Brenda O'Brian's "insight" into atheists

Coriolanus

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists are not disadvantaged in Ireland in terms of career choice, material wealth, or any of the usual criteria.

Well, if they want to be a judge, they have to perjure themselves, don't they? Not exactly a shining way to start off one's career in the higher echelons of the justice system.

Húrin

Nevore wrote: »

Well, if they want to be a judge, they have to perjure themselves, don't they? Not exactly a shining way to start off one's career in the higher echelons of the justice system.

One of my neighbours is a judge and they are not religious by any means. Doesn't seem to cause a problem.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

I find this insinuation that O'Brien is prejudiced against atheists, or thinks that they're bad enough to require some patronising, to be barely credible in this day and age. I think you who make such are just begging for an enemy. This idea that atheists in Ireland are swimming against the river or are in any way not completely part of the established cultural mainstream is infantile.

In Dublin I'd rather wear that around than "I'm a Christian" (I think this would draw the most mockery) or other religion. Atheists are not disadvantaged in Ireland in terms of career choice, material wealth, or any of the usual criteria. Indeed, the middle and upper classes have traditionally been overrepresented in the "ranks" of atheists.

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

Shacklebolt

eoin5 wrote: »

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

Ah but Hurin is using his skills at Exegesis to interpret what Brenda really meant to say in her article.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Its acceptable as long as you dont tell anyone. Wear the tshirt for a week and come back to me on it, I think youll be tooting a different tune. The "I'm a Christian" shirt idea is different, people wear religious crap all the time. Its fine and dandy to be proud of that.

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled minority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Whatever you think O'Briens views on the subject are its stuff that doesnt need to be said, be it prejudice or ignorance or whatever. The whole article stinks of ilk of some kind, if you cant see that then youre misreading it.

You think I'm misreading it. I think you're just seeking justification for your victim complex.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled majority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Ah I love the way Dubs think what happens in Dublin is representitive of the rest of Ireland. Also while your fellow twenty somethings may not be religious that says nothing about there belief in God or the Catholic shame they maybe stuck with. Members of my familly even behave less like a Christian than I do and still go to mass. You should not underestimate the power of institutional fear and fleeting youth to have people flock back to religion.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

You think so? I'm in my 20s, living in Dublin, and I can honestly say that about 2% of my peers are religious. Most of the rest don't believe in God. If you think Ireland is still a religious society, or that atheists are an embattled majority, it only confirms your cultural hypochondria.

Your peers are not a statistical sample. Look at the census. (Yes, I know it's probably somewhat inaccurate, but I doubt it's out by more than a few percent.)

Stercus Accidit

I'd be surprised if the census were any way representative of the level of actual dedicated religious belief in this country, with census forms filled in by mammy, or the generally religiously apathetic who are catholic by birth only, who haven't seen the inside of a church unless for a wedding, funeral or christmas get together since their confirmation as children.

Valmont

It's taken a while, but this article has finally pushed me to a state of anti-theism. I just wanted to smash my computer, I mean, come on, how can some people be this f***ing stupid? I don't care if it's arrogant anymore, I'm calling bull****, bull****. :mad:

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah I love the way Dubs think what happens in Dublin is representitive of the rest of Ireland.

In the rest of the country it isn't that different bud. There's a bit more of the physical act of going to mass, but in terms of belief, we're one post-Catholic nation.

Also while your fellow twenty somethings may not be religious that says nothing about there belief in God or the Catholic shame they maybe stuck with.

Which doesn't make them Catholic or Christian or religious and is thus irrelevant.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Your peers are not a statistical sample. Look at the census. (Yes, I know it's probably somewhat inaccurate, but I doubt it's out by more than a few percent.)

I'm pretty sure the census is out drastically in terms of being a measurement of devout believers. It is probably accurate as a measurement of cultural backgrounds.

The Mad Hatter

My own experience says otherwise, and because I have the supporting evidence of the census I'm inclined to trust it.

I work with people of a wide variety of classes, ages and backgrounds, and the vast majority of them are Christian - many vocally so.

Húrin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My own experience says otherwise, and because I have the supporting evidence of the census I'm inclined to trust it.

I work with people of a wide variety of classes, ages and backgrounds, and the vast majority of them are Christian - many vocally so.

Where do you live? By Christian do you mean Catholic? Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Exegesis is concerned with finding out what the authors are really trying to say. I don't see how it is relevant whether the authors are correct or in error in their beliefs - exegetes are trying to find what their beliefs were. That said, most experts in Biblical exegesis do not view the Bible as inerrant. Indeed, some non-Christians do it too.

The thing is, though, that it's usually pretty obvious what their beliefs were from reading the text but it seems that it always turns out that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean when what it appears to mean doesn't match what we think it should mean. They're not trying to find out what their beliefs were, they're trying to gloss over the fact that their beliefs no longer match those of society. Any time I find what appears for all the world to be a glaring error, inconsistency, immoral part I find it's been analysed to death until the "accepted wisdom" is that black means white and nothing is ever presented to back up the assertion. It's always just someone's opinion.

And of course,the main problem with exegesis remains the fact that it does not consider the possibility that they made the whole lot up, which I personally think is what happened. They will read anyone else's holy book and point to any inconsistencies as evidence against the book, as they should, but any inconsistencies in their own are simply exegesised.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you see 88% of the population at mass on Sunday?

Hey I copyrighted that line :P

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is, though, that it's usually pretty obvious what their beliefs were from reading the text but it seems that it always turns out that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean when what it appears to mean doesn't match what we think it should mean.

So you think what it appears to be at first glance must always be the true meaning? That's dogmatic, lazy and ignorant.

They're not trying to find out what their beliefs were, they're trying to gloss over the fact that their beliefs no longer match those of society. Any time I find what appears for all the world to be a glaring error, inconsistency, immoral part I find it's been analysed to death until the "accepted wisdom" is that black means white and nothing is ever presented to back up the assertion. It's always just someone's opinion.

If that was true then the Bible's disagreement would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.

And of course,the main problem with exegesis remains the fact that it does not consider the possibility that they made the whole lot up, which I personally think is what happened.

Of course not. If they thought that then they would have to flippantly dismiss their own area of study.

You think that Biblical authors made the whole lot up, but that's faith - an emotional reason. You have no evidence for that at all, and you think that perhaps exegetes should embrace your opinion simply because it makes atheism easier. Why should they consider that possibility?

They will read anyone else's holy book and point to any inconsistencies as evidence against the book, as they should, but any inconsistencies in their own are simply exegesised.

Who are you thinking of?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Hey I copyrighted that line :P

I performed Sam Vimes cheapo value exegesis on the boards charter and found that all words here are copyleft.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the census is out drastically in terms of being a measurement of devout believers. It is probably accurate as a measurement of cultural backgrounds.

I agree with you, I think the census is way off... I think by as much as 20%. But I also agree that the peers of one person is not at all representative. About 40% of my closer peers are anti-theists, another 40% are regular Atheist/agnostic, 15% are alternative spiritual, and less than 5% are theistic. In fact, I can't think of a single acquaintance I've met in the last two months who describes themselves as Christian...but I would never think this is representative even of the student population of Dublin, let alone a larger demographic.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

So you think what it appears to be at first glance must always be the true meaning? That's dogmatic, lazy and ignorant.

You really have a way with words I must say. All I'm saying is you shouldn't decide what it means based on what you want it to mean. If something appears to mean something that's usually because it does.......unless it's in the book that contains the perfect word of god and can't possibly be wrong

Húrin wrote: »

If that was true then the Bible's disagreement would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.

Unless they're taking the literal meaning of the words in front of them, it all boils down to someone's biased opinion, whatever that bias may be.

Húrin wrote: »

Of course not. If they thought that then they would have to flippantly dismiss their own area of study.

You think that Biblical authors made the whole lot up, but that's faith - an emotional reason. You have no evidence for that at all, and you think that perhaps exegetes should embrace your opinion simply because it makes atheism easier. Why should they consider that possibility?

In fact I have lots of evidence of it. There are many things that are factually wrong, there are dozens of contradictions even in the most important story, the resurrection. There is evidence that the gospel writers were trying to make it look like Jesus fit the prophecies because he fits them in different ways. And of course the most important evidence is that there is no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There are millions of claims of supernatural events from history and I see no reason to give this one any more credence than the story of Zeus

They should consider the possibility that it's all made up because the existence of the christian god has not been proven, therefore it is possible that it was all made up. Not to consider that possibility is intellectually dishonest and makes the whole process futile. They are beginning with the assumption that the bible is true and trying to explain away anything that doesn't fit that unfounded assumption. The whole discipline is based on an unfounded assumption

Húrin wrote: »

Who are you thinking of?

When writing that I was thinking of a post from Jakkass where he said that any inconsistencies in the book of mormon indicated that it wasn't true. Why not apply exegesis to that book by beginning with the assumption that it's true and any apparent errors are allegorical?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You really have a way with words I must say. All I'm saying is you shouldn't decide what it means based on what you want it to mean. If something appears to mean something that's usually because it does.......unless it's in the book that contains the perfect word of god and can't possibly be wrong

I agree. Respectable exegesis is like respectable science: it doesn't start with a conclusion and work its way back.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unless they're taking the literal meaning of the words in front of them, it all boils down to someone's biased opinion, whatever that bias may be.

Sorry I meant to say "If that was true then the Bible's disagreement with homosexuality, for instance, would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.""

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact I have lots of evidence of it. There are many things that are factually wrong, there are dozens of contradictions even in the most important story, the resurrection. There is evidence that the gospel writers were trying to make it look like Jesus fit the prophecies because he fits them in different ways. And of course the most important evidence is that there is no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There are millions of claims of supernatural events from history and I see no reason to give this one any more credence than the story of Zeus

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

They should consider the possibility that it's all made up because the existence of the christian god has not been proven, therefore it is possible that it was all made up. Not to consider that possibility is intellectually dishonest and makes the whole process futile. They are beginning with the assumption that the bible is true and trying to explain away anything that doesn't fit that unfounded assumption. The whole discipline is based on an unfounded assumption

I've already pointed out that performing exegesis on a text does not indicate that the exegete thinks the content of the text is true.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When writing that I was thinking of a post from Jakkass where he said that any inconsistencies in the book of mormon indicated that it wasn't true. Why not apply exegesis to that book by beginning with the assumption that it's true and any apparent errors are allegorical?

Why are you insisting, without evidence, that Biblical exegetes have false motives for what they do? Most of them do not subscribe to Biblical inerrancy so if contradictions really exist in the Bible, then they should not be glossed over.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

In all fairness, I think I have to point out that we only have "their" word for it that they were willing to die for it, and even then, there were not more than a handful (perhaps not even that), who were even reported to have died thinking it was all true.

Other contemporaneous authors don't produce tales of grand sacrifice or miraculous happenings. Or at least, they didn't produce christian ones anyway.

That said, I think you're right in suggesting that they were probably deluded, though I think it's almost inevitable that at least some posthumous creative editing went on too.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Sorry I meant to say "If that was true then the Bible's disagreement with homosexuality, for instance, would have been banished by exegesis, which is a more intellectually rigourous discipline than you give it credit for.""

Why would that be? The bible isn't the only motivation for people disliking homosexuality. An atheist sees the bible as coming entirely from men so all the views in it would have originally been those of men

Húrin wrote: »

If the Bible is false, it is incredibly unlikely that the authors made it up. It is much more likely that they were deluded than that they were liars. I know this because they were willing to die for what you are calling "that stuff they made up".

That's a possibility too, although there is the "ends justify the means" possibility, where they believed strongly in the message of Jesus but knew no one would listen to them to they said he was God. People would be willing to die for that belief even though they were using lies to spread it. As you point out, religion can have a placebo effect whether it's true or not

And of course, to say that they were willing to die is to go back to assuming the bible is true. They might well not have been. They might not even have existed.

Húrin wrote: »

I've already pointed out that performing exegesis on a text does not indicate that the exegete thinks the content of the text is true.

But you asked me "why would they consider the possibility that it's not true?"

Húrin wrote: »

Why are you insisting, without evidence, that Biblical exegetes have false motives for what they do? Most of them do not subscribe to Biblical inerrancy so if contradictions really exist in the Bible, then they should not be glossed over.

I wouldn't use the word false motives, that implies some kind of deviousness. They have the mistaken belief that we can safely assume the bible is divinely inspired.

I'm not insisting without evidence, I've come across many example where I read something and it turns out later on that people have arbitrarily decided that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean and have nothing to back it up other than what they think. One example would be the removal of limbo a few years ago and another would be a new one I heard where God apparently doesn't condemn people who commit suicide because they weren't in the right frame of mind at the time. I didn't get the memo from god myself. These people haven't been told these things by god, they just decided to believe them because they wanted them to be true.

In science, nothing is accepted just because of who's saying it. Even everything Stephen Hawking says is independently verified hundreds of times before being accepted as true. Whereas with exegesis, you have nothing but the perceived authority behind whoever is putting forward the opinion to say that they're right. It's just an argument from authority.

With science, people might point to Stephen Hawking saying something as evidence of its truth but if I don't accept that, I can look to the evidence cited by Hawking and see if he is indeed right. People point to exegesis to back up their points but exegesis doesn't point to anything. It's just an opinion