Tony Blair attacks atheism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sort of back to the OP I was quite happy scorning god before I decided to become an atheist .Now I just scorn a belief in god .It makes little difference but now I have rational science on my side .We cannot prove there is no God but I still know jehovah is a liar and a bully.I tend respond badly when threatened

If God suddenly appeared and PROVED his existence I still wouldn't worship him, his "works" are those of a total dick.

[Feck]

Sort of back to the OP I was quite happy scorning god before I decided to become an atheist .Now I just scorn a belief in god .It makes little difference but now I have rational science on my side .We cannot prove there is no God but I still know jehovah is a liar and a bully.I tend respond badly when threatened

If God suddenly appeared and PROVED his existence I still wouldn't worship him, his "works" are those of a total dick.

+1

[Elessarina]

How I wish somebody would assassinate that useless cunt.

I'd like to hit his head with an iron bar - and keep hitting until the point where only a forensic scientist could tell you it ever was a head to begin with.

You are now my mum's hero, she wants to watch

[camoguard]

I see what Blair is doing slightly differently, I think he's sacrificing up a minority in order to get cooperation happening among the majority. Technically, it's not an unintelligent strategy. The problem of course is that's my minority their banding against.

[Rum]

When New Labour came to power I fell for the charm and the smile and many of the ideas. It is easy to forget how awful the previous decade and a half had been. At the time, being a pretty left wing labour supporter I reckoned it was the only way that a political agenda with a socialist slant stood a chance of getting voted in.

Since then I think that Blair has come to exemplify the definition of the word 'hubris'. And if you want to know that definition it is: -n 1. hubris - overbearing pride or presumption arrogance, haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, lordliness - overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

..it is usually associated with a catastrophic downfall..Here's hoping.

[devogue]

When New Labour came to power I fell for the charm and the smile and many of the ideas. It is easy to forget how awful the previous decade and a half had been. At the time, being a pretty left wing labour supporter I reckoned it was the only way that a political agenda with a socialist slant stood a chance of getting voted in.

Since then I think that Blair has come to exemplify the definition of the word 'hubris'. And if you want to know that definition it is: -n 1. hubris - overbearing pride or presumption arrogance, haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, lordliness - overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

..it is usually associated with a catastrophic downfall..Here's hoping.

I'm afraid the cunt will die peacefully in his bed at a ripe old age surrounded by his family.

People like him always get away with it.

[charlou]

Okay, floppit, I see you said the word 'secularist', as mentioned in the op ... you're right, it doesn't appear in the speech ...

Still, the implication of what is said seems to be that faith is a 'force for good' and secularism is in opposition to that, ie a 'force for evil'.

I'm less sure of that, not that I'm saying he doesn't think it just that he didn't say it. He says that he 'sees' the good faith can do, which is absolutely a subjective comment but not one dressed as factual, when something is prefixed with 'I think' or even 'I see' it refers to individual perception and in that sense I cannot disagree - I believe he does 'see' that, I believe he 'sees' what he seeks to see. In addition he isn't playing the whole good versus evil thing as religion versus secularism, he refers also to the infighting in religion as a significant challenge to it's survival, he also says it's wrong. Putting thse 2 issues together makes it strained to then argue his suggestion is as simple as religion = good, secularism = bad.

Those who scorn God" ... meaning secularists/atheists ... Well that's just plain wrong. We don't scorn something we don't even have a belief in.

Great then he doesn't mean us, I'm sure someone somewhere scorns god. But in addition the whole quote reads:

Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion.

So it is not the atheists set against believers it is two views of faith he believes do it no favours. And to be fair, we have at times done a little scorning.... FSM? He doesn't suggest these views of faith are evil, he suggests they will not further the cause of faith.

That aside, what Blair means there is those who scorn 'good', again implying secularists/atheists are a force for evil. The whole thing is all about how faith is required for morality and the challenge is to confront immorality in the form of secularism/atheism and religious extremism.

Ok - but try to find a quote for that because I can't. What I can find is a man who has a declared faith saying what he would LIKE to see faith mean, and what he believes he has 'seen' as possible.

Now for the gloves off bit.

I believe in democracy based on informed choice so the last thing I would want to happen is for politicians to keep quiet about issues like faith. There's no surprise to me that a self declared believer thinks faith is good - hardly new, hardly mindblowing. What is surprising to me (and positive) is that he has come out with an opinion equally unpalatable to many believers as it is to non believers, and he has done so in advance of the opportunity for political power a second time around. Last time I think he kept much quieter until voted in which I have far more issue with than declaring views in advance. If this was an attack, and I can find no direct attack on atheists - but I can find direct attack on fundamental believers:

We are people of faith. We see how faith shapes our lives and the lives of others. We watch, in sadness, as it is abused to do wrong.

Last of all this was from the start a religious address to religious listeners. That context matters, it gives him the right to say 'We are people of faith' without it excluding atheists because it was a religious conference!

Sorry but, I think him going to war was pants, turning the Labour movement into a right wing enterprise is pants, his belief in god is pants and much much more but that speech is at the least open and was certainly critical of how religion is used by people who believe, more so than it was of atheists.

Can't argue with any of that, and I think that it's not only preferable but imperative that a politician's theistic position as it relates to his/her agenda is declared and open to scrutiny and criticism.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I was not aware
that Tony Blair
had any care
about us atheists.