So Pope Benedict is comparing Atheists to Nazis now?

[jim]

Humanists do not try to push themselves down people's throats. Yes, there are a few like Dawkins who promote - in his own words - militant atheism, but he's one person. Let's not forget that Humanist values are a hell of a lot more open than most religion's too. If you speak to most Humanists/Atheists, I'm sure you'll find that their hope for the future is not a world where everyone denies God, but one where Atheists are viewed on equal footing.

Really? Speaking purely on the basis of atheists, the impression I get is that many of them just can't wait to jump down the throat of anyone who's religious, take the piss out of them and then deride them routinely. It's certainly not just the "odd one or two". In my experience of life so far, the atheists I've known have trumpeted far more than the religious people I've known.

It's hardly surprising that the Pope, a deeply religious person, looking at the news and seeing British people queuing up to slag off him and his visit, might feel that religion is being forced off the agenda. The comparison with Nazism is very daft, especially given the appalling attitude that the Vatican took towards the Nazification of the Church system, but I can see why he's said it. To an outside looking in, Britain is a very unreligious nation, and he may well link that to the campaigns of Dawkins and so on.

As for your last point, does anyone honestly believe that atheists in modern Britain aren't on an equal footing to those who are religious? Religion is a taboo in Britain today - if any politician mentioned it in the lead-up to an election I reckon it could seriously damage their prospects of being voted in, and you see that today with a complete lack of any mention of it at the top echelons. Compare that to America, where God seems to feature in virtually every presidential speech, and Britain seems generally atheist.

People might quote the census, but a heck of a lot of people will say that they are Anglican Christian when they don't believe in God, don't go to Church, don't really care.

[chuckskull]

Britain is a very secular country, not very atheist. Quite different. Politicians do play their religion(and the religion of others) but they do it shrewdly, and only to sympathetic groups, it's certainly not something that's never mentioned or used to gain advantage. Britain is too multicultural for a politician to espouse a single religion in every speech and hope to win. I take that as a sign of religious diversity not lack of religion.

In America the Christian right is a very strong political bloc and so some politicians will risk losing other smaller bloc's to please them, no religion in Britain has that much clout to make it worthwhile, if there was politicians here would go out of their way to ingratiate themselves with them too, just like in America.

On the last point, no atheists have ever knocked on my door, or stopped me in the street trying to push their beliefs on me.

[peterb]

There is certainly a tendency for those without a religious belief to sneer at those that do, which to my mind is an equally unpleasant form of religious intolerance.

I don't particularly have much time for some of the doctrine of the Catholic Church (or indeed some of the wilder claims by any religious body). However there are mnany that do derive comfort from the notion of a God, and/or from their religious beliefs, and I find it sad that they should be mocked for doing so.

It seems to be a case of "that we don't understand, we shall attack" mentality.

There has been a degree of hypocrisy within the Catholic Church over the paedophile cases - although I would suggest no more than any other group that has closed ranks to protect its members, whether that is a religious group or not. That doesn't make it right, and I think the Catholic Church is taking (belated) steps to correct the situation. And paedophilia is not exclusive to religious bodies!

Finally, I thought that the meeting between the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican churches sends quite a powerful message that disparate groups with different traditions can work together to a common aim. Now if only that was translated to Muslim/Christian/Judaism we might have the making of a more peaceful world.

[Whiternoise]

Really? Speaking purely on the basis of atheists, the impression I get is that many of them just can't wait to jump down the throat of anyone who's religious, take the piss out of them and then deride them routinely. It's certainly not just the "odd one or two". In my experience of life so far, the atheists I've known have trumpeted far more than the religious people I've known.

It's hardly surprising that the Pope, a deeply religious person, looking at the news and seeing British people queuing up to slag off him and his visit, might feel that religion is being forced off the agenda. The comparison with Nazism is very daft, especially given the appalling attitude that the Vatican took towards the Nazification of the Church system, but I can see why he's said it. To an outside looking in, Britain is a very unreligious nation, and he may well link that to the campaigns of Dawkins and so on.

As for your last point, does anyone honestly believe that atheists in modern Britain aren't on an equal footing to those who are religious? Religion is a taboo in Britain today - if any politician mentioned it in the lead-up to an election I reckon it could seriously damage their prospects of being voted in, and you see that today with a complete lack of any mention of it at the top echelons. Compare that to America, where God seems to feature in virtually every presidential speech, and Britain seems generally atheist.

People might quote the census, but a heck of a lot of people will say that they are Anglican Christian when they don't believe in God, don't go to Church, don't really care.

This argument has gone round the bush many times, but it boils down to the fact that Atheists tend to be a lot more frank about what they believe in (or don't). Telling someone that you don't believe in their God and outlining the reasons why appears to be a lot more hurtful than someone saying that they believe in God, "why don't you?" So in that respect, no, I don't believe Atheists are on equal footing at all. Certainly we are tolerated, but the moment someone says "I don't believe in God, I think it's rubbish and here's the x, y and z evidence against it" suddenly the atmosphere changes to be very hostile and people are being accused of being intolerant or anti-<whatever>. Dawkins (and his colleagues) gets away with it because he has a academic weight behind him, but that doesn't stop a lot of people speaking their mind about him.

I'm sure different people have different experiences. A good friend of mine told me perfectly calmly that I was going to hell. Interestingly I find while that Atheists tend to be a lot more up front about religion, people who are religious (of the God believing sort) tend to be extremely patronising. Consider the Atheist viewpoint, that logically God cannot exist (ignoring the specifics which I assume you know anyway) and then being talked down to by someone who says you're talking nonsense without (in your opinion) anything to back it up with. That is at least as bad as deriding or piss taking. I'll admit I have had laughs at the expense of people who believe in God - I can honestly say that I don't any more, not in that particular way. It's far easier to let people believe what they believe and not to question it.

Doesn't that tell you a lot about this country then? All these people that don't believe in God, don't follow the flock and so on, but won't actually admit to it? To me that points to the conclusion that people don't take Atheism seriously and consider it more like an outspoken political party.



@PeterB - RE sneering, see above. I find patronisation at least as offensive as sneering - well, it is sneering if you think about it.

[peterb]

<--snip



@PeterB - RE sneering, see above. I find patronisation at least as offensive as sneering - well, it is sneering if you think about it.

I cetainly agree - although I would suggest that perhaps "smug" is also applicable! Ultimately it comes down to respecting another's point of view, and being open minded enough to admit another's point of view has validity.

Certainly many intelligent and educated people find that the thought of an omnipotent God to be a comfort, and use their religious beliefs to inform their lives accordingly. Equally there are others that use religion as a justification for their actions, and when those actions subvert the well being of society, it becomes harmful. But there are thjose without a religipous belief whio subvert society anyway, and some religions can provide a moral code.

As you pointed out earlier though, such a moral code doesn't have to be religion based. As a last resort it is legally imposed. So does that make the jurisprudence system a religion? (I suspect some lawyers think so )

[oolon]

I find myself strongly in the agnostic camp, I see no reason for a divine being(s) however I feel not need to rule out the existance of one. The problem for me starts when people have blind faith and believe in something without thinking out it. After all there are those who believe VI is better than EMACS! I find it interesting those who truly believe, my problem is with established churches, for me I think many who are there do not have a calling and do not believe (not saying they didn't in the past) they find themselves going through the motions, there are in a career not a religion. I rember sitting in my local C&E church when I was 12 and thinking, this guy (the local vicar) is trying to tell me what I should think about what is going on in the world, but he seems to be an idiot, why I am listening to him? He is not even informing me about the spirtual world just talking about. However one of the Decans truly did believe and it showed through him and he was very interesting to listen to and I enjoyed being a sidesman at his services.

I do not mock peoples faith, I might poke fun at how they look but people do that to me so see little problem (that got me a post deleted in this thread). On an interesting aside a friends of ours child asked her mother when they saw the pope on TV if that was a clown (oh the wisdom of children). I might question if there is a difference between what they say, what they do, and what the think but that is where the interesting bit is for me (After all we are all hippocrates though most of us like to think we are not). When the Church of Later day Saints comes to my door, I like to talk to them, some times I even invite them to talk, normally until they ask to leave! Asking questions like who was Adams first wife and how old is the world are always interesting questions, and good one is which gospels in the new testimate were written first, they are a work of editing. Religion is great there is so much choice it seems strange that people would restrict themselves to one.

[Whiternoise]

I cetainly agree - although I would suggest that perhaps "smug" is also applicable! Ultimately it comes down to respecting another's point of view, and being open minded enough to admit another's point of view has validity.

Certainly many intelligent and educated people find that the thought of an omnipotent God to be a comfort, and use their religious beliefs to inform their lives accordingly. Equally there are others that use religion as a justification for their actions, and when those actions subvert the well being of society, it becomes harmful. But there are thjose without a religipous belief whio subvert society anyway, and some religions can provide a moral code.

As you pointed out earlier though, such a moral code doesn't have to be religion based. As a last resort it is legally imposed. So does that make the jurisprudence system a religion? (I suspect some lawyers think so )

Our legal system is loosely based on Biblical teachings, extensions on things like tithes, prayer in schools, etc. So it may well be a religion in some respects. Personally I think US system is a lot better in principle - a secular system where religion is clearly separated from state affairs. Sadly the words of the founding fathers fell on deaf ears. I think I'm right in saying that they didn't try to discriminate against religion, just try to ensure that people didn't use it as political leverage.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbv...-fr_shortfilms worth a watch too, if you haven't seen it.