Atheist Q and A

Scroll to see replies

The general implication was to ask about Atheism... :wink:

Ok. I'll phrase the question more specifically. Do you think people can decide whether or not to be atheist by themselves?

Reply 21

TheOpinion

Original post by like_marmite

Academic argument is plural, according to you? :lol:

Let's not try to get into a who is the smartest prince of them all because you won't win. And you need to grow up a bit if you're so threatened when someone challenges that you have to try to correct grammar where their grammar is actually correct. Again this lack of sophistication in argument, by the people who want to engage the topic of religion, is why no adult should never engage the topic of religion.

That is a reasonable approach, certainly, but only if you have access to the people you want to affect. If you're talking in mid-air, to anyone who'll listen, with unsophisticated argument whilst possessing the sole intention of giving people the impression you're some philosophy professor when you're really someone whose only interaction with philosophy is a B in GCSE RE, then I doubt informing people about their options is your sole intention.

Spoiler

I pluralised it to generalise. Oh Dear, you should really stick to your GCSE politics class..

Reply 22

BefuddledPenguin

I'm an atheist too. Do you think the recent religious supremacy seen in the Education secretary Nicky Morgan is indicative of a counter reaction to the excellent work of the British Humanist association and the death of the Church of England and British Christianity in general? If so do you think the promotion of faith based free schools and academies will successfully indoctrinate a new generation of loyal religious drones, or will the free availability of fact-based religious criticism online mitigate the harm caused by the current propagation of religious supremacy in education?

Reply 23

TheOpinion

Original post by morgan8002

Ok. I'll phrase the question more specifically. Do you think people can decide whether or not to be atheist by themselves?

I think they can. Where religion appears to be much more indoctrination, Atheism is purely a logical decision that one makes.

Reply 24

like_marmite

Original post by TheOpinion

I pluralised it to generalise. Oh Dear, you should really stick to your GCSE politics class..

You tried to correct me and you failed miserably. You pluralised it to generalise? What the **** does that even mean?

And nice. Using insults I already dished out to you is really creative there, buddie boy.

Reply 25

JamesN88

As civilisation has advanced religion has become less prevalent, soon God/Allah or whatever you want to call him will be treated as a figure in mythology the same as Zeus, Ares etc. Throughout history religion has merely been used as a tool to keep people under control.

I do however appreciate that it can bring a lot of comfort to people and some religious organisations help charitable causes that would otherwise be neglected.

Reply 26

TheOpinion

Original post by like_marmite

By pluralising something you are referring to a group of something. Gosh, I feel like a year 7 teacher here.

You are really showing your arrogance right now, it's rather amusing.

Reply 27

username2385417

Original post by like_marmite

Academic argument is plural, according to you? :lol:

Let's not try to get into a who is the smartest prince of them all because you won't win. And you need to grow up a bit if you're so threatened when someone challenges that you have to try to correct grammar where their grammar is actually correct. Again this lack of sophistication in argument, by the people who want to engage the topic of religion, is why no adult should ever engage the topic of religion.

That is a reasonable approach, certainly, but only if you have access to the people you want to affect. If you're talking in mid-air, to anyone who'll listen, with unsophisticated argument whilst possessing the sole intention of giving people the impression you're some philosophy professor when you're really someone whose only interaction with philosophy is a B in GCSE RE, then I doubt informing people about their options is your sole intention.

Spoiler

Yes, arguing anything from a place of ignorance is pants. Hopefully this thread will attract those who specialise in a particular academic field that can contribute their knowledge to the thread.

I would never argue from a philosophical point, only a scientific or historical one, I like to keep it non trivial. No, the aim would not be to create any kind of impression (and the last thing I would want would be any kind of affiliation with Philosophers!) but to get women questioning why they have been given the role they have according to religion.

Reply 28

legal_jungle

What is the need of religion if there is no God? In your opinion. :smile:

Reply 29

like_marmite

Original post by TheOpinion

By pluralising something you are referring to a group of something. Gosh, I feel like a year 7 teacher here.

You are really showing your arrogance right now, it's rather amusing.

Well, collective nouns can be treated singularly or plurally with some exceptions. We're not even talking about a collective noun here; it's a mass noun which can only be treated singularly. What you're suggesting here is analogous to saying water are blue.

Your little grammar tricks might work on your 12-year-old pals, but it won't work here. Top 10 RG coming at you, kiddo.

Reply 30

Lawbringer

How are you so sure there is no god? Surely being agnostic is the best approach to this situation?

Reply 31

username2385417

Original post by like_marmite

Can we get back on topic? (Not taking sides, have not read through this grammar mini debate)

Reply 32

username2385417

Original post by like_marmite

Academic argument is plural, according to you? :lol:

Let's not try to get into a who is the smartest prince of them all because you won't win. And you need to grow up a bit if you're so threatened when someone challenges that you have to try to correct grammar where their grammar is actually correct. Again this lack of sophistication in argument, by the people who want to engage the topic of religion, is why no adult should ever engage the topic of religion.

That is a reasonable approach, certainly, but only if you have access to the people you want to affect. If you're talking in mid-air, to anyone who'll listen, with unsophisticated argument whilst possessing the sole intention of giving people the impression you're some philosophy professor when you're really someone whose only interaction with philosophy is a B in GCSE RE, then I doubt informing people about their options is your sole intention.

Spoiler

Also, I received the highest mark on record at my leading school in Philosophy at A Level. My exam papers have been used every year for 7 years as how to examples.

ITT edgy teens

Do you think the religion of science, so to speak, is almost as bad as religion itself?

Like imagine if you'd call religion one extreme, than the other extreme is giving authority to science. Do you think or not think that is bad?

Reply 35

like_marmite

Original post by leavingthecity

Also, I received the highest mark on record at my leading school in Philosophy at A Level. My exam papers have been used every year for 7 years as how to examples.