Katherine wrote:Oh, and former Blue Peter presenter Peter Purves is an atheist too.

The Archbishop of Canterbury told the faithful on Christmas Day that unless human beings abandon our greed, we will be responsible for the death of the planet. Hmm. I’m not sure that I can take a lecture on greed from a man who heads one of the western world’s richest institutions. As we huddle under a patio heater to stay warm while having a cigarette in the rain, his bishops are living in palatial splendour with banqueting halls, wondering where to invest the next billion.

And are the churches open at night as shelter for the homeless and the weak? No, they are locked lest someone should decide to redress the inequalities of western society by half-inching a candelabra and fencing it to buy Christmas presents for his kiddies. Then we must ask how much old Rowan really understands about the implications and causes of global warming. He thinks that taking a holiday in Florida and driving a Range Rover caused the flooding in Tewkesbury this summer. But then he also believes it’s possible for a man to walk on water and feed a crowd of 5,000 with nothing more than a couple of sardines.

Hmm. Well here are some facts that Rowan might like to chew on over his fair-trade breakfast cereal. The Alps are enjoying good snowfalls this year, in much the same way that the Alps in New South Wales enjoyed healthy snowfalls last summer. The hurricane season finished a couple of weeks ago and, contrary to all the scaremongering from Al Gore’s mates, the number of severe storms, for the second year in a row, was slightly below average.

Closer to home, Britain did not, as was predicted by the BBC’s hysterical internet news site, bake this summer under record-breaking temperatures. It was wet and soggy, much like in all the summers of my youth. And the only reason Tewkesbury flooded is because we’ve all paved our drives and built houses on the flood plains so the rainwater had nowhere else to go apart from Mrs Miggins’s front room.

In the light of all this, I would like Rowan Williams to come out from behind his eyebrows and tell us how many people have been killed by greed-induced global warming. Because even the most swivel-eyed lunatic would be hard pressed to claim it’s more than a few dozen. Meanwhile, I reckon the number of people killed over the years by religious wars is around 809m. I tell you this, beardie. Many, many more people have died in the name of God than were killed in the name of Hitler.

Between 1096 and 1270, the Crusades killed about 1.5m. Way more than have been killed by patio heaters and Range Rovers combined. Then there was the 30 years’ war, which reduced Europe’s population by about 7.5m. And the slaughter is still going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was killed by a religious nut, not a homeless polar bear. We have been told by those of a communist disposition that if we return to a life of sackcloth and potato soup (bishops excepted) and if we meet all the targets laid down by the great scientist John Prescott at Kyoto, then Britain will be a shining beacon to the world. Others will see what we have done and immediately lay down their 4x4s.

Rubbish. America and China and India will ignore our lunacy and our economic suicide and continue to embody the human spirit for self-improvement (or greed, as Rowan calls it). No matter. Old Rowan will doubtless applaud the move. This is a man who was arrested in the antinuclear protests of the 1980s. Who refused to call the 9/11 terrorists evil and said they had serious moral goals. Who thinks that every single thing bought and sold is “an act of aggression” on the developing world. Who campaigns for gay rights but wouldn’t actually appoint a homosexual as a bishop. And who recently said in an interview that America was the bad guy and that Muslims in Britain were like the good Samaritans.

In other words, he’s a full-on, five-star, paid-up member of the loony left, so anything that prevents the middle classes from having a Range Rover and a patio heater is bound to get his vote. If, however, he really wants to bring peace and stability to the world, if he really believes Britain can be a force for good and a shining beacon in troubled times, then I urge him to close the Church of England.

If we can demonstrate that we can survive without a church - and when you note 750,000 more people went online shopping on Christmas Day than went to church, you could argue we already do - then, who knows, maybe the mullahs and the left-footers will follow suit. Daft? Not as daft as expecting the government in Beijing to renounce electricity because everyone in Britain has swapped their Range Rover for a mangle.

But better? Well yes. I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely.

Morally, the world would be no worse if religion were abolished. Practically, it would be much, much better. And so, given the choice of which we should give up, God or the patio heater, the choice is simple.

Katherine wrote:I have contributed much to my local society during the last seven years doing a mountain of voluntary work for my local hospital radio station. I do ward rounds on Thursday afternoons collecting record requests from patients, I am the chief music purchaser, I am on the management committee, I help with fundraising and as garnish, I'm Head Librarian too. I have also donated money to the Kirsty Howard appeal for Francis House Children's Hospice in Manchester.

And please don't call me a friend. As George Carlin said "I wouldn't presume on a friendship. It's not polite".

Mr P wrote:So as an atheist I make no contribution to society... well apart from paying my taxes, taking advantage of free democracy by voting, by working in a job that produces stuff for society, by buying goods and services so therefore supporting liberal capitalism, by paying my bills, by social interaction, by opposing opressive and outdated dogma..... etc.

the PC apeman wrote:
Even if this opinion had a basis in fact, so what? It wouldn't add support to claims for the existence of a deity. It is possibly the case that adherence to a myth serves the desires of a large majority. It still wouldn't mean that a deity exists.

paarsurrey wrote:

Mr P wrote:So as an atheist I make no contribution to society... well apart from paying my taxes, taking advantage of free democracy by voting, by working in a job that produces stuff for society, by buying goods and services so therefore supporting liberal capitalism, by paying my bills, by social interaction, by opposing opressive and outdated dogma..... etc.

Hi friends

You are doing what a normal human being irrespect of his belief or unbelief would do.

Thanks

Shaker wrote:

Did Sagan consider himself an atheist?

No (even though he was).

paarsurrey wrote:

Shaker wrote:

Did Sagan consider himself an atheist?

No (even though he was).

Hi friends

They put a label on him to increase their numbers.

Thanks

paarsurrey wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:
Even if this opinion had a basis in fact, so what? It wouldn't add support to claims for the existence of a deity. It is possibly the case that adherence to a myth serves the desires of a large majority. It still wouldn't mean that a deity exists.

Hi friends

Even if the above opinion had a basis in fact, so what? It wouldn't add support to claims for the non-existence of a Creator. It is possibly the case that adherence to an ideology serves the desires of those people. It still wouldn't mean that the Creator does not exist.

Thanks

aspire1670 wrote:Fuck me, you've said something sensible for once although in your case this meant you had to shoot yourself in both feet to let out the sensible. You do realize you have finally managed to subvert your delusional thinking about imaginary god as the source of morality. Didn't think so.

No need to thank me.

paarsurrey wrote:Even if the above opinion had a basis in fact, so what? It wouldn't add support to claims for the non-existence of a Creator. It is possibly the case that adherence to an ideology serves the desires of those people. It still wouldn't mean that the Creator does not exist.

BigRed wrote:what does belief or nonbelief have to do with what you contribute to society?

dylan wrote:Perhaps paarsurrey you should start a new thread about the contribution atheists have done in history or lack of in your opinion. I think you'll be surprised how few hold your view.

paarsurrey wrote:Athiests have little contribution in society being evolved and entering into the 21st century, in my opinion. Society has evolved; deifnitely, and it would have been the same even if there had been no Atheists. I think you wold agree with me on this.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

paarsurrey wrote:

Varangian wrote:multi-culturalism is mainly an excuse for those who want to bring their outdated superstitions into the 21st century.

Hi friend Varangian

paarsurrey wrote:Athiests have little contribution in society being evolved and entering into the 21st century, in my opinion. Society has evolved; deifnitely, and it would have been the same even if there had been no Atheists. I think you wold agree with me on this.

z8000783 wrote:So what.

theidiot wrote:There's an old slave song, that goes "I hear music in the air, there must be a God somewhere", where the slaves sense of hope, and belief in God are inseparable conceptions. It's not if you find your own privileged life meaningful and hopeful, but the relationship of hope and meaning in the lives of others, and how that sense is inseparable from their God beliefs.

the PC apeman wrote:

z8000783 wrote:So what.

Tried that. I wish you more luck in getting a (focused) response.

paarsurrey wrote:

My point is that for all the praise the atheists Agnostics do to their ideaology or non-ideaology; from the start of the human society; they hardly could produce any countries ruled by atheistsAgnostics so that one could evaluate their performance being good human beings upholding freedom of thought, justice and other ethical and moral faculties of a man. Whenver they got a chance to hold of a segment of the society ; they happened to be so cruel and worthless that they later disownedpraised them altogother. Is it true or not ?

Thanks

paarsurrey wrote:My point is that for all the praise the Atheists Agnostics do to their ideaology or non-ideaology;

paarsurrey wrote:from the start of the human society; they hardly could produce any countries ruled by Atheists Agnostics so that one could evaluate their performance being good human beings upholding freedom of thought, justice and other ethical and moral faculties of a man.

paarsurrey wrote:Whenver they got a chance to hold of a segment of the society ; they happened to be so cruel and worthless that they later disowned them altogother. Is it true or not ?

Varangian wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:My point is that for all the praise the Atheists Agnostics do to their ideaology or non-ideaology;

If you can wrap your head around more than one concept, try this on for size: an atheist can be of practically any political ideology. Political idiologies (or politicized religions) form society; not believing in gods doesn't.

paarsurrey wrote:from the start of the human society; they hardly could produce any countries ruled by Atheists Agnostics so that one could evaluate their performance being good human beings upholding freedom of thought, justice and other ethical and moral faculties of a man.

Perhaps not, but mostly due to the historical track record of religious people hindering secular societies to form. But if you have a look around you, you will see that the top countries that are the most prosperous, least corrupted, with highest degree of literacy, lowest number of stillbirths, longest life expectancy, least infringements on freedom of expression and other human rights, etc, etc, are secular. While that isn't the same as "atheist", it means that the countries that don't let religious wackaloons manage the daily running of affairs provide the best societies. Now, can you name a single fully Islamic country that ranks among the 30-40 best (= highest quality of life) countries in the world?

paarsurrey wrote:Whenver they got a chance to hold of a segment of the society ; they happened to be so cruel and worthless that they later disowned them altogother. Is it true or not ?

Now, could you please provide some examples, or did you just pull that out of your ass?