Following on from parts one and two, we have part three of this particular debate/discussion with Citizen Tom, who issued his latest post here. I’ll confess to needing to clarify what we’re meant to be debating, because I am no longer sure, so before I begin to examine his post in detail, I’ll put up my thoughts as to this thread.
Tom initially (from what I can gather) posted on this subject with this post, and went on to make a few other posts, and I wonder if in all the discussion/debate, we have become somewhat tangled in knots. I’ll try to explore what I consider to be the subject matter, then reply to Tom.
Worship tends to be considered to be a form of religious activity. It is associated with religious behaviours, such as prayer. Idolatry is defined as the worship of idols, and within say, Christian circles, idolatry is considered an affront to God, as the subject of idolatry is not God, and the Bible commands that no one shall worship anyone other than God. Worship outside of religious connotations does not involve ritual or prayer, and someone idolising say, a football player or movie star, isn’t venerating them as a deity. Context matters.
This context is important. Tom has argued (more than once) that since atheists ‘worship’ and ‘idolise’, atheism is a form of religious belief. I disagree. Atheists do not attend holy sites to perform holy gestures on a weekly basis. There is no book of atheism with detailed instructions on how to live. Some atheists might speak out, rather forcefully, on why they are atheists, but the religious are commanded to evangelise. Atheists do not knock on people’s doors, or stop people in the street. The religious do. The use of similar terms in respect of atheists and the religious does not equate to similar behaviour.
To consider it another way, Barabbas said in the comments of Tom’s site:
Don’t care how much they love stuff or God. Stuff isn’t idolatry, because they arent worshipping it as God. You are putting that context on it, not them for themselves. That’s why it’s so dishonest to do so.
To put it my way, the worship of God is different to someone saying they worship a film star. The film star is not being treated as God. It is not the same thing.
Whether or not any of that makes sense, I have no idea!
On to the meat of Tom’s post:
A picture of a lightbulb is often used to represent a person having a bright idea. Atheists think they have a bright idea, and many insist upon sharing it.
I don’t quite get Tom’s meaning with the opening, for it can just as easily be used to describe the religious. Indeed, on the basis of historical behaviours, it is more appropriate to apply it to the religious.
So, what is the problem? When Ben Berwick responded to the second sequel (The Worship of Idols P2), he focused on the meaning of words, trying to get across the idea that Atheism is not a religion. Why is that important?
Because of political agendas, widespread indifference, and confusion, we define the words ideology, religion, philosophy, and even science rather loosely. Atheists in particular, because many have political agenda, promote confusion over these words. Why? If your goal is to secularize the public square, especially education, then you have to get around the First Amendment.
What is a religion? What do all religions have in common? A religion is an ideology designed to answer the big questions in life (see WHAT DO ATHEISTS WORSHIP? — THE SECOND SEQUEL). Why is there confusion about this? The word religion (n.) goes back to 1200 A.D. There weren’t very many non-Christians, much less Atheists back then. However, words exist to help us communicate and live together in peace. When our language doesn’t allow us to properly communicate ideas, we have an increased probability of conflict.
I don’t believe that atheists as a group are organised with the intent of shaping how we define what religion is, or what science is. Atheists are a wildly disparate bunch, despite attempts to shove them into a box and categorise them. Nor do I believe there is any organised effort to ‘secularise’ the public arena.
With that in mind, consider the First Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.HTTPS://WWW.ARCHIVES.GOV/FOUNDING-DOCS/BILL-OF-RIGHTS-TRANSCRIPT#TOC-AMENDMENT-I
If Atheists can convince enough people that secularizing our society is rational and scientific and not a religious activity, then they can use the government to officially establish Atheism and drive other beliefs from the public square. That in fact has been happening. Anyone who has not noticed the rapid erosion of our cultural heritage is just too young to have couple of decades of perspective.
Contemplate in just a small way where Secularism is taking us.
- Marriage and the definition of the family. Will the state replace the family and parents in rearing of children? Will we allow our children to become guinea pigs for social experimentation? Are you ready to have your little child confused about his/her sex and then transgendered?
- The rising importance of victim/identity group one belongs to versus loss in the importance of the content of one’s character. What standard of justice will we use? Will we judge people based upon on their race, “sexual identity,” creed, wealth, social connections, and so forth, or will we judge people based upon their wisdom, integrity, and competence?
- Socialism. Will we protect the God-given rights of our people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or will we each become pawns in the hands of our overlords to grow the power of the state?
Tom might have to forgive me here, for I do not understand how any of this is relevant to the original subject at hand. I’m not going to dive into any of that here, and will move on a few paces…
Tom posts a few definitions of atheism, then this:
Many Atheists now want us to believe they have no belief about God, and Atheists insist that Agnostics are simply uncertain. Why? No one can prove God doesn’t exist, and it is common knowledge that it is blatantly illogical to assert God doesn’t exist. So, why don’t such Atheists just call themselves Agnostics? Good question. That is probably because in Greek the term “agnostic” means without knowledge, and few of us have such modesty. However, if we really don’t whether God exist, then we are ignorant of something that is profoundly important.
No one can prove God does exist. Even if proof of a supernatural deity turned up tomorrow, it would not automatically valid Christianity. It’s not logical to assert God’s existence, and I am not aware of this ‘common knowledge’ Tom insists is the case. Again, how much of this is actually relevant to whether or not atheists worship in the manner the religious worship?
This strikes me as clever wordplay, to imply atheism is a religious belief of sorts, but it isn’t. Atheists have no reason to believe in God, and agnostics are uncertain. That is the distinction. Different minds draw different conclusions from the evidence, and atheists have certainty that the observable universe and sum of human history do not require God. Agnostics lack the certainty. To be fair, there are overlapping areas. Some atheists reject the Christian version of God. They do not believe there is evidence to support the Bible being literal truth. They might not reject the idea of a deity completely. ‘Agnostic atheist’ might be a term to apply here.
Tom goes on to look at the term worship.
The origin of the term worship (n.) presents a problem similar to the problem we find with the term religion (n.). The term “worship” goes back to 1300 A.D. when few people were Atheists.
Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) “condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown,” from weorð “worthy” (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of “reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being” is first recorded c. 1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful “honorable” (c. 1300).FROM => HTTPS://WWW.ETYMONLINE.COM/SEARCH?Q=WORSHIP
However, consider one of the modern definitions of worship.
: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion| a celebrity worshipped by her fansHTTPS://WWW.MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM/DICTIONARY/WORSHIP
The first entry of a Google search asking for the definition of worship is from the Oxford Languages, one of the definitive dictionaries of the last 150 years.
noun
- 1.the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.”worship of the Mother Goddess”
- 2.BRITISHused in addressing or referring to an important or high-ranking person, especially a magistrate or mayor.”we were soon joined by His Worship the Mayor”
verb
- show reverence and adoration for (a deity).”the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods”
So, according to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, worship’s first association is with religious believes. It relates to a deity. This makes sense. Most people will associate worship with religious acts. Atheists do not perform regular acts of prayer and thus, do not worship in the same sense of the word. Therefore, under that particular set of criteria, atheism should not considered a religion.
When did Atheists become immune to regarding people or things with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion? If Atheists have no belief in God, then why would it bother an Atheist if they regarded a person or thing with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion? A Christian believes it a sin to worship a person or thing instead of God, but an Atheist? If Atheists have no belief in the divine, then materialism is all that is left to them.
I’m not aware of atheists being ‘bothered’ by regarding a regular human being with reverence. If an atheist is ‘bothered’ by anything, it’s the false notion that because they hold someone (or even something) in high regard, they to receive judgement from the religious for doing so, and receive false comparisons to religious behaviours. It doesn’t affect the religious if an atheist ‘worships’ (under a different format to religious worship, as we have already established) a celebrity. Why then, would the religious persist with a misleading narrative? For what purpose?
Is it to make the suggestion that atheists are nothing but materialistic creatures, and look down upon atheists as a result? I could say I ‘worship’ my wife, in the sense that I love and adore her. Does that make me materialistic, because I love my wife more than a god I am not sure I believe in? I hold my daughter in high regard, does that make me materialistic, because I love her more than a deity I cannot be sure exists?
One of the overall, developing themes here is judgement. The Christian preens, and behaves as though they are better than the atheists and agnostics of this world. They look down upon the atheists and agnostics, sneer at them, but can they claim to be better? In the end, is that not what these series are all about? Is Tom not seeking to demonstrate that atheists are inferior to Christians? Is this some sort of effort to paint atheists as the enemy? Perhaps that is where the remarks about secularism come from. Tom, and other Christians like him, would have us believe that secular ideals, practiced by atheists (as though atheists are some form of homogenous group, as opposed to a vast bunch of disparate individuals) are bad, and that they are part of an agenda to erode good, traditional societal values.
If we rewind for a moment…
- Marriage and the definition of the family. Will the state replace the family and parents in rearing of children? Will we allow our children to become guinea pigs for social experimentation? Are you ready to have your little child confused about his/her sex and then transgendered?
- The rising importance of victim/identity group one belongs to versus loss in the importance of the content of one’s character. What standard of justice will we use? Will we judge people based upon on their race, “sexual identity,” creed, wealth, social connections, and so forth, or will we judge people based upon their wisdom, integrity, and competence?
- Socialism. Will we protect the God-given rights of our people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or will we each become pawns in the hands of our overlords to grow the power of the state?
Marriage was a civil institution long before it was co-opted by the big religions. It was not created by Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or any other religion. Marriage was once a form of uniting families for political and financial power. It has changed over the centuries, to be focused more on love. We are, as a society, letting go of stigmas about unmarried couples and families, and about time too. The stuff about social experimentation? I see that as fear-mongering, without substance.
When it comes to how we judge others, what element of society is keener to judge along racial lines, or judge the LGBT community? Which element of society is opposing the teaching of true racial history, banning books, and fanning the flames of racial unrest?
The socialism remarks are quite interesting. Is it better to be wedded to a system that rips people off without restraint, for the sake of greed and profit, or is it better to try and help those in need? What would Jesus do?
Next, we come to evangelising.
So, what about that last word, “evangelize”? Let’s look at its origin.
late 14c., from Old French evangeliser “to spread or preach the Gospel,” and directly from Church Latin evangelizare, from Greek euangelizesthai (see evangelist). Related: Evangelized; evangelizingHTTPS://WWW.ETYMONLINE.COM/SEARCH?Q=EVANGELIZE&REF=SEARCHBAR_SEARCHHINT
Atheists don’t have their own “good news” or Gospel. Atheists don’t have organizations (check out
Category:Atheist organizations or just do a search on Atheist organizations), effectively churches, spreading their own “good news.” Of course, they do.
Do the same search for Christian organisations, and you get over 500 pages of results. That’s not considering how many Churches, cathedrals, and other holy buildings exist, all around the world (indeed, the number of Churches in the USA alone would dramatically outstrip the number of global atheist organisations). Do these atheist organisations go out and spread the word, knocking on people’s doors, or approaching people in the street? Does Tom believe they have a unified Gospel that every atheist shares, and swears to every morning? There’s a stark difference here. These organisations are disparate in their practices, and I am willing to bet they have various takes on various topics. The much higher number of Christian institutions will quite literally sing from the same hymn sheet.
Since Ben Berwick is fairly thorough, he addressed scatterwisdom‘s comment in his post. scatterwisdom addressed the topic of evangelism quite well, here it is.
Tom,- Ben Berwick
Perhaps this following quote and excerpt that may help Ben better understand Tom’s argument that atheism is a religion.
Quote -You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do. – Carl Gustav Jung It is important to acknowledge the fact that our actions define us and not our choices.
Excerpt – Atheism in Practice
Atheism fits many theoretical definitions of religion, and it is also practiced like other religions. In daily conversation, atheism is equated with other religions. When asked, “Are you a Christian?” most atheists will respond with “No, I’m an atheist.” Atheist, then, becomes a religious label just like “No, I’m a Buddhist.”
Atheists also evangelize, though they do not want to use that word to describe their conversion attempts. “Evangelize” is most commonly used in relationship to Christianity, but it can be used to describe other religion’s attempts to gain converts, and atheism aggressively seeks to create new converts. Many atheists feel a sense of obligation or desire to “open people’s eyes” to what they see as the folly of other religions.
There is no difference between an atheist attempting to get a Jew to admit there is no God and a Christian seeking to get a Hindu to denounce the idea of reincarnation. Both people are trying to convert a person from one belief system to another. Atheists’ conversion attempts are also blatantly religious because they are focused on beliefs about and in God.
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/secular-philosophies/is-atheism-a-religion.aspx
Regards and goodwill blogging.FROM => HTTPS://CITIZENTOM.COM/2023/02/03/WHAT-DO-ATHEISTS-WORSHIP-THE-SECOND-SEQUEL/#COMMENT-107390
So, let’s try the Duck Test: “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Atheists have their own answers to the big questions about life. — Walks like a duck.
- Where did I come from? => EVOLUTION.
- Who am I? => AN ACCIDENT
- Why am I here? => WHY DO I WANT TO BE HERE? IT IS UP TO ME.
- How should I live? => AS I CHOOSE.
- Where am I going? => IT DOESN’T MATTER (until it does).
HTTPS://WWW.LINKEDIN.COM/PULSE/5-BIG-QUESTIONS-LIFE-STEPHEN-GRAVES-1C
Atheists worship people and things related to stuff, sex, science, state, and self. — Looks like a duck.
Atheists promote their ideas and beliefs about stuff, sex, science, state, and self. That is, they evangelize. — Quacks like a duck.
It’s a religion. — It’s a duck.
I don’t know why Tom is so determined to present atheism as a religion.
Asking philosophical questions does not make one religious. Anyone can ask those questions.
Atheists don’t worship people, or stuff, in the way the religious worship deities, so no, not a duck here.
Atheists don’t preach from a unified code or gospel. I have never seen atheists on the corner of the street with placards invoking texts from sacred documents. I have never been approached by atheists to ask me questions, or to try and convert me. I never been invited to an atheist holy building. Not a duck there.
So, no, atheism is not a religion. I’m curious to know why it’s so important to Tom that it’s treated as one.
2
0
20
Tom (and some others) seem to have a need to proclaim Atheism to be a ‘religion’. I’m not sure why they are obsessed with that fiction. To read Tom’s definitions, he appears to think that literally no human is incapable of having a ‘religious belief’. Which of course allows him to continue to prop up his chosen faith as superior, in his estimation anyway.
That could be it. Honestly, I have no idea why it matters so much to him. Maybe it’s just beyond him that some people don’t believe in a deity, and he can’t comprehend that what’s perfectly logical to him is completely illogical to others?
The hierarchy of religious superiority has long been a source of entertainment to me. ‘It’s mad not to believe in God!’. OK then, what version of what God? Because there are numerous versions of Christianity, and they all proclaim to have the truth. That’s before we even start to look at other religions. What’s more likely to be literally true, the Biblical origins of the human race, or Sikh, Hindu or even Ancient Greek and Roman tales?
I’m not saying there’s nothing out there, but the idea that one religion has a perfectly rational, logical explanation for our origins, whilst the others are all wild fantasies, all whilst trying to tear down the scientific study that debunks all the origin stories… its pretty absurd to me.
I’m also intrigued by the notion that Atheists evangelize their lack of religious belief. This coming from someone who’s dogma compels one to proselytize……
I don’t know what Tom thinks takes place in atheist and humanist centres. Does he think everyone sits in pews, says a quick atheist chant or prayer, break bread and perform other holy rites? Does he believe atheists work as a united organisation, all working towards the same goal in respect of civil establishments? He bemoans the ‘secularisation’ of public services, particularly education, as being an example of this alleged atheist plot. Yet in what way are atheists conspiring to manipulate education systems to their own ends? By teaching the scientific, evidence-backed theory of evolution? By not discriminating against non-Christians? Tom appearsto be think public services should bend to Christianity. If they don’t, that’s unfair and biased. Well, if he wants to send his kids to a private Christian school, he has that option. His rights are catered for. He could always home-school too.
At his age home-schooling is probably off the table. Unless he had ideas of running a Sunday School?
See my latest post. https://citizentom.com/2023/02/07/what-do-atheists-worship-the-last-sequel/
I explain my practical concerns in the last post. If you didn’t get it then, I suppose won’t get it this time. But the notion Atheist don’t evangelize is just plain silly.
Well then, colour me silly Tom.
@Tom
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelize
evangelize
verb
evan·ge·lize i-ˈvan-jə-ˌlīz
evangelized; evangelizing
Synonyms of evangelize
transitive verb
1
: to preach the gospel to
2
: to convert to Christianity
intransitive verb
: to preach the gospel
Therefore your assertion is incorrect. This would suggest you are either ignorant or disingenuous.
So, if I switch to the word “proselytize” you are okay with that?
When it is quite clear what is meant, all you guys are doing is arguing against imperfect word choices. Just because the words are imperfect doesn’t mean the argument is wrong.
We are supposed to believe you are a special kind of Atheist or Nontheist who does not evangelize or proselytize? And your blogs are just journals of your thoughts, and you don’t care whether anyone reads them?
When people say one thing and do another, what do we call them? You got the perfect word?
As I said in one of my posts, context is important Tom. Do you believe atheists discussing atheism is a form of evangelising? To evangelise is defined as converting someone to Christianity, no doubt through various proclamations, correct? To proselytize is a better term, but still, can it actually be used as part of an argument to persuade us atheism is a form of religion?
Well, I would argue no. proselytizing is not a religious act, for it covers various fields. Politicians proselytize to convince people to switch from one party to another. Someone may proselytize (IE argue, discuss, debate) to convince someone to switch from petrol cars to electric ones.
I will answer your question if you answer mine. Are Buddhism and Communists Atheistic? Do they spread their religious beliefs by proselytizing (and/or by force, when we speak of Communists). Is it your belief that spreading Atheism is by definition a nonreligious act? That is the corner, after all, you are painting yourself into.
Buddhism entails a great deal of spiritual belief, including an afterlife. Atheism does not. Communism is a political ideology, not a religious one.
Is your over-arcing suggestion that talking about atheism makes it a religion? In that case, would that not make any subject of discussion a religion?
LOL!
You say there are different varieties of Atheist. And there are. Atheists don’t all believe the same thing. Then you turn right around and isolate yourself into a special group, proclaiming, supposedly not proselytizing, just how special you are. And there is a surprising amount of conformity within that special group.
Erm, in what way did I do anything you just implied? Is it because I said atheists don’t believe in an afterlife? That’s a pretty epic nitpick Tom.
Here is a bit of logic for you. If there was ever a time nothing ever existed, then nothing is now. Since Atheists don’t believe in a Creator, then Atheists must believe the universe is in some sense eternal.
Many Buddhists don’t believe in God, but they do believe in Nirvana, whatever that is. They think in some sense there is an afterlife. In an eternal universe, why not?
These Buddhists are Atheists, just not your kind of Atheists. To me the distinction you want to make is one of little difference.
Ah, the First Cause argument. I submit that just because we don’t understand how the universe came into being *now*, that does not mean there is no scientific answer to be found. From a religious perspective, there are so many competing versions of the creation narrative, who are we to choose? What makes your story better than the story of Hinduism, or Sikhism, or that of Native Americans?
Everything else is semantics. Atheists don’t believe in a afterlife, Buddhists, by your own acknowledgement, do. You are desperate to paint the lack of belief as being a religion, why does it matter so much to you to do so?
I was not trying to prove God exists. I was showing that what the Buddhist believe makes as much sense as what you believe, and it is still Atheistic.
Did not expect my argument to convince you. It is so sad! You don’t want to embrace your Buddhist Atheist brothers and sisters because their faith in godlessness is not pure enough for you.
Just like every other religion, Atheism has its traditions, and those traditions are splintered into sects. However, you think Atheism looks so different from Christianity that it can’t be a religion. Look at Paganism. The differences are frighteningly small.
Why make the First Cause argument at all then?
Sorry Tom, but your position is based upon some very unique interpretations that don’t add up. Buddhism involves specific beliefs, rituals, prayers, and the existence of the afterlife. Atheism does not. Your idea that the two are separated by minor differences is a fantasy, whether from dishonesty or ignorance, I do not yet know. I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt for now.
I will also come back to the question I asked last time. Why is it so important for you to consider atheism a religion?
Atheism is a religion, and that truth has practical significance. I explained that in my post, but you want to say something different, I suppose.
The truth matters. Because what we each believe about God drives our purpose and shapes our morality, the truth about God is supremely important.
The fact that you and other Atheists are very defensive about the definition of Atheism shows that your belief is highly important to you, but Atheist don’t want to call belief a religion. Yet, Atheists treat Atheism like it is their religion, which it is, of course.
Do Christians think Mormons are Christians? Do Christian think Islam is related to Christianity? We don’t agree with the way those religions characterize God, but we don’t get offended when faiths that differ from ours when they too are classified as religions. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot stand to have Atheism in the same category as any other religious belief, and that is just plain weird.
The truth does matter Tom, but I don’t believe you are telling it. You are engaging in semantics and making some very loose connections, to pursue your atheist bogeyman. You have labelled me an atheist, yet you never actually asked if I was one. Your assumptions, and superficial connections, are your own, but don’t confuse them for any form of objective truth.
I’m not offended by your mislabelling of atheism, I’m baffled by it. You think atheists behave like Christians. They don’t. That is quite obvious Tom.
Perhaps make a better effort to understand what atheism *actually* is. I for one have no time for this. Tomorrow, I’m at a family funeral. I won’t waste any more of tonight on why you think a lack of belief equates to a belief, but knock yourself out on your own site.
I don’t think Atheists and Christians behave the same way because we affirm different beliefs. I think we all have religious beliefs.
Does a lack of belief equate to a belief? Here is an example. What if I lacked a belief in your humanity? How do you think I would behave towards you?
Therein lies the rub Tom. When it comes to the key cornerstones of religion (supernatural belief, which applies to Buddhism too, as you know, and in the majority of cases, belief in a deity, along with numerous prayers, rituals, such as the offering of the blood of Christ, regular, weekly, perhaps even daily prayer, unwavering belief in resurrection stories and similar events)… in what way is atheism similar to these things? I’ll leave you with that thought.
Proselytise is certainly a better choice but it isn’t a truly accurate description.
When you use the phrase “special kind of atheist” are you making that personal or general?
I don’t try to convince people to be atheists.
I do, however, support the fact that the tenets of religious belief are founded in supernatural crap that have no basis in fact and will actively engage those who I come in contact with who promote such I also garbage. I also assert that religion is divisive, dehumanising, degrading and a bane on society, and when indoctrinated into children is, I consider, to be considered child abuse.
In its more extreme forms religion is militant, highly political and demonstrably life threatening to the point of causing actual loss of life.
Therefore, while I do not advocate for any laws prohibiting religion at all I do wish there were active programs at grass root level to educate people to enable them to see that such beliefs are divisive and counterproductive and no longer necessary for humanity to thrive and develop as a species.
See =>
https://meerkatmusings.co.uk/worship-and-idols-p3/#comment-90791.
Debating you is like weeding a garden that has not been tended for months. You are so busy spewing insults it is difficult to find anything worth discussing.
If you were able to peer out beyond your blinding red theological red mist you might be able to try.
Very well said.
@Tom.
You asked:
Are Communism and Buddhism atheistic?
For the record:
Communism is an economic system atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
So, in short, no.
Buddhism in the strictest sense does not recognise a creator god but is also not atheistic.
https://bschawaii.org/shindharmanet/atheism/
Hope this helps clarify your understanding?
Communism is an economic system where the vanguard of the proletariat punishes those who believe in God, and Buddha had no belief about God, but he was not an Atheist.
Where can I buy the equipment I need to split hairs that fine? LOL!
Buddha had no belief in a creator god.
Did you read the helpful link I posted for you?
I am pleased that at least the first part of your opening sentence we are in agreement.
Odd though it may seem, the Chinese government, while it is atheist, does recognise a number of religions, even though it exercises a considerable amount of control,or so I’ve read.
As a professional hairdresser we tend to try to prevent split hairs so on this score I can’t help you Tom, sorry old boy.
You can’t split hairs? Seems like you have a natural talent. Hard to share that sort of thing.
Your link doesn’t add anything we didn’t already know. Look at your own definition of an Atheist. Then look at Buddha’s. Cannot tell them apart.
So, you think the Chinese tolerant. Why am I not surprised?
There is an old joke. “I am from the government, and I am here to help.” If you want to practice your own religion in China, the last thing you want is for the government to help you. It is even worst than the kind of problem Christian parents have when American Secularists use the government to “help” them.
Ark,
Whilst I appreciate your passion, I feel that your post went over the line. Criticising Tom’s positions is one thing, but this felt extreme to me. You might disagree with that, which is your right, but I am aware you and Tom have exchanged some heated words in the past, and please note, this site is not a forum for that to continue.
Fair enough. Your blog, your rules. Remove it if you feel it is inappropriate. No problems.
Thank you for understanding.
Again, no probs.
After many years of dealing with these god botherers who will use any and all means to drag the atheist down to their level of religious idiocy I tend to get a little acerbic.
Besides, having some fun at their expense is often more enjoyable these days than trying to have a rational adult conversation as you may already have realised.
Have you encountered Colorstorm yet?
Always bear in mind, according to the Christian, you cannot possibly be right, you are an atheist because you simply want to sin, and if they can’t convert you they will condemn you or at least your actions, as a warning to others.
The hairs on the back of my neck just rose. I think Jesus may be looking over my shoulder!
My experience with fundamentalist Christians has certainly been illuminating, but I try to distinguish between the fundies and the moderates. All Christians will share certain traits (as will anyone who is religious), but my direct, personal experience of what I consider moderates has usually been quite pleasant. The Church of England establishment where I got married featured some of the loveliest, kindest people I’ve ever had the privilege of knowing. I may not share or agree with their beliefs, but to me, they represent a good side to Christianity.
The fundies spoil it, as any fundie spoils anything. I believe there is such a thing as militant atheism, and this gives atheists a bad name. It shouldn’t, for such atheists are in the minority, but it happens all the same.
We have to self-police to an extent, lest we become the very thing we oppose.
The type of Moderate Christian you describe practices what I would term cultural Christianity rather than any serious religious belief and certainly not the rabid nonsense one encounters on the internet, or the frothing at the mouth American-style televangelist …ye haw!
I was Christened in the C of E and married in a Catholic Cathedral. I never gave religion more than a hat tip, even though we said the Lord’s prayer at assembly and blared out Jerusalem as well as go to Sunday School. ( Didn’t we all?) Everyone I have ever known is either atheist or merely an indifferent Christian.
If you read my latest reply to Tom that pretty much sums up my position.
Btw, you mention you married CofE.
Have you raised your kids Christian?
We haven’t raised our daughter to be religious, though she does go to a Catholic school (that has to take on non-Catholics to a degree). We are content to let her forge her own path.
My kids attended a Marist brothers college here in Johannesburg.
They were not raised religious but still went through confirmation weirdly enough. According to my wife it was simply the done thing.
Bear in mind I had not yet encountered the likes of Tom so I was ambivalent toward religion.
You have a filthy habit of importing words that your interlocutor has not employed.
I said the Chinese government recognised a number of religions. I do not know how tolerant the Chinese are or to what extent they tolerate these religions, or how much leeway they are given. I have read that
Muslims have been afforded short shrift at times.
Seriously Tom, why you find it necessary to continue to behave like a toady disingenious arse is beyond me?
Perhaps playing the part of the curmudgeonly old bastard is a role you feel suits you best?
On this score I could not possibly disagree.
However, it does absolutely zip to strengthen your already wilfully ignorant and somewhat pathetic case.