Anne Atkins, Much of the atheist anger comes directly from: 1) Being lied to....by adults, from childhood. 2) The tribal division, misery and death that religions cause. 3) Threats and coercion that come from all clergy and most believers. 4) Empathy for "believers" who live in profound fear of an apparently non-existent god. A false "belief" that was imposed on them as children. That is child abuse, plain and simple. If you cannot understand that atheist anger is entirely justified, then you aren't trying very hard....and that causes me to question your integrity.
@@ossiedunstan4419 I thought it was fairly clear from my post. The truth is what the facts are. No fact indicates a god, therefor claims of the existence of a god are not true.
All I can say, as an American atheist.... WOW!!!! a debate with absolutely no name calling, unreasonable claims, and terribly incorrect facts!!!! WHAT IS THIS???? oh, wait, its not a debate between Americans in the media.... I forgot, despite the accents.
Ah, the Awful Anne Atkins from BBC Radio4's 'Thought for the Day' - rarely does she disappoint in providing a mixture of barking mad religious garbage & embarrassing revelations about her family & sex life. Thanks to Andrew Copson for his constant decency & clarity.
Andrew Copson has really impressed me here. A sound, calm, and strong argument against what really comes across as (and unfortunately for her side) a batty aunt. Saying 'lots of people x' and 'lots of people y' without reference or citation is not an argument Ms Atkins.
America is intolerant of religion? I'm an American. I identify as a secular humanist. I can't run for office because I don't believe in an "almighty God." It would appear that America is intolerant of anyone who is a non-Christian. Many people claim America is a secular nation, however, in nearly all of our state constitutions the preamble begins by invoking the will of almighty God. Not so secular, if you ask me. There's this mass confusion among Americans that Atheists hate religion. I actually find religion fascinating. Religion has shaped our world, our culture, and our lives for centuries. Regardless, everyone, no matter what their religious preference, should have equal opportunity. Nobody should be more or less privileged.
Who claims America is secular? I've never heard so much rubbish. America is screwed up by religion big time, and I'm so happy the Brits aren't corrupted in the same way. Religion should never enter politics. We'd never allow it here. The fact that Trump had to lie and hold up a bible was a travesty highlighting how religion has no place in politics.
Andrew Copson is amazing! Totally agree with him and as a proud humanist myself I have to say he and other Humanists give me hope for a more humane and peaceful future.
Militant atheism...so is that me then? I am a humanist celebrant - and an atheist - and have just come home having run a non-religious funeral for a baby. The angry side of atheism???? Stone me! Warsi and co need a kick up the wotsit. Andrew is a splendid spokesperson for us all - more of him please in British public life
I agree, he's very much the voice of reason. There is a difference between standing up for genuine equality (in the face of a long historic inequality as any non-secular country has) and being militant with your views.
I suspect if Andrew Copson was to start listing things Richard Dawkins was angry about, she'd quickly back down and say "well I don't agree with any of those things and don't think of them as Christian".
Brilliant and so calm despite the unfair aggressive nature of the reporting from both of Anne (who seems to do so quite often) and the newscaster. There is an "intolerant", as mentioned by Anne but who I disagree with on that aspect, side to Atheism specifically due to the aggression it receives from the pious, and have suffered this aggressive onslaught for 2 thousand of years. I'm on BHA, Scottish Humanists and NSS on Facebook. If you're reading this and aren't, then get there and join them.
Andrew is very well reasoned and a great spokesman. To be honest Anne wasn't as bad as some of the people that could have been included in this piece. I don't agree with her position but can understand why people like here feel under threat. It is because there is a history of privilege and protection around Christian beliefs in the UK, this protection is being lifted and it is a shock. Ahh the BBC. Could you imagine a US news show having such a courteous and well spoken debate about this issue?
As Christians, we can sit back and laugh at science. Sometimes, we cry tears of joy as well. Every time some fancy academic comes up with something he thinks is new, we can turn to our Bibles and see that there is nothing new Salvation means freedom from Satan's distractions. Distractions like books, universities, science, biology, astronomy...
I wonder what these christians say if one of these meeting organizers is a Muslim and want to say namaz before the meeting? or if one of them is an Atheist who wants to recite from the origin of species and actually go on to say that God has not created people? Would they simply remain silent and let it go by?
This requires re-examination in our increasingly radicalised day and age. I personally believe, in the UK, that any and all should be able to express practise their faith of choice, if they choose to practise within a faith, or indeed, if they choose to be atheistic or agnostic. This practise, in turn, should sit in alignment with the British Values. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to share a prayer from each faith represented, and a chosen piece from agnostic and atheist representatives, in future. All voices have a right to be heard, and communication is vital, to reducing segregation and hopefully improving reconciliation and understanding between our different communities, experiences and perspectives as a society.
For someone who lives outside of the UK, it's amusing to note that the UK still tolerates the archaic institutions of monarchy and the nobility, and neither of the panelists here in talking of the appropriateness of having bishops in or out of a given institution see the irony in that institution being "the house of lords". The old Greek "hero model" and christianity's attendant framework of the "messiah" are models of exclusion that intentionally do not recognize (or tolerate) the superior value of community over the individual in certain very important areas of human development, namely, the areas of social interaction and cooperative grouping. One of the roles of the most able in society is to be of service to those who are less able, without demeaning the less able in the process. The more able give "more" because they have more, or are born with more. In most societies today, humans practice the opposite; those who are less capable (no strict definition here) serve those who are more capable, and we call the resulting society a "meritocracy". Religions have claimed to practice differently to this, but the claims, in terms of ownership, control, and individual autonomy, are largely false. Clearly, we need new definitions of "merit", "value", and "meaning".
It seems many people can't distinguish between "militant" and "vocal". By their definition, I'm basically a marauding army of outspokenness. The irony is here we have secularists who, in fact, *protect* religious equality, by being vocal about any particular religion being granted special dispensation or privileges, such as in the Bideford "council prayer" case. This whole thing is a textbook example of broken human cognition.
No-one's stopping the religious from practising religion in their personal life, but it should never be a public obligation to carry out religious practices they don't believe it.
It is such bollocks to say Dawkins is just angry about christianity : anyone who has been to his lectures knows that he is an advocate for science and the stunning marvel that is nature and evolution and the real world. That incidentally was his dayjob (is still?): as a professor of science, he promotes a science based outlook on life. and science is NOT a belief system and NOT equivalent to a religion (before anyone feels the need to say it is)
Atheism is not the same as Secularism. Why is this lady even talking about Atheism? This just goes on to show how religious people won't leave a chance to bash Atheism.
Let me try to get this straight. They don't bar non-christians, but if you don't go the right church you can't attend the school? WTF is the difference?!?!??
It's precisely because of the predominance of secularism in the UK that has allowed the likes of Warsi to hold the office she does. To throw religion back in the face of secularism is to deny the tolerance that is the point of secularism. She needs to rethink.
@rogan71 Yep. Don't know if you're in the UK or not, but if you are 4od have a documentary by Richard Dawkins called "Faith School Menace" - watch that and prepare to be VERY shocked and more than a little angry.
240,000 people go to Hell every day. That's 158 people a minute. You can line up all the people who went to Hell in the last 10 years and have them all hold hands - if they hadn’t been chewed off by demons.
@SternMann93 State churches aren't so bad, Norway for example is quite awesome and it would take some serious data fudging to get them up to 30% christian.
I love the Church's whine that secularists are militant when I was brought up, in a conventionally Christian environment, to sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war..." and "Fight the good fight with all thy might..", while the liturgy spoke of "Christ's Church militant here on earth".
Nothing was at stake? How about upholding the law? How about not allowing special treatment to religion just by virtue of being faith? There was a lot at stake, maybe not necessarily that specific situation but certainly by the precedence it would set.
@rogan71 Given that over a third of all our schools are "faith" schools, I do not see that it's unfair to say that religion is "bound up" in our education system. My son's supposedly secular secondary school has just become an academy and been taken over by a CofE organisation who wants to instill "spirituality" - whatever the hell that is. We are much more secular than the US, of course, but nowhere near secular enough. IMO.
Yes Anne... did you ever give any thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe, that the non-believers who still identify as Christian are a product of their social environment? Maybe they're among the first generation of their family who are non-believers. I wonder if their children, or their children's children will still consider themself Christian?
@rogan71 Also, you should not that these schools are allowed to pick and choose which pupils to admit (secular schools cannot) which is why they have better results. They can also discriminate against other faiths when appointing staff (a crime in any other arena). Unearned religious privilege is alive and kicking in British education - and it's a scandal, quite frankly.
theyre all so obsessed with Richard Dawkins! She complains that he used a slot on radio 4 to criticise her religion? Where else would she like him to go to do that, Talksport!??!
This lady: atheism is militant and invading politics! Reported: do you have an example? This lady:.....France? Me: unconscious because I facepalmed too hard
It is in "debates" such as this, that I feel the colossal loss of Christopher Hitchens. It is a situation like this were his mind and oratory would devastate this idiotic woman and her love of religion and desire to tolerate utter nonsense.
Well, all I can say, is that 96% of 2012 political donations from Ivy League faculty & staff, went to Obama. Interpret this as you may, however, the more educated seems to put their conviction on the side of logic, reason, and progressive secularism....NOT religious DOGMA.
@rogan71 Sorry, think you have some research to do. No...they are called "faith schools". Probably as many Catholic as there are CofE. They are entitled to set their own RE syllabus, the only subject where they can, so no, the law is not all strict on this matter. It's also law that ALL state schools have one act of Christian collective worship a day (although many ignore it). It is, however, illegal to teach creationism as science.
As an American, the statement that America is intolerant of religion is ridiculous... You have to prove your Christianity here if you plan on running for office. America is in fact still intolerant of non-religion.
I despise few people. Baroness Warsi is one of those i have strong hate for. She's far too intelligent to not realise what her plans would mean, how much worse things would get if she had her way.
So what she means by "aggressive atheism" is Richard Dawkins then? That's it? One man is enough to judge anyone who doesn't subscribe to a belief in God? Okay then... :S
The use of the word "militant" is so hyperbolic. Where is the violence exactly? Seriously, at least, if you want to make this argument without looking too hysterically silly, then tone down the language to at least something more plausible like "strident" or "stubborn". Yes, "angry" and "confrontational" could work. But "militant" is so off the scale, then you're pretty much guaranteeing that anyone not already convinced of this narrative is just not going to be convinced. You might as well start declaring atheists to have horns and a tail. It's not just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they also require extraordinary levels of charismatic persuasion to get any neutral party to remotely take you seriously, when you're rattling off clearly exaggerations like "militant". The neutral party will watch Richard Dawkins giving a speech or engaging in a debate with the religious and think "where is this violence they promised me?". He's talking about memetic evolution - where's the "militant" in that? This is not going to convince anyone, who is not already convinced by their "faith" beforehand.
I agree with the woman. I want to live in a world where we all read the religious books, eat cream cakes and skip around the world in the name of peace.
thats a single religion, theres multiple other religions that are less tolerated, and they are totally incomparable, america has separation of state and religon, where most middle east countries don't.
...in short, New Atheism is peaceful. The rhetoric used often offends religious types, but it's a lot better than how religious societies tend to treat their atheists (look at the atheist and gay hating orthodox church in Russia where priests have encouraged violence against said people).
info info What's with the rhetorical question at the end, yes of course those people exist but they're not having nearly the impact that the fundamentalist religious types are.
What are these 'atheist values' you speak of? The only tenet of atheism is the lack of belief in a higher power: it doesn't have a set of doctrines associated with it. New Atheism is largely a product of the enlightenment and scientific development, it has little in common with the atheism of the Soviet Union which coexisted with anti-science and violent action. New atheism encourages rational debate and discussion and challenges religious or secular faith (that is belief without evidence)...
I have somewhat different take on HUMANISTS Humans have evolved not only biologically but are also evolving CONSCIOUSLY ( in religious jargon spiritually) . Most humans are trapped in the lowest state of human consciousness, the" fight or flight" or animal consciousness. To these people the less developed reptilian brain ,which is mainly concerned about survival. self-preservation , fixing and safeguarding territories and boundaries, is dominant over the much larger, more evolved and advanced, Limbic and Neo Cortex parts of human brain which longs to expand, explore, for oneness, universality and break all boundaries and barriers. Sadly these people who are trapped and languish in the lowest state of human consciousness (who I might add are in the majority at this point in time) are devoid of any CONSCIENCE ,COMPASSION OR EMPATHY, the most important attributes that set a fully fledged , decent human being apart from the rest of the animals. Because of the absence of these important attributes , these people find it impossible to decide or distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, truth and falsehood etc. without some sort of guidance . This is where religion comes in, with rules and commandments, promise of rewards and punishments , rituals and host of other dogmas. HUMANISTS who are in a higher state of consciousness can clearly understand the condition of humans in the lower state of consciousness , but not vice-versa. It is very much similar to an adult who can understand a child but not vice-versa. Most people who are CONSERVATIVES or belong to other Right-Wing groups fall into this lower state the "fight or flight" category.
You lose any credibility when you include shit like this( evolving CONSCIOUSLY ( in religious jargon spiritually), Soon as you include psuedo sceince you stop being evidence driven.
People who use the phrase 'militant atheism' are guilty of sloppy thinking. Militant theists fly planes into buildings. 'Militant atheists' fly ideas into heads. Spot the difference? You use the phrase 'militant atheism' and 'militant atheist' a lot don't you?
Being tolerant to religious idiots is like being tolerant to drunk driving.
Well done Andrew. A first class interview!
Anne Atkins,
Much of the atheist anger comes directly from:
1) Being lied to....by adults, from childhood.
2) The tribal division, misery and death that religions cause.
3) Threats and coercion that come from all clergy and most believers.
4) Empathy for "believers" who live in profound fear of an apparently non-existent god. A false "belief" that was imposed on them as children. That is child abuse, plain and simple.
If you cannot understand that atheist anger is entirely justified, then you aren't trying very hard....and that causes me to question your integrity.
Hey why are you ablest towards anti theists.
@@ossiedunstan4419 I thought it was fairly clear from my post. The truth is what the facts are. No fact indicates a god, therefor claims of the existence of a god are not true.
All I can say, as an American atheist.... WOW!!!! a debate with absolutely no name calling, unreasonable claims, and terribly incorrect facts!!!! WHAT IS THIS???? oh, wait, its not a debate between Americans in the media.... I forgot, despite the accents.
Well, it wasn't Matt Dillanhunty, was it? :)
Love Matt .
Ah, the Awful Anne Atkins from BBC Radio4's 'Thought for the Day' - rarely does she disappoint in providing a mixture of barking mad religious garbage & embarrassing revelations about her family & sex life.
Thanks to Andrew Copson for his constant decency & clarity.
Andrew Copson has really impressed me here. A sound, calm, and strong argument against what really comes across as (and unfortunately for her side) a batty aunt. Saying 'lots of people x' and 'lots of people y' without reference or citation is not an argument Ms Atkins.
Anne did not stand a chance and she knew it .
"All atheists have to do is to sit quietly"
You'd like that wouldn't you Anne?
America is intolerant of religion? I'm an American. I identify as a secular humanist. I can't run for office because I don't believe in an "almighty God." It would appear that America is intolerant of anyone who is a non-Christian. Many people claim America is a secular nation, however, in nearly all of our state constitutions the preamble begins by invoking the will of almighty God. Not so secular, if you ask me. There's this mass confusion among Americans that Atheists hate religion. I actually find religion fascinating. Religion has shaped our world, our culture, and our lives for centuries. Regardless, everyone, no matter what their religious preference, should have equal opportunity. Nobody should be more or less privileged.
Who claims America is secular? I've never heard so much rubbish. America is screwed up by religion big time, and I'm so happy the Brits aren't corrupted in the same way. Religion should never enter politics. We'd never allow it here. The fact that Trump had to lie and hold up a bible was a travesty highlighting how religion has no place in politics.
Andrew Copson is amazing! Totally agree with him and as a proud humanist myself I have to say he and other Humanists give me hope for a more humane and peaceful future.
as per usual Andrew Copson gives a well thought out , rational argument.
Andrew is always annihilating idiots so thoroughly & politely.
Andrew 1, Anne 0.
Great arguments from Andrew Copson. Keep giving logical responses and picking out the faults and false narratives that the Christians create.
Examples please.
Militant atheism...so is that me then? I am a humanist celebrant - and an atheist - and have just come home having run a non-religious funeral for a baby. The angry side of atheism???? Stone me! Warsi and co need a kick up the wotsit. Andrew is a splendid spokesperson for us all - more of him please in British public life
The Hob and The Hitch - Good Cop Bad Cop.
What great men.😊
Ann Atkins..... I really enjoyed your interview and response.... watertight!! its 2014....
Andrew was eloquent and spot on. Here's to Andrew.
I agree, he's very much the voice of reason. There is a difference between standing up for genuine equality (in the face of a long historic inequality as any non-secular country has) and being militant with your views.
I suspect if Andrew Copson was to start listing things Richard Dawkins was angry about, she'd quickly back down and say "well I don't agree with any of those things and don't think of them as Christian".
Brilliant and so calm despite the unfair aggressive nature of the reporting from both of Anne (who seems to do so quite often) and the newscaster. There is an "intolerant", as mentioned by Anne but who I disagree with on that aspect, side to Atheism specifically due to the aggression it receives from the pious, and have suffered this aggressive onslaught for 2 thousand of years.
I'm on BHA, Scottish Humanists and NSS on Facebook. If you're reading this and aren't, then get there and join them.
good work andrew!
Only religious folks want more religion
Thankyou Andrew for speaking so clearly and succinctly to advocate a secular society.
@holyprimate You should probably have added that this awesome quote came at 7:37 :)
Andrew is very well reasoned and a great spokesman. To be honest Anne wasn't as bad as some of the people that could have been included in this piece. I don't agree with her position but can understand why people like here feel under threat. It is because there is a history of privilege and protection around Christian beliefs in the UK, this protection is being lifted and it is a shock. Ahh the BBC. Could you imagine a US news show having such a courteous and well spoken debate about this issue?
what loyalities????
Baroness Warsi: "people need to feel stronger in their religious identities & more confident in their creeds" like Israel or Northern Island
As Christians, we can sit back and laugh at science. Sometimes, we cry tears of joy as well. Every time some fancy academic comes up with something he thinks is new, we can turn to our Bibles and see that there is nothing new Salvation means freedom from Satan's distractions. Distractions like books, universities, science, biology, astronomy...
I wonder what these christians say if one of these meeting organizers is a Muslim and want to say namaz before the meeting? or if one of them is an Atheist who wants to recite from the origin of species and actually go on to say that God has not created people? Would they simply remain silent and let it go by?
This requires re-examination in our increasingly radicalised day and age. I personally believe, in the UK, that any and all should be able to express practise their faith of choice, if they choose to practise within a faith, or indeed, if they choose to be atheistic or agnostic. This practise, in turn, should sit in alignment with the British Values. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to share a prayer from each faith represented, and a chosen piece from agnostic and atheist representatives, in future. All voices have a right to be heard, and communication is vital, to reducing segregation and hopefully improving reconciliation and understanding between our different communities, experiences and perspectives as a society.
Copson handled that well, kudos.
@claudioateu Brasil needs to do that.
Why has Ann got a chip on her shoulder about Richard Dawkins? He's entitled to his opinion.
@Narapoia1 No kidding. I live in the U.S. and there is no way a relatively-corteous debate like this could happen here.
Andrew was fantastic!
Why?????You are very easily impressed
For someone who lives outside of the UK, it's amusing to note that the UK still tolerates the archaic institutions of monarchy and the nobility, and neither of the panelists here in talking of the appropriateness of having bishops in or out of a given institution see the irony in that institution being "the house of lords".
The old Greek "hero model" and christianity's attendant framework of the "messiah" are models of exclusion that intentionally do not recognize (or tolerate) the superior value of community over the individual in certain very important areas of human development, namely, the areas of social interaction and cooperative grouping.
One of the roles of the most able in society is to be of service to those who are less able, without demeaning the less able in the process. The more able give "more" because they have more, or are born with more. In most societies today, humans practice the opposite; those who are less capable (no strict definition here) serve those who are more capable, and we call the resulting society a "meritocracy". Religions have claimed to practice differently to this, but the claims, in terms of ownership, control, and individual autonomy, are largely false.
Clearly, we need new definitions of "merit", "value", and "meaning".
It seems many people can't distinguish between "militant" and "vocal". By their definition, I'm basically a marauding army of outspokenness. The irony is here we have secularists who, in fact, *protect* religious equality, by being vocal about any particular religion being granted special dispensation or privileges, such as in the Bideford "council prayer" case. This whole thing is a textbook example of broken human cognition.
No-one's stopping the religious from practising religion in their personal life, but it should never be a public obligation to carry out religious practices they don't believe it.
While I don't agree with the Christian argument, I give both these guests kudos for being civil towards each other.
Not all secular people are atheist.
It is such bollocks to say Dawkins is just angry about christianity : anyone who has been to his lectures knows that he is an advocate for science and the stunning marvel that is nature and evolution and the real world. That incidentally was his dayjob (is still?): as a professor of science, he promotes a science based outlook on life. and science is NOT a belief system and NOT equivalent to a religion (before anyone feels the need to say it is)
Atheism is not the same as Secularism. Why is this lady even talking about Atheism? This just goes on to show how religious people won't leave a chance to bash Atheism.
Let me try to get this straight. They don't bar non-christians, but if you don't go the right church you can't attend the school? WTF is the difference?!?!??
" ... 240,000 people go to Hell every day ... "
Really? What evidence do you have for this?
@Ellie8969 , technically, it's "Faith School Menace?"
It's precisely because of the predominance of secularism in the UK that has allowed the likes of Warsi to hold the office she does.
To throw religion back in the face of secularism is to deny the tolerance that is the point of secularism.
She needs to rethink.
What are the examples of this angry or militant secularism? What actually did Dawkins say?
@rogan71 Yep. Don't know if you're in the UK or not, but if you are 4od have a documentary by Richard Dawkins called "Faith School Menace" - watch that and prepare to be VERY shocked and more than a little angry.
4:00 "I don't want to live in a country where schoolgirls can't bear burkas to school"
Well, there's a country for that. Move there.
240,000 people go to Hell every day. That's 158 people a minute. You can line up all the people who went to Hell in the last 10 years and have them all hold hands - if they hadn’t been chewed off by demons.
she meant if your religion are outside the Christian circle.Plus she also stated there is aggressive Christian stangle hold over America
"let's not debate about that, because I know I'm wrong, and want to bash atheism even though it has nothing to do with this debate."
@SternMann93
State churches aren't so bad, Norway for example is quite awesome and it would take some serious data fudging to get them up to 30% christian.
'I don't want to live in a country where schoolgirls can't wear burqas to school'
Is she seriously trying to defend that position? wow.
do go on
I love the Church's whine that secularists are militant when I was brought up, in a conventionally Christian environment, to sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war..." and "Fight the good fight with all thy might..", while the liturgy spoke of "Christ's Church militant here on earth".
Anne Atkins seems a bit confused about atheism and secularism! There are actually religous people who are secularist.
I wonder why people are rejecting religion. Maybe because common sense
Nothing was at stake? How about upholding the law? How about not allowing special treatment to religion just by virtue of being faith? There was a lot at stake, maybe not necessarily that specific situation but certainly by the precedence it would set.
Did this woman seriously say she wants to live in a society where women are pressured to wear burkas?!
"There is a very intolerant, aggressive, angry side of Atheism."
Like the very intolerant, aggressive, angry side of religion?
@rogan71 Given that over a third of all our schools are "faith" schools, I do not see that it's unfair to say that religion is "bound up" in our education system. My son's supposedly secular secondary school has just become an academy and been taken over by a CofE organisation who wants to instill "spirituality" - whatever the hell that is. We are much more secular than the US, of course, but nowhere near secular enough. IMO.
Yes Anne... did you ever give any thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe, that the non-believers who still identify as Christian are a product of their social environment? Maybe they're among the first generation of their family who are non-believers. I wonder if their children, or their children's children will still consider themself Christian?
A great example of how non- faith people are. Logic and reasoning will always sound better than faith and believe.
"Militant?" Secularism isn't ""millitant!"
@rogan71 Also, you should not that these schools are allowed to pick and choose which pupils to admit (secular schools cannot) which is why they have better results. They can also discriminate against other faiths when appointing staff (a crime in any other arena). Unearned religious privilege is alive and kicking in British education - and it's a scandal, quite frankly.
@rogan71 Exactly right comrade.
Go on?
In defence of Dawkins, if you just heard what he said Anne, then you would understand why.
theyre all so obsessed with Richard Dawkins! She complains that he used a slot on radio 4 to criticise her religion? Where else would she like him to go to do that, Talksport!??!
This lady: atheism is militant and invading politics!
Reported: do you have an example?
This lady:.....France?
Me: unconscious because I facepalmed too hard
@rg0057 Yep. Soz.
It is in "debates" such as this, that I feel the colossal loss of Christopher Hitchens. It is a situation like this were his mind and oratory would devastate this idiotic woman and her love of religion and desire to tolerate utter nonsense.
Well, all I can say, is that 96% of 2012 political donations from Ivy League faculty & staff, went to Obama. Interpret this as you may, however, the more educated seems to put their conviction on the side of logic, reason, and progressive secularism....NOT religious DOGMA.
@rogan71 Sorry, think you have some research to do. No...they are called "faith schools". Probably as many Catholic as there are CofE. They are entitled to set their own RE syllabus, the only subject where they can, so no, the law is not all strict on this matter. It's also law that ALL state schools have one act of Christian collective worship a day (although many ignore it). It is, however, illegal to teach creationism as science.
As an American, the statement that America is intolerant of religion is ridiculous...
You have to prove your Christianity here if you plan on running for office.
America is in fact still intolerant of non-religion.
I despise few people. Baroness Warsi is one of those i have strong hate for.
She's far too intelligent to not realise what her plans would mean, how much worse things would get if she had her way.
LOL! Really? How are they ignorant?
So what she means by "aggressive atheism" is Richard Dawkins then? That's it? One man is enough to judge anyone who doesn't subscribe to a belief in God? Okay then... :S
say why you think it is tolerant of religion.
Atkins, Warsi, et al, always conflate secularism with atheism. Why? Don't they understand the difference?
Atheists are relatively peace folk, mind....... rather drink, gamble etc etc.... no brainer for me like......
Why is Anne Atkins such an angry person?. Shes so aggressive and militant.
The use of the word "militant" is so hyperbolic.
Where is the violence exactly?
Seriously, at least, if you want to make this argument without looking too hysterically silly, then tone down the language to at least something more plausible like "strident" or "stubborn". Yes, "angry" and "confrontational" could work.
But "militant" is so off the scale, then you're pretty much guaranteeing that anyone not already convinced of this narrative is just not going to be convinced.
You might as well start declaring atheists to have horns and a tail.
It's not just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they also require extraordinary levels of charismatic persuasion to get any neutral party to remotely take you seriously, when you're rattling off clearly exaggerations like "militant".
The neutral party will watch Richard Dawkins giving a speech or engaging in a debate with the religious and think "where is this violence they promised me?". He's talking about memetic evolution - where's the "militant" in that?
This is not going to convince anyone, who is not already convinced by their "faith" beforehand.
"Militant"?
Where "militant" = "won't shut up about their opinion on things"
Just what is 'Securalism'? Can't the BBC find half-decent newsreaders any more?
I agree with the woman. I want to live in a world where we all read the religious books, eat cream cakes and skip around the world in the name of peace.
Let's all pretend Richard Dawkins is a big mean boogieman.
thats a single religion, theres multiple other religions that are less tolerated, and they are totally incomparable, america has separation of state and religon, where most middle east countries don't.
That reporter really needs to learn how to pronounce "secularism" :)
...in short, New Atheism is peaceful. The rhetoric used often offends religious types, but it's a lot better than how religious societies tend to treat their atheists (look at the atheist and gay hating orthodox church in Russia where priests have encouraged violence against said people).
info info What's with the rhetorical question at the end, yes of course those people exist but they're not having nearly the impact that the fundamentalist religious types are.
What are these 'atheist values' you speak of? The only tenet of atheism is the lack of belief in a higher power: it doesn't have a set of doctrines associated with it. New Atheism is largely a product of the enlightenment and scientific development, it has little in common with the atheism of the Soviet Union which coexisted with anti-science and violent action. New atheism encourages rational debate and discussion and challenges religious or secular faith (that is belief without evidence)...
I have somewhat different take on HUMANISTS
Humans have evolved not only biologically but are also evolving CONSCIOUSLY ( in religious jargon spiritually) . Most humans are trapped in the lowest state of human consciousness, the" fight or flight" or animal consciousness. To these people the less developed reptilian brain ,which is mainly concerned about survival. self-preservation , fixing and safeguarding territories and boundaries, is dominant over the much larger, more evolved and advanced, Limbic and Neo Cortex parts of human brain which longs to expand, explore, for oneness, universality and break all boundaries and barriers.
Sadly these people who are trapped and languish in the lowest state of human consciousness (who I might add are in the majority at this point in time) are devoid of any CONSCIENCE ,COMPASSION OR EMPATHY, the most important attributes that set a fully fledged , decent human being apart from the rest of the animals. Because of the absence of these important attributes , these people find it impossible to decide or distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, truth and falsehood etc. without some sort of guidance . This is where religion comes in, with rules and commandments, promise of rewards and punishments , rituals and host of other dogmas.
HUMANISTS who are in a higher state of consciousness can clearly understand the condition of humans in the lower state of consciousness , but not vice-versa. It is very much similar to an adult who can understand a child but not vice-versa.
Most people who are CONSERVATIVES or belong to other Right-Wing groups fall into this lower state the "fight or flight" category.
You lose any credibility when you include shit like this( evolving CONSCIOUSLY ( in religious jargon spiritually), Soon as you include psuedo sceince you stop being evidence driven.
cough militant atheism cough hint richard dawkins hint hint
People who use the phrase 'militant atheism' are guilty of sloppy thinking. Militant theists fly planes into buildings. 'Militant atheists' fly ideas into heads. Spot the difference? You use the phrase 'militant atheism' and 'militant atheist' a lot don't you?
@rogan71 Now this, I agree with. Can't stand that awful man.
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris
Raaaah. Me angry Atheist! Smashy pants poop! Can we get past the caricatures now?
Lets put atheist signs next to them, whats the problem?