Anti Religion.

kneemos

Don't know how representative it is but almost every Atheist I come across on Boards seems to have an anti religion vibe going on.Indeed just reading this forum religion appears to be the cause of much angst and concern.
Seem to give religion more thought than many Christians.

Is it not enough to be a non believer?
Why the facination with religion ?

Peregrinus

Well, of course, there are lots of atheists who don't frequent the A&A forum. Pretty much by definition, the ones who do are interested in discusssing atheism and, since atheism ("a lack of any belief in a god or gods") is (a) defined in relation to religion, and (b) is defined in negative terms, discussions of atheism inevitably deal with religion, and are likely to be critical of it.

Yes, it's enough to be a non-believer. But people are interested in what interests them and (unless you're interested in something seriously disturbing) I don't generally think people need to explain or be defensive about the interests they have. Why can't an atheist be interested in religion as a social phenomenon?

kneemos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, of course, there are lots of atheists who don't frequent the A&A forum. Pretty much by definition, the ones who do are interested in discusssing atheism and, since atheism ("a lack of any belief in a god or gods") is (a) defined in relation to religion, and (b) is defined in negative terms, discussions of atheism inevitably deal with religion, and are likely to be critical of it.

Yes, it's enough to be a non-believer. But people are interested in what interests them and (unless you're interested in something seriously disturbing) I don't generally think people need to explain or be defensive about the interests they have. Why can't an atheist be interested in religion as a social phenomenon?

Why is it defined in negative terms?Brings me back to my questions above.

You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in.

Peregrinus

kneemos wrote: »

Why is it defined in negative terms?Brings me back to my questions above.

Because it's a negative concept?

Atheism: "without God"
Agnosticism: "without knowledge (about God)"
Anaemia: "without blood"
Amorphous: "without shape"
Anhydrous: "without water"
Anonymous: "without a name"

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

kneemos wrote: »

You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in.

Why not? Religion is a matter of great significance, and I don't see any reason why people who don't have any religious belief themselves should be interested in discussing religion. They live in a society which is profoundly marked by religious belief, after all; are they supposed to not notice that, or talk about it?

King Mob

kneemos wrote: »

You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in.

Because being religious in some way is the accepted norm.
Policy decisions, medical decisions and life decisions are all made based on religion and the assumption that religion is the norm.
Atheists are treated as odd for not adhering to that norm and are often told either directly or by implication that they are inferior to the morally righteous religious types.
Further in Ireland specifically, atheists are directly discriminated against, most importantly in the case of school placement.

In an ideal world, atheism wouldn't really be a thing. We would not be concerned by religion just as you are not bothered by people who believe in fairies.
But we don't live in a perfect world and in a lot of places and ways religion doesn't just live and let live like you seem to think it does.

But you obviously have an answer for why we're *really* here talking about this stuff. So please enlighten us.

Also well done on being the first person ever to ask such a deep and cutting question that has never once been asked here and we've never ever thought about!

Nichard Dixon

Athiesm is a nihilist mé fein philosophy which knows what it is against, not what it is for.
No atheist has any real insight into whether there is a God or not. Agnosticism is a reasonable response, which is not anti religion as such.

kneemos

King Mob wrote: »

Because being religious in some way is the accepted norm.
Policy decisions, medical decisions and life decisions are all made based on religion and the assumption that religion is the norm.
Atheists are treated as odd for not adhering to that norm and are often told either directly or by implication that they are inferior to the morally righteous religious types.
Further in Ireland specifically, atheists are directly discriminated against, most importantly in the case of school placement.

In an ideal world, atheism wouldn't really be a thing. We would not be concerned by religion just as you are not bothered by people who believe in fairies.
But we don't live in a perfect world and in a lot of places and ways religion doesn't just live and let live like you seem to think it does.

But you obviously have an answer for why we're *really* here talking about this stuff. So please enlighten us.

Also well done on being the first person ever to ask such a deep and cutting question that has never once been asked here and we've never ever thought about!

Atheists are not specifically discriminated against,everyone can't be catered for.

I can see how issues such as schooling and abortion and the like would be a problem for Atheists,but they're also issues for Christians and come under the heading of secularism.
I think whatever energy is spent moaning about as I see it mostly petty issues,would be better directed at those that might be able to change something.

King Mob

kneemos wrote: »

Atheists are not specifically discriminated against,everyone can't be catered for.

Yes they are. Also, only part of the issue I laid out above.

kneemos wrote: »

I think whatever energy is spent moaning about as I see it mostly petty issues,would be better directed at those that might be able to change something.

Like for instance going onto atheist forums and moaning about how moany we all are?
Or going onto that forum and asking a really clichéd smart-arse question that pops up all the time and has been answered to death?

Pherekydes

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Athiesm is a nihilist mé fein philosophy which knows what it is against, not what it is for.
No atheist has any real insight into whether there is a God or not. Agnosticism is a reasonable response, which is not anti religion as such.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

It's surprising in this day and age how many people seem not to know that.

looksee

I am only anti religion to the extent that religion affects me. If people want to do their religious thing, that's fine by me, and if it gives them comfort and purpose, that's also good.

However when religious people require that their beliefs are validated by everyone else having to abide by or at least agree with them - little things like religious involvement in running schools and hospitals - then I feel entitled to protest. The most effective form of protest is by showing religion up for the convoluted, superstitious, makey-up nonsense that it is. The effect of that being that there will be increasing numbers of people who will feel able to shrug off the indoctrination of their childhood, and protest about the imposition of fantasy notions on essential services in the community.

The default position in society should not be - 'this is our (local variety of) religion, everyone has to abide by it'. Religion (or lack of it) is a personal thing, there is no one-size-fits-all. In order to accommodate that, there should be a non-religious society structure in which religion can play a part in an individual's personal life without affecting everyone else.

Not being subject to religion, to me, creates a sense of a wide open freedom to accept life as it is, appreciate its beauty and generosity, and deal with its problems directly. Religion oppresses life, creates barriers and irrational rules and regulations, why would I willingly accept that?

La Fenetre

Reminds me of a club calling itself the non stamp collectors club, to meet and discuss how much they dislike collecting stamps and to complain about anyone that does as much as possible. What a waste really.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Reminds me of a club calling itself the non stamp collectors club, to meet and discuss how much they dislike collecting stamps and to complain about anyone that does as much as possible. What a waste really.

Yes. We have a club. The meetings serve Hawaaiin pizza and those who don't like it have to suck it up and eat the pizza anyway because this is a Hawaaiin pizza country. Why would even come to this forum if you don't like our pizza?

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

Reminds me of a club calling itself the non stamp collectors club, to meet and discuss how much they dislike collecting stamps and to complain about anyone that does as much as possible. What a waste really.

If stamp collecting were an obligatory part of the social structure, if people were encouraged to put that activity ahead of other considerations, if people who collected stamps were given privileges over people who were not interested in stamps, then I would be happy to be part of a drive to get this obsession with stamps removed from legal and social structures.

La Fenetre

Whatever way you try to look at it, ultimately Pizza is pretty unhealthy junk food.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, ultimately Pizza is pretty unhealthy junk food.

That's blasphemous.

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

Whatever way you try to look at it, ultimately Pizza is pretty unhealthy junk food.

You said it!

La Fenetre

lazygal wrote: »

That's blasphemous.

Just because you sprinkle some pineapple on it, does not make it healthy.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Just because you sprinkle some pineapple on it, does not make it healthy.

Calling pizza unhealthy junk food is blasphemous. Expect Iona style demands for money to follow shortly.

La Fenetre

I think your junk food has made you hysterical again. Must be the e-numbers.

Pherekydes

La Fenetre wrote: »

I think your junk food has made you hysterical again. Must be the e-numbers.

You're a pane.

It's like totally transparent what you're doing.

Hawaiian Pizza is dinner and dessert in one mouthful. And no e numbers at all at all. Though e is a great number, to be fair.

La Fenetre

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're a pane.

It's like totally transparent what you're doing.

Hawaiian Pizza is dinner and dessert in one mouthful. And no e numbers at all at all. Though e is a great number, to be fair.

Don't run yourselves down. Smile, Be happy !

54and56

kneemos wrote: »

Don't know how representative it is but almost every Atheist I come across on Boards seems to have an anti religion vibe going on.Indeed just reading this forum religion appears to be the cause of much angst and concern.
Seem to give religion more thought than many Christians.

Is it not enough to be a non believer?
Why the facination with religion ?

Maybe an analogy will help you.

Being a non Nazi doesn't mean you shouldn't analyse, discuss and criticise those who hold Nazi views does it?

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing."

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in.

I think the answer to your question might have been covered before here. And covered in a way that makes a mockery of the nonsense La Fenetre came out with above too in his attempt to completely straw man atheism and atheists.

Beliefs matter in so far as how they affect our world. Religion has a very real impact in our world and in our society. It is those things that atheists on places like this are mostly discussing. Not the belief itself or the lack of it.

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

No atheist has any real insight into whether there is a God or not.

Neither does Theism. They basically operate on the asserted assumption there is one. They have never offered any insight in the form of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there actually is however.

And having been on forums for quite some times my own experience is that theists less and less are willing or capable to even enter into the discussion as to whether there is a god or not. The couple of theists / deists / non-atheists posting on this thread for example, yourself included, certainly have not ever to my knowledge.

I used to get into MANY such discussions in the past. Now I hardly see any of them. And the last two users to even try that debate with me ended up quitting the forum and closing their accounts.

So the only insight worth offering is "GIVEN there is no reason to think there is a god.... how best can we proceed in the light of that....". So you may be looking for insights where none are actually required there.

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think the answer to your question might have been covered before here. And covered in a way that makes a mockery of the nonsense La Fenetre came out with above too in his attempt to completely straw man atheism and atheists.

Beliefs matter in so far as how they affect our world. Religion has a very real impact in our world and in our society. It is those things that atheists on places like this are mostly discussing. Not the belief itself or the lack of it.



Neither does Theism. They basically operate on the asserted assumption there is one. They have never offered any insight in the form of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there actually is however.

And having been on forums for quite some times my own experience is that theists less and less are willing or capable to even enter into the discussion as to whether there is a god or not. The couple of theists / deists / non-atheists posting on this thread for example, yourself included, certainly have not ever to my knowledge.

I used to get into MANY such discussions in the past. Now I hardly see any of them. And the last two users to even try that debate with me ended up quitting the forum and closing their accounts.

So the only insight worth offering is "GIVEN there is no reason to think there is a god.... how best can we proceed in the light of that....". So you may be looking for insights where none are actually required there.

You can't prove the existence of God or not,it's down to belief.Arguing about it is pointless as you'll always be right whatever your view.

Atheists have always struck me as extremely black and white and somewhat childish in their views.That link brings it to a new level.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

You can't prove the existence of God or not,it's down to belief.Arguing about it is pointless as you'll always be right whatever your view.

Atheists have always struck me as extremely black and white and somewhat childish in their views.That link brings it to a new level.

How is that different to telling a child that you can't prove the existence of the tooth fairy and that they just have to believe? That sounds more childish.

54and56

kneemos wrote: »

You can't prove the existence of God or not,it's down to belief.Arguing about it is pointless as you'll always be right whatever your view.

Atheists have always struck me as extremely black and white and somewhat childish in their views.That link brings it to a new level.

Many so called religious people in this country e.g. Catholics who are baptised, have received the sacrament of communion and confirmation and got married in a Catholic church have in fact stopped believing and no longer practice but they can't take the next logical step primarily for two reasons:-

1. The Religious Sunk Cost Fallacy - http://skepticsguidetothegalaxy.blogspot.ie/2012/11/religious-beliefs-and-sunk-cost-fallacy.html. When you've invested most of your life bowing and on bended knee believing something it's hard to publicly accept it's all a pile of nonsense even though your brain is telling you it is. This is a reflection of the power of religious indoctrination/institutionalisation rather than a reflection on the weakness of the individual.

2. In order to conform and ensure good schooling for their kids they rinse and repeat the process with their kids but on a much lower scale of intensity i.e. they do the obligatory baptism, communion and confirmation but are infrequent church attenders and likely only attend at Christmas and Easter plus (fewer and fewer) weddings and funerals. By the time the kids who are now merely going through the motions are themselves becoming parents fewer and fewer will have any religious indoctrination in their DNA and will hopefully be free to think for themselves without having to worry about the negative impact it might have on their kids education.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

You can't prove the existence of God or not

I fear you may be playing your record without actually having read my post. Because nothing about my post suggests you can "prove" the existence of god or not.

I fear you hit reply on my post without actually considering whether your reply would be relevant to anything I said.

I even contrive very specifically to avoid the word "prove" in this context. I never once ever asked a theist to prove there is a god. Rather I ask them to enter into the discussion and see if they can offer ANY arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning that lends any credibility at all to the idea there is one. I am not asking anyone prove anything, I am asking they enter into the discussion.

And the simple fact is that not only have they not done this in my experience (least of all any of the theists or non-atheists on THIS thread), but less and less do they even make anything resembling an attempt. Whereas on forums about 10 years ago, many at least would.

kneemos wrote: »

it's down to belief.Arguing about it is pointless as you'll always be right whatever your view. Atheists have always struck me as extremely black and white and somewhat childish in their views.That link brings it to a new level.

I actually do not identify myself by the term "atheist" for several reasons. Many other people do, and I am ok with that. But I do not do it myself. I can tell you my ACTUAL world view however is quite simple and easy to describe in one sentence:

"If a claim or idea comes before me without ANY substantiation to lend it credence, I merely do not lend it credence".

Now GIVEN the simple fact that no one, least of all the theists or deists on this thread, are offering me a modicum of substantiation that there is a god, I simply do not subscribe to the idea there is a god.

If you want to merely dismiss that by calling it "Black and White" then I am fine with that. Because all you would be doing is calling it "Black and White" to avoid rebutting the utility of it, or faulting it on the leveling of my reasoning for it.

And one of the reasons I do not identify as "atheist" is because what you might call atheism or agnosticism is not my world view. It is a result of my world view. And I would rather identify myself by my world view as a whole, rather than one cherry picked result of it. Unless at some rare moment the use of a word like "atheist" or "atheism" simply makes some text or other parse better.

Timberrrrrrrr

kneemos wrote: »

Why is it defined in negative terms?Brings me back to my questions above.

You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in.

Because religion in ireland affects everybody.

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fear you may be playing your record without actually having read my post. Because nothing about my post suggests you can "prove" the existence of god or not.

I fear you hit reply on my post without actually considering whether your reply would be relevant to anything I said.

I even contrive very specifically to avoid the word "prove" in this context. I never once ever asked a theist to prove there is a god. Rather I ask them to enter into the discussion and see if they can offer ANY arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning that lends any credibility at all to the idea there is one. I am not asking anyone prove anything, I am asking they enter into the discussion.

And the simple fact is that not only have they not done this in my experience (least of all any of the theists or non-atheists on THIS thread), but less and less do they even make anything resembling an attempt. Whereas on forums about 10 years ago, many at least would.



I actually do not identify myself by the term "atheist" for several reasons. Many other people do, and I am ok with that. But I do not do it myself. I can tell you my ACTUAL world view however is quite simple and easy to describe in one sentence:

"If a claim or idea comes before me without ANY substantiation to lend it credence, I merely do not lend it credence".

Now GIVEN the simple fact that no one, least of all the theists or deists on this thread, are offering me a modicum of substantiation that there is a god, I simply do not subscribe to the idea there is a god.

If you want to merely dismiss that by calling it "Black and White" then I am fine with that. Because all you would be doing is calling it "Black and White" to avoid rebutting the utility of it, or faulting it on the leveling of my reasoning for it.

And one of the reasons I do not identify as "atheist" is because what you might call atheism or agnosticism is not my world view. It is a result of my world view. And I would rather identify myself by my world view as a whole, rather than one cherry picked result of it. Unless at some rare moment the use of a word like "atheist" or "atheism" simply makes some text or other parse better.

Every knows there isn't any evidence.,as I said it's down to belief.
To base your whole argument on not having evidence is patently rediculous and childishly arrogent.

Timberrrrrrrr

kneemos wrote: »

Every knows there isn't any evidence.,as I said it's down to belief.
To base your whole argument on not having evidence is patently rediculous and childishly arrogent.

And basing your argument solely on "belief" and forcing that belief on society from birth is not arrogant?

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

Every knows there isn't any evidence.,as I said it's down to belief. To base your whole argument on not having evidence is patently rediculous and childishly arrogent.

It depends what argument I am making. I have no issue whatsoever with people who profess a belief in god. Nor do I argue with them or confront them. So there is nothing ridiculous or arrogant there at all, whatever way you spell them.

But context is everything. And for one example, this is a discussion and debate forum. So I see nothing ridiculous or arrogant at all about confronting people who claim there is a god HERE with requests that they substantiate their claims even a little bit. Which they, as you and other people on the thread in that same camp display here, never seem to do.

But the main context of a forum like this, as people have informed you in response to your OP, is the effect of Religion in our society. You miss the point entirely when you say "You've got an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject you profess not to believe in." because actually the forum is dedicated to a subject we all very much profess we DO believe in. Religion. We might not believe there is a god, but we very much believe in religion. And you yourself titled the thread "Anti Religion" not "Anti God".

What the religious do with their private and personal beliefs could not be less relevant to me if I tried. Where religion and the religious wander out of their club-house of choice and their beliefs intersect with our public halls of power, education, communication and science however you very much have a war of ideas there. And pointing out that said religious people have not offered the single first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that validates many of their claims is the exact OPPOSITE of ridiculous and arrogant. It is positively incumbent upon us to do so, and I certainly will not back down from it merely because the likes of you engage in name calling in the place of open and honest discourse.

Whosthis

kneemos wrote: »

Every knows there isn't any evidence.,as I said it's down to belief.
To base your whole argument on not having evidence is patently rediculous and childishly arrogent.

This is the reason you should never argue with a theist, their arguments make no sense. Its like arguing with an idiot. Proof and evidence go out the window, its all about that fuzzy feeling in my head.

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It depends what argument I am making.

Indeed it does :

I have no issue whatsoever with people who profess a non belief in god. Nor do I argue with them or confront them. So there is nothing ridiculous or arrogant there at all, whatever way you spell them.

But context is everything. And for one example, this is a discussion and debate forum. So I see nothing ridiculous or arrogant at all about confronting people who make claims about having a belief, with requests that they substantiate their claims even a little bit. Which they, as you and other people on the thread in that same camp display here, never seem to do.

But the main context of a forum like this, as people have informed you in response to the OP, is the effect of anti-Religion and anti-Religion in our society. You miss the point entirely when you say "We don't have an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject we profess not to believe in." because actually the forum is dedicated to a subject many all very much profess they DO believe in. Anti-Religion. You might not claim there is no god, but many much believe in anti-religion.

What the anti-religious do with their private and personal beliefs could not be less relevant to me if I tried. Where anti-religion and the anti-religious wander out of their club-house of choice and their anti-religious beliefs intersect with our public halls of power, education, communication and science however you very much have a war of ideas there. And pointing out that said anti-religious people have not offered the single first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that validates many of their anti-religious claims is the exact OPPOSITE of ridiculous and arrogant. It is positively incumbent upon us to do so, and I certainly will not back down from it merely because the likes of many here engage in name calling religious people in the place of open and honest discourse.

FishOnABike

Pherekydes wrote: »

And no e numbers at all at all. Though e is a great number, to be fair.

A great number indeed. An irrational and transcendental constant approximately equal to 2.718281828459 Funny how it should be brought up in a discussion under Religion & Spirituality.

nozzferrahhtoo

La Fenetre wrote: »

Indeed it does :

I do not think you have gained anything whatsoever by modifying my post and posting it back at me. It says nothing and adds nothing, and in many ways just makes my point for me. Because yes, where religion and the religious enter our society at a public level in our halls of power, education, science and communication, there is a war of ideas there.

The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims at that level of society. The Theists are. If you, by quoting my own post back at me, have an issue with me wishing to keep religion out of those halls, secularism, or feel I have ever made a claim that I have not backed up with Argument, Evidence, Data, or Reasoning.... then point it out. You will find I will answer you and enter into that discourse. The Theists are not.

So as I say your little exercise in attempting to reverse my post has actually made my point for me, and whatever your actual intention might have been, that is the result of it.

magicbastarder

i think there needs to be a thread all these questions get dumped into. it gets boring, all these threads generate a lot of noise and not much light.

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

Indeed it does :

I have no issue whatsoever with people who profess a non belief in god. Nor do I argue with them or confront them. So there is nothing ridiculous or arrogant there at all, whatever way you spell them.

But context is everything. And for one example, this is a discussion and debate forum. So I see nothing ridiculous or arrogant at all about confronting people who make claims about having a belief, with requests that they substantiate their claims even a little bit. Which they, as you and other people on the thread in that same camp display here, never seem to do.

But the main context of a forum like this, as people have informed you in response to the OP, is the effect of anti-Religion and anti-Religion in our society. You miss the point entirely when you say "We don't have an entire forum basically dedicated to a subject we profess not to believe in." because actually the forum is dedicated to a subject many all very much profess they DO believe in. Anti-Religion. You might not claim there is no god, but many much believe in anti-religion.

What the anti-religious do with their private and personal beliefs could not be less relevant to me if I tried. Where anti-religion and the anti-religious wander out of their club-house of choice and their anti-religious beliefs intersect with our public halls of power, education, communication and science however you very much have a war of ideas there. And pointing out that said anti-religious people have not offered the single first shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that validates many of their anti-religious claims is the exact OPPOSITE of ridiculous and arrogant. It is positively incumbent upon us to do so, and I certainly will not back down from it merely because the likes of many here engage in name calling religious people in the place of open and honest discourse.

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think you have gained anything whatsoever by modifying my post and posting it back at me.

I have because, your post says nothing and adds nothing, and in many ways just makes my point for me. Because yes, where the anti religion and the anti religious enter our society at a public level in our halls of power, education, science and communication, there is a war of ideas there.

The difference is that the atheists and the secularists are not in general making unsubstantiated nonsense claims about religion at that level of society, the anti-theists are. If you, by re-quoting your own post back at me, have an issue with me wishing to keep anti-religion out of those halls, secularism, or feel anti-theists have ever made a claim about theism backed up with any sound Argument, Evidence, Data, or Reasoning.... then point it out. You will find I will answer you and enter into that discourse. The anti-theists are not.

So as I say my little exercise in attempting to reverse your post has actually made my point for me, and whatever your actual intention might have been, that is the result of it.

La Fenetre

looksee wrote: »

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

It's your reworded statement not mine, as the statement you bolded does not match, so you tell us if your statement is true or not as you're effectively having a conversation with yourself. Can you not tell ?

54and56

looksee wrote: »

So. We are to accept that the default situation of Irish society should be that the RC church is in control of all state institutions and all education, health, science and public discourse should stay within the preferred boundaries dictated by that body.

Is this statement true? No waffle or explanations, just tell me that you agree with it, as your bolded statement above seems to suggest.

Even if Le Fenetre does believe this unless he has truly invented time travel the days of the RC or any other religion dictating that their beliefs and rules are to be imposed on the whole of society are thankfully long gone.

looksee

I suppose it really is too much to hope for an actual answer from any of the theists, I am sure there is a joke about holy oil and slippery there somewhere.

Kiwi in IE

When I lived in New Zealand religion had no impact on either me personally or on the state. Religion there is considered to be a private matter for ones home and church. State funded institutions do not endorse any religion, our freedoms and rights are not curtailed by religion in any way, and as a result there is practically no hostility toward religion.

Sure, there's the odd loopy Iona type group, Destiny Church, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_Church_(New_Zealand), are probably the most high profile nutters, but Kiwi's on masse generally don't entertain such nonsense, so such groups are no real threat to anyone else's freedom. There is no fear that when Destiny Church representatives are ranting in the media about things such as LGBT rights, that ordinary Kiwis will be the slightest bit influenced by their nonsense. It's treated more like a comedy show of closed minded ignorance by Joe Bloggs Kiwi.

It also helps that not everyone is pretty much the same denomination, like in Ireland, the 3 largest groups identified in the 2013 NZ census were: No religion 41.9%, Catholic 12.61% and Anglican 11.79%. So we have far more variety which stops any one religion assuming a right to throw their weight around.

I didn't identify as an atheist until I moved to Ireland, I simply had no religion. When you are asked here and say that you have no religion, you often get a confused response, as if the person doesn't understand what you mean, or how that can be. I don't think most atheists would give religion a second thought if it wasn't imposed upon us the way it is in Ireland. So interestingly from my experience, there is far more respect toward religion from non adherents in truly secular countries where religion has to mind it own business.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

When I lived in New Zealand religion had no impact on either me personally or on the state. Religion there is considered to be a private matter for ones home and church. State funded institutions do not endorse any religion, our freedoms and rights are not curtailed by religion in any way, and as a result there is practically no hostility toward religion.

Sure, there's the odd loopy Iona type group, Destiny Church, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_Church_(New_Zealand), are probably the most high profile nutters, but Kiwi's on masse generally don't entertain such nonsense, so such groups are no real threat to anyone else's freedom. There is no fear that when Destiny Church representatives are ranting in the media about things such as LGBT rights, that ordinary Kiwis will be the slightest bit influenced by their nonsense. It's treated more like a comedy show of closed minded ignorance by Joe Bloggs Kiwi.

It also helps that not everyone is pretty much the same denomination, like in Ireland, the 3 largest groups identified in the 2013 NZ census were: No religion 41.9%, Catholic 12.61% and Anglican 11.79%. So we have far more variety which stops any one religion assuming a right to throw their weight around.

I didn't identify as an atheist until I moved to Ireland, I simply had no religion. When you are asked here and say that you have no religion, you often get a confused response, as if the person doesn't understand what you mean, or how that can be. I don't think most atheists would give religion a second thought if it wasn't imposed upon us the way it is in Ireland. So interestingly from my experience, there is far more respect toward religion from non adherents in truly secular countries where religion has to mind it own business.

Interesting you mention New Zealand but left out the following :

In New Zealand, Catholic schools are also owned by a proprietor, typically by the Bishop of the diocese. New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese. Catholic schools in New Zealand are also state integrated schools for funding purposes, which means that teachers' salaries, learning materials, and operations of the school are also publicly funded.

So the New Zealand system has many of the aspects that you are chiefly complaining about and opposing here.

robindch

La Fenetre wrote: »

New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese.

I imagine that the process was fairly similar in NZ - the bishop received some land in a bequest, or held a fund-raiser to raise money to buy a patch of land, then handed over the funding and day-to-day running of the school to the state, but retained control of the school.

Not dissimilar from an estate agent selling a house, but retaining control over who can go in and out of it.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Interesting you mention New Zealand but left out the following :

In New Zealand, Catholic schools are also owned by a proprietor, typically by the Bishop of the diocese. Catholic schools in New Zealand are also state integrated schools for funding purposes, meaning that teachers' salaries, learning materials, and operations of the school are also publicly funded. New Zealand Catholic schools are also built on land owned by the diocese.

Yes religious schools are partially funded by state, however there is secular school access for every child in schools owned and funded by the department of education. If an area is small and the population only warrants one school, there will always be a secular state school available. Very, very different from Ireland.

Parents also have to pay fees in religious schools to maintain buildings as the state pays for no building maintenance, whilst secular state schools are free.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes religious schools are partially funded by state, however there is secular school access for every child in schools owned and funded by the department of education. If an area is small and the population only warrants one school, there will always be a secular state school available. Very, very different from Ireland.

Yes there should be more non Catholic schools available, the Catholic church in Ireland already says this, but your objection instead centers on Catholic schools getting state funds, as they do in New Zealand.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Yes there should be more non Catholic schools available, the Catholic church in Ireland already says this, but your objection instead centers on Catholic schools getting state funds, as they do in New Zealand.

Catholic schools are the ONLY schools the state provides in many, many areas.

Access to suitable education for parents of all religions and none is a complete non issue in NZ, as secular, state schools are available in every area. On the contrary, in Ireland it is a massive issue.

looksee

In Ireland, almost all schools are Catholic, and Catholics get first dibs.
In NZ almost all schools are secular, and open to all, there are a few specialised, and subsidised Catholic schools for those who specifically want them.

There is no comparison.

Kiwi in IE

Anyhow the OP wants to know why people with no religion appear to feel hostile toward religion, and the answer is that this generally does not occur at all, when religion minds it's own business, stays out of affairs of state and keeps itself to places where religion is appropriate, churches and the homes/lives of those who want it. Religion (specifically Catholicism in ROI to be frank), has historically failed to do this on a spectacular level, and continues to fail, no respect is shown to non adherents, and therefore respect cannot be expected in return.

Kiwi in IE

And another thing, when I lived at home I never would have dreamed of ridiculing anyones religious beliefs (unless they were expressing a wish to restrict the rights of the general population because of them), and to be honest now I feel slightly guilty completely rubbishing beliefs that Catholicism shares with other, non intrusive denominations, but as for Catholicism, as long as it continues to interfere in state institutions and I have no reasonable choice but to educate my child in a school where those beliefs are being taught as fact, it's fair game!

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Catholic schools are the ONLY schools the state provides in many, many areas.

The state doesn't provide schools, it assists schools with funding.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Access to suitable education for parents of all religions and none is a complete non issue in NZ, as secular, state schools are available in every area. On the contrary, in Ireland it is a massive issue.

And the Catholic Church in Ireland agrees that there are not enough non Catholic schools, and the state should help rectify that, instead of expecting Catholic schools to sort everyone out.