We often hear news stories concerning books, films, TV programmes etc that are condemned as 'anti-Christian' (or other religion) because they contain atheistic ideas. By this logic, aren't all religious books etc 'anti-atheist'? Should atheists be 'offended' by the Bible in the way that Christains are 'offended' by Pullman's works or Dawkins programmes?
Well I am certainly offended by those who tell me I am going to hell for all eternity and that I deserve no better because I do not believe in their All Father
don't worry, think of it this way;
there are thousends of gods, christians, jews and most other religons believe in only one god, as athiest we just belive in one less than they do.
There should be no offence involved in exercise of freedom of speeech - provided criticisms are clearly directed at the content of arguments and not ad hominem.Originally Posted by Mulder
Claiming 'offence' can easily be used by a believer as a superficially credible cover for avoiding genuine debate. As skeptics we want to encourage such debates, not obfuscate them!
No need for an atheist to be offended by the bible at all in my opinion. In fact I find the bible quite a fascinating historical curio and enjoy reading interpretation/deconstruction type stuff setting the writings within their historical context and the Jewish tradition. It starts to make a helluva lot more sense when you read it in this way.
Many atheists in my opinion are offended by the bible and delve into conspiracy theory territory in an attempt to deny the authenticity of the texts, the historical personalities described therein etc. In my opinion this is wrong and it is perfectly consistent for an atheist to accept the bible for what it is, an ancient set of religious texts, whilst at the same time denying that they are the word of God(s).
At least if religious people are getting offended, that suggests that they are being forced to reconsider their own attitudes. The "offence" is only a manifestation of that feeling at the back of their minds that they might not, after all, have tapped into the ultimate wisdom and could just be making a bit of a plonker of themselves. They are put in an awkward position because they don't have the necessary tools or skills to defend their own entrenched position from attack. After all, if they had all the answers, and no doubts, then why be offended? Why not just silence your critics with the force of your argument?
Some of these religious types find it a good tactic to take their bat and walk off in a huff when they have been put in on a sticky wicket, thrown a googly and find themselves up the creek without a leg to paddle with.
I suppose anything with spiritual themes could be seen as "anti-atheist". I wouldn't say I find such things offensive but they can be annoying, expecially when they treat those who lack faith as lacking something fundamental.
Interesting point.
I personally don't find religious books/films insulting...just amusing.
Surely the purpose of 'outrage' or taking offence is to mobilise opinion against something. If one can give the impression that there is widespread disquiet then politicians are more likely to act in accordance with your wishes. Thus, religious groups act offended and get the media involved to keep the pressure up on the public and politicians to 'respect' their way of thinking.
Perhaps if atheists were not quite so aloof and more prepared to get involved in manipulating public opinion in a similar fashion, politicians might just consider our reaction when drafting legislation.
That would mean becoming that which we want to do away with.
Do away with politicians or their responsiveness to public opinion? Nice idea, what's the plan?
Hmm - does this constitute threatening behaviour in accordance with this :-Well I am certainly offended by those who tell me I am going to hell for all eternity and that I deserve no better because I do not believe in their All Father
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=2320532
I doubt this act was meant for Atheists as such (well only as a law against Atheist commentary) but since the Lords managed to fix it it may well be useful both ways...
Toad.
Thanks for the link
29A
Meaning of “religious hatred”
In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief
Does this mean that atheists are now protected under the religious hatred act?
The idea of outlawing 'hatred' is ridiculous. It is in emotion - a state of mind - not an action. Everyone hates something or someone from time to time. How are they going to prove what was in your mind when you were arrested?
It's basically thought-crime.
Which of course raises the question: WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?
Well the act went through a few different revisions. Eventually the Lords forced through a change of the wording that says :-
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
Originally (as proposed by the Blair government) it was going to say :-
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening"
So for it to be considered a crime under this act, the hatred itself is not the issue (in fact the act says that if it is kept inside private dwellings then that is not an offence). It is the spreading of that hatred (stirring up religious hatred) and the threats associated with it.
Having said that, the public statement that a) an Atheist is deserving of some Deity's wraith and b) that the Deity in question will submit the Atheist to eternal punishment does seem to me like it fulfills the requirements
Toad.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks