Evangelists on trains.

[bahnause]

As you say, an atheist is one who believes that no deity exists. That is not a position of non-belief, but of positive disbelief. My Christian beliefs preclude belief in the deities you mention - by definition, I cannot be an atheist or indeed an agnostic in respect of them. As someone who also considers himself a liberal, I regard the ability of both beliefs to exist, and to organise and communicate their views, as fundamental parts of a liberal society.

This is nothing more than a lengthy attempt to justify double standards. If Christians reject other gods, how can they expect their own faith not to be considered atheism towards other religions? When a Christian says, ‘Other gods are not real,’ this is based on their own belief logic.
For a non believer or a a Hindu or a polytheistic believer, this is not convincing, but rather comes across as a claim to religious absoluteness. The definition of ‘God’ is not universal, and those who reject other gods should be aware that, from their perspective, they appear to be and are by definition atheists. The difference lies not in logic, but in religious perspective. Therefore, the argument is not universally applicable, as it fails a simple logic test.

The common understanding among atheists is that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods, similar to how one doesn't "believe" in unicorns. It is therefore not an affirmative belief. Affirmative beliefs carry a burden of proof. Atheism, defined as a lack of belief, does not assert a truth claim, so it doesn’t require proof.

I also disagree strongly with your caricature of Christian belief, and the impact that religions have had - and note that you have not responded to comment on secular beliefs and the harm that they have caused.

What would you like to hear about? What about the so-called atheist Hitler, who made every soldier take the ‘I swear by God’ and ‘So help me God’ Wehrmacht oath? The inscription ‘GOTT MIT UNS’ (God with us) was on every belt buckle on the Wehrmacht uniform. Incidentally, Hitler never left the Catholic Church and continued to pay his church taxes until 1933. The Reich Concordat with the Catholic Church was concluded to bind the Church politically, and the Church was happy to comply.
Some religious groups, especially Christian conservatives, claim that Hitler was an atheist in order to equate atheism with moral decay. Well, he wasn't.

As for Stalin, his murder squads had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with maintaining power, purging opponents and controlling society and the economy.
Religion was suppressed because it was seen as competing with the state ideology, not because of an atheist 'mission'. If atheism led to violence, this would have to be systematically observed, which is not the case.

Religion, on the other hand, has numerous examples of violence. Consider the Crusades, the burning of witches, the Inquisition and the oppression of minorities (and majorities, for that matter).

Under English and Welsh law, religions are legally protected and provided with charitable status. Also, political parties can and do require adherence to certain beliefs and behaviours from their members.

We are living in 2025. It is time to put an end to such preferential treatment. An institution such as the Catholic Church, for example, which does not even consider the beginnings of equality for women within the organisation, does not deserve such status.

 

[35B]

Some brief points:
* Atheism is a specific set of beliefs. As a matter of definition, I cannot be an atheist towards X religion because I am an adherent of Y religion, because my religious belief means that I am not an atheist.
* One can argue many reasons for the murders of the great dictators, and their religious backgrounds may play roles. But those murders were not committed in the name of religion but of secular ideologies.
* I do not deny the abuses of religion, past and present. I object to the ahistorical misattribution of religion as uniquely wrong.
* You are entitled to argue that religion should not benefit from charity status. The fact is that, in England and Wales, it does. And, going back to the OP, freedom of speech is protected - including that of religion.

 

[CMS1]

I would also add that Bahnause's raving/pushing his aetheist viewpoint is the very behavior that was condemned in this thread! He seems much less tolerant of others than Christians are (from my experience).

 

[bahnause]

* You are entitled to argue that religion should not benefit from charity status. The fact is that, in England and Wales, it does. And, going back to the OP, freedom of speech is protected - including that of religion.

What is the purpose of repeatedly discussing this issue, given that no one has actually attempted to remove it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2025 ==

I would also add that Bahnause's raving/pushing his aetheist viewpoint is the very behavior that was condemned in this thread! He seems much less tolerant of others than Christians are (from my experience).

I don't walk up and down the train to demonstrate my world view. I express my opinion on a statement made in the original post. Everyone is free to read it or not. Likewise, everyone is free to write their own post. This may or may not contribute anything in terms of content. Again, freedom of speech does not only apply to religious people.

 

[35B]

What is the purpose of repeatedly discussing this issue, given that no one has actually attempted to remove it?

Your argument comes across as precisely a case of wishing to remove that freedom of speech. If I've misunderstood, I apologise

 

[bahnause]

Your argument comes across as precisely a case of wishing to remove that freedom of speech. If I've misunderstood, I apologise

No, that was not my argument and there is no need for you to apologise. My goal is quite the opposite. However, what I would like to see removed are the barriers that, even today, consider criticism of religious topics to be illegitimate or socially unacceptable. Does your religion treat LGBTQ+ people or people of different ethnicities differently? Does your religion make claims that contradict scientific findings? Yes, I will criticise that. Freedom of speech does not mean criticism cannot be expressed.

 

[35B]

No, that was not my argument and there is no need for you to apologise. My goal is quite the opposite. However, what I would like to see removed are the barriers that, even today, consider criticism of religious topics to be illegitimate or socially unacceptable. Does your religion treat LGBTQ+ people or people of different ethnicities differently? Does your religion make claims that contradict scientific findings? Yes, I will criticise that. Freedom of speech does not mean criticism cannot be expressed.

Thank you

 

[FinsburyPark]

Part of me thinks train evangelism might be a new way for them.

I know in some areas the Police turn up within half an hour to an hour and move them on.

Maybe the evangelists in certain areas have cottoned on to this and have changed tack to doing it on a moving train.

The ones near where I live use speakers, so i suspect the noise element draws in complaints.

If they are on a train minus any form of speaker/microphone set up, then its marginally better. But it woudn't suprise me if passengers get a bit annoyed after too long.

Particuarly if its on an intercity route.

Imagine bieng on one of those Avanti London Euston to Glasgow Central routes where the 1st stop is Warrington Bank Quay which is 2 hr 15 minutes away. Now imagine that with an evangelist in your carriage. 5 mins of it might be fair game for some. 2 hours, no way!

 

[AY1975]

Well, they would probably be breaking Byelaw 6.8 as they might ‘wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway’. At a pinch they might also be breaking 6.1 as some people might find it ’offensive language’.

But what about 7.2.2, when they might be trying to ‘sell or expose or offer anything for sale’: are they trying to sell me ‘eternal salvation’ or something similar, without the permission of the operator. If they try to hand out leaflets wouldn’t that be a breach of 7.2.1 if they haven’t got permission.

In the 1980s when I was a kid, you often used to see posters bearing Bible texts on station platforms. You don't seem to see them so much these days for some reason: you might think that the railways would be just as keen to sell their advertising space to whoever they can now as they were back then.

Also around that time Sheffield Midland station had a display cabinet containing Christian Science literature (i.e. as in the sect founded by Mary Baker Eddy that believes that all matter is an illusion) at the foot of the stairs to the footbridge on Platform 6.