"no, I'm actually an athiest"

optogirl · 12-10-2010 9:51am

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sure, I mentioned the guy's name on the thread and each time it was in a DISMISSIVE fashion - to say that 'condescending atheists', all tended to have a boner for the guy, were sycophantic towards him and should go masturbate to his books.

So why are you trying to make out that I was "eager" to bring him into the debate, your clutching at straws now.

Quit while your behind.

Time to give it up Pete - your bollixology regarding Dawkins only makes you appear biased and condescending - take your own advice and quit while you're behind

Osgoodisgood · 12-10-2010 10:05am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be fair if Lutherism is the State and default religion and everyone is automatically part of it at birth with even the parents making the choice that is not exactly keeping it private is it?

FWIW you are only a member of the church in Sweden if you are baptised.

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 10:19am

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

FWIW you are only a member of the church in Sweden if you are baptised.

Greentopia said in his/her post that every Swedish person is by default Lutheran although you can opt out persumably once old enough to make the choice.

Ickle Magoo · 12-10-2010 10:25am

At the end of 2009, 71.3% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran); this number has been decreasing by about 1% a year for the last two decades.[137] Church of Sweden services are sparsely attended (hovering in the single digit percentages of the population).[138] The reason for the large number of inactive members is partly that until 1996, children automatically became members at birth if at least one of the parents was a member. Since 1996, only children that are christened become members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Religion

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 10:28am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Religion

Fair enough, thanks for that!

robindch · 12-10-2010 10:41am

PAULWATSON wrote: »

These days, it seems everyone is tearing about the place mouthing off about "being an athiest".

I see that the thread title is "no, I'm actually an athiest" which suggests that (a) somebody else brought up the topic of religion and actively asked for somebody's views and (b) that the questioner assumed that somebody was religious when they weren't and despite that, that (c) the answer to the question was delivered politely.

Does asking leading questions and still getting polite answers really constitute "tearing about the place mouthing off about being an athiest", or is it just another case of a religious person contriving to get upset about something completely harmless?

philologos · 12-10-2010 10:44am

robindch wrote: »

Does asking leading questions and still getting polite answers really constitute "tearing about the place mouthing off about being an athiest", or is it just another case of a religious person contriving to get upset about something completely harmless?

We live in a society where people disagree. Imagine that? - I don't see why there is a reason for the OP to feel accosted by this. There is no reason why he can't just get on with it, or try to make his case clearer.

Flygimp · 12-10-2010 10:45am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nope no straw man at all. If you want religion to become really truely a private thing that people only do in their own homes and stop it from being , as some would see it, forced on people through books, media, schooling, iconigraphy etc than all the things I mentioned would have to happen. =

Then why has your theory and possible outcome not come to fruition in countries like New Zealand and Australia where education policies are secular by law. Religion is to be taught at the discretion of parents at home and school time is for education without bias. Yet across the board, places of worship sit next to each other weather it be buddhism, christian or hindu with an under current of empathy and acceptance in a multi cultural society.

robindch · 12-10-2010 10:56am

Jakkass wrote: »

We live in a society where people disagree.

No s___, Tonto!

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why there is a reason for the OP to feel accosted by this.

We agree on something

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 10:57am

Flygimp wrote: »

Then why has your theory and possible outcome not come to fruition in countries like New Zealand and Australia where education policies are secular by law. Religion is to be taught at the discretion of parents at home and school time is for education without bias. Yet across the board, places of worship sit next to each other weather it be buddhism, christian or hindu with an under current of empathy and acceptance in a multi cultural society.

It may well have worked in other countries but the church and religion in general seem to seen as the route of all evil by a lot of people in this country whether they admit it or not.

My point was that the church and religion are the subject of such negative feeling in this country I'd be afraid it wouldn't stop with merely removing religion in schools and the media.

Because that once that goal was achieved something else would fall under the spotlight like removing religious iconography or stopping the sale or religious books or shutting down the churches and insisting people only pray privately at home.

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

Scanlas The 2nd · 12-10-2010 11:04am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It may well have worked in other countries but the church and religion in general seem to seen as the route of all evil by a lot of people in this country whether they admit it or not.

My point was that the church and religion are the subject of such negative feeling in this country I'd be afraid it wouldn't stop with merely removing religion in schools and the media.

Because that once that goal was achieved something else would fall under the spotlight like removing religious iconography or stopping the sale or religious books or shutting down the churches and insisting people only pray privately at home.

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

That's absolutely ridiculous, I've never heard anyone saying religous books shouldn't be available. The only argument I've heard and agree with is that the state should be neutral on religion, no one religion should be given preference so that means not teaching one religion over others in school. If people want to set up churches praising bananas as their God I have no problem with that whatsover. No one would have to go to those churches if they don't want to. But school isn't like that. You have to go to get your education.

Osgoodisgood · 12-10-2010 11:05am

Jakkass wrote: »

We live in a society where people disagree. Imagine that? - I don't see why there is a reason for the OP to feel accosted by this. There is no reason why he can't just get on with it, or try to make his case clearer.

I think his "case" is quite clear. But I for one don't want to hear it discussed with any greater volume than is the norm.

There's a reason why Dawkins won't usually entertain debates with theists about creationism and/ or evolution. It's because it lends the creationist a platform and credibility that their case has not earned.

MagicMarker · 12-10-2010 11:07am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It may well have worked in other countries but the church and religion in general seem to seen as the route of all evil by a lot of people in this country whether they admit it or not.

My point was that the church and religion are the subject of such negative feeling in this country I'd be afraid it wouldn't stop with merely removing religion in schools and the media.

Because that once that goal was achieved something else would fall under the spotlight like removing religious iconography or stopping the sale or religious books or shutting down the churches and insisting people only pray privately at home.

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

*mind boggles*

Shenshen · 12-10-2010 11:09am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It may well have worked in other countries but the church and religion in general seem to seen as the route of all evil by a lot of people in this country whether they admit it or not.

My point was that the church and religion are the subject of such negative feeling in this country I'd be afraid it wouldn't stop with merely removing religion in schools and the media.

Because that once that goal was achieved something else would fall under the spotlight like removing religious iconography or stopping the sale or religious books or shutting down the churches and insisting people only pray privately at home.

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

Exactly. Now that gay people gained the right to be gay, they won't stop until the entire country is gay, and we can't stop them because we've given in to them before...

Burning Eclipse · 12-10-2010 11:09am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It may well have worked in other countries but the church and religion in general seem to seen as the route of all evil by a lot of people in this country whether they admit it or not.

My point was that the church and religion are the subject of such negative feeling in this country I'd be afraid it wouldn't stop with merely removing religion in schools and the media.

Because that once that goal was achieved something else would fall under the spotlight like removing religious iconography or stopping the sale or religious books or shutting down the churches and insisting people only pray privately at home.

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope tbh.

Flygimp · 12-10-2010 11:10am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

AS in the way Irish people had to appease the church for hundreds of years to the detriment of their native language, culture and identity... and fostered a culture of apathy which let a dictating power subject communities to child sweat shops, sexual predation, and the persecution of over 20,000 woman sent to mental institutions where they had their teeth pulled out and in many cases were lobotomised... then Ireland in certain periods of history has never been good at liberating woman.

Mark200 · 12-10-2010 11:11am

This video makes a few good points about the whole atheists and 'private' religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ImMtHrrKo

A few American political references, but the points still apply.

Also, no Atheist can become a Judge or President in Ireland.

robindch · 12-10-2010 11:15am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you appease some-one or some group once you have to keep doing or there will be trouble, it becomes a never ending cycle.

Sorry?

Do you really think I'm calling for "appeasement" when I ask the unelected, unaccountable leaders of your religious organization to stop trying to block my child from being educated although I -- in my capacity as director of a small company -- pay significantly more than most of the population do in taxes to provide this education for everybody?

prinz · 12-10-2010 11:18am

robindch wrote: »

Do you really think I'm calling for "appeasement" when I ask the unelected, unaccountable leaders of your religious organization to stop trying to block my child from being educated although I -- in my capacity as director of a small company -- pay significantly more than most of the population do in taxes to provide this education for everybody?

Perhaps you should ask the elected, accountable leaders of the country, you might get further. Oh, and when you do, I'll gladly support your cause.

Flygimp · 12-10-2010 11:22am

I'll join you prinz... I'll sort out a truck full of silage and a jack hammer for the stand off.

mossyc123 · 12-10-2010 11:29am

robindch wrote: »

Sorry?

Do you really think I'm calling for "appeasement" when I ask the unelected, unaccountable leaders of your religious organization to stop trying to block my child from being educated although I -- in my capacity as director of a small company -- pay significantly more than most of the population do in taxes to provide this education for everybody?

Could you elaborate on this a little please?
Whose trying to block your child from being educated?

Burning Eclipse · 12-10-2010 11:37am

mossyc123 wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this a little please?
Whose trying to block your child from being educated?

It happens. Let's assume RobinDCH's child is not baptised, and his local school (all of his local schools, it's not a stretch of the imagination) are Catholic. If there is a shortage of places, his child will be refused entry in favour of a baptised one. This is, imo, a disgrace.

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:38am

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope tbh.

Tbh it really isn't as I've already explained. I did admit it was drastic but that was my point.

AS in the way Irish people had to appease the church for hundreds of years to the detriment of their native language, culture and identity... and fostered a culture of apathy which let a dictating power subject communities to child sweat shops, sexual predation, and the persecution of over 20,000 woman sent to mental institutions where they had their teeth pulled out and in many cases were lobotomised... then Ireland in certain periods of history has never been good at liberating woman

And how well did appeasement work there?

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:39am

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

It happens. Let's assume RobinDCH's child is not baptised, and his local school (all of his local schools, it's not a stretch of the imagination) are Catholic. If there is a shortage of places, his child will be refused entry in favour of a baptised one. This is, imo, a disgrace.

Tbh I have never once heard of that happening nowadays. Can you give an example, maybe a child you know or something?

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:40am

robindch wrote: »

Sorry?

Do you really think I'm calling for "appeasement" when I ask the unelected, unaccountable leaders of your religious organization to stop trying to block my child from being educated although I -- in my capacity as director of a small company -- pay significantly more than most of the population do in taxes to provide this education for everybody?

No. What I meant was if you take religion from schools it won't be long another campaign starts to remove it from somewhere else.

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:42am

Mark200 wrote: »

Also, no Atheist can become a Judge or President in Ireland.

I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe in this day and age. If I'm wrong I apologise.

coffee_cake · 12-10-2010 11:42am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe in this day and age. If I'm wrong I apologise.

You have to swear on the bible

Osgoodisgood · 12-10-2010 11:43am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No. What I meant was if you take religion from schools it won't be long another campaign starts to remove it from somewhere else.

Terrific!
Let's get started.

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:45am

bluewolf wrote: »

You have to swear on the bible

Ok but still that's not the same as saying you can't be athiest or any other religion is it?

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2010 11:47am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's absolutely ridiculous, I've never heard anyone saying religous books shouldn't be available. The only argument I've heard and agree with is that the state should be neutral on religion, no one religion should be given preference so that means not teaching one religion over others in school. If people want to set up churches praising bananas as their God I have no problem with that whatsover. No one would have to go to those churches if they don't want to. But school isn't like that. You have to go to get your education.

But is that it really? Or people just want the Catholic religion gone from the public sphere and kept hidden at home altogether?

Serious question btw.

"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Comments