The basic crux of it is that people who profess to believe don’t actually believe – rather they go through the motions and pretend to have FAITH in what ever sky faerie they think is the correct one. Jamie argues that, if people really did believe, they would have to act on their crackpottery, but as most people just go about their daily lives in the same manner as an atheist, what belief is there really out there?<\/p>\n
As I largely agree with Jamie Whyte on this topic, I won’t go into it any further – however there are some comments on the Times article that really cannot be ignored. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
I’m a Catholic. My election vote always goes to the candidate most likely to vote for policies that will save unborn lives. Issues such as health care, education and housing are of little significance if the right to life is not accorded to all human beings at all stages of development.<\/p>\n
Julia, Manchester, UK<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First off, I have to say “Liar, liar pants on fire” as I very, very much doubt this is from someone who lives in the UK. The terminology used is very much American and relates to US political issues. Lying for Jesus is still lying and this is just a pointless lie as teh intarweb is truly global – who cares where you come from?<\/p>\n
More interestingly, from an angry atheist point of view, is the perverted world view it expresses.<\/p>\n
“Julia” will base her choices on a government based on how it treats an unborn life<\/strong>. She cares not how badly people who are currently alive are treated, it is the unborn life<\/strong> that means more. Who cares if people are starving to death, dying of hypothermia or falling down with all manner of communicable diseases as long as no fetus is aborted.<\/p>\nHow can that not<\/strong> be wrong? (The cynic in me puts this down to a distorted form of capitalism – they actually only want more babies so they have more people to subjugate and take money from).<\/p>\nMoving on, we hit the tired old drivel one comes to expect from poorly educated theists:<\/p>\n
First, just because someone calls themself a Christian, does not mean that they are in fact a Christian, Second, do you ‘believe’ or do you ‘wish’ that this column actually has any meaning?….since under an Atheistic world view, we are all here by chance and have no purpose or meaning.
\nJohn, USA<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I don’t mean to be rude to any American readers, but this strikes me as really being from an American. It is no argument. It is some one who doesn’t understand atheism (at least we have Religious Education classes) and is so brainwashed by Southern Baptism they can;t comprehend an alternative. I am a touch confused where the “meaning” came from – I am sure Jamie Whyte doesn’t care if “John” thinks the column has meaning – although obviously it had enough to get John to respond….<\/p>\n
In quick succession we find:<\/p>\n
Atheism is the state religion of a decaying culture; the new British state religion. Your column of atheism has every sign of a religious argument. (Religion: “that which is of ultimate importance.”)
\nCould you imagine a Christian getting a platform such as the one you have; never happen in UK.
\nkris, Pass,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No, I don’t get it either. I am sure the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, The Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland have their own views on our “state religion” – given that the figure head of the state is head of the Church of England, I could only dream of a day when Atheism was a “state religion” – even if it did contort the brain trying to explain how “atheism” can be a religion. As for the last sentence, the mind boggles. The Times alone has four times as many Christian columnists as atheists ones. There is even a whole section of the Times blogs for “faith” blogs. Sorry kris, but you fail.<\/p>\n
It seems Americans just can’t stay away from English newspapers lately:<\/p>\n
Why do you care?
\nWhy does it irritate and anger you so much?
\nWhy is it necessary to attack Christianity?
\nBecause you are not sure.
\nThere’s a part of you that wants to believe and you won’t allow it.
\nThat’s very sad.
\nRoy, Vermont, USA<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Erm, no. Why do western Atheists care about, and attack, the insane spreading of Christianity – well, simply because it directly affects our lives. Laws are passed based on Christian doctrine. Taxes are taken from hard working atheists to fund crackpot theists. Both are good reasons to care<\/strong> about Christianity in politics. Still, the ideal counter argument is why, “Roy,” do you care about what an Atheist says? Is it because part of you is not sure? For a BELIEVER that has to hurt. That really is sad.<\/p>\nNext we stray into very volatile territory:<\/p>\n
I’m an agnostic and I think unborn children should be protected. It’s not about a soul, it’s the knowledge that once a life has started there is no difference between destroying it ten weeks or ten years later. Interestingly, the foetuses killed in Omagh are included in the tally of those murdered.
\nPaul Williams, London, UK<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“Agnostic” – well, I have commented on that line of weak thinking in the past, but then again Santa may<\/em> be real, no one has totally proven he isn’t.<\/p>\nWithout straying too far into the abortion debate, this has a bit of a flaw. Basically put, it is not an argument against abortion, it is one against all form of contraception – along with being against eating meat, euthanasia etc. In itself these may be fine ideas and some people do agree with them but it is not an “anti-abortion” argument. The question still remains – when does “life” begin. The Omagh death tally is just an irrelevance.<\/p>\n
From the almost-arguments we get the predictable Godwining of the thread:<\/p>\n
Kant’s Enlightenment could have been his reaction to an overbearingly strict religious upbringing.Despite its “civilizing”
\ncommentary, Kant himself rprtdly delighted at the news of the
\nFrench Revolution.Murderous atheistic Communism\/Nazism were the major global effects of Enlightenment philosophy.
\nJoan Moira Peters, Whangarei UK Citizen, temp o\/seas in New Zealand<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yada, yada, nonsense. This is such nonsense that I hope anyone reading this blog wont need me to explain.<\/p>\n
Things start to go downhill here:<\/p>\n
But it’s not just Christians who don’t follow through. Determinists continue to talk as if they were “free” to judge the validity of an argument. And atheists aren’t always the self-interested hedonists one might expect from believers in a meaningless universe with only a darwinian moral compass!
\nJS, Glasgow, UK<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Nope. I am lost. I am not sure of the point trying to be made here and part of me thinks it could be somewhat tongue in cheek, although any reference to “Darwinian” annoys me.<\/p>\n
With that, then, I will end my search though the comments. I strongly suggest you take a look and remember the comments read from the bottom of the list up. Some are interesting, some are annoying and lots are just plain crazy!<\/p>\n