Rowan Forster comments on the Atheist Convention and Atheism in general

Oh dear... Once again I am almost lost for words. Thankfully, as evidenced by the majority of the respondents, there are a sufficient number of people with the eloquence and clarity of thought to say what I cannot.

Atheism is merely a statement of belief. Nothing can be drawn from it, nothing.

He is an insulting little jerk. There is no such thing as an "atheistic faith". Why does he capitalize Christian and not Atheist. We know the answer? We know the answer, its one more example of a nasty, petty minded Christians getting his miserable rocks off.

Rowan may have got the job but he's not a journalist.

Atheism has nasty claws when it's upset

Everyone gets defensive sometimes, Peter. Don't try and make us out to be ultra-sensitive. Theists aren't exactly a model of thick-skinned resilience.

Just look at the outrage caused by the mere existence of the Global Atheists Conference.

Peter, theism is a dark force and atheism is a beacon.

Where do you manage to keep on getting such nonesense from carusmm?

Haven't you ever watched The Fifth Element with Bruce Willis, Peter?

I am sorry to be a bother, Peter, however the Oxford English Dictionary defines theism as 'the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation.' Therefore, Peter, (and it is a correct definition) it is stalemate again. Thus, the only thing that enlivens atheism is evidence and that comes from science. As for our fighting techniques, these come from philosophy and the arts. As for instinct, this comes from love.

Don't bother Peter, its just more stupidity from carusmm and his gang of admirers. None of them make any sense.

Humanism is not a mutual admiration society, Mary. Humanists are too hard-bitten for that. Mary, if I ever strike you as stupid, tell me where I have been stupid and we will see what happens from there. Without directions, I cannot proceed. It is merely rude to expect the conversation to stop because you have lost the thread sometime ago.

You're welcome to discuss any issue you wish with us, Mary. But as carusmm points out (between his somewhat bizarre and cryptic offerings) all you do is insult us. As yet you haven't actually made any point relevant to any of the topics at hand.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that any of the posters to this site are stupid.

Some of them are bigoted and astonishingly intolerant though.

trulyfree, I write to be understood; if I fail, tell me where and what for. I would appreciate it. This goes for anyone.

The religious all seem to be reading from the same page. I don't know what it is. How do they get off saying that I am not charitable, for instance? Perhaps I am not in the extreme, then I am not totally crazy also.

Carusmm you wouldn’t know or understand the meaning of charity, compassion or even rudimentary politeness and manners.

You and your alter egos might well talk, when it suits you, about how you support fellow Humanists, but you didn’t have the decency to show a bit of appreciation for the time and effort the News letter editor had put in, on his own, to compile, print and post out the recent Newsletter.

You are an ignorant pig and if I were the president I would have you thrown out immediately, but of course you would still use your back-up personalities wouldn’t you?. And no doubt you will try to win sympathy for your nauseous behavior like you always do by making some kind of claim to mental deviance beyond your control.

But we have come to expect erratic rudeness as being part your vile makeup.

Look, everyone. Peter is making well thought out and reasoned comments. Wait... my mistake. He's being rude and unnecessarily personal again, not to mention worryingly irrational.

Apparently his tiny intellect is incapable of coping with the idea that there might be more than one person who finds him disagreeable and so he has resorted to accusing us of duplicity by all being alter-egos af carusmm. Perhaps Peter, Mary, Mona, Julio and Carlos are all the same person. After all, surely there couldn't be that many small-minded, petty bigots so awash with their own delusions of grandeur that they feel they're justified in haranguing people with a different belief system.

I apologise to my fellow Humanists for descending to the level of personal attack. It seems to be the only language that resonates with these people. It's certainly the only language they can be bothered to use, seemingly.

trulyfree, I think that Peter was having a go at my level of sanity, in fact it wasn't a bad guess. I have only myself to blame for giving him something to go on. If he had gone through what I have been through, he still would be a quivering mess. I am still the better man.

I think he was being exceptionally rude to all of us and you in particular. Personally, I'm tired of his and the others' unwarranted holier-than-thou attitude. It's childish and arrogant.

I knew that this was what we would get ............gutless excuses

I have more guts in my little finger than you will ever have, Peter.

That doesn't even make sense, Peter. You are an intellectual coward. You've made a number of assumptions about what it means to be an Atheist and haven't bothered to find out if you're correct. What's more, you resort to ad hominem arguments because you're too shallow to put your limited world view on the line.

Let me disabuse you of a few of your dearly-held misconceptions. I then challenge you to offer any kind of considered response TO WHAT I HAVE SAID, with as many insults as you like afterwards, or beforehand if you prefer. But see if you can answer these points like an adult.

1. Atheists do not claim to know that there is no God (as you claim to know that there is). We just do not believe it to be true, although we fully understand that we may be wrong. We accept that a supernatural being is one of a number of possible explanations for the existence of the universe. However, the fact that it exists as a possible answer does not make it true. It just means that someone thought of it. In addition, the fact that there are a number of possible explanations does not mean that they are all equally probable.

2. We know that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, either scientifically, semantically or philosophically. It can be shown though that it highly improbable. However, it would very easy for God to prove his existence. (I am aware that this is contrary to ideas of faith without proof). But you cannot prove his existence with quotes from the Bible or arguments from higher authority, arguments from popularity or arguments from design. These arguments have all been shown to be fallacious regardless of the subject in dispute.

3. Atheism is not a religion. There is no godhead, no dogma, no requirement of faith without proof, no organised hierarchy, no worship (whatever you may think of our respect for Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al). We do not presume to dictate how others live their life or attempt to impose our morality on them. Further, science does not require faith and welcomes investigation, criticism and debate. Research which disproves a previously held theory is welcomed as progress. It is not considered heretical, as it is with religion, to question the accepted truth. Indeed, it is expected, and any scientist who attempts to mislead or falsify results loses all credibility within the scientific community and beyond. This is why we hold it dear.

We do not suggest that we have all the answers. In fact, we know that there are many things we do not know and may be many things that we will never know. It doesn't stop us looking and we do not believe it makes sense to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a supernatural being. We accept that we can only know what we discover and show to be true through repeated examination and critical thinking. We believe that it makes sense to give credence to what the best available evidence tells us and we are well aware that things we now believe to be true may be proven otherwise in the future. This is why I do not consider it unreasonable that it was once believed that the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. Eventually, though, better information became available which showed that this wasn't true. Guess which organisation tried to quash this "heretical" new idea?

4. We are not narrow-minded. You seem to have singularly failed to realise that many of us come from religious backgrounds. I went to Church of England schools and received many years of religious education. We have learned the history, heard the stories and enjoyed the songs. Some of us were probably believers for a long time. We have been in both camps so, by definition, we have a wider viewpoint than a lifelong religionist.

5. We do not want to abolish religion. Despite its many failings, it has also contributed enormously to art, music and literature and is part of the rich history of our culture. This does not mean that it should be considered sacrosanct and immune to criticism. Nor does it have the right to legislate how people live their lives, unless they choose to subscribe to that particular religion's values, because it is simply one of many systems of belief. This means that religion has no place in government or in the science classroom. Remember that Christianity was once considered a dangerous cult. It was not always the largest religion on the world and it may not always be in the future. It is too riddled with inconsistencies to be taken seriously as the source of universal morality. That is not just my opinion and is easily proved by anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible.

That's all I have for now. Apart from the opening paragraph I have tried to be as factual and non-provocative as possible. I wait with bated breath to see if I will be met with measured replies or more personal attacks and circular reasoning.

There is quite an exchange of pleasantries going on but I think trulyfree has made some valid points. Do you think he/she is right or wrong? I'm asking you Peter, I won't even bother with Mary.
What do you think of Rowan Forster's claims. What about his reformed alcoholics and other drug users. I think they were just exchanging one drug for another though I'll concede religion was not doing so much harm to them and it makes them more socially acceptable, but that doesn't make their belief in God true.
What about his long list of doers of good deeds. Wouldn't they have done good things whether they were religious or not? They are just better known than others because they are up front in powerful religious organizations.

They haven't a leg to stand on and they know it.

How sad that people have such an inferiority complex about themselves that they need to show us how intellectual they are by using words like "ad hominem" and "disabuse" as if clever words make for clever talk. Quite embarrassing really.

Yes wisernow, of course you have to agree with trulyfree that's what you're there for.

Well I did read the article and I cannot see what all the spitting and clawing is about, just becaue someone states facts that you do not like and cannot deny. The remarks about the number of Christian charitable organisations is on record for all to see, as is the number of Atheist organisations as distinct from the purposefully none-denominational ones, which you might try to claim for yourselves, such as Oxfam, UNESCO, etc. After all how could such organisations work among people who might be Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, while flying the flag of western religion.

I was particularly fascinated by the way you jumped upon the reference to the Wright Brothers being from a religious family (probably to counter some earlier accusations that religion has nothing to do with inspiration). And the silly - squeezing of the lemon by the editor - that because their father preyed for the experiment to work then "why didn't Christians invent flight many centuries ago?" Have none of you not hoped, longed, even preyed, for the success of your children? This was not just dishonesty, but was a dishonesty he had concocted and he was well aware of.

Look I believe that everything needs opposition so don't worry its OK for us to have Atheists/Humanists to offer an opposing point of view, but please don't show your ineffectual weakness just because when it comes to factual evidence you just cannot cut the mustard.

Keep pushing for charity, Peter, we will keep pushing for a better society.

As for the Editor's quip about the Wright Brothers, he was saying that if flight was a matter of prayer, then why until now have we not been able to fly? It is a simple observation that makes a lot of sense.

Is that a man or a mouse I hear?
One who is not satisfied with the Utopia he lives in (compared to the basket case country, he probably came from). Well Utopia does not, and will never, exist my friend.
Anther lemon squesszer, I never said anything about pushing charity.

Yes carusmm the Editor made about as much sense as you asking "how the Holy Spirit made a microwave oven work".

Anyway I thought I'd finished you off.

You were mistaken, Peter.

Reform is a craft that must have none of the mindless violence which you exhibit, Peter.

The Editor probably expects his readers to have a brain as I do, Peter.

As for evidence, Peter, it is a matter of interpretation. However, I think that ours will stand up.

The violence is all in your imagination carusmm

Well if he expects that he must be a bit disappointed in you

The violence is a reality that you can't get away from, Peter.

Sorry if I used too many grown-up words for you, Peter. But at least you've confirmed that you have exactly nothing to say in response. I won't waste any more thought on you.

P.s. Non-denominational and Atheist, in terms of charitable organisations, are the same thing. If you were smart enough to understand what I wrote before you'd realise that.

Are non-denominational and atheist charity organisations the same thing, trulyfree?

I expect that you could mount a convincing argument either way, but in the case of the organisations Peter cited, "Oxfam, UNESCO etc", where he describes them as purposefully non-denominational, I would say that they are the same thing.

If the mission statement of the charity does not contain any mention of religion, if they were not established by a religious organisation and they do not do their good work in the name of God, then they are secular in nature. You could call this non-denominational, as Peter does, or atheist.

In this context I feel it is the same thing, despite being a somewhat unorthodox use of the term "non-denominational".

Submitted by trulyfree on Sat, 20/03/2010 - 22:33.
That doesn't even make sense, Peter. You are an intellectual coward. You've made a number of assumptions about what it means to be an Atheist and haven't bothered to find out if you're correct. What's more, you resort to ad hominem arguments because you're too shallow to put your limited world view on the line.

Let me disabuse you of a few of your dearly-held misconceptions. I then challenge you to offer any kind of considered response TO WHAT I HAVE SAID, with as many insults as you like afterwards, or beforehand if you prefer. But see if you can answer these points like an adult.

[I suppose after all this effort that you are deserving of a response]

1. Atheists do not claim to know that there is no God (as you claim to know that there is). We just do not believe it to be true, although we fully understand that we may be wrong. We accept that a supernatural being is one of a number of possible explanations for the existence of the universe. However, the fact that it exists as a possible answer does not make it true. It just means that someone thought of it. In addition, the fact that there are a number of possible explanations does not mean that they are all equally probable.

[I certainly do not, as you suppose, claim to know that there is a god, but I do claim to understand why and how people can believe in a deity in their lives]

2. We know that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, either scientifically, semantically or philosophically. It can be shown though that it highly improbable. However, it would very easy for God to prove his existence. (I am aware that this is contrary to ideas of faith without proof). But you cannot prove his existence with quotes from the Bible or arguments from higher authority, arguments from popularity or arguments from design. These arguments have all been shown to be fallacious regardless of the subject in dispute.

[Yes you are correct to know for certain that there is a God would undermine every principle of living by faith. And to that end I do not believe that Jesus himself knew for certain that there was a God and certainly not that God was his father, other than he likened us all as being the children of the creator. And of course the bible proves nothing except as carrier of the wisdom spoken in the name of Jesus, which I do fervently believe in.]

3. Atheism is not a religion. There is no godhead, no dogma, no requirement of faith without proof, no organised hierarchy, no worship (whatever you may think of our respect for Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al). We do not presume to dictate how others live their life or attempt to impose our morality on them. Further, science does not require faith and welcomes investigation, criticism and debate. Research which disproves a previously held theory is welcomed as progress. It is not considered heretical, as it is with religion, to question the accepted truth. Indeed, it is expected, and any scientist who attempts to mislead or falsify results loses all credibility within the scientific community and beyond. This is why we hold it dear.

[Acepted and let me say that I do not consider it heretical to question religious beliefs either, in fact I think it to be healthy to make fun of the precepts, as in "The Life Of Brian". In fact I believe that the biggest failing and why it induces poverty and backwardness is that Islam does not allow questioning and healthy fun making of it's dour beliefs.]

We do not suggest that we have all the answers. In fact, we know that there are many things we do not know and may be many things that we will never know. It doesn't stop us looking and we do not believe it makes sense to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a supernatural being. We accept that we can only know what we discover and show to be true through repeated examination and critical thinking. We believe that it makes sense to give credence to what the best available evidence tells us and we are well aware that things we now believe to be true may be proven otherwise in the future. This is why I do not consider it unreasonable that it was once believed that the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. Eventually, though, better information became available which showed that this wasn't true. Guess which organisation tried to quash this "heretical" new idea?

[It is good and commendable that you accept that you do not have all the answers and I can understand that to retain your standing as being separate from religion that your understanding cannot be extended to religion and the religeous]

4. We are not narrow-minded. You seem to have singularly failed to realise that many of us come from religious backgrounds. I went to Church of England schools and received many years of religious education. We have learned the history, heard the stories and enjoyed the songs. Some of us were probably believers for a long time. We have been in both camps so, by definition, we have a wider viewpoint than a lifelong religionist.

[Well what do we mean by narrow minded? I accept that many religious people are also narrow minded, but if you (or any group) is hemmed in by a defensive mechanism then it is inevitable that you must be narrow minded in some respects.]

5. We do not want to abolish religion. Despite its many failings, it has also contributed enormously to art, music and literature and is part of the rich history of our culture. This does not mean that it should be considered sacrosanct and immune to criticism. Nor does it have the right to legislate how people live their lives, unless they choose to subscribe to that particular religion's values, because it is simply one of many systems of belief. This means that religion has no place in government or in the science classroom. Remember that Christianity was once considered a dangerous cult. It was not always the largest religion on the world and it may not always be in the future. It is too riddled with inconsistencies to be taken seriously as the source of universal morality. That is not just my opinion and is easily proved by anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible.

[ Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that contribution that religion has played in the formation human society, but religion is only one part, even as we speak Humanism/Atheism is also effecting the way societies proceed into he future. Science is effected not by some 'magical' way but by the inspiration that come from all things including music, but who would say that music or art are not real, yet we do not know how they effect the world.]

That's all I have for now. Apart from the opening paragraph I have tried to be as factual and non-provocative as possible. I wait with bated breath to see if I will be met with measured replies or more personal attacks and circular reasoning.

[Sorry if my answers have been brief, but I have an aversion to long boring explanations] Excuse my typos for I am sure there are many.

I am experiencing an attack of deja vu, Ed, next I will be making up stories about eternal recurrence.

Thanks for that, Peter. It seems we may not disagree as violently as it first appeared.

Have I suddenly gone crazy or something? What the bloody hell is going on?! O, I get it, confusing.

I'm happy to get away from the insults - if Peter can be reasonable, so can I. I'll argue vigorously to defend my position but I'm not going to be bolshy on principle.

Peter,

We are privileged, where do we worship you? at the nearest temple?

Anyhow, 1. I am glad that you 'understand why and how people can believe in a deity in their lives' because I can't.

2. To hell with faith, give me conviction.

3. Marx ridiculed what he took seriously.

Also, understand your enemy; know your enemy.

4. Narrow-minded is the pedant.

5. Art moves us in our person; science, if it had a big enough lever, would move the world.

I am sorry, Peter, if I have tired you out. I know how hard it must be for you to think.

Oh Satan thou art but a dunce: William Blake
The Atheists, God bothered once
And sent their pleas towards the sky
But being thick, heard no reply
So knowing not' to do or say
In disappointment turned away
On hearing not they said; you'll see!
You'll get no more respect from me
In my life everything's up front
So bugger off you ethereal person

So beautiful, so true and so apt, yet, after so many days, there are no poetic responses.

Not Blake's best work, and you get a response when you say something worthy of one.

Blake never wrote that

I thought as much, but hadn't had time to check it out yet. I'm not even exactly sure what it's supposed to mean - something about God not talking to Atheists because they're thick? I wish I could understand it, but I guess I'm just too dull-witted.

The first line is Blake

Truly, my Satan, thou art but a dunce,
And dost not know the garment from the man;
Every harlot was a virgin once,
Nor canst thou ever change Kate into Nan.

Tho' thou art worship'd by the names divine
Of Jesus and Jehovah, thou art still
The Son of Morn in weary Night's decline,
The lost traveller's dream under the hill

That sounds more like him...

To Sally, a lament for the republic

"From amidst them forth he passed
Long way through hostile scorn, which he sustained
Superior, nor of violence feared aught;
And with retorted scorn his back he turned..."

With Milton, Orwell identified.

"He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." Psalm 91, 11

Will we ever know happiness?

The End