Muslims, Jews and Christians unite

[andy at handiwork]

I'll probably be reading it soon, though I also have reservations about being too anti-belief. In the past I've always said that I'm an atheist, these days I just say I'm indifferent, I simply dont care whether there is a god or not. Some years ago whilst filming in Pakistan, my locally recruited and rather unquestioningly devout Muslim recordist asked me what my religious beliefs were. I told him I had none. Had I investigated all the worlds religions and found none of them came up to my rigorous expectations? No I said, I just cant be arsed. He couldn't get his head round that one.

[Pervert]

No fear of brainwashing, Jacques----and I know what you mean about how it's written. But it does make some good points.

[strictlybroadband]

I also decided I was an atheist, aged 12. The first person I discussed it with was my rabbi, who told me I'd grow out of it. Almost 30 years later, I haven't grown out of it yet.

I don't think it's possible to believe "fanatically" that there isn't a god. What it takes is a solid understanding of science, history and human nature, and Dawkins covers all of these areas (and more) very well in the book.

Dawkins has also decided (and I agree with him) that the religious zealots need an opposition. People won't become atheists just because it makes sense; atheism has to be evangelised. Most people (as Dawkins says in the book) just follow their parents' beliefs without thinking much about it.

[strictlybroadband]

andy at handiwork wrote:

> I'll probably be reading it soon, though I also have
> reservations about being too anti-belief. In the past I've
> always said that I'm an atheist, these days I just say I'm
> indifferent, I simply dont care whether there is a god or not.
> Some years ago whilst filming in Pakistan, my locally recruited
> and rather unquestioningly devout Muslim recordist asked me
> what my religious beliefs were. I told him I had none. Had I
> investigated all the worlds religions and found none of them
> came up to my rigorous expectations? No I said, I just cant be
> arsed. He couldn't get his head round that one.

You should have asked him whether he had investigated all the world's religions before becoming a Muslim.

The answer would be No of course... most religious people are indoctrinated with religion long before they have learned how to think for themselves.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I don't think it's possible to believe "fanatically" that there isn't a god.[/quote]

What of Stalin's Russia? Religion was banned and people with faith were persecuted and even exterminated. Atheists can be just as fanatical against religion. You do not have to be religious to feel superior to another, or to persecute, discriminate and kill.

Like I said, some 'fanatical' atheists can see atheism as a religion itself, where all 'believers' are inferior and wrong. Even though I have no God, I appreciate that religion can be positive, and even essential to others.

A totally secular society may -in theory- seem ideal, but we've seen that the one and only atheist state ever, killed, discriminated, persecuted and were just as intolerant as any other religious state.

I've said this many a time on here. Religion killed nobody. Men use it as an excuse to justify their own evils.

[Sam Slater]

Men of science very rarely write good books. Getting the facts across takes precedence of 'how' they're revealed.

Don't worry though, the dogma will not prevail over facts!

[c.j.jaxxon]

I would say we shouldn't accept both but that's a dream. People ought to be tolerant of others religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, what have you but I just don't think we need laws to enforce it. As I've grown through the years I've been understanding of other people and their ways and cultures etc. but people don't seem to understand back. Lack of tolerance?

[Sam Slater]

The irony is c.j. that in the UK -and I'm guessing the USA too- intolerance isn't illegal. However discrimination is!

This means that every time a UK policeman fines a motorcyclist for not wearing a helmet, that cop is breaking the law due to discrimination being illegal.

Tolerance is a good thing, like I've already said, but when it comes to the crunch, isn't discrimination worse than intolerance? I think I wouldn't care so much about being tolerated as long as discrimination didn't stop me doing whatever I wanted to do in life. (i.e. a job I'm qualified for). It's no help being tolerated if you're being discriminated against.

Also you say people should be more tolerant. In the case I mentioned with the wearing/not wearing of motorcycle helmets, isn't the law not only discriminating against 'non turban wearers' but also being intolerant of their law breaking, while being tolerant of the Sikh?

Tolerating the Sikh -in this instance- means you're not only discriminating against others, but also being intolerant of that majority!

Isn't it more 'just' to treat all religions within the law? Either everyone's required to wear helmets, or everyone can 'choose' on whether to wear one or not. Why discriminate the majority, to be seen as tolerant of a minority? It's not like Sikhs are banned from driving cars, and have no other means of personal transport!

No one I've put this to has ever given me a reasonable answer on why UK law can discriminate against every religion -including atheists- legally in a society where we are trying to rid ourselves of this very same thing.

On top of this, why should UK law tolerate Sikhism, when Sikhs don't tolerate UK law?

Personally the law doesn't affect me now as I stopped riding a motorcycle about 5 years ago, but that isn't the point. I'm debating what is 'just' and what is 'unjust'.