Goodbye Atheism

Michael Nugent

This is the second of two final points I am going to make before I finish discussing this topic.

You are selectively applying different standards to Atheist Ireland than you or any other sensible person would to any other advocacy group with a variation of Atheist or Ireland in its name.

You are acting as if Atheist Ireland is doing something extraordinarily strange by having the word Atheist in our name, despite being repeatedly told that there are many advocacy groups around the world that have the word Atheist or Atheism in their names, and that there is an international umbrella group called Atheist Alliance International.

To repeat, there is nothing unusual about the idea, or the reality, of an advocacy group promoting atheism, reason and ethical secularism, representing its members, under a name that includes the word Atheism or Atheist.

Also, you are not repeatedly raising concerns about the name of any other organization that has the word Ireland or Irish in its name.

I suggest that you start by complaining about the name and activities of Access Ireland, Action Aid Ireland, Active Retirement Ireland, Age Action Ireland, Alcohol Action Ireland, Amnesty International Ireland, Astronomy Ireland, Apex Housing Association Ireland, Arts and Disability Ireland, Basketball Ireland, Birdwatch Ireland, Boardmatch Ireland, Care Alliance Ireland, Chemical Distribution Ireland, Christian Aid Ireland, Co-operation Ireland, Countryside Ireland, Enable Ireland, Event Ireland, Engineers Ireland, European Movement Ireland, Excellence Ireland, Focus Ireland, ICT Ireland, Inclusion Ireland, Older Women’s Network Ireland, Opera Ireland, Oxfam Ireland, Rainbows Ireland, RNLI Ireland, Samaritans Ireland, Scouting Ireland, Transparency International Ireland, Visual Arts Ireland, Voluntary Arts Ireland, Volunteering Ireland, World Vision Ireland, Youth Work Ireland, and YMCA Ireland.

Then you can move on to complaining about the name and activities of the Bridge Association of Ireland, Church of Ireland, Composting Association of Ireland, Drinks Industry Group of Ireland, Economic and Social History Society of Ireland, Equestrian Federation of Ireland, Folk Music Society of Ireland, Football Association of Ireland, Golfing Union of Ireland, Home Birth Association of Ireland, Housing Institute of Ireland, Humanist Association of Ireland, Inland Waterways Association of Ireland, Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, Latin Mass Society of Ireland, Law Society of Ireland, Men’s Council of Ireland, National Bible Society of Ireland, National Women’s Council of Ireland, Olympic Council of Ireland, Reading Association of Ireland, Sales Institute of Ireland, Simon Communities of Ireland, Tree Council of Ireland, Water Colour Society of Ireland, Union of Students in Ireland, and Zoological Society of Ireland.

And then you can finish by complaining about the name and activities of the Irish Academy of Engineering, Irish Architectural Archive, Irish Association of Industrial relations, Irish Centre for Human Rights, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Irish Countrywomen’s Association, Irish Crimestoppers Trust, Irish Deaf Society, Irish Family Planning Association, Irish Farmers Association, Irish Federation of Women’s Clubs, Irish Film Institute, Irish Hospitality Institute, Irish Insurance Federation, Irish Georgian Society, Irish Guide Dogs, Irish Landmark Trust, Irish Masters of Beagles Association, Irish Medical Organization, Irish Nationwide Fireplace Association, Irish Philosophical Society, Irish Road Bowling Association, Irish Sailing Association, Irish Senior Citizens Parliament, Irish Traveller Movement, Irish Underwater Council, Irish Wheelchair Association, Irish Wildlife Trust, Irish Youth Hostels Trust, Irish Youth Foundation, and Irish Writers Centre.

This is not an exhaustive list. But there is enough there to keep you going for a while. When you get the same level of interaction from them as you have had from us, you can come back and start again with Atheist Ireland.

Alternatively, you could see it as overwhelming evidence that there is nothing unusual in a group having a variation of the world Ireland in its name, and that no sensible person would assume or fear that such a group was claiming to represent everybody in Ireland who have an association with the other word in its name.

And with that, I am taking an indeterminate break from this discussion.
.

ShooterSF

Wait there's a men's council of Ireland? Trying to speak for me? I'm not even a member. Darn now I have to change what I call myself. I'd go with male human but there's a humanist society and that might confuse people and if I go with male homosapien some people might get confused and think I'm gay. well that's ruined a perfectly good Halloween.

Obliq

"I also say that there two significant positions that necessarily follow from rejecting belief in gods, which is rejecting that our ideas of truth and morality come from gods. I say that these are significant philosophical and ethical positions in a world where most people believe differently."

This:-)

I'm signing up.

MisterEpicurus

I think all these lists of 'other organizations' that Mr. Nugent and Co. have repeatedly put up is actually a red herring.

I'll cite a few examples (as you must have cited 50+) to make my point;

- Folk Music Society of Ireland
- Irish Medical Organization
- Irish Writers Centre
- Olympic Council of Ireland
- Engineers Ireland

All of these, for example, share a common interest. For example, people interested in folk music join the folk music society, people interested in writing join the Irish Writers Centre etc. But people interested in atheism...join an atheist society? What is it exactly that they join for? What does it mean to say you're 'interested enough in atheism to join a society on it'? Given that atheism is just a lack of belief in a god (i.e. I could be a murdering, lying, raping, hitlerite, blah blah etc.) there is no reason for me to agree with anything anyone else says because I've nothing in common with them. Whereas members of the folk music society are all interested in folk music. I can't really make it clearer than that. The societies and councils you mention are all interested in something but atheism is a lack of something.

So what are you interested in when you're interested in atheism? At least with folk music I know what to get, but with atheism I'm not so sure! Attaching your own aims under that label equally doesn't help because that's all you're doing - heaping it under the label of atheism. There is no common bond among atheists than a lack of belief. All political aims are separate and go under their respective headings, be it secularism or rationality or whatever.

endacl

Janey Mackers, I agree with ye all!

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Given that atheism is just a lack of belief in a god...

...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is the first of two final points I am going to make before I finish discussing this topic.

You are being dogmatic about your preferred meaning of the words atheism and atheist. You are trying to impose your personal preferences on reality, as opposed to recognizing reality and working with it. Like many religious people, you are using dogma where dogma simply won’t work.

You don’t accept the reality that (a) words are evolving tools of communication, not observed facts, (b) their meaning is whatever thoughts they trigger in the mind of the person reading or hearing them, (c) dictionaries do not give meanings to words, they retrospectively try to describe the meanings that people have recently attached to them, (d) the words atheism and atheist, like many words, mean different things to different people, and (e) these meanings, like the meanings of many words, are constantly evolving and will continue to evolve.

Also, you are selfishly selective in your dogmatism about this. You are not dogmatically insisting that these words should always have their original meanings, which was a derogatory insult aimed at people who were typically religious but who rejected the established gods of the people people calling them atheists.

You are quite happy that the original meanings of the words have evolved to include a meaning which you personally are comfortable with. But you insist that (a) there is only one true meaning, (b) your preferred meaning is the only true meaning, out of the various meanings that currently exist, and (c) your preferred meaning must always remain the only true meaning, and the language cannot continue to evolve in the future as it has in the past.

I understand that it is comfortable to think that those parts of the world that we like will always stay as they are, but it is not the case in reality.

Currently, the words atheism and atheist today can mean many things. To most atheists the words can mean anything on a scale from strong belief that there are no gods, to passive lack of belief that there are gods. To many religious people, the same words can mean anything from a person who doesn’t believe in their preferred god, to a person who espouses a religion called atheism, or a person who has no basis for morality.

When I am asked what atheism means in the context of atheist advocacy, I typically say that it can mean anything on a scale from strong belief that there are no gods, to passive lack of belief that there are gods. I also stress that atheism is not a claim of certainty, and that any atheist I know would be happy to change their mind if they got reliable evidence that a god exists. However, I say that, in ordinary day to day language, I am as confident that there are no gods as I am that there are no unicorns or leprechauns. I also say that there two significant positions that necessarily follow from rejecting belief in gods, which is rejecting that our ideas of truth and morality come from gods. I say that these are significant philosophical and ethical positions in a world where most people believe differently.

But I am not dogmatic about this. I realize that, ultimately, the word means whatever thoughts that it triggers in the mind of the person listening to me. And so I have to adjust my conversation to accommodate these nuances, otherwise I am just talking to myself.

So I suggest that you consider focusing less on dogmatic linguistics, and focusing more on helping to bring about actual positive changes in Irish society, based on whatever your personal priorities for change are.
.

ShooterSF

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think all these lists of 'other organizations' that Mr. Nugent and Co. have repeatedly put up is actually a red herring.

I'll cite a few examples (as you must have cited 50+) to make my point;

- Folk Music Society of Ireland
- Irish Medical Organization
- Irish Writers Centre
- Olympic Council of Ireland
- Engineers Ireland

All of these, for example, share a common interest. For example, people interested in folk music join the folk music society, people interested in writing join the Irish Writers Centre etc. But people interested in atheism...join an atheist society? What is it exactly that they join for? What does it mean to say you're 'interested enough in atheism to join a society on it'? Given that atheism is just a lack of belief in a god (i.e. I could be a murdering, lying, raping, hitlerite, blah blah etc.) there is no reason for me to agree with anything anyone else says because I've nothing in common with them. Whereas members of the folk music society are all interested in folk music. I can't really make it clearer than that. The societies and councils you mention are all interested in something but atheism is a lack of something.

So what are you interested in when you're interested in atheism? At least with folk music I know what to get, but with atheism I'm not so sure! Attaching your own aims under that label equally doesn't help because that's all you're doing - heaping it under the label of atheism. There is no common bond among atheists than a lack of belief. All political aims are separate and go under their respective headings, be it secularism or rationality or whatever.

I don't see how you can fail to see that some people are interested in actually promoting atheism. They believe it to be true and that others have been brainwashed into false beliefs. If homoeopathy was being taught as true to kids in the country and most adults believed it true then it would seem a good idea if some people choose to come together under a banner to oppose it. Actually there's a perfect example. Skeptic societies, a group who are pulled together by their lack of belief in the the claims of other people. That is no different than AI but I don't see any outrage at them?

TheChizler

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is the first of two final points I am going to make before I finish discussing this topic...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is the second of two final points I am going to make before I finish discussing this topic...

I must say, in terms of dedication to a point, thoroughness and even just in terms of sheer length, Michael's posts always impress!

robindch

The Bishop is taking a fortnight's break during which he can ruminate upon forum decorum.

Tim Robbins

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Actually, that's a fair point. I have probably spent too much time trying to reassure you, and a small number of other people here, about an issue that is frankly of no concern to either our paid-up members or our 4,000 Facebook supporters.

I am facebook supporter and would have issue with it.

1. You are being dogmatic about your preferred meaning of the words atheism and atheist. Like many religious people, you are using dogma where dogma simply won’t work.
2. You are selectively applying different standards to Atheist Ireland than you or any other sensible person would to any other advocacy group with a variation of Atheist or Ireland in its name.

Here is some detail on those two final points.

That's ridiculous. I reference the most respected dictionary in the world and you reject that. You are the one being dogmatic.
You refuse accept to evidence other that what suits your viewpoint.

Yes language does evolve but as I said if you are trying to engage the public you could easily make things clearer - you would benefit you and them.

I also differentiated between other groups such as INTO where words like Teachers don't cause problems. In addition, I am not a teacher so they do not misrepresent me.

I think the crux of the issue here is that some people in Atheist Ireland didn't like the Humanist Society. Not you, as you are a member. Or else some people in Atheist Ireland, just wanted to do things their own way.
I remember when AI joined members were giving out about the HAI. But now, it has turned out that AI are trying to do the same thing.

It's a shame of a bunch of well meaning intelligent volunteers can't see the bigger picture. I would see benefit in both organisations but they would b stronger together.

Tim Robbins

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think all these lists of 'other organizations' that Mr. Nugent and Co. have repeatedly put up is actually a red herring.

I'll cite a few examples (as you must have cited 50+) to make my point;

- Folk Music Society of Ireland
- Irish Medical Organization
- Irish Writers Centre
- Olympic Council of Ireland
- Engineers Ireland

I was a member of Engineers Ireland I left because it was a waste of money. But if they started making public representations telling everyone where an engineer is different to a non-engineer and try to make generalisations out what sort of person an engineer is, stretching the meaning of the word engineer for their political benefit, telling any engineer who challenged these opinions that they were dogmatic and that so of malarky - it would annoy me.

Obliq

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was a member of Engineers Ireland I left because it was a waste of money. But if they started making public representations telling everyone where an engineer is different to a non-engineer and try to make generalisations out what sort of person an engineer is, stretching the meaning of the word engineer for their political benefit, telling any engineer who challenged these opinions that they were dogmatic and that so of malarky - it would annoy me.

I have to say I don't see your problem here at all. Arguing about the semantics of using the word Atheist in an Irish Atheist association even if all atheists don't believe the same thing, seems a bit petty to me because simple fact is that action speaks louder than words.

I have highlighted a sentence in your comment because I want to give you an example of this actually happening. I have a son with Asperger syndrome which is on the Autistic Spectrum. Because of this, I have joined a few websites that offer support and an arena where I can talk with other parents having similar (but not the same) parenting issues. I could easily have joined Autism Northern Ireland for example, but discovered recently that they are 100% behind closing the new Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast. This is a prime example of a group stretching the word Autism to suit their administrator's political purpose.

As a result, I will obviously not be joining this crowd. You are free not to join Atheist Ireland, or if you have done, you are free to leave. I will be joining them, because I am looking at the WORK they are doing and I support it. I couldn't care less if it was called "Some Atheists", "Most Atheists", "I can't believe we're not Atheists, we're so damn close" or anything else. (Might have a slight problem if they were called "The Jesuit Illuminati" tbh...).

sbsquarepants

iMyself wrote: »

My problem is mostly with Atheism Ireland. I find the notion of a bunch of "atheists" congregating to debate and draw up a set of rules and guidelines for what it means not to believe in God to be total and utter nonsense.

.

I do agree with you, there are no rules to a lack of belief - well maybe one rule, no believers need apply!
But i suppose they have to be called something, so who really cares. I don't allign myself with any group and will think for myself regardless of how any group, or society in general expects.
So it's a non problem really.

equivariant

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So what are you interested in when you're interested in atheism?

For one thing, I am interested in persuading more people to become atheists. You may not be interested in that - I don't mind. I believe that an organisation interesting in encouraging atheism is entitled to use the word atheism in its name.

For two things, I am interested in not having atheists denied their basic human rights. You may not be interested in that - I don't mind. I believe that an organisation devoted to equal rights for atheists is entitled to use the word atheism in its name.

etc....

Obliq

equivariant wrote: »

For one thing, I am interested in persuading more people to become atheists. You may not be interested in that - I don't mind. I believe that an organisation interesting in encouraging atheism is entitled to use the word atheism in its name.

For two things, I am interested in not having atheists denied their basic human rights. You may not be interested in that - I don't mind. I believe that an organisation devoted to equal rights for atheists is entitled to use the word atheism in its name.

etc....

I'll go with your second thing, but not your first - and I'm perfectly sure you don't mind. I don't mind that you want to persuade people to become atheists.
That we don't fully agree, does not stop us from supporting an organisation that also might not support either of our aims fully. Yay! We can do that cos we're "like-minded" see? Quite good really.

Tim Robbins

Obliq wrote: »

I have to say I don't see your problem here at all. Arguing about the semantics of using the word Atheist in an Irish Atheist association even if all atheists don't believe the same thing, seems a bit petty to me because simple fact is that action speaks louder than words.

I have highlighted a sentence in your comment because I want to give you an example of this actually happening. I have a son with Asperger syndrome which is on the Autistic Spectrum. Because of this, I have joined a few websites that offer support and an arena where I can talk with other parents having similar (but not the same) parenting issues. I could easily have joined Autism Northern Ireland for example, but discovered recently that they are 100% behind closing the new Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast. This is a prime example of a group stretching the word Autism to suit their administrator's political purpose.

As a result, I will obviously not be joining this crowd. You are free not to join Atheist Ireland, or if you have done, you are free to leave. I will be joining them, because I am looking at the WORK they are doing and I support it. I couldn't care less if it was called "Some Atheists", "Most Atheists", "I can't believe we're not Atheists, we're so damn close" or anything else. (Might have a slight problem if they were called "The Jesuit Illuminati" tbh...).

Well yeah if they can get rid of religion in schools I couldn't give a sh*t if they were called the Tim Robbins appreciation society.

gbee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well yeah if they can get rid of religion in schools I couldn't give a sh*t if they were called the Tim Robbins appreciation society.

It does not make sense.

My stance is that teaching religion to say the under 12s is child abuse and should be punishable under law as such, be that parental or educational.

I'm not in favour of an Atheist Organisation to try and 'convert' parents to Atheism and then not bring up their children in religion as this is as bad as being a Christian and bringing your children up as Christians.

Obliq

gbee wrote: »

It does not make sense.

My stance is that teaching religion to say the under 12s is child abuse and should be punishable under law as such, be that parental or educational.

I'm not in favour of an Atheist Organisation to try and 'convert' parents to Atheism and then not bring up their children in religion as this is as bad as being a Christian and bringing your children up as Christians.

I'm not sure I take your point. I am presuming that there is nothing wrong in your view with parents bringing up their children to be as good, moral and reasonable as possible. If they do that through religion, then that is their right.

My atheist parents brought me up to examine my own beliefs. They actively encouraged me to go to church with my friends when I expressed an interest in the mysterious pastimes of a Sunday morning/Saturday evening. I have chosen to be an atheist agnostic and my children have the same right as I had to choose their own beliefs. I WILL discuss with them the rational basis for their beliefs though, and have often been a bit flummoxed by my youngest's questions. Hoping he'll explain his answers to me one day.

I suppose I'm saying here that unlike a religious upbringing, the atheist one that I experienced actively required me to question my beliefs and the same can't be said for a religious one. Therefore, it's far from "child abuse" (by which I hope you really meant "child indoctrination") if you're given a choice. You have to teach your kids something.

gbee

Obliq wrote: »

You have to teach your kids something.

I believe a child has a pure mind that it ripe for exploration on its own, he or she should not be denied that.

Basic skills, reading writing are the best tools one can give them. I liken it to a artist, the child is the artist and should have a blank canvass and all the colours on a palette.

A child brought up in religion is given a picture already drawn and a limited palette and are told to fill in the missing bits.

Obliq

gbee wrote: »

I believe a child has a pure mind that it ripe for exploration on its own, he or she should not be denied that.

Basic skills, reading writing are the best tools one can give them. I liken it to a artist, the child is the artist and should have a blank canvass and all the colours on a palette.

A child brought up in religion is given a picture already drawn and a limited palette and are told to fill in the missing bits.

Well in that case, my parents gave me a full blank sketch book with questions at the top of each page. I have no problem with the likes of Atheist Ireland "encouraging" (rather than converting) people to atheism as thinking for yourself is pretty much one of the basic tenets isn't it? That and no belief in a god.

equivariant

Obliq wrote: »

I'll go with your second thing, but not your first - and I'm perfectly sure you don't mind. I don't mind that you want to persuade people to become atheists.
That we don't fully agree, does not stop us from supporting an organisation that also might not support either of our aims fully. Yay! We can do that cos we're "like-minded" see? Quite good really.

Precisely. We don't have to agree on everything to see the benefit of association.

I suspect that for some people, being atheist is more emotionally tied up with rebelling against the establishment. For such people, I can see that association is anathema as it inevitably will start to make atheism part of the establishment.

PS one of themes that is often repeated by objectors to organisations such as AI is 'I can think for myself' or some variant of that. My own belief is that thinking on one's own is good, but so is collaboration and sharing of ideas. I don't fear associations so much as to believe that I will lose the capacity for independent thought should I join.

Obliq

If I could like that twice, I would

And as I just said on this thread, I'm pretty sure that one of the basics for being an atheist is the ability to think for yourself. An association of people who do that is just an association, not a guideline.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the crux of the issue here is that some people in Atheist Ireland didn't like the Humanist Society.

No doubt some don't. So, in order to pin this issue down once and for all, could I ask you to continue this conversation either on AI's forum, or on the HAI's forum if they have one? It's not relevant to A+A and seems to be doing nothing but annoying people here.

Thanks.

nagirrac

gbee wrote: »

My stance is that teaching religion to say the under 12s is child abuse and should be punishable under law as such, be that parental or educational.

What a tolerant statement that is:(

That's exactly why many people and not just religious worry about atheists having more influence in society. Parents have the right and obligation to teach their children moral values, it is a fundamental aspect of parenting. How they do that is up to them, whether it is via religion or not. A secular society is one that allows parents bring up their children with religion or without religion.

Religion teaches moral values. From Confusius to Christ the core teaching of religion is the Golden Rule. You can teach the Golden Rule without religion but in any sane society that should be up to parents and not some daft idea of what the legal system should be used for.

It always amazes me how many atheists claim to be anti-authoritarian but want the state to have more power (so long as it fits their worldview of course).

iMyself

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't see how you can fail to see that some people are interested in actually promoting atheism. They believe it to be true and that others have been brainwashed into false beliefs. If homoeopathy was being taught as true to kids in the country and most adults believed it true then it would seem a good idea if some people choose to come together under a banner to oppose it. Actually there's a perfect example. Skeptic societies, a group who are pulled together by their lack of belief in the the claims of other people. That is no different than AI but I don't see any outrage at them?

Can you not see the contradiction here? Would you setup an a-homeapathy society and set out manifestos and debate what it is to b a-homeapathyist ? No of course not because that makes no sense.

Now switch a-homeapathy with atheist and homeapathy with religion. It makes perfect sense to speak out against religion as being atheist means you think it's baloney. The only way you can speak about a lack of belief is to talk about why you dont believe. How can you talk about your disbelief in any other way? Well AI have found a way, let's redefine it and give it substance rather than lack of substance.

Sure why stop there? Let's define the meaning of the universe and call it a god. That way were all theists. Problem solved.

iMyself

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think all these lists of 'other organizations' that Mr. Nugent and Co. have repeatedly put up is actually a red herring.

I'll cite a few examples (as you must have cited 50+) to make my point;

- Folk Music Society of Ireland
- Irish Medical Organization
- Irish Writers Centre
- Olympic Council of Ireland
- Engineers Ireland

All of these, for example, share a common interest. For example, people interested in folk music join the folk music society, people interested in writing join the Irish Writers Centre etc. But people interested in atheism...join an atheist society? What is it exactly that they join for? What does it mean to say you're 'interested enough in atheism to join a society on it'? Given that atheism is just a lack of belief in a god (i.e. I could be a murdering, lying, raping, hitlerite, blah blah etc.) there is no reason for me to agree with anything anyone else says because I've nothing in common with them. Whereas members of the folk music society are all interested in folk music. I can't really make it clearer than that. The societies and councils you mention are all interested in something but atheism is a lack of something.

So what are you interested in when you're interested in atheism? At least with folk music I know what to get, but with atheism I'm not so sure! Attaching your own aims under that label equally doesn't help because that's all you're doing - heaping it under the label of atheism. There is no common bond among atheists than a lack of belief. All political aims are separate and go under their respective headings, be it secularism or rationality or whatever.

Well put. But you're forgetting one thing. AI get to define the meaning of "atheist". With that kind of argument you might as well be trying to convince a creationist that you can't just make things up to suit your argument. You can't just say the earth is 10.000 years old because I'm in a society and thats what we believe. Just as you can't just redefine a word because your in a society and thats what your common consensus is.

Once you start claiming your god given right (excuse the figure of speech!) to make sh!t up, then it's pretty much the end of any sensible debate.

iMyself

nagirrac wrote: »

What a tolerant statement that is:(

That's exactly why many people and not just religious worry about atheists having more influence in society. Parents have the right and obligation to teach their children moral values, it is a fundamental aspect of parenting. How they do that is up to them, whether it is via religion or not. A secular society is one that allows parents bring up their children with religion or without religion.

Religion teaches moral values. From Confusius to Christ the core teaching of religion is the Golden Rule. You can teach the Golden Rule without religion but in any sane society that should be up to parents and not some daft idea of what the legal system should be used for.

It always amazes me how many atheists claim to be anti-authoritarian but want the state to have more power (so long as it fits their worldview of course).

Moral values come from the law. People do not obey the rules of the road because God tells them to. People do not respect the smoking ban because it says so in the bible. Go back far enough and we were a lot more savage. Did Jesus cone back and lay down a few more ground rules in the bible or is it just that laws git tougher?

On a more basic level morals come from simply wanting to be a nice person. I dont need the bible to tell me to friendly to my neighbour. I can do all that on my lonesome.

ShooterSF

nagirrac wrote: »

What a tolerant statement that is:(

That's exactly why many people and not just religious worry about atheists having more influence in society. Parents have the right and obligation to teach their children moral values, it is a fundamental aspect of parenting. How they do that is up to them, whether it is via religion or not. A secular society is one that allows parents bring up their children with religion or without religion.

Religion teaches moral values. From Confusius to Christ the core teaching of religion is the Golden Rule. You can teach the Golden Rule without religion but in any sane society that should be up to parents and not some daft idea of what the legal system should be used for.

It always amazes me how many atheists claim to be anti-authoritarian but want the state to have more power (so long as it fits their worldview of course).

It always amazes me that people that talk about a parents right to teach their children a religion then go on about a religion that sticks to nothing other than a few good morals, one I have yet to meet.

You don't mention a parents right to teach their children that hell is real and unless they follow christianity's rules they'll burn in it for eternity. Or teach their children that if they get a blood transfusion they'll end up angering their god or that one of the morals they are "[obliged] to teach their children" is that having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. Or that if they're female and raped then their rapist should pay 50 sheckels to their dad and then marry them without option of divorce. Or that the beatles are sending messages to kill others.

magicbastarder

i don't believe in the existence of michael nugent.
i am forming the amichaelnugent ireland society.

who's with me?

gbee

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't believe in the existence of michael nugent. i am forming the amichaelnugent ireland society.

who's with me?

As long as you don't tell be how I should be anti, I'm probably in by default anyway