Christian Grans

What version would that be, Flickety?
I don't use tactics, I just state my beliefs.

@petallus - But it's all in your Holy user manual, isn't it? If, as you imply, you only pick the 'nice' bits to follow - who gives you the authority to do that?

As to 'offending', GreatNan, it takes two to tango - there is no offence until someone decides to be offended - so it's their fault! (Oh, OK, not seriously, but there is a grain of truth there.) And why is taking offence the prerogative of the 'other side'? If I could be bothered I would find it offensive that, say, the Cenotaph ceremony is hijacked by the Christian church folk. I was offended by the Pope's 'State visit' last year.

feetlebaum I agree about the Pope's state visit. I didn't object to his visiting the UK but I did object to taxpayers' money being used to fund his visit. Vatican City is not recognised as a state by the UN, so how could this be justified? The Catholics who welcomed him so wholeheartedly should have funded the trip, perhaps together with some of the wealth in the Vatican Bank.

I don't pick any bits since I'm an atheist. I have met some pretty obnoxious Christians but also know some lovely enlightened ones who take a broad view of their faith, can tolerate doubt and will engage in debate very readily without getting upset.

This tells me that although there is obviously much to be criticised about the Church and Christians there are also things which are admirable, especially in individual Christians.

What I object to in people like Dawkins is that they set up an exaggerated worst view scenario and then proceed to criticise it whilst ignoring the alternative view.

It's cheating and must surely be deliberate in anybody with a modicum of intelligence.

flickety

I am quite sure that gransnetters are stating beliefs not just using tactics, i have never suggested otherwise but the versions of christianity attacked always seem to be catholicism in its Irish form, fundamentalist christianity in creationist form and I am at one with those who find religion in that form difficult to accept.

I find trying to get exact examples of offensive posts is like nailing jelly to the wall. Lots of accusations, no actual quotes. Apparently, if we atheists simply state our beliefs Christians are entitled to take offence. Can it work both ways?

Lilygran I do read other people's posts before answering them. I was aware that "washed in the blood of the lamb" is figurative, although I am not sure that it is a metaphor and I had already noticed that you had pointed this out. My comment was in response to part of Mishap's post of 15.40.

What aspects of the churches and practices described here do you not recognise?

FlicketyB No one on this thread has claimed to be opposed to religious belief. In fact, the most vociferous atheists have repeatedly pointed out that they do not object to the beliefs, just to those beliefs being foisted on those who don't share them.

Flickety - looks like we might be singing from the same hymn sheet after all. Yes, catholicism is my personal bete noir because it appears to be more powerful and to do more damage than other Christian sects - though not, of course, than other religions which treat women as the property of men.
I don't think Quakerism is doing much harm, far from it, even though I can't agree with its basic premise that there is 'something other'.

In my last post I was trying to open the door for the believers to tell us what and why they believe - I am genuinely interested even thoiugh I do not share these.

Good luck with that, Mishap!

That, Greatnan is an example of the sarcastic tone of many of the posts. In fact I have stated perfectly clearly what my beliefs are, on the Roman Catholicism thread and on the the thread I started called The Way Forward. I genuinely can't see the point of stating it again. If you want a debate with very learned people you can go the Ship of Fools where you will find debate / contention to your hearts content. But this isn't the place for three thousand word posts.

I don't recognise your unfortunate experiences with poor Irish nuns, but they clearly had a damaging effect on you as you have reminded us many times. I'm sorry about that and I would not seek to defend those ideas which are clearly mistaken. But I would have thought that those who had heard them would have either come to a mature understanding of the faith or would have rejected religion entirely without continually harking back to it.

There are many atheists who are respectful of those with a religious belief (I am married to one) without feeling the need to continually challenge and sneer. I am mindful of the OP, as I again say, merely stating what she believed and asking if there were any more Christians on this site. I'm sure she didn't expect the response she got.

Having a little spare time I decided to do a quick comparison between this thread and the 'Sites for Atheists' thread and found that in the first 24 hour period of each of them this thread had attracted over 100 posts, and the other only 15. I might add that none of the 15 seemed to be scornful, critical or sarcastic - could it be that people to whom it has no relevance have simply left it alone?

Micelf - it the nuns I had met had been the most sweet and loving women in the world I would still be an atheist. Either you believe or you don't and ultimately I would have come to the conclusion that there is no god.
I am not sure how you are supposed to respect a belief that you think is totally mistaken. Do you respect the beliefs of every religion in the world even when you can see they are totally irrational and possibly dangerous? And if you do not respect those beliefs (Moonies, perhaps?) does that mean that you do not respect the people who hold them?

As for a brief jokey remark - introducing a bit of humour seems no bad thing.

Some people's jokey remark is another's sarcasm. I hope Mishap has gone to look.

Did you read my post? I said that one outcome would be to reject religion. This you have done. I respect that. I'm not trying to convert you. Heaven help me if I tried! But my post was in response to Mishap's enquiry.

I think your belief is totally mistaken, but I respect it. That is, I hold your right to believe whatever you want.

Thank you - now I am going to watch TV.

B - Re. your post 15.28 - I couldn't agree more. From my perspective, you have simplified an attitude to life wonderfully.

Ceesnan The Sites for Atheists thread is about exactly that – websites that atheists might find interesting – not about atheism per se. That is rather different from someone making a loud proclamation of her beliefs and asking if anyone else wants to stand up and be counted. Quite a lot of us stood up to be counted as atheists. I don't think there is an equivalent about websites for atheists, unless Christians want to cite Christian websites. That's fine and could be quite interesting.

MiceElf - yes it is interesting. I suppose though I was thinking that many people on here have said what has shaped their non-religious views (childhood experiences, science etc.) and it would be interesting to know what has shaped the views of the christians onsite.

Mishap I did try to say what I believed in the thread about the Bible. when took exception to the churchy language I used, even though I had explained in non-churchy language and only put in the churchy language (in brackets even!) because that is the language in which it is normally discussed.

absent a metaphor is figurative language. What do you mean?

Yes, Mishap as it appears so many christians have been born into their religion and stayed with it (I know there are a few who have come to it later in life) whereas atheists tend to have left religion they were born into. How have the Christians had their questions answered, without rejecting the religion when they learned that so much could not have been possible?

Lilygran please be assured it is not you I take exception to

A metaphor is one kind of figurative language. There are lots of other kinds – synecdoche, hyperbole, zeugma, syllepsis, oxymoron, etc. etc. I don't think washed in the blood of the lamb is a simple metaphor, that's all.

Absent I understood the original question to be whether any other Christians wanted to stand up and be counted, was I wrong?