on the first page object to the idea that "we" object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTÉ.

Now I want you to be honest with me before you answer that question.

What an odd thing to say - you want us to be honest before we answer the question? Or when we answer it?

In any case, my answer is the same as several others here: read the threads.

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Um, seriously, have you even read the first post on that thread? Because it's referring to pretty much the precise opposite of what you assume.
Many people want to leave the RCC - and let's be fair, who could blame them? Where else would you suggest such a thread be posted? And offering people a way to leave a religion that has a tendency to claim everyone it's ever baptised as a member, whether or not they are, is not anti-theistic.
The question marks should clue you in that the OP objects to the term. The fact that the thread has run to fifty-four pages suggests that there might be some disagreement on the point.
Yes, and you'll notice that several people on the first page object to the idea that "we" object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTÉ.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What an odd thing to say - you want us to be honest before we answer the question? Or when we answer it?.

I was not refering to you. However I note your use of the word "we". Don't you mean the diverse collection of atheists on this thread with pretty much nothing in common.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In any case, my answer is the same as several others here: read the threads.

Rather than superficially interpret them in the most benign manner according to your agenda, ignoring the implication in the questions and the ground swell of support within the threads for those seedy implications?

Turtwig

Leaving aside the blatant blindness to sentiments expressed within those threads, not every atheist on boards posts in the A&A threads of boards.ie so why don't you go into After Hours and create a poll for atheists only asking if they anti theist? Then to get a fully quantified picture why not find some statistics to back up your argument instead of just arguing personal experience from a small corner of the web.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

I was not refering to you

So?

Rather than superficially interpret them in the most benign manner according to your agenda, ignoring the implication in the questions and the ground swell of support within the threads for those seedy implications?

Notice that there is disagreement, and the fact that there's disagreement - even on a board for those with a common interest, something which tends in many cases to draw out more extreme opinion - demolishes your point.

No-one is saying that some atheists don't fit your stereotype.

Incidentally,

rational wrote: »

I will refer you to your own explanation for mine.

You never gave an explanation - just a weird non sequitur. I ignored it at the time because it would have been too much of a distraction.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Leaving aside the blatant blindness to sentiments expressed within those threads, not every atheist on boards posts in the A&A threads of boards.ie

Would not claim to know one way or another.

Malty_T wrote: »

so why don't you go into After Hours and create a poll for atheists only asking if they anti theist? Then to get a fully quantified picture why not find some statistics to back up your argument instead of just arguing personal experience from a small corner of the web.

Dont think I would get a fully quantified picture by leaving one small corner and going to another, do you?

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Notice that there is disagreement, and the fact that there's disagreement - even on a board for those with a common interest, something which tends in many cases to draw out more extreme opinion - demolishes your point..

COnsider my point demolished. Your having a laugh.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Incidentally,
You never gave an explanation - just a weird non sequitur. I ignored it at the time because it would have been too much of a distraction.

Incidentally are you Maltys really good buddy?

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Leaving aside the blatant blindness to sentiments expressed within those threads.

Yea, lets just leave that aside its not important for this discussion.

Turtwig

To my BFF,

Happy Unbirthday Sir,

Now I must go because I'm late, I'm late for a really important date.

The Mad Hatter

<Don't mind me.>

legspin

Malty_T wrote: »

And for the love of Jesus call me Malty

Mr T. will suffice if you are of a more formal bent

nozzferrahhtoo

old_aussie wrote: »

Why is it, if atheists dont believe in god or religion that it seems to be the only thing that they talk about? Just going by the posts in this forum. Are they so insecure?

This thread has been done to death already many times, however I will give you the same answer here that I gave on those other threads. The reason I concern myself with religion so much is for one reason and one reason only:

I am given no other choice.

I would LOVE to wake up tomorrow and never engage with, or discuss, religion any more again ever. I would love to leave the religious alone entirely.

I simply am not let.

Every single area of discourse I actually AM interested in the religious come to me with their god and try and use it as a wedge in the discussion. Politics, education, science, ethics, morality, sexuality, medicine, family dynamics, Finance, you name it... each and every day god is thrown in my face within those discussions.

I will stop discussing religion the very first day I am given that option.

robindch

rational has been carded for ignoring two warnings about posting style. Next stop is a holiday.

Turtwig

legspin wrote: »

Mr T. will suffice if you are of a more formal bent

No!:P

I wanted the name Malty but it was taken (by me I think?, but I don't know for certain) so I was stuck with Malty T, but really it's Malty, just Malty or Malt.

Dougla2

Malty_T wrote: »

No!:P

I wanted the name Malty but it was taken (by me I think?, but I don't know for certain) so I was stuck with Malty T, but really it's Malty, just Malty or Malt.

or mal or ma or m

Turtwig

Dougla2 wrote: »

or mal or ma or m

No mal means "bad" or "ill" and the fact that I'm an atheist would mean some people could possibly scoff at the concept by thinking my name is uber appropriate - An atheist who admits he's evil.
Ma is phonetically similar to the noise sheep make, and many theists see us as God's herd of sheep. This may be seen as a sign of subconscious admittance by theists that, deep down, I accept God.
Finally, I am flattered that you think I work for a super secret, super sexy spy organisation it is, alas, not true. (Or maybe it is?)

Dougla2

Malty_T wrote: »

No mal means "bad" or "ill" and the fact that I'm an atheist would mean some people could possibly scoff at the concept by thinking my name is uber appropriate - An atheist who admits he's evil.
Ma is phonetically similar to the noise sheep make, and many theists see us as God's herd of sheep. This may be seen as a sign of subconscious admittance by theists that, deep down, I accept God.
Finally, I am flattered that you think I work for a super seWcret, super sexy spy organisation it is, alas, not true. (Or maybe it is?)

WHAT!! you mean to say us atheist creatures aren't evil satanic bastards that rape babies and eat puppies **** i've been living a lie.

The Mad Hatter

Malty_T wrote: »

No mal means "bad" or "ill"

So Mal-ty means "bad tea"?

Get out of my unbirthday party!

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So Mal-ty means "bad tea"?

Get out of my unbirthday party!

No, it was prophetic code for the new evil that is coming into this world in the form of a Tea Party.;)
Btw, the Mad Hatter ate cutlery what he actually drinking tea?

The Mad Hatter

This thread's gone down the rabbit hole...

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

This thread's gone down the rabbit hole...

Oh no I didn't.

Warning! : The above content contains references to metaphysics and pseudo-science. Click! If you dare.

Beruthiel

There's a decidedly giddy tone to this thread. And it's not even Friday!

Turtwig

Beruthiel wrote: »

There's a decidedly giddy tone to this thread. And it's not even Friday!

This thread is dying that's why.:D

robindch

Beruthiel wrote: »

There's a decidedly giddy tone to this thread. And it's not even Friday!

Liquid lunches, I'd have said

jayzusb.christ

This thread is dying that's why.

Well, it beats having to explain why it's ok to use 'say' instead of 'type'.:rolleyes:

philologos

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. Invoking the bible as a means to abhor or approve the civil partnership bill should simply not be allowed."

I don't know. People should be allowed to say what they want. It is up to the people to scrutinise what people say. There should be no such thing about it being not allowed to say things. People are responsible for being critical and skeptical about what other people say.

Malty_T wrote: »

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.

I disagree, I believe priests, rabbis, pastors, imams, Tom on the street, Dick the atheist, and Harry the agnostic can say whatever they wish. It is up for their audiences to criticise them, and it is up to our Government to make whatever decision they find appropriate by reason.

Barring views from public speech is an awful way of dealing with issues or even for establishing common ground. When you prohibit someone from speaking, it actually often emboldens them and makes them think they are right. Allowing free speech with open criticism gives a different response.

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.

Admittedly. I can't agree I'm afraid. I believe that there are groups of atheists and agnostics with an agenda, if I for example include the Humanist Association of Ireland, and Atheist Ireland.

Malty_T wrote: »

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.)

Unfortunately I have had to become a bit more skeptical of the use of the term "secularism". As I find that atheists tend to define "secularism" as removing all faith from the public square rather than merely separating churches from influencing Government legislation. I would say that I am skeptical of what people mean by "secularism" now. I would argue that we need to defend freedom of religion and conscience going into the future and that secularism should not compromise the role of faith in public life.

Malty_T wrote: »

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.

Indeed, I do.