A few articles have made me chuckle this week. With all the furore surrounding Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, I found this article resonated well with my thoughts on fundamental atheism. Here we have a despicable, poisonous, racist, individual on a political debate show for the first time, but anyone who saw the programme will understand why support within the British public has increased. The man was berated. No policies were discussed, no constructive debate was encouraged, and Griffin was forced to spend the entire programme defending himself.
Are you listening, "new atheists"? You see what's happened there? Common opinion would be that the left wing were in the right, but the aggression and facetiousness with which the subject was handled has done them no good at all. This is how I see the aggression of fundamentalist atheists. It's exactly the same as evangelical Christians. If you try to force something down someone's throat, they will instinctively try to reject it. The choice of whether to be religious or not is an entirely personal one.
However, Christians, you don't get off lightly either. If you want to throw Hitler at atheists, we'd like to present you with Mr Griffin as your very own little Hitler.
Sunday 25 October 2009
Sunday 4 October 2009
Siding with the other team
A rare one for you here - I'm going to side with the Christians for a moment. Take a look at this article:
Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned
I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.
I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.
The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.
This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".
The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.
Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned
I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.
I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.
The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.
This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".
The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
