Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I loved that particular Halo Legends episode. Cheers!

Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and "Why I am not a Christian" is truly a very silly and poorly written essay.

Yes I'm sure it is tripe compared to your oeuvre.

No idea what you are intending to reference with regard to my oeuvre. Perhaps you're referring to the old chestnut that people who don't publish books on a certain subject have no capacity to criticize books on a certain subject? Given how idiotic that argument is, I'll assume you must mean something else. If by oeuvre you mean "the body of writing which I think is convincing and well-written" then, yes, it's utter tripe by comparison. Actually, I am a big fan of tripe (in my pho) so I'll say instead that "Why I am not a Christian" is utter gak.

Manchu wrote:Yes, that's exactly what I was driving at. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek but not by too much. It's true that I was raised in a non-religious household but nonetheless became very interested in religion. It's also true that I was a very "devout" atheist. And finally, it's also true that I am a convert to Roman Catholicism. But I don't really believe that atheism, no matter how self-described atheists (like myself at one time) outline their beliefs, is itself a religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and "Why I am not a Christian" is truly a very silly and poorly written essay.

Manchu, may i applaud you. It takes a brave person to admit thay are catholic today, and to admit you where an atheist who converted (for want of a better word) is very brave given the flack you can get some places.

To be honest, I've never been the target of any specific anti-Christian or anti-Catholic sentiment . . . not even on the internet. In my own experience, I haven't been more "vulnerable" to criticism or reproach as a Christian than I was as an atheist -- which is to say none. And I did grow up in the rural American south. I'm happy to report that most interactions that I've had with folks either in person or on the internet with regard to my own religion have been very respectful and (since I cannot speak for others) beneficial to me. The only really insulting things anyone has ever said to me about religion came from other Catholics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh but Paul, I understand that it can be a different situation in the UK. Sorry meant to say that, as well.

Interesting. I think it may be a little diffrence in the uk, But i fear it may be my inability to explaine myself as eloquently as you have. The times i have tried to explaine to people the diffrence between catholic dogma and Doctrine, or explain to them the relationship and involvment the vatican has with science i have ended up being shouted down. I'm glad to see someone correting missunderstanding.

Yes, sorry, I really meant to include the caveat that the UK is a different game than the US with the original post. From what I understand, there is a much greater social stigma attached to being religious in the UK than in the US and non-religious people are much more openly hostile to religious people there. I'd say the Mormons suffer the greatest prejudice here in the US, among both religious people and atheists. I've never seen or heard of in my own social circles someone being ostracized for being of any or no religion, except for being Mormon. I have seen people being criticized for being insincere in their religious beliefs, but I think that's a separate topic.

Manchu wrote:Yes, sorry, I really meant to include the caveat that the UK is a different game than the US with the original post. From what I understand, there is a much greater social stigma attached to being religious in the UK than in the US and non-religious people are much more openly hostile to religious people there.

Really? I would say that people here are, for the most part, far more relaxed about religion than many places in the US. I think the difference you perceive is that people feel more able to say what and why they believe (or do not believe) here where as, to my understanding, large swathes of America are more or less "you are religious, or you keep your head down and get on with your life".

Although it could just be an inverse "grass is greener on the other side" kind of thing based on how the media may or may not portray things.

No need to applogise, i was attempting to agree with you, not correct you.

Silver, something i have found in the uk is that most people could not care less, but you do have to take care what you say sometimes. Take for example the Celtic/Rangers problems, and at the time of the papel visit there was allot of people maeking some very nasty comments, including my friends, from a place of total ignorance.

Paul wrote:Silver, something i have found in the uk is that most people could not care less, but you do have to take care what you say sometimes. Take for example the Celtic/Rangers problems, and at the time of the papel visit there was allot of people maeking some very nasty comments, including my friends, from a place of total ignorance.

To be entirely fair, the Celtic/Rangers thing is more to do with idiots using their "beliefs" to justify being idiots (as is the case so much of the time unfortunately).

Regards the papel visit - you have to remember that at the time there was still a lot of stuff going on regards the Catholic Church and various crimes/coverups/etc in the media which were quite strongly felt about by many people (regardless of faith or lack there-of). The Catholic Church was not exactly everyone's no 1 establishment at that time - for reasons other than religious.

I despise the Vatican, but I haven't really any problem with catholics. I suspect my father is quietly Atheist- he used to always stand at the back of the church with his arms folded, and never took communion or went to confession. My mother is a Catholic though she also despises the vatican heirarchy. My sisters are both Catholic, my brother and I are agnostic.

I've known some amazing priests, and most of the devout catholics I've met have been wonderful people. However, in my view the vatican and church heirarchy are a damaging, backward looking organisation. Most of the conflict I have had with my devout friends has been on this issue. I find thier approach to child sex abuse even up to 2009 to be completely abominable. I find the approach of the Irish Catholic Church to the rights of women to be similarly disgusting. I find the State's culpability in both horrifying. And lastly, I think the Vatican's stance against contraception was grossly irresponsible in the face of a global HIV pandemic. (I understand this may be changing though, which is at least a good thing).

Honestly, thinking about the Vatican makes me angry. I find it difficult to understand why someone would defend their actions. If I was still Catholic I'd be calling for reform.

Ahtman wrote:Well I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now back to Catholic vs Christian vs Athiest vs my Apathy.

Guess which is winning?

Apathy.

It's the most powerful force in the universe.

SilverMK2 wrote:. . . to my understanding, large swathes of America are more or less "you are religious, or you keep your head down and get on with your life".

I guess you're referring to the American South. That may have been the case in the 1950's but I never experienced it or heard of anyone experiencing it. I think there is a cultural narrative in the US of being an "outsider" as a teenager that teenagers do their best to live up to (it ends up being neatly conformist, thank you very much) and there are certainly folks who get their kicks from remembering themselves as rebels who bucked the man. Growing up in the 80s and 90s in the rural south, I never felt pressured to pretend that I was religious. Upon converting as an adult, I've never felt pressure to pretend I am not Christian even though I am an educated professional and -- according to some atheists -- only the uneducated (or innately stupid) could believe in such "fairy tales."

All the religious British people I've met, both IRL and on the internet, say they take a lot of gak for being religious. When I see extremely popular figure like Stephen Fry constantly talking about how evil religion is, I can see how that would be a problem. I mean, what if he (quite ironically) and other famous and respectable people said that being gay was awful? People today would probably go right along with that. Isn't that why it's so important to be tolerant of homosexuality in a really visible way? Even here on Dakka, we don't let people use "gay" to mean "stupid" or "bad." There aren't many respected actors or journalists in the US who would say such trenchantly critical things about Christianity, whatever the personal beliefs. I think that's why Dawkins and Hitchens did so well in sales here -- there's a market that's not being met.

Kilkrazy wrote:Apathy.

It's the most powerful force in the universe.

I would debate you on this point but... meh...

Blue eyes aren't a product of genetics plus the environment. They are a pure double recessive allele expression.

Sexual tendencies are most certainly more complex, though we don't know the extent to which environment may be involved.

Of course, heterosexuals as well as homosexuals can remain celibate by force of will, if they wish to.

Da Boss wrote:Honestly, thinking about the Vatican makes me angry. I find it difficult to understand why someone would defend their actions. If I was still Catholic I'd be calling for reform.

We do call for reform but this is not like a secular government, where a bunch of people scream and shout and then nothing gets done (see Irish government on the sex abuse). The American Church, for example, has been in reform to very good effect with regard to sex abuse scandals for about two decades now. A lot of people are mad at the Vatican because they misunderstand how the Church works. They think it's like a company with the Vatican as HQ and the pope as CEO. TBH, this is a misunderstanding that the curia often encourage because of their interest in centralizing authority. But the practical running of the Church from day to day, with regard to sex abuse for example, happens at the diocesan level or lower (vicariate/parish). The pope is very high profile, which makes him an easy target. People don't know who else to blame because they've mostly never seen or heard of any other Catholic prelate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Of course, heterosexuals as well as homosexuals can remain celibate by force of will, if they wish to.

I think this is another part of Fry's term "sexual destiny." There is an idea that sexuality simply must be expressed through intercourse and it's not exclusive to gay people. It's a factor of the dominant culture. It's not just that contemporary people don't understand celibacy. They have no cultural capacity to understand it. To "get" the celibate lifestyle you have to go pretty far outside of our contemporary Western culture. Fry would say (actually does say, in the long version) that the Church's teaching that people with homosexual desires should not act on those desires is cruel. But remember, this is not the only sexual constrain the Church exhorts. The Church also teaches that intercourse between married people is the only licit sexual act. Is it also cruel to suggest that heterosexual people not have sex outside of marriage? I have no doubt many people would call that an unreasonable expectation but there's nothing cruel about it. Fry's point relies on the audience's ignorance as to the opponent perspective (or his own ignorance, it is difficult to say) and the audience's willingness to read active discrimination where none exists.

Manchu: Have you looked into the Irish scandal? I'm saying this because your comment confuses me slightly.

I agree wholeheartedly with one point though- the Irish State was FAR too lax with regard to the Church for most of it's history. The reasons for this are quite interesting, historically. (By allying themselves with the church, the new government won instant sympathy with the people and lessened the chance that people would rebel when things got worse under their rule and want to go back to Britain. They also stoked nationalist sentiment (the ripples of which we still see to this day) and pushed the gaelic revival movement to an extreme level, to engender nationalism as a political safety net for themselves. Very cynical, but also pretty damn effective.)
I hold the Irish State in almost complete contempt for this sort of behaviour (I'm a proper patriot, see) but I don't think that takes blame away from the Church. They quite enjoyed the power they had in Ireland, and resisted it being taken away. They resisted equal education for women, free education for all, secular education, contraceptives, equal treatment of homosexuals under the law, among other things.
I can't speak for any other country- I've heard that it is quite different in other places, especially those places where Catholicism is less widespread. But the Irish Catholic Church is to my mind a very regressive and nasty organisation, and it is aided and abetted in that by the Vatican.

I have been following the painful Irish problems. But being Catholic doesn't seem to make people understand the Church or its history any better and the Irish are no exception to that rule. The idea that it is bad for the Church to be involved with national politics is quite new -- certainly far, far, far newer than the Catholic Church's involvement with Ireland so I don't think you get much traction on that. (In fact, one wonders if there'd be an Ireland today without Irish Catholicism.) Certainly the contemporary Irish Church is a well known for being archaic. There's certainly no question that the Irish Church systematically covered up and let continue child abuse. The connection to the Vatican in this regard is weak. Again, the Vatican is not actually the "home office."

Manchu wrote:I guess you're referring to the American South. That may have been the case in the 1950's but I never experienced it or heard of anyone experiencing it.

According to some quite recent (ie last year) documentaries I've seen it is still perceived, by some, to be very much the case. I put this down to us swimming in different circles. Almost every group sees itself as put upon by other groups and anyone associated with that group will tend to hear the viewpoint of said group. Just one of those things which goes to show you can't really trust anecdotal evidence. Hell; even the most "straight" sources are biased to a certain extent.

according to some atheists -- only the uneducated (or innately stupid) could believe in such "fairy tales."

According to some people of religion I am going to burn in hell for all eternity. Luckily I 1) accept that they are a tiny minority of religious people, 2) I don't believe in anything they are basing their point of view on so it is moot anyway and 3) I like to think that "live and let live" is a pretty excellent way to try and live.

Some atheists are fairly militant, some (most) are not; just as some religious people are hell and brimstone, and some (most) are not.

When I see extremely popular figure like Stephen Fry constantly talking about how evil religion is, I can see how that would be a problem.

I watch a lot of what Stephen Fry puts out as I find him interesting and entertaining and while I have seen him give his views on religion on occasion, he is not exactly on a "crusade" or anything. Not like Dawkins (who I think is doing more harm than good). The vast majority of his output is educational/entertainment. I don't know if you have seen it, but his tour of America series ("Stephen Fry in America"?) was quite good.

I mean, what if he (quite ironically) and other famous and respectable people said that being gay was awful? People today would probably go right along with that.

I'm not entirely sure if you are being serious here... "gay rights" or however you want to term it is pretty advanced here in Europe. Even if it were not, just because someone famous says something, doesn't instantly convert everyone - just look at how that worked out for Mel Gibson

Isn't that why it's so important to be tolerant of homosexuality in a really visible way? Even here on Dakka, we don't let people use "gay" to mean "stupid" or "bad." There aren't many respected actors or journalists in the US who would say such trenchantly critical things about Christianity, whatever the personal beliefs. I think that's why Dawkins and Hitchens did so well in sales here -- there's a market that's not being met.

I think how it works is that people try to enforce good behaviour in all aspects of interaction with one another. Where the problem comes is when someone of a particular group perceives some slight (whether imaginary or real), yet sees other "groups" being "protected", while they themselves have been slighted. You are not allowed to use "gay" to mean stupid or bad in the same way that (even in this thread) you are not allowed to call religion "fairytales" or religious people "blind idiotic sheep". Another problem is that belief is something that many people hold (and often quite deeply, regardless of whether it is belief in something, or belief in the lack of something (or lack of belief)) which means that there are more people to be offended, and more people to "offend", meaning you will see more instances of offense, leading to the idea that there is more persecution.

There is a difference between a serious debate or a book and teenagers yelling gay and [see forum posting rules] at each other on XBox Live.

@SilverMK2: The British Christians I've spoken with (just a handful of them over the years) have all been university educated and, from what I could tell, most of their social acquaintances were similarly educated. They all reported feeling targeted for insult by the popular culture in the UK. Whether or not their experience is representative is beyond my knowledge. I've heard social conservatives in the US complain of Christians being similarly stigmatized but I've never actually seen or heard it happen. I have heard people associate specific political positions that they do not agree with to certain religious groups but that's not quite the same thing. The closest thing I can think of to claims of oppression is the ridiculous claim that by not teaching creationism in public schools the government is somehow discriminating against Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between a serious debate or a book and teenagers yelling gay and [see forum posting rules] at each other on XBox Live.

Yes, truly. If someone ostensibly participating in a serious public debate was to speak very insultingly about gay people it would be much more demeaning and insulting than if that same person had made the same comment in private conversation. So, too, with demeaning religion.

Manchu wrote:@SilverMK2: The British Christians I've spoken with (just a handful of them over the years) have all been university educated and, from what I could tell, most of their social acquaintances were similarly educated. They all reported feeling targeted for insult by the popular culture in the UK. Whether or not their experience is representative is beyond my knowledge. I've heard social conservatives in the US complain of Christians being similarly stigmatized but I've never actually seen or heard it happen. I have heard people associate specific political positions that they do not agree with to certain religious groups but that's not quite the same thing. The closest thing I can think of to claims of oppression is the ridiculous claim that by not teaching creationism in public schools the government is somehow discriminating against Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between a serious debate or a book and teenagers yelling gay and [see forum posting rules] at each other on XBox Live.

Yes, truly. If someone ostensibly participating in a serious public debate was to speak very insultingly about gay people it would be much more demeaning and insulting than if that same person had made the same comment in private conversation. So, too, with demeaning religion.

Much of that might have to do with the innate victimization all people feel, athiest believe they're persecuted, religious folks feel they're persecuted. Most of the time it's a bit overblown people aren't persecuted as much as they think the are. (except the jews, we got the short end of the stick on that one )

I've been to university, known and been friends with both religious and non-religious people of varying levels of education (and varying religions and religious intensities). Just like any group of people, some people I and others got on with better than others, some were happy to banter about religion, some were not - based on their personality. One person I really liked in my gaming group at university (and still speak with occasionally) is very active in his church and runs various social/religious groups but we were more than happy laughing about how I was going to burn in hell and how he was believing in make believe (all very lighthearted banter with absolutely zero malice and no intention to try and "force" beliefs on each other).

There are people who I know I can behave like that with, and others where I know it is best not to bring up religion at all with (there was one interesting person who I met a few times through various friends who was a die hard militant Christian who, as far as I understand, was waiting for the signal to rise up and join the Christian Army in the next crusade against the unbelievers and yet ironically was friends with a fairly committed atheist who was more than happy to debate religion, having come from a fairly Christian background - having been "encouraged" not to be left handed while living in Ireland as a child in some kind of religious school).

In the same way there are certain people that I know it is probably best not to discuss politics with, or football teams or any number of other things. Various of the people I have met with any kind of firmly held belief will tell you with varying degrees of intensity their own personal experience of "getting targeted for their beliefs". However, overwhelmingly they will probably say that they get through the day to day quite happily regardless of their religious, political or social views.

Sure thing about there being all sorts of individuals. On the other hand, I don't know that someone could be a well-respected celebrity in the US while also having a regular public chinwag as to why Christianity is evil and makes the world a worse place than it would be otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Much of that might have to do with the innate victimization all people feel, athiest believe they're persecuted, religious folks feel they're persecuted.

That probably explains quite a lot, indeed.

Manchu wrote:Sure thing about there being all sorts of individuals. On the other hand, I don't know that someone could be a well-respected celebrity in the US while also having a regular public chinwag as to why Christianity is evil and makes the world a worse place than it would be otherwise.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by respected. My perception is that Stephen Fry is probably more respected and better-loved than Bill Mahar, but then, I think Fry seems like a nicer person overall.

I think people here like Fry better than Maher much less in Britain. Bill Maher is not the kind of dude that I could "like" with any sort of affection. He seems more the type you join in some sly laugh at someone else's expense. Fry seems the opposite, or at least conveys as much. That's why it's a little jarring when I see him play the self-righteous oppressed homosexual.

Manchu wrote:To be honest, I've never been the target of any specific anti-Christian or anti-Catholic sentiment . . . not even on the internet. In my own experience, I haven't been more "vulnerable" to criticism or reproach as a Christian than I was as an atheist -- which is to say none. And I did grow up in the rural American south.

You're also significantly better spoken than most, at least on the internet. Patience paired with good diction tends to create positive, or at least non-negative responses.

Manchu wrote:
I'm happy to report that most interactions that I've had with folks either in person or on the internet with regard to my own religion have been very respectful and (since I cannot speak for others) beneficial to me. The only really insulting things anyone has ever said to me about religion came from other Catholics.

From the other side, my PK heritage, and general sympathy for religion, tends to elicit fierce criticism from other atheists*.












*Yes, I finally said what everyone already assumed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I think people here like Fry better than Maher much less in Britain. Bill Maher is not the kind of dude that I could "like" with any sort of affection. He seems more the type you join in some sly laugh at someone else's expense. Fry seems the opposite, or at least conveys as much. That's why it's a little jarring when I see him play the self-righteous oppressed homosexual.

To carry the atheism analogy:

Maher = Dawkins

Fry = Dennett

Out of curiosity, what kind of criticism do you get from other atheists? The worst thing another Catholic has ever said to me is "you're not Catholic."

Excellent analogy. I can read and enjoy Dennet, for the most part. I can't get through much of Dawkins at a time and find it thoroughly unenjoyable.

Manchu wrote:I think people here like Fry better than Maher much less in Britain. Bill Maher is not the kind of dude that I could "like" with any sort of affection. He seems more the type you join in some sly laugh at someone else's expense. Fry seems the opposite, or at least conveys as much. That's why it's a little jarring when I see him play the self-righteous oppressed homosexual.

I actually like Bill, and feel some affection toward him. I think he's a dick, and he gets tiresome at times, and like most comedians (or human beings, for that matter) he has a tendency to oversimplify (and occasionally distort) things to make a point. But I like his willingness to stand up and fight for his beliefs. I have a fair amount of sympathy for anyone who knows he's outnumbered and just wants to fight more because of it.

Fry seems like a nice guy, to me. I do think homosexuals have good reason to feel oppressed and to get self-righteous about it.

Mannahnin wrote: I do think homosexuals have good reason to feel oppressed and to get self-righteous about it.

I'll go with the first but not the second. More of the same, but at someone else's expense, is hardly the right approach.