Atheist Church

[silentstriker]

lol

[Jono]

Saw those ads over New Year when I was in Singapore. He and Dhoni were plastered all over the TV. Wonderful stuff (the Kohli bit).

[Daemon]

They've toned down the ads for the Australian series, now it's more along the lines of 'the biggest challenge is yet to come'.

[silentstriker]

Well I think they're two different points. And I've no problem with the proposition that the days of religion dictating laws to a secular society shouldbe well and truly over.

But you often hear people laughing about some religious bloke or other's "imaginary friend", and mocking that they live their life because of what that imaginary friend tells them. it's that sort of **** that I think is piss poor, and there's no need for it.

It's the modern equivalent of christians referring to indigineous people as Godless heathens. I'd like to think we're a bit better than that.

Sorry I didn't see the post until now.

I understand and appreciate why you find people like Dawkins distasteful. That's totally fine. I don't have a problem with that.

But the bolded part is where I have a problem - it's a false equivalence. The problem with religion has not, and has never been, that they call other people names. If all the old christians - and a bunch of other religions - did was to call the indigenous people names, the history of the world (and of colonizations) wouldn't have been full of so much sorrow. It was their actions.

I know you agree that the times of religion calling the shots are over, but the issue still isn't that religions call me names. It's that they are trying to dictate my life in some way - restricting what I learn in public school or telling me who I can and cannot marry.

You can say that you find the more vocal and religion-bashing brand of atheism distasteful, and that's a perfectly valid opinion. You may say that type of rhetoric doesn't work (and I may even agree with you). But I don't think the actions (and truthfully, even rhetoric, if you listen - but I am perfectly willing to concede on that point) are at all comparable. I think it's a bit dangerous to simply dismiss the situation as 'both sides are being bad' - not necessarily because atheists are being dismissed - but it implicitly says that religious people are doing the same thing. They aren't. They aren't saying 'Well I'm going to talk and argue and make fun of your lack of beliefs, but I cant force my beliefs on you.' No, they are still trying to force other people to confirm to their beliefs. If they were just talking and trying to convince other people they are right instead of mandating their beliefs through law, I'd agree with you. If they did only that, we likely wouldn't have this form of more 'argumentative' atheism in the first place.


Obviously, I'm not implying all religious or atheist people behave in one way or another, but generally speaking in terms of the politics of what each side is trying to achieve, I think the goals are not comparable. Anyway, I've had too many religion debates on this forum, and I think we both agree on 95% of this issue anyway, so I'll let you have the last word if you're so inclined .

[Top_Cat]

inb4 someone erroneously mentions Mao/Pot/etc.

[Jono]

Mao Pot sounds like a nice hot pot meal.

[uvelocity]

HANDS OFF MAO POT!z

[Jono]

No one wants your drugs

[uvelocity]

just because you have an awesome avatar jono doesnt mean you are awesome

[Jono]

:/