Athiest Evangelising?

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

Religious schools dont blanket ban people without birth certs from attending, I would have heard about that.

Funny that, it's requirement of numerous Catholic schools for a child to be baptised before being accepted.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

I hope that sometimes we legislate based on love.

We have many problems that have resulted from legislating based on the lolve of money and power. Legislation should always be done based on rational thought and what is best for the most possible people.

Glenster wrote: »

The school baptism thing is about being resident in the area though isn't it?

Religious schools dont blanket ban people without birth certs from attending, I would have heard about that. Unless the media are in cahoots with the bishops......:eek:

Popular schools defer to those people who can trace their residence in the community.

Given one open place in a class, with two local residents applying, schools are allowed to discriminate based on the religion of the applicatants parents.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with being Gay.
Homophobe.

Being called "militant", not gay, is the insult. Incidently, insult me again and I will report you.

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Being called "militant", not gay, is the insult. Incidently, insult me again and I will report you.

Veggie:pac:

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with being Gay.
Homophobe.

I don't know whether you're trying to be funny or not, but either way, start contributing something better to your own thread or it will be closed.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Eliminating religion doesn't make everyone rational.

Which is why very few atheists spend much time trying to merely eliminate religion, and spend a lot of time trying to make people rational (which will have the by product of eliminating religion

Glenster wrote: »

Spend your (filthy) atheist money promting the sciences not paying for bus ads that say there is no God

I spend my filthy atheist money on hookers and booze thank you very much

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Being called "militant", not gay, is the insult. Incidently, insult me again and I will report you.

Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt like elderberries

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

Veggie:pac:

Should I be insulted, or honoured that you remembered

King Mob

Dades wrote: »

I don't know whether you're trying to be funny or not, but either way, start contributing something better to your own thread or it will be closed.

I think he was just completing a particularly hard crossword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQUPINrgYg

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

If you have a suggestion, please. I understand that the term is not ideal.

I suggest "enthusiastic".

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt like elderberries

Actually its "your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberies":p

toiletduck

Lads ye're as well off replying with a copy&paste of that pig latin placeholder you get with a website template.

I'll never get why we get so many threads asking variations of why 'we' want to organise ourselves into groups or why we have a forum... do the non-drinkers and veggie forums get it aswell?!

So still no chance of any examples of militant atheists evangelising? Apart from that most heinous act of umm putting up a poster. *Checks RSS feed* Oh there's another suicide bombing...

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

I hope that sometimes we legislate based on love.

The school baptism thing is about being resident in the area though isn't it?

Religious schools dont blanket ban people without birth certs from attending, I would have heard about that. Unless the media are in cahoots with the bishops......:eek:

Popular schools defer to those people who can trace their residence in the community.

Legislate based on love, lol.

It's great to know that your assumptions are based in complete ignorance of the facts and you rely on media that is renowned for not disclosing information that could put certain folds of the political sphere under public scrutiny.

I actually have kids, you see. I have actually tried to get them into schools. I have actually been told (off the record, naturally) not to bother applying as they were over subscribed as it was and the chances of them bumping a child with a baptismal cert from miles away off the list just to give themselves the extra expense and headache of taking on a local non-RC child who would require alternative supervision during religion was zero.

Do that search I mentioned earlier, if you bothered to look up any parenting board, you'll find plenty of others in the same boat.

PoleStar

Glenster wrote: »

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

Please excuse if this point has been made already, Im jumping in at the end.

I can excuse your mistake here as the word itself A-theist defines no believers in terms of a LACK of religious belief.

However, I myself prefer to consider atheists as those who believe in the truth and the search for the truth, as opposed to those who believe in dogmatic stories told down through the ages which try to fit our knowledge of reality with a pre-existing notion of the truth and if necessary bend what we see to fit this notion.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

I hope that sometimes we legislate based on love.

The school baptism thing is about being resident in the area though isn't it?

Religious schools dont blanket ban people without birth certs from attending, I would have heard about that. Unless the media are in cahoots with the bishops......:eek:

Popular schools defer to those people who can trace their residence in the community.

If a school is almost full the non-catholics go to the bottom of the list. It should be about whether the person lives in the area or not on a first come first served basis and whether a man in a skirt wet the baby's head at some point shouldn't matter but it does, hence the organising to speak out against such discrimination

Dim

Wicknight wrote: »

Most atheists, including myself, when asked "Is there a god(s)" would reply "I've no clue", rather than no "No there isn't"

What atheism is is a rejection of theists claiming "There is a god"

To which we say "You have no idea if there is or isn't"

Think of it this way. Two people are standing behind a solid door.

The first person says "I know there is a chicken behind that door"

The second person says "Nonsense, you couldn't possibly know that, you are just making that"

Note that the second person is not saying that there is no chicken behind the door. What he is doing is rejecting the claim from the first person that there is.

what do you call someone who says "I know there isn't a chicken behind that door"?

*I like the analagy btw*

Osgoodisgood

Dim wrote: »

what do you call someone who says "I know there isn't a chicken behind that door"?

guessing?

Dim

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

guessing?

so there is no formal title as such? I can see how the OP got confused if there isn't. I think the OP is trolling btw.

I never really understood the term Athiest, this tread has been enlightening. I think I would be comfortable being called an athiest now, where as before I would have went with 'not religious' because I thought athiest was "there is no chicken" but it isn't.

Turtwig

Dim wrote: »

I never really understood the term Athiest, this tread has been enlightening. I think I would be comfortable being called an athiest now, where as before I would have went with 'not religious' because I thought athiest was "there is no chicken" but it isn't.

You'd be surprised at how many atheists have been in the same position. I was too, I think it's testament to the religious folk that they can feed us all this popular misconception.

As for "there is no chicken"
Well that would be the guy who believes there is a cow. Or more precisely is just plain disillusioned, he would be classed as an atheist but as Terry Pratchett said "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it". He's not the kind of atheist I would like to be associating with: We can never know anything 100%.

Ickle Magoo

Dim wrote: »

what do you call someone who says "I know there isn't a chicken behind that door"?

Anti-gallus domesticusians? :pac:

I think it would be some kind of anti-theist who categorically opposes theism.

herbiemcc

Re: the chicken analogy, it's back to the 'burden of proof' argument. Not to be condescending, but a child could see the problem here, but as adults we let details and distractions cloud the issue.

If presented with a situation whereby someone said "I know there's a chicken behind that door" we'd want them to back that up with something. Who on earth would say "Oh ok, I believe you, there is absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, a chicken behind that door".

I think the first thing most people would say in reply to the chicken claim is
"Really? Why do you think that?"

Religious person
"I just know it"

Normal person
"How?"

Religious person
"I have a book that says he's there"

Normal person
"Really? Who wrote the book?"

Religious person
"The chicken did"

Normal person
"How do you know all this isn't a myth?"

Religious person
"He talks to me"

Normal person
"Get me out of here!"


It really all boils down to this;
I don't want people in power to be allowed to discriminate against people who don't agree with them on the basis of a book they probably haven't even read never mind thought about.

To base decisions on ignorance is frightening. Don't tell me any religious people didn't have a flutter when they heard that Ronald Reagan consulted his astrology chart when in office (ok i did a quick check and this is apparently not quite true but the comparison to religious 'God spoke to me' etc stands).

Anybody who bases their life on a myth and is willing to potentially do harm to others (homophobia / banning areas of medical research outright / racism) as a result of devout following of this ignorance is wrong.

Religion gets in the way of rational, clear thinking debates and should therefore be sidelined where it belongs.

King Mob

To torture the metaphor even further.

There's ways to infer that there might not be a chicken behind the door.
For example the door might be large enough for a chicken to fit through, or that the door had been sealed to long for a chicken to survive without food or water.

I think Quilasoup does a video on just this.

Dave!

This thread is f*cking bizarre.......

Don't you hate it when someone pretends they're asking honest questions and that they're interested in the truth, and then clearly demonstrates that this is not the case?

It's the same sh*te the creationists do over and over again, twist things and ignore facts in order to confirm their original beliefs. They, and our OP here, have absolutely no interest in the truth.

Sickening really

strobe

Just a wild stab in the dark here Glenster, but you wouldn't be of the opinion that "Evolution Theory Is Error" by any chance?

Wacker

Dim wrote: »

what do you call someone who says "I know there isn't a chicken behind that door"?

Rohatch?

Turtwig

Wacker wrote: »

Rohatch?

Finally something good from this thread.:D

ChocolateSauce

Dave! wrote:

Don't you hate it when someone pretends they're asking honest questions and that they're interested in the truth, and then clearly demonstrates that this is not the case?

Yes. See below:

Glenster wrote: »

I'm asking someone who is an active member of an atheist society, like the one in trinity, or who would send their kid to that atheist summer camp in Somerset.

I dont want the opinion of someone who isnt an active atheist (or whatever term you would prefer) a la richard dawkins. What use are they in my quest for understanding?

I am an active atheist as you say; I founded and am currently the auditor of the UCD Secular Humanist Society, and I gave you my opinion on the matter in the first page, but you didn't reply to most of it. Instead you just took one line and essentially said "ahem, surely you're not saying this?"

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your position on purple bananas is the same as my position on god

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Well I'm converted :pac:

ChocolateSauce

liamw wrote: »

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here: