No Blasphemy for the Irish [Archive]

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 18:50

https://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9238/stpatrickireland.jpg

In Ireland, the new blasphemy law went into effect.

Blasphemy law a return to middle ages - Dawkins

THE NEW blasphemy law will send Ireland back to the middle ages, and is wretched, backward and uncivilised, Prof Richard Dawkins has said.

The scientist and critic of religion has lent his support to a campaign to repeal the law, introduced by Atheist Ireland, a group set up last December, arising from an online discussion forum. The law, which makes the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, passed through the Oireachtas last week.

In a message read out at Atheist Ireland’s first agm on Saturday, Prof Dawkins said: “One of the world’s most beautiful and best-loved countries, Ireland has recently become one of the most respected as well: dynamic, go-ahead, modern, civilised – a green and pleasant silicon valley. This preposterous blasphemy law puts all that respect at risk.” He said it would be too kind to call the law a ridiculous anachronism.

“It is a wretched, backward, uncivilised regression to the middle ages. Who was the bright spark who thought to besmirch the revered name of Ireland by proposing anything so stupid?”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html

To which I would like to add: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Reason is challenging the law already:

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes
In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law
We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.
We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.
If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

*fun stuff in link*

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Beskar

01-04-2010, 19:11

:no: I weep for Ireland.

rvg

01-04-2010, 19:56

Before long they'll have the Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

Whacker

01-04-2010, 20:03

I have no idea how Irish gub'mint works, but hopefully that crap gets overturned posthaste, AND the idiots responsible for passing it get a firm censure. How utterly ridiculous.

Fragony

01-04-2010, 20:27

Is nothing holy anymore

Beskar

01-04-2010, 20:35

I that such a statement blasphemious to my belief of no God. >:(

£25,000 fine for that, Fragony.

Major Robert Dump

01-04-2010, 20:37

I hope it is law for a long time to come.

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 20:38

Wonder if I stand on my side of the border and shout blasphemous slogans will I start a diplomatic incident...

Fragony

01-04-2010, 20:38

I that such a statement blasphemious to my belief of no God. >:(

THERE IS NO GOD

Some get close though

rvg

01-04-2010, 21:04

Wonder if I stand on my side of the border and shout blasphemous slogans will I start a diplomatic incident...

This might be youtube-worthy.

Subotan

01-04-2010, 21:24

Sweet Zombie Jesus.

drone

01-04-2010, 21:44

Christ, that's going to put a dent in Tribesman's wallet!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 21:52

I'll wait to see it enforced before I get excited; we have a similar law in the UK and it doesn't stop people posing naked on Church alters.

Vladimir

01-04-2010, 22:08

If I cared enough I'd find out how the law reads.

I like it. It guarantees more entertainment for me. :2thumbsup:

Beskar

01-04-2010, 22:10

If I cared enough I'd find out how the law reads.

I like it. It guarantees more entertainment for me. :2thumbsup:

Trust you, Vladimir Zimbardo.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 22:13

I don't expect that many, if any, people will get convicted for this. But even then it's still disgraceful that the Irish parliament passed this law in this age.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2010, 22:20

I'll wait to see it enforced before I get excited; we have a similar law in the UK and it doesn't stop people posing naked on Church alters.

I remember that thread....good times.

Centurion1

01-04-2010, 22:52

doesnt matter what age it is, this sort of law is incredibly foolish.

wonder if they will seriously enforce it or not.

i hate strongly dislike richard dawkins but i have to agree with him in principle on this one at least

Hosakawa Tito

01-04-2010, 23:10

Louis, your link for the 25 blasphemous quotes is broken *you big tease*, so I provided it here :daisy:Enjoy, all ye heathens and sons of the devil.

Hmmm, some are a bit naughty so be forewarned. If the Backroom staff feels the need to delete the link, please do, and give me 50 lashes please forgive me my transgression. Upon further review I delete the link, give myself 50 lashes for not reading it through and direct those interested to Google it yo'self. This is all your fault, Louis.:laugh4:

Subotan

01-04-2010, 23:44

i hate strongly dislike richard dawkins but i have to agree with him in principle on this one at least

Why?

Centurion1

01-05-2010, 00:13

simply dislike most of his views on religious and social issues

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-05-2010, 00:38

Why?

Well, he's a bit of a hypocrit, an evolutionary biologist who derides religion as a primative result of our ancestry, and a supperstition; who then goes on to assert the supersition that we can buck our evolution.

The way I read him, he had a bad experience with the Church and now hates religion, and the Christian God in particular. I find this odd, as he claims the Christian God does not exist.

Crazed Rabbit

01-05-2010, 01:13

Dawkins is pathetic, and this law is almost as pathetic as him.

Really, freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to offend, which should protect not just blasphemy but hate speech.

CR

miotas

01-05-2010, 01:38

The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion

I don't understand how this can possibly work, any publication about anything related to any god is automatically blasphemous to any other monotheistic religion.

Centurion1

01-05-2010, 01:59

its a stupid law that will never actually be enforced can you imagine charging someone more than 25k (us) or euros whatever, for saying JESUS, or something of the like. or as miotas says, just so many ways to break this law.

CCRunner

01-05-2010, 07:13

That's just ridiculous... I'm a christian sort of guy, but religion should be kept out of politics period. That said, I can't see them enforcing this

HoreTore

01-05-2010, 08:25

grossly abusive or insulting

So..... Our job is clear then; come up with something grossly abusive and get it printed in Ireland.

rory_20_uk

01-05-2010, 11:49

The Irish are a blasphemy.

~:smoking:

InsaneApache

01-05-2010, 12:46

Oh noes! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM)

Subotan

01-05-2010, 13:12

Blasphemous quotes by...Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie,
Fantastic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOWw9UhY_JI)

Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following *God's Orders*
Hey, let's get serious...
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
He made us all to be just like Him
so...
If we're dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

And the Father Ted was brilliant :beam:

cegorach

01-05-2010, 17:49

When I've heard about this law I thought: 'are they insane?'

There are really better ways to find the money you need.

Personally together with the Lithuanian anti-gay legislation I find this regulation disgusting and wonderfully outdated.

Some say the XXIst century is supposed to bring the revival of religion in Europe. I am for that, but NOT this :furious3: way. Pardon my language.

Louis VI the Fat

01-05-2010, 21:35

So...that Jesus guy was one lucky bloke, eh? On a single day, He got nailed three times...

Some say the XXIst century is supposed to bring the revival of religion in Europe. I am for that, Heck no. The 21st century was supposed to see the final triumph of reason over superstition. Instead, we are under siege from all directions - resurgent Christianity, the Muslim onslaught at home and abroad, and disinterested secular masses under the spell of anything vague and spiritual, mistrustful of anything that reeks of science. It's bloody difficult nowadays to teach evolution to schoolkids, or to convince adults of the wonders of non-faith healing medicine.

Reason needs to turn the tide.

Dawkins is patheticDawkins refinement of mind does not seem to extend beyond his work in evolution. He is not a subtle thinker.

But his accomplishment lies in awakening atheists. In telling us that we do not have to put up with nonsense out of some misplaced sense of respect. When somebody claims the earth is flat, you don't need to remain politely silent in all circumstances.

InsaneApache

01-06-2010, 00:42

Well said Louis.

gaelic cowboy

01-06-2010, 18:45

This development is typical of the Bertie Ahern era :daisy: basically Dermot Ahearn who happens to be Bertie's brought this in yet I never remember any church actually campaigning for this.

At least the Bert is now gone and hopefully this stupid law will be overturned.

Atheist Ireland (http://www.atheist.ie/)

cegorach

01-06-2010, 19:19

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-07-2010, 22:28

So...that Jesus guy was one lucky bloke, eh? On a single day, He got nailed three times...

Heck no. The 21st century was supposed to see the final triumph of reason over superstition. Instead, we are under siege from all directions - resurgent Christianity, the Muslim onslaught at home and abroad, and disinterested secular masses under the spell of anything vague and spiritual, mistrustful of anything that reeks of science. It's bloody difficult nowadays to teach evolution to schoolkids, or to convince adults of the wonders of non-faith healing medicine.

Reason needs to turn the tide.

I would have hoped that the 20th Century would have finally demonstrated what the Enlightenment had not; namely this: The people will always desire religion and therefore have it. This being so, the question is merely what form that religion will take and what doctrine it will espouse. A ruling class that refuses to throw it's weight behind a particular doctrine will simply have a chaotic proliferation and runs the risk of a militaristic cult rising and overthrowing the government.

In Italy the religion is Catholicism, in America non-Episcopal Protestantism, in Britain more explicitely Catholic-Protestant Wycliffism, etc.

In France, the fashion is hyper-secularism.

If you wish to press the cult of the No-God, that's fine, but it's no more a religion than any other, and it arguably offers less than most.

Dawkins refinement of mind does not seem to extend beyond his work in evolution. He is not a subtle thinker.

But his accomplishment lies in awakening atheists. In telling us that we do not have to put up with nonsense out of some misplaced sense of respect. When somebody claims the earth is flat, you don't need to remain politely silent in all circumstances.

....A point proven by the High Priest Dawkins. Not only has Dawkins demonstrated how ultimately unappealing Atheism, and it's proponents, often are; he has also damged the relationship between Science and religion (specifically Christianity). I suspect this will be his legacy, and his shame; because of Richard Dawkins religion will no longer be tempered by reason for the majoriety of the population.

Subotan

01-08-2010, 00:12

....A point proven by the High Priest Dawkins. Not only has Dawkins demonstrated how ultimately unappealing Atheism, and it's proponents, often are;

wut

he has also damged the relationship between Science and religion (specifically Christianity).

Post-Darwin, that relationship could only be damaging. If it did take such a long time to sever it, then good for him.

I suspect this will be his legacy, and his shame; because of Richard Dawkins religion will no longer be tempered by reason for the majoriety of the population.

I never got the feeling that Dawkins was speaking directly to theists; he knowsd they're a lost cause. He's talking to atheists, and reminding them that religion is not some infallible cuddly bear that can never be criticised.

EDIT: What is this notion that people have about all atheists thinking Dawkins is a "High Priest"? It's going to be difficult to explain this to you guys, but we don't see a need to have undemocratic leaders being the representative for every atheist on the planet. I know plenty of atheists who dislike him (I have a personal dislike of him, but that's another story)

Watchman

01-08-2010, 01:55

Dunno 'bout you, but I for one think Dawkins is an :daisy:. Mainly for that habit of his of occasionally blaming on religions junk that has as such nothing to do with them.

Beskar

01-08-2010, 03:49

I believe that Frodo will save us from our sins when he desposits the One Ring in Mount Doom.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 10:32

wut

What does Atheism have to offer? Only "freedom" from religion, which most people eiother don't want or don't care about. Dawkins, in his zeal, has also become personally unpaltable, as you and Watchman demonstrate.

What is "wut" about that?

Post-Darwin, that relationship could only be damaging. If it did take such a long time to sever it, then good for him.

There was a program in the BBC a while back, "did Darwin kill God?", the answer was "no" and one of the points raised was that the concept of life evolving goas back to Augustine, in Christianity at least. Anyway, plenty of scientists are religious, particularly physicists, irrc.

I never got the feeling that Dawkins was speaking directly to theists; he knowsd they're a lost cause. He's talking to atheists, and reminding them that religion is not some infallible cuddly bear that can never be criticised.

No, he's on a "Crusade" to free us all from the "medieval" superstition of religion. Why do you think he presented a program entitled, "The Root of all Evil".

EDIT: What is this notion that people have about all atheists thinking Dawkins is a "High Priest"? It's going to be difficult to explain this to you guys, but we don't see a need to have undemocratic leaders being the representative for every atheist on the planet. I know plenty of atheists who dislike him (I have a personal dislike of him, but that's another story)

I first heard the term from Jonathon Dimbleby, who is agnostic.

Fragony

01-08-2010, 11:33

Dawkins is fun for his sneers at the religious, but then again it are the religious who are on the defense usually, that kinda kills the impact. I personally have zero respect for any religion whatsoever screw them all, I care so little that I have zero intention to harass them with my atheism. If they don't bother me then I won't bother them, Dawkins crosses that line.

Subotan

01-08-2010, 13:00

What does Atheism have to offer? Only "freedom" from religion, which most people eiother don't want or don't care about. Dawkins, in his zeal, has also become personally unpaltable, as you and Watchman demonstrate.
So atheists need to get the same feelings out of their atheism as theists do out of religion for it to be valid? What rot.

What is "wut" about that?

Heh.

There was a program in the BBC a while back, "did Darwin kill God?", the answer was "no" and one of the points raised was that the concept of life evolving goas back to Augustine, in Christianity at least.
So one BBC documentary means that the numerous times that science has proven religion is wrong (Lightning is not the wrath of God, disease is not because God is angry, rainbows aren't a symbol of God's love, the earth goes around the sun, an eclipse is not a giant dragon eating the sun etc.) are suddenly irrelevant?

Anyway, plenty of scientists are religious, particularly physicists, irrc.

Wrong.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

No, he's on a "Crusade" to free us all from the "medieval" superstition of religion. Why do you think he presented a program entitled, "The Root of all Evil".

If he is, then he's a fool. And he could just as easily be speaking to agnostics and non-theists.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 13:20

So atheists need to get the same feelings out of their atheism as theists do out of religion for it to be valid? What rot.

No, but Atheism doesn't really offer anything posative, only "freedom" from percieved negatives. It's not a constructive philosophy, rather it is a de-constructive one. Humanism does offer a constructive alternative to theism, but it also comes in a theistic variety anyway.

Statistically, and I believe Loius will back me up on this, religious people are happier and live longer. Currently Atheism asks you to give up your religion without offering an alternative.

So one BBC documentary means that the numerous times that science has proven religion is wrong (Lightning is not the wrath of God, disease is not because God is angry, rainbows aren't a symbol of God's love, the earth goes around the sun, an eclipse is not a giant dragon eating the sun etc.) are suddenly irrelevant?

No, but it does mean that religion and science do not have to be opposed. Anyway, how do you know that lightening and disease are not signs of God's wrath, what about the "Pandora's Box" angle?

Just because you can expalin something does not make it theologically insignificant.

Wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

Well, "plenty" is a subjective measure.

Let's consider the following:

1. The Telegraph was able to find several of academics to rubbish the study; from a researcher who has previously linked IQ to race and sex.

2. In an education system which values rationality and devalues intuition and belief those who are most sucessful will be those who adhere most strongly to the dominant paridigm. If you were to conduct the same Poll 200 year ago you would get a different result, Poll Oxford 400-600 years ago and you would get a reported 100% adherence to Christianity.

3. Peer pressure: polls indicate that 90-98% of Americans believe in God, but I don't believe that statistic either.

If he is, then he's a fool. And he could just as easily be speaking to agnostics and non-theists.

If you say so.

Fragony

01-08-2010, 13:37

Currently Atheism asks you to give up your religion without offering an alternative.

It is something that is important to you, but also something we atheists can do without, as I see it, the decline of religion is the maturing of a genuine society. You can have it, but don't tell me my life is empty because of a lack of something I didn't need in the first place, alternative for what exactly?

Beskar

01-08-2010, 13:44

Have you heard of "Secular Humanism" ? That is your alternative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Pie in the Sky, and other various opium of the masses you can do better without.

Viking

01-08-2010, 14:04

No, but Atheism doesn't really offer anything posative, only "freedom" from percieved negatives. It's not a constructive philosophy, rather it is a de-constructive one. Humanism does offer a constructive alternative to theism, but it also comes in a theistic variety anyway.

Statistically, and I believe Loius will back me up on this, religious people are happier and live longer. Currently Atheism asks you to give up your religion without offering an alternative.

You bet there are a lot people who claim to be religious, but do not really care about religion and it has a minimal impact on their life. For some people, declaring themselves as atheists is as trivial as washing the dishes. It was for me.

Watchman

01-08-2010, 14:10

And then some people never had any "religion" to begin with.

Banquo's Ghost

01-08-2010, 14:20

No, but Atheism doesn't really offer anything posative, only "freedom" from percieved negatives. It's not a constructive philosophy, rather it is a de-constructive one.

Phillipvs, may I recommend that you read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus. The essay will, at the very least, help you understand that your assertion is incorrect.

As a student of religion, your horizon would be widened by an understanding of those without belief - who can find a great deal of meaning in a godless world.

miotas

01-08-2010, 14:27

No, but Atheism doesn't really offer anything posative, only "freedom" from percieved negatives. It's not a constructive philosophy, rather it is a de-constructive one. Humanism does offer a constructive alternative to theism, but it also comes in a theistic variety anyway.

It's strange how you keep going on about atheism as if it is an alternative religion that people convert to. Atheism is just a lack of belief that gods exist. Atheists don't gain a new set of beliefs, they simply don't believe something they think is false.

I think of god, or gods in general, much like I think of the luminiferous aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). Maybe it does exist and we just can't detect it, but there is nothing to suggest that it does.

Viking

01-08-2010, 14:28

And then some people never had any "religion" to begin with.

Indeed, but I had something else that I wanted to "prove".

Ser Clegane

01-08-2010, 14:33

It's strange how you keep going on about atheism as if it is an alternative religion that people convert to. Atheism is just a lack of belief that gods exist. Atheists don't gain a new set of beliefs, they simply don't believe something they think is false.

I think of god, or gods in general, much like I think of the luminiferous aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). Maybe it does exist and we just can't detect it, but there is nothing to suggest that it does.

I think term definitions are a bit of a problem here.

You are using a broader definition for atheism that includes your your position. Others use a narrower definition which rather defines atheism as a more conscious/active rejection of theism.

rvg

01-08-2010, 16:01

Heck, atheism even has its own rituals, like un-baptism for example.

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 16:10

I would have hoped that the 20th Century would have finally demonstrated what the Enlightenment had not; namely this: The people will always desire religion and therefore have it. This being so, the question is merely what form that religion will take and what doctrine it will espouse. A ruling class that refuses to throw it's weight behind a particular doctrine will simply have a chaotic proliferation and runs the risk of a militaristic cult rising and overthrowing the government.

In Italy the religion is Catholicism, in America non-Episcopal Protestantism, in Britain more explicitely Catholic-Protestant Wycliffism, etc.

In France, the fashion is hyper-secularism.

If you wish to press the cult of the No-God, that's fine, but it's no more a religion than any other, and it arguably offers less than most.

....A point proven by the High Priest Dawkins. Not only has Dawkins demonstrated how ultimately unappealing Atheism, and it's proponents, often are; he has also damged the relationship between Science and religion (specifically Christianity). I suspect this will be his legacy, and his shame; because of Richard Dawkins religion will no longer be tempered by reason for the majoriety of the population.

It has always fascinated me how religious people are incapable of understanding that it is possible to be non-religious, to have no faith whatsoever.

Watchman

01-08-2010, 16:13

Heck, atheism even has its own rituals, like un-baptism for example.The who what where ? :huh:

rvg

01-08-2010, 16:18

It has always fascinated me how religious people are incapable of understanding that it is possible to be non-religious, to have no faith whatsoever.

Communism is a good example of a godless religion. It has its prophet (Karl Marx), its messiah (Vladimir Lenin), various saints (Mao, Stalin, etc), shrines (Lenin's Mausoleum), countless holy books (various communist manifestos and such) and Churches (represented by the communist parties across the globe). It's a full blown religion, alright.

Watchman

01-08-2010, 16:21

I think you're confusing the vulgar-Marxist dogma enforced by the "really existing Socialist" states for the political ideology/movement at large, there...

Beskar

01-08-2010, 17:09

It has always fascinated me how religious people are incapable of understanding that it is possible to be non-religious, to have no faith whatsoever.

It is like telling a drug-addict told they can live without drugs.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 17:14

You bet there are a lot people who claim to be religious, but do not really care about religion and it has a minimal impact on their life. For some people, declaring themselves as atheists is as trivial as washing the dishes. It was for me.

Quite.

And then some people never had any "religion" to begin with.

also quite true, there are two types of atheists I have met, those who reject God, and those who are unaware of him. This is, of course, from my own perspective.

Phillipvs, may I recommend that you read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus. The essay will, at the very least, help you understand that your assertion is incorrect.

As a student of religion, your horizon would be widened by an understanding of those without belief - who can find a great deal of meaning in a godless world.

I'll put it on my list, but I think you are responding to a point I'm not making; this must be a fault of expression on my part. For me "belief" does not have to be a belief in God. If people, as you say, find meaning in a Godless world then they must have some form of belief in something, be it rationality, logic, or the indomnitable human spirit. My point was that the sort of Atheism Dawkins and his ilk profess seems to offer nothing which nurtures the human spirit, it merely seeks to crush belief systems it does not agree with.

I am reminded of an observation by a Greek philosopher, maybe it was Aristotle, "Atheists are boring, when it comes to the festivals they do not dance or sing, they just sit and look gloomy".

It's strange how you keep going on about atheism as if it is an alternative religion that people convert to. Atheism is just a lack of belief that gods exist. Atheists don't gain a new set of beliefs, they simply don't believe something they think is false.

I think of god, or gods in general, much like I think of the luminiferous aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). Maybe it does exist and we just can't detect it, but there is nothing to suggest that it does.

Then you're more of an Agnostic, the phrase, "Maybe...... and we just can't detect it", is typically agnostic.

As I said, "belief" does not have mean belief in God.

It has always fascinated me how religious people are incapable of understanding that it is possible to be non-religious, to have no faith whatsoever.

It has often ammused me how atheists have flatly refused to countenance the belief in a Higher Power and have then refused to see this as a leap of faith.

Communism is a good example of a godless religion. It has its prophet (Karl Marx), its messiah (Vladimir Lenin), various saints (Mao, Stalin, etc), shrines (Lenin's Mausoleum), countless holy books (various communist manifestos and such) and Churches (represented by the communist parties across the globe). It's a full blown religion, alright.

This rather proves my point. In order to support the Communist agenda it was necessary to create a Communist "religion" or "opiate" (if you prefer) to feed to the masses.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 17:17

It is like telling a drug-addict told they can live without drugs.

That is a little offensive, that's like me saying, "It's like trying to tell a savage he'd be better off with antibiotics" in favour of religion.

Viking

01-08-2010, 18:05

Watchman

01-08-2010, 18:11

Not if you go with the ideological aspect alone; the idea of a world wide revolution sounds like an old story retold once more.That's probably because the "make a new better world" revolutionary bit is. You can find the pretty much exact same basic call to arms, only with different trappings, in just about any populist revolutionary movement anywhere ever. The previous ones just tended to go for religion and mysticism for their rhetorical props.

rvg

01-08-2010, 18:21

That's probably because the "make a new better world" revolutionary bit is. You can find the pretty much exact same basic call to arms, only with different trappings, in just about any populist revolutionary movement anywhere ever. The previous ones just tended to go for religion and mysticism for their rhetorical props.

The thing is that Dawkins and his ilk are blaming religion for all the evils in the world, but are instead fighting against faith rather than religion. While religions can get violent and destructive, faith is benign. Yet, the militant atheists erroneously believe that they can eliminate religion by eliminating faith, which is obviously not the case, since religions do not need faith in order to live and prosper.

Viking

01-08-2010, 18:39

That's probably because the "make a new better world" revolutionary bit is. You can find the pretty much exact same basic call to arms, only with different trappings, in just about any populist revolutionary movement anywhere ever. The previous ones just tended to go for religion and mysticism for their rhetorical props.

Yes, but by wanting to make such a sharp distinction between religion and ideology, you are ultimately doing the religion pushers a great favour; methinks.

How much does Norse mythology and Christianity of today have in common? Little.

Yet, they are both religions. Why?

Marxism wants to explain the world through work and classes; religion through good and evil. Yet another similarity. There is some great underlying mechanism that can explain it all; typically religious.

Marxism does not follow the scientific method; it involves vague concepts like "freedom". The only thing that is missing is the supernatural; but does a religion really need this?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 19:02

Atheism is more than Dawkins.

Oh, certainly. The problem is, he shouts loudest, and therefore helps to define Atheism as a belief system in the popular imagination.

My, how things have changed. :laugh4:

Well, perhaps. The Atheist there though was the one who refused to believe in anything, basically the ultimate skeptic unwilling to make any kind of commitment.

Not if you go with the ideological aspect alone; the idea of a world wide revolution sounds like an old story retold once more.

That's probably because the "make a new better world" revolutionary bit is. You can find the pretty much exact same basic call to arms, only with different trappings, in just about any populist revolutionary movement anywhere ever. The previous ones just tended to go for religion and mysticism for their rhetorical props.

They aren't rhetorical props, they're ideological ones. Marxism is a belief system, a set of assumptions about the world that go up to making a particular world-view.

Religions are the same, in that respect.

The thing is that Dawkins and his ilk are blaming religion for all the evils in the world, but are instead fighting against faith rather than religion. While religions can get violent and destructive, faith is benign. Yet, the militant atheists erroneously believe that they can eliminate religion by eliminating faith, which is obviously not the case, since religions do not need faith in order to live and prosper.

I think religions do need faith on some level, but not everything you have faith in is a religion. For example, the belief your wife loves you is grounded in faith, because you can never read her mind.

Vladimir

01-08-2010, 19:42

I think religions do need faith on some level, but not everything you have faith in is a religion. For example, the belief your wife loves you is grounded in faith, because you can never read her mind.

And despite what people say, that wasn't her with me in the Hilton lobby Thursday night, 8 PM.

Beskar

01-08-2010, 19:43

I think religions do need faith on some level, but not everything you have faith in is a religion. For example, the belief your wife loves you is grounded in faith, because you can never read her mind.

You tend to know when you reached that stage of the relationship.

Beskar

01-08-2010, 19:45

That is a little offensive, that's like me saying, "It's like trying to tell a savage he'd be better off with antibiotics" in favour of religion.

Well, we would be better off with antibiotics than the alternative of prayer. :sweatdrop:

Subotan

01-08-2010, 20:22

I think term definitions are a bit of a problem here.

You are using a broader definition for atheism that includes your your position. Others use a narrower definition which rather defines atheism as a more conscious/active rejection of theism.
Hence the difference between weak and strong atheism. Personally, I lean towards the latter, although I think that the true harm that results from religion comes from the institutions which make up organised religion, rather than faith itself.

Kralizec

01-08-2010, 21:40

Communism is a good example of a godless religion. It has its prophet (Karl Marx), its messiah (Vladimir Lenin), various saints (Mao, Stalin, etc), shrines (Lenin's Mausoleum), countless holy books (various communist manifestos and such) and Churches (represented by the communist parties across the globe). It's a full blown religion, alright.

I have absolutely no problem with counting communism and marxism among religions.

So on the scoreboard, that would mean 60-80 million more casualties for you religious guys, right ~;p

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 22:03

You tend to know when you reached that stage of the relationship.

I'm sorry, "know", isn't that exactly like saying, "I know God exists".

They're both faith-based statements.

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 22:18

It has often ammused me how atheists have flatly refused to countenance the belief in a Higher Power and have then refused to see this as a leap of faith.

I haven't refused anything at all whatsoever.

My opinion is simple; I just don't care. At all. It doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Now if you could please explain how that's religious....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 22:36

So on the scoreboard, that would mean 60-80 million more casualties for you religious guys, right ~;p

Over a hundred, actually, but that isn't the point. I would classify communism as a religion because communism is generally atheist, and I do believe that religion requires spirituality and faith. It is defined by Oxford as:

1:the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2: a particular system of faith and worship.
3: a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Communism follows the last one only. Communism and atheism can, and often are, followed with a quasi-religious devotion, but they are not in themselves religious.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-08-2010, 23:03

I haven't refused anything at all whatsoever.

My opinion is simple; I just don't care. At all. It doesn't interest me in the slightest.

I don't believe you, you're not nearly relaxed enought about religion (and Christianity specifically) for this to be true.

Anyway, in order to not care about God you obviously had to decide He did not exist at some point.

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 02:06

I don't believe you, you're not nearly relaxed enought about religion (and Christianity specifically) for this to be true.

Of course, if something doesn't fit in with a religious person's view of the world, then of course it must all be lies/heresy.... Making quite the stereotype here, Philipvs...

Anyway, in order to not care about God you obviously had to decide He did not exist at some point.

Nope. I simply don't care. Don't care if it is, don't care if it isn't. I don't know and I doubt I will ever know until I die anyway. So what's the point of caring about it?

miotas

01-09-2010, 02:34

It's strange how you keep going on about atheism as if it is an alternative religion that people convert to. Atheism is just a lack of belief that gods exist. Atheists don't gain a new set of beliefs, they simply don't believe something they think is false.

Then you're more of an Agnostic, the phrase, "Maybe...... and we just can't detect it", is typically agnostic.

Oh yes, I am agnostic, but the point I was making is that most atheists I know don't go around actively rejecting everyone else's gods, they simply don't believe in an gods. There are of course those who do do that, just like there are those religious people who go around preaching about how superior their religion is, but they are simply the very vocal, very minor minority. Most atheists don't even think about gods at all, and most religious people simply believe in their gods and are happy to leave it at that.

Beskar

01-09-2010, 06:06

I'm sorry, "know", isn't that exactly like saying, "I know God exists".

They're both faith-based statements.

No it isn't, you can have significant reasons, experience, evidence and results. Other people can independently verify if your wife loves you or not. You can actually see your wife and her actions. etc.

You have none of that with imaginary beings.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 08:05

No it isn't, you can have significant reasons, experience, evidence and results. Other people can independently verify if your wife loves you or not. You can actually see your wife and her actions. etc.

She could be faking, it could be an act. Is your wife even, philosophically speaking, real? Who knows?

Banquo's Ghost

01-09-2010, 08:52

I'll put it on my list, but I think you are responding to a point I'm not making; this must be a fault of expression on my part. For me "belief" does not have to be a belief in God. If people, as you say, find meaning in a Godless world then they must have some form of belief in something, be it rationality, logic, or the indomnitable human spirit. My point was that the sort of Atheism Dawkins and his ilk profess seems to offer nothing which nurtures the human spirit, it merely seeks to crush belief systems it does not agree with.

I may have misread your intent. However, you do seem to hold a view that people without religious belief are somehow deficient. My suggestion of Camus gives one an argument for meaning that proceeds from a beginning without the supernatural. It even challenges the very idea of "meaning" itself. I don't mean to "convert" you (foolish, even if possible :beam:) but it is fascinating to examine one's assumptions.

Professor Dawkins, for example, believes in the supremacy of science and evolution in particular. As this thread demonstrates, his proselytising zeal for this position has made his views as unpalatable to the reasonable as any religious evangelist. As I think Louis noted, the professor is a great evolutionary scientist and a lousy philosopher.

I am reminded of an observation by a Greek philosopher, maybe it was Aristotle, "Atheists are boring, when it comes to the festivals they do not dance or sing, they just sit and look gloomy".

This is an example of why I mistook your message. After a reasonable position, you then go on to allege that atheists are somehow deficient. Precisely Dawkins' problem, vice versa.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-09-2010, 13:10

Of course, if something doesn't fit in with a religious person's view of the world, then of course it must all be lies/heresy.... Making quite the stereotype here, Philipvs...

See, this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about. If you really don't care I don't understand why you're still debating me.

Nope. I simply don't care. Don't care if it is, don't care if it isn't. I don't know and I doubt I will ever know until I die anyway. So what's the point of caring about it?

Well, that's more disinterested agnosticism than Atheism; but I personally think it shows a certain lack of interest in the world. The issue of the existence of a supreme being or ordering principle in the universe is about the most important philosophical question you can grapple with.

Oh yes, I am agnostic, but the point I was making is that most atheists I know don't go around actively rejecting everyone else's gods, they simply don't believe in an gods. There are of course those who do do that, just like there are those religious people who go around preaching about how superior their religion is, but they are simply the very vocal, very minor minority. Most atheists don't even think about gods at all, and most religious people simply believe in their gods and are happy to leave it at that.

Well this is an interesting point, most people don't question their world view, ever, unless it is directly challenged. I don't see atheism as a "missionary faith" but the point, which you have not quite made, is that atheists adhere to their world view in the same way as theists; some much more zealously than others.

No it isn't, you can have significant reasons, experience, evidence and results. Other people can independently verify if your wife loves you or not. You can actually see your wife and her actions. etc.

You have none of that with imaginary beings.

People can fake it for years, and do. If you've never been with a girl who has fooled you then you just haven't realised. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as love, but apearences can be highly deceptive. At the end of the day, regardless of evidence, you are still making a leap of faith.

I may have misread your intent. However, you do seem to hold a view that people without religious belief are somehow deficient. My suggestion of Camus gives one an argument for meaning that proceeds from a beginning without the supernatural. It even challenges the very idea of "meaning" itself. I don't mean to "convert" you (foolish, even if possible :beam:) but it is fascinating to examine one's assumptions.

I don't believe people without religious belief are actually deficient, but I do believe that if you hold a belief someone else doesn't, then you have something they don't. If you have a belief in a benevolent Father-God that clearly gives you an emotional resource others don't have; just as the belief in the love of a partner or friend does.

However, I do hold that those who claim to believe in nothing at all are either dishonest or deficient, because I have observed, in my relatively short life, that we all need something to believe in when if all goes belly up and we need something to hold on to.

Professor Dawkins, for example, believes in the supremacy of science and evolution in particular. As this thread demonstrates, his proselytising zeal for this position has made his views as unpalatable to the reasonable as any religious evangelist. As I think Louis noted, the professor is a great evolutionary scientist and a lousy philosopher.

Well, quite, and he makes things harder on everyone.

This is an example of why I mistook your message. After a reasonable position, you then go on to allege that atheists are somehow deficient. Precisely Dawkins' problem, vice versa.

Ah, I see, a defiency in my posting style. I tend to skip words or clauses, or to incorrectly paragraph. The comment was aimed at Dawkins, whose philosophical position seems to leave us stuck in the gutter; and at people who produce slogans such as, "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life". It isn't aimed at the atheist in general.

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 13:59

See, this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about. If you really don't care I don't understand why you're still debating me.

Well, that's more disinterested agnosticism than Atheism; but I personally think it shows a certain lack of interest in the world. The issue of the existence of a supreme being or ordering principle in the universe is about the most important philosophical question you can grapple with.

When I have I ever claimed to be an atheist? Agnostic is of course the correct term. I don't care enough to be an atheist. And no, the existence of a supreme being isn't an important question at all; simply because we'll never have an answer to it.

Kralizec

01-09-2010, 14:40

Ah, I see, a defiency in my posting style. I tend to skip words or clauses, or to incorrectly paragraph. The comment was aimed at Dawkins, whose philosophical position seems to leave us stuck in the gutter; and at people who produce slogans such as, "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life". It isn't aimed at the atheist in general.

What was wrong with the "There's probably no God" campaign?

You disagree with the message, of course. But there have been christian ads long before that. Most atheists don't care what other people believe. But some atheists are annoyed when somebody tries to persuade them that their beliefs are wrong, so they retaliate by doing the same. I remember a hilarious video on youtube where a couple of atheists go door-to-door in Mormon neighbourhoods to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. Not because they particulary care what Mormons believe, but because they were fed up with Mormon missionaries pestering them on their doorstep.

What's wrong with that?

Fragony

01-09-2010, 14:52

It's very impolite. I think christians get a whole lot more to swallow from atheists than the other way around. I sometimes get them at my door, they get a cup of tea if the weather is bad and then I send them of, they don't mean any harm. Not going to spare anybody's feelings but not going to attack them either.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 18:40

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 19:52

Missionaries of any religion believe that they are trying to save you

That means nothing to me.

Furunculus

01-09-2010, 19:58

I haven't refused anything at all whatsoever.

My opinion is simple; I just don't care. At all. It doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Now if you could please explain how that's religious....

i'm not far off that position as an indifferent agnostic.

it is within the realms of possibility that there is a god, but i really don't give a damn either way.

Meneldil

01-09-2010, 22:44

God doesn't exist, and that's about it.

But while I used to be an annoying brat about that (by arguing with the few believers I know, which wasn't that complicated, since most believers never read the Bible or the Quran), I'm much more relax now. They believe in god? Good for them, as long as they don't annoy me about it, or worse, pretend to be superior because of it, I'll let them in peace.

I guess that's because I've met religious people who are themselves pretty relax about religion. They don't try to convince me it's true, don't bring it into any freaking discussion, and pretty much keep it to themselves (which is quite rare in France).

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 23:27

i'm not far off that position as an indifferent agnostic.

it is within the realms of possibility that there is a god, but i really don't give a damn either way.

God doesn't exist, and that's about it.

But while I used to be an annoying brat about that (by arguing with the few believers I know, which wasn't that complicated, since most believers never read the Bible or the Quran), I'm much more relax now. They believe in god? Good for them, as long as they don't annoy me about it, or worse, pretend to be superior because of it, I'll let them in peace.

I guess that's because I've met religious people who are themselves pretty relax about religion. They don't try to convince me it's true, don't bring it into any freaking discussion, and pretty much keep it to themselves (which is quite rare in France).

The belief in a supreme being does not constitute a belief in Christianity, Islam, etc etc. My position is that the Ultimate Truth(tm) is something we probably won't ever know, and I am very unlikely to ever know it myself. So, if anyone walks up to me and says "This is the ultimate truth! I have the answer to everything!!" I will treat that person as a loonie, whether he's a christian, atheist, muslim, hindu, socialist or whatever.

As for Christianity in particular, Philipvs(as you noted I have a "special hatred" against it), the reason I dislike it is the same as every other politic force I dislike; I read through its morals and programs and decided "this isn't what I want for society, no way am I giving this guy my vote, I'll vote for that other party instead".

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-10-2010, 00:29

God doesn't exist, and that's about it.

Disclaimer: In your opinion.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-10-2010, 00:34

What was wrong with the "There's probably no God" campaign?

You disagree with the message, of course. But there have been christian ads long before that. Most atheists don't care what other people believe. But some atheists are annoyed when somebody tries to persuade them that their beliefs are wrong, so they retaliate by doing the same. I remember a hilarious video on youtube where a couple of atheists go door-to-door in Mormon neighbourhoods to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. Not because they particulary care what Mormons believe, but because they were fed up with Mormon missionaries pestering them on their doorstep.

What's wrong with that?

Well, mimicking missionaries just to take the proverbial is just insulting and mean spirited; they do, after all, have your best interests at heart.

About the "There probably isn't..." campaign: The whole pitch, and the one made by these atheists generally, is (philosophically speaking) totally negative. All the campaign trys to do is take something away from people, without giving them anything. If God is percieved as positive, and faith is not burdonsome, then taking away that faith is unlikely to improve someone's life unless it is replaced with something else.

The molecular structure of DNA simply isn't going to cut it.

That means nothing to me.

Maybe you should they are trying to do you a favour. You could at least attempt to empathise.

God doesn't exist, and that's about it.

Actually, God definately exists (philosophically at least) and that is it.

Here's why: Not all forms of existence are material, ideas "exist" but have no being or life idependant of those who carry them. Even assuming "God" is only an idea, He clearly exists for everyone taking part in this thread. In order to talk about God, or say He doesn't exist, one first has to concieve of Him. Worse, as ideas go God is pretty much the most powerful ever, present in the mind of every human being, and with the power to move them to acts of extreme Good or Evil.

Further, if we accept that the Idea "God" has existence, and that this idea is extremely powerful, then all atheists and theists are really arguing about is what goes on behind the curtain (if anything). This is the answer to HoreTore's earlier claim that the existence of God is irrelevant. His existence is of extreme relevenace, as is his nature, merely because people believe in Him.

Faith moves mountains, as they say.

The belief in a supreme being does not constitute a belief in Christianity, Islam, etc etc. My position is that the Ultimate Truth(tm) is something we probably won't ever know, and I am very unlikely to ever know it myself. So, if anyone walks up to me and says "This is the ultimate truth! I have the answer to everything!!" I will treat that person as a loonie, whether he's a christian, atheist, muslim, hindu, socialist or whatever.

I met another Norwegian (well, actually, he was just born and raised in Norway, his blood is thinner than mine) with a similar philosophical perspective. I would merely observe that if one does not search for the truth one not only has no hope of finding it, one also has no hope of approaching it.

As for Christianity in particular, Philipvs(as you noted I have a "special hatred" against it), the reason I dislike it is the same as every other politic force I dislike; I read through its morals and programs and decided "this isn't what I want for society, no way am I giving this guy my vote, I'll vote for that other party instead".

Then again, as we have noted, you seem to have been exposed only to the worst of Christianity. How you can have a gripe with the Ten Commandments, except for the first two, I really can't see.

Beskar

01-10-2010, 00:37

People can fake it for years, and do. If you've never been with a girl who has fooled you then you just haven't realised. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as love, but apearences can be highly deceptive. At the end of the day, regardless of evidence, you are still making a leap of faith.

Actually, it isn't that I never been with a girl that has fooled me, it is that I noticed when they been trying to fool me.

For instance, when the girl you are with really decreases their time/attention with you, and are around another "guy" (not in the chummy way either), it is usually a huge indicator that there is something going on.

People generally give huge indications that there are problems, is just that many people either ignore it, or simply just live with the problems as even though they aren't entirely happy, it can be far worse.

Either way, there is a interaction in relationships, there is ways you can tell they love you or not. Simply asking them at least gets you a reply. So it is not "faith".

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-10-2010, 01:03

Actually, it isn't that I never been with a girl that has fooled me, it is that I noticed when they been trying to fool me.

For instance, when the girl you are with really decreases their time/attention with you, and are around another "guy" (not in the chummy way either), it is usually a huge indicator that there is something going on.

People generally give huge indications that there are problems, is just that many people either ignore it, or simply just live with the problems as even though they aren't entirely happy, it can be far worse.

Either way, there is a interaction in relationships, there is ways you can tell they love you or not. Simply asking them at least gets you a reply. So it is not "faith".

No it's still faith, because all you have is circumstantial evidence. Oh, and some people are better at hiding than others; it depends on whether they want rid of you or not.

HoreTore

01-10-2010, 09:12

Maybe you should they are trying to do you a favour. You could at least attempt to empathise.

That will never, ever happen. The missionaries can all burn for all I care. I feel nothing but contempt and pity for them, they are evil to me.

Then again, as we have noted, you seem to have been exposed only to the worst of Christianity. How you can have a gripe with the Ten Commandments, except for the first two, I really can't see.

The Ten Commandments are among the worst things in the entire religion. The commandments I agree with are common sense and something I simply do not need a priest to tell me; I already know that I shouldn't steal or murder.

But then there is number 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. And adultery means all sex not within marriage. And that my friend, is something I object to heavily. The christian view on sex is something I see as despicable, and directly to blame for the pain suffered by countless gay people over the years. Denying sex for everyone but the married is just evil to me, plain and simple.

Article 3 is a nice little breach of my freedom of speech, I use the Lord's name in vain all the time and I see nothing special about that, and no need to change my use. 4 is stupid, why shouldn't I be working on sundays? Students need that extra income, hello? Get with the times there, Lord! Number 5 isn't to my liking either; why should everyone have to honour their parents? Some people have bastards as parents you know. Why should an incest victim have to honour his/her father?

Fragony

01-10-2010, 10:22

That will never, ever happen. The missionaries can all burn for all I care. I feel nothing but contempt and pity for them, they are evil to me.

They mean well. Just send them of, there is hardly anything evil about them. I know a (very) christian guy who saves up his cash to go to Africa once a year to dig wells, his own money, is he evil? If it makes people do good things what is the problem, does it offend you that not everybody has the same view on things you have?

Kralizec

01-10-2010, 14:08

[QUOTE=Evil_Maniac From Mars;2411537]What's wrong with that is because it is how you said it. Missionaries of any religion believe that they are trying to save you, whereas the atheists who go door to door are just trying to annoy religious people, or to retaliate. It's almost childish. I have no problem with atheists, but the militant ones tend to be much more insufferable than their religious equivalents.

Well, mimicking missionaries just to take the proverbial is just insulting and mean spirited; they do, after all, have your best interests at heart.

About the "There probably isn't..." campaign: The whole pitch, and the one made by these atheists generally, is (philosophically speaking) totally negative. All the campaign trys to do is take something away from people, without giving them anything. If God is percieved as positive, and faith is not burdonsome, then taking away that faith is unlikely to improve someone's life unless it is replaced with something else.

The molecular structure of DNA simply isn't going to cut it.

I don't value my "atheist" world view particulary highly and I'm generally not bothered about displays of religion. Just playing Devils Advocate - and in this case, it's not a particulary hard job IMHO.

If someone else is pestering me, I couldn't care less what that persons motivations are. In fact, the idea that I should tolerate it because that person is doing it for my own good is a little condescending and patronising, to say the least.
Of course, going door-by-door with leaflets and buying advertisement space on buses and such is perfectly legal. Even for atheists who decide that they want to give the opposite camp a taste of their own medicine. Doing so does not make them "militant".

Obviously you think that atheist propaganda is much more offensive than religious propaganda. Because you're religious.
The whole idea, or the principal reason for these sort of campaigns is to teach the religiously inclined a lesson in empathy. Instead, they're complaining that the atheists don't have a legimitate reason to spread their own ideas. Or that while the religious propagandists are trying to give something valuable to their unvoluntary recipients, the atheists are trying to undo it.

Ultimately, I think that the established religions haven't come to grips with the fact that there are plenty of atheists nowadays. And that they're here to stay, too :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-10-2010, 14:27

I don't value my "atheist" world view particulary highly and I'm generally not bothered about displays of religion. Just playing Devils Advocate - and in this case, it's not a particulary hard job IMHO.

I could make a cloister joke here, but I won't. :beam:

If someone else is pestering me, I couldn't care less what that persons motivations are. In fact, the idea that I should tolerate it because that person is doing it for my own good is a little condescending and patronising, to say the least.

Well, I think that you should be more considerate of someone if they are trying to do you a favour, regardless of their worldview. How is that condesending?

Of course, going door-by-door with leaflets and buying advertisement space on buses and such is perfectly legal. Even for atheists who decide that they want to give the opposite camp a taste of their own medicine. Doing so does not make them "militant".

"A taste of their own medicine", see, I wouldn't do that. What you are advocating is petty and a little mean-spirited. It's like going door to door with a bucket asking for money to buy a new car, just because you don't like people who collect for a certain charity.

Obviously you think that atheist propaganda is much more offensive than religious propaganda. Because you're religious.

Not really, the most offensive propeganda I have ever heard was from an Evangelical Christian. I find certain atheist propeganda offensive for the same reason I found him offensive. Namely; that it is intended negatively, not positively.

The whole idea, or the principal reason for these sort of campaigns is to teach the religiously inclined a lesson in empathy. Instead, they're complaining that the atheists don't have a legimitate reason to spread their own ideas. Or that while the religious propagandists are trying to give something valuable to their unvoluntary recipients, the atheists are trying to undo it.

No, it's not about teaching a "lesson in empapthy", because these people can't even empathise with the religious people they are antagonising. I suggested you empathise with religious people, and you called it "condesending".

Ultimately, I think that the established religions haven't come to grips with the fact that there are plenty of atheists nowadays. And that they're here to stay, too :yes:

Really? You think Atheism was invented a few years ago? Next you'll tell me the Catholic Church didn't know it had a problem with paedophillia until the American Scandal.

The ploliferation of different religious beliefs probably means there are fewer athiests now than ever before.

CountArach

01-10-2010, 14:37

I remember a hilarious video on youtube where a couple of atheists go door-to-door in Mormon neighbourhoods to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. Not because they particulary care what Mormons believe, but because they were fed up with Mormon missionaries pestering them on their doorstep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U58wgn-9Y3c

That's John Safran, an Australian satirist. He is actually Jewish and that skit was entirely satirical, though as you said, the message is fairly obvious... and hilarious.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-10-2010, 14:55

What was wrong with the "There's probably no God" campaign?

I think, for most persons of faith, that they conceive of life having nothing but a Hobbesian character in the absence of God. Without God, no larger point than one's own existence; without some larger point, the pursuit of one's own desires however base -- no larger restraining goal. There is no way to prove, of course, that the absence of God actually would cause things to come apart at the seems -- and examples from the modern secular that suggest otherwise -- but I think that worry underlays some of it. Add in the tone that many religious perceive when listening to the agnostic/atheist -- it often sounds as though the atheist is being kind to someone with Downs syndrome when addressing the "poor" believer -- and I think you get some of what grinds at them.

You disagree with the message, of course. But there have been christian ads long before that. Most atheists don't care what other people believe. But some atheists are annoyed when somebody tries to persuade them that their beliefs are wrong, so they retaliate by doing the same. I remember a hilarious video on youtube where a couple of atheists go door-to-door in Mormon neighbourhoods to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. Not because they particulary care what Mormons believe, but because they were fed up with Mormon missionaries pestering them on their doorstep.

What's wrong with that?

While there is a dash of humorous irony in that, it would be even ruder than the efforts of the Mormons. Their efforts, whatever you think of them, are prompted by the desire to help others. The atheist "reverse missionaries" don't sincerely care about "saving" Mormoms from Mormonism, they're just trying to piss them off.

Tristuskhan

01-10-2010, 15:17

The ploliferation of different religious beliefs probably means there are fewer athiests now than ever before.

I'd like to know some (not only one) sources please... Everything I read until now I think told me the contrary, that indifference about religion was rising. One of the very few reasons for me to keep some trust in mankind. Make me sad, prove it wrong.

gaelic cowboy

01-10-2010, 15:31

Fear not my friend watch this and be restored Mostly it is a belief in the belief in God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=C5B25927966FD4D5)

Kralizec

01-10-2010, 15:54

Well, I think that you should be more considerate of someone if they are trying to do you a favour, regardless of their worldview. How is that condesending?

You didn't use the phrase yourself, but I think the phrase "make him see the light" perfectly illustrates it. Religion X is correct, the non-believers are clearly wrong without knowing it and the faithful must see to it that they're not left to draw their own conclusions by themselves. That's what I consider condescending. The sentence you quoted was poorly phrased. The idea that we should tolerate annoyances just because they're the result of good intentions is not so much condescending as...meh.

From what I understand, the bus ads were simply quid pro quo retaliation. Genuine missionary atheists exist as well, Richard Dawkins being one of the more crass examples. These people genuinely believe that a belief in God is irrational and detrimental. They feel that if they convince someone to renounce their beliefs, they've set that person free and done him a great service. So, why don't they deserve the same recognition as religious missionaries?

"A taste of their own medicine", see, I wouldn't do that. What you are advocating is petty and a little mean-spirited. It's like going door to door with a bucket asking for money to buy a new car, just because you don't like people who collect for a certain charity.

Petty and mean-spirited? I'd say it's marvelous, tongue-in-cheeck satire. Albeit with slightly villainous undertones :wry:

? You think Atheism was invented a few years ago? Next you'll tell me the Catholic Church didn't know it had a problem with paedophillia until the American Scandal.

No, but until fairly recently (i.e. 100-200 years, depending on location) declaring yourself to be an atheist would have gotten you ostracized, if not punished by the government. For all intents and purposes there was no distinction between religious morality and what was considered publicly decent. Not all religious organisations have whole-heartedly accepted that this has changed.
See for example, how the Vatican reacts when the ECHR condemns the Italian state for forcing schools to put crucifixes in classrooms. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm)

The ploliferation of different religious beliefs probably means there are fewer athiests now than ever before.

I seriously doubt that, or at least as far as my country is concerned.

While there is a dash of humorous irony in that, it would be even ruder than the efforts of the Mormons.

In the words of Bomber Harris, "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind" :pirate2:

note: no invocation of Godwin intended

HoreTore

01-10-2010, 16:16

They mean well. Just send them of, there is hardly anything evil about them. I know a (very) christian guy who saves up his cash to go to Africa once a year to dig wells, his own money, is he evil? If it makes people do good things what is the problem, does it offend you that not everybody has the same view on things you have?

No, that isn't what offends me - what offends me is that they are trying to push those views on me. I don't care if they mean well, their intention is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

The mormons and Jehova's wants to push their beliefs on abstinence on others, and along with that comes judgment, demonization and discrimination of those who do wish to drink alcohol or have sex outside marriage. I would be equally offended if the conservative party came knocking on my door, but fortunately, they have some sense left.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-10-2010, 16:50

You didn't use the phrase yourself, but I think the phrase "make him see the light" perfectly illustrates it. Religion X is correct, the non-believers are clearly wrong without knowing it and the faithful must see to it that they're not left to draw their own conclusions by themselves. That's what I consider condescending. The sentence you quoted was poorly phrased. The idea that we should tolerate annoyances just because they're the result of good intentions is not so much condescending as...meh.

Well, this is a fair point (there is a certain amount of condecension in the view). However, what about the people who tried to convince all those Indians that Smallpox was not a gift from the Gods, but a horrible disease they needed to be vaccinated against. Were those people wrong to press their Western medicine on others? I appreciate that you don't see a parallel, but can you appreciate that a religious person would?

From what I understand, the bus ads were simply quid pro quo retaliation.

I believe they were partly funded by Dawkins and his "Atheist Institue", or whatever it is called, that makes them at least partly missionary. Anyway, consider your own phrase, "quid pro quo retaliation", what are you retaliating against?

Basically, someone trying to be nice to you, however irritating they might be.

Genuine missionary atheists exist as well, Richard Dawkins being one of the more crass examples. These people genuinely believe that a belief in God is irrational and detrimental. They feel that if they convince someone to renounce their beliefs, they've set that person free and done him a great service. So, why don't they deserve the same recognition as religious missionaries?

Oh, I don't begrudge Atheists their missionary role any more than anyone else, I welcome it, as I think I have indicated. My proble is that I do not accept that it is enough to take away someone's religion without replacing it with something else. Do you know what happens to a deeply religious person if you violently destroy their faith?

Depression, marital breakdown, nightmares, panic attacks, guilt complexes, complete emotional breakdown, self-harm, suicide. You're talking about taking out someone's complete intellectual and emotional support-network, their worldview, their moral base. If you don't replace that with something else the person can quite litterally unravel.

Petty and mean-spirited? I'd say it's marvelous, tongue-in-cheeck satire. Albeit with slightly villainous undertones :wry:

Well, Christianity doesn't allow the remotely villainous, so you can't compare the two actions. Also, there's a difference between a TV skit and actually proposing to do this in real life. The one is a joke, the other is just petty.

No, but until fairly recently (i.e. 100-200 years, depending on location) declaring yourself to be an atheist would have gotten you ostracized, if not punished by the government. For all intents and purposes there was no distinction between religious morality and what was considered publicly decent. Not all religious organisations have whole-heartedly accepted that this has changed.

Absolutely true, but bear in mind that when you take this into account that the "decline in belief" is partly (maybe even largely) a decline in observence, and Christianity, in particular, has always done well in a secularised society where it competes with other belief systems.

See for example, how the Vatican reacts when the ECHR condemns the Italian state for forcing schools to put crucifixes in classrooms. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm)

Meh, it's the Vatican, and Italy is still overwhelmingly a Roman Catholic country. I believe the point was that if the law was changed then the crucifixes would still be there in almost every case. Also, I believe the insinuation was that they should be removed, which is different to a change in the law.

I seriously doubt that, or at least as far as my country is concerned.

Give it a few years, then come back to me. Hasn't your populace elected a Christian party into government? Such parties are laughed off here.

Meneldil

01-10-2010, 16:53

Actually, God definately exists (philosophically at least) and that is it.

Here's why: Not all forms of existence are material, ideas "exist" but have no being or life idependant of those who carry them. Even assuming "God" is only an idea, He clearly exists for everyone taking part in this thread. In order to talk about God, or say He doesn't exist, one first has to concieve of Him. Worse, as ideas go God is pretty much the most powerful ever, present in the mind of every human being, and with the power to move them to acts of extreme Good or Evil.

I certainly see your point, but it doesn't really work does it?
Of course some things exist and are immaterial. The difference is that god, as believers imagine it/him, is not merely an idea. It's a supreme being that somehow rules over our lives, from some outter kingdom. A being that is described in lenght in the Bible, and appears as arrogant, selfish, crual, and vain.

On the other hand, an idea is just an idea. Hatred or love are just words used to describe something immaterial. I can use the word god to describe an idea, sure. But believers use the word to describe an omnipotent supreme being. Completely different, whether you like it or not.

Disclaimer: In your opinion.

Why don't you go and put a similar disclaimer everytime someone discuss god on this board?

Fragony

01-10-2010, 17:20

No, that isn't what offends me - what offends me is that they are trying to push those views on me. I don't care if they mean well, their intention is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

The mormons and Jehova's wants to push their beliefs on abstinence on others, and along with that comes judgment, demonization and discrimination of those who do wish to drink alcohol or have sex outside marriage. I would be equally offended if the conservative party came knocking on my door, but fortunately, they have some sense left.

They aren't the only ones forcing their believes upon others, and these people bother me the least of them all. Greenfreaks and multiculti's are much more intrusive on so many more levels.

Subotan

01-10-2010, 18:11

Agnostics are just atheists without balls. - Stephen Colbert

Furunculus

01-10-2010, 18:28

what about indifferent agnostics?

Subotan

01-10-2010, 18:31

Atheists who don't know if they have balls or not.

Louis VI the Fat

01-10-2010, 18:44

Well, mimicking missionaries just to take the proverbial is just insulting and mean spirited; they do, after all, have your best interests at heart.

About the "There probably isn't..." campaign: The whole pitch, and the one made by these atheists generally, is (philosophically speaking) totally negative. All the campaign trys to do is take something away from people, without giving them anything. If God is percieved as positive, and faith is not burdonsome, then taking away that faith is unlikely to improve someone's life unless it is replaced with something else.What makes you think we haven't got your best interest in mind when trying to convince you that there are no gods? Not yours, not Thor, not Vishnu - none.

Actually, God definately exists (philosophically at least) and that is it.

Here's why: Not all forms of existence are material, ideas "exist" but have no being or life idependant of those who carry them. Even assuming "God" is only an idea, He clearly exists for everyone taking part in this thread. In order to talk about God, or say He doesn't exist, one first has to concieve of Him. Worse, as ideas go God is pretty much the most powerful ever, present in the mind of every human being, and with the power to move them to acts of extreme Good or Evil.

Further, if we accept that the Idea "God" has existence, and that this idea is extremely powerful, then all atheists and theists are really arguing about is what goes on behind the curtain (if anything).If I admit that all of the above is true, then will you admit that the same holds true for all of the other gods?

Can I hear you say that Maskkerrigghyy (pbuh) the Omnipotent Eight-Fingered God of Vanua* is real? As real as the one single god you claim philosophically exist - and who at pain of eternal torture prohibits you from accepting the existence of other gods? :smash:

(I thought you were going to pull out Anselm's ontological proof of God. Which, as far as 'God-evidences' go, at least has some philosophical merit. Alas! You stopped just short of that. All that we are left with now is a doomed attempt that proofs merely that the idea of god exists.
But then, Bart Simpson, too, exists - since we can speak about him etc etc)

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

*Speaking of which, especially for Evil Maniac of Mars:
'Maskkerrigghyy (pbuh) the Omnipotent Eight-Fingered God of Vanua does not exist.'

*Disclaimer! In my opinion he does not.*

Kralizec

01-10-2010, 19:34

Anselm's ontological proof of God.

http://machall.com/view.php?date=2003-04-21

Subotan

01-10-2010, 19:51

(I thought you were going to pull out Anselm's ontological proof of God. Which, as far as 'God-evidences' go, at least has some philosophical merit.

Apart from the fact that it assumes that existing is a good quality, and therefore, a quality of perfection. The world would be a better place if dog poo didn't exist, which means that existing is morally relative. Since perfection would require solely good moral absolutes (By nature of it's definition), it is impossible for something perfect to posses a quality which is morally ambiguous, such as existing. Therefore, existence is not a quality of perfection, and Anselm's Ontological Argument is false.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-10-2010, 20:16

What makes you think we haven't got your best interest in mind when trying to convince you that there are no gods? Not yours, not Thor, not Vishnu - none.

I'm sure you do Loius, but I was responding to Krazilec's "retaliatory" atheists; who, he claims, merely want to wind me up.

If I admit that all of the above is true, then will you admit that the same holds true for all of the other gods?

Yes, of course.

Can I hear you say that Maskkerrigghyy (pbuh) the Omnipotent Eight-Fingered God of Vanua* is real? As real as the one single god you claim philosophically exist - and who at pain of eternal torture prohibits you from accepting the existence of other gods? :smash:

Yep, He (is it a "He"?") exists under the terms I defined.

(I thought you were going to pull out Anselm's ontological proof of God. Which, as far as 'God-evidences' go, at least has some philosophical merit. Alas! You stopped just short of that. All that we are left with now is a doomed attempt that proofs merely that the idea of god exists.
But then, Bart Simpson, too, exists - since we can speak about him etc etc)

Dear Loius, I would not bore you with Saint Anselm's Proof, as you are obviously familiar with it; being French and therefore well-educated.

However, I'm afraid you are seeing something that simply isn't there in my posts. HoreTore claimed that the existence of "God" was an irrelevant question, so I roughed out a philosophical proof to demonstrate that it was not. As you have allowed that the "idea" of God does exist according to my proof, I believe it is successful.

I was simply trying to demonstrate the nature of "God" is an important question because this influences how we see "Him" which, because the idea of God is so powerful, influences our actions. I then went on to demonstrate that questions concerning the nature of God are, in a way, more important than His existence as a being, because merely the belief He exists makes Him immensely powerful.

I mean, really, I can't prove the existence of God to you, so why try? Much better to show you it's important to care.

P.S. Please do let me know if I become boring, I wouldn't want this exchange to at any point become stale for you.

Crazed Rabbit

01-10-2010, 20:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U58wgn-9Y3c

That's John Safran, an Australian satirist. He is actually Jewish and that skit was entirely satirical, though as you said, the message is fairly obvious... and hilarious.

Ah, I remember that video - the prat who calls himself the Ghandi of tolerance, but can't tolerate a couple missionaries. :laugh4:

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-10-2010, 21:03

If someone else is pestering me, I couldn't care less what that persons motivations are. In fact, the idea that I should tolerate it because that person is doing it for my own good is a little condescending and patronising, to say the least.

It isn't condescending or patronizing at all. They are doing it because they think that they can help you. If you don't believe they can, just be polite and send them on their way. 99% of the time they will bid you a good day and leave.

Of course, going door-by-door with leaflets and buying advertisement space on buses and such is perfectly legal. Even for atheists who decide that they want to give the opposite camp a taste of their own medicine. Doing so does not make them "militant".

I didn't say it was illegal, now did I? I just said it was petty. In doing it to give the other side a "taste of their own medicine" certainly fits into the definition of militant atheism.

Obviously you think that atheist propaganda is much more offensive than religious propaganda. Because you're religious.

No. I disagree strongly with the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, but when they come to my door I know their motivations, and they are always polite to me and I am polite in return. When an atheist comes banging on my door telling me to renounce my religion because the Jehovah's Witness down the road tried to pass him a copy of The Watchtower, that makes me angry. Not because I am religious, but because it is absurd and childish.

The whole idea, or the principal reason for these sort of campaigns is to teach the religiously inclined a lesson in empathy.

I would think that letting an atheist burn for eternity is rather less empathetic than telling him how he can avoid it in one's opinion. Being mean-spirited is hardly a way to teach empathy.

Tristuskhan

01-10-2010, 21:11

Dear Loius, I would not bore you with Saint Anselm's Proof, as you are obviously familiar with it; being French and therefore well-educated.

Indeed Louis had, as many french people (and me beeing older than him, even more so), to survive tedious philosophy lessons...

However, I'm afraid you are seeing something that simply isn't there in my posts. HoreTore claimed that the existence of "God" was an irrelevant question, so I roughed out a philosophical proof to demonstrate that it was not. As you have allowed that the "idea" of God does exist according to my proof, I believe it is successful.

I was simply trying to demonstrate the nature of "God" is an important question because this influences how we see "Him" which, because the idea of God is so powerful, influences our actions. I then went on to demonstrate that questions concerning the nature of God are, in a way, more important than His existence as a being, because merely the belief He exists makes Him immensely powerful.

I mean, really, I can't prove the existence of God to you, so why try? Much better to show you it's important to care.

....lessons usually tedious enough to convince them that scholastics is definitely some -sometimes smooth- leisure for the idle, and that the only one you can convince with St Anselm's Ontologic Proof is the one who already thinks the same as you. Architectural virtuosity, skill in dialectics, distinguished biased logics but in the end StAnselm's "proof" is just... like a skyscraper built on sinking sands. Not reliable.

P.S. Please do let me know if I become boring, I wouldn't want this exchange to at any point become state for you.

Nothing like that, you're feeding the debate.

Kralizec

01-11-2010, 15:14

It isn't condescending or patronizing at all. They are doing it because they think that they can help you. If you don't believe they can, just be polite and send them on their way. 99% of the time they will bid you a good day and leave.

I didn't say it was illegal, now did I? I just said it was petty. In doing it to give the other side a "taste of their own medicine" certainly fits into the definition of militant atheism.

No. I disagree strongly with the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, but when they come to my door I know their motivations, and they are always polite to me and I am polite in return. When an atheist comes banging on my door telling me to renounce my religion because the Jehovah's Witness down the road tried to pass him a copy of The Watchtower, that makes me angry. Not because I am religious, but because it is absurd and childish.

The video CountArach posted was specifically about Mormon neighbourhoods. Jehovah's Witnesses are too few and too scattered to pester large numbers of people on a regular basis. The Mormons on the other hand...if you think that this one, isolated attempt at satire is "childish and absurd" you're taking things way to seriously.

Also, don't you folks consider someone to be a "militant atheist" when said person has the desire to deconvert the religious? In that case it doesn't apply to the video, as the message is "we'd leave you alone if you left us alone, but now that you don't fulfill your end of that bargain"...

I guess the point is that atheists have to bend over; they have to accept that christians advertise their views all the time and refrain from doing so themselves. That mindset is so 19th century.

I would think that letting an atheist burn for eternity is rather less empathetic than telling him how he can avoid it in one's opinion. Being mean-spirited is hardly a way to teach empathy.

So let me get this clear:
I'm supposed to put up with christian bell towers ringing on sunday morning while I'm trying to sleep in, put up with ads on bus stops telling me to convert, et cetera...because they think that they're helping me, because they don't want me to burn for eternity.
But if I'm annoyed by this, and start buying advertisement space to spread my views I'm a mean spirited guy (who's going to burn for eternity)

About the condescension bit, I think I already explained that in my response to PVC.

Vladimir

01-11-2010, 15:33

So...Anything new on the actual topic? Were there any judicial challenges? Is this law being enforced yet? What's going on?

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 15:55

Atheists who don't know if they have balls or not.

hehe. :laugh4:

Banquo's Ghost

01-11-2010, 16:55

So...Anything new on the actual topic? Were there any judicial challenges? Is this law being enforced yet? What's going on?

Nothing yet that I'm aware of. Atheist Ireland and some others are churning out blasphemous texts as fats as they can think of them and pretty much every pub has someone shouting stuff that contravenes the law.

Oddly, no-one has been arrested yet. Mind you, our police cells are rather full of child molesting priests at the moment, so maybe its a phased conviction scheme.

Vladimir

01-11-2010, 17:04

Nothing yet that I'm aware of. Atheist Ireland and some others are churning out blasphemous texts as fats as they can think of them and pretty much every pub has someone shouting stuff that contravenes the law.

Oddly, no-one has been arrested yet. Mind you, our police cells are rather full of child molesting priests at the moment, so maybe its a phased conviction scheme.

Thank you.

There seems to be a significant subtext to this. I don't know anything about Ireland's domestic politics. I am quite sure that whatever I find from internet searches won't provide an accurate picture.

Beskar

01-11-2010, 18:21

Mind you, our police cells are rather full of child molesting priests at the moment, so maybe its a phased conviction scheme.

Blasphemy!!! :laugh4:

It is strange having French-Beskar around here, it is like I am here, when I haven't been posting.

drone

01-11-2010, 18:46

I'm supposed to put up with christian bell towers ringing on sunday morning while I'm trying to sleep in

If only we had some kind of missile...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-11-2010, 20:50

The video CountArach posted was specifically about Mormon neighbourhoods. Jehovah's Witnesses are too few and too scattered to pester large numbers of people on a regular basis. The Mormons on the other hand...if you think that this one, isolated attempt at satire is "childish and absurd" you're taking things way to seriously.

Also, don't you folks consider someone to be a "militant atheist" when said person has the desire to deconvert the religious? In that case it doesn't apply to the video, as the message is "we'd leave you alone if you left us alone, but now that you don't fulfill your end of that bargain"...

I wasn't talking about the video.

I guess the point is that atheists have to bend over; they have to accept that christians advertise their views all the time and refrain from doing so themselves. That mindset is so 19th century.

No, it simply means they should avoid being petty and mean-spirited. If you want to spread your views, that's fine. Buy advertising space, go door to door and respectfully talk to people about atheism. Don't do it to annoy religious people. To go out of your way to annoy someone else is daft. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to do it, it just makes you childish for doing so.