Friday’s Thought for the Day
The title is a substitute for something sensible
This morning we had an assembly from KPZ on atheism. It wasn’t entitled “atheism” but it may has well have been. Anyway, it dawned on me that while atheists complain continually about how religions are given special treatment, grants etc., atheists are not. I have two complaints about this. I should probably mention at this point that I am a practising (what does that mean, I wonder) Anglican.
1) Humanism (A ’sect’ of atheism) is becoming a godless version of Christianity. Its own Ceremonies, Its own celebrants, its own meeting places. I would rather meet, celebrate for a reason, to celebrate something being there, rather than to celebrate something NOT being there.
2) Atheists often complain about Christian adverts, or at least the ones I know do. “Have you Found Jesus” etc. get complaints. But we are meant to stand back and just except that “There’s probably no god”. PROBABLY! THAT’S NOT ONLY BLASPHEMOUS, BUT ITS NOT EVEN PROPERLY ATHEIST!!
Apologies for the rambling, un-researched nature of this post. More next week, maybe….
Bryant Tan replied:
Technically speaking, those who are ‘atheists’ for scientific and logical reasons are actually agnostics. God is almost by definition unfalsifyable, so all we can really talk about is probabilities, and the probability of ‘God’ existing is pretty slim when you actually think about it. Well, very _very_ slim, hence the expression “there is probably no God”. I would at this point interject with the anecdote of the teapot orbiting around the Sun but I expect you already know it – besides, I would go into greater detail, but it would be faster to talk…
February 6, 2009 at 6:04 pm. Permalink.
tomturneruk replied:
This is incredibly hard to explain to a sworn atheist as I expect you are (no offence intended).
Religion, or more specifically, Theism is not a knowledge as much as a belief that there is something greater than you out there, and its working for good, and it loves you. You probably know this. We should have a discussion about this sometime. Prepare to be converted….
February 7, 2009 at 8:37 am. Permalink.
Ben Dory replied:
1) they were not physically allowed to use terminology ‘there is no God’ for some reason, so they had to say probably
2) I agree with Bryant, you can’t definitely say anything, even the most vehement of athiest, like *shudder* that Dawkins thing declares himself a 7 on an atheist scale to 10, since he believes just as much in the likelihood of God as he does in the flying spaghetti monster, Bryant/Russel’s teapot etc.
3) you utterly miss the point of humanism, they celebrate life, not a lack of God.
4) it was the christian adverts that provoked the ‘probably no god’ poster scheme, they were merely trying to level the playing field, you say we are expected to ’stand back’ as though you would prefer to see these posters banned. Is this true?
February 7, 2009 at 1:41 am. Permalink.
tomturneruk replied:
Hi Ben,
The comment you made was very much appreciated, and longer than my post, so I shall reply to it thus:
1) I cannot believe that is true, because blaspheming was made leagal last year in a commons vote. Wikipedia:
On May 8 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, with effect from 8 July 2008.
2) No, i agree, but I though I made it clear that the post was made on my foundation of faith, which I question, but hold as strong as truth.
3) I have to agree with you there, I was a little harsh, but they are atheists.
4) I don’t want to see them banned, but I want this to mean that atheists no longer complain about Christian posters.
I appreciate your comment, and if this conversation continues as I hope it will, then it may become a shiny new blog post of its own.
TT
February 7, 2009 at 8:32 am. Permalink.