insulting religions

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Hi, I've never posted on this topic before, I tend to hang out in aibu, but don't want to start a bun fight!

So, I am a liberal Christian. I firmly believe that everyone had to right to believe (or not) whatever they want, provided that belief doesn't hurt anyone else.

Earlier today I posted a lighthearted status on Facebook, which had led to me being called mindless, stupid, stuck up, thinking I'm better than everyone else. I've been told God is a c**t (sorry I hate that word so much I won't type it) and that the Bible is only God for loo roll!

I'm just really angry that people think its ok to insult me/my religion like that, when I haven't once preached or insulted others.

Obviously the easy solution would be to delete them off of Facebook, but they are people I get on with other wise.

Don't really know the point of my post, just hoping id feel better writing it down.

I think calling it an atheist lobby is a bit inaccurate (though yes there are a large number of public figures who self-define as an atheist and do make a fairly bid song and dance about their lack of belief, and denying that fact is a bit odd if you haven't been living in a box for the past 10 years @dadonice).

However, I think it is fairer to call them an anti-religion or anti-theist lobby. I think that fewer people would want to define themselves by that as it is sounds too negative.

The point is that there is no lobby.

I don't think anyone here minds the word "atheist" and we certainly don't think there is anything negative about it.

There is a secular lobby, and that's a good thing. Secularism (despite the bullshit put about by both the hard-of-thinking superstitious and those who are making a tidy profit and enjoying a lot of power from peddling superstition) is not about stopping you from talking to your imaginary friend, reading your fairy stories, gathering together with like-minded others to sing and dance or paint yourselves blue or whatever. It's about making sure that everyone is treated equally regardless of any superstitions they may or may not have.
In the UK, Christianity has an unfair privileged status which even some Christians don't approve of. To strip away that extra privilege is not 'persecuting Christianity'.

It's not a problem to me amillion, it's a problem I've noted in the past though, getting religious people to admit to the truth. People like to critique atheists for looking out for no. 1 when in fact the same is true for believers. Being selfish is a product of our evolution - it's natural (not necessarily right or desirable though) to put our own needs above those of others.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself", most Christians will admit is the hardest part of the bible.

I mean people wouldn't want to call themselves anti-religion. Obviously the term atheist has no negative connotation to 'right minded people'.

If there is no lobby, who are the people who appear on 9 lessons and carols for atheists, or who sign a group letter to the newpapers over the pope's visit?

I don't think the fact that ther is a secular/anti-religion/atheist lobby is a bad thing. It means the views of that group of people get heard and the priviledged position of some religious groups is curbed. I think the Naitonal Secular Society do a stellar job, personally, but I think it is silly to deny that there is a strong anti-religion lobby.

ethelb - I wasn't denying the existence of such figures, merely their collective power as a "lobby".

why?

ethelb Honestly, I think there is still some (understandable) confusion over the difference between an atheist & a humanist or secularist.

Atheism only means to not have a belief in a god. It's not a belief in itself, merely a response to theism. If you are not a theist then you are, by default, an atheist.

Some atheists choose to become Humanists, which I suppose could be, kind of, described as "lobbyists", or at least they do have campaigns. Not every atheist is a Humanist (although most, if not all Humanists are atheists).

Secularism is even more different. That's all about removing religion from public life. Lots of theists are also secularists, or have secularist ideas, some of which have been expressed on this thread.

The NSS is obviously a lobbying organisation, and the list of prominent supporters listed on its web site includes many equally prominent atheists. There are no prominent people of faith among this list of supporters. Despite its claims to the contrary, it seems clear to me from looking at the material on its web site, that the NSS together with the Humanist Society, and with individual proponents of atheism does indeed constitute an atheist lobby. To claim otherwise is dishonest logic-chopping.

Though there is a difference between humanists, secularists and atheists, in practice I think we will find that the overlap between these three categories is very large. This is particularly true for that group who espouse atheism, humanism or secularism enthusiastically and as a matter of principle. It will be least true for the 'apatheist' (I think this might have been originally Grimma's coinage, whoever's it was, it's brilliant) majority.

I see that SolidGold is behaving in exactly the kind of rude way that the OP was originally complaining of. M

That's, I think, what I was trying to say. You can lobby for public life and society to be secular, but atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. You can no more lobby for it than you can lobby for people not to have an interest in stamp-collecting.

Atheism is generally a response. In theory as well as in practice. If there has been a perceived "rise" in it then it has been a response to a rise in visible religious evangelising, or the attempts by the religious to get religion to have greater say in people's lives.

I don't believe I have ever, in my life, seen a thread on any internet forum started by an atheist with the aim of "converting" people. I can't recall ever seeing a thread title on the lines of "Why don't you consider becoming an atheist?" It just wouldn't work.

DadonIce if it was true that the rise of atheism was correlated to attempts by religious groups to evangelise or gain more influence, why is it that the rise of atheism has happened at a time of a decline in the influence of religion?

There are no prominent people of faith among this list of supporters Probably not. But that's almost certainly because of people misunderstanding the terms, using "secularism" in place of "atheism" and wrongly promoting the idea that secularism & atheism are inter-changeable terms.

I have lost count of the number of Christians, on MN alone, who I have seen expressing the view that religion should play no formal role in public life, and that church & state should be separate entities.

I hardly think preferring to use the correct use of words is "logic chopping".

And I can see nothing rude in Solid's posts.

"I hardly think preferring to use the correct use of words is "logic chopping"."

Er.....

Dreadful grammar. Sorry.

But just because there is a decline in the influence of religion (evidence from the census, for example), that doesn't mean its more vocal proponents have got quieter. If anything, the opposite.

That's another useful explanation for why more atheist voices are (perceived to be) being heard - the fact that a religious "lobby" has grown more vocal during a quarter-century when its constituency is shrinking.

It's a bit of a "don't mention the war", "well, you started it" situation...

I'm interested to know what would be an alternative explanation?

Ellie, Christians do have a variety of views on different topics. So some, for example Roman Catholics, would feel for good historical reasons that the existence of an established church was an injustice; others, perhaps those who belong to independent churches, might see schools run by particular denominations as unjust. Some Christians would like to see disestablishment, and some would like to see secular education. But I doubt you would see many Christians signing up for the full agenda of the NSS.

Perhaps you might like to consider that rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Most people of faith find being told that the living God is 'an imaginary friend' and that their sacred scriptures are 'fairy stories', and that the beliefs which are at the centre of theirlife are 'superstition' to be offensive.

I've seen religious people get offended by the "superstition" thing before. In a technical sense, what would be the distinction between religion and superstition? (Some things used to be very deeply-held, sincere beliefs - fears about witchcraft, for example - and would now be categorised as superstition.)

There's no objective difference between believing in Jesus, Allah, Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy. And the main reason for the decline in religion in developed countries is progress - more people are able to see that the current Big Myth Brands, while they have as much cultural and historical interest as the Greek, Roman, Norse and Celtic myth brands, are no more true than those are. Of course, there's a resurgent lobby made up of dickheads, scam artists, losers and control freaks, all screaming away about how it's 'persecution' for other people to be awarded the same human rights as they have themselves, though they are not, of course, representative of all those people who happen to have an imaginary friend.

Perhaps you might like to consider that rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Most people of faith find being told that the living God is 'an imaginary friend' and that their sacred scriptures are 'fairy stories', and that the beliefs which are at the centre of theirlife are 'superstition' to be offensive

Then that's just tough, isn't it?

Do I think that anyone should be going out of their way to upset people? No. Do I think that the OP was justified in being upset at what was posted on her FB page? Yes.

But, here's the thing.....I DO believe that "the living God" is an imaginary friend. I DO believe the the "scriptures" are fairy tales and that religious belief is nothing more than superstition.

And guess what? I am a) totally entitled to take that view and b) totally entitled to express it. It's your choice as to whether you choose to take offence over my view - personally, I don't know why you care. But the very idea that you think that nobody is allowed to even express such opinions because you personally might get upset about it is quite extraordinarily arrogant.

Be offended by whatever you like, but don't expect anyone else to care. I for one don't.

And if I chose to post unpleasant things on someone else's FB page* with the sole intention of upsetting them, then that would make me an arsehole. But even arseholes are entitled to be arseholes.

*Which I have never done and never would.

I'm about to hide this thread.

You are entitled to say what you like. You are entitled to be as aggressive, arrogant, insulting as you like. That's freedom of speech.

But it's equally my right to call you on it, and to remind you that you are behaving like arseholes. I have not used such aggressive, rude language to you on this thread, and you have repaid courtesy with crude language and crass ignorance.

Meh.

Bye.

DadonIce - you've just reminded me of a conversation I had with a RC. What's the difference between a religion and a cult? Most religious people I've met are terribly PC about other religions. But don't start trying to compare them with scientology for example....but that's what they all are really. Some bloke says follow me or go to hell. People start following. After a decade, there are a few followers. Give it a few centuries and, if the idea has caught on, you've got yourself a nice, shiny new religion.

fwiw, I personally do not feel offended by anything anyone has said to me, or about Christians, on this thread.
[the bit I did have to think about was whether, I think it was DadonIce who said that Christians in the middle ages were dim, something and something].

I think religion has to be discussed, and if Christians get a bit offended along the way, I would rather that, than no religious discussion taking place.

"I think religion has to be discussed, and if Christians get a bit offended along the way, I would rather that, than no religious discussion taking place"

Quite right, Amillion. I agree with you completely.