UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

The march of the atheist movement

First it was a bus, now a student body has been formed to spread the secular word

By Jerome Taylor

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, supports the bus campaign

AP

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, supports the bus campaign

In the rush-hour traffic on High Holborn, commuters were getting off one of many London buses that carry an advert proclaiming the beginning of Psalm 53: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

But, in a theatre down the road, hundreds had gathered to proclaim exactly that – that there is indeed no God and those who think there is one are, in fact, the real fools.

Greeted by a cardboard cutout of Darwin, they gathered in Conway Hall, the headquarters of the Ethical Society, for the creation of the first national student body to represent and lobby for the rights of young British atheists.

The launch of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies – which the founders have agreed to shorten to the abbreviated AHS – is the latest in a series of pro-secular movements that have sprung up to oppose what they believe is a growing pandering towards religious groups.

With scientists and rationalists celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth this year, the timing is more than apt. But the creation of this latest manifestation of atheism reveals a renaissance over the past three years for secular and humanist ideals that began with Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion and only recently manifested itself in the popular atheist bus campaign, in which double deckers carried the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

There was once a time when those ideals were, of course, commonplace. Two centuries ago, progressive intellectuals of the post-Enlightenment age were all too happy to predict the end of religion, that the triumph of science and reason would win out and that man would turn away from God. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, meanwhile, student atheist groups were a vibrant and influential part of university life. Thinking the battle had been won, they largely died out two decades ago .

But, as religious conflict spreads once again throughout the world, throwing the Western world into a so-called clash of civilisations with radical Islam, the time is ripe, according to secularists, for a new religion – a live-and-let-live brand of soft atheism.

Dressed in a sharp suit and sporting a carefully trimmed goatie, 24-year-old Norman Ralph, the newly anointed president of AHS, explained why he feels it is time for Britain's atheists to unite. "I firmly believe that the secular traditions of this country are being openly challenged on all sides," he said. "But I also think there is a growing wave of British atheism sweeping the country and we need to ride that wave. Ever since 9/11 people are being challenged to pick a side. There is such a push at the moment to be politically accepting of religious views that those who don't have a religion are, in fact, missing out. That is a message that I think will be popular to many people."

If the recent atheist bus campaign is any indication, he may be right. When Ariane Sherine, the young comedian behind the adverts, somewhat jokingly suggested that atheists should all donate £5 to sponsor a bus campaign that would spread a secular message rather than the usual Biblical extracts, she was flooded with donations and letters of support.

Her original aim was to raise £5,500 to run 30 bus ads across London for four weeks. Within weeks, the campaign had managed to raise more than £150,000 thanks to a huge response from the public and the financial clout of Dawkins who agreed to match any donations. Over the past month, more than 800 buses across the country have been driving around with the "There's Probably No God" slogan and plans are afoot to place 1,000 more adverts on the Tube system. The idea has also spread abroad, with secular groups in America and Spain being prompted to take out their own bus adverts.

Considering his prominent involvement in the atheist bus campaign it was perhaps no surprise that Professor Dawkins attended the launch of AHS and announced that his charitable foundation would be willing to give support to students who wished to set up an atheist society at university.

"University is a place where people think, a place where people evaluate evidence," the former Oxford don said. "Public statements of non-belief are treated as threatening, an affront to the religious, while the reverse is not true. More concerning is the enduring assumption that religious belief does not have to earn respect like any other view, an approach that has caused politicians and public figures across the UK to withdraw from asking the vital question: why is religion given such special status in government, culture and the media? Why is belief in a higher power an indication of greater moral fortitude, character and acumen? No opinion should be protected from criticism simply by virtue of being religiously held."

Chris Worfolk, a 22-year-old Leeds University graduate, was one of many students who travelled to London for the launch. He said atheists in Leeds initially found it difficult to form their own society because of opposition from students' groups like the Islamic Society and the Christian Union. "It took us a long time to get our society up and running. There was a lot of opposition," he said. "One of the issues we are trying to lobby the university on is the serving of halal meat in the canteens."

Chloë Clifford-Frith, who recently graduated from St Hilda's in Oxford, said students today had a duty to promote atheist ideas: "We live in a world where religious governments execute adulterers and homosexuals, deny women and minority groups basic freedoms, circulate fraudulent claims about contraception and scientific research and create laws that protect them from criticism," she said. "We are privileged, in such a world, to live in a country where we can even have this debate. As such, we have a duty to bring it into our universities and beyond."

Taking a stand: Notable non-believers

Diagoras of Melos

Often referred to as the "first atheist", Diagoras was a poet and sophist who openly spoke out against religion in ancient Greece and was forced to flee Athens for doing so. Unfortunately, little record of what he thought survives although we know that he publicly questioned the Eleusinian Mysteries, an elaborate series of ceremonies.

Albert Einstein

Einstein was regularly asked if he thought there was a god. In developing the theory of relativity, he realised there must have been a beginning to the universe. The question he struggled with was what came before the beginning? He concluded: "I do not believe in a personal God. If something is in me which can be called religion, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Mark Twain

A fearsome critic of organised religion, Twain wrote many of the soundbites atheists repeat today, such as: "If Christ were here, there is one thing he would not be: a Christian." Born in 1835, a year Halley's comet was seen, he ironically predicted "the Almighty" would take him next time the comet passed near Earth. He died in 1910, two weeks after the comet was spotted once more.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
GOD
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:02 am (UTC)
ALBERT EINSTEIN SAID YHOD DOES KNOT PLAY QKUBES
GOD IN SPAIN
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:07 am (UTC)

ATA ALPA SAID GOD IS GOD INTI
AHS
[info]dostoyevsky01 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:27 am (UTC)
Is that ahs as in aarse!
Promising developments
[info]samb_uk wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:47 am (UTC)
It's good that atheists and secularists are providing a balancing act to the supernaturalists who are attempting to undermine the rule of law and human rights.
Re: Promising developments
[info]kungfuculture wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:22 pm (UTC)
As an advocate of freedom I agree with your assertion that it is good that atheist and secularist are working to promote their world view. However as a Christian I disagree with you implied assertion that super naturalists are responsible for undermining the rule of law and human rights. In fact I would argue that religion plays a minor roll in those things as there have been just as many secularists who have committed egregious crimes against humanity.
Re: Promising developments - [info]lividoflondon - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC) Expand
INTI
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:57 am (UTC)

ATA WALPA INIT
Re: INTI
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 02:26 am (UTC)
ATHEIST
A THEIST
A THEORIST
A PERSON WITHNO GOD AND A THEORY

SECULARIST
A PERSON WITH GOD AND THE DEVIL IN PARLIAMENT

TAOIST
A WAYFARER

PAYGAN
MUD
Re: INTI - [info]the100thidiot - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 09:27 am (UTC) Expand
Re: INTI - [info]arthur_ide - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]josie_1 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 03:17 am (UTC)
Just another marketing ploy to revitalize flagging sales of Dawkins book.
Flagging book sales?
[info]drmagyar wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 04:12 am (UTC)
Odd. I just checked on amazon.co.uk. Hardly seems to be flagging to me. Quite funny it is in the New Age category. Ranking of 87 overall is rather splendid meethinks.

Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 87 in Books

Popular in these categories:
#1 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Thought & Practice > Theosophy
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion
#4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > New Age
Re: Flagging book sales? - [info]josie_1 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 04:16 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Flagging book sales? - [info]haywales - Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 11:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Flagging book sales? - [info]simon_gardner - Monday, 23 February 2009 at 12:23 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Flagging book sales? - [info]drmagyar - Monday, 23 February 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC) Expand
Atheism - [info]zebulonjoe - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]lividoflondon - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 05:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Dawkins only matched 5,500 pounds
[info]mmurray57 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 05:17 am (UTC)
" Within weeks, the campaign had managed to raise more than GBP 150,000 thanks to a huge response from the public and the financial clout of Dawkins who agreed to match any donations. " This is wrong. Luckily for him Richard Dawkins only agreed to match the first GBP 5,500 the rest was from the great atheist public.

Michael
Einstein and God
[info]afawanas wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 06:09 am (UTC)
"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

I think that says a lot for Einstein's support of atheist thought.

Sana
Re: Einstein and God
[info]smithsfan82 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:08 am (UTC)
Afawanas...

Don't quote out of context. Einstein said in the same letter:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

What Einstein meant by the passage you quoted is that he doesn't subscribe to any doctrine that is dogmatic, hence his agnostic stance. He was a scientist and used evidence for theories. As there is no evidence for a God, and of course for the opposite theory, then his only stance as a scientist was to sit on the proverbial fence. He was tired of religious indoctrination and equally that of Atheism because it ruled out a lot of things that he could not prove. Einstein was not being smart about this, simply a realist. How could he substantiate such a claim.

As for religion it is a flawed concept; a human concept. Anything involving the intelligence of the human mind is ultimately flawed. Religion was invented by humans for a number of reasons, the most important being lack of understanding of the natural world. People who subscribe to religion cannot accept the idea of their ancestors being apes as much as Atheists cannot understand the idea we were created out of thin air.

"In the beginning there was the heaven and the earth and the land was void and bare in the face of the deep... there was nothing... and God said let there be light... and there was light and he saw that is was good... there was still nothing but you could see it a whole lot better." Ellen Degeneres, lesbian and comedienne (everything religion hates in their women)

Re: Einstein and God - [info]ms444 - Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 08:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]ms444 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:20 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]sara_sense - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]ms444 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]sara_sense - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]ms444 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 04:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Einstein and God - [info]mrpeach666 - Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 09:55 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 07:43 am (UTC)
We Atheists have never before seen the need to pronounce ourselves. We've never knocked on doors or held candlelit vigils in the street, we don't hand out brochures and we don't ram our beliefs down the throats of others, we don't need to. However, with this ridiculous religious offensive getting way out of hand, it's about time the pious realised that there is an alternative if they're strong enough, simply believe in yourselves and the world will be a far better place. It's OK to break the stifling, indoctrinated obsession, remove yourselves from the rut. It won't be easy but this bus campaign shows you that you're not alone. Come on sheeple, less of the superstitious claptrap, let's make the world a better, more realistic place.

'Faith is believing what you know ain't so'.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
Whilst I agree with what you say about the 'Religious Offensive', I'd just like to say that some atheists have been guilty in the past of foisting their beliefs on others. I'm referring to the mighty Soviet Union and some other Communist countries and States who banned religion and enforced that ban by some pretty unpleasant means. So not all sweetness and light.

I too am concerned about the March of fundamental religions, and the need fundamentalists have to force their views on everyone else. But anything can become a religion.
(no subject) - [info]mr_cardiacs - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC) Expand
Right. - [info]the_kegs - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC) Expand
God
[info]mbale2003 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
If God was a Head of a State called Heven, would he not be before (assuming they signed the convention) the International Criminal Court for Genocide, Collective Punishment, discrimination etc etc
On the march
[info]frigalo wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:03 am (UTC)
Atheists have felt threatened and bullied by religious fundamentalists for too long. It has almost become dangerous for those who wish to preserve free speech and liberty. We are fighting back. It is called freedom of intellectual thought. Pity more schools don't practice it.
My 'God' or your 'God' or no God...or whatever...
[info]ajhse1 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
It's about time there is more reaction to the current phase of religious intelorance...

A question; do extreme Christians have more common cause with extreme Islamists than so called 'atheists' ...Who do they despise more ?

plus is there not a 3rd category between agnostic and atheist ?...as in the 'don't cares' or 'why is there a question' ...
Re: My 'God' or your 'God' or no God...or whatever...
[info]nullifidian0 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:32 pm (UTC)
As has already been explained elsewhere, atheism (a lack of belief in gods), agnosticism (a lack of knowledge of any gods) and apatheism (the lack of interest into whether gods exist or not) are separate concepts, and one can hold all three of these positions simultaneously and without contradiction.

As the "church of apatheism" succinctly puts it: "Simply put ... agnostics don't know, atheists don't believe, and apatheists don't care about the existence of gods."
Re: My 'God' or your 'God' or no God...or whatever... - [info]a_learner - Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC) Expand
There is no God.
[info]katietog wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
I would have felt a great deal happier about the bus-side slogan if it had stated 'There probably is no god, so we've got to sort this mess out ourselves.' The emphasis on enjoyment indicates a lack of
serious thought on the part of the slogan writers.
Re: There is no God.
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
I agree, I could have come up with some far more poignant slogans, hopefully they will put more thought into it in the future.
Re: There is no God. - [info]comradekaff - Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 04:21 pm (UTC) Expand
What an opportunity!
[info]theophilus2134 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
fantastic! As a comitted Christian this is wonderful the more debate the better !!!
God doesnt need to be defended just proclaimed and His love shared This adds to the opportunitiies
Re: What an opportunity!
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:49 pm (UTC)
Here's a debate for you. Dependent upon which version you read, the bible roughly states 'Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch'. Can you please tell me, who was Cain's wife, what was her name and where on Earth did she come from?
Re: What an opportunity! - [info]nullifidian0 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:34 pm (UTC) Expand
AHS
[info]billsd wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 09:54 am (UTC)
This is most welcome news. Perhaps now all closet AHS's will come out and we can make a start on dealing with the elephant in the room.
We have a national and global population that already far exceeds a level that is sustainable, and it is still growing. I firmly believe that we have been prevented from tackling this problem primarily by the religious faiths.
Re: AHS
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC)
Yes.
exercise your right to oppose bigoted religious totalitarianism whilst you still can!
[info]helenokeeffe wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
The UN is attempting to make criticism of religious ideology illegal, which means oppressive immoral practices like the stoning of women, the corporal punishment of rape victims and the execution of gay people in countries which practise sharia law will become out of bounds for censure and condemnation, even though they are clear abuses of human rights.
In the US, for many years, it was impossible to hold a senior public position if one was openly an atheist; even though this was against their constitutional standpoint on freedom of belief; hopefully as Obama acknowledged non-believers in his inaugural speech things might improve there.

Everyone who believes in free speech, whatever other beliefs you espouse, should support any movement which lobbies for secularity; it's the fairest way for believers and non-believers alike. When religious regimes get power they oppress all other beliefs that do not accord with their own (eg persecution of all non-Muslims in Iran). Religious groups already have enormous influence in British schools, the media, and in many spheres of local and national government, and it is often considered un-PC, or even "racist" to question the effects of this influence. It is small wonder that non-religious people are feeling side-lined and are uniting to express their discomfort. it is becoming more necessary than ever - look at the fate of the editor of The Statesman - in India, a multi-faith democracy - arrested for publishing Johan Hari's excellent article questioning why religions should all automatically be accorded respect.
god
[info]exportskip wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
I think religious or spiritual beliefs should be private, and that the World would be better off if this were a more widely held view. I am not an atheist, nor do I subscribe to any organised religious view or deity/deities.

I am endlessly frustrated by the offense which this causes in the people around me. Yet my own offense and distress that my children are forced by the government to worship in school is of no account to these people. You have to be a badge wearing, proselytising christian in my community to be truly accepted. Anything less is an invitation to all and sundry to attempt conversion.

The two things I tire most of having thrown at me are - "This is a christian country" (are they blind?); and that christian schools are better than state schools, by virtue of them being run by christians. I find it a national disgrace that christians receive preferential funding by the government. Government and church should be separate. Even the fundamentalists who sailed off to found America recognised the importance of this. When will we follow their lead in this?
Re: god
[info]amfish wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC)
Of course, the irony is that America - where church and state are legally separated - is much more aggressively religious than Britain - where they aren't. In this country you stand up as an atheist and people might be surprised; in the US they tend to be offended or worse. On Britain as a Christian country, I suspect this is a myth driven by poorly worded census forms. Ask someone what religion they are and those who don't usually give the matter thought will think having been christened or having Christian parents makes them automatically Christians; ask them if they believe in God, pray or attend church and you might find the number of actual Christians in the country is considerably smaller.
Re: god - [info]the_kegs - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:41 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: god - [info]valewriter - Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:58 am (UTC) Expand
I;m an Atheist
[info]gebers2 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC)
I have just finished reading this article, and whilst I'm not a university student I cannot do anything but applaud the efforts that are being made to highlight this issue. Walking through my local town centre there are, more often than not, groups of people from various religous groups preaching about how we can "find salvation if only we rennounce our sinful past" and I can't help but feel that, were it an atheist group, they would be carted off for causing public nusense. It is true that Religion get's held in high esteem, but we are a country of eqaul opportunity and celebrate our diversity, so why can't Atheism be held in equal regard?
Yes There Is a God
[info]zubair_usman wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
Yes there is a God, simply not seen don't mean He is not there. It's like the Pain we can't see does it mean its not there? we can't see mind does it mean its not there? We can't see the happines does it mean its not there? Yes they all are there but we cant see because God had hidden them.
Re: Yes There Is a God
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
Pain, the mind, and happiness can all be examined and their effects replicated in a lab because they are real. God, like dreams, is not real so he cannot be examined or replicated.
Re: Yes There Is a God - [info]the_kegs - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC) Expand
The Truth of the matter
[info]hair_clipper wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
The fact that Atheists could not even muster the words, 'There is no God' and left the word 'probably' says a lot about the faith they have. I thought Dawkins was an atheist but all of a sudden he turned agnostic, perhaps by next week He will be a believer in God!!

I encourage the debate with atheists, I personally did believe in evolution but realised after much thought how inconsistent and full of flaws it was. The idea of us not having a Creator and doing what we pleased was a powerful and desireable thought, but it defied reasonable thinking of the reality of whats around us. The complexity of this world cannot be defined by a chance, it is merely a complete disregard for logic and rationale that leads a person to conclude that. So as always let the atheists( I was one), secularists, humanists begin their campaign, I just hope they are sincere in learning the truth as what confronts them may well change their opinions and lives forever.
Re: The Truth of the matter
[info]helenokeeffe wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
1.Atheists do not have faith. That is what defines them.
2.'probably' was used to offer a more inclusive standpoint, and to meet advertising standards requirements, as there is no proof for the existence of God/Gods, but no ultimate proof for non-existence either, just as there is no proof for non-existence of fairies.
3.The vast majority of scientists accept that evolution is the best, most consistent argument there is for the world and its inhabitants. Maybe there are some flaws, as there are in all fields of scientific research, that is why research continues, to refine our knowledge, and and seek real, empirical truths. The idea that some magic man in the sky made the planet is simply risible and cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a reasonably developed level of intellect. There is no better existing explanation than that which Evolutionary Biology offers, and I doubt very much that Richard Dawkins would take leave of his sense and abandon a lifetime's work in order to subscribe to superstitious nonsense.
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]mr_cardiacs - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]hair_clipper - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:50 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]amfish - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]smithsfan82 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]smithsfan82 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]hair_clipper - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 02:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]smithsfan82 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 09:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]colinru - Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 01:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]twb103 - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Truth of the matter - [info]ourmaninferney - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 05:07 pm (UTC) Expand
There is a God
[info]georgesign wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:53 am (UTC)
Of course there is a God. He talks to me every day. He tells me I am the Chosen One and that Jesus and all the others that came before him were confidence tricksters. Last week I went up Snowdon and God handed me some stone tablets with lots of rules: there are hundreds of them. You can't do this. You can't do that. He said he had got the idea from the Labour government. Anyway I must go because I''ve a dead-line to complete my gospels. All bow down and worship me. You do believe me? Don't you?
Re: There is a God
[info]rain1950 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:51 pm (UTC)
Hey I am the chosen one my Mother was Mary and my Father was a Carpenter. Simple deduction, I rest my case. I have been the Messiah for years get over it I did. Am I going out to tell the world I think not somehow I have this weird feeling they would off me or have me locked up in the loonie ward. I wonder what kind of meds you get for being the Messiah good ones I bet. Some people grow out of believing in Santa Clause the Tooth Fairy etc. Some never grew out of worshiping the invisible man. So if all those people can believe in the invisible man, I can be their Messiah. Seems fair. I like the do not kill clause. What a pity most religions don't fallow that clause. What hypocrites they are.
Religion=Politics
[info]hal057 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
It is time for religion to be fully integrated into society. It must be recognised as a political movement and treated in the same way as the Labour or Conservative party. They are at least allowed to parade their delusions without being called crazy.
Religion = Politics
[info]exportskip wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC)
Isn't there already a monster-raving-loony party?
Atheism is a just another belief system
[info]r_small wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC)
I don't mind Atheists banding together, it's totally fair to expect to find representation in society. I disapprove however, of Atheists hijacking secularism as the domain solely of Atheists... as if you don't get theist secularists. Atheists should also temper their ferocity towards theist believers as they don't realise they themselves are yet another belief system (the belief in the absence of God) and they cannot prove it.
Re: Atheism is a just another belief system
[info]willwalton wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
This is a typical response by those of a religious persuasion. A cutting and pasting of the bits that suit their argument rather than a reasoned argument.
Atheists are NOT trying to hijack secularism. The opposite is the case. Atheists are merely trying to protect secularism (which in my book equates to "Human Rights") from religious tampering.
Religion should be a matter of personal choice and should be separated from matters of state or law. That is the simple principle at stake. Hitherto those of a relgious persuasion have sought to influence both politics and the law, and, sadly, in most countries across the globe have fully or partially succeded.
With the rise of religious extremism, there is bound to be a countering by those who, rightly, feel strongly that no-one should be forced to accept this form of oppression.
Re: Atheism is a just another belief system - [info]grammarking - Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Atheism is a just another belief system - [info]colinru - Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 02:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Atheism is a just another belief system - [info]simon_gardner - Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC) Expand
From cockroach to peacock
[info]midasme wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 11:47 am (UTC)
On every level the God concept loses both logical ground and reasoned justification. Let's look at the Catholic version (and as an 'escaped' catholic, I speak with the authority of a former captive): Jesus was the only son of an omnipotent God. Why an only son? Did the said deity have a vascetomy after the 'birth' of the annointed one? Mysterium incognito, as the Pope may well say (and if my dog latin serves me well). And then we have the tripartite division of the godhead with the Holy Ghost given the somewhat salacious task of impregnating the blessed virgin. Try to imagine this divine emanation appearing one Nazarene night ago whilst a terrified Joseph witnessed his virgin wife - and still a virgin though married to a no doubt robust, blue-collar, virile Joseph - being seduced and impregnated by the divine emanation. No wonder the church made Joseph a saint! And then we have the crucifixtion, that most shameful, prolonged, humilating of deaths elevated to a metaphysical principle by a coterie of sado-masochistic priests and bishops. A modern equivalent would be the valorising of the electric chair or the gas chamber. Oh of course, I am missing the point. It is all about self-sacrifice, the giving over of the one for the many. An entirely laudable principle that somehow speaks across national boundaries. And from this principle we see the schlerotic finger of the priest and nun prodding the flabby, nascent conscience of young minds from primary to pulpit with the devastating mantra, 'Jesus - the Son of God - sacrificed His life for us!' In the face of such armour-plated tribunes, what chance a young mind?

Ours is a world haunted by dead Gods and their morbid intercessors. Often they turn to us and point to the world's treasury crammed as it is with living miracles, appealing to our innate aesthetic wonder, saying, 'But all of this; all of this beauty'. And as our reason rarely outpaces our wonder, we sometimes find ourseves folding, physically and mentally, to our knees. But this God they appeal to, this prime mover and first arcitect of the impossible, made the cockroach as well as the peacock. Now plunge, if you can, into the mind that summons such horror and such beauty at will. Isn't such a God truly terrifying? And if He/She/It did exist, would you want to meet them after your journey?



Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

Most popular in UK News


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date