Why do atheists spend so much time talking about religion?

Ickle Magoo

robindch wrote: »

When I explained a similar situation with my own kid over dinner one evening, a couple of members of my own extended family just looked at me, shrugged their shoulders and smiled at me. I felt like upending their dinners over them.

Yeah, or the old "Well, they are catholic, of course they'll give to their own first"...oh, fabulous - that's okay then, someone from miles away gets a place and us living three streets away can go hang. I miss the old UK catchments area system.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, it isn't - it was a couple of years ago, told not to bother applying as they were already oversubscribed and the places would go to those with certs before anyone else. I love just because other people have never personally encountered difficulties they just assume everyone who has must be lying or exaggerating. :mad:

I'm sorry you've had a personal bad experience, but this is not a representation of all catholic schools.

I presume it is more to do with that your particular catchment area has a high demand on schools, and they have to think of some criteria to differentiate between pupils. As a catholic school this is the easiest way for them to do it.
It's not right but I would say it is more to do with geographical area, weight of applications, and pressure on the school than your child's religion or lack of.

midlandsmissus

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's not right but I would say it is more to do with geographical area, weight of applications, and pressure on the school than your child's religion or lack of.

How on earth do you reckon that when the reason is "not catholic"?
It's exactly the religion, they get shunted down the queue.

Dades

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry you've had a personal bad experience, but this is not a representation of all catholic schools.

Why does it need to be a representation of all catholic schools for a problem to exist?

eblistic

Dades wrote: »

Why does it need to be a representation of all catholic schools for a problem to exist?

It would be interesting to know the extent to which schools actually use these legal rights of religious discrimination. There are some who maintain that it varies quite a lot from area to area. Anyone know of any reports?

Ickle Magoo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry you've had a personal bad experience, but this is not a representation of all catholic schools.

I presume it is more to do with that your particular catchment area has a high demand on schools, and they have to think of some criteria to differentiate between pupils. As a catholic school this is the easiest way for them to do it.
It's not right but I would say it is more to do with geographical area, weight of applications, and pressure on the school than your child's religion or lack of.

You presume that do you? I'm not sure how much more simply I could put this. I asked if not having a baptism cert would matter and they said "competition for places is fierce, off the record, without a cert I wouldn't even bother applying"...now you can use your imagination to conjure up alternative reasons if you wish, I'll stick with what they actually said to me, thanks.

Do you actually have any idea of the problem or are you just making unfounded, ill-experienced assumptions based on you going to a catholic school 20 years ago?

I have experience of this in more than one school. Any number of parenting websites or indeed a quick look around this very forum would give you any number of people incurring the same issue. The fact that "I'm getting them baptised so they can get into/better chance of/no trouble with school" is a commonly cited reason in Ireland speaks volumes. It's a well cited issue, even if you personally would rather not accept that.

magicbastarder

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I presume it is more to do with that your particular catchment area has a high demand on schools, and they have to think of some criteria to differentiate between pupils.

here's an experiment for you to try - tell people you're going to have a kid, but that you're not going to have it baptised. note down the number of people who say 'would you not have it baptised to make it easier to find a school for the kid?' and get back to us with your findings.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You presume that do you? I'm not sure how much more simply I could put this. I asked if not having a baptism cert would matter and they said "competition for places is fierce, off the record, without a cert I wouldn't even bother applying"...now you can use your imagination to conjure up alternative reasons if you wish, I'll stick with what they actually said to me, thanks.

Do you actually have any idea of the problem or are you just making unfounded, ill-experienced assumptions based on you going to a catholic school 20 years ago?

I have experience of this in more than one school. Any number of parenting websites or indeed a quick look around this very forum would give you any number of people incurring the same issue. The fact that "I'm getting them baptised so they can get into/better chance of/no trouble with school" is a commonly cited reason in Ireland speaks volumes. It's a well cited issue, even if you personally would rather not accept that.

Please refrain from using such an arrogant tone with me. Is it ever possible to have any kind of a discussion on the atheist forum without some-one jumping down your throat? Was I aggressive in my post? You can disagree with me and not have to resort to such condescending language.

I do presume, yes. What I presume is your area is over crowded, the schools are under pressure, and as they are classifed as catholic schools they can use this as a loophole to get round it. It's not right of course, and the government needs to address it.

This is not an issue in my county at all, I have never once heard of some-one being refused from a school due to their religion, I presume you are in a more densely populated area. Therefore I agree the system shouldn't be let stand the way it is, and this needs to be lobbied with your local mps/reps.

midlandsmissus

Dades wrote: »

Why does it need to be a representation of all catholic schools for a problem to exist?

It doesn't exist at all in Catholic schools outside densely populated areas. You can quote me on that. I have other younger children in my family, who have gone to numerous schools over a broad area, and it was never once was an issue. This is due to overcrowding in certain areas, which means children would have trouble getting into their first choice schools for a variety of reasons. Religion shouldn't exist as one, and I am saying this does need to be addressed.

sonicthebadger*

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Victims of religion, come on - how were you a victim of religion. Victim of family pressure maybe, but you always had the choice to opt out of your religion?

I got by as a kid, when I wasn't any religion and EVERYBODY else was catholic, there was peer pressure to be like evryone else, but I didn't give in and I got by fine.

Victims of unquestioning loyalty to dogma are everywhere in Ireland, I can find three people in my immeadiate family alone. And there's only four of us. But that's just a personal assertion and can be dismissed and rightly so. However, if I went back through the records of my Catholic Secondary school I could find hundreds if not thousands. Particularly during the time Fr. Fortune prowled the dorms. And that's just one school.

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Please refrain from using such an arrogant tone with me.

I don't see the 'arrogant tone' in the post you are citing...

Ickle Magoo

Excuse me? You were arrogant enough to tell me I was over-the-top about posting what I have actually experienced and surely actually it all happened the way you imagined it! :eek: :pac:

If you consistently get people getting angry and jumping down your throat, perhaps you should rethink your own posting style rather than blaming everyone else? The assumption that you know better than those posting here, even in circumstances you have absolutely no idea about - then, to really take the biscuit, you have no qualms about telling me what I should be doing about the situation like I don't actually know that and am not doing so already? It really is quite astonishingly snotty.

I don't live in densely populated area, wrong again - and the schools are not brimming over with pupils - if there are 35 applications for a place and 30 of the catholic then that is who gets the places, regardless of location or who applied first - and that is perfectly legal and above board in this country. I can only presume your interaction with parents looking for primary schools in your county is negligible if you've never heard of baptism certs and education in the same sentence. :cool:

Dades

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Do you think this is a little over the top?
What schools refuse children because of lack of a baptismal certificate?

I think this was your original response, but can we now agree that there are situations where this happens?
Nobody claimed it happens everywhere - but that doesn't matter to those being 'legally' discriminated against somewhere.

Maybe then we can close the door on this 'clarification', and we can all move on.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Excuse me? You were arrogant enough to tell me I was over-the-top about posting what I have actually experienced and surely actually it all happened the way you imagined it! :eek: :pac:

If you consistently get people getting angry and jumping down your throat, perhaps you should rethink your own posting style rather than blaming everyone else? The assumption that you know better than those posting here, even in circumstances you have absolutely no idea about - then, to really take the biscuit, you have no qualms about telling me what I should be doing about the situation like I don't actually know that and am not doing so already? It really is quite astonishingly snotty.

I don't live in densely populated area, wrong again - and the schools are not brimming over with pupils - if there are 35 applications for a place and 30 of the catholic then that is who gets the places, regardless of location or who applied first - and that is perfectly legal and above board in this country. I can only presume your interaction with parents looking for primary schools in your county is negligible if you've never heard of baptism certs and education in the same sentence. :cool:

To be honest Ickle Magoo I do think your first post below was completely over the top:

When I can live my life without fear of some religious nut job knocking on the door & disturbing my evening, my child being refused a place in a school because of lacking a baptism cert and no other part of my life is affected by religion or the religious unless I choose it,

And I do think your last post was completely over the top. Can you really call me arrogant in the same sentence as apost like that?

"If you consistently get people angry" ....It's called coming on here and DARING to disagree with an atheist on an atheist forum. Consistently get people angry - are you for real? The intimidation on this forum is unbelievable sometimes.

If any believer including myself ,posts on here with an opinion, the routine NEVER changes: it is followed up by a post with the opposite view with about 50 thanks. It's not easy to come on here believe me, and you have been just as ignorant to me as you believe I have been to you.

Did I not agree with you in the end? Did that anger you so much to spew out a post like the above? Pinpoint exactly what you're angry with me about.:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see the 'arrogant tone' in the post you are citing...

Me:

Don't you think that's a little over the top?

I'm sorry you've had a personal bad experience,

I'ts not right


IM

You presume that do you?

I'm not sure how much more simply I could put this

making unfounded, ill-experienced assumptions

If you consistently get people angry

snotty

circumstances you have absolutely no idea about





.........over what? To be honest I am so sick of this forum and daring to venture on here as an outsider.

It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

condra

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Victims of religion, come on - how were you a victim of religion.

I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child, and I feel that said indoctrination violated my rights. I was forced by my parents to attend church and I was told in school of the fires of Hell at a very young age.

If I wasn't a victim of religion then what was I? A victim of heavy handed parenting and schooling by people who happened to be religious?

In your own words.. "come on!"

It is disingenuous to suggest that priests and religious parents take an approach like "this is what we believe, but you are free to believe whatever you want".

Victim of family pressure maybe, but you always had the choice to opt out of your religion?

Eh, no, I did not have a choice to opt out. I was about 3 when it begun.

Either way, putting aside the semantics of the word "victim", my original point was simply:
Many atheists have every reason to have a bone to pick with religion, because many atheists were brought up to believe in a reality which they later found to be untrue. The feeling of betrayal and bitterness is potent, and for some, never leaves them.
__

To argue that all atheists should have better things to do than discuss religion, is like arguing that all Christians should have better things to do than to preach.

Many people believe that sharing their convictions is virtuous, for different reasons.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

To be honest I am so sick of this forum and daring to venture on here as an outsider. It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

I'm sorry to hear that you find the tone in the forum intimidating, but if you made a serious effort to understand why many of the forum posters -- myself included -- are unhappy with the effects of religion on our society, then perhaps you might have more sympathy for the way in which some of the points of view are expressed here.

Furthermore, you most certainly are welcome in this forum to post as you wish, once you do so within the forum guidelines. You should find it, as most posters do, a forum with an uncommonly wide-ranging set of interests and should amply repay any time that you invest here.

Finally, on the admin side, if you feel that any post by any poster is having a go at you personally (rather than a point of view that you're putting forward) then please report the post by clicking on the little red-and-white hazard warning symbol towards the bottom-left of the offending post, and one of the forum moderators will take whatever administrative action is appropriate -- up to and including a permanent forum ban of the offending party if necessary.

MagicMarker

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

A little melodramatic no? They're just words on a screen, if you really feel that way then you need to develop a thicker skin tbh. People here are just being honest about what they feel, nothing more, nothing less. No offense is intended.... most of the time. :pac:

Of course you have the option to stick to the Christianity forum, where it seems censorship prevails for the good of the cause (imo).

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

.

It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

A far as intimidation is concerned I think you are reading into it too much.
You expressed an opinon about something you don't have first hand experience with to a person who had experience in such a matter. Said person responded to your opinion. I'm really not seeing the hostility here.

goingpostal

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

Telling someone how to react to their own experiences and presuming to know more about those experiences than the person who lived them is not a formula that will procure too many friends or friendly responses, regardless of the topic.

condra

I guess midlandsmissus might be feeling a bit ganged up on. I've been there before and it does kinda suck, even if it's just words on a screen.

At the same time, I'd rather see people with unpopular views (in relation to the forum) be allowed to run the gauntlet, rather than be gagged or banned without good reason, which does tend to happen in some other forums.

Actually, I think it's interesting that Atheist vloggers on YouTube don't usually moderate their comments, where the religious so often do.

goingpostal

condra wrote: »

.

At the same time, I'd rather see people with unpopular views (in relation to the forum) be allowed to run the gauntlet, rather than be gagged or banned without good reason, which does tend to happen in some other forums.

Actually, I think it's interesting that Atheist vloggers on YouTube don't usually moderate their comments, where the religious so often do.

Good point. I don't often see any threads on here that say "atheist responses only". That said, anyone coming on here espousing strident faith-based perspectives and attitudes would be foolish in the extreme to expect nothing but sweetness and light and tolerance and respect for their opinions.

condra

Atheists don't do "la la la, I'm not listening"

sonicthebadger*

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Once more and for the last time. SCARF ON THE STREET Ok??
You do not, as you stated earlier have the "right" to see the face of every citizen.

I am now going to Ignore any more of your posts because this type of irrationality is quite tedious.
Good night.:rolleyes:

*Ahem* :pac:

Galvasean

goingpostal wrote: »

Good point. I don't often see any threads on here that say "atheist responses only".

I'm still having trouble getting that "whites only" thread approved.

amacachi

I'm happy enough with people espousing theistic views but it's impossible to debate with them.

Genghiz Cohen

amacachi wrote: »

I'm happy enough with people espousing theistic views but it's impossible to debate with them.

Fun though.

Zillah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

.........over what? To be honest I am so sick of this forum and daring to venture on here as an outsider.

It's intimidating, I'm not welcome, and it's hurtful.

♫ Dun dun dun, 'nother one bites the dust ♫

amacachi

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Fun though.

True, had a great laugh the other night watching The Root of all Evil? when an American pastor claimed to Dawkins that the bible doesn't contradict itself at any point. :pac:

ColmDawson

amacachi wrote: »

True, had a great laugh the other night watching The Root of all Evil? when an American pastor claimed to Dawkins that the bible doesn't contradict itself at any point. :pac:

Argh, and if I remember correctly, Dawkins just said "It doesn't?" but didn't point out any specific passages. I would've like to see the pastor's reaction to the obvious contradictions.

amacachi

ColmDawson wrote: »

Argh, and if I remember correctly, Dawkins just said "It doesn't?" but didn't point out any specific passages. I would've like to see the pastor's reaction to the obvious contradictions.

I'd assume Dawkins just wasn't arsed, shooting fish in a barrel isn't as funny as it sounds. :pac: The pastor had said how the bible was written over hundreds of years by 40 authors and when Dawkins asked "It doesn't?" the pastor said "You can't show me two people working in the same field whose results agree completely" or something along those lines. A nice rebuttal I thought. :pac:

The Mad Hatter

ColmDawson wrote: »

Argh, and if I remember correctly, Dawkins just said "It doesn't?" but didn't point out any specific passages. I would've like to see the pastor's reaction to the obvious contradictions.

They have a series of prepared answers for the contradictions. None of them holds much water, of course, but it would have been dull and pedantic.

ColmDawson

amacachi wrote: »

I'd assume Dawkins just wasn't arsed, shooting fish in a barrel isn't as funny as it sounds. :pac: The pastor had said how the bible was written over hundreds of years by 40 authors and when Dawkins asked "It doesn't?" the pastor said "You can't show me two people working in the same field whose results agree completely" or something along those lines. A nice rebuttal I thought. :pac:

It would be a nice rebuttal if the Bible were as coherent as he made it out to be.

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

They have a series of prepared answers for the contradictions. None of them holds much water, of course, but it would have been dull and pedantic.

Indeed. When Judas dies by falling over in a field and having his guts come out and then in another book hangs himself because of the guilt of having betrayed Jesus, this isn't a contradiction because in theory Judas could have hung himself and then his guts could have fallen out as the body decomposed. The fact that the former mentioned nothing about hanging or guilt and the latter mentioned nothing about guts or falling doesn't matter. If you stretch credibility beyond all recognition the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When Judas dies by falling over in a field [...]

Been reading our Ehrman recently, have we?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.

Ehrman puts it quite well by saying that you can almost always find a way of reconciling two contradictory stories by producing a third story that is written down nowhere.

gaynorvader

In the Bible, Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him at the last supper. That one is generally accepted to be Peter. Why is Judas called the betrayer so? Surely it's more likely he was doing what Jesus had asked so that he could free us from our sins?

Bible is so open to interpretation it's ludicrous to try and use it as a moral guide.

mehfesto

Urge to start a bible contradiction thread...

Pygmalion

gaynorvader wrote: »

In the Bible, Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him at the last supper. That one is generally accepted to be Peter. Why is Judas called the betrayer so? Surely it's more likely he was doing what Jesus had asked so that he could free us from our sins?

Oh man, I've just now realised how similar the circumstances of Dumbledore's death were, Dumbledore was Jesus, Snape was Judas.
Of course in the Harry Potter version there was much less plot-holes and it actually had a coherent message about morality.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Been reading our Ehrman recently, have we?

Um, no I've seen it in a few other places. Can't remember where I first heard about it now.

robindch wrote: »

:)Ehrman puts it quite well by saying that you can almost always find a way of reconciling two contradictory stories by producing a third story that is written down nowhere.

That's certainly true. Or at least we can make up a story that makes it look like it's true

sensibleken

Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

sensibleken

sensibleken wrote: »

Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

Atheists or theists?

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

Atheists or theists?

athiests.

The Mad Hatter

sensibleken wrote: »

'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

Sounds to me more like a criticism of Dawkins.

Dades

sensibleken wrote: »

Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

Theists? It is usually theists who describe him as an atheist pope, alright. I guess it furthers the tired line that atheism is a religion of sorts.

You should read some Dawkins rather than watching his TV stuff. He's a better scientist than he is a personality.

sensibleken

Dades wrote: »

Theists? It is usually theists who describe him as an atheist pope, alright. I guess it furthers the tired line that atheism is a religion of sorts.

You should read some Dawkins rather than watching his TV stuff. He's a better scientist than he is a personality.

Ive personally found the best books to read supporting athiesm are the ones by the christian philosophers, especially when they try and make ontological arguements

midlandsmissus

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. When Judas dies by falling over in a field and having his guts come out and then in another book hangs himself because of the guilt of having betrayed Jesus, this isn't a contradiction because in theory Judas could have hung himself and then his guts could have fallen out as the body decomposed. The fact that the former mentioned nothing about hanging or guilt and the latter mentioned nothing about guts or falling doesn't matter. If you stretch credibility beyond all recognition the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.

Too much emphasis is put on the bible. God is not tied to the bible..i.e. another person's interpretation of events. Search for our own truths.

midlandsmissus

robindch wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that you find the tone in the forum intimidating, but if you made a serious effort to understand why many of the forum posters -- myself included -- are unhappy with the effects of religion on our society, then perhaps you might have more sympathy for the way in which some of the points of view are expressed here.

Furthermore, you most certainly are welcome in this forum to post as you wish, once you do so within the forum guidelines. You should find it, as most posters do, a forum with an uncommonly wide-ranging set of interests and should amply repay any time that you invest here.

Finally, on the admin side, if you feel that any post by any poster is having a go at you personally (rather than a point of view that you're putting forward) then please report the post by clicking on the little red-and-white hazard warning symbol towards the bottom-left of the offending post, and one of the forum moderators will take whatever administrative action is appropriate -- up to and including a permanent forum ban of the offending party if necessary.

And thanks. And I don't think I was being that melodramatic, as Ive seen atheists on the Christianity forum saying they were hurt and upset. But you're right, it is inevitably going to happen, and if I'm going to "run the gauntlet' I need to toughen up.

And Zillah you know me! Have you forgotten? How's Canada?

Sam Vimes

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Too much emphasis is put on the bible. God is not tied to the bible..i.e. another person's interpretation of events. Search for our own truths.

The general idea of a god is not tied to the bible but the christian god is. Without it the whole story of Jesus ad Yahweh falls apart. We may well find a god by discounting the bible as just another person's interpretation but the god we find won't be the christian one

midlandsmissus

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The general idea of a god is not tied to the bible but the christian god is. Without it the whole story of Jesus ad Yahweh falls apart. We may well find a god by discounting the bible as just another person's interpretation but the god we find won't be the christian one

What do you think of certain books being left out of the bible by the catholic church?

Sam Vimes

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What do you think of certain books being left out of the bible by the catholic church?

I think that they picked the bits that suited the slant they wanted and most likely cut out the most glaring contradictions. But I can't say anything about them for certain because I've never read them. Because they cut them out. That's the thing about searching for your own truths without having any way to externally verify them: you have no way of knowing if whatever conclusions you've drawn are actually the truth or if you're miles off