are atheists as irratating as born again christians?

MrPudding

bhamsteve wrote: »

I have also seen religion bring out the best in people in their kindness, unity, tolerance and compassion.

Unity? Really? Personally I think it is the opposite. It has to be. Religion unites the followers of one religion against the followers of all others, or those who follow no religion. That is isn't real unity. Then when you consider, for example, a gay christian you find that a particular religion doesn't actually even unite its own followers effectively.

Religion can be accused of many, many things. Unity, of that kind that benefits and improves humanity, is most certainly one of them.

MrP

robindch

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

Can we -- collectively -- up the standard of posting so that nobody needs to post accusations of trolling in one direction or another? And can we drop the accusations of trolling too, please?

Your forum mods would be most obliged.

gothictwilight

Nodin wrote: »

My own feeling on the matter is that you were just trolling. Certainly the sub-standard commentary from you thus far does nothing to dispel the notion.

Well i do currently live under a bridge.

Galvasean

gothictwilight wrote: »

Well i do currently live under a bridge.

Down town?

gothictwilight

Sarky wrote: »

The really tragic thing is how the word troll has lost all meaning. These days it seems people think they're trolling if they just barge into a thread and fling sh*t aimlessly like an angry blind monkey. Where's the subtlety? Where's the wit? Where, indeed, is the art?

There's no trolling on this thread, no sir. What we have here is muppetry. The difference between the two has been blurred by shoddy news articles and ill-informed journalists who learned about the internet by reading a book.

I'm sure if i keep reading this i may find a point or humour here someplace.
Its probably very very subtle.
Very clever, sir.

postitnote

Hello people.

I read the first 12 or so pages of this thread and then gave up and clicked on the last page to leave a comment, so apologies if i'm repeating anything already said.

I joined boards to hopefully make a worthwhile contribution but have so far found myself making the odd remark here or there, and instead regurgitating what i read on here back to my GF.

Now, being that she's a believer in a protestant god, I regularly get accused of attacking her religion and beliefs (over muslims etc)

As i'm not actively trying to make snide comments or put her own beliefs down, rather point out the quirky side or darker consequences on society that religion causes. I think she feels the need to defend what she see's as her moral guide up to this point. So an attack on religion is as good as an attack on her own beliefs and attack on her.

I have called myself Pastafarian in the past but question if this was a wise move, I don't want to push those views on anyone. It makes me as bad as people waving a bible in my face (IMHO of course)

My thought are that, yes, there are irritating atheists, as with all types of people. But that most of the accusations flung about by religious folk of 'them irritating militant atheists' is no more than a bit of name calling caused when you run out of counter arguments.

Thanks.

Zillah

Robin I will pay you real world money of five euro if you fix the spelling and capitalisation in the thread title.

Bannasidhe

Zillah wrote: »

Robin I will pay you real world money of five euro if you fix the spelling and capitalisation in the thread title.

It is more irritating then being in a lift with Pope Benny and Dawkins while needing a wee (do I stay and go or do I go and go?)

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

Robin I will pay you real world money of five euro if you fix the spelling and capitalisation in the thread title.

I sense an opportunity for Dades here. Dades, changes the thread title and forces Robin out of five euro. Robin now has no choice but to share some of the cut with Dades unless he wants the truth to be unearthed. Mwahahaha.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Robin I will pay you real world money of five euro if you fix the spelling and capitalisation in the thread title.

Given the OP's friendly attitude, I think I'll leave her error stand. Otherwise, well:

Dades

I also subscribe to the view that the poorly worded titles of accusatory threads should stand as a warning to users that the debate to follow may not be all that rewarding.

Jellicoe

Atheists have nothing in common other than being rational, ethical, and above average in education and intelligence and to promote free thinking atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism and promoting an ethical, secular society where the state does not support or finance or give special treatment to any religion.

The Mad Hatter

Jellicoe wrote: »

Atheists have nothing in common other than being rational, ethical, and above average in education and intelligence and to promote free thinking atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism and promoting an ethical, secular society where the state does not support or finance or give special treatment to any religion.

Um, no. Atheists have nothing in common except the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Jellicoe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Um, no. Atheists have nothing in common except the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Um, no, actually Atheists can have lots in common if they wish.

Check out Atheism+ or Atheist.ie

mcmoustache

Jellicoe wrote: »

Um, no, actually Atheists can have lots in common if they wish.

Check out Atheism+ or Atheist.ie

Now I know you're just taking the piss.

Jellicoe

mcmoustache wrote: »

Now I know you're just taking the piss.

The Amazing Spiderman

I would suggest not asking athiests.

Greaney

Maybe this is not the right place to put this link, but Melvyn Bragg, a man who claims to be a non-believer, has an interesting view...

parrai

Greaney wrote: »

Maybe this is not the right place to put this link, but Melvyn Bragg, a man who claims to be a non-believer, has an interesting view...

Bragg is spot on... There is no need to be dismissive of anyones' idea of what they want to believe in. It can be debated without having to 'rub anyones nose' in it. It creates and introduces hate/anger into an otherwise facinating debate. Sometimes it is better to agree to disagree, rather than turn it into a backslapping session. The irony of it is, neither side can say for sure whether there is a god or not.

Atheist+ is the manifestation of this ridicule. Negativity breeds negativity.

Dades

parrai wrote: »

Bragg is spot on... There is no need to be dismissive of anyones' idea of what they want to believe in. It can be debated without having to 'rub anyones nose' in it. It creates and introduces hate/anger into an otherwise facinating debate. Sometimes it is better to agree to disagree, rather than turn it into a backslapping session. The irony of it is, neither side can say for sure whether there is a god or not.

Meh, nobody ever writes a piece about Dawkins when he agrees to disagree with someone. Know what I mean? He's a writer foremost, and nobody has to read his books.

Not sure I get the irony about saying for *sure* about anything. What's ironic about not being able to prove something invisible and intangible isn't there? It's called intellectual honesty.

parrai wrote: »

Atheist+ is the manifestation of this ridicule. Negativity breeds negativity.

Methinks you need to read the atheism+ thread on this forum.

Gbear

Greaney wrote: »

Maybe this is not the right place to put this link, but Melvyn Bragg, a man who claims to be a non-believer, has an interesting view...

Seems like the usual misrepresentation of atheism, "boohoo atheists are mean" and woolly thinking bull****.

parrai

Dades wrote: »

Meh, nobody ever writes a piece about Dawkins when he agrees to disagree with someone. Know what I mean? He's a writer foremost, and nobody has to read his books.

Not sure I get the irony about saying for *sure* about anything. What's ironic about not being able to prove something invisible and intangible isn't there? It's called intellectual honesty.

Methinks you need to read the atheism+ thread on this forum.

With due respect Dades, Atheist+ is and will be atheists fighting with each other. Forget about the principles of what it is about. When it's boiled down, this is what it will be.

Richards' approach is what Bragg is talking about, and the man is correct.

Sappa

They are worse IMO

Sarky

No, YOU'RE worse IMO!

Sappa

Sarky wrote: »

No, YOU'RE worse IMO!

Aaahhhh you got me

Dades

parrai wrote: »

With due respect Dades, Atheist+ is and will be atheists fighting with each other. Forget about the principles of what it is about. When it's boiled down, this is what it will be.

I don't follow. You mentioned Atheism+ in relation to people like Dawkins offering ridicule. Atheism+ is a vehicle for feminist atheists who had a schism with some other online community.

parrai wrote: »

Richards' approach is what Bragg is talking about, and the man is correct.

When you say he's correct you mean you agree with him. While Dawkins annoys me sometimes, the main problem people have with him is that he talks honestly about people's about sacred cows. Some of us don't think that cows are sacred.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Some of us don't think that cows are sacred.

Cows may not be sacred but their farts are.

parrai

Dades wrote: »

I don't follow. You mentioned Atheism+ in relation to people like Dawkins offering ridicule. Atheism+ is a vehicle for feminist atheists who had a schism with some other online community.


When you say he's correct you mean you agree with him. While Dawkins annoys me sometimes, the main problem people have with him is that he talks honestly about people's about sacred cows. Some of us don't think that cows are sacred.

Yes, I know, but looking at the Atheist+ on reddit, the list of things that they set out for exclusion, don't leave alot of room for maneuver. I mentioned Atheist+, as this is a manifestation of the negativity bred from ridicule.

http://metareddit.com/r/atheismplus



Of course, wouldn't you know, it has been changed from it's original manifesto.

Yes, your comprehension of what I wrote, regarding Bragg, is correct. I do agree with him, as the man is talking sense. This illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. I wrote what I thought about his comment, hence my agreement with him.

I am agreeing with his opinion.

I perfectly understand, that this opinion is obviously running contrary to yours, as you have highlighted it.

But it's not a big thing...







There is no insult in this. I think the man is correct. Dragging it out won't change this.

Dades

Hmmm, indeed.

But please realise this about "atheism+", it's someone else's group with associated agendas, not a representative of basic lack of belief.

parrai

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm, indeed.

But please realise this about "atheism+", it's someone else's group with associated agendas, not a representative of basic lack of belief.

100%. Totally, what is witty today, is going to sting tomorrow.