Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Why promote atheism though? Surely most people reject religion through the application of critical thinking and reasoning. What extra issue is being resolved by promoting atheism over what the CFI promotes?

    I pretty much agree with that, but I would have ask "why promote atheism"? Different emphasis.

    I too think people come to atheism through reasoning and don't need persuasion. Education though.....that's different. That would provide people with more points of view to examine.

    I wonder is the difficulty here with the notion that Atheism Ireland might be "pushing" atheism in a similar way to a religion pushes their faith through missionary work? I don't see that "promoting" in the context of "informing/educating" is anything like the same thing.


  • Options
    #63
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Why promote atheism though? Surely most people reject religion through the application of critical thinking and reasoning. What extra issue is being resolved by promoting atheism over what the CFI promotes?

    I agree.
    All you seem to get by actively promoting atheism (rather than passively doing it by promoting reason and logic) is bad PR because people have an aversion to the term.

    It's not about compromising your position, it's just about being clever with your branding. There needn't be any practical difference but it probably makes most people more receptive.


  • Options
    #64
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If they are truly objective, then they must be explainable without reference to god (as they must be true regardless of source in order to be objective) and if they are truly from god, then a perfect explanation must exist.
    I'm no theologian, but your approach strikes me as wishful thinking. I've certainly read stuff written by Muslims that said explicitly that there was no way of knowing why Allah prohibited the eating of pork. It was simply an arbitrary rule, as far as humans would be concerned, and the deal was just to submit to the will of Allah - ours not to reason why, ours just to do and spend eternity in Paradise. Even where you might see some rational point to a rule - say, you argue that Allah prohibits alcohol because its bad for you - they'd stress that this is not why Allah has prohibited it. It's just happenstance that it's bad.

    The argument about morality being subjective to Allah assumes that humans are equals of the divinity; and that's not a proposition that I'd expect many theists would share.


  • Options
    #65
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Gbear wrote: »
    It's not about compromising your position, it's just about being clever with your branding. There needn't be any practical difference but it probably makes most people more receptive.
    Yeah, but there are some of us who don't see the point of even clever branding. I don't see a need to make people more receptive. I've no conviction that atheism, however branded, is "better" for people than whatever they are doing right now. I don't think I'm alone in this.

    It's theism, in its various brands, that thinks "you really gotta think like this, you've no idea how much good it will do you". Atheism doesn't have a programme.

    Which does make it faintly ridiculous when, exactly as that letter says, you see a group of atheists rather incoherently bumbling around like a religion, but missing the key element that lets religions be at least internally consistent - a god.


  • Options
    #66
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Why promote atheism though? Surely most people reject religion through the application of critical thinking and reasoning. What extra issue is being resolved by promoting atheism over what the CFI promotes?

    No some people "reject religion through the application of critical thinking and reasoning". There are plenty of people who compartmentalise the religious indoctrination they go through during childhood. There are plenty of christian people that apply rationality and critical thinking to everything from psychics to chiropractors (I need to stop mentioning homoeopaths every post). There's evidence to suggest then that indoctrination is more powerful than other flim flam.

    That's why if you believe society would be better off with more people being atheist then you should want to promote it. I'm not saying calling door to door but speaking about it in the public sphere or where religion tries to involve itself in issues. It's about being comfortable with promoting what you believe to be true with people who are curious.

    Also as someone mentioned the name "atheist" has some stigma around it and like the lgbt community the best way to shake that stigma off is to use the word proudly and let people see that atheists are normal decent people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yeah, but there are some of us who don't see the point of even clever branding. I don't see a need to make people more receptive. I've no conviction that atheism, however branded, is "better" for people than whatever they are doing right now. I don't think I'm alone in this.

    It's theism, in its various brands, that thinks "you really gotta think like this, you've no idea how much good it will do you". Atheism doesn't have a programme.

    Which does make it faintly ridiculous when, exactly as that letter says, you see a group of atheists rather incoherently bumbling around like a religion, but missing the key element that lets religions be at least internally consistent - a god.

    There are people like me who have shook off the notion of religion thanks to people like Dawkins and Hitchens who pointed out the flaws my religion had hidden well from me and I'm grateful for them. I am sure people unlucky enough to have not seen through them yet, unlike you and I, will be grateful for their actions. Just because you and I have seen behind the curtain doesn't mean we should mock those that continue to give up their time to try and help others do the same.


  • Options
    #68
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Just because you and I have seen behind the curtain doesn't mean we should mock those that continue to give up their time to try and help others do the same.
    But, just like they're convinced they've got some wonderful insight to share with the world, maybe I've got some strange idea that I've got some wonderful insight that they've just gotta know.

    And, up to a point, I suppose I do. I don't feel I've anything to offer theists. I do feel that some atheists need a bit of a shake, though. Two of the issues that many of them need a shake about are
    • that there is a non-trivial difference between what a theist might call morality and what an atheist might call morality
    • that rationality isn't anything like as rational as they so earnestly want it to be.


  • Options
    #69
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I've certainly read stuff written by Muslims that said explicitly that there was no way of knowing why Allah prohibited the eating of pork. It was simply an arbitrary rule, as far as humans would be concerned, and the deal was just to submit to the will of Allah

    This makes the rule subjective, rather than objective. Again it doesn't matter that god just told us this without him bothering to explain it, if its an objective rule, it should make sense without reference to him... wait, I just remembered: we already discussed ethics in another thread and your posts descented into ambiguous nonsense fairly quickly. Will this time be any different?


  • Options
    #70
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But, just like they're convinced they've got some wonderful insight to share with the world, maybe I've got some strange idea that I've got some wonderful insight that they've just gotta know.

    And, up to a point, I suppose I do. I don't feel I've anything to offer theists. I do feel that some atheists need a bit of a shake, though. Two of the issues that many of them need a shake about are
    • that there is a non-trivial difference between what a theist might call morality and what an atheist might call morality
    • that rationality isn't anything like as rational as they so earnestly want it to be.

    Of course there's a difference in what I call morality and a theist does. Mine is concerned with what I think is best for humanity. A theist's is to get them into an afterlife.

    As for the later rationality done right is by definition rational. That's not to say people don't act on emotion, rationalising later but that's just poor rationality.

    Though maybe your two points are completely different and if you believe them you should promote them or at least put them out.

    Does it have anything to do with why you oppose people looking to help others see through their religion?


  • Options
    #71
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This makes the rule subjective, rather than objective.
    You're just repeating your assertion, which would only hold if the creator god was, like, just this guy.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    ... wait, I just remembered: we already discussed ethics in another thread and your posts descented into ambiguous nonsense fairly quickly. Will this time be any different?
    I suspect your subjective experience will be the same.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Of course there's a difference in what I call morality and a theist does. Mine is concerned with what I think is best for humanity. A theist's is to get them into an afterlife.
    Why would you give a toss about humanity? And why exclude other animals? Do humans have souls, or something?
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    As for the later rationality done right is by definition rational.
    No, not really. Rationality runs right into the problem of induction, and never recovers.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Does it have anything to do with why you oppose people looking to help others see through their religion?
    Oh, I'm not opposing anything at all. I just think missionary atheism is quite deluded, and quite ludicrous.

    I mean, we've all probably been there at some point. But it really is quite comical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Why would you give a toss about humanity? And why exclude other animals? Do humans have souls, or something?

    Oh I don't exclude animals but I give preference to my own species not because of any soul but out of empathy and a hope that others will do similar.
    No, not really. Rationality runs right into the problem of induction, and never recovers.

    So what would you suggest we use instead?
    I mean, we've all probably been there at some point. But it really is quite comical. Oh, I'm not opposing anything at all. I just think missionary atheism is quite deluded, and quite ludicrous.

    Again it's easy to laugh at people helping with something we don't need help with, I'm just glad not everyone felt that way before someone helped me. People arguing what they believe and why is what progresses our civilisation.


  • Options
    #73
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You're just repeating your assertion, which would only hold if the creator god was, like, just this guy.

    I didn't make any assertions, I explained myself. If something is objectively true, then it's true regardless of who said it. If something is only true because someone said it, then it becomes subjective to that person saying it. They may never renege on saying it, but it is still only true because they said.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I suspect your subjective experience will be the same.

    So you admit you will just resort to trolling again? Fine.


  • Options
    #74
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But, just like they're convinced they've got some wonderful insight to share with the world, maybe I've got some strange idea that I've got some wonderful insight that they've just gotta know. And, up to a point, I suppose I do.
    Excellent. I encourage you to share it. That is how we progress as a society.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I don't feel I've anything to offer theists. I do feel that some atheists need a bit of a shake, though. Two of the issues that many of them need a shake about are
    • that there is a non-trivial difference between what a theist might call morality and what an atheist might call morality
    • that rationality isn't anything like as rational as they so earnestly want it to be.
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your second insight, but I agree completely with your first one.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    • that there is a non-trivial difference between what a theist might call morality and what an atheist might call morality
    GCU, that insight is one of the major factors that motivates me to do the advocacy work that I do.

    I believe that the theistic idea that morality derives from gods, corrupts our natural morality at a fundamental level.

    And religions can use this idea both to maintain power, and also to convince otherwise good people to justify harmful behavior towards others.

    If you do want to share that insight, I suspect that you have much more to offer to theists than you believe you have.


  • Options
    #75
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    There are three more letters in todays Irish Times about atheism. That is the fifth consecutive day of such letters.

    Thank you to everyone who has helped to maintain this focus on this usually under-reported issue in the mainstream media.

    If you want to write a letter, I suggest keeping it short, and focusing on the most important and useful point that you want to make.

    The address is lettersed@irishtimes.com


  • Options
    #76
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Hmm, the third one here seems to have missed the point of Nugent's piece in somewhat paranoid fashion:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/


  • Options
    #77
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Hmm, the third one here seems to have missed the point of Nugent's piece in somewhat paranoid fashion:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

    Yes, he seems to miss quite a lot really. "The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, advocates a distinction between the political and the religious and deplores any form of religious fundamentalism or aggressive secularism."


  • Options
    #78
    yeppydeppy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭yeppydeppy


    My letter was published - woo hoo!


  • Options
    #79
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    yeppydeppy wrote: »
    My letter was published - woo hoo!

    Good on ya! Take that, establishment! :)


  • Options
    #80
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    yeppydeppy wrote: »
    My letter was published - woo hoo!

    Link!


  • Options
    #81
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Link!

    This should work. Though you'll have to decide for yourself whether he's Frank or Matthew:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    yeppydeppy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭yeppydeppy


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Link!

    Can't like directly to letter, letters page link is as above:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/letters

    I'm the guy from Charleville.


  • Options
    #83
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    yeppydeppy wrote: »
    Can't like directly to letter, letters page link is as above:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/letters

    I'm the guy from Charleville.

    Nice letter - well said. Glad to see that the IT is giving some space to this debate. The more people that are open about being atheist the better.

    I can't imagine letters such as yours being published when I was growing up in Ireland in the 70s and 80s.


  • Options
    #84
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yeah, but there are some of us who don't see the point of even clever branding. I don't see a need to make people more receptive. I've no conviction that atheism, however branded, is "better" for people than whatever they are doing right now. I don't think I'm alone in this.

    I meant more receptive to secularism, which is worth fighting for whoever you are.

    Advancing "atheism" - making more people atheists, is trivial in importance next to secularism which we need to have a just and functional democracy.


  • Options
    #85
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Gbear wrote: »
    I meant more receptive to secularism, which is worth fighting for whoever you are.

    Advancing "atheism" - making more people atheists, is trivial in importance next to secularism which we need to have a just and functional democracy.

    Secularism if gained only helps those entering/still in the school system. There are loads of people around you indoctrinated into religion and just because (maybe) you and I have escaped it it's unfair to leave them behind. Thankfully as I've said people like Dawkins and Hitchens didn't share your views years ago when I had long cast away psychics but still battled with my religious beliefs.

    Promoting what you think is true is a vital part of our society. Otherwise what's the point of protecting freedom of speech?


  • Options
    #86
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    What is this "meaning" you speak of? Purpose? Direction? Servitude?

    The sensation of purring along like a perfectly balanced engine: operating precisely according to the creators design when he conceived of you.

    Meaning isn't something generated by self, it's something assigned to you by the one who has created a role for you. And the closer you come to his intent for you, the more meaning you will experience

    You seem like a slave on being asked if he wants to be freed.
    But who would tell me what to do then? What would my purpose be, if not to serve my imaginary master? Could I just do anything - sure that's nuts.....

    Free to do what? Pull purpose from a hat? With the option of changing purpose with the same frequency the average person changes their socks?

    Operating according to the creators design for you might seem distasteful to you (assuming your model of God's extent is as cardboard cut-out and Dawkinsianally narrow as you seem to be hinting at).

    The alternative isn't independence however (in the case of God's existence). It's referencially lacking nonsense.


  • Options
    #87
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Free to do what? Pull purpose from a hat? With the option of changing purpose with the same frequency the average person changes their socks?

    What is with the Christian pathalogical fear of freedom and choice? Choice seems to only lead to bad things, we should abandon any decision making on our own part and surrender completely to what we are told, otherwise we will be marrying trees and raping our house pets.

    Imagine the idea that you couldn't choose your college degree, it was choosen for you by your parents, under the logic that if you were allowed choose your college degree you would be changing your mind every year as to what you wanted to do in life, until you retire at 65 having had 65 careers.

    That sounds as ridiculous as the false dichotomy you are proposing, that you either have your entire life's purpose assigned to you by a deity or you go through life changing it as regularly as you change your socks.

    This really does just comes back to the idea that religion is ultimate just a psychological crutch for people who are scarred of choice, unable to process the many variables of real life and feel they don't have control over their own lives.

    The rest of us don't view it like that, so again it is a false dichotomy. I can pick what breakfast ceral I want in the morning without falling into a blubbering mess of indecision, I can also pick what meaning I will assign to my life without falling into a blubbering mess of indecision.


  • Options
    #88
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Oh I don't exclude animals
    But you just did.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    I give preference to my own species not because of any soul but out of empathy and a hope that others will do similar.
    Does this mean the basis of your morality is to satisfy whatever mood you might have at a particular time, plus a hope of ingratiating yourself with others?

    I'm not saying that's a problem, necessarily. I'm just pursuing a point.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    So what would you suggest we use instead?
    I'm not particularly suggesting any alternative. I'm just pointing out that reason is no better than going to a Fortune Teller, or flicking a coin or heading to the Mosque.


  • Options
    #89
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If something is objectively true, then it's true regardless of who said it.
    Not if you're talking about the process that created the concept of objectivity. Seriously, I doubt that many theists would see any point in what you are saying. I know there used to be these learned discussions over whether stuff is good because the divinity determined it or whether the divinity had to be good.

    But that's irrelevant to the theist's place in the scheme of things. Your god might exist in a state of nature, with no fixed rules. But that doesn't mean his creation does.


  • Options
    #90
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Excellent. I encourage you to share it. That is how we progress as a society.
    And there we do agree - I'd even see benefit in the process of discussing your manifesto, even if I don't really subscribe to the concept of atheist ethics. There's an appetite to discuss these issues, and that's helpful.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your second insight, but I agree completely with your first one.
    I suspect we may not agree on either! However, on rationality, I'm driving at two things.

    The first is the element that I think a few have commented on here - which is the practical reality that people behave irrationally, even when they believe they are being rational. I'd be thinking of work by people like Daniel Kahneman. If you haven't read him, I suspect you'll have come across someone who has examined similar things.

    But that's not all I'm saying. Because my second point is its not just a matter of humans imperfectly following the Perfect Message of Reason. Because there is no Perfect Message of Reason; that's the significance of the problem of induction. Even if we were perfectly logical Mr Spocks, the tool of reason itself is flawed. Even in theory, it can't actually deliver a more reliable version of reality than, oh, your average Cargo Cult.

    And that's, IMHO, the human condition. We have to act, make judgments, whatever, in a situation where there is no reliable guide or reference point.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I believe that the theistic idea that morality derives from gods, corrupts our natural morality at a fundamental level.
    I don't have a problem with anyone contending that they've got a mission from God; the Blues Brothers just wouldn't be the same without it.:D

    On the other hand, I don't see what it is that can be called "natural morality", apart from what we might call enlightened self-interest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What is with the Christian pathalogical fear of freedom and choice? Choice seems to only lead to bad things, we should abandon any decision making on our own part and surrender completely to what we are told, otherwise we will be marrying trees and raping our house pets.

    The late hour of your posting is noted and the appropriate allowances made :)

    As you well know, Christianity doesn't preclude chosing. It merely points out that there is a boundary within which choices can be said to be in alignment with God's character.

    It's not fear that has the Christian want to operate within that boundary, it's their love of the character of God arising from their once having been dazzled by it. Consequently, a desire to be and act like him (it would help of those inclined to Old Testament based hysteria would refrain). Typical son reaction to his father.. admiring and wanting to act like him.

    Which is off the point. The point has to do with mooringless meaning. Just as with mooringless morality, it is pointless to talk of it when it one persons up is anothers down.


    Imagine the idea that you couldn't choose your college degree, it was choosen for you by your parents, under the logic that if you were allowed choose your college degree you would be changing your mind every year as to what you wanted to do in life, until you retire at 65 having had 65 careers.

    Again, it's operational boundary that characterises Christianity, not choicelessness.

    Whether or not an atheist chooses to about turn on what constitutes meaning isn't the point. The point is that since there is nothing stopping him doing so - citing the new meaning as valid as the just discarded - the present meaning is rendered a priori meaningless.


    That sounds as ridiculous as the false dichotomy you are proposing, that you either have your entire life's purpose assigned to you by a deity or you go through life changing it as regularly as you change your socks.

    This really does just comes back to the idea that religion is ultimate just a psychological crutch for people who are scarred of choice, unable to process the many variables of real life and feel they don't have control over their own lives.

    Again I'd cite operational boundaries and stand somewhat aghast that you would revert to such simplistic caricatures given your deep involvement in discussion of things Christianity.

    The difference between us is in one way slight. My choices are (ideally) made within a God-defined boundary. Yours, within a self-defined boundary - there are places you won't go. The argument is that because your boundary can shift and flex to suit whatever you happen to want yourself, you have no actual boundary. Rendering talk of morality and meaning .. meaningless.



    -


    It all really boils down to whether there is a God or not. It is consistant for those who reckon there is a God to operate according to the purpose they were created for. To argue independence from the creator a higher purpose, has absolutely no ground on which to begin to build from not for the Christian and not for the atheist who would use that as an grounds of rejecting God.

    I mean, there is no ground whose solidity isn't derived from the Creator (for as long as the Creator deigns to provide that solidity). Your ability to even rebel and reject on these grounds would depend on him. And when he removes those grounds, to ground falls your objection.

    You might not agree that there is a creator. But you need to reevaluate your opposition from the perspective of those who hold that he does indeed exist.


Advertisement