Atheist Billboard Vandalized

[Griffin NoName]

Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying.  She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument. 

Yes, I've had "assisted dying" in the back of my mind throughout this debate. I was remembering the disabled Lady whosit who clobbered the most recent debate on assisted dying in the House of Lords on the basis that she could speak for all disabled people and that they are all scared they will be done away with. I remember beiing really angry, as someone with a disability, that she claimed to be speaking for me.

As for those who believe the Bible to be absolute truth and fact, it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can believe a book of stories written by homo sapiens (even if based on some actual events). Do they also believe in Peter Pan? Alice in Wonderland? I have a real problem understanding how such a cult ever managed to grip the populace. But then, I wouldn't join a cult.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland weren't written by a god through man.

It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying.  She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument.  But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion.  She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'.   Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on.  The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public.  We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning.  Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]

Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with: Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion.  I know we've had this discussion before...    ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.

In addition, the views of any person known to be political should be discounted in any religious discussion whatsoever.

I'd rather have the beliefs-as-a-foundation-of-rational-thought laid out there (Swato's mandated disclosure of interest), and be allowed to weight it accordingly.   I'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position.  What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality*. The old chestnut of Assuming The Bible is the Literal Truth, The Earth is 4000 Years Old applies here; there is far too much hot air produced trying to find pseudoscientific explanations to why consensus science is 'wrong' amongst that crowd.

_{*I dabble outside of objective consensus reality at times, but I am well aware that anything in this sphere is miles away from rationality, and try to mix the two as little as possible - rational arguments likewise don't help to explain the irrational.}

^ this.

[Sibling DavidH]

If I were engaged in one of these debates I would be entirely happy to be announced as a rabid atheist.  My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.

But when someone like Odone is campaigning on one of these issues, the public needs to know that her basic motivation is religious.  If not, she would seem to be one of a group of unprejudiced opposers putting forward a few rational - if weak - arguments.  I'd bet a fair bit that if you discounted all the faith-heads from these campaigns there'd be very few objectors left.

I'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position.  What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality.

Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same.  Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.

[Aggie]

Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same.  Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.

[Griffin NoName]

Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland weren't written by a god through man.

Yes, my post was begging this answer. But how do you know they weren't? 

Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same.  Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.

[Sibling DavidH]

My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.

Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written.  I hope it is. 

[Griffin NoName]

My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.

Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written.  I hope it is. 

This cannot have arisen by accident. It must be Intelligent Design.

[The Meromorph]

My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.

Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written.  I hope it is. 

This cannot have arisen by accident. It must be Intelligent Design.

You seriously want to characterize that as Intelligent Design?

[Aggie]

My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.

Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written.  I hope it is. 

Looks par for the course, for me (but you've left out some parentheses*). 


_{*and a footnote}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with: Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion.  I know we've had this discussion before...    ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.

Not surprisingly, rational people can be quite emotional at times.

As a rational person it is my belief that any argument should be based and judged by it's own rationality. Weak arguments should be shown as weak, and counted/discounted possibilities should be measured in a reasonable fashion. Obviously there will always be debate on the way to measure reason ("you can't prove a negative", etc, etc), but reasonable people should be able to discuss the matter in a reasonable way even while disagreeing.

At this point in my life I see the Abrahamic religions in a very negative light, to the point of questioning if the good values that come from them really offset what to me is the incredible damage that they cause, but I as an individual have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge the individual beliefs of someone else even if I find them misguided, naive, or plain wrong. What I can judge are the actions that those who believe (and those who don't) take, but more importantly, the actions of those who proclaim themselves as spokespersons for said belief.

If an atheist goes around burning churches, or worse, justifying the burning of churches, I feel entitled to denounce said behavior, on the same token, if a so-called religious individual justifies or worse, causes harm because his/her beliefs then I also feel as entitled to denounce said actions.

So far I've been preaching to the choir here, but what I'm trying to say is something that has been said before also, that is, criticizing radical atheists is quite easy, Dawkings may be seen as an unapologetic radical, but to my knowledge* he hasn't advocated violence against believers. On the other hand believers not only do this quite frequently, but they are quite willing to intervene in the name of their beliefs, from preventing contraception to killing doctors.

If a non believer makes fun of believers it is considered offensive but I frankly don't hear the opposite as much (the classic "you're going to hell" comes to mind).

I guess I'm saying that while it may be misguided, non believers may be entitled to some vitriol.

*please let me know if he has.

[Sibling DavidH]

As a rational person it is my belief that any argument should be based and judged by it's own rationality. Weak arguments should be shown as weak, and counted/discounted possibilities should be measured in a reasonable fashion.

Absolutely.  If the anti-this-and-that pressure groups can put up some rational arguments, then those arguments are as valid as if anyone else had voiced them.  What gets me angry is that these groups play down their religious bias as much as possible because they know it will weaken their cause.  Plain sneaky.  Of course, this doesn't weaken their rational arguments but I believe their motivations ought to be made plain.

This is why I got so cross with the dreadful Cristina Odone - again!  She wants to stop me from having a dignified and painless death when my heart-attack or stroke hits, which statistically could be any time now, probably quite soon.  She really wants to do this to pacify some nonexistent sky-fairy, but she tries to keep that part quiet.

I long ago registered my 'living will' to stop the doctors keeping me alive as a vegetable, but they can't actively kill me.  It's therefore quite possible that they'll end up withdrawing food and water and my end will be unimaginably awful.  God will love that. 

[Griffin NoName]

Does one have to believe in G-d to believe in the sanctity of life?

[Sibling DavidH]

I suppose not (if you'd pick another term for sanctity) but the fact is that Odone is a Christian, like so many of her fellow campaigners, and now again they admit that this is what really motivates them.  The basic point is that they want to control my behaviour because the great sky-fairy tells them to.

[Griffin NoName]

I suppose not (if you'd pick another term for sanctity) but the fact is that Odone is a Christian, like so many of her fellow campaigners, and now again they admit that this is what really motivates them.  The basic point is that they want to control my behaviour because the great sky-fairy tells them to.

It was a general question, I wasn't thinking of Odone.

I share your frustration? with the Odones of this world. I feel strongly about choosing my own death and the fact that I can't. I'm a member of Dignity in Dying to that end but fear their efforts will not bear fruition in my lifetime. Another fear is that my living will would not be actioned as there'd be no one to bring it to the attention of the medical staff. Given my medical history, I have given all this a good deal of thought.

one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.

That would be lovely-- if you could ask a potential human, what sort of parents they would desire?

Since belief in the supernatural is not innate, nor an instinct?

Within a few generations, you'd see a marked decline in religions....