Atheist and the nativity

laurel7172

I'm with the person who said (I'm paraphrasing slightly) that they were alienated by Christianity's constant struggle against equality.

I think it was meant in the context of gay and women's rights, but I'd like to add its constant selfish battle against the removal of its privileges. Christians just don't seem to want to be treated like the rest of us, and we're apparently not supposed to complain. Like free bus travel to faith schools, at a time when councils are struggling to pay for basic care for the elderly. Like restricted opening hours on a Sunday, forcing everybody else to organise their weekends around Christian beliefs. Like the *constant* attempts to exempt the religious from anti-discrimination legislation. That taxpayer funded schools can discriminate against staff (and pupils) on the basis of their faith/lack of faith and denomination. And, most annoying of all, those Christians who snivel that they're being persecuted every time they're asked to justify any of these outdated and ludicrous benefits.

An end to the discrimination towards Christians? They'd hate it.

daska

fawd1 wrote: »

I really don't , I think I've quite clearly stated that I believe religion to be flawed and scripture to be man made, I just happen to believe to believe that faith is a wonderful thing.

Then why ask a question about religion and complain that my answer isn't about scripture? Are you "perhaps a bit dim?"

fawd1

GracieP wrote: »

There is a big difference between typos and completely misconstruing the meaning of something which you have done at least twice on this thread. I wasn't sure if it was a deliberate attempt to mangle the language in order to confuse the debate or if it was a communication failure due to you using a second language. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter and asked for clarification.

YOU chose to interpret that question as an insult and despite me telling you numerous times that it wasn't have proceeded to insult me repeatedly. You're perhaps incredibly insecure and/or nasty?

Yes that's right. I'm insecure, nasty and bad at English. If you'd like to point out the misconstrued sentences, then I'd be thrilled. However, if you're attempting to pretend that your attack on my language wasn't an attack on my opinions then you're doing everyone else on this forum a disservice.

I'd also like to see you point out the difference between your TYPOS and my misconstruction of the language

fawd1

daska wrote: »

Then why ask a question about religion and complain that my answer isn't about scripture? Are you "perhaps a bit dim?"

I don't think I've actually asked any question about religion?

fawd1

Right, ladies and gents,
I'm signing off as it's late. I have to say although I have enjoyed the debate, I've been really surprised by the number of people offended by my approach to all of this, and especially insulted by the personal insults. My only argument, from the very beginning, is that faith and religion can be a good thing, but if you don't like it then don't participate.Live and let live. If it makes other people happy, then so what?

GracieP

fawd1 wrote: »

Yes that's right. I'm insecure, nasty and bad at English. If you'd like to point out the misconstrued sentences, then I'd be thrilled. However, if you're attempting to pretend that your attack on my language wasn't an attack on my opinions then you're doing everyone else on this forum a disservice.

I'd also like to see you point out the difference between your TYPOS and my misconstruction of the language

There was no attack on your language skills. I asked a question based on a (correct) hunch. That's not an attack. But yes you are being nasty, incredibly so, tbh. The only explanations for which, are that you are just not a nice person or that for some reason you are so needlessly insecure about your language skills that your disappointment that someone could guess that English isn't your first language has led you to hurl abuse at them. I certainly never said you were bad at English, in fact I said your English skills are undoubtedly better than my skills at a language I have been hearing since I was born and speaking since I first learned to speak (Irish).

As for your point of view re-religion, I don't have any problem with people having faith. I agree that some people can find it a comfort. In fact I'd prefer if the things which many people believe in turn out to be true after all. Heaven for example, strikes me as infinitely superior to ceasing to exist. However fairy-godmothers, Santa Claus and a super-powered Clark Kent come to protect us also sound utterly wonderful and I'd like them to be true too. But as great as they all would be they aren't real, are they? Just because something is comforting and makes tough times harder to bear doesn't make them real nor does it make a belief in the fantastical at all valid.

ETA: Oh and btw, I'm not a British-English speaker. I'm a Hiberno-English speaker, much of what you may be assuming to be mistakes may just be a turn of phrase common to my dialect. Hiberno-English is both a VSO and a SVO language, while British English is just SVO. We also have two tenses which don't exist in other forms of English. One which is based on the Irish modh coinniollach, the conditional (would if) tense and also a perpetual (always be doing) tense. I generally stick to BE on this forum but as I wrote my book in my dialect (because HE books are considered significantly more lyrical they are much more marketable than BE or AE and, quite frankly, I find it is a much more evocative dialect and a joy to write in) I'm probably leaking more HE into my posts.

daska

fawd1 wrote: »

I don't think I've actually asked any question about religion?

I do apologise, you are quite correct, please blame the lateness of the hour. I do however still feel that your condescending tone and insults to GracieP were unwarranted and rude.

As to scripture promoting intolerance. How about Deutoronomy chapter 20? And no, I'm not going to quote out of context - anyone who doesn't know it can look up the text of the entire chapter and check for themselves. Basically chapter 20 instructs that at times of war you attempt to find a peaceful solution first, if you win you put the men to the sword and but spare the women and children etc but then it goes on to name specific groups of people that should be exterminated on the basis of the abominations they do unto their gods. Tolerant or genocidal?

onlyroz

fawd1 wrote: »

Look at the people that spend their days handing out food to the poor, building homes etc. They aren't all doing it for the money.

No, they do it because they are good people. Or are you saying that they do it because God told them to?

onlyroz

fawd1 wrote: »

For the last time I will say, I am an agnostic, I believe in no religion. BUT, how can you honestly say you've never heard of anyone surviving something they shouldn't. Inevitably, the people around them will say they've prayed (to whomever). You reckon that's just luck, or are you just waiting for your turn to ask for help?

Do you have any evidence that prayer increases your chance of survival?

onlyroz

KxMx wrote: »

But those who deny any form of God because there is no proof are being a little arrogant to assume science in 2011 can explain everything in the universe.

No scientist thinks that everything is currently explained. But an atheist thinks that everything is ultimately explainable, even if we don't currently have the knowledge to do so right now.