Anti Religion.

Whosthis

kneemos wrote: »

Every knows there isn't any evidence.,as I said it's down to belief.
To base your whole argument on not having evidence is patently rediculous and childishly arrogent.

This is the reason you should never argue with a theist, their arguments make no sense. Its like arguing with an idiot. Proof and evidence go out the window, its all about that fuzzy feeling in my head.

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It depends what argument I am making.

Indeed it does :

I have no issue whatsoever with people who profess a non belief in god. Nor do I argue with them or confront them. So there is nothing ridiculous or arrogant there at all, whatever way you spell them.

But context is everything. And for one example, this is a discussion and debate forum. So I see nothing ridiculous or arrogant at all about confronting people who make claims about having a belief, with requests that they substantiate their claims even a little bit. Which they, as you and other people on the thread in that same camp display here, never seem to do.

But the main context of a forum like this, as people have informed you in response to the OP, is the effect of anti-Religion and anti-Religion in our society. You miss the point entirely when you say "We don't have an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject we profess not to believe in." because actually the forum is dedicated to a subject many all very much profess they DO believe in. Anti-Religion. You might not claim there is no god, but many much believe in anti-religion.

What the anti-religious do with their private and personal beliefs could not be less relevant to me if I tried. Where anti-religion and the anti-religious wander out of their club-house of choice and their anti-religious beliefs intersect with our public halls of power, education, communication and science however you very much have a war of ideas there. And pointing out that said anti-religious people have not offered the single first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that validates many of their anti-religious claims is the exact OPPOSITE of ridiculous and arrogant. It is positively incumbent upon us to do so, and I certainly will not back down from it merely because the likes of many here engage in name calling religious people in the place of open and honest discourse.

FishOnABike

Pherekydes wrote: »

And no e numbers at all at all. Though e is a great number, to be fair.

A great number indeed. An irrational and transcendental constant approximately equal to 2.718281828459 Funny how it should be brought up in a discussion under Religion & Spirituality.

nozzferrahhtoo

La Fenetre wrote: »

Indeed it does :

I do not think you have gained anything whatsoever by modifying my post and posting it back at me. It says nothing and adds nothing, and in many ways just makes my point for me. Because yes, where religion and the religious enter our society at a public level in our halls of power, education, science and communication, there is a war of ideas there.

The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims at that level of society. The Theists are. If you, by quoting my own post back at me, have an issue with me wishing to keep religion out of those halls, secularism, or feel I have ever made a claim that I have not backed up with Argument, Evidence, Data, or Reasoning.... then point it out. You will find I will answer you and enter into that discourse. The Theists are not.

So as I say your little exercise in attempting to reverse my post has actually made my point for me, and whatever your actual intention might have been, that is the result of it.

magicbastarder

i think there needs to be a thread all these questions get dumped into. it gets boring, all these threads generate a lot of noise and not much light.

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

Indeed it does :

I have no issue whatsoever with people who profess a non belief in god. Nor do I argue with them or confront them. So there is nothing ridiculous or arrogant there at all, whatever way you spell them.

But context is everything. And for one example, this is a discussion and debate forum. So I see nothing ridiculous or arrogant at all about confronting people who make claims about having a belief, with requests that they substantiate their claims even a little bit. Which they, as you and other people on the thread in that same camp display here, never seem to do.

But the main context of a forum like this, as people have informed you in response to the OP, is the effect of anti-Religion and anti-Religion in our society. You miss the point entirely when you say "We don't have an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject we profess not to believe in." because actually the forum is dedicated to a subject many all very much profess they DO believe in. Anti-Religion. You might not claim there is no god, but many much believe in anti-religion.

What the anti-religious do with their private and personal beliefs could not be less relevant to me if I tried. Where anti-religion and the anti-religious wander out of their club-house of choice and their anti-religious beliefs intersect with our public halls of power, education, communication and science however you very much have a war of ideas there. And pointing out that said anti-religious people have not offered the single first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that validates many of their anti-religious claims is the exact OPPOSITE of ridiculous and arrogant. It is positively incumbent upon us to do so, and I certainly will not back down from it merely because the likes of many here engage in name calling religious people in the place of open and honest discourse.

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think you have gained anything whatsoever by modifying my post and posting it back at me.

I have because, your post says nothing and adds nothing, and in many ways just makes my point for me. Because yes, where the anti religion and the anti religious enter our society at a public level in our halls of power, education, science and communication, there is a war of ideas there.

The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion at that level of society, the anti-theists are. If you, by re-quoting your own post back at me, have an issue with me wishing to keep anti-religion out of those halls, secularism, or feel anti-theists have ever made a claim about theism backed up with any sound Argument, Evidence, Data, or Reasoning.... then point it out. You will find I will answer you and enter into that discourse. The anti-theists are not.

So as I say my little exercise in attempting to reverse your post has actually made my point for me, and whatever your actual intention might have been, that is the result of it.

La Fenetre

looksee wrote: »

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

It's your reworded statement not mine, as the statement you bolded does not match, so you tell us if your statement is true or not as you're effectively having a conversation with yourself. Can you not tell ?

54and56

looksee wrote: »

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

Even if Le Fenetre does believe this unless he has truly invented time travel the days of the RC or any other religion dictating that their beliefs and rules are to be imposed on the whole of society are thankfully long gone.

looksee

I suppose it really is too much to hope for an actual answer from any of the theists, I am sure there is a joke about holy oil and slippery there somewhere.

Kiwi in IE

When I lived in New Zealand religion had no impact on either me personally or on the state. Religion there is considered to be a private matter for ones home and church. State funded institutions do not endorse any religion, our freedoms and rights are not curtailed by religion in any way, and as a result there is practically no hostility toward religion.

Sure, there's the odd loopy Iona type group, Destiny Church, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_Church_(New_Zealand), are probably the most high profile nutters, but Kiwi's on masse generally don't entertain such nonsense, so such groups are no real threat to anyone else's freedom. There is no fear that when Destiny Church representatives are ranting in the media about things such as LGBT rights, that ordinary Kiwis will be the slightest bit influenced by their nonsense. It's treated more like a comedy show of closed minded ignorance by Joe Bloggs Kiwi.

It also helps that not everyone is pretty much the same denomination, like in Ireland, the 3 largest groups identified in the 2013 NZ census were: No religion 41.9%, Catholic 12.61% and Anglican 11.79%. So we have far more variety which stops any one religion assuming a right to throw their weight around.

I didn't identify as an atheist until I moved to Ireland, I simply had no religion. When you are asked here and say that you have no religion, you often get a confused response, as if the person doesn't understand what you mean, or how that can be. I don't think most atheists would give religion a second thought if it wasn't imposed upon us the way it is in Ireland. So interestingly from my experience, there is far more respect toward religion from non adherents in truly secular countries where religion has to mind it own business.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

When I lived in New Zealand religion had no impact on either me personally or on the state. Religion there is considered to be a private matter for ones home and church. State funded institutions do not endorse any religion, our freedoms and rights are not curtailed by religion in any way, and as a result there is practically no hostility toward religion.

Sure, there's the odd loopy Iona type group, Destiny Church, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_Church_(New_Zealand), are probably the most high profile nutters, but Kiwi's on masse generally don't entertain such nonsense, so such groups are no real threat to anyone else's freedom. There is no fear that when Destiny Church representatives are ranting in the media about things such as LGBT rights, that ordinary Kiwis will be the slightest bit influenced by their nonsense. It's treated more like a comedy show of closed minded ignorance by Joe Bloggs Kiwi.

It also helps that not everyone is pretty much the same denomination, like in Ireland, the 3 largest groups identified in the 2013 NZ census were: No religion 41.9%, Catholic 12.61% and Anglican 11.79%. So we have far more variety which stops any one religion assuming a right to throw their weight around.

I didn't identify as an atheist until I moved to Ireland, I simply had no religion. When you are asked here and say that you have no religion, you often get a confused response, as if the person doesn't understand what you mean, or how that can be. I don't think most atheists would give religion a second thought if it wasn't imposed upon us the way it is in Ireland. So interestingly from my experience, there is far more respect toward religion from non adherents in truly secular countries where religion has to mind it own business.

Interesting you mention New Zealand but left out the following :

In New Zealand, Catholic schools are also owned by a proprietor, typically by the Bishop of the diocese. New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese. Catholic schools in New Zealand are also state integrated schools for funding purposes, which means that teachers' salaries, learning materials, and operations of the school are also publicly funded.

So the New Zealand system has many of the aspects that you are chiefly complaining about and opposing here.

robindch

La Fenetre wrote: »

New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese.

I imagine that the process was fairly similar in NZ - the bishop received some land in a bequest, or held a fund-raiser to raise money to buy a patch of land, then handed over the funding and day-to-day running of the school to the state, but retained control of the school.

Not dissimilar from an estate agent selling a house, but retaining control over who can go in and out of it.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Interesting you mention New Zealand but left out the following :

In New Zealand, Catholic schools are also owned by a proprietor, typically by the Bishop of the diocese. Catholic schools in New Zealand are also state integrated schools for funding purposes, meaning that teachers' salaries, learning materials, and operations of the school are also publicly funded. New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese.

Yes religious schools are partially funded by state, however there is secular school access for every child in schools owned and funded by the department of education. If an area is small and the population only warrants one school, there will always be a secular state school available. Very, very different from Ireland.

Parents also have to pay fees in religious schools to maintain buildings as the state pays for no building maintenance, whilst secular state schools are free.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes religious schools are partially funded by state, however there is secular school access for every child in schools owned and funded by the department of education. If an area is small and the population only warrants one school, there will always be a secular state school available. Very, very different from Ireland.

Yes there should be more non Catholic schools available, the Catholic church in Ireland already says this, but your objection instead centers on Catholic schools getting state funds, as they do in New Zealand.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Yes there should be more non Catholic schools available, the Catholic church in Ireland already says this, but your objection instead centers on Catholic schools getting state funds, as they do in New Zealand.

Catholic schools are the ONLY schools the state provides in many, many areas.

Access to suitable education for parents of all religions and none is a complete non issue in NZ, as secular, state schools are available in every area. On the contrary, in Ireland it is a massive issue.

looksee

In Ireland, almost all schools are Catholic, and Catholics get first dibs.
In NZ almost all schools are secular, and open to all, there are a few specialised, and subsidised Catholic schools for those who specifically want them.

There is no comparison.

Kiwi in IE

Anyhow the OP wants to know why people with no religion appear to feel hostile toward religion, and the answer is that this generally does not occur at all, when religion minds it's own business, stays out of affairs of state and keeps itself to places where religion is appropriate, churches and the homes/lives of those who want it. Religion (specifically Catholicism in ROI to be frank), has historically failed to do this on a spectacular level, and continues to fail, no respect is shown to non adherents, and therefore respect cannot be expected in return.

Kiwi in IE

And another thing, when I lived at home I never would have dreamed of ridiculing anyones religious beliefs (unless they were expressing a wish to restrict the rights of the general population because of them), and to be honest now I feel slightly guilty completely rubbishing beliefs that Catholicism shares with other, non intrusive denominations, but as for Catholicism, as long as it continues to interfere in state institutions and I have no reasonable choice but to educate my child in a school where those beliefs are being taught as fact, it's fair game!

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Catholic schools are the ONLY schools the state provides in many, many areas.

The state doesn't provide schools, it assists schools with funding.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Access to suitable education for parents of all religions and none is a complete non issue in NZ, as secular, state schools are available in every area. On the contrary, in Ireland it is a massive issue.

And the Catholic Church in Ireland agrees that there are not enough non Catholic schools, and the state should help rectify that, instead of expecting Catholic schools to sort everyone out.

nozzferrahhtoo

La Fenetre wrote: »

I have because

Except you have not, and your inability to write your own posts but to only quote mine back at me only further erodes your credibility.

La Fenetre wrote: »

there is a war of ideas there.

There is. And I can substantiate my side of that war. The theists can not because they can not offer a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoming that there is a god. Whereas the secularists have no case to make except to point out that the godists can not substantiate what they say. Learn the difference.

Because therein lies the difference, and therein lies where you are making my point for me. Not only can you not substantiate theistic ideas, you can not even write your own posts. You can only rehash mine and badly too.

La Fenetre wrote: »

The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion at that level of society

I agree! They are not! Again making my point for me. Or in your crass attempt to reverse my post did you forget to edit this part correctly? Because atheists and secularists are, as you say here, NOT making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion. Their claims are in fact well substantiated when they discuss religion.

La Fenetre wrote: »

If you, by re-quoting your own post back at me

Where did I do any such thing? I did not. Once. Ever. So now you are simply outright lying about reality and history.

La Fenetre wrote: »

have an issue with me wishing to keep anti-religion out of those halls

Except I did not once suggest putting anti religion into those halls. So your useless attempt to rehash my own post back at me has failed because you are now making no sense, and not replying to anything I ever did or said.

Because the fact is I am not anti religion. At the level of people having and practising and enjoying their religion. I am merely secularist in keeping religion out of our halls of power, education, science and communication. But that is not "anti religion" though you might wish to desperately pretend otherwise.

And I, unlike you, can argue why I am for that point. Where theists can not argue why god claims and religion should be taken seriously at that level. Though maybe some day one of you might try.

sonny.knowles

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because it's a negative concept?

Atheism: "without God"
Agnosticism: "without knowledge (about God)"
Anaemia: "without blood"
Amorphous: "without shape"
Anhydrous: "without water"
Anonymous: "without a name"

Are we seeing a pattern here yet

They all start in A? Is that the pattern?

endacl

kneemos wrote: »

Why the facination with religion ?

Two reasons for me.

1. Education. State education secular, religion should be a private matter and when it becomes something that's kept to the family and the church. I'm happy.

2. Iona Institute, et al. The day a talking head from that organisation, or similar, don't automatically get a seat at every debate on private matters of conscience, I'm done. And happy.

End of. Once that happens.

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except you have not

Except you have not.

Your inability to read your own posts, but to only quote your own back at me only further erodes your credibility.

There is. And I can substantiate my side of your war. The anti-theists can not because they can not offer a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoming supporting their anti-theism. Whereas the secularists have no case to make except to point out that the anti-theists can not substantiate what they say. Learn the difference.

Because therein lies the difference, and therein lies where you are making my point for me. Not only can you not substantiate anti-theistic ideas, you can not even read your own posts. You can only rehash your own and badly too.

I agree! They are not! Again making my point for me. Or in your crass attempt to reverse your own posts did you forget to edit this part correctly? Because theists and secularists are, as you say here, NOT making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about secularism. Their claims are in fact well substantiated when they discuss secularism.

Where did I do any such thing? I did not. Once. Ever. So now you are simply outright lying about reality and history.

Except I did not once suggest putting religion into those halls. So your useless attempt to rehash your own post back at me has failed because you are now making no sense, and not replying to anything I ever did or said.

Because the fact is I am not anti secular. At the level of people having and practising and enjoying their atheism. I am merely secularist in keeping anti-theism out of our halls of power, education, science and communication. But that is not "religion" though you might wish to desperately pretend otherwise.

And I, unlike you, can argue why I am for that point. Where anti-theists can not argue why anti-theism claims and anti-religion should be taken seriously at that level. Though maybe some day one of you might try.

Kiwi in IE

High alc/vol in the communion wine this evening?

BlaasForRafa

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

High alc/vol in the communion wine this evening?

I think he gets his posting style from the "Chewbacca defense"

nozzferrahhtoo

La Fenetre wrote: »

Except you have not.

Try replying to something I wrote for once. Your dodge tactics are getting transparent and trolling.

Osgoodisgood

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Try replying to something I wrote for once. Your dodge tactics are getting transparent and trolling.

I recommend no more food for Trolly McTrollster

Hotblack Desiato

La Fenetre wrote: »

Except you have not. [SNIP]

I didn't expect much from this thread, but you have set a new low for idiotic juvenile nonsense.

Shrap

kneemos wrote: »

Why the facination with religion ?

Gotta be honest here...couldn't be arsed reading the whole thread, but in answer to your question here....

Because of religion's fascination and domination of anyone who doesn't follow their credo to the letter. A somewhat (:rolleyes:) irritating trait of religions and very much to be battled.