To think the atheists on MN are a bunch of miserable whingers

[GothAnneGeddes]

Every bloody week it's a new thread whining on about how terrible it is that there is religion in the world.

A prominent feature of such threads is the intolerance and stupidity of religious folk, yet threads by believers insulting atheists are very rare.

Besides, aren't you all meant to be so happy to be freed from the shackles of religion, that you're too busy having fun to moan?

Okay - back to the original thread - sorry

Roseflower the kindest thing anyone could say about your post of "Wed 23-Mar-11 12:42:29" is that you are struggling to understand long sentences and getting confused.

That would be better than assuming that you deliberately twisted all those things. I know the ones you are referring to and your interpretation is wildly inaccurate.

If you want to debate that is fine. If talking to people who don't agree with you makes you unhappy then stick your fingers in your ears and go La la la la loudly and all will be well.

Well, i don't care about any of the following:

"Atheists spend much more time worrying about religious folk then the religious ever spend worry about the them.

In all my years hanging around different forums i have never seen a thread started to ram religion down the throats of atheists but there has been plenty started by the Godless to ram their non disbelief down everyones throats."

"I'm just baffled how they can consistently moan so much. And sneer."

"Faith schools do well because they're not trying to be hip & trendy - they don't pray at the alter of the Guardian -"

etc. Why should I? I've heard worse about being a Scouser.

I wouldn't mind being told I was mean to fairies. Fairies deserve it.

onagar.

Lol. The irony of your post.

Bless.

"Some of the highlights include being told I am mean to fairies, and on another thread that I MUST support war, rape, McDonalds and Justin Beiber."

Roseflower - you are surely having a laugh here, no?

If, for example, the Justin Beiber reference is the one I think it is, the point being made there was to draw a theoretical analogy between being a follower of a given religion, and a Justin Beiber fan.

To make a point about how it would be unfair and absurd to force Justin Beiber 'fandom' on your fellow human being and their life choices. To repress mutterings of 'actually I'm not sure he's so great after all', to discriminate against non-fans when it comes to letting them into local schools, etc etc.

I don't think you need to worry that anyone will be telling you that you must love Justin anytime soon

I still don't really know who Justin Bieber is. Eww to "bless", Rose. Really eww.

By 'highlight' I mean "Im having a laugh" about the 'highlights' (i.e most absurb/ laughable/plain ridiculous things).

I didn't lose any sleep. Just thought they were utterly nuts!

I haven't read the thread but, baby Jesus asked me to let you know he dopesn't mind a bit of moaning, he gets bored with all the happy-clapping and it's a bit of a change.

Yours In The Lord

Roseflower - yep, life's full of absurdities all right. The state school system being bound up with religion for one.

Roseflower -

So these are not the examples of people being vile then?

Gotta check cos I think that Justin Beiber was one of mine (and it was an analogy)

Sure is

oh and thanks for passing that on Hullygully, it's nice to be able to have a good old whinge with a clear conscience.

No Justin Beiber as some one else on different thread. I can't recall what you said, sorry.

The examples after obviously are. Are we going to argue they weren't vile now?

"How many families are willing to provide "equal" information, and allow their child(ren) to choose some faith (or none) in a similarly impartial way ?"

Most religious people have been raised in religious families who have presented the idea that there is a god to them as a FACT. Teaching children that god exists, and shaping their attitudes and ethics to conform with the tenets of faith is seen as a moral duty.

It's indoctrination pure and simple.

Most people believe in god because they've been indoctrinated to from infancy.

The ones that don't fall into this category are a minority - the ones who join a faith in adulthood having been raised in non-religious families.

Have to say, all the adults I know who fall into this latter category are fairly emotionally ..... intense people. I'm sure there are plenty of others out there who've 'seen the light' who are not needy loons normal. Just haven't met one yet.

Roseflower-

You are misreading stuff.

On this thread:

SGB said to GAG that if she has been verbally abused etc..for being a muslim it is more likely to have been by nominal christians than by atheists. Since 71% of people in this country are nominal christians (according to the last census) she isn't saying anything wildly outfield there.

I think it was me that said that you view other religions as wrong. The conversation went like this: I said that all religions are false because they claim miraculous interventions, which require the laws of physics to be suspended. You said that you believe the laws of physics are regular, except for in the case of Jesus. I said that if this is the case it would then mean that all the other religious miracles must be false. I was just pointing out what that logic implies. Maybe it is repugnant to you, but it is the logical consequence of the belief you stated.

hardly vile.

Himalya
To say the attack is more likely to be by a Christian than an atheist with no evidence to show such a thing is appalling. If it was the other way around you would hardly be claiming it wasnt wild.

I really wasn't talking about you. I just took your post as you having a philisophical debate. It meant little to me.Again you are drawing conclusions about what I said. You arrived at on your own.

Could you please stop drawing such inaccurate conclusions from things I have never said?

"To say the attack is more likely to be by a Christian than an atheist with no evidence to show such a thing is appalling. If it was the other way around you would hardly be claiming it wasnt wild."

It's a numbers thing though, surely? Why is it such an appalling statement? Is it because you think that Christians are by nature not the sort of people to say those sorts of things, whereas others (including atheists) are?

I am baffaled you think that's ok. If you can't see how thats wrong to make an assumption on any group, wether it be sex, sexuality, race, disability then me and you are really on entirely different wave lengths.

I am gob-smacked you can go on defending it!

Roseflower - this was SGB's actual quote, (at least I assume it's the one we are discussing?)

"GAG: I'm sorry you have been threatened and insulted on public transport, but this is less about you believing in any unspecified deity and more about the particular brand of mythology you follow ie some people think it's OK to be rude to Muslims not because they have a particular religious belief but because of the rude people's racism and xenophobia ie not all the people who are so unpleasant to you are necessarily atheists, many are likely to be at leat nominally Christian."

From what I can see, she is just saying that the 'rude people' here are likely to include BOTH atheists and Christians (nominal and otherwise). If you disagree with that, who else do you think these 'rude' people are then?

Misty the UK is a multi-faith society. There are more than the Christians or the Atheists. For start:
Bahá'í Faith
Buddhism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Sikhism
Zoroastrianism

Which one shall we pick then? I know we have no evidence to back us up but that shouldn't matter should it? Why let that get in the way

Rose, you're still not getting it.

"many [of this unspecified group of 'rude people'] are likely to be Christians"

does not mean

"Christians are likely to be rude"

It means that since Christians form the majority of the people in the country, then statistically, any given person in the street is more likely to be a Christian than a non-Christian.

Misty you couldn't understand who the other people where if not atheist or Christian.

I don't believe in making judegements based on someone's religion, race, sex etc with no evidence.

You are missing the point: it a comment with no actual evidence.

You know full well if the poster had said "it isn't necessarily an Atheist, it could be another religious person" that would have been ok. But they specifically pointed out Christian.

"You know full well if the poster had said "it isn't necessarily an Atheist, it could be another religious person" that would have been ok. But they specifically pointed out Christian."

They also mentioned Atheist, but I'm not offended, why should I be?

They are talking about a likelihood based on NUMBERS, not judgement about types of religious / non-religious people.

I am a Jain and I regularly insult all sorts of people.

HTH