Jim Walsh uses Seanad debate to say atheists have faith

Michael Nugent · 16-04-2014 5:57pm #1

Senator Jim Walsh of Fianna Fail made the following sweepingly inaccurate comment about Atheist Ireland and atheists generally today in the Seanad.

“We’ve got a lot of representations from liberal groups, and particularly Atheist Ireland, and I want to say that, I said in the past here, I think, that atheists, like people of belief, are people of faith. It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. And in many ways I feel reassured by Atheist Ireland because, if there wasn’t a God, well then there wouldn’t be anything particularly to atheate from, and I’d just like to say that.”

Ironically, Senator Walsh made this comment this during a debate on a Bill that aims to reduce religious discrimination. And the representations that Atheist Ireland had made were about the need for the State to remain neutral between religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

PopePalpatine · 16-04-2014 6:02pm

Are Walsh and Mullen in a contest to see who's the thickest ****er in the Seanad?

TheChizler · 16-04-2014 6:03pm

Interesting. Frustrating how so many people don't get the difference between 'not believing' and 'believing there's not'. Was there a counter point raised in the debate?

Pherekydes · 16-04-2014 6:07pm

Is atheate a word? I don't believe it is, which means it must exist, by Sen Walsh's logic.

Similarly, the FSM, the Loch Ness Monster, Hogwarts, Rivendell, the chocolate teapot, etc., must exist.

I'm glad we've cleared that up...

robindch · 16-04-2014 6:16pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are Walsh and Mullen in a contest to see who's the thickest ****er in the Seanad?

No need for that kind of language, plz.

FHB · 16-04-2014 6:18pm

As a believer in Santa Claus, I personally feel reassured by all the people who don't believe in the big guy.

TheChizler · 16-04-2014 6:24pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Is atheate a word? I don't believe it is, which means it must exist, by Sen Walsh's logic.

I believe it's a verb which he totallydidntjustmakeup. To atheate, I atheate, you atheate, s/he atheates, we atheate, ye atheate, they atheate.

lazygal · 16-04-2014 6:26pm

When did you atheate?

wp_rathead · 16-04-2014 8:15pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Senator Jim Walsh of Fianna Fail made the following sweepingly inaccurate comment about Atheist Ireland and atheists generally today in the Seanad.

“We’ve got a lot of representations from liberal groups, and particularly Atheist Ireland, and I want to say that, I said in the past here, I think, that atheists, like people of belief, are people of faith. It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. And in many ways I feel reassured by Atheist Ireland because, if there wasn’t a God, well then there wouldn’t be anything particularly to atheate from, and I’d just like to say that.”

Ironically, Senator Walsh made this comment this during a debate on a Bill that aims to reduce religious discrimination. And the representations that Atheist Ireland had made were about the need for the State to remain neutral between religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-04-2014 2:07am

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

Amirani · 17-04-2014 2:22am

One can only despair.

EuskalHerria · 17-04-2014 2:29am

The type of ignorance one would expect from someone who can't understand why calling homosexuals "fairies" is unacceptable and who is opposed to civil partnerships.

Mr. CooL ICE · 17-04-2014 10:18am

"Do you even atheate, bro?"

PopePalpatine · 17-04-2014 11:02am

ninja900 wrote: »

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

Jim Walsh is offensively stupid.

lazygal · 17-04-2014 11:04am

Jim Walsh needs a good atheatism.

Delirium · 17-04-2014 12:30pm

So Dim Walsh also believes all other mythical creatures/deities exist?

Amirani · 17-04-2014 12:56pm

SW wrote: »

So Dim Walsh also believes all other mythical creatures/deities exist?

How else would you be able to Christianate?

lazygal · 17-04-2014 1:21pm

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/clueless-idiot-week-senator-jim-walsh-fianna-fail-ireland/

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-04-2014 1:45pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Senator Jim Walsh <...> It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. <...>

Of course, this is substantially correct. The only objective difference between atheism and theism is the degree of extravagance involved in what they contend. Debate seems to get stuck around this largely irrelevant point, as if one or other side expects that they've an argument that can convince the other of the error of their ways.

The only discussion with a point is one around what it is possible to say about human motivation and judgment, given that no-one really knows what they are talking about when we discuss these issues. If we really understood how people are and can be motivated to act, and if we knew what constitutes sensible judgement, we never would have had a property bubble.

And the people who would be financially safest in the event of a property crash would be people who insisted on Sharia-compliant home finance products, because God told them to do it that way.

Pherekydes · 17-04-2014 1:48pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Of course, this is substantially correct.

Atheists don't actually contend anything (about a god or gods).

Good to see you're still practicing your sophistry. Have you taken silk yet?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-04-2014 1:53pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheists don't actually contend anything (about a god or gods).

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

TheChizler · 17-04-2014 1:59pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

I think the people here know what they do or don't do.

Pherekydes · 17-04-2014 2:18pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

What about agnostic theists? They believe in their god, but they don't know.

I think most people around here know the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Corkfeen · 17-04-2014 2:24pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

Most on this forum are agnostic atheists,I'll happily admit there's always a possibility of a god existing(extremely unlikely though). However it seems equally likely leprachauns and unicorns exist.

gaynorvader · 17-04-2014 2:33pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Of course, this is substantially correct. The only objective difference between atheism and theism is the degree of extravagance involved in what they contend. Debate seems to get stuck around this largely irrelevant point, as if one or other side expects that they've an argument that can convince the other of the error of their ways.

The only discussion with a point is one around what it is possible to say about human motivation and judgment, given that no-one really knows what they are talking about when we discuss these issues. If we really understood how people are and can be motivated to act, and if we knew what constitutes sensible judgement, we never would have had a property bubble.

And the people who would be financially safest in the event of a property crash would be people who insisted on Sharia-compliant home finance products, because God told them to do it that way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

Time for the chart again:

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-04-2014 3:20pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think most people around here know the difference between agnostic and atheist.

I'd say they do. The weakness is in recognising that, for reasons related to the distinction, the statement I quoted is essentially correct.

Pherekydes · 17-04-2014 3:42pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd say they do. The weakness is in recognising that, for reasons related to the distinction, the statement I quoted is essentially correct.

Are you now claiming you don't know the difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god"?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-04-2014 4:08pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you now claiming you don't know the difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god"?

I'm not particularly commenting on whether there's any difference between those two statements of belief.

expectationlost · 17-04-2014 4:44pm

david norris while supportive generally of more secularism on this issue said

Like other colleagues, I have put down some amendments for Report Stage. They may be supplemental to those tabled by my colleagues, Senators Zappone and Power. For example, I want to replace the phrase "religious" with "religious or belief-based" as I see atheism as a belief. It is quite a strong belief in defiance of much of the evidence out there. I can argue that philosophically some other day.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014041600023?opendocument
jim walsh also cast asperisions on other people in the seanad... based on rumours

marienbad · 17-04-2014 4:50pm

lazygal wrote: »

When did you atheate?

A cream bun.

Pherekydes · 17-04-2014 4:50pm

Strong belief in defiance of what evidence out there, exactly, Sen Norris?

Obliq · 17-04-2014 5:06pm

Oh NORRIS. Why do you, a thoughtful man, insist on thinking FOR us?

lazygal · 17-04-2014 5:23pm

There's a real attitude that you have to believe in something or you're just plain weird or haven't listened to enough religious arguments from many Irish people. I got it all the time when we didn't have a church wedding and some of the comments when we didn't baptise the children were flat out incredible.

Obliq · 17-04-2014 5:27pm

Me having no belief in a god is as much of a belief as me having absolutely no love for egg white. It either is true for me, or it isn't. It's not a belief - it requires no thought whatsoever. I do not see any god - I do not like egg white. Simples.

lazygal · 17-04-2014 5:29pm

I know. I don't believe in thousands of Gods. But to some Irish people half assing their way through Catholicism is easier to understand than atheism.

Obliq · 17-04-2014 5:36pm

Yes, and actually being Irish AND atheist is more challenging to their poor little expectations apparently.

Had to roar laughing last night though - had some English friends around and sister of one of them, who I'd never met before, at one point in the conversation (I think we were on about Easter at the time) glanced quickly at me before qualifying what she said with "I'm sorry, you see I'm an atheist". Cue me roaring laughing because she had assumed I wasn't.....also gave her a proper going over for apologising over having no belief. We're firm friends now, but it gets me every time tbh. I'm Irish, therefore RCC? GRRRR :mad:

Brian Shanahan · 21-04-2014 3:13pm

ninja900 wrote: »

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

You're not?

Fine then, I will.

Sen. Jim Walsh is a big eejit.

Brian Shanahan · 21-04-2014 3:18pm

Obliq wrote: »

Oh NORRIS. Why do you, a thoughtful man, insist on thinking FOR us?

Norris never came across to me as a thoughtful man, he came across as a man in love with his own voice who happened to be right on gay rights, did a good line in meaningless blather and not much else.

Basically he's the Irish Rowan Williams.

stevejazzx · 22-04-2014 12:45am

@Jim Walsh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JzbWVDzac

Dublin Red Devil · 22-04-2014 12:48am

Wan't going to vote FF anyway.

shruikan2553 · 22-04-2014 11:53pm

I hate this whole atheism is a belief thing going around. Its as much of a belief in thinking there is no santa. I dont believe in god or santa. I cant prove they dont exist but will take the chance in assuming they arent as there is no evidence to suggest there is. Nobody feels the need to label me based on my belief in Santa.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-04-2014 3:27pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I hate this whole atheism is a belief thing going around. <...>I cant prove they dont exist but will take the chance in assuming they arent as there is no evidence to suggest there is. <...>

But, sure, you're saying it there. Life requires us to make assumptions, or be frozen by indecision.

I don't see the necessity of getting hung up on this "belief" word. Well, I suppose I do see why people want to contend that their unsupported assumptions are better than the next guy's. But they aren't.

Gordon · 23-04-2014 4:55pm

I think Mr Walsh has been watching too much Kill Bill, with the bride vs the crazy atheate gang.

gaynorvader · 23-04-2014 4:58pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you're saying it there. Life requires us to make assumptions, or be frozen by indecision.

I don't see the necessity of getting hung up on this "belief" word. Well, I suppose I do see why people want to contend that their unsupported assumptions are better than the next guy's. But they aren't.

Some assumptions are more supported than others. Lack of evidence would support lack of belief.

endacl · 23-04-2014 5:03pm

lazygal wrote: »

When did you atheate?

After biting your tongue. It means 'to speak with an injury-induced lisp'.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-04-2014 8:04pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Some assumptions are more supported than others. Lack of evidence would support lack of belief.

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

Some statements may be more consistent with what we know than other statements. But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known. Rationality isn't what we think it is.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1311323/problem-of-induction

It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs on the basis of induction; he denied only that people have any reason to hold such beliefs (therefore, also, no one can know that any such belief is true). Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance.

marienbad · 23-04-2014 8:33pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

Some statements may be more consistent with what we know than other statements. But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known. Rationality isn't what we think it is.

sort of like 'the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknown ' school of philosophy . Sounds a bit Rum to me

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-04-2014 8:53pm

marienbad wrote: »

sort of like 'the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknown ' school of philosophy . Sounds a bit Rum to me

Ah, yeah, of course we can just dismiss David Hume and not seem like we're clueless.

marienbad · 23-04-2014 9:19pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, yeah, of course we can just dismiss David Hume and not seem like we're clueless.

Well how many clues do you need ?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-04-2014 10:59pm

marienbad wrote: »

Well how many clues do you need ?

All of them, if we're being rational.

marienbad · 23-04-2014 11:03pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All of them, if we're being rational.

but rationality isn't what we think it is .

Jim Walsh uses Seanad debate to say atheists have faith

Comments