John Waters v Atheist Ireland

Zombrex

I find the assertion that because some atheists are arrogant or rude that means Neo-Atheism is arrogant and rude some what offensive.

I'm sure some atheists are rude (I don't find Dawkins to be rude but clearly some people do), and I'm sure the Atheist Ireland talk included some people who like to feel superior about not believing in gods and ghosts.

But I'm not exactly sure what Waters point is. What does he want me to do about it and how does this reflect the limitations of what I believe?

Aside from the fact that all the charges he was making to this group could be equally leveled at his good self (I personally can't stand Walters and some of the nonsense he has come up with in the past was head wreaking), he was doing exactly what he was complaining about. I wasn't at that meeting nor am I a member of atheism Ireland put apparently my beliefs are limited because someone made an unfunny joke about Jesus? What?

Some atheists ridicule believers in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion so Walters used this fact to ridicule all of atheism (the atheism ideology) in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion.

Oh. The. Irony.

And that isn't the first time I've said those words after reading a Waters piece in the Times.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Some atheists ridicule believers in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion so Walters used this fact to ridicule all of atheism (the atheism ideology) in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion.

He's referring to the effect of the vast minority, nicely illustrated here, and it's kinda the point the OP is making, that if we don't want the loud, obnoxious Atheists to speak for all of Atheism then we need to begin speaking for ourselves.

I don't see how this can be done though. We will either be judged as patronizing or arrogant regardless of our actions. Take the recent bus ad "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"... how patronizing :rolleyes:

Like you said, I don't find Dawkins particularly offensive, but he IS on the offensive with his opinions. Regardless of his manner and how he approaches the subject, he is approaching it none the less. The only action that won't receive rebuke will be acquiescence.

Dades

At this point I'm going to hold my hand up to being one of a few here that was very sceptical of what the point of Atheist Ireland was. The threads here about the proposed organisation before it came together were interrogatory to say the least.

Now it seems without having actually done anything, other than have the gall to assemble, they have provoked the ire of certain elements of society.

I do take drkpower's point about there being a way of going about change (this was one of the main points in those initial threads regarding AI), but I feel in this case AI haven't publicly offended or patronised anyone, rather that certain people have decided to take offense in principle.

So I for one, am glad there's a new kid on the block stirring things up.

Sparks

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Like you said, I don't find Dawkins particularly offensive, but he IS on the offensive with his opinions.

Yes, but for a specific reason, not because of personality defects (that's not to say he doesn't have those as well, just that this approach is consciously chosen). See his TED talk on militant atheism or his borrowed-from-newscientist defence of his approach to educating people (this one's got some vulgarity in case you've speakers on in a very up-tight office, and I know it's more aimed at his science popularisation than his atheism popularisation, but it holds true in both cases):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

drkpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Is there a reason you sidestepped my original question? It is human nature to deride and mock that which once had power over us to remove all vestiges of that power.

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.

Apologies for ignoring your question but I didnt think you were being serious. However, I take your point but just because it is human nature to deride and mock does not mean it is the smart choice; my point is that it is not.

If you want the influence of religon to be removed, you WILL NOT do so by insult and derision. Atheism can continue in that vein and remain a small ignored voice or it can box clever and be a force. Your choice.

But imagine this; if all of those in the country who were agnostic/atheist and who didnt believe in Church influence on public policy (and that group is very large), were united as part of a properly organised "secular" lobby, do you believe that the recent blasphemy law would have been even considered?

Not a chance.

Sam Vimes

Can you give us some examples of what you're saying we should stop doing?

edit: And what's your opinion on the way Dawkins operates?

The Mad Hatter

er, can I point out that the number of people who self-identify as atheists has risen sharply in the last couple of years?

Goduznt Xzst

drkpower wrote: »

If you want the influence of religon to be removed, you WILL NOT do so by insult and derision. Atheism can continue in that vein and remain a small ignored voice or it can box clever and be a force.

All too often the Achilles heal of well thought out plans is the ignorance of or lack of accounting for human nature. We are not parts that become cogs in a machine. Communism, prime example, on paper it should work, but due to human nature it never will, nor should it.

drkpower wrote: »

But imagine this; if all of those in the country who were agnostic/atheist and who didnt believe in Church influence on public policy (and that group is very large), were united as part of a properly organised "secular" lobby, do you believe that the recent blasphemy law would have been even considered?

What I believe and what I imagine or what I hope for are utterly irrelevant to the facts in hand. You are thinking about the machine alone and not the cogs that make it. Telling people to hold back their emotions and being to keep the machine trudging forward to a secular Ireland will not work.

In my opinion the derision and mockery of Religion is a necessary evil, not only for the catharsis in the individual but also to confirm in peoples minds that Religion has no right to power. Once this has passed and religions are viewed with the same respect as fortune tellers and witch doctors the people will see it as powerless over them and not allow them to dictate their rights and freedoms.

DTrotter

Waters (like Quinn) is just worried that they no longer can say they're catholic and expect their opinion to be given greater merit or exempt from criticism.

Sparks

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Communism, prime example, on paper it should work, but due to human nature it never will, nor should it.

Argh. Bad example. It did work, for hundreds of years, in the form of actual communes (in monasteries, ironically enough). You're not thinking of communism, you're thinking of dictatorship and totalitarianism dressed up as communism, but that's a sour-smelling rose.

On your point though, it's utterly wrong. Atheism isn't some grand movement, nor does it have some great plan or structure. It's just that you don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky looking after you. It doesn't require evangelicising, nor does it require popularising.

What's required is that the rights accorded to everyone under the constitution and the ECHR are respected, regardless of religious beliefs. We are no more required to convince people that we're nice folks to be afforded those rights than the LGB community do, or ethnic minorities. We have nothing to prove; we already have these rights. It is unacceptable that we be discriminated against, and where that happens, it is essential to remember that you do not counter discrimination or the denial of legal rights by the same means as those with which you forward a social or political agenda.

(And derision isn't how you do it either, not because it's disrespectful or because it's unpopular or because it's cheap - but because it's utterly irrelevant. What funny name you call someone down the pub doesn't count - what a judge says in the Supreme Court does).

drkpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Telling people to hold back their emotions and being to keep the machine trudging forward to a secular Ireland will not work.

In my opinion the derision and mockery of Religion is a necessary evil, not only for the catharsis in the individual but also to confirm in peoples minds that Religion has no right to power. Once this has passed and religions are viewed with the same respect as fortune tellers and witch doctors the people will see it as powerless over them and not allow them to dictate their rights and freedoms.

I dont really want to get into your machine discussion, I will simply say that your view is ultimately self-defeating. The will is out there right now to put in place a system where religon has no essential power (over State). Now is the time to strike, when religon's influence is waning and the institutions are badly damaged. But instead you want to go through some process of derision and mockery. All that will achieve is to embolden and radicalise some religous and allow mainstream religon to regroup. Another opportunity lost; but sure, wasnt it a great laugh slagging off the religous nuts...

Goduznt Xzst

Sparks wrote: »

You're not thinking of communism, you're thinking of dictatorship and totalitarianism dressed up as communism, but that's a sour-smelling rose.

These are by-products of Communism. I'm sure in small instances it does work, but long term, on a large scale Communism can't work, for the reasons you outlined above which come about due to human nature.

Note, I also have the same feelings about Democracy (and accept it works on a small scale, heck anarchy works on a small scale). It can't work long term, on a large scale without it devolving into an Oligarchy or Ochlocracy due to human nature.

Sparks wrote: »

On your point though, it's utterly wrong. Atheism isn't some grand movement, nor does it have some great plan or structure. It's just that you don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky looking after you. It doesn't require evangelicising, nor does it require popularising.

Are you replying to me here? If you are you are pretty confused. I DON'T think Atheism is a grand movement and was highlighting that the OPs wishes for Atheists to fall into line and join the movement are flawed.

I'm completely for letting the process take it's natural course and not worrying about popularizing it. People need to vent there frustrations of being lied to for so long so I say let them.

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

until the prevalent attitude of Atheism Ireland and many vocal atheists is fundamentally changed, I cant see myself getting involved.

Your objection is not that AI and the HAI aren't doing the right thing, but that they're doing it rudely?

So how exactly do you propose disposing of political ideas which do not deserve respect, but which nonetheless demand respect and their right to exist as a precondition for discussion?

20goto10

Personally I don't like Atheism Ireland. I find the recent institutionalism of atheism very uncomfortable. Until recently, atheism was simply a name given to a lack of belief in God. I don't even likle the term atheism, but I suppose you have to give things names in order to explain them. But what is happening in recent years, since the popularity of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion, is that being an atheist means you are part of something. As if it is some kind of organisation or godless religion.

What is it about these people that they feel the need to be part of an organistation?

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

Your objection is not that AI and the HAI aren't doing the right thing, but that they're doing it rudely?

So how exactly do you propose disposing of political ideas which do not deserve respect, but which nonetheless demand respect and their right to exist as a precondition for discussion?

Aaaarrrgggghhhhhhh.
Count to 10...:)

No Robin, it is not that they are doing it rudely (although I'd prefer if they didnt), it is that the manner in which they are doing it will not attract moderate support and that is what they need if they are to effect real change. That is why there is no point in getting involved; religon-bashing and self-satisfatory back-slapping is of little interest to me. Actually achieving something is.

And you dispose of political ideas you do not respect by having your own political ideas implemented as Goverment policy or ideally by constitutional amendment. Advocate what you are for, not what you are against.

robindch

20goto10 wrote: »

What is it about these people that they feel the need to be part of an organistation?

Do you think that one person on their own can take on organized religion?

20goto10

robindch wrote: »

Do you think that one person on their own can take on organized religion?

Why do they need to be taken on? The only thing this country needs is more religon free schools so that our children aren't being brainwashed. So set up an organisation to lobby the government to build more schools. It doesn't have to involve taking on the church. And it certainly doesn't have to be done in the name of a lack of belief in God(s).

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

Why do they need to be taken on? The only thing this country needs is more religon free schools so that our children aren't being brainwashed. So set up an organisation to lobby the government to build more schools. It doesn't have to involve taking on the church. And it certainly doesn't have to be done in the name of a lack of belief in God(s).

We have plenty of schools, we just need to get religion taken out of them

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

But what is happening in recent years, since the popularity of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion, is that being an atheist means you are part of something. As if it is some kind of organisation or godless religion.

You realise it's religious people that are responsible for this notion? It's a reaction to suddenly being challenged, whereas before they lived in Ivory Towers. If you agree with Dawkins et al and keep it to yourself its fine - but if you support them publicly you're part of an atheist movement?

drkpower wrote: »

No Robin, it is not that they are doing it rudely (although I'd prefer if they didnt), it is that the manner in which they are doing it will not attract moderate support and that is what they need if they are to effect real change. That is why there is no point in getting involved; religon-bashing and self-satisfatory back-slapping is of little interest to me. Actually achieving something is.

Again, I ask, is this "religon-bashing and self-satisfactory back-slapping" made publicly, or is this whole idea based on reports of what goes on at AI meetings?

I've heard several interviews with people representing AI and I've never heard them be anything but 'adult' about the topic at hand. In fact it's been the religious on the defensive that usually resort to slurs and non-facts.

20goto10

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We have plenty of schools, we just need to get religion taken out of them

I don't think that is very realistic. The church own the schools. They're state funded just like all other schools, it just so happens they have more of them - a heck of a lot more of them. What we need is more schools to be built. We don't need to challenge them and overrun their schools, we just to build more non religious schools.

20goto10

Dades wrote: »

You realise it's religious people that are responsible for this notion? It's a reaction to suddenly being challenged, whereas before they lived in Ivory Towers. If you agree with Dawkins et al and keep it to yourself its fine - but if you support them publicly you're part of an atheist movement?

Atheism Ireland is an atheist movement.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

Again, I ask, is this "religon-bashing and self-satisfactory back-slapping" made publicly, or is this whole idea based on reports of what goes on at AI meetings?

I've heard several interviews with people representing AI and I've never heard them be anything but 'adult' about the topic at hand. In fact it's been the religious on the defensive that usually resort to slurs and non-facts.

I was talking about atheism/secularism in general; Ive never been to an AI meeting. Perhaps I take too much heed of what is said here and other forums and in the pub, but it is a prevalent view in my experience. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

I don't think that is very realistic. The church own the schools. They're state funded just like all other schools, it just so happens they have more of them - a heck of a lot more of them. What we need is more schools to be built. We don't need to challenge them and overrun their schools, we just to build more non religious schools.

Currently the government is talking about cutting €5.5 billion from the budget so I can't see them building any schools, especially since we have plenty of schools to begin with. One possible solution would be to withdraw all state support from religious schools which would be fitting with the separation of church and state. Then we'd have enough money to build more

sub-x

20goto10 wrote: »

I don't think that is very realistic. The church own the schools. They're state funded just like all other schools, it just so happens they have more of them - a heck of a lot more of them. What we need is more schools to be built. We don't need to challenge them and overrun their schools, we just to build more non religious schools.

When I was 14 I was asked to be excused from religious studies based on my lack of belief,the teacher told me that religious studies was an unfortunate name as it was more social studies than religious studies but there was some religious issues being discussed,anyway she told me if I could get a letter from my parents to have me excused then she wouldn't have a problem,so having the choice rather than it being made compulsory would be the way to go.

Anyway I ended up staying in the class because this was the first time in my school life I was spoken to like a person and the mutual respect for each other as a result.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

I was talking about atheism/secularism in general; Ive never been to an AI meeting. Perhaps I take too much heed of what is said here and other forums and in the pub, but it is a prevalent view in my experience. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it.

I think you do take too much heed of what's said here. If I was a representative of Atheist Ireland debating with a church leader, of course I wouldn't laugh in his face and call him a moron, I'd stick to the issues. But that doesn't mean that all atheists have to walk on egg shells the whole time, afraid to point out dodgy logic and wishful thinking lest they be called arrogant

Goduznt Xzst

drkpower wrote: »

Now is the time to strike, when religon's influence is waning and the institutions are badly damaged.

Strike how exactly? You have yet to define this, so far your plan looks like:

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

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

MrP

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Twas Jimmy I believe

It's actually an age old proverb. Jimmy is just one of the many to have used it.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you do take too much heed of what's said here. If I was a representative of Atheist Ireland debating with a church leader, of course I wouldn't laugh in his face and call him a moron, I'd stick to the issues. But that doesn't mean that all atheists have to walk on egg shells the whole time, afraid to point out dodgy logic and wishful thinking lest they be called arrogant

Well, i was kinda kidding about here but my point was that it was the attitude I encountered in every day life.

But, in any case, where you win support is not in a meeting with a Bishop but in fora, and in the media and on the streets. That is where you need to convince people. A good example of the failure of the message is in the recent reaction to the blasphemy law; here was a really good opportunity to spell out the secular view, to expalin how this law hurt everyone etc etc... Athesim generally and AI were so on the right side of this issue - yet, by threatening/planning some kind of set-piece blasphemous outrage, they managed to be the ones looking stupid, offensive and mean-spirited.

Atheists need to think before they act if they want to achieve anything.

drkpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Strike how exactly? You have yet to define this, so far your plan looks like:

Nice picture.

I dont have the time or the expertise to explain the full strategy that atheism/secularism should take. I am trying to constructively point out some of the traps they are falling into.

In a nutshell, atheism/secularism should encourage moderate membership by promoting what they advocate (not what they are against). There is a much larger support base for moderate secularism than most people realise. And it is virtually untapped by AI and other such bodies. Then, when they have a larger base, their lobbying will be treated with more significance. That will allow them to lobby for legislation favouring the secular principle and allow them to nip iun the bud laws such as blasphemy. The end game is a constittuional amendment removing references to religon.

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

Atheism Ireland is an atheist movement.

They are indeed a movement, but the post I quoted said this:

being an atheist means you are part of something. As if it is some kind of organisation or godless religion.

Being an atheist does not mean you are part of something. Joining a specific atheist movement does.

Also, I'd echo Sam Vimes' point that what you read here, or indeed in any forum on the Internet is not representative of how people act in real life situations. This forum is frequently not much more than a steam valve left open. And occasionally we try to close it off when too much gets released.