Good editing.

Perhaps atheists benefit from the raised profile of their God-hating message, enabling them to feel that they are not alone, and forcing God-lovers to distort their message still further to maintain a “the are no atheists in foxholes” claim that we are all as irrational as them.

People who are actually oppressed have some reason to be suspicious of attacks on them. Those who are not are just …(fill in swearword). See Malcolm X on racism.

“Look – religious people are here to stay, no matter how silly their beliefs are. Us atheists are just going to have to learn to deal with that, and a real ratcheting-down of tensions would probably benefit us more than them.”

Errrm.. actually, no. I for one refuse to learn to deal with it.

I am heartily sick of the special pleading of ALL faith groups that we should be nicer to them, and accept all the special treatment they get, and worse sit back and let them discriminate against people becuase their made up religion tells them God hates women priests/homosexuals/unbelievers/people who open their eggs at the wrong end.

I want them to keep their bastardised, authoritarian, mongrelised belief systems to themselves.
I don’t want my taxes subsidising faith schools.
I don’t want Bishops in the house of Lords because that’s the way it’s always been.
I don’t want to stand by listening to apolgists for major faith groups try to expiate the guilt of their organisations for covering up child abuse by pointing out they weren’t the only ones, or that even if it was awful, it’s now turned into a with hunt against them.

We shouldn’t be afraid of the epithet aggresive atheist, we should glory in it. We NEED to be more aggressive, not less.

No more kow-towing to the over delicate sensibilities of the credulous.

What a typically pathetic over the top rant. Everyone is wrong, stupid and malevolent except Rodent. Yawn.

I mostly agree, but you miss one important way that the protests *might* help.

The Catholic church propagating its beliefs is one of the things that makes it much easier for people *not to be ashamed* of their homophobia, or of believing that women are second-class citizens, or whatever else.

Protests aren’t going to make people renounce their religion, but they can put pressure on the consensus that those kinds of beliefs are socially acceptable.

In those more idyllic past times, before the ascendancy of aggressive secularism, the Catholics in France were free to murder thousands of protestant Huguenots on St Bartholomew’s day on 23 August 1572:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

Ah! those were the days, we thought they’d never end . . .

As Earwicga notes, heavily edited. The original version contains a fair bit more atheism than this one.

@Galen: I for one refuse to learn to deal with it.

Well, it’s reality. Deal with it, don’t, it’s no skin off mine. Billions of Christians, Muslims and so on aren’t going to wake up tomorrow, slap their foreheads and shout My goodness, I’ve been gulled by an ancient and deranged cult which aims to regulate my behaviour and opinions!. They’re not going to do it the day after that, either.

This being the case, how best to advance the cause of secularism? Not by stamping our little feet, going out of our way to be intentionally offensive or refusing to deal with this reality, I think. If anything, that tends to have the opposite effect on believers, making them more belligerent, paranoid and extreme in their beliefs. How that helps us is anyone’s guess.

As a rule, I tend to find that people are more open to new ideas if you present them without being a dick about it. I break that rule constantly myself, with glee on occasion, but I try to keep that to times when somebody else is already being ADAI.

@Jason: Protests aren’t going to make people renounce their religion, but they can put pressure on the consensus that those kinds of beliefs are socially acceptable.

I entirely agree.

@ Paul: What a typically pathetic over the top rant. Everyone is wrong, stupid and malevolent except Rodent. Yawn.

Don’t read pieces with my name in them, then.

There was an alleged plot to kill the Pope in the UK.

6 arrests – suspected Islamist terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8008981/Pope-visit-Five-suspected-Islamist-terrorists-arrested-over-assassination-plot.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Pope-Arrests-Five-Algerian-Street-Cleaners-Held-Over-Potential-Threat-To-Benedict-XVI-Sources-Say/Article/201002315732353?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15732353_Pope_Arrests%3A_Five_Algerian_Street_Cleaners_Held_Over_Potential_Threat_To_Benedict_XVI%2C_Sources_Say

Nice one. There are plenty of things that lefties should be getting on with, rather than throwing condoms full of paint at some old man. How about fundraising for those affected by floods in Pakistan? What’s that, they’re misogynistic Muslims who don’t deserve to be saved (even the women)? Hmm.

Every action by professional controversialists like Peter Tatchell and Spiked Online is a victory for stupidity.

“Unless you’re a 100% virtuous follower of the one true faith, your lifestyle is utterly condemned and you’re cut off from the Lord’s infinite love, bound for eternal suffering. This is the message of all of the Abrahamic religions, and protesting it seems to me like protesting sunrise.”

This is utter rubbish. 100% Straw Man argument. I advise you to have even a brief glance at the beliefs of the people you are insulting before doing so. I am not even near 40% virtuous follower yet I know there is no condemnation for me in the Christian religion as my sins have been paid for by someone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

What’s that, they’re misogynistic Muslims who don’t deserve to be saved (even the women)? Hmm.

Sorry, who said that exactly? I didn’t hear anyone on the left say that Blanco. could you substantiate?

I advise you to have even a brief glance at the beliefs of the people you are insulting before doing so.

Space restrictions forbade elaboration, but suffice to say that if I was looking for a sillier religion than Catholicism, I’d definitely hit upon the various Protestant factions sooner rather than later, especially the wacky ones.

Take out the 100% virtuous part, if it annoys you. You’re still stuck with Unless you’re a follower of the one true faith, your lifestyle is utterly condemned and you’re cut off from the Lord’s infinite love, bound for eternal suffering.

The point here was supposed to be that it’s more or less impossible for any of the Abrahamic faiths to be inoffensive, since they’re based on the idea that believers possess the one truth and the key to life eternal, while everyone else is wrong, Godless and likely Hellbound. If any of them don’t – and I’m happy to stand corrected – then what’s the point in faith?

“that the Christian faithful’s response to criticism is exactly the same “

To criticism, perhaps. But when it comes to abuse, cartoons or lampoonery I think you’ll find the response is a tad different.

(AP) – 1 day ago

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Police in Denmark say a man injured in an explosion at a Copenhagen hotel was preparing a letter bomb, likely intended for a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of Muhammad.

Police spokesman Svend Foldager says the device went off as the man was trying to assemble it in a hotel bathroom on Sept. 10. Investigators believe the suspect is a Chechen-born boxer living in Belgium, but have not positively confirmed his identity.

He’s right about the 100% virtuous bit, Rodent. If that’s the requirement we’re all doomed.

As a left-footer might put it

“My offences truly I know them;
My sin is always before me.
Against you, you alone, have I sinned;
What is evil in your sight I have done.”

And as a right-footer (before the CoE was the Guardian readership at prayer) :

“Almighty God,
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
maker of all things, judge of all men:
We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,
which we from time to time most grievously have committed,
by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty,
provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
We do earnestly repent,
and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
the remembrance of them is grievous unto us,
the burden of them is intolerable.
Have mercy upon us,
have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;”

interesting article, here’s another one on the subject: –

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Thompson-Papal-Visit.html

As a rule, I tend to find that people are more open to new ideas if you present them without being a dick about it.

Yes, it is best to avoid language such as this:

the entire religion, being a religion, is made-up rubbish

biblical ramblings of a gaggle of Judean troublemakers from the pre-soap era.

when the Pope starts waffling a load of disingenuous pish

Hilarious.

Granted that is broadly correct, but I don’t see how its any worse than convincing someone (perhaps someone who has had a miserable life of pain on earth) that there is no life beyond and that life on earth is objectively meaningless. Obviously if there is no God then that is something we will have to come to terms with, and if there is one then being seperated from him is a reality for athiests. What I mean is the existance of God is independant of how much you may like specific aspects of His nature.

As for the one truth bit, how are athiests any different? They believe all religions are wrong and they are right, I don’t see any problem with that belief personally, but it is athiests who accuse religious people of being closed minded because they don’t believe what everyone else does.

I’m shocked that you think Protestantism is less rational than Catholicism, since most of the athiest criticism of the Pope (which I share) centres around the specifically Catholic ideas of no contraception, no ordination of women (some prods share this), celibacy in priesthood and the shocking covering up of child abuse.

You gotta love the churches, though. Catholics give good church. Quite a reasonable post I thought, cheers Flying Rodent. I find it kinda amazing that people expect the Catholic church to have anything to do with modernity; that this is the first state visit, that there was a joint mass for the first time in 400 years, well, you know, it’s more akin to geological time. Fair play, protest but it’s utterly pointless.

What this piece shows is that atheism is just as much a religion as the others, with its zealots ranting as irrationally as any American evangelist. By the way, I suggest the author buys a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and looks up secular and atheist, and possibly some other words he has half understood..

How delicious: an appeal to atheists to stop publicly criticising religion, all wrapped up in an atheist’s public criticism of religion.

I vote we all get together in Hyde Park tomorrow for an anti-protest protest, waving placards that read ‘Religion is stupid but keep it to yourself’ and ‘Atheists are best but we don’t have to say so’.

Must say this is one of the best articles I have read on the subject

Paul: Yes, it is best to avoid language such as this: the entire religion, being a religion, is made-up rubbish…

If you believe there is no God, this “made-up rubbish” thing is pretty hard to get away from.

…biblical ramblings of a gaggle of Judean troublemakers from the pre-soap era.

This is pretty much spot-on, as far as history goes. I always like to include the pre-soap part to emphasise that a) the major religions were formed in a brutal, ignorant and generally horrible era and that b) religious art from the renaissance era features a lot of strangely Italian-looking people clad in contemporary clothing.

…when the Pope starts waffling a load of disingenuous pish

The idea that British non-believers should shoulder any amount of blame for Nazism is hilarious enough on its own, without it coming from the Pope. I’d hope I don’t need to reiterate why the church might be on thin ice in this area.

@16

I’ve re-read those three sentences over and over and cannot fathom what you find wrong with them. Care to enlighten us lesser minds?

@19

Bzzzzzzzing << you get the WRONG buzzer.

Religion – based on faith – doesn't admit alternatives.
Atheism – based on evidence – doesn't say "there is NO god" but that there is "PROBABLY (based on evidence that we have at present) no god"

ok? so no more of this "atheism is a religion" bollox, ta.

If you believe there is no God, this “made-up rubbish” thing is pretty hard to get away from.

Oh really? All the moral deliberations of religion are just “made up rubbish”? Anyway, the point is that you said this:

As a rule, I tend to find that people are more open to new ideas if you present them without being a dick about it.

That is just funny when it is written underneath an opening post reeling under the weight of its own characterisitically juvenile and overheated rhetoric.

This is pretty much spot-on, as far as history goes.

No, it is simply a hostile belittling of history that is complex and rich. “Ignorant and generally horrible” is what you do, as evidenced by your silly title, as noted by John Tudor. Secularist does not mean atheist, you know.

The idea that British non-believers should shoulder any amount of blame for Nazism is hilarious enough on its own

Try reading what the Pope actually said:

“Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

One can argue against this position. However, what you have come up with is just another silly distortion which you find it easier to pan.

Mr Pill, oh dear. There’s no “probably” about it.

In those inspiring times before aggressive secularism and atheist extremism gained ascendancy in Europe, there were alternative ways for deciding fundamental religious issues, such as the Thirty Years War (1618-48):

The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex and no single cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

@25

Religion is made-up. Obviously – who else wrote the Bible?

I’m talking about the existence of “god” – there is a difference.

How delicious: an appeal to atheists to stop publicly criticising religion, all wrapped up in an atheist’s public criticism of religion… ‘Religion is stupid but keep it to yourself’

Hmm, reading through again, this is a worryingly accurate criticism. I certainly didn’t intend to convey that message. I was trying to say that, if the protests are aimed at, say, encouraging Catholics to question their church, then they’re only succeeding in riling up the audience because they’re so over the top. I really encourage protests; I also think this week’s debate couldn’t have been better designed to alienate Catholics if they’d been designed by a professional Catholic-alienator.

I think that this week’s arguments have been alarmingly similar to various other recent political/religious clashes, which have a depressing tendency to instantly devolve into hyper-partisan attack mode, exacerbate division and play into the hands of the worst elements in several areas. That would be the church itself, angry fuckwits and owners of newspapers, in this scenario.

To be clear, I actively support protests against the Pope on issues like abuse and contraception. I find it depressing that so many of these debates are played out like WWF wrestling, which basically makes my entire argument a form of aggravated concern-trolling, I suppose.

@Paul: All the moral deliberations of religion are just “made up rubbish”?

Not quite – just any argument that ends “ergo, God”. Still, while I balk at “ignorant”, I have to put my hands up and confess to “Juvenile” and “Overheated”.

And if you’re really pretending not to understand what the Pope was up to when he invoked “atheist extremism of the 20th century”, I despair.

I was there today. Before the Pope arrived, multiple speakers addressed the crowd. One spoke out against child migrant detention. One spoke out for the living wage (in those exact words). The ENTIRE CROWD recorded a message to the delegates in New Work asking them to meet the global goals on poverty by 2015.

Isn’t all that worth a post of its own on Lib Con?

Not quite – just any argument that ends “ergo, God”.

Really? So why did you say this (emphasis added):

I don’t care because the entire religion, being a religion, is made-up rubbish

if you’re really pretending not to understand what the Pope was up to when he invoked “atheist extremism of the 20th century

One thing he was most certainly not up to is promoting “the idea that British non-believers should shoulder any amount of blame for Nazism”, as the quote above from the BBC shows.

hyper-partisan attack mode, exacerbate division and play into the hands of the worst elements in several areas

That’s your whole blogging shtick right there. Change the record already.

Real – good luck with that one on this blog.

Troops – it’s time for a change of tactics. Images of smiling kids singing and waving at the Pope cutting to a rag-tag of glum soap-on-a-rope trots trooping towards Downing Street isn’t doing the cause any good. Lol.

So why did you say this: I don’t care because the entire religion, being a religion, is made-up rubbish

To differentiate “The concept of a benevolent deity that both created all reality and continues to take an interest in human affairs” from “Some relatively minor absurdity like a ban on female priests”. I have no idea why atheists would give a damn whether religion (x) allows women to join in the silliness or not, as Peter does in that Tweet (linked in the post). Since I’d like to see Catholicism and all other religions wither away, I don’t care whether it does so in a non-sexist fashion.

Nonetheless, I’ll put this in a quick sentence – I regard all religions as being made-up rubbish. Feel free to practice as you will, I’m not coming to your house to criticise you and I’ll be very nice and reasonable to your face, if we meet. Still, there it is.

One thing he was most certainly not up to is promoting “the idea that British non-believers should shoulder any amount of blame for Nazism”

I put it to you that the Pope isn’t dense and that he put a lot of thought into his messages to Britain. If you think that the words “atheist” and “extremism of the 20th century” are cheek by jowl through coincidence, I envy your pie-eyed innocence.

hyper-partisan attack mode, exacerbate division and play into the hands of the worst elements in several areas… That’s your whole blogging shtick right there.

If you think I’m the worst element here, you ain’t seen nothing. I’m a sweetie pie, by comparison. Still, when i slung together this effort, I thought it would be the atheists who would be busting my balls. Just goes to show, you never can tell.

And MatthewS: Protestantism is sillier than Catholicism because the latter at least boasts a bimillenial pedigree, which kind of grants it a pass on its loonier elements on grounds of barely historical origin. Its relatively recent development makes it comparable to Mormonism with weightier theological thought, but retaining all of the tedium.

Really, Luther. You have to laugh – let’s overthrow the self-serving cant of our masters and replace it with a different kind that’s every bit as self-serving but more to our taste. The modern version is like saying sure, I smoked religion, but I didn’t inhale.

Good article, I found that undignified ranting rabble frankly embarrassing.

Real – if you can do a good write-up, I’m up for it,

PS, this is what I said earlier today:

http://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/24774426337

@19 John Tudor

“What this piece shows is that atheism is just as much a religion as the others, with its zealots ranting as irrationally as any American evangelist.”

Can’t we nail this old chestnut once and for all? As has been discussed on other Papal visit related threads on LC, and widely elsewhere, the idea that atheism is a religion is fallacious. Religions by their nature involve a suspension of disbelief, an acceptance of the supernatural, and generally an absolute faith that only your chosen sect is the holder of “the truth”.

If you’re going to come out with such ill-conceived statements, at least TRY to justify them…. it will provide entertainment for the less credulous if nothing else!

34

“……Protestantism is sillier than Catholicism because the latter at least boasts a bimillenial pedigree,..”

This is probably enough in itself to treat anything you say with a huge pinch of salt. They are ALL silly. Asserting that one bunch of deluded theists is somehow less silly because it has survived for centuries is just ignorant.

It always makes me smile when people of faith (or credulous agnostics who just want a quiet life) make fun of [insert made up collection of fairy stories of your choice here], whilst holding up “older” more established faiths, usually the Abrahamic ones, as somehow more respectable.

At least be consistant..they’re all nonsene!

Mr S Pill/24: Atheism – based on evidence – doesn’t say “there is NO god” but that there is “PROBABLY (based on evidence that we have at present) no god”

What evidence would you take as convincing as to the existence of at least one god, and how would you go about assessing this evidence? (More generally, is there any evidence that Clarke’s Third Law couldn’t provide a satisfactory non-theistic explanation for?)

cim,

I think that is a very good point.

I, for one, don’t know.

Unfortunately, this is leading us into ‘God is an Alien’ territory, and I really don’t want to go there….

Flying Rodent @ 34,

I’ll stand corrected, no I won’t, that both Catholicism and Protestantism trace their history back to some chap in Gallilee. Each has a claim on the ‘one true interpretation’. Each strand has the right to bi-millenialarianism.

The question of what he – y’know Jesus Christ – actually meant, was the cause of the schizm, was it not? The Ladybird Book of Religion, aka as Wikipedia, suggests that I am right and you are wrong.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

@39

Hmm, I’d need the same sort of proof that’s needed for any madcap theory really – ie evolution is observable via the fossil record, quantum mechanics fits with what we know of sub-atomic behaviour, etc. Double-blind peer-reviewed trials of the various attributes god is supposed to have (omnipotence, benevolance, mind-reading abilities, seeing into the future, being in control of destiny etc etc).The problem with tests for god is that theists have the same get-out clause that homeopaths use – you need to believe first. And, of course, it’s against biblical law to test god!
Bear in mind that when I say “probably” I don’t mean it’s 50/50. I think, based on what we know of the world and the universe at large, we can be 99.99999999% sure there is no god. My point is that if evidence came into play then that 0.00000001% would come into play. And that – to reiterate – atheists don’t fit the facts around science, as opposed to theists who fit their theory of god around facts – “intelligent design” being a crackin’ example of where that lunacy leads.

This video pretty much sums up the daytime part of the Vigil, before the Pope’s arrival. It shows the message recorded by everyone to the leaders in New York, and is very representative of the general makeup of the crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_krdZmB2Q

Flying Rodent post 34, this is possibly the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. The older something is makes its more likely to be right?! I thought you had some valid points at the start but your responses to some of these posts has been laughable. At least Richard Dawkin’s criticisms make logical sense (even if I do not agree with them) rather than this guff.

@44

I think what la Rodent was trying to say was that Catholicism was founded in a time when we were still a very supersticious race and that is its get-out clause, so to speak. It’s still talking the language of pre-enlightenment. Protestantism, on the other hand, grew out of the time when we were supposedly more rational and scientific, therefore its central tenants are relatively more wackier.
Not saying I agree, mind – all religions are pretty nuts to me – but I think that’s what FR was going for (though he’s welcome to contradict me 😉 )

That’s certainly a big part of it, Mr. Pill. A religion that emerges out of an ignorant and superstitious age has its ancient origins as an excuse for its silliness. It’s a crap excuse, but at least it’s there.

What I find most entertaining about Protestantism is this – “What I think the Almighty meant to say was…” It’s not quite as silly as Mormonism or Scientology, which are popularly seen as loony religions because they’re recent, rather than especially mental. It’s not a million miles off it though.

Oh come on. FR’s point at 34 is bloody obvious – it’s the same point as the UK constitution. If you were setting up a new democratic state combining four closely-related-but-very-different cultural nations, one of which had 90% of the population of the whole shebang, you wouldn’t create the constitutional arrangements that the UK has.

If someone were creating a new constitution for such an entity today and decided to mirror the UK’s arrangements, you’d assume they were bloody mad. But the fact that we’re here means there’s a great deal of uncertainty and risk in moving elsewhere, from something which although logically ridiculous more-or-less works.

So the fact that Catholicism is logically ridiculous *is* more forgivable than the ridiculousness (and I mean that *within* the context of “we have faith and believe that God is excellent” – ie you can do that and not be ridiculous, like the Quakers or the CoE) of many fundamentalist Protestant churches.

The point here was supposed to be that it’s more or less impossible for any of the Abrahamic faiths to be inoffensive, since they’re based on the idea that believers possess the one truth and the key to life eternal, while everyone else is wrong, Godless and likely Hellbound. If any of them don’t – and I’m happy to stand corrected – then what’s the point in faith?

Catholics don’t believe they have a monopoly of truth, neither do Jews. I don’t know much about Islam, but I’d guess the fundies probably do, while the more thoughtful and moderate Muslims don’t.

Nor do Catholics or Jews believe that non-Catholics or non-Jews are “hellbound”.

‘Unless you’re a 100% virtuous follower of the one true faith, your lifestyle is utterly condemned and you’re cut off from the Lord’s infinite love, bound for eternal suffering. ‘

Sorry, but Catholics have never believed that only Catholics go to Heaven (not the gay disco). Do some research.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Och, Flying Rodent,

You say at 46:

What I find most entertaining about protestantism is this – “What I think the Almighty meant to say was…

Hasn’t the original catholic church, faith, what have you, been playing exactly that game, but for a tad longer? What, exactly and precisely did the Christian God have to say about in vitro fertilisation or the birth control pill? Sweet Fanny Adams.

And yet, the catholic church has ‘a view’. A reactionary view, I think, but a ‘view’.

I am not willing to subscribe to your sort of apologia for that, based on the catholic church being old. And, in any event, wrong.

The Pope’s argument about Nazism, Godwin’s law aside, revealingly illustrates yet again how people of faith can only comprehend atheism in its dogmatic, authoritarian, millenarian forms i.e those forms of atheism which most nearly resemble religion itself.
For most non-believers, atheism is an independently arrived-at point of view, not something imposed by any external agency. The religious mindset, correctly identified by Martin Amis as the “dependent mind”, cannot comprehend this free-thinking type of atheist. The Godly can only conceive of over-arching, imposed belief systems, whether it be Catholicism, Islam, National Socialism or Marxist-Leninism. These differ only on whether the Utopias on offer are of this world or the next, and whether the Elect exclude the rest of us on grounds of race, creed or class.
The poor old Pope inadvertently made this point once again this week. Personally, I made the score Bullshit-spouting Octagenarian Priest 0 Hyperventilating Celebrity Atheists 1 (own goal, Benedict)

“religious people are here to stay, no matter how silly their beliefs are. Us atheists are just going to have to learn to deal with that” – yes, wading through the fallout from religious conflict is a cross (if I may borrow a religious analogy) we atheists have long endured.

According to the wiki head count there are some 3.8 billion devotees locked into one type of Abrahamic religion or another – which reminds me of James Randi’s aphorism, “Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason”.

Randi refers to the Virgin Mary as being “impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes”, and questions how Adam and Eve “could have two sons, one of whom killed the other, and yet managed to populate the earth without committing incest” ……… honestly, you couldn’t make it up, yet 3.8 billion still buy into one silly Abrahamic brand, or another, while insisting we atheists keep a straight face, incredible?

@ 53

which reminds me of James Randi’s aphorism, “Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason”.

Thing is ….. most religious people don’t believe “without reason”. Least of all John Henry Newman, who wrote extensively of coming to faith THROUGH reason.

Badstephen@52

The Pope’s argument about Nazism, Godwin’s law aside, revealingly illustrates yet again how people of faith can only comprehend atheism in its dogmatic, authoritarian, millenarian forms i.e those forms of atheism which most nearly resemble religion itself.

Good point, and there certainly are similarities between Nazism and Catholicism – eg anti-Semitism, putting down dissenters by killing them if you can (called “heresy”) and burning/indexing books.

It seems to be fashionable in German Catholic circles, to blame Nazism on atheism. See here:-

http://obscenedesserts.blogspot.com/2009/04/little-mixaed-up.html

As I noted earlier, it is necessary when considering Bishop Mixa’s comments linking ‘aggressive atheism’ to Nazism to differentiate two things: the Party’s view toward religion and the views of religious people toward the Party.

While there is plenty of evidence in the former case of a hostility to Christianity among some party leaders, their alternative was hardly atheism but a mix of Nordic mysticism and esoteric paganism.

However, in the latter case, it is equally clear that the Nazis’ road to power was paved by the best wishes of a significant number of observantly religious people who–regardless of what Himmler or Goebbels or Rosenberg might have had planned–saw no contradiction between their belief in a Christian God and their support for the regime.

Atheism, of course, is no more a guarantee of morality than is theism. But what the current ‘aggressive atheism’–in the words of a press release put out by the diocese of Augsburg–has to do with the history of Nazism is a mystery to me.

@ 55 KB Player

Europe has experience of two aggressively atheistic political regimes in modern times: Nazi Germany and Enver Hoxha’s Albania.

Neither was very nice. So why be surprised when Christian clergymen point to these examples?

54

“Thing is ….. most religious people don’t believe “without reason”. ”

Yes they do – having “faith” is the very definition of believing things without reason, or indeed believing things which fly in the face of reason.

Galen10/57: having “faith” is the very definition of believing things without reason

Which everyone does, atheists included. A lot of things cannot be rationally deduced except by making an arbitrary assumption as the starting point; others could theoretically be deduced rationally but the experiments needed are either not practically possible or would take too long.

58 cim

No, because people who believe in rational explanations for things, rather than supernatural explanations, base their understandings on evidence, and are prepared to change their understanding if it is proven by evidence to be incorrect. There is all the difference in the world between the two approaches.

Really, this isn’t a difficult dichotomy to understand, except generally to those people of faith whose minds are already closed, or who ought to know better but find the concept of some supernatural “other” comforting.

59/Galen10: I’m not talking about supernatural things, I’m talking about entirely natural things that the existence of is not generally debated.

Ethics, for instance. Can you show, solely by evidence and logic, that a particular ethical system is superior to a largely opposed ethical system, without making some non-evidential assumptions about the meaning of “superior”?

The scientific method itself: can you show that assessing theories based on evidence and rejecting or amending them if the evidence conflicts is a process that over time improves the quality of theories?

Galen10,

Well, I hesitate to ask, but what is your opinion on Boltzmann Brains? They are theorised to exist, there is no known experiment that would prove or disprove it one way or another, yet they would be a natural outcome of the Universe and not supernatural. They might – I’m guessing here – meet cim’s criteria of meeting Clarke’s Third Law.

How, given the foregoing do you determine what is natural and what is supernatural?

Genuine question.

61

I know nothing about them, and frankly don’t much care, sorry! 🙂

On a more general level however, many problems which have been considered insoluble have of course subsequently been solved by the advance of scientific knowledge. As has often been pointed out, many things we take for granted today would have been considered supernatural or as witchcraft in the past.

Before we could prove that atoms existed, scientists had theorised about them, similarly before we could prove the solar system was heliocentric, people theorised that it was. Luckily the Catholic church isn’t as it once was, or no doubt Professor Hawking would have been burnt at the stake long ago.

?.???????