Internet Atheism

Militant atheists bashing on about what other people choose to believe, have absolutely no conception of how fantastically boring they are. They are only surpassed by the ***** who post those hilarious anti religion pictures.
If we were overrun by Christians proselytising everywhere I could understand it, but you never hear a peep out of them. Just atheists going on and on and on and on and on and on about what a sex god Dawkins is and how much they want his baby shaft up their bottoms.
Get a life or a room or something, either way just shut up.
 
bitslice said:
but you never hear a peep out of them
Click to expand...
Only because you're so used to it, you don't notice.

You and I subsidise (to a huge extent) churches through tax reliefs (and other benefits). We further enable the indoctrination (albeit subtle, nowadays) of children who don't have a choice via the subsidy of church schools. Clergymen are guaranteed seats in the House of Lords. Religious groups lobby (and successfully so) to affect everyday life; abortion laws in Ireland being an example. Oh, and occasionally gets in the way of criminal justice (Catholic church) for rapists.

I am happy for people to believe whatever they want, as long as they in no way impact my life, claim or derive special rights and privileges from my society (which I pay for).*

This state and the nation should be entirely secular.

* The only thing I may contradict myself on here is the education of children. Based on what I said above, you'd assume I would be OK with parents payment for children to attend non-charitable status church schools, or to home school them. I am not sure I am OK with this - I believe society has a duty to protect the vulnerable and powerless; that includes our children's minds.
 
Last edited:
Without getting into a slinging match, my personal opinion on the matter is that I find Atheists have some sort of deficiency where they find it difficult to find acceptance. It's either their way or no way, or their system/ideology doesn't work hence the militism. I think its derived from a lack of meaning to their lives where they are just a coincidence, and an accident and they find it difficult to deal with the fact others have a meaning/cause to their lives. I guess its a feeling of lack of fulfillingness to their existence, something which they can't stand to see others have. Maybe jealousy even, under the specifics of an after life, maybe eats at them.

Anyhow that just my opinions from discussing religion and others paths on these boards, no offense intended.
 
Craterloads said:
Without getting into a slinging match, my personal opinion on the matter is that I find Atheists have some sort of deficiency where they find it difficult to find acceptance. It's either their way or no way, or their system/ideology doesn't work hence the militism.
Click to expand...
That's generally not the case in my experience. Most atheists (in the broad, most widely accepted definition) are happy and respect the rights of the individual. It's when those rights infect everyday lives of people who don't want to participate or subsidise others' religious activities (see my post above yours).
 
Craterloads said:
Without getting into a slinging match, my personal opinion on the matter is that I find Atheists have some sort of deficiency where they find it difficult to find acceptance. It's either their way or no way, or their system/ideology doesn't work hence the militism. I think its derived from a lack of meaning to their lives where they are just a coincidence, and an accident and they find it difficult to deal with the fact others have a meaning/cause to their lives. I guess its a feeling of lack of fulfillingness to their existence, something which they can't stand to see others have. Maybe jealousy even, under the specifics of an after life, maybe eats at them.

Anyhow that just my opinions from discussing religion and others paths on these boards, no offense intended.
Click to expand...

I can't help but feel you're being overly complicated about the entire matter, and bringing in pseudo-psychological analysis doesn't help your post at all. I know it's just your opinion on the matter... but it seems rather wrong to suggest that all these 'militant atheists' have a lack of 'something', I'm sure they'd be very willing to tell you differently and only they would know the truth behind it all. Really, it's as simple as this:

Religion doesn't use evidence to back up it's claims, it's all on faith.
Science is peer-reviewed, and reviewed again... and again... and again. However "science" doesn't know everything--which is where the problems start to form about taking it as 'fact', for a lot of people.

They're on opposite ends of the spectrum and they're almost definitely going to be at odds. There is literally no compromise behind those two mind frames. Some people feel more strongly than others about voicing concerns about the 'other sides' views on things... and then you get this thread.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
That's generally not the case in my experience. Most atheists (in the broad, most widely accepted definition) are happy and respect the rights of the individual. It's when those rights infect everyday lives of people who don't want to participate or subsidise others' religious activities (see my post above yours).
Click to expand...

I was discussing a similar topic yesterday, which brought me to the conclusion some atheists are just hypocritical. They are happy for their beliefs and ideologies to "infect everyday lives of people" yet complain when its the other way round.
 
jahujames said:
I can't help but feel you're being overly complicated about the entire matter, and bringing in pseudo-psychological analysis doesn't help your post at all. I know it's just your opinion on the matter... but it seems rather wrong to suggest that all these 'militant atheists' have a lack of 'something', I'm sure they'd be very willing to tell you differently and only they would know the truth behind it all. Really, it's as simple as this:

Religion doesn't use evidence to back up it's claims, it's all on faith.
Science is peer-reviewed, and reviewed again... and again... and again. However "science" doesn't know everything--which is where the problems start to form about taking it as 'fact', for a lot of people.

They're on opposite ends of the spectrum and they're almost definitely going to be at odds. There is literally no compromise behind those two mind frames. Some people feel more strongly than others about voicing concerns about the 'other sides' views on things... and then you get this thread.
Click to expand...

Like i said, either their way or no way.
 
estebanrey said:
This isn't true (unless you don't know what 'faith' means).
Click to expand...

So you can categorically prove religious people wrong, can you? Because if so, I think you need to get on the news or something.

Religion doesn't prove or disprove itself by the same methodology as science, which is why this is the most brain dead, overplayed argument going on the Internet and in reality. It's like saying English is a wrong language because French has the correct grammatical syntax.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Only because you're so used to it, you don't notice.

You and I subsidise (to a huge extent) churches through tax reliefs (and other benefits).
Click to expand...

As a balance to this point though there are countless Church based outlets that provide shelter, clothes, food, furniture, drug and alcohol counselling, debt management and counselling and many other services to those in need that would either never happen or be left to the local authorities to undertake.
 
Craterloads said:
I was discussing a similar topic yesterday, which brought me to the conclusion some atheists are just hypocritical. They are happy for their beliefs and ideologies to "infect everyday lives of people" yet complain when its the other way round.
Click to expand...
How does that even work? How does an absence of something (i.e. a secular state) encroach on anyone's lives? Secularism doesn't demand or leech subsidy, or restrict nor indoctrinate. It doesn't protect, it can't be classed as a single group and it doesn't demand or have privilege.

So in what way can the absence of something 'infect everyday lives of people'?
 
The plain fact is that interaction on the internet, eg through a forum, just isn't the same as talking to someone face to face. You don't get (well much more rarely) people trolling in real life. People don't play devils advocate usually in normal conversation etc etc.

So yes, you get people saying stuff they wouldn't normally say to people face to face. you can post something and go away, come back hours later and you don't have to face awkward silences or having to sit through minutes and hours of having to think up and partake in conversations on common ground.

I have friends and acquaintances, who are Christian (and Muslim, Sikh and Hindu come to think of it). I wouldn't dream of talking to them about it. If that conversation comes up I'd avoid it entirely or just say "I'm afraid I'm a heathen non-believer" or something equally as disarming.

However, on forums, most people will say what they think, far more than they do in face to face conversations anyway. Which is why I think religion often gets blasted. Most people aren't religious and have quite a lot of pent up frustration over it, but are normally far too polite to say anything about it.
 
Russinating said:
Atheism != agnostic. Atheism is a complete void of belief.
Click to expand...
It is because of this that I firmly believe there can't be a "true" athiest out there. The notion is implanted at a young age and therefore there will always be some inkling in the person's mind about the actual existence of a higher being, whether or not they want to believe it.

Surely a person born on an isolated island, whose parents did not survive and were unable to raise him, who was left with no religious artifacts or knowledge, is eventually going to find their own "god" to help them along. Assuming they survive long enough, of course.
 
Theophany said:
So you can categorically prove religious people wrong, can you? Because if so, I think you need to get on the news or something.
Click to expand...

Athiesm doesn't make any claims, therefore it can not be based on faith.

Faith is believing in a positive assertion despite having no empirical evidence for that belief.
 
LOAM said:
As a balance to this point though there are countless Church based outlets that provide shelter, clothes, food, furniture, drug and alcohol counselling, debt management and counselling and many other services that would either never happen or be left to the local authorities to undertake.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to say these services wouldn't be provided anyway, if the tax relief system wasn't there and subsidising their activities.

And certainly, the state should not be providing a blanket subsidy through the tax relief system on the chance that there seems to be 'nothing but indiscriminate, pure good' being done (nor would I want the government to be sole judge and jury on that).

The 'counter to your counter' is that while you and I may be indirectly the good, indiscriminate activities of some churches, we are also subsidising this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21242392 and http://peta.xxx/ and http://www.ukim.org/ and [random rich person's] favourite art gallery, [random rich person's] donation to Eton, etc.
 
SourChipmunk said:
It is because of this that I firmly believe there can't be a "true" athiest out there. The notion is implanted at a young age and therefore there will always be some inkling in the person's mind about the actual existence of a higher being, whether or not they want to believe it.

Surely a person born on an isolated island, whose parents did not survive and were unable to raise him, who was left with no religious artifacts or knowledge, is eventually going to find their own "god" to help them along. Assuming they survive long enough, of course.
Click to expand...

balls.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
There is nothing to say these services wouldn't be provided anyway, if the tax relief system wasn't there and subsidising their activities.

And certainly, the state should not be providing a blanket subsidy through the tax relief system on the chance that there seems to be 'nothing but indiscriminate, pure good' being done (nor would I want the government to be sole judge and jury on that).

The 'counter to your counter' is that while you and I may be indirectly the good, indiscriminate activities of some churches, we are also subsidising this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21242392 and http://peta.xxx/ and http://www.ukim.org/ and [random rich person's] favourite art gallery, etc.
Click to expand...

And those thing exist because of Christianity!!! Western society is built on christian morals.

And by the way, if you want to talk about charities, then well I can tell you all of the corruption that goes on. That money does not help people. It goes straight into the pockets of the administration team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom