Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"


Guest Kyelo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PS:....

If it's about supporting wider personal belief systems then those complining pretend-Christians should have no problem with this "ban" (which isn't a ban). After all, atheism is no less of a personal belief system than Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Janism, Taoism, etc, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You're right. Atheism is a personal belief system just like the religions you mention. There should be an acceptance of all of them. People have the right to believe what they want to believe.

Yup.

But people also have a right to an opinion on other belief systems too, which covers what you say in this part....

Then why is it in this thread you continue to elevate your own belief system above those of others. Branding all religious people as deluded nutjobs and morons. In my eyes, you use these boards to preach your own personal rhetoric of showing intolerance to religion. If your problem with religion is they themselves are intolerant then you're fighting fire with fire and in my opinion only weakening your stance.

No, I give intolerance back to the intolerant. This whole thread only exists because of the intolerance of Christians to those who are not Christians.

I am simply pointing that fact out. If they live and let live then I'm very happy for them to continue in their delusions if that's what they wish to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.

But people also have a right to an opinion on other belief systems too, which covers what you say in this part....

No, I give intolerance back to the intolerant. This whole thread only exists because of the intolerance of Christians to those who are not Christians.

I am simply pointing that fact out. If they live and let live then I'm very happy for them to continue in their delusions if that's what they wish to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The intolerance of *some* christians. In the same way that *some* non religious people can be equally intollerant.

I'm able to tolerate them just as long as they give the same tolerance to me.

As soon as they start demanding special privileges for themselves (as they were in Bideford, for example) they cease to be tolerant and becoming unreasonably imposing (which is not tolerance) - and I'll tell them where to shove it.

I wonder when us atheists are going to be given the privilege of waking up everyone withion a two mile radius on a Sunday morning, every Sunday morning. And the same at midnight once a year too.

I say that to point out that they still have a huge number of special privileges which is their intolerance in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intolerance of *some* christians. In the same way that *some* non religious people can be equally intollerant.

On a broader note, so much done in the name of Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. You just have to look at the republican party. Jesus (if he existed) would have been horrified by what they believe. I barely count these people as christians. People who genuinely follow the teachings of jesus, and not some screwed up version of christianity based on old testiment nonsense are, in my opinion, some of the most tolerant people you're likely to meet. because thats what jesus taught.

Homosexuality is a tricky issue. Some Christian groups are slowly catching up to societies overall changing view of homosexuality. Times and views change, these are very old institutions though and it takes time for these things to filter through - as it did with woman priests. Some are adapting quicker than others. While others are hardly adapting at all e.g. catholics. However gay people would be warmly welcomed at pretty much all CofE churches across the country, because while these churches may not necessarily agree with homosexuality, they're not silly enough to thinking its evil and the work of the devil and would welcome them to their congregation. I don't think it will be long before priests can be practicing homosexuals (they already allow openly gay priests - just they're not allowed to practice).

Jesus basically said not a lot more than be excellent to eachother. If everyone did that then the world would be a pretty sweet place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. We don't actually know what specific teachings Jesus was refering to though, as the scriptures have been so warped and bent through history. Thanks to early jewish and catholic faiths, the Old testament in its modern form is probably very different to the original scriptures that Jesus was refering to. Jesus' teachings in the new testament are much more filled with love and peace and tollerance, and in cases contradictory to stuff in the old testament so something is not quite right.

Although its probably all a load of bull, and the evidence that Jesus was a real person is rather flimsy anyway.

There's a huge number of christians who won't accept the old testament as anything other than bed time stories. Our attention is bought to the ones who believe its every word as they also happen to be the ones who shout the loudest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm able to tolerate them just as long as they give the same tolerance to me.

As soon as they start demanding special privileges for themselves (as they were in Bideford, for example) they cease to be tolerant and becoming unreasonably imposing (which is not tolerance) - and I'll tell them where to shove it.

I wonder when us atheists are going to be given the privilege of waking up everyone withion a two mile radius on a Sunday morning, every Sunday morning. And the same at midnight once a year too.

I say that to point out that they still have a huge number of special privileges which is their intolerance in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because most Christians are not intrusive.... They run the local coffe shop, maybe the local nursery, drug, allochol and debt support groups, give to charty, and maybe come around and sing some songs at Christmas....

The sort Neil would rather not talk about....

Edited by kaosmark2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said atheists don't...

And now we are back talking about the Catholic Church and condoms...

Religious debates on here are so fucking boring... I always find it staggering for example that people look at the Catholic Church "banning" condoms as the reason HIV has spread in Africa. Conveniently missing out the rest of the messages in the bible that talk about one man and one women forming an entity which should not be broke, and if the rest of the messages where followed then it self limits the spread of aids arguably as much as condoms. Whats the chances of someone getting aids if a guy has sex with the same girl there whole life ?

Someone say oh I am catholic so I can't used condoms... Butting fucking everyone women in a 100 mile radius as I feel is ok... Well any dickhead can surely see the logic breakdown there...

But you can't and the same old narrow debate is pushed. Catholic institution aren't spreading aids in Africa, people with little understanding of their own faith are...

I don't like the Catholic faith for many reasons. There stance on abortion, homesexuals, condoms, babies going to hell etc etc etc are all up their. But I have enough brain cells in me to look beyond the bullshit attacks out there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a rare breed to find any person in any culture who has only ever slept with one person. The Vatican' stance makes the issue much harder to solve.

Also about the messages that Jesus spread, yes there are nice ones(which are more decent human nature to me, without the need for god)but what about the likes of Luke 19:27? "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." and the likes? I suppose your answer will be along the lines of-;"Your taking it out of context, it needs to be looked at as a parable." etc but who decides what to heed and how to read it? Anyone can use it to support anything, good or bad.

It's that damn book that made me an atheist, If I followed it to a tee I'd have been hung, drawn and quartered a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Probably because most Christians are not intrusive.... They run the local coffe shop, maybe the local nursery, drug, allochol and debt support groups, give to charty, and maybe come around and sing some songs at Christmas....

The sort Neil would rather not talk about....

what's to talk about when they're doing nothing different to anyone else? :blink::lol:

-----

Meanwhile, Liz has told 'her' ministers that they're fucking insane. At least someone in the chain has their head screwed on, rather than reverting to unthinking-moron mode. Sometimes I have to give the monarchy its due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Anyway, as the head of the Church of England is telling her own moronic bishops and her own moronic ministers and the likes of Barry Fish to stop being discriminatory morons, what more is there to say about this subject?

Those morons have been holding her up as the justification for their words. She's told them they're 100% wrong.

Well done Liz. You clearly have a fully working brain behind that gormless smile. You've just gained some respect from me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

When is the last time you was in a church or around the people you like to slag off so much ?

I spent 15 years attending Church. I'm not talking from ignorance. :rolleyes:

The fact that that was now decades ago means nothing ... unless you're going to tell me that everyone is now worshipping a different god but using the same grouping titles to do it? :lol::lol:

I think you are sucker for your own dogma and preconceived ideas...

Or alternatively, I have my eyes open while yours are shut? :rolleyes:

As you're aware, Dave Moron has been banging on about 'The Big Society', and of how these wonderful Christian types can patronisingly give the rest of the population everything they need. As an example of this, he holds up the libraries that have recently changed over to being run by people from the community.

But funnily enough, the only places where that's actually happening is in untypical rich areas, where there are a very large and disproportionate number of people (mainly 'housewives' and people who have been lucky enough to retire on huge pensions aged just 50) who don't have to work because of their wealth.

And when the people running those library services are asked whether Dave Moron is right, and the sdame idea can work in every part of the country, they're smart enough to realise that it can't, because most other people are far too busy just simply trying to get by.

So even the types of people who are providing thew things you're going on about are far smarter than you are Barry Fish. They realise that it's not "Christian values" which enable them to give to the community but their wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yeah because being dragged along as a kid gives such a good fucking insight into modern Christian worship and activities...

You have a go at me, claiming I'm making presumpotions, then make whoopping ones of your own. You really are patheticly priceless. :lol::lol:

There were a greater amount of community activities by Christians in the past than now you moron. So if anything I'm giving them greater credit for that than they deserve now. :rolleyes:

And guess what? They were able to give those greater activities back then because of a greater amount of time available within their congregations - not because of greater wealth back then, but because of a different-shaped society where far fewer women worked (particularly within the more-wealthy which disproprtionately make up Church congregations).

The facts demolish all that you're saying. The Christians with a fully working brain agree with me and not stupid you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

There are very few people in this country who couldn't spare something... 10p. £1, £10... Everyone can find a bit...

and they do. The amount of charitable giving is (proprtionately) increasing, not falling - while the number of practicing religious people continues to fall.

Within the church the vast majority contribute.. The poorest lady in our local congregation (and she is about as poor as they come) still manages to chuck a £1 in...

No shit sherlock. :lol:

Just about all club members hand over their subs. :rolleyes:

The giving you're talking about in Church is not for outside causes, it's to support that 'club' - and they actually fail to financially support that club. The CoE is sustained by the massive weralth they've accumilated in the past, and not by the contributions they get now.

Christians and other faith group do that much more than others...

Just about all club members hand over their subs. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

PS - the Christian Churches are completely shit at giving money to help others in comparison to the likes of Muslims.

The average income amongst practicing Muslims is far lower than it is amongst practicing Christians, and proportionately they give massively more - and to outside causes, not as subs to their club.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

More lies... More bollocks...

Nothing of what you say matches up with the reality of my local churches... I will leave wider presumptions to you...

What I'm saying on the wider angle is NOT presumption, but solid fact that even the leaderships of the various Christian churches in the country recognise and say.

I can only guess that you live in an anomily that's full of spectacularly righteous (but also, if you're typical, also stupid) people. :)

-------------------

But anyway, the head of the Chruch you attend has said you're wrong about the issue which started this thread. She's said that the ban on forced worship is correct.

I might happily pay my 64p towards her wages this year. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...