this makes me angry

[scoobyjack]

Taking small isolated incidents to claim 'fundamentalist' atheists are as dangerous as xian or muslim fundamentalists!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7156783.stm

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I see that the Winterval season is upon us again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval

Odd how churchmen forget the commandment against bearing false witness, isn't it?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

These people seem to think they lived in a golden age in the past when everything was wonderful.

They are like spolt children, if they don't get things their own way, they just have a little cry to the media.

They should go back to their Daily Mails, plenty of stuff in there about how us atheists are ruining christmas.

[Mulder]

What exactly is a fundementalist atheist? What do they believe in, exactly? What do they do that is so dangerous? We demand to be told!

[Fiona]

It is all in the link, Mulder.

They are the people who say "that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance", and "view the faith as "superstitious nonsense".

I personally never knew that such depravity existed and if I had I would never have gone about supporting free speech.

They are dangerous because they make "virulent,almost irrational" attacks on Christianity. I mean how low can you go? What is a religious person to do if faced with "almost irrational" attacks? They have no defence at all and I am making it my new year resolution to ensure that all those attacks which I do not make are properly and wholly irrational in future. It is the least I can do

[Mulder]

I can't be a fundementalist, then, because (a) I don't think Christianity is particularly without substance compared to other religions and (b) I am always careful to either be rational OR irrational. I'm never almost irrational. So I guess I must just be an ordinary, run of the mill, everyday sort of atheist. That's a relief!

[Fiona]

*shakes her head sadly at the poverty of Mulder's ambition *

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

We need some Daily Mail links to increase your anger

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1787

O Come All Ye Faithful ... On this last weekend of Advent, traditionally a time believers unite in joyful anticipation of the Christmas tidings, you might be forgiven for wondering just what happened to the confident conviction behind that great carol of Christian hope.



Without question, 2007 has been a year of sustained assault on religion. God is a delusion sneers Richard Dawkins, while the children's author Philip Pullman achieves Hollywood success with His Dark Materials, a book which characterises the Church as positively evil.
With masterly mistiming meanwhile, that dry-as-dust theologian the Archbishop of Canterbury chooses this week to inform us that some of the best-loved aspects of the Christmas story - from the wise men to the star of Bethlehem - are just a myth

Of course Dr Rowan Williams is sticking to the strict letter of the Gospels, as every Biblical scholar would acknowledge. But why couldn't he just shut up, instead of trampling on the traditions celebrated in countless carols and Nativity plays?
Sadly, his plodding scholarship will do nothing to stem the secular tide, which now seems to be running so strongly that new LibDem leader Nick Clegg can't wait to announce that he doesn't believe in God.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

One of the leading figures in the Women's Institute has urged members to ban prayers from carol concerts.


Jane Harris, a regional chairman of the organisation, said prayers were "not appropriate" because many WI members are non-Christians.
"Although most non-Christians are happy to go along with the Christmas traditions, the WI is a secular organisation and therefore we should not include prayers at these events," Mrs Harris said in her column in a WI newsletter.

And to cap it all, Littlejohn

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..._author_id=322

Makes you proud to be British - a Christmas special

[Fiona]

Farside, I don't mean to be cheeky, and you know your own business best, of course. But are you sure it is good for you to read that paper?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It's online so I don't have to touch it.

And I only look for comedy value. It's a great indicator of the zeitgeist in a certain mentality of people.

If I could say one ok thing about the Daily Mail though, their web site is fast, clear, and has nice pictures.

[Mulder]

I'd love to think atheism was gaining in ascendency, as these articles proclaim. I have to say, though, that I just don't see it! There was a promising time, a couple of decades ago, when the C of E practically gave up Christianity. Since then, evangelicals and creationists have arrived and we're back to the dark ages. Wake me up when the world is sane!

[Mojo]

It's online so I don't have to touch it.

But that means you can't use it for its appropriate purpose.

[tkingdoll]

I found it interesting that the BBC article called Dawkins 'a militant atheist'. It's unlike them to editorialise in that fashion, even in these days of low low standards. And as usual, they then edited it out. And this time it wasn't me who complained!

I suspect we'll see more pro-religion stuff on the BBC in 2008, they clearly have at least one person on the staff with an agenda.

[Mulder]

I found it interesting that the BBC article called Dawkins 'a militant atheist'.

I suspect that all you have to do to be a 'militant atheist' is to state, in public, that there is no evidence to support religion. Very few people have the courage to do this so it is considered rude or even provocative.

[DrS]

I suspect that all you have to do to be a 'militant atheist' is to state, in public, that there is no evidence to support religion. Very few people have the courage to do this so it is considered rude or even provocative.

I think you have to do a little bit more than that to be militant. Dawkins is actively engaged in debunking religion. God bless him!