Responsibility of the heroic, part 4

part 4

Thank you for your post, on February 4th,2010 David Ossitt said. It always amazes me how atheists feel it’s their duty to ridicule believers. They see us as ignorant and superstitious because we don’t believe the world exists by chance or that creation was a completely random event which occurred ex nihilo. We are the victims of a massive, three-thousand year old con trick and should be pitied. Therefore, one might ask why it is they get so frothy-mouthed about such foolish folk. The sheer animosity towards religion in general on here betrays the self defeating crass and specious irrationality of those revelling in it. First – the idea of Fifer that one’s worldview must never impinge upon the practical business of living and social behaviour and be ‘irrelevant’ and trivial, simply negates the whole concept of religion or worldview. ALL of us MUST operate and frame everyday policies and ethical decisions according to a grander understanding of the scheme of things. The sociologists have a term for it- ‘the social construction of reality’ – and it is an inescapable element of being human to operate from such a framework, deriving all of ethics and principles for liviing and behaving from those deepest, fundamental principles. Indeed those who fail to establish some reasonably settled worldview will be in danger of falling into ‘anomic collapse’, a fatal psychological loss of grip on reality. This is NOT about trivial irrelevancies such as fairies at the bottom of the garden! The atheist may mock the theistic view as such and of course it suits his agenda very well to force the opposing worldview into a box. The result however is downright anti democracy that will not tolerate an opposed viewpoint but simply wishes to outlaw and silence its arguments. But that enforced silence, if accomplished, can come back and ‘bite’ the atheist too! It was Voltaire who said I may disagree with my opponent fundamentally but I shall defend to the death his right to express it. That is the spirit of Toleration that is vital to a peacable democracy. To come to the focus of the Pope’s point ( and I hold no truck at all for Roman catholicism but the point IS well made) A) This bill would vastly constrain the freedom of ALL of us to VOLUNTARY Association for a common purpose so that even secularist societies and organisations could in theory be targeted by it. If Christian groups in certain universities have been threatened with expulsion for not allowing anti-Christians membership and even leadership, I do not see why any specifically secularist group should not also be so threatened and challenged. It is a manifest absurdity. And of course in the last analysis a society and culture that is dumb enough to think it can deny and challenge God without long term disastrous consequences will find God is never mocked. The magnificent Pat Condell defends Aggressive atheism and puts the boot into man made religion… Where within anti- discrimination law is there any allowance for the fundamentals of freedom of speech, belief, thought and association, we may ask now. How have we arrived at a place where democracy does not function and the views of minorities hold sway over majorities? Somebody on this debate said: The mistake in this article is to say that “toleration and freedom in Britain were dervied from the right to religious observance free from state proscriptions”. Bearing in mind that it’s only a few hundred years since Sir Thomas More and the Catholic Church were publicly executing people for the crime of owning a copy of the bible in English (how tolerant! such freedom!), history shows that toleration and freedoms have always been won *despite* the best efforts of religion. It also ignores the fact that society has changed a lot recently, with a decrease in belief in the supernatural as science has improved our understanding of the world we live in and the universe at large. Not only that, but we no longer live in a country where everyone believes more or less the same thing. It is now a country of many faiths, with an increasingly large minority with no faith. The same old rules can’t continue to apply, whether or not the religious (such as Bunnykins, apparently), wish to bring back the good old fire and brimstone days of burning heretics and controlling through fear and the stifling of individual thought (which has, let’s be honest, been the core purpose of religion throughout the ages). This is why society must become increasingly secular. Freedom to practice religion – by all means – but freedom FROM religion co-existing with freedom OF religion. And I’m sorry, but when it clashes, such as over the rights of people to get on with their lives free from descrimination and the rights of the religious to impose their views; then people who are born, for example, gay, with no choice in the matter; shouldn’t be legally discriminated againt by people who choose to believe in the supernatural. It’s an obvious but important point to say that the faithful cannot prove or rationally argue their man-made prescriptions for living, and that they only cherry-pick the bits that support their own prejudices anyway. They ought to be glad to live in a society with a sound legal framework that does not tolerate the stoning to death of unruly children, to use just one example. As for disproving a deity, try reading a little science, remember where the burden of proof lies, and bear in mind that what can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. High time the religious stopped hiding their bigotry behind a “moral” shield. Of course there will always be bigoted people, but they shouldn’t expect the rest of society to treat their views (which they are entitled to) with respect, especially when expressed through the hypocritical framework of religious piety. This is why some atheists rightfully scorn and mock.

Leave a comment