The Church of England vow to fight "new atheism" Clergy told to take on the 'new atheists'

Sadly I'm more inclined to think that there is some sort of mental psychosis behind being a christian believer and like bullies in the schoolyard will hide away until they spot an easier target to groom,.

And Hence the book 'The GOD Delusion' .

To believe in a Sky-Man with the attitude of my tantrum-throwing psychotic brother borders on delusion and insanity ,clearly .

What are these devil dodgers going to do? Molest them whilst they prance arround in their black dresses?

Again with the hate... What is it with you guys? Boring!
V.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Again with the hate... What is it with you guys? Boring!
V.

Thank you for you contribution, what's with all the hating ? The only reference to hate has come from yourself , if there's any truth in the godman in the sky story then you should look no further than him/ it as the author of all hate, bit of a no brainer really.

Still in the UK lol

No ideological system (independent of what area of life it concerns itself with), can be made fool-proof from misuse. Life and human nature are so varied, that any effort of creating an ultimate structure covering every and all eventualities, is doomed to be a failure. It would be 500 tomes of 'what's not compulsary is forbidden', and it would end in a self-suffocating bureaucracy, where all available energy would go to adminstration and control mechanisms. Sovjet was a good example, not so much because of its economical ideology, but because of its confused mixing of equality with egality (though this word may not formally exist).

So simpler basic and general principles are applied, consequently with loopholes.

Most ideologies imply reward/punishment concepts: The workers' paradise/gulags; Hitler's übermensch utopia/kz-camps; capitalist consumerism/homelessness; 'scientism'-reductionism/alianation; mother Gaia/global catastrophes; cosmic love/'dualism'; heaven/hell (these days more softly promoted as grace/original sin).

And most ideologies have an adherer-core, eager to push the 'message'.

It's all a MESS, especially when adherer-cores with various suicidal attitudes push to the brink.

NONE of the ideological 'messages' can claim absolutes applicable for all existence. There will always be an element of subjectivity somewhere in them (sometimes at the further end of epistemology). Most so-and-so adherers can live with that, but the core-groups are ridden with mindsets motivated by wanna-be, power, need for collective monopoly absolutes etc and THEY are the real problem. Ever searching for openings, where their own absolutes can infiltrate co-sensus, often at a furtive, non-tranparant, level.

Liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy isn't paranoic, if it strictly defends its principles against such onslaughts already at a basic level, because such onslaughts are an observable reality necessary to relate to, when the ideological products can't 'sell' themselves on their own merits, but resort to invasive methods.

Hard-core ideology claims of 'oppression' performed by liberal society is just another sophisticated maneuver in the manipulation. No-one suggests 3-o'clock-morning visits to confiscate bibles, 'Mein kampf' or 'Das Kapital', but in the present case the persecution complex of christianity now turns into clichées of 'self-defence', whereas my former example from Poland demonstrates hard-core christianity's OFFENSIVE attitudes.

Originally posted by Reptius
Dawkins so is a biologist so what they're basically saying is "WE'VE GOTTA FIGHT SCIENCE." which has happened before and every time they Church has failed.

They said the world was flat, Astrologers proved them wrong.
They said sun revolved around the earth , astronomers proved them wrong.

They said earth six thousand years old , geologist proved them wrong.



I mean they can fight Tyson and Sagan and Hawking and Dawkins all they want but history and SCIENCE is on the side of the scientist


Personally , If it comes down to a debate between the guy who figured out Pluto wasn't a planet (Tyson) and the Pope , I'm gonna go (with the?) astrophysicist who use(d?) to work for NASA and went to Cambridge.

Sigh... You blokes (no blokesses I see...) couldn't continue to believe we're all evil, if you didn't decide to lump us all into one giant category of anti-science pro-war nutjobs.
I'd be completely wasting my time linking to all the Christians who are working scientists (biologists, astronomers etc) as my pointing that out has been ignored in the past - but I know you know that the Pope has a science staff... It's been pointed out to you by me and by others..
But you'd rather keep believing your feel-good fantasies about all Christians being ignorant red-necks - in contrast to you 'Brights'... It's a class thing as well, obviously.
Vicky
PS - I have been chided for mentioning peoples' poor spelling in the past, but poor grammar can spoil your readability, or even make your posts incomprehensible. Therefore in the interests of being sure of what you're ranting about, I have made some changes, in brackets in case I am wroing about what you meant...

Reply to post by The Djin

lol @ Atheism a non-belief.


That is quite impossible, as the human brain, incentive it gains knowledge, has a really tion ranging from total acceptance to total rejection. It is the way humans are built.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Vicky32


I for one, wouldn't make any sweeping generalizations on the qualities of christians. Not all are evangelists, stupid or uneducated.

You e.g. are in my opinion a sensible person, open for communication.

As to the spelling problem. Having english as my third language, and using it in complex contexts, faults naturally appear. Spelling is not a very important point, and when used as an 'argument' in believer/non-believer debates, it's outright dumb (not that you've done that to me personally, but I've been exposed to it elsewhere).

reply to post by The Djin

LOL ...... I think I'm in a rather interesting space!

Just like I see the crumbling of the frameworks of Religions happening....

I see the same thing about to happen with Fundamental Atheism....

With both crumbled ...then Truth and Freedom is directly experienced...

Can't frickin wait!!!!

reply to post by dominicus


Except that I personally yet have to meet a 'fundamental atheist' suggesting that theists should have their common civil rights taken away, or alternatively claiming special atheist privileges above other attitudes/movements/ideologies..

So your implied blocking of 'freedom' caused by atheism is peculiar.

If you find it relevant, the avenues of political models in this context can be taken up. No ready-made conclusions can be presented a priori from a society-perspective.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by dominicus

 

Except that I personally yet have to meet a 'fundamental atheist' suggesting that theists should have their common civil rights taken away, or alternatively claiming special atheist privileges above other attitudes/movements/ideologies..

Atheism seems to be growing stronger, more confident. In the west and on-line, the call to complete secularism is gaining momentum. It won't be long before the increasing vocal assertion that faith is a purely private thing and should not be practiced in public, that people of faith should not congregate, a view oft expressed on these Boards, is instituted some place or other and the snowball begins.

So your implied blocking of 'freedom' caused by atheism is peculiar.

Or prophetic.

If you find it relevant, the avenues of political models in this context can be taken up. No ready-made conclusions can be presented a priori from a society-perspective.

Bolshevics

reply to post by teapot


Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

["........the call to complete secularism is gaining momentum."]

I take it, that you are aware of the meaning of 'secularism'. But just in case: It means, that religion isn't allowed to interfere DIRECTLY into the rules of co-sensus society. But it can like everybody else, form a political spearhead joining the general political scene and this way get some influence.

You'll maybe not accept the following, but for a non-believer this argument is valid: Should we let football-supporters have some SPECIAL influence on governing society?

Quote: ["It won't be long before the increasing vocal assertion that faith is a purely private thing and should not be practiced in public, that people of faith should not congregate, a view oft expressed on these Boards, is instituted some place or other and the snowball begins."]

I've never seen this claim. What I have seen (and done myself) are such as: "Bugger off and find some suitable place to carry monologue sermons. OR ELSE ......you'll be 'counter-preached' at". Mutual free polarized speech.

Quote: ["Or prophetic."]

....or peculiar.

(Sorry. don't take it too seriously. I just couldn't resist the opportunity).

Quote on atheist impact on society: ["Bolshevics"]

Where the hard-core ideology was just as abominable as the christian invasive evangelist fanatism is. I agree, but....

....not all christians are missionary-zeal idiots, not all atheists are bolshevics, not all bolschevics are invasive, and some christians are both communists and christians. Careful with the categorizations.

reply to post by bogomil

Except that I personally yet have to meet a 'fundamental atheist' suggesting that theists should have their common civil rights taken away, or alternatively claiming special atheist privileges above other attitudes/movements/ideologies..

by fundamental, I meant the most basic building blocks of what it means to be an atheist ....semantics...sheesh!

So your implied blocking of 'freedom' caused by atheism is peculiar.

doesn't really matter what I imply, everyone will do what they do regardless. Only difference is that sooner or later every single "stance" or frame of reference will all crumble. There are realities and the foundation of Being all around us...... and within us are certain organs to know these realities..... and so it goes, its just a matter of time.....

If you find it relevant, the avenues of political models in this context can be taken up. No ready-made conclusions can be presented a priori from a society-perspective.

relevant is the fact tat atheism is a bunch of witty circular logic confined to the limited of mind-stuff. So the Church of England....which is lost in dogma as well, is now saying that they're going to fight "new atheism" meaning they're going to try to defend the supernatural using the same limited, circular, witty mind-stuff.... its just hilarious to me .....its like a real life shakespear play
_____________
in reply to teapot....

Atheism seems to be growing stronger, more confident. In the west and on-line, the call to complete secularism is gaining momentum. It won't be long before the increasing vocal assertion that faith is a purely private thing and should not be practiced in public, that people of faith should not congregate, a view oft expressed on these Boards, is instituted some place or other and the snowball begins.

yeah perhaps .....even if atheism became dominant ...just like most things it would flower and die out eventually. Meh ..it is what is ...--brushes off shoulder--

another day in the world......

It's ridiculous, once you realise you dont believe in religion, nothing apart from a one to one meeting with the big man himself is gonna change your opinion.

reply to post by dominicus


You wrote:

["by fundamental, I meant the most basic building blocks of what it means to be an atheist ....semantics...sheesh!"]

Sorry about taking 'fundamental' in that semantic direction. But then there are several types of atheism (as far as I have been informed), and my general impression of them in social contexts still holds from my former posts.

Quote: ["Only difference is that sooner or later every single "stance" or frame of reference will all crumble. There are realities and the foundation of Being all around us...... and within us are certain organs to know these realities"]

Personally and presently I am no supporter of the idea, that existence can be related to 'absolutes', as we now understand 'absolute'. So maybe you and I agree. I operate from a position of 'relative realities'.

Quote: ["..... and so it goes, its just a matter of time....."]

Time will show, what's a matter of time.

Quote: ["relevant is the fact tat atheism is a bunch of witty circular logic confined to the limited of mind-stuff. So the Church of England....which is lost in dogma as well, is now saying that they're going to fight "new atheism" meaning they're going to try to defend the supernatural using the same limited, circular, witty mind-stuff.... its just hilarious to me .....its like a real life shakespear play "]

Again we seem to agree, except that I don't find religious dogmas witty at all. There's probably some minor commandent against humour in christianity.

Double posting

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
It's ridiculous, once you realise you dont believe in religion, nothing apart from a one to one meeting with the big man himself is gonna change your opinion.

That would be the way it works.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I for one, wouldn't make any sweeping generalizations on the qualities of christians. Not all are evangelists, stupid or uneducated.

You e.g. are in my opinion a sensible person, open for communication.

As to the spelling problem. Having english as my third language, and using it in complex contexts, faults naturally appear. Spelling is not a very important point, and when used as an 'argument' in believer/non-believer debates, it's outright dumb (not that you've done that to me personally, but I've been exposed to it elsewhere).

edit on 8-2-2011 by bogomil because: clarification

Thank you for your remarks, Bogomil!
I do hope I have not offended you with my remarks about spelling/grammar - in this instance, I was referring to Reptius, and his grammar, which made it a bit difficult to understand exactly what he meant!
As far as I can remember, your posts have fewer linguistic faults than those of many others (I think it's because you, not being a native speaker, are very careful to make sure that you are understandable.)
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


You wrote:

["I do hope I have not offended you with my remarks about spelling/grammar -"]

Not at all. Maybe apart from some past initial polarized situations (if my memory serves me), it's a pleasure to communicate with you. Not least because it demonstrates that moderate attitudes CAN meet.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by dominicus

 

Except that I personally yet have to meet a 'fundamental atheist' suggesting that theists should have their common civil rights taken away, or alternatively claiming special atheist privileges above other attitudes/movements/ideologies..

Religious fanatics currently have far more "rights" than non religionists and atheists. In the UK, for example, if a medical doctor or a drug company attempts to profit from false claims to cure patients, they can be prosecuted; however when they are prosecuted, they are prosecuted by the "Crown," whose living dictator is also the head of the Anglican Church. On the way to the court a doctor who is being prosecuted for malpractice might have to pass by an Anglican Church with a sign stating "healing services," with the qualifications of the "healer" usually being a degree in Theology, not a medical qualificaton.

The multi-billion dollar Jesus business gives rise to numerous charlatans who prey on the sick, the disabled, the elderly, the vulnerable etc., and since the Jesus of the Gospels commanded his followers to carry out fake healings and fake miracles (unless you believe that this group of 2000 year old religious fanatics discovered a cure for leprosy, blindness and could raise the dead), such charlatans are often defended by armies of lawyers crying out the mantra of "religious freedom."

The "salvation business" is not covered by the consumer protection act; one cannot demand a refund for "salvation," and the prophets (profits, profiteers) of the religion business can charge anything they like.

Thus the religious fanatics do claim "special priveleges" which anti-religionists, non-religionists and atheists do not have.

"And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

Dear Jesus,

Could you please remove all your followers from the face of the earth, "immediately (or before midnight tonight at the latest)." And while you are at it, could you please get me a cappuccino with no sugar. I pray all this in Jesus' name, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Actually could you make that "two" cappuccinos?

Lux