If you could make one currently legal thing illegal...

estebanrey said:
It should be illegal not to move on with the times.

It really annoys me when you see some campaign group moaning about a lack of 'compassion' for older people when the Royal Mail look to shut down a Post Office that only a few people use and as a result is running at a massive loss. And all because the people that use it are too stuck in their ways and don't want to learn how they can check their balance and do transactions via an internet account.

I know a guy in his 80s who never and has never used a cash machine, yet moans when the bank closes early because he can't get his money.

But as a society for some reason we seem to accept that once people get to a certain age it's OK for the to refuse to move on and learn new things and expect that reluctance to do so to be financed by tax payers.

I realise I will get old one day but I honestly can't see me ever not wanting to learn about technology or new ways of doing things. Being "stuck in your ways" should no longer be a viable lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...
You might not be able to learn to use new technology when you're older.
 
estebanrey said:
No such thing. You are either an atheist or not, it's binary. You can't be an 'extreme atheist' or a mild one, You either believe in a god or gods or you don't.

What you mean is anti-religious people (i.e like Dawkins) who seek to convert people away from it. But that isn't intrinsically linked to them being an atheist.
Click to expand...

It's still fundamentalism though. People like Dawkins do the same thing as the religious people they deride except they go one further and insist that people who don't believe what they believe are mentally ill and or extremely lacking in intelligence.

Atheism pretty much is a religion to the likes of Dawkins, and the way he tries to force it on people is no different to those preaching religion.
 
estebanrey said:
No such thing. You are either an atheist or not, it's binary. You can't be an 'extreme atheist' or a mild one, You either believe in a god or gods or you don't.

What you mean is anti-religious people (i.e like Dawkins) who seek to convert people away from it. But that isn't intrinsically linked to them being an atheist.
Click to expand...

I dont agree. While the Atheist position is binary how a person critiques religion is what makes them a fundamentalist.

Saying a parent teaching their child about religion is wrong would be a perfectly reasonable non fundamental Athiest view.

Stating that a parent teaching their child about religion is not only wrong but ammounts to child abuse is a fundementalist view.

People like Dawkins, Hitchins etc have taken Atheism one step further than a simple binary yes or no answer to a belief in a God. As such fundamentalist characteristics can be attributed to them, at least in my humble opinion.

Either way you understood what I meant from my original post so call them what you want (millitant/fundamental/radical) atheist my original post still stands.

/Salsa
 
Last edited:
Salsa said:
Saying a parent teaching their child about religion is wrong would be a perfectly reasonable non fundamental Athiest view.

Stating that a parent teaching their child about religion is not only wrong but ammounts to child abuse is a fundementalist view.
Click to expand...

Not really. That's just explaining why it's wrong.
 
spoffle said:
Atheism pretty much is a religion to the likes of Dawkins, and the way he tries to force it on people is no different to those preaching religion.
Click to expand...

It kind of is though - what you're trying to suggest is 'there is no evidence to support any of these apparently made up stories' as opposed to 'believe this old literature and use it to shape your life'.

Big difference IMO.
 
shoes said:
It kind of is though - what you're trying to suggest is 'there is no evidence to support any of these apparently made up stories' as opposed to 'believe this old literature and use it to shape your life'.

Big difference IMO.
Click to expand...

How is "abandon your beliefs because I think they're wrong" different to "adopt these beliefs because I think you're wrong"?

There are millions upon millions of religious people who are perfectly normal, well to do human beings that do not feel the compulsion to push their belief system on others. Religion can give people a sense of purpose and belonging and can even take people off horribly dark pathways in life. That belief that there is some greater good can in itself be a greater good, regardless of whether or not it is true. What does the atheist doctrine seek to achieve by single-mindedly attempting to destroy that?

Atheism can be as fervent, aggressive and morally corrupt as any religion. The reality is that religion is not the problem - people are.
 
Salsa said:
I dont agree. While the Atheist position is binary how a person critiques religion is what makes them a fundamentalist.
Click to expand...

OK think of it this way, would you describe civil rights campaigner Al Sharpton as a 'fundamentalist black man' or Peter Tatchell as a 'fundamentalist homosexual'?

Because that's the same as calling Dawkins a fundamentalist atheist.
 
Theophany said:
How is "abandon your beliefs because I think they're wrong" different to "adopt these beliefs because I think you're wrong"?
Click to expand...

That's not how it is though, is it? It's "abandon your beliefs because they have no basis or supporting evidence" vs. "believe any old tripe written in an old book despite the fact it has no basis or evidence - just believe it".

People are free to believe any old ****e they want, it makes no difference to me - if you're mind is so weak that you require comfort in the form of a completely unsubstantiated belief in something which, by modern standards, is quite ridiculous, then who am I to say otherwise?
 
shoes said:
That's not how it is though, is it? It's "abandon your beliefs because they have no basis or supporting evidence" vs. "believe any old tripe written in an old book despite the fact it has no basis or evidence - just believe it".

People are free to believe any old ****e they want, it makes no difference to me - if you're mind is so weak that you require comfort in the form of a completely unsubstantiated belief in something which, by modern standards, is quite ridiculous, then who am I to say otherwise?
Click to expand...

*sigh*

It is how it is. Rather than looking at it from a balanced perspective, you're skewing it to suit your own agenda and then accusing religious people of being weak-minded and say that their belief system is ridiculous. Do you not see why a number of people find those who associate themselves as atheist to be arrogant know-it-alls?

There is no proof that a God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist.

And before you come back with some bleating nonsense about "the basis of all scientific enquiry blah blah blah," I suggest you look at some of the greatest minds in scientific history and their religious slants.
 
Theophany said:
There is no proof that a God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

There is no proof that the tooth fairy exist. There is no proof she doesn't.

Does that mean they are equally likely? No.
Does it mean the choice of believing each requires the same amount of 'faith'? No.
Does it mean each is as rational as the other? No.
 
Theophany said:
*sigh*

It is how it is. Rather than looking at it from a balanced perspective, you're skewing it to suit your own agenda and then accusing religious people of being weak-minded and say that their belief system is ridiculous. Do you not see why a number of people find those who associate themselves as atheist to be arrogant know-it-alls?

There is no proof that a God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist.

And before you come back with some bleating nonsense about "the basis of all scientific enquiry blah blah blah," I suggest you look at some of the greatest minds in scientific history and their religious slants.
Click to expand...

lol, ok.

Balanced perspective you say? Yeah, lets all believe in, adjust our lives to suit and worship something which we have absolutely no proof is there.

Sounds like the actions of an intelligent, rational and balanced individual to me....

I don't find athiest know it all arrogant, I respect their position that due to the complete lack of evidence put before them they refuse to entertain the idea of a higher being as depicted in currently circulating religious beliefs.

I have little to no respect for those who don't questing something just because they find thinking difficult.


EDIT: This wasn't my original argument anyway. My argument was that it should be illegal to assist in forming a child's belief in this nonsense prior to adulthood when they will then be grown up enough to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to take up and dedicate themselves to Rudolph the red nosed six armed elephant, or whatever.

If parents were not allowed to indoctrinate their children into the ridiculous beliefs they hold themselves, watch religion in the UK drop off the map within a generation - only very very few people turn to 'god' after their childhood, and there is a bloody good reason for this.
 
Last edited:
Mine would be no phones on public tranport. ****ed me off so much i cant even begin.

People shouting their heads off on the phone talking in all different languages, kids playing music everything.

NO PHONES ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom