Britain's new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not.

[bossykate]

fascinating article in today's guardian.

here

Haven't read it allbut yes I would agree with the thread title- as the only non-believer (at that time) on my Uni course I took an awful lot of flack! To the point where i seriously thought about quitting. JW cold get along with Sikh, but me they found a challenge. Bit of a shame, as I pride myself on acceptance.

i dont belive the premis of the argument.

i believe that its bollocks actually to say that its religious against non religious.

its muslims v's the rest of the world if it's anything.

there are two kinds of non religious people. those who are well considered usually read something on the subjct then made what they consider to be a rational decision on being a non believer.

and those who cant be arsed.

the former value their right to not believe. that aside, i usually find that they accept that i have a religion as long as i accept they dont.

the latter - still cant be arse and dont give a shit.

there is not religion pitted against religion - which has just been bumped off the top slot in favour of religion v's non religion IMO.

as a society we seem to be fairly tolerant - apart from the world hating islam. IMO

What exactly is an athiest fundementalist?

Is it unreasonable to believe that everyone has a right to practise their faith but that in a democratic country beliefs based in faith should not form the basis of laws which apply to us all?

I have for many years spoken to Muslim parents who would rather send their child to a catholic school (and have done so) because they felt that religious values were better than no religious values...and also to secular athiests whose values and beliefs about justice are based in the philosophy of Christianity, amongst other things.

I think there IS a big tension at the moment in working out how in a democratic multi-everything society we allow for beliefs which are quite simply incompatible and unreconcilable - the gay adoption issue, anti-abortion v pro-chpice etc. In the same way as our liberal views about free speech have been stretched (we used to believe in free speech as a means of protecting causes which were surpressed by the establishment, now we find ourselves challenged to support free speech where it seeks to surpress that very challenge). I think this is valuable endeavour...we need to work it out - but hopefully calmly and without insulting people. I think Stuart Jeffferies has sensationalised it a teeny bit!

In RL I couldn't care less what religion someone is, as long as they aren't it using to oppress someone else, hold bigoted views about gay people or women, or want to run state-funded schools so they can exclude children whose parents aren't in their club or teach children that evolution isn't real and dinosaurs died out last Tuesday. Oh, and ideally don't want to blow me and mine to smithereens either. They are, however, absolutely free to believe I am going to hell and to pray for me behind my back

I think when religious people talk about atheist fundamentalists they mean people who they think would like to stop them engaging in religious behaviour full stop. However, this is quite often religious nutters playing the victim card.
I'm an atheist through and through and think all religion is a pile of b*llshit - but that doesn't mean I want to burn everyone else's holy books and beat them up for singing holy songs or repeating sacred words. I just don't think they've got any rights over how I (or anyone else) chooses to dress, sing, eat, educate my kids or have sex.
I respect other people's rights to hold religious beliefs (everything from the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons right up to Jedis and Wiccans) but retain my right to find the whole lot ridiculous and/or ignore it.

Message withdrawn

Oh please don't give us that 'all laws/all morality stems from religion' stuff. Atheists aren't obliged to be grateful to religions for the ability to make moral decisions. And are capable of reasoning. I don't think x is right because I just feel like it, I think x is right because I've thought about it, looked into the matter, considered various factors and points of view and come to a conclusion.

(I don't think I am actually an atheist any more - but I do object to religious people pretending they own morality.)

Read this today, thought it was intersting ish but glib, tried too hard to make the Dawkins side = the religious fundamentalist side just to create a neat article.

The cultual divide, I would say, is between the tolerant and the intolerant. Dawkins isn't intolerant. He thinks religious belief is ridiculous but he isn't intolerant of it, he doesn't want it banned, just believes it's open to ridicule.

Find this bit annoying:

"Neuberger is to take on Hitchens, Dawkins and Grayling when she speaks at a debate against the motion We'd Be Better Off Without Religion next month. The debate has been moved to a bigger venue. "What I find really distasteful is not just the tone of their rhetoric, but their lack of doubt," she says. "No scientific method says that there is no doubt. If you don't accept there's doubt in all things, you're being intellectually dishonest. "

How can you have doubt about god if you don't think there is one? It doesn't exist to have any doubt about. Found that deeply patronising. In fact, following Neubergers's logic, she should describe herself as an agnostic surely, she knows she cannot know, as it were.

I think that we should disestablish the Church of England and have more of a level playing field, it's the priveledged position issue that causes a lot of the problems. For example the whole gay adoption thing wouldn't have been such an issue without state funding coming into the equation. That said the great monotheistic faiths do have a lot in common, so their followers should find common cause. I do object to the idea that you have to be religious to be spiritual though. And the idea that just because Dawkins is abusive he is therefore dangerous, oh and the idea that he is somehow the "leader" of atheism.

I think that the problem is that if you have a personal relationship with your god (as many believers do) and someone else comes along and says that they think that's rubbish, then effectively they are saying you are either lying or deluded (certainly that's how Dawkins comes across). That's bound to be fairly offensive. Whereas if they say "well I don't think that's right" (ie allowing for some doubt) then that opens up the possibility that they might be persuaded, which is not an attack on faith, just a conversion possibility. IYSWIM

I profoundly disagree that ideas of social justice and order come from religion. I think morality in that sense comes from living in groups. We are naturally empathetic and imaginative creatures (so are many animals too) who feel each other's pain, and this holds most of us back from cruelty and violence. We are also naturally good at organising ourselves in hierarchies (as do animals) in which order is maintained by sticks and carrots - those who get out of line in a way that would make cooperative and communal living impossible are punished by the group, while activities that please others are intrinsically rewarding in that we like the friendship and reciprocal kindness and favours that our behaviour tends to elicit. Our desire to be in a group and feel part of a group is a powerful regulatory tool. And we are intelligent enough to set up systems of organised justice in order to maintain order.
Ideas of morality in the religious sense are often wildly out of kilter with people's real values. We do not, these days, think it is very moral to tie your child to a rock and prepare to kill it as a sacrifice to a god. Nor do we think it moral to offer daughter's to be raped rather than be inhospitable to a stranger, for example.
That kind of morality is all to do with the social structure of a particular period in history. One of the things I find most unconvincing about religion is that God (Christian/Ancient Greek/Islamic whatever) is supposed to be eternal and beyond time, yet his prophets who are supposed to be channelling him seem remarkable mired in the mores of their particular era.

Well, if you say there is a God then you are equally saying that atheists are deluded.

Oh, and that they are going to hell!

Tinker, do you think Neuberger is open-minded about the possibility of Thor or Venus existing? I bet she isn't!

Nooka, there are many, many different brands of crap that people choose to believe in and, while we might go no further with friends than saying, well it's not my cup of tea really but you go ahead dear, why should we pretend to take seriously any kind of bizarre delusions? Whether it's gods, pixies, homeopathy, astrology, the Atkins diet or that poop-sniffing madwoman on the telly.

And agree with Tinker about Neuberger's comments: science starts with having a hyp0thesis, looking for evidenc,e then testing it and testing it again. And if all the evidence you can find demonstrates no invisible omnipotent beings hanging around the premises, then it's hardly unscientific to say, well there aren't any rather than ooh, don't know, there might be.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss, human beings evolved to favour co-operation. Therefore there is a logical argument against hurting others unecessarily: they become less likely to co-operate wth you, they might hurt you in return, etc. There are also positive rewards to be gained from not hurting others, such as their goodwill and increased co-operation.

And on the whole there are fewer religion-free types who feel that it's ok to hurt other people for not believing in the same mytholgy in the same way, than religious types who think that the moral value that hurting others is wrong can be set aside when it comes to unbelievers or heretics...

"The cultual divide, I would say, is between the tolerant and the intolerant."
Totally agree with that, Tinker.

yes also agree with tinker

Ooooh, is this a fight? Can I come in?

Obviously I am of a higher intellect than you feeble bunch of atheists and I personally know there is a God because I have visions of The Deity so nerrr!

Yes you may bow down and worship me, unless you want to go to HELL!

There is enormous evidence that empathy, love and care for your children and closest relatives, cooperation and a system of punishing those who offend the group is innate and almost universal. All those things are felt and practised by animals as well as people. And animals, as far as I know, do not read religious texts or respond to preaching.
It is evolution, not gods that have made us what we are.

I would disagree with the central tenet of the article, although there is a lot of interesting comment there.

I am a complete atheist, but I have much more in common with my woolly-religious Christian friends and family in terms of world view than with any random atheist.

And I would argue that they have more in common with my views than they do with someone of another religion.

I agree that there is some kind of battle underway between secular and religious for the domination of 'public space'. But I think that beneath a very thin veneer of ecumenicalism, they disagree far more violently with each other than they do with most 'passive' atheists.

Agree with Tinker!

As a non-believer I have no interest in other people's faith/beliefs therefore surely I'm less of a threat than someone with opposing beliefs!

Are you all feeling threatened by my presence? Is my superior intelligence getting to you all? You can admit it you know, it's ok to say you feel overwhelmed by me.