大象传媒

Pope rejects Dublin bishop's resignations

Will, thanks for the link to .

Permit me to quote a small section from the article:

"Communist theory has long held that religion is nothing more than 鈥渟uperstition and foolishness,鈥� and that as China prospers and becomes more modern, religion will fade away.

But that hasn鈥檛 happened.

Instead, religious belief is growing."

Funny that. China becomes more educated, more capitalistic and more prosperous, but STILL the atheistic regime cannot stamp out belief in God.

So what do "the forces of rationalism" do? Talk to people in a civilised manner? Present their 'irrefutable' scientific evidence to disabuse these 'backward people' of their so-called superstitious beliefs? Put up posters on public transport urging these supposedly "fearful and guilt-ridden" people to enjoy their (ultimately futile, self-assembled) lives? Appeal to 'common sense'? Show themselves to be the mature, tolerant people we all know atheists to be (ha ha)?

No. They resort to the one thing they know best: thuggery, bigotry and oppression. And all because a group of people built an unregistered church!! Oh dear! What sort of pathetic wimps beat up Christians just for building a small church?

Oh, silly me. I'm forgetting the first principles of enlightenment indoctrination here: only religious people can be violent, bigoted, small-minded thugs. It's "religion that poisons everything", so there must be some big mistake here in this article. Lovely, peace-loving, tolerant, cuddly atheists surely couldn't resort to this kind of cruelty, could they....?!!

LSV (#2)

*sigh*

The VAST majority of China is uneducated, repressed and subject to extremely poor human rights from a corrupt pseudo-communist government. It's far from 'enlightened'. Religion offer the peasants (for that is how they are seen) a possibily of escape from the existance that they endure under the regime and a chance to show 'legal' rebellion. The pictures we see on TV are a tiny minority of a huge country and those who live in the slums and rural area live a lifestyle decades behind that of the more wealthy middle and ruling classes. It has no comparison to any situation currently existing the in world. In fact, the rest of world is showing the -opposite- trend, religous adherance is lower than ever, education is higher.

Two things from this then; get your facts right before you start ranting about how evil atheists hate all religion, and as a Christian representative of your faith - 'cast not the first stone', 'lest you be judged also'. Your religion is far from pure in the oppression and persecution stakes.

I'd like to point taken from an article in GQ.


Slow whiney death indeed :-D

LSV,
Atheists don't want to stamp out belief in god, they want religionists to stop brainwashing kids and let them make their own minds up. It is religionists who keep telling us it is their job to evangelise and convert people.

Just because I think your beliefs are daft does not mean I disagree with your right to hold them and be my equal in society in all things under the law, just as I am sure you would not disagree for me to be and act as an atheist gay man equal to you in all things under the law.

Natman -

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

"The VAST majority of China is uneducated, repressed and subject to extremely poor human rights from a corrupt pseudo-communist government."

So let's just get this straight.

When Christians are persecuted by atheists, apparently it's not really the fault of atheism, because the atheistic government is corrupt, and therefore its 'unenlightened' human rights record, and not its atheistic bigotry, is the reason for the oppressive policies. And the 'religious' people are just a load of thicko peasants anyway, as you have so eloquently pointed out (which, by the way, is an unsubstantiated, misleading and thoroughly ignorant and prejudiced statement). I know for a fact (through contacts I have) that there are many highly educated Chinese Christians.

This is how one of the current humanistic myths works: When 'religious' people commit acts of oppression, it must be because of 'religion'. So when a so-called 'Protestant' in Northern Ireland commits a criminal act against a 'Catholic' it is not because they are simply corrupt human beings, motivated by political agendas (and hiding behind religious cultural labels). No no. It must be because of actual 'religious beliefs' - especially that pernicious belief in the idea of an intelligent creator!

This is the kind of warped thinking I have come to expect of the 'humanistic' analysis of human behaviour. If a professing atheist does wrong, it can never be the fault of his belief system now, can it? Oh no! But if a professing religious person does wrong, then that is just an example of how evil religion is. So Stalin wasn't really a proper atheist (and was probably motivated by his authoritarian Orthodox Christian upbringing, as a certain rather unlearned atheistic Professor 'concluded'), and we will just quietly ignore the vile murderous Enver Hoxha regime in Albania ("the world's first atheist state") - a deliberate, wilful, conscious policy of repression entirely motivated by atheism.

Whether China is 'enlightened' or not, the regime is atheistic. Why don't you have the intellectual integrity to face up to that fact. If you start coming out with the argument that "there are different kinds of atheism", then you really are being hypocritical by tarring all 'religious' people with the same brush, in the way that you do. Unless you are exceedingly thick you ought to know that Marxism is a thoroughly atheistic ideology, built entirely on the foundation of dialectical materialism (if you know what that is). And so therefore if the evils of religious people can be laid at the door of theistic belief, then, by the same logic, the unspeakable horrors of Marxist regimes should be laid firmly at the door of atheistic beliefs (and I say 'beliefs', because that is what they are, as I have proven elsewhere.)

By the way... could you please provide EVIDENCE to support the following analysis of yours: "Religion offer the peasants (for that is how they are seen) a possibily of escape from the existance that they endure under the regime and a chance to show 'legal' rebellion." You are someone who loves to ask for proof, so I am sure you will be pleased to provide the proof of the truth of this statement. (Remember: circular arguments not allowed). I wait eagerly with bated breath...

Dave -

"Atheists don't want to stamp out belief in god, they want religionists to stop brainwashing kids and let them make their own minds up."

Dave, I just couldn't agree with you more concerning brainwashing. Wouldn't it be nice if children were allowed to think for themselves, which, of course, means not being brainwashed with any beliefs, INCLUDING atheistic beliefs?!

I can think of a certain Christian zoo, which tries to encourage children to think for themselves, but unfortunately there are certain small-minded bigots who don't believe that children should enjoy this privilege. They are called philosophical materialists (and they have had a great deal of practice with punishing 'thought crimes' through their rule in Marxist nations, as I have pointed out above.)

Update on last weeks story :-

Re Natman's post: The decline in religion does not equate with a decline in people who have a relationship with God. Many people consider themselves spiritual but not religious and do not attend a church or go by specific labels eg Christian. Rather they recognise the common humanity and also recognise the spiritual dimension and God.

Natman (@ 4) -

"I'd like to point this one taken from an article in GQ. Slow whiney death indeed"

Natman, do me a favour ... don't make me laugh!! That article is just an incoherent whine about the official status of Christianity in this country. Not a shred of evidence is presented concerning the truth or otherwise of any theological or philosophical proposition of either Christianity or non-Christian views.

Frankly, I'm more interested in truth, and not spending time trying to work out what is valid from the results of a census or survey. You may think that truth is established by "how many people believe something", but that is not my method (and, as it happens, neither is it the scientific method). It might be the method of the tabloid press and popular magazine culture, but it can hardly be called intellectually sound.

In other words, I'm not wasting my time with poor and invalid methodology.

LSV,

Are the Christians in China being persecuted because they're Christian, or because they're anti-communist? Is the regime persecuting them because they're atheist, or because they're totalatarian?

Unlike religious faiths, atheism is a description of a lack of belief in gods, it's not some global organisation with dedicated leaders and a mission to destroy religion. Whilst the Chinese authorities persecute christians and they might be atheist, that does not equate to all atheists persecute christians, or even condone that persecution. However, I can say with absolute certainty that religous groups do use their religion as a banner, even if their actions are not grounded in that religion. I don't see atheists doing the same.

Religious faiths take great pains to use out-dated, prejudiced and narrow-minded viewpoints to specificially exclude people due to their personal preferences, I don't see atheism doing any of that either.

Get over your marytr complex, it's a possibly unique example of atheistic persecution in the entire world and througout history.

LSV,
means not being brainwashed with any beliefs, INCLUDING atheistic beliefs

As has been repeatedly stated, there is no such thing as atheistic beliefs, simply lack of theistic ones. I realise some feel the need to cling to some warm cosy thoughts that non belief and belief are in conflict because they are competing for domination of a world view but they are not, atheists want free thinking and no evangelism thrust on people. I do not have beliefs to supplant your theistic ones and apart from a thirst for knowledge and fact no interest in making up things to supplant your theistic beliefs.

If what you mean by your statement that there should be no belief based teaching in schools or churches until a child has reached the age where they can reason for themselves and no anti religion teaching either and that kids are simply taught from the credible, observable knowledge and science base that we have then I agree with you. I have no interest in having a 'religion is unprovable nonsense' class as I would leave it up to the child to decide one way or the other. I would suggest however that it might be difficult to drag people into some religions if that means they have to start discriminating against people who they have been brought up to treat as equals but their new god says that they are an underclass.

Dave (@ 11) -

Dave, everyone has 'beliefs'. Atheism is dependent on a belief in philosophical (metaphysical) materialism - something that even a 'non-theist' such as Eugenie Scott affirms (see the 'Agnostics' thread). I am not going to reinvent the wheel and go over the same ground yet again. 'Philosophical materialism' is not proven by the scientific method, therefore it is a 'belief' in the same category as religious beliefs.

Of course, it all depends how we define the word 'belief'. I am sure that you 'believe' in the truth of what you have written in post #11. Your belief in the validity of your own opinions is as much a 'belief' as my belief in the validity of my opinions. You may perhaps say that you 'know' that your views are true, and that this 'knowledge' is different from 'belief'. But that is just your opinion, because I could also claim the same thing about my views. So then we have to decide as to what counts as 'valid evidence' to support our respective views. And so we end up back at square one, talking about epistemology....

"I would suggest however that it might be difficult to drag people into some religions if that means they have to start discriminating against people who they have been brought up to treat as equals but their new god says that they are an underclass."

I could not agree more with this statement! IF what you understand by 'religion' is "a system of belief that requires us to discriminate against anyone, and to regard any person as part of an underclass" then I affirm that I am totally and utterly ANTI-religious! And I am proud of the fact.

If you could prove to me that the concept of "belief in an intelligent creator" inevitably implies a "commitment to a policy of discrimination", then you will have succeeded in converting me to your point of view. But thank God such an argument is completely invalid. Just because some so-called 'religious' people are obnoxious bigots does not mean that every single metaphysical idea they claim to believe in is necessarily false. This is the argument I was trying to get across earlier on this thread. Atheists like to distinguish between 'enlightened humanist atheists', on the one hand, and 'ignorant communist tyrant atheists', on the other. They like to believe that a professing atheist's evil actions do not necessarily reflect badly on his fundamental world view. But the same indulgence is rarely extended to religious people. Any fair minded and reasonable person would have to accept that this inconsistency is morally hypocritical.

You wrote in post #5: "Just because I think your beliefs are daft does not mean I disagree with your right to hold them and be my equal in society in all things under the law, just as I am sure you would not disagree for me to be and act as an atheist gay man equal to you in all things under the law."

You are absolutely right to assume that I affirm your right to be and act as an atheist gay man equal to me in all things under the law. I have no desire or agenda to discriminate against you in any way whatsoever. If some professing Christians feel differently, then that is their problem, but I refuse to be associated with such people. (And I have made that point at great length elsewhere: such as here, here and here as well).

LSV,

I'm not sure I even know what 'philosophical (metaphysical) materialism' is, and to be quite frank I have no more interest in finding out than I have in going to church. How can I believe in something I have no knowledge of.

The problem here is that, to me, you are over analysing and therefore over complicating.

I am a simple soul (I don't mean unintelligent) and sometimes pragmatic to a fault. So here goes,

I do not believe in anything which supplants your beliefs, I simply do not believe in anything which explains how the universe started or how life first sparked. I do not accept that we as humans have the necessary evidence to support any claim supernatural or not. Therefore I do not fill the void in my knowledge with anything.

It is not that I am asserting something to be true, I am just not asserting anything.

I can cope with that, I do not need to have everything explained, to me that would be boring (no offence) as there is nothing left to find out.

There are many other things to believe in which don't need faith in the supernatural and I concentrate on them.

If you could prove to me that the concept of "belief in an intelligent creator" inevitably implies a "commitment to a policy of discrimination", then you will have succeeded in converting me to your point of view

I cannot, and I have no wish to convert you, but I would say that most of the current instantiations of that concept do indeed contain many policies of discrimination against women, foreigners and homosexuals to name a few. If I actually take the time out to consider a god this is probably the main thing which mitigates against the current crop of gods, why would he create people and then tell them to hate and kill each other, makes no sense to me.

I don't distinguish between types of atheists, in fact I think it wrong to group them as I am sure each is an individual. I have said where I stand but have no wish or need for anyone to support me (bit like Eunice). Atheism is not a church or a congregation it is simply what is left of the human race when you subtract all the religions people. No organisation no band of travellers and no script to follow.

I appreciate your last paragraph especially as it reminds me that I do tend to lump all christians together under the christianity banner and I need reminding that not all christians are the same and some rise above the literal, non contextualised interpretation of the bible. It is a pity that your brand of christianity was not he one which assails us every day. The Iris version seems much more prevalent maybe it is more vocal. The unfortunate thing is that it has more political power in Northern Ireland. It also reminds me that I know some wonderful devout gay christians as well as some wonderful devout straight ones.

OK, it didn't make the papers, but I thought we all had a fun night at "Inherit the Wind" in the QFT last night. Thanks for putting it on, Will, and good luck with the rest of the season.

@Helio

Did anyone record the discussion?

And that Shane McKee bloke, I trust he got his a*** well and truly kicked :)

I don't think it was recorded, but yeah, McKee was rubbish. :-)