John Waters v Atheist Ireland

drkpower

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0717/1224250844850.html

John Waters seems to be taking a pop at Atheist Ireland. What do people think about his criticisms? Here are my 2 cents, anyway...

Waters talks an awful load of sh!te but dont let the messenger blunt the thrust of the message which atheists/secularists really need to heed.
His opening line encapsulates the two problems I see about atheism (and have been rabitting on here about for ages): Delusions of intellectual superiority and unfunny mockery of religion show up the limitations of atheist ideology.

Now, I wouldnt say that they show up atheisms "limitations" but they are two of its problems. And two of the reasons why atheism will struggle to get its message across. A message packaged in arrogance, mockery and divisiveness will never be palatable to the middle ground, which is the vast majority of this country, who have all but rejected religon but are not quite ready to move across to a sniping, sneering and jeering form of atheism. If you could tailor the message appropriately and not frame yourselves as what you are against (stupid fairy worshippers) but rather what you are for (pluralism, respect for all but above-all, the performance of Govermental functions free from religous or areligous influence), there is no reason why the atheist/secular movement cannot become a real player. But I fear that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism will hold sway and will set your agenda back.

I hope this post is taken in the spirit intended. I am one of the middle ground. I believe in secularism. But until the prevalent attitude of Atheism Ireland and many vocal atheists is fundamentally changed, I cant see myself getting involved. I expect I am not atypical of the type of person whose support any secularist movement should be seeking to attract.

Goduznt Xzst

drkpower wrote: »

But I fear that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism will hold sway and will set your agenda back.

Can I ask, do you think it was wrong of the British that lived through World War II to mock and deride the Germans after it?

Second generation Atheists will be a lot more moderate than the ones that suffered a life of indoctrination only to realize the earliest and best years of their life where spent being lied to and thought to fear invisible demons intent on hurting them only to die and be tortured for eternity.

Sam Vimes

Atheism is not a movement, it's simply a lack of belief in Gods. Some atheists want pluralism and respect for all and I'd say most want a separation of church and state but those beliefs are not inherently part of atheism. What you're talking about there is secularism.

The problem here I think is that people hold their religious beliefs very closely and any suggestion that they might be wrong is treated as offensive and arrogant. As I've said many times on these boards, when there is a disagreement on any topic people from both sides put their points of view across and take the piss out of each other etc but as soon as an atheist does it it's "those arrogant atheists at it again".

One good example would be the flying spaghetti monster. Religious people often say that it's offensive mockery of their beliefs but it's actually an extremely good response to the common argument "you can't prove God doesn't exist" by saying "you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either but that doesn't mean that it does exist and that we should believe in it".

If someone has a ridiculous belief and supports it with ridiculous arguments, how can you get your point across other than to point out how ridiculous it is?

edit: when you say atheists want pluralism, you're saying that you don't think atheists should tell religious people that their beliefs are wrong aren't you?

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

respect for all but above-all

How well you understand us.

Just to be clear, there are great many of us who believe that this notion of "respect for all things" is pure useless idiocy. I don't respect your 'beliefs' in regard to gravity, thermodynamics or the location of a particular pub. You are either right or wrong. If you make ridiculous claims about the way of the world I shall regard you with scorn, have no doubt.

That said, I do understand where you are coming from. It is a great pity that you equate yourself with such a vapid fool as Waters, but I get your message.

Bear in mind that the current atheist movement is the first in several generations to make a public attack on the dominance of religion. As such, the immediate goal is not calm reconciliation or tepid compromise -- their intention is wholesale destruction of the preposterous domineering hold that religion has over the minds of the people. There is a reason that Hitchens and Dawkins use the rhetoric they do...they're declaring open war on an immensely powerful institution. Step 1 is to break the hold that that institution has over our society, to topple the ill gotten foundations upon which it relies. After that is shaken we can step back and discuss the issue with more gentle tones, but right now the important part is to make it clear that not only is it ok to disagree with religion, but that religion may in fact be stupendously wrong and entirely worthy of our arrogant dismissal.

Which it is.

If we were to be manipulative about things, and plan according to how we want to be perceived as opposed to how we truly are, then sure, there's a different approach to be taken, but I shall leave that to the more devious of my associates. I for one am more comfortable calling a spade a stupid irrational spade.

Galvasean

drkpower wrote:

A message packaged in arrogance, mockery and divisiveness will never be palatable to the middle ground, which is the vast majority of this country, who have all but rejected religon but are not quite ready to move across to a sniping, sneering and jeering form of atheism.

Much like Waters' own recent radio appearence.
The arrogance, mockery etc. is definately not exclusive to atheism.

Dades

Reading/listening to tripe from people like Waters only makes me want to ridicule what he stands for more (and I would consider myself a moderate) - so he's only himself to blame, afaic.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheism is not a movement, it's simply a lack of belief in Gods.
edit: when you say atheists want pluralism, you're saying that you don't think atheists should tell religious people that their beliefs are wrong aren't you?

If atheism is not a "movement", then why the need for organisations such as Atheist Ireland? Lets not deny the obvious.

Of course, you should tell religous peoople their beliefs are wrong but athesist too often tell them they are wrong in a patronising manner that is disrespectful. Dont get me wrong, I think you are probably right and there is nothing wrong with being forceful in your opinions, but if you want atheism/secularism (I use the terms as a movement, because that is what it should be) to become an influence, which you should, that is the wrong way to go about it. It may feel good for 5 seconds to display your intellectual superiority by ridiculing the belief of a religous purpose, but it is ultimately self-defeating. Does that showw genuine intellectual superiority? I would argue the opposite.

ludwit

I find most atheists annoying and I am one myself. I would hate that someone would associate me with them or Dawkins.

Zillah

ludwit wrote: »

I find most atheists annoying and I am one myself. I would hate that someone would associate me with them or Dawkins.

You hate being associated with one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists? Pray tell, why?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Just to be clear, there are great many of us who believe that this notion of "respect for all things" is pure useless idiocy.
That said, I do understand where you are coming from. It is a great pity that you equate yourself with such a vapid fool as Waters, but I get your message.
Bear in mind that the current atheist movement is the first in several generations to make a public attack on the dominance of religion.
If we were to be manipulative about things, and plan according to how we want to be perceived as opposed to how we truly are, then sure, there's a different approach to be taken, but I shall leave that to the more devious of my associates. I for one am more comfortable calling a spade a stupid irrational spade.

First, I dont equate myself with John Waters; I suspect you know that because at no point did I say that; I merely agreed with about 6 words of his article - so please stop playing games.

Second, I feel your view is incredibly short-sighted and naieve. In this country, religon's stock has rarely been lower. There is an oppurtunity to develop a atheist/secular "movement" to enact real change, to seperate church from state. A powerful well supported lobby would face a much-damaged church and may be succesful. I presume you want those type of changes? I presume atheists want a secular Ireland?

But the roadblock to that possibility is yours and others attitude. Such a movement needs popular support. there are hundreds of thousands of agnostics/atheists out there who would support such a movement. But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade. Meanwhile, who is winning the long game? The religous, the damaged religous who people have lost respect for, thats who. Its their religon in the constitution? Its their laws being enacted?

Where is atheism/secularism? Sitting on the sidelines sniping while the big boys play the game.

Galvasean

drkpower wrote: »

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade.

Isn't that the most inherently honest thing we can do? I mean, if you honestly believe/think something, why should you hide it just to appeal to the masses? No point in hiding/distorting your own beliefs just because you want to be popular (that's what the religious often do).

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

(that's what the religious often do).

It is indeed. Apparently the catholic church has now decided that god actually forgives suicide victims because they were not in the right frame of mind when they did it. Nice to know god issued a memo changing his stance on it being a mortal sin that sends you straight to hell

drkpower

Galvasean wrote: »

Isn't that the most inherently honest thing we can do? I mean, if you honestly believe/think something, why should you hide it just to appeal to the masses? No point in hiding/distorting your own beliefs just because you want to be popular (that's what the religious often do).

It may be honest for me to tell my boss that I think he is an ugly fat man with little real ability in his field...... It might also make me feel better for a short time.

If I want to achieve something tangible, however, it will get me absolutely nowhere.

If atheists do not want to achieve anything tangible, well fine, but A) I suspect they do and if they do not, they should stop moaning about religous laws and religous education and religous hospitals, because their attitude will resolve none of these issues.

Dades

As a matter of interest - has anyone else complained about the lack of respect, or patronising manner of Atheist Ireland, or is this idea just based on the rantings of a born-again *journalist*?

Apart from their own meetings, have they shown this disrespect etc. in public interviews, publications or statements?

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

First, I dont equate myself with John Waters; I suspect you know that because at no point did I say that; I merely agreed with about 6 words of his article - so please stop playing games.

Second, I feel your view is incredibly short-sighted and naieve. In this country, religon's stock has rarely been lower. There is an oppurtunity to develop a atheist/secular "movement" to enact real change, to seperate church from state. A powerful well supported lobby would face a much-damaged church and may be succesful. I presume you want those type of changes? I presume atheists want a secular Ireland?

But the roadblock to that possibility is yours and others attitude. Such a movement needs popular support. there are hundreds of thousands of agnostics/atheists out there who would support such a movement. But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade. Meanwhile, who is winning the long game? The religous, the damaged religous who people have lost respect for, thats who. Its their religon in the constitution? Its their laws being enacted?

Where is atheism/secularism? Sitting on the sidelines sniping while the big boys play the game.

Reread my last paragraph. I completely understand what you're saying. But I'm not a politician or a campaigner, I have the luxury of honesty.

You're basically telling me I should deceive people because I want them to support me.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

If atheists do not want to achieve anything tangible, well fine, but A) I suspect they do and if they do not, they should stop moaning about religous laws and religous education and religous hospitals, because their attitude will resolve none of these issues.

In order to get a secular state atheists should stop complaining about religious laws, education and hospitals? So in order to get a secular state they should stop arguing for a secular state

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Reread my last paragraph. I completely understand what you're saying. But I'm not a politician or a campaigner, I have the luxury of honesty.

You're basically telling me I should deceive people because I want them to support me.

Come on, surely you are not that naieve?

There is a manner of disagreeing with someone. You can honestly tell them you do not believe what they believe without having to deride or ridicule them. That is not deceiving anyone.

Do you not see that the attitude (among many atheists) I am talking about actually stunts a real opportunity for real change?

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In order to get a secular state atheists should stop complaining about religious laws, education and hospitals? So in order to get a secular state they should stop arguing for a secular state

Is that what you really understood form what I said or are you just playing games?

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

Malari

"Perhaps it is a symptom of its sudden emergence into the light, but Irish-style atheism seems as yet unable to define itself other than in contradistinction to versions of reality it declares to be false."

Seems Waters doesn't even understand the definition of athiesm :rolleyes::D

Mena

Nobody is going to give the time of day to some fringe lunatic that thinks there are fairies at the bottom of his garden and devotes his life to them.

I don't see how anyone subscribing to any religion is any different. I just cannot take them seriously.

Maybe it's because I've had very little exposure to all this nonsense...

ludwit

Zillah wrote: »

You hate being associated with one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists? Pray tell, why?

Can't stand the man, pure and simple.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

As a matter of interest - has anyone else complained about the lack of respect, or patronising manner of Atheist Ireland, or is this idea just based on the rantings of a born-again *journalist*?

Apart from their own meetings, have they shown this disrespect etc. in public interviews, publications or statements?

It's just a last resort type argument. Waters' ilk have already been soundly battered in rational and logical debate so they need something to have a go at us with. 'Ooooh, they're smug' :rolleyes:

I know this is going to sound extremely arrogant but:
"I'm not being arrogant. The word you are looking for is 'correct'".

papa-lazarou

That's hilarious. Fanny Waters seems to actually believe that if two of his oh-so-clever friends sermonized a roomfull of atheists, they'd all be converted.

Galvasean

papa-lazarou wrote: »

That's hilarious. Fanny Waters seems to actually believe that if two of his oh-so-clever friends sermonized a roomfull of atheists, they'd all be converted.

It begs the question, why havent they?

Goduznt Xzst

Is there a reason you sidestepped my original question? Or do you accept that it is normal for the individual to harbor resentment towards a country/organization and its people if they cause the individual to suffer or have wronged them personally.

It is human nature to deride and mock that which once had power over us to remove all vestiges of that power.

Atheists will mock the religious and their beliefs because they are a reminder of the grip on our senses that a religion once had. One can't be asked to respect that which they now despise with all their being.

drkpower wrote: »

But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

It's easy to say it's the arrogant and obnoxious Atheists that are ruining it for us all but this is a cop out. Atheists have apathy because of the nature of Atheism, which breeds a sense doubt in the individual for everything.

The problem is the religious are completely confident that their goals WILL be better for us all because their God is guiding them. Do I want Ireland to be 100% secular, yes. Do I know it will be better for Ireland if it is, probably but I have my doubts.

The drive behind a movement just isn't there for Atheists. The motivation has to be more than just thinking we may be right. What Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are showing us is that we have reasons to be insulted and angered by what the Religious are teaching, and these are our motivations. We need to view the Religious as an insult to the human race and their influence needs to be removed. You can't spark this motivation in an individual without ruffling a few feathers.

Sparks

drkpower wrote: »

If atheism is not a "movement", then why the need for organisations such as Atheist Ireland?

Not for (for lack of a proper word) religious reasons.
Things such as lobbying for equal rights for the non-religious is a function that requires a group like AI or the HAI (and I don't want to get into the internecine bit here, I'm just saying that groups are needed to handle tasks like that).

There isn't a need for AI to evangelicise (again, there's a lack of a properly suited word there) atheism. Either you don't believe in the supernatural or you do; there's no point in evangelicalism. Atheists have no chuch, no need of followers, none of the usual requirements and concerns of an organised religion.

What AI and the HAI and others are there for is to strive for changes in legislation and state practises that mean that the rest of us can get on with our lives, get married, have children and see them properly educated, die as we wish and have our accumulated wealth and property distributed according to our wishes; all without having to follow directives from Rome or the head of whatever church cares to say we can't.

As to John Waters, I think the best response might be along the lines of "get a haircut and a job, hippy". Or maybe "gosh John, who cares what you think?". I mean, you could go down the lets-educate-him road, point out that there's a direct statistical correlation between intelligence and atheism, that his nuclear physicist friend is one of the 6% or so of scientists that are not atheists, that none of this is a lifestyle choice anymore than being gay or being black are choices, but, at the end of the day, it's John Waters. Who cares what he thinks? He doesn't draft policy, he has no vote in government, he runs no schools, he couldn't even get rid of the Angelus. I'd rather get on with my life than waste ten minutes arguing with the eejit. There are much larger and more important problems in my sock drawer, ffs, let alone in the real world.

Flamed Diving

I read half of it before I tuned out. Why do critics of atheism always come up with the same, tired old bull****. The article was drenched in irony.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

I know this is going to sound extremely arrogant but:
"I'm not being arrogant. The word you are looking for is 'correct'".

Jimmy Carr? An atheist, by the way. Well, more of an anti-theist actually.

MrP

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

Is that what you really understood form what I said or are you just playing games?

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

As I said, an atheist is no more likely to be arrogant than any other proponent of any other opinion. We are just perceived as being so because people are so touchy about their beliefs and don't like it being pointed out that they're based on a fairy tale. If religious people could respond rationally in debates, not only would there be no need to brand us as arrogant to dismiss us but there would be no need to ridicule them because their beliefs would not be ridiculous.


I can see your point, not pointing out that people's beliefs are ridiculous would make them more likely to listen to us because they're not having their baseless beliefs questioned and won't hate us for it but if they started to listen to me at that point I wouldn't be saying anything that I have a whole lot of interest in. Your goal is a separation of church and state and that can be achieved perfectly well without any reference to the likelihood of any particular God's existence but that's not the goal of every atheist. I think religious beliefs are ridiculous, at best unnecessary and at worst harmful and that the world would be a better place without them. In order to achieve this goal I am required to point out that the beliefs are ridiculous and risk offending people but also hopefully make them think about just why they accepted their parent's sky fairy as their own personal saviour

Sparks

drkpower wrote: »

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

Your point is somewhat in error, because those things should be rights, not gifts. I'm not saying that they should be sought in a deliberately offensive manner, that'd be classed as "being a dick", but if you have to act nice to be given something that should be a right under the constitution or the ECHR, then something's very wrong somewhere and stronger measures need to be taken to resolve it.

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

Jimmy Carr? An atheist, by the way. Well, more of an anti-theist actually.

MrP

Twas Jimmy I believe