Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Dick the atheist
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQx69XP3WAzbpmsVltZSuPfeg_ToC6pZ6ZAL4bfyHJSSy-O1ns&t=1&usg=__SZDlrUJOnqbw7pLqz7kTCM2cBCc=


  • Options
    #153
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ Not intended in that way, rest assured!


  • Options
    #154
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    How or why are you not recognising the inherent difference between the two highlighted above?

    You disagree that atheism doesn't have an agenda because some atheists and agnostics (which covers pretty every non-theist anyway) have groups that have an agenda?

    If you, or rational, or anyone can name ONE SINGLE issue that is part of every atheist's agenda then you can take a bow and rest on your laurels.

    On the other hand, if that is not possible, then quietly give it up.


  • Options
    #155
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dades wrote: »
    How or why are you not recognising the inherent difference between the two highlighted above?

    You disagree that atheism doesn't have an agenda because some atheists and agnostics (which covers pretty every non-theist anyway) have groups that have an agenda?

    If you, or rational, or anyone can name ONE SINGLE issue that is part of every atheist's agenda then you can take a bow and rest on your laurels.

    On the other hand, if that is not possible, then quietly give it up.

    This is a cop out argument. One could say the same of Christians, that there isn't a consistent agenda amongst all Christians, or all Muslims or all Jews. This doesn't matter.

    What does matter is that there is an agenda amongst a good number of atheists or agnostics who are involved in such advocacy groups like this. Likewise, what does matter is that there are Christian groups all around Ireland who would have an agenda (whether that be to witness and share the Gospel or helping out in their communities).

    It matters little whether it is true of all Christians, or all atheists, or of all Muslims, or of all Jews, but there are groups of all four which have an agenda, undeniably. Some with considerable influence.


  • Options
    #156
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It matters little whether it is true of all Christians, or all atheists, or of all Muslims, or of all Jews, but there are groups of all four which have an agenda, undeniably. Some with considerable influence.

    I don't think anyone is saying that no atheists have a common agenda. We're just saying that not ALL atheists have an agenda.

    It seems we agree with each other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Would all Christians not be part of the "Doing God's will" agenda?

    edit: not that I am a fan of the use of the word 'agenda'. It usually implies negative aspects when used in the media


  • Options
    #158
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is saying that no atheists have a common agenda. We're just saying that not ALL atheists have an agenda.

    It seems we agree with each other.

    I agree with you. I think this point matters little. It doesn't matter much if not all atheists have an agenda. In the same way that it matters little that not all Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Jains have an agenda.

    What does matter is that a sizeable number do and that this needs to be considered properly rather than brushed off.


  • Options
    #159
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is a cop out argument. One could say the same of Christians, that there isn't a consistent agenda amongst all Christians, or all Muslims or all Jews. This doesn't matter.
    It completely matters.

    I never claimed every Christian etc has the same agenda. There are hundreds of branches each with their own idea of what their take on that religion entails.

    It is equally wrong to suggest that atheism has an agenda. This is NOT the same as saying a lot of atheists have an agenda - not the same at all.


  • Options
    #160
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's only semantics as I see it. It doesn't matter a damn if there are some atheists without an agenda, in the same way that there may be Christians without an agenda, or Jews without an agenda, or Sikhs without an agenda.

    What really does matter is that there are an awful lot of atheists who do have an agenda. Likewise there are a lot of Christians with an agenda, and a lot of Jews with an agenda, and a lot of Muslims with an agenda. The reality is that these agendas ultimately conflict, and are ultimately hugely influential in our societies.

    As such, I do care significantly where a lot of atheists and other groups do have an agenda, because it matters. Where people don't have an agenda, it really doesn't.


  • Options
    #161
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    But I don't see how they have an agenda according to their atheism...there are some atheists that support a more secular society - but then so do some theists, there are some atheists that want rid of the angelus - but then so do some christians. There are some atheists campaigning for ET's but then so are some muslims/christians/etc. I'm struggling to find anything particular to atheists giving them a particular agenda. Whereas a christian agenda would be particular to a christian - you wouldn't find a hindu pushing a christian agenda - but I can't think of anything atheists have an "agenda" about that are specific only to atheists...and unless it's only specific to atheists, it's not an atheist agenda.

    And I'm not sure if in a population of 4 million, the member of AI &/or boards counts as "lots" anyway...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    seanh12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭seanh12


    I love the way atheists think everybody wants to listen to what they say...


  • Options
    #163
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yeah, especially those plonkers who just have to read and post on the Atheist and Agnostic forum about what atheists can't resist doing...


  • Options
    #164
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    seanh12 wrote: »
    I love the way atheists think everybody wants to listen to what they say...
    Really? I love the smell of freshly cut grass.


  • Options
    #165
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo - You can't be serious that you can't think of any agenda particular to atheists. Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.


  • Options
    #166
    seanh12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭seanh12


    See what I mean?


  • Options
    #167
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    seanh12 wrote: »
    See what I mean?
    No, not really.


  • Options
    #168
    jayzusb.christ
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭jayzusb.christ


    seanh12 wrote: »
    See what I mean?

    Think you might be in the wrong forum, sean. Unless you want to read about what atheists say about atheism?


  • Options
    #169
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Ickle Magoo - You can't be serious that you can't think of any agenda particular to atheists. Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.
    Isn't PDN a supporter of secularism?


  • Options
    #170
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ I'm also broadly in support of secularism. I'm not in support of what people often attach to it though. Secularism for me really ends in removing excessive influence of religious institutions from legislation.

    It does not mean removing the role of religion in public life, or in society. This is what I would see as aggressive secularism rather than just secularism.

    What could be referred to as a secular government systems, can be as religious or not religious as they wish. USA and Turkey being two of such examples of societies influenced by Christianity and Islam, but are secular government systems.


  • Options
    #171
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    What is the role of religion in public life?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    seanh12 wrote: »
    I love the way atheists think everybody wants to listen to what they say...
    Sean - pleased to meet ya!

    Not quite sure what ya mean by yer first unhelpful post, but we do look fwd to something more positive from you in the future!

    - forum mod.


  • Options
    #173
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Another thread I guess. Religious belief isn't something to be "kept private" and it isn't the role of the State to suppress expression and practice of belief. Much argument in other countries could be considered to be interfering in freedom of religion. For example France banning religious symbols being worn in schools, or cases of street preachers being arrested in the UK for speaking freely. This goes beyond mere secularism IMO.


  • Options
    #174
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    I'm inquiring more as to what religion's role in public life is, rather than what you don't want to see happen to it.


  • Options
    #175
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Another thread I guess. Religious belief isn't something to be "kept private" and it isn't the role of the State to suppress expression and practice of belief. Much argument in other countries could be considered to be interfering in freedom of religion. For example France banning religious symbols being worn in schools, or cases of street preachers being arrested in the UK for speaking freely. This goes beyond mere secularism IMO.
    There was a thread here about the French decision. I've never seen such a divisive and hotly contested issue among atheists.

    I've had to look up the incidents you refer to regarding the street preachers. Each one appears to be a case of either a police officer investigating a complaint and doing nothing (hardly a classic case of oppression) or a brief detention (of the order of hours) by an officer who overstepped the law. Not exactly pleasant stuff for the people involved, and extremely unlikely to obtain substantial support here. (That said, I can certainly think of a few street preachers I've come across who seemed foaming-at-the-mouth crazy, and I've no doubt that some of them cross the line into harassing people or hate speech from time to time.)


  • Options
    #176
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    seanh12 wrote: »
    I love the way atheists think everybody wants to listen to what they say...
    seanh12 wrote: »
    See what I mean?

    Stick around. You might learn something.


  • Options
    #177
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Another thread I guess. Religious belief isn't something to be "kept private" and it isn't the role of the State to suppress expression and practice of belief. Much argument in other countries could be considered to be interfering in freedom of religion. For example France banning religious symbols being worn in schools, or cases of street preachers being arrested in the UK for speaking freely. This goes beyond mere secularism IMO.

    I think you'll find many Christians supporting things like banning the wearing of religious symbols in schools and you'll find many atheist against it, such as myself. Sarkozy afaik is a Catholic, he is certainly not an atheist and yet it his government that introduced the ban.There is no dividing line that separates atheist and theists on these issues.


  • Options
    #178
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    it isn't the role of the State to suppress expression and practice of belief.
    Ah, you're a secularist!
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Much argument in other countries could be considered to be interfering in freedom of religion. For example France banning religious symbols being worn in schools, or cases of street preachers being arrested in the UK for speaking freely.
    Ah, you're not a secularist!


  • Options
    #179
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Ickle Magoo - You can't be serious that you can't think of any agenda particular to atheists. Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.

    One of the most "aggressive secularisms" was the US constitution, effectively banning the US government (and all its representatives) from playing any role in supporting one particular religion over another.

    And the framers of the constitution were theists or deists.

    The reason they did this is because America was founded by people fleeing Europe where one particular religion or religious denomination was being held above others, and their particular faiths were being side tracked or even persecuted.

    The only way they believed this could be stopped was if it was made illegal for the government to play any role in promotion of any particular religion. In the eyes of the government and the state no religion would be seen as of any more importance or privilege than any other religion.

    So modern secularism has its roots in the persecuted religions of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

    Of course how quickly all this is forgotten. It becomes very easy to forget when religions move from being the small persecuted minority into the widely practices and thus powerful majority.

    Then the idea that the ruling classes cannot express their religion through acts of government and the state becomes an annoyance, and secularism becomes a principle to be ignored because after all they have the government now so no risk their religion will be persecuted.


  • Options
    #180
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    seanh12 wrote: »
    I love the way atheists think everybody wants to listen to what they say...

    You might be confusing this with the general concept of self-worth and
    having an opinion while not being afraid to express it at the same time.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Secularism for me really ends in removing excessive influence of religious institutions from legislation.

    Well then secularism never began for you because the whole point of
    secularism as applied to legislation and public spaces is that the religion
    of one tribe need not impinge upon the freedoms of another.
    Impinge is a strong word but once we put things in context, i.e. the
    question of inviting Sharia law to Ireland and we then understand that
    religion can indeed impinge on another. I remember reading that you
    value democracy and think this is a question of democratic values but
    I assure you it isn't, with regard to legal matters and public spaces
    religion simply has no place, what is it's function? With regard to legal
    matters we have religious beliefs impinging on a womans right to choose
    abortion legally, a mandate to prevent two people who love each other
    from marrying for no good reason. Tell me the benefits... Tell me how
    our culturally bound justice benefits a person from another culture who
    happens to find themselves under the whip of our way of life?
    I know religion likes to claim it is the ultimate arbiter of justice but
    clearly that's wrong when every religion has it's own concept of
    justice. This kind of tomfoolery has no place in any legal system.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    USA and Turkey being two of such examples of societies influenced by Christianity and Islam, but are secular government systems.

    I'm sure you're referring to the period from the early 80's on when
    agressive christian fundamentalism arose to prominence in the U.S.A.
    coincidentally at a time when presidents like Jimmy Carter and Reagan
    were openly marketed on the public stage as out and out christian family
    men trying to put the soul back into society.

    You couldn't be talking about the U.S.A. since the declaration of
    independence and contemporary U.S.A. with regard to legal matters.
    It wouldn't make any sense if you were unless you were just making
    stuff up to advance your opinions, but I could just be at a loss here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    sponsoredwalk: Well done for misinterpreting my entire post! I'll keep it short.
    Well then secularism never began for you because the whole point of
    secularism as applied to legislation and public spaces is that the religion
    of one tribe need not impinge upon the freedoms of another.

    This is effectively the same thing as:
    Secularism for me really ends in removing excessive influence of religious institutions from legislation.

    Legislation is the primary arbitrator of freedom in a political system.
    With regard to legal
    matters we have religious beliefs impinging on a womans right to choose
    abortion legally, a mandate to prevent two people who love each other
    from marrying for no good reason.

    No we don't. We have a reasonable law to protect the rights of the unborn in the same way as our rights are protected. Again, this is another thread. One can be pro-life and not a believer in any form of religion.
    You couldn't be talking about the U.S.A. since the declaration of
    independence and contemporary U.S.A. with regard to legal matters.
    It wouldn't make any sense if you were unless you were just making
    stuff up to advance your opinions, but I could just be at a loss here.

    What? - America in the 80's? - The Declaration of Independence was written in the 18th century!

    By influenced by Christianity, I mean that life in America is influenced by it, not law or rule. You misinterpreted this. Likewise with Turkey and Islam. You seem to think that secularism is meant to stop private individuals or churches influencing society at large. This isn't the intention at all. A government can operate on a secular basis, but a society can nonetheless be predominately religious.

    Please read my posts properly before responding to them! :pac:


Advertisement