Atheist or anti-theist

[floppit]

You seem to be suggesting that because there is a danger of 'radical atheism' resulting in the Tibetan 'experience' (and here is a case of the political and 'religious' being very blurred) we should not therefore be 'too' radical.

I think there is an element of risk if one thinks spanning centuries rather than decades - but only because I see 'us' as human.

People seem to be able to find any number of motivations, religious and non-religious, to go loopy and justify violence, but anti- atheism doesn't necessarily require violence ultimately any more than anti-vivisection does.

Violence is certainly not required, and yet, once an entrenched position has been taken, one divorced from discussion violence becomes more not less likely. Anti vivisection is a really good example, it has a reasoned side regarding cosmetics and even a possible genuine cause re medicine but one that needs more discussion - however once a line is crossed and anti vivisection becomes anti vivisectionist there are some clear issues that run parallel and hardly advertise it as a wise step forward!

I don't back off from militancy because of a fear that if 'I' joined the cause it would all result in mass murder (yeah - I know you din't mean it like that) or even because I fear ultimately mass murder will result from the cause. It is more I want (personally) to find a wiser way through life and just do my best not to fall into inviting holes, and militancy is inviting, there's a club, the membership means 'I' become part of the 'we' that are right, there's comradeship and even wealth and power to be had in some cases. I think it's hard work not to get caught up in and that, rather than the fear of becoming murderous, is what motivates my caution.

Had the title of this thread been 'anti theism' I'd certainly have had less to say!

[Hermit]

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Ok, so it is not only religion that makes good people do bad things, but it certainly one factor, and it is this factor that makes me an anti-theist.

I have to say, that wasn't really what I was thinking in terms of 'evidence'.

Floppit, I have read many of your posts here and at RDF with interest and appreciation, but this one was not at all a reply to you. Your previous reaction to what I said earlier in this thread caused me to decide not to engage in a discussion on this issue, and that is about as gently as I can think of expressing myself about what I think of it.

[floppit]

The national curriculum requires 'religious worship' in schools. I have never challenged that and I feel I should (I would lose of course as things stand). Just one example.

Regarding this, I was listening to a really good speaker on the radio the other day - can't remember who or what the smeg I was listening to, but I don't want it to sound like my idea 'cos it wasn't!

The speaker was addressing how to get around religious influence in schools and argued for using our wits, he noticed that while some hold fundamentalist views (may as well give up on persuading them!) there were a mass of people with only mild religion and for this mass there's an excellent in route. People not obsessed with religion simply don't notice when it clashes with reason, they often don't actually read religious texts, the don't know that calling themselves a christian should preclude belief in evolution at any level, they just don't have their eye on that ball - more bothered with the dinner guest list and the school's place on league tables! Because of this the speaker was suggesting we stop telling them and just get on with getting a good education in place - in other words putting stuff in rather than fighting endlessly to take stuff out. It was an argument based on pragmatism alone, no moral high ground just to pragmatically use ignorance to get more reasoning into schools.

Out of interest as a Education Officer - could you use this, could you keep shoving reasoning in via the back door and under the middle class scarf obsessed culture's noses?

[floppit]

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Ok, so it is not only religion that makes good people do bad things, but it certainly one factor, and it is this factor that makes me an anti-theist.

I have to say, that wasn't really what I was thinking in terms of 'evidence'.

Floppit, I have read many of your posts here and at RDF with interest and appreciation, but this one was not at all a reply to you. Your previous reaction to what I said earlier in this thread caused me to decide not to engage in a discussion on this issue, and that is about as gently as I can think of expressing myself about what I think of it.

Would you do me the courtesy of saying why? If I have been offensive I would like to know. I can make mistakes as much as anyone but if I've crossed the line and attacked a person rather than an argument I will be the first to say sorry. It's not my intention to be rude, blunt maybe but not rude and even the bluntness I do try to keep to what's said rather than the speaker.

Like I said I make mistakes but I would like to know what has offended you.

[Rum]

The national curriculum requires 'religious worship' in schools. I have never challenged that and I feel I should (I would lose of course as things stand). Just one example.

Regarding this, I was listening to a really good speaker on the radio the other day - can't remember who or what the smeg I was listening to, but I don't want it to sound like my idea 'cos it wasn't!

The speaker was addressing how to get around religious influence in schools and argued for using our wits, he noticed that while some hold fundamentalist views (may as well give up on persuading them!) there were a mass of people with only mild religion and for this mass there's an excellent in route. People not obsessed with religion simply don't notice when it clashes with reason, they often don't actually read religious texts, the don't know that calling themselves a christian should preclude belief in evolution at any level, they just don't have their eye on that ball - more bothered with the dinner guest list and the school's place on league tables! Because of this the speaker was suggesting we stop telling them and just get on with getting a good education in place - in other words putting stuff in rather than fighting endlessly to take stuff out. It was an argument based on pragmatism alone, no moral high ground just to pragmatically use ignorance to get more reasoning into schools.

Out of interest as a Education Officer - could you use this, could you keep shoving reasoning in via the back door and under the middle class scarf obsessed culture's noses?

On the first point - I don't think this will do. Just because most people more or less ignore the (large) amount of bullshit that is simply part of their environment (think hymns, readings, carols, Easter pictures, school Christmas plays and the 101 things with a religious context that happen pretty much every day) that go in in schools we should ignore them. They are part of the lives of children and influence them. (To counter my own argument for a moment, some of it might actually be positive..unintended consequences etc). - but I don't think it excusable as it means kids and dealing with bullshit nonsense a lot of the school lives. What sort of message does that send?

As to the second point - my areas of responsibility don't sadly include an opportunity to challenge this directly. I deal with 'access to education' i.e. those kids who struggle to engage with education and the school response to that issue. However I would challenge verbally any individual teacher if I was in a position to do so. As it stands the religious worship element is all but built in constitutionally into the curriculum. It isn't going to change officially for a long long time.

[floppit]

On the first point - I don't think this will do. Just because most people more or less ignore the (large) amount of bullshit that is simply part of their environment (think hymns, readings, carols, Easter pictures, school Christmas plays and the 101 things with a religious context that happen pretty much every day) that go in in schools we should ignore them. They are part of the lives of children and influence them. (To counter my own argument for a moment, some of it might actually be positive..unintended consequences etc). - but I don't think it excusable as it means kids and dealing with bullshit nonsense a lot of the school lives. What sort of message does that send?

I thought the idea was good from a pragmatic rather than philosophical or moral point of view. It's only in that it may provide a 'means' to, over time, reduce the level of religion and perhaps keep some of the positives that led me to think it could be a productive way forward.

On the whole getting more reasoning into schools I think arms kids and does send a positive message, the question is more how that can be achieved effectively, on the greatest scale and as efficiently as possible. Also, I have to say, this view partly stems from my own regret at being quite as upfront in fighting for things in my old job, it's something I battle with in myself because my natural tendency is to apply the best argument I can to each situation and I have watched people far more politically aware achieve more in terms of mitigating harm and developing support. I had an excellent boss many years ago and one more recently, both of whom you'd never get a wiff of militancy from and both of whom changed the real world around them in a way I admired but don't think I ever achieved. In children's rights I'd often be found fighting to wars, both against the right's activists and the establishment because I could or would not be tolerant of things I saw as harmful - mostly I lost.

[Hermit]

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Ok, so it is not only religion that makes good people do bad things, but it certainly one factor, and it is this factor that makes me an anti-theist.

I have to say, that wasn't really what I was thinking in terms of 'evidence'.

Floppit, I have read many of your posts here and at RDF with interest and appreciation, but this one was not at all a reply to you. Your previous reaction to what I said earlier in this thread caused me to decide not to engage in a discussion on this issue, and that is about as gently as I can think of expressing myself about what I think of it.

Would you do me the courtesy of saying why? If I have been offensive I would like to know. I can make mistakes as much as anyone but if I've crossed the line and attacked a person rather than an argument I will be the first to say sorry. It's not my intention to be rude, blunt maybe but not rude and even the bluntness I do try to keep to what's said rather than the speaker.

Like I said I make mistakes but I would like to know what has offended you.

You have never come within coee of crossing the line or being rude. Can we leave it at that, please?

[floppit]

You have never come within coee of crossing the line or being rude. Can we leave it at that, please?

Of course we can, we always could which was why I said it was a curtsey rather than an obligation. I would ask though that you understand I can learn nothing from it and as that is the case coupled with feeling awkward about it, I think I'll chose to leave it in every sense, not to regard it.

[redunderthebed]

I'am anti-theist religion needs to eliminated for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

[charlou]

that is about as gently as I can think of expressing myself about what I think of it.

Are you concerned about losing your temper? If so, refraining from further engagement on the matter is prudent.