Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
You can be, but it's a lot less likely than being dumb and being deluded. There is a correlation between intelligence and atheist views.
Why is the UK not religious anymore?
- Thread starter kwerk
- Start date
You can be, but it's a lot less likely than being dumb and being deluded. There is a correlation between intelligence and atheist views.
There are also some very stupid atheists.
I'm saying that is the hierarchy of evil according to the "religion" of PC built by the current UK elite, which most of the population have faith in.
I reckon you could probably quantify it by data mining the comments on BBC news articles and the like. How many out raged comments there are for each type of story and how many calls for killing the perpetrators, or how many excuses are made (oh they had a bad childhood, it's just their culture). I think it would come out something like that order.
I think most of yous missed the point I was making. The UK isn't less religious, it just has a secular religion now called Equality. It is completely faith-based. Labour and the Tories both believe in it. It permeates society from top to bottom and functions exactly like a religion. There is as much science to support the core principle that all people are created equal as there is to support creationism.
I'm saying why should you have faith in the status-quo and call yourself a rational atheist or whatever, when the new framework can't be backed with any hard-science either, only soft social-science at best, written by self-admitted left-wing academics?
The UK IS still religious, it's culture operates on a faith based system just like Christianity.
Here is quite interesting Norwegian documentary I found where some liberals try to grapple with this problem, and ultimately give up.
I'm saying why should you have faith in the status-quo and call yourself a rational atheist or whatever, when the new framework can't be backed with any hard-science either, only soft social-science at best, written by self-admitted left-wing academics?
The UK IS still religious, it's culture operates on a faith based system just like Christianity.
Here is quite interesting Norwegian documentary I found where some liberals try to grapple with this problem, and ultimately give up.
I'm sure you've watched a few Dawkins videos. He counts as a celebrity.
Last edited:
There's a correlation between intelligence and race/gender too.
Oh wait no there's not because my sociology professor said _______ and that's enough proof for me. Let's spend £10 trillion on "fairness".
Alternatively we just have less racists, homophobes, mysoginists and bigots than the US? (Or less Tea Party members if you prefer brevity).
People aren't created equal. The Olympic Games seem to prove that. What is important is that regardless of circumstance, everyone has the same opportunities. No, there's no evidence that it should be the case as there is no definitive morality, its an entirely subjective concept. When judging the amount of benefit versus the amount of harm, it seems the right thing to do.
Atheism is not a world view. It is a single position on a single issue. You can be religious and in favour of equality and equally you can be an atheist who is in favour of discrimination.
A faith based system is not necessarily religious. Equality certainly isn't.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 2,158
- Location
- North West
I know thats aimed at SlyReaper, but can I just say I am the same as him in what he posted (though I will never call myself Atheist, Agnostic is probably the best term I would use, but even that doesn't do it justice)
What I want to say though is, I think Dawkins is a complete and utter muppet, every video of his I have seen he comes across as just as mad as any Religious leader in the religions he chooses to debate against.
Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism deals with knowledge whereas theism deals with belief. I believe that there isn't a God, but I don't claim to know for certain. So I am an atheist, but I fit into the category of agnostic atheist.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I am of the same view as you then
Henceforth I shall call myself an agnostic atheist. (Never say never eh 
)
Last edited:
strong correlation between being religious and being an idiot
USA , Nigeria , half the middle east , the rest of Africa , all religious and all stupid
china , japan , Korea.... mainly atheist and dominating the world
Ireland have now sent most of their idiots to america and are infact becoming less religious year by year . no coincidence !
USA , Nigeria , half the middle east , the rest of Africa , all religious and all stupid
china , japan , Korea.... mainly atheist and dominating the world
Ireland have now sent most of their idiots to america and are infact becoming less religious year by year . no coincidence !
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I am of the same view as you then
Another set of tags for distinguishing beliefs that you might come across is strong and weak atheism.
Claim 1 : God exists.
An atheist will always disregard this claim as being unsubstantiated, whereas a theist will accept this claim.
Claim 2 : God does not exist.
An atheist can actually take either position on this claim. Acceptance of this claim is labelled strong atheism whereas rejection is labelled weak atheism. An atheist rejecting this claim is in the position of agnostic atheism that I mentioned earlier.
I prefer the agnostic/gnostic differentiator myself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
The broad definition of atheism is the rejection of belief in deities... not 'there are no deities'. So, when most people call themselves atheist, they mean they are atheist agnostic.
Absolutely, but you do get some gnostic atheists who claim to know for certain that there are no Gods.
Seriously? I know it's cool to hate on The Dawkins these days, but he always struck me as mild mannered, intelligent, reasonable, eloquent and inoffensive. Can you actually point to a single thing he has ever said that caused you to think him mad?
The trouble is he, like all atheists, is judged on a double standard; anything he says on the subject of atheism is automatically regarded as ten times more obnoxious and belligerent than an equivalent statement by a religious person about religion. Because religion is the status quo; we're more accustomed to listening to outspoken religious folk than we are to outspoken atheists.