That man Dawkins

So...

I'm an atheist. If you want 'precision', call me a De facto atheist (6 on the Dawky scale of 7; same as him).

Rot in religion needs to be exposed, as does rot in atheism. Go at it, gals!

I know exactly what you mean, when!
I guess that makes me a CC atheist, too.

Why does it need an adjective?

We don't describe those of you with equally strong religious views as militant religacs, do we? Not even when you are countering, criticising and trying to expose atheism wherever it arises. We accept your right to do that. Equal treatment of all, wot?

Who is a militant atheist on Gransnet? C'mon, don't be shy!

I'm a cowardy custard atheist - when I used to give evidence in court (nothing involving perjury, I promise), I would size up the judge before deciding whether to take the oath or claim to be C of E. The ushers who knew me would raise their eyes to the ceiling and threaten to tell on me. They never did!

A militant atheist is described as one who is characterised by a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument wherever it arises.

It's open to the atheists on this forum to say if they agree with this position or if they would describe themselves as moderate atheists.

Militant atheists Lilygran? That's a bit rich.

I've just got round to watching the Sacks/Greenfield/al Khalili/Dawkins programme. Thank you for the link. Some of the regular posters will not be astonished that my impression was of a very muted, inconclusive discussion on everyone's part. But good-tempered and pleasant. Dawky thrashed his usual hobby-horse that children shouldn't be 'indoctrinated' with a specific religion, even though it clearly was a waste of time in his case. And in every case, I suspect, since nearly all the militant atheists on Gransnet appear to have had a religious education. Love and Peace

Agreed, excellent discussion. I haven't got involved but have been reading with great interest. Bag has represented what I would have said so much better. Thank you.

I am with you, when!

Bravo MiceElf and Bags. An interesting exchange of opinions conducted with vigour and without rancour. I hesitate to join in, as I was enjoying your dscussion.

I, too, cherish the simplicitly of atheism. Believing there might be a god presented me with so many questions that I found it impossible to continue listening to what I experienced as 'magic' and when I learned as a child that magicians were illusionists, my remaining beliefs about religion fell away.

Pax vobiscum

We're quits on that then, Elf

Good lass!

I fully accept that your repetition of the word 'impose' did not refer back to my use of it in my original comment. It just seemed like it and I wanted to make my position precisely clear.

BTW, I agree with your last sentence too: "The imposition of belief is when there are sanctions imposed on those who express an differing view."

Sorry, but I really did think that the phrase "I would add" made it clear that this was my addition and not someone else's, nor that someone else suggested it. Hey ho.

I can understand why you thought so though, Elf. I separated the comments in my post, but I'll try to be even clearer next time

Quite, MiceElf. And I didn't suggest that you made that suggestion either. I simply added an observation of my own to your list that I had already agreed with. Don't be so sensitive !

Yes, it's still a belief, lily, but one based on evidence rather than faith. There's a thread somewhere on GN (I think!) where someone posted a list, or a link to a list, of what atheists believe. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have no beliefs, only that you have no beliefs about gods – well, one believes that there are stories and myths about gods, obviously, because there's plenty of evidence for that , but one believes that the stories are fiction rather than truth... until, should it ever happen, evidence corroborates the stories, in which case, one has reason to believe them, based on the evidence. It's very simple really to be an atheist. You look at the reasons for believing something, or not, and base your beliefs on that. If the evidence changes, your belief changes too. Works the same way as science, which, whatever you may hear to the contrary, is never totally 'settled', but simply improves with time, and more evidence.

Interesting that you use the term 'beliefs', Bags. Yes, I think that's what they are. I think Dawky might take issue with that, though, since it is the irrationality of religious belief that upsets him and the provability of scientific theory that makes it superior. If it's provable, it isn't a 'belief', is it?

Bags, I wasn't suggesting that writing books or appearing on any media is imposing beliefs. Don't be too sensitive!

The imposition of belief is when there are sanctions imposed on those who express an differing view.

Hre is a link to the R4 debate between Dawkins and Sacks

I agree with your post entirely, MiceElf.

I would add that I don't call talking about your beliefs in an adult forum – or going on lecture tours to talk about your beliefs to other adults who don't have to attend, or writing books about your beliefs which nobody has to read unless they choose to, or making other media appearances to press home your point.... I don't call any of that imposing your beliefs on others. Just mentioning that as I sometimes get the feeling that some people think all that is imposing. No. It's talking. And people who disagree can put forward their views too.

Free speech and freely.

Jonathan Sacks has just done 'Thought for the Day' in which he discussed the recent discovery that what had at first been called 'junk DNA' was actually vital to life. He suggested that science and religion are not in opposition and that his view is that the more we learn about life, the universe and everything, the more we realise the grandeur of God. Way to go, Jonny!

Did anybody else watch the programme?
I think many of us have said that we accept anybody's right to believe anything they choose, no matter how incredible their beliefs seem to us, as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others through legislation, or their beliefs lead to practices that harm others.
I strongly object to any religion that does not recognise gender equality, so that means most of the great world religions. 'Equal but different' is a cop out.

I respect everyone's right to hold a belief. I do not accept that any belief should not be open to challenge / debate / discussion.

And I do not accept that anyone has a right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

And I think that whatever the belief, no one has the right to act on that belief if those actions impact in any way on the rights or freedom of expression of others.