To have had enough of the Pope and his lackeys now?

[FellatioNelson]

In the news this morning: The Pope's adie will no longer be coming with him to the UK after making an unfortunate comment that:

On arriving at Heathrow it's like being in a third world country'

and:

Britain is in the grip of an agressive new atheism'.

Well the last comment is obviously a pathetic attempt to try and justify the anger directed at the Vatican over the disgraceful handling and cover-up of rife paedophilia and other forms of child abuse in the RC church. Clutching at straws methinks. As thought he only reason we would oppose to any of that is because we don't beleive in God.

But on earth are we to make of the first comment?

It's not the Pope's religion that's intertwined with our state though.

I am a secularist actually, as well as a "person of faith". Your distinction isn't really correct.

Sorry I'm crossing over somewhat with the argument the other day about the lack of justification for state funded faith schools!

But I do still think my argument stands as as response to the 'aggressive atheism' comment though, and the people on this thread who have agreed with it, and said they find atheists unnecessarily aggressive towards them, and towards religion generally. Arguments against the Pope's visit aside, I think if there is a case to be answered then it is borne of utter frustration that the state and the church are not entirely separate entities, despite this being 2010, and a country where only a small proportion of the population actually worship regularly at all, never mind in the Anglican Church of England.

Most of the superstitious whine about 'aggressive' atheism when someone says 'Well I don't believe in your imaginary friend and I'm not interested in hearing about it, either.' Thinking that superstitious beliefs are irrelevant and idiotic (and resenting the waste of public money on a visit from a representative of a myth system associated with a great deal of social harm) is not actually interfering with anyone's right to hold stupid beliefs.

It's not about whether it interferes with a right to hold beliefs, it's just plain derogatory language. No-one of faith on these threads (as far as I have read them here and where I've read them elsewhere) has called a non-theist an idiot for not believing, or a "stupid materialist" or an ignorant so and so, nor have they mocked non-theists for their stance. But the derogatory words used in these debates by non-theists are purposefully mocking and scornful - there is no avoiding it. It's not necessary, but is becoming more evident.

Non-theists and/or secularists have every right to be cross and to argue vociferously about the separation of church and state, or about the origin of morality or anything else pertaining to matters of faith, but they don't have to be rude and mocking at the same time. It's not okay just to let it pass because they're angry or worked up about what they see as an injustice.

And those who don't like it are not 'whining' either.

People disagree with each other's much-cherished opinions in public debating forums all the time DD. Often in impolite terms. It's only the superstitious who squeal and fill their nappies if anyone arguing against their silly delusions fails to say 'Oh but we have to respect delusions however ridiculous, and you can't criticize people for homophobia, misogyny, child abuse or discrimination if they're doing it on their imaginary friend's say-so'.

"No-one of faith on these threads (as far as I have read them here and where I've read them elsewhere) has called a non-theist an idiot for not believing"

Ratzinger has this very day equated atheism with being a Nazi. Did you have a point to make?

Personally I try to avoid derogatory terms but I'll defend SGBs (to pull a name out at random) right to use them. Everyone's got to have a hobby, you know.

Religious people may not call atheists/agnostic idiots (well,most of the ones you hear much about are professors etc so no-one would be that daft) but they can be horribly derogatory, suggesting lack of morality, something missing. I find that deeply offensive - ethics and morality are vital to each and every human. They aren't the exclusive preserve of those with a Book.

To be fair SGB, it isn't only the superstitious who get arsey at being told they are idiotic. Nobody likes it. As AIBU demonstrates nicely.

I disagree, SGB. And as I keep repeating, people can challenge each others' views as much as they like but in these online debates (and I am not talking about Ratzinger or his aide), I have never spotted religious people suggesting "lack of morality or something missing" about those who are atheists or agnostics.

"The superstitious who squeal and fill their nappies" - which they don't. Are people not trying to discuss these things seriously when they do so? Not just here but elsewhere on the internet? How does using derogatory terms, and phrases like that above, actually contribute to the debate? Non-theists here have valid arguments and it's good to get them out and throw ideas and arguments around a bit but name-calling reduces the debate to rudeness and simply appeals to the emotions and emotionalism of either side.

Right, off to read Marilynne Robinson's recent lectures, which have some interesting things to say about materialist positivism.

"Good men do good things. Bad men do bad things. But for good men to do bad things you need religion"

Not true. For good men to do bad things all you need is someone in authority to ask. And insist that they do it. This has been known for a long time.

no

Quote Dione "For good men to do bad things all you need is someone in authority to ask."

True in part, but and not just this. "Good men" is a fallacious phrase, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. All people are both - one can be good and kind to one's own children but "bad" when one gives the absolute minimum of their spare change to charitable causes. Doing wrong things does not simply equate to murdering and oppressing people. I mean, for all the good humans do, they also easily do bad things - bitching about other people, putting them down, ignoring them, buying products that are the result of oppression. These 'bad things' aren't extreme bad things, but humans are quite capable of doing bad things under their own steam - there's a lot of selfish self-interest in humankind and it doesn't always require an authority to get us to behave badly.

Dandy, my post was in response to that of Chil1234 on page one of this thread. It is something that I have seen before and it is absolute nonsense. As you yourself have said, self interest is often enough for "good men" to do bad things but it has been found that for ordinary people to do quite extraordinary bad things all that is needed is someone in authority to ask. And sometimes not even that.

"I have never spotted religious people suggesting "lack of morality or something missing" about those who are atheists or agnostics."

Then you haven't read enough of these threads :(

I heard on the news just now that some Algerians have been arrested on suspicion that they were going to attack the pope.

Somehow I don't think they were ringleaders of the Algerian Atheist front.

Meanwhile, atheists react with exactly their usual degree of agression to the news that Pastor Jones is planning to burn The God delusion - shock horror

Oh Dear! This man has clearly has some attention seeking issues. Bless him.

"Atheists, who hadn't been expected to come out in pick-up trucks with gun racks on their rear windows and circle his church with their engines revving like goaded Rottweilers, didn't."
"So far the body count is nil. Atheists have turned the other cheek. Christians have called this a nasty plagiarism."