Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

robindch

Which seems to be the new face of new atheism, or something.

Anyway, "atheism is a belief like not playing football is a sport" (good), then Atheism+! Mysogynists! Rebecca Watson! Elevatorgate! Safe! All the boys love Dick! (sigh...) At least Michael Nugent tries to put him right on a few things (good).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/1026/1224325730359.html

pauldla

Nugent has published a manifesto on “ethical atheism” (it “predates Atheism Plus”, he notes)

Nice one, Michael!

PopePalpatine

I was fearing that it was going to be John Waters whinging as usual.

Gbear

Does this represent a softening of the New Atheist stance? Or are Irish atheists simply becoming better understood?

Bingo!


From the comments:

For most atheists, Dawkins and Hitchins do not represent them and in fact are regarded as irritants.

This kind of stuff annoys me because it's overwhelmingly the result of ignorance and appeasing religious people who don't like those guys, usually because they call them on their bull**** and reveal all their insecurities.

I don't mind if Dawkins voice grates or if you don't like his style or even if you think he's a dick, but I'm always left feeling that most people making snarky remarks about Dawkins or any of the "new atheists" are basing it entirely on the stereotype or on trying to play the fence sitter when they're debating with religious people (they often also claim they're not atheists but are actually agnostics :mad:). I feel like it's unprincipled, politicking bull****.


I'm always going to be uneasy with people banding together in a formal way based on what they don't believe in. Ultimately, doing charity work and making the world a better place supersedes that but it seems the best way to do that is to band together for the sake of making the world a better place, irrespective of what you believe in.

It makes sense for secularists to band together for the sake of fighting for the separation of church and state. It makes less sense if they band together to improve road safety.

MisterEpicurus

Gbear wrote: »

It makes sense for secularists to band together for the sake of fighting for the separation of church and state. It makes less sense if they band together to improve road safety.

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head there.

I don't see the connection whatsoever between the organization of atheists and doing good charitable works.

Are Atheist Ireland just doing this to prove to religious folks that they can be just as nice? If so, sounds like a peculiar way to do charity - in much the same way that religious folks only seem to do charity because either god orders them or they're afraid of god.

The connection is zero. Why can't people just do charity for its own sake? Instead we have organizations which have a system behind it - Bible for Christians and Secularism for Atheists.

Why can't we just have a charity called 'Charity X' with no connections or underlying agendas and just gets on with the work of making cash for the poor and vulnerable.

Again, it just appears Atheist Ireland are doing this to show they can be nice, which is equally as fake as Christians doing it because of inspiration from the Bible or whatever.

Michael Nugent

Gbear wrote: »

I'm always going to be uneasy with people banding together in a formal way based on what they don't believe in.

Atheist Ireland is not based on what our members don't believe in. It is based on what our members do believe in: promoting atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and promoting an ethical and secular Ireland.

Gbear wrote: »

It makes sense for secularists to band together for the sake of fighting for the separation of church and state. It makes less sense if they band together to improve road safety.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head there. I don't see the connection whatsoever between the organization of atheists and doing good charitable works.

Well, there is no connection between secularism and road safety, but there is a connection between secularism and ethics. In many areas of ethical behavior that are unrelated to road safety, some people make decisions based on religious faith and dogma. We are promoting an alternative basis for ethical behaviour, based on natural compassion and empathy and reciprocity and reason. And we support charities where our money will not be used to promote religious advocacy.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Are Atheist Ireland just doing this to prove to religious folks that they can be just as nice?

No.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Why can't we just have a charity called 'Charity X' with no connections or underlying agendas and just gets on with the work of making cash for the poor and vulnerable.

We're not creating the agenda, we are challenging the existing agenda that religious charities add to their charity work. We're not promoting atheism as part of our charitable work.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is not based on what our members don't believe in. It is based on what our members do believe in: promoting atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and promoting an ethical and secular Ireland.

While I wish less people were religious, I find it slightly disconcerting that an organization aims to promote their agenda over those they criticise. For example, I'm not a member of Atheist Ireland purely because I don't believe in converting other people to Atheism nor do I have to band together with anyone who happens to think the same. You might reply and say that you're 'promoting' and not 'converting', but I think that there is an underlying insinuation that those who study naturalism will become atheist and thus it's a covert act of converting people to atheism.

We are promoting an alternative basis for ethical behaviour, based on natural compassion and empathy and reciprocity and reason. And we support charities where our money will not be used to promote religious advocacy.

That's hyperbole at best. Most religious people I know are very scientific and appreciate science a lot and by no means disregard it in any sense. I think they also display empathy and reciprocity so I don't believe you can create another framework because the ordinary religious person acts like this already.

Also I'm curious to know what you mean by 'Natural Compassion'?

We're not creating the agenda, we are challenging the existing agenda that religious charities add to their charity work. We're not promoting atheism as part of our charitable work.

In my view, even the simple act of saying "Atheist Ireland has raised €5,000 for charity X" is promoting atheism.

Tim Robbins

A lot of misunderstanding on what the meaning of the word atheist means.
I am not sure if atheist Ireland have just confused people even more.

But anyway, if would be great to have an Atheist version of the SVDP which was way better than them.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

While I wish less people were religious, I find it slightly disconcerting that an organization aims to promote their agenda over those they criticise.

Every advocacy group does that. It comes with the territory.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Also I'm curious to know what you mean by 'Natural Compassion'?

I mean natural rather than supernatural. Natural compassion that is not over-ridden by dogma based on claims of supernatural origin.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

In my view, even the simple act of saying "Atheist Ireland has raised €5,000 for charity X" is promoting atheism.

If that's a side effect, I'm fine with that. I think promoting atheism is good. You seem to think it is bad. But I assume we can agree that raising €5,000 for charity X is good (assuming, on my side, that charity X has been vetted to ensure that its money is not used to indoctrinate people with religion).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I think promoting atheism is good.

I think we've had threads in this space before (including one started by your good self on that very document that you drafted). But, sure, why not thrash it out again.

Why do you think promoting atheism is good? What do you mean by good, in this context?

Incidently, just to clarify my own stance, I don't think promoting atheism is bad. I just don't see the point to it.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Every advocacy group does that. It comes with the territory.

Yes - but there is no reason whatsoever for an organization to exist to promote people disbelieve in god, in the same way I would find it equally disconcerting if Afairyist Ireland advocated not believing in fairies and started raising cash under the umbrella of Afairyist Ireland.

I mean natural rather than supernatural. Natural compassion that is not over-ridden by dogma based on claims of supernatural origin.

Well there's no such thing as supernatural compassion. I don't think anyone is forced to be compassionate either, regardless of faith. I'm talking about Ordinary Joe here and not some brainwashed Al Qaeda member.

If that's a side effect, I'm fine with that. I think promoting atheism is good. You seem to think it is bad. But I assume we can agree that raising €5,000 for charity X is good (assuming, on my side, that charity X has been vetted to ensure that its money is not used to indoctrinate people with religion).

Of course raising cash for Charity X is great but it appears loaded to do it under the umbrella agenda of Atheist Ireland. I think it's the height of hypocrisy to give out about religious folks for converting those during charity or whatever, while all the time forming your own network of people aimed to convert those to your belief system.

And just to re-confirm, I'm not a religious believer of any stripe or flavour.

Galvasean

I saw the article title on the front page of the Times today accompanied by a picture of Richard Dawkins. Is he not the old face?

Leonie Hilliard? Sounds like a chick....

BRING ME THE ELEVATOR!!!!

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is not based on what our members don't believe in. It is based on what our members do believe in: promoting atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and promoting an ethical and secular Ireland.




Well, there is no connection between secularism and road safety, but there is a connection between secularism and ethics. In many areas of ethical behavior that are unrelated to road safety, some people make decisions based on religious faith and dogma. We are promoting an alternative basis for ethical behaviour, based on natural compassion and empathy and reciprocity and reason. And we support charities where our money will not be used to promote religious advocacy.


No.


We're not creating the agenda, we are challenging the existing agenda that religious charities add to their charity work. We're not promoting atheism as part of our charitable work.

Michael,
Can I ask you, what gives you the right to speak on behalf of atheists? What gives you and other people the right to attach a belief system to all these people who simply want to be left alone and not pigeon holed into any system whether it be religious or not.

What you are doing is worse then religion. Religions have to be signed up to, whereas what you are doing is imposing a system on people who have not signed up to it, who do not necessarily share your opinions and who by the very definition of being an atheist simply do not believe in God, period. Nothing more.

When I call myself an atheist I now not only have to argue that I do not believe in God, but more often I have to argue that I do not belong to a system or society and I am not a member of your bull**** cult.

equivariant

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Yes - but there is no reason whatsoever for an organization to exist to promote people disbelieve in god, in the same way I would find it equally disconcerting if Afairyist Ireland advocated not believing in fairies and started raising cash under the umbrella of Afairyist Ireland.

I see this nonsense repeated over and over on this forum. Of course there is a reason for an organisation such as atheist ireland (I'm not a member BTW). In fact they give their raison d'etre in big bold letters at the top of their homepage, go and look. "Promoting atheism, reason and a secular state" Which of these things is not worthy of an organisation? Atheism is definitely worth promoting, just as much as science is worthy of public praise and advocacy.

Frankly, I find this "people's religious beliefs or lack thereof are entirely their own business" stuff very childish. We live in a society and we are all part of that society, so no matter how private we are about our theism, it impacts to some degree on our society. The whole "my opinions are my business" is a very childish view of the world. We all like to think like that when we are young - I certainly did. After a while most people realise that we are not islands and that our lives and opinions are not entirely our own business.

To address your "afairyist" notion, what would you say if the fairyists controlled 90% of our schools and indocrinated our children to belive in fairies, while at the same time protecting a bunch of sick child rapists in their midst? What if the fairyists tried to promote the idea that the use of contraceptives is wrong? Or if they started killing othr people who believed in elves rather than fairies? Would you then think that afairyism was worthy of an organisation

Gbear

equivariant wrote: »

I see this nonsense repeated over and over on this forum. Of course there is a reason for an organisation such as atheist ireland (I'm not a member BTW). In fact they give their raison d'etre in big bold letters at the top of their homepage, go and look. "Promoting atheism, reason and a secular state" Which of these things is not worthy of an organisation? Atheism is definitely worth promoting, just as much as science is worthy of public praise and advocacy.

Frankly, I find this "people's religious beliefs or lack thereof are entirely their own business" stuff very childish. We live in a society and we are all part of that society, so no matter how private we are about our theism, it impacts to some degree on our society. The whole "my opinions are my business" is a very childish view of the world. We all like to think like that when we are young - I certainly did. After a while most people realise that we are not islands and that our lives and opinions are not entirely our own business.

To address your "afairyist" notion, what would you say if the fairyists controlled 90% of our schools and indocrinated our children to belive in fairies, while at the same time protecting a bunch of sick child rapists in their midst? What if the fairyists tried to promote the idea that the use of contraceptives is wrong? Or if they started killing othr people who believed in elves rather than fairies? Would you then think that afairyism was worthy of an organisation

Science and secularism are certainly worth fighting for and they will indirectly cause people to be less religious.
I think the point is that I'm not sure campaigning for the spread of atheism itself is necessary and because of the usually incorrect stereotypes about it pressing the issue could be counter-productive.
Ultimately, it doesn't actually matter whether people are atheists or not. Once they are secular and trust science then whether they have religion or not becomes relatively trivial.

Ireland's problem isn't a lack of atheism, it's a lack of secularism.
You don't need to be atheists to give all children an equal education or to stop shielding scumbag rapists.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

Ireland's problem isn't a lack of atheism, it's a lack of secularism.

I think you are on the ball there - I'd quibble over your statement "trust science", but that's a topic in itself for some other time.

For me, that's a point that came out of the thread on Micheal's document on Ethical Atheism.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056736030

We don't need some atheist agenda. If there's any value to be had from discussions of this kind, it's to find common principles that everyone can mobilise or act around - whether theist or not.

MisterEpicurus

equivariant wrote: »

I see this nonsense repeated over and over on this forum. Of course there is a reason for an organisation such as atheist ireland (I'm not a member BTW). In fact they give their raison d'etre in big bold letters at the top of their homepage, go and look. "Promoting atheism, reason and a secular state" Which of these things is not worthy of an organisation? Atheism is definitely worth promoting, just as much as science is worthy of public praise and advocacy.

Frankly, I find this "people's religious beliefs or lack thereof are entirely their own business" stuff very childish. We live in a society and we are all part of that society, so no matter how private we are about our theism, it impacts to some degree on our society. The whole "my opinions are my business" is a very childish view of the world. We all like to think like that when we are young - I certainly did. After a while most people realise that we are not islands and that our lives and opinions are not entirely our own business.

To address your "afairyist" notion, what would you say if the fairyists controlled 90% of our schools and indocrinated our children to belive in fairies, while at the same time protecting a bunch of sick child rapists in their midst? What if the fairyists tried to promote the idea that the use of contraceptives is wrong? Or if they started killing othr people who believed in elves rather than fairies? Would you then think that afairyism was worthy of an organisation

Your post doesn't contain anything worthy of being called an argument, at best you've engaged in a patronizing rant verging on hyperbole.

I think the OP above me has explained it better than I could. Basically, everything you've listed (contraception, schools etc.) can be achieved through secularism and not atheism. I think you're mingling the terms unnecessarily when, in fact, they are completely separate.

I have no qualms whatsoever in an organization aiming to promote science, reason and secularism. What I find baffling is the need to shovel all this under the umbrella term of 'Atheist Ireland'. Why introduce 'atheism' into the goals outlined above? And given that secularism can also include religious folk, it makes it even more baffling.

Atheism is becoming very organized and unnecessarily so. I firmly believe that a secular organization is appropriate because even religious people can be secular. I don't think you can put any good argument forward to explain the necessity for introducing an 'Atheist Ireland' organization as opposed to a far superior 'Secularism Ireland' which also advocated reason and science.

In conclusion, you don't need to be an atheist to advocate secularism. All of Atheist Ireland's goals can be achieved through a Secular Society if need be as this will be inclusive of religious folk who also believe in secularism. Whether or not an individual member is an atheist is actually completely irrelevant to the goals that wish to be achieved. Now what we see forming are 'Atheist Ethics' and so forth...all unnecessary and unenforceable as all atheist are individual thinkers and that's what we should be proud of. Banding together every now and again to either reinforce your atheism at meetings or whatever it may be is not necessary. The political activities can be achieved through secularism.

Handsome Bob

Gbear wrote: »

Bingo!
I don't mind if Dawkins voice grates or if you don't like his style or even if you think he's a dick, but I'm always left feeling that most people making snarky remarks about Dawkins or any of the "new atheists" are basing it entirely on the stereotype or on trying to play the fence sitter when they're debating with religious people (they often also claim they're not atheists but are actually agnostics :mad:). I feel like it's unprincipled, politicking bull****.

It was a fair comment to make. Dawkins is the personification of the dickhead atheist stereotype, that's why some Atheists can't stand him (me included). Nothing to do with being a fence sitter.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you are on the ball there - I'd quibble over your statement "trust science", but that's a topic in itself for some other time.

I think this is an important point.

Whether scientists always get the correct answer, are fraudulent or some scientific institutions are with or without merit, everyone needs to trust science itself.

The mechanism of science mightn't be able to find "absolute truth" (whatever the **** that means) but it's the best method discovered to get us practical and testable information to bring our species forward.
Nothing else does what it does. It should absolutely be trusted.
If you don't want to trust some of the people doing it you can always find someone else doing it or do it yourself.

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

Michael,
Can I ask you, what gives you the right to speak on behalf of atheists? What gives you and other people the right to attach a belief system to all these people who simply want to be left alone and not pigeon holed into any system whether it be religious or not.

What you are doing is worse then religion. Religions have to be signed up to, whereas what you are doing is imposing a system on people who have not signed up to it, who do not necessarily share your opinions and who by the very definition of being an atheist simply do not believe in God, period. Nothing more.

When I call myself an atheist I now not only have to argue that I do not believe in God, but more often I have to argue that I do not belong to a system or society and I am not a member of your bull**** cult.

What we are doing is worse than religion? Seriously? Worse than the Crusades, the Inquisition, stoning women to death for adultery? Please try to keep a sense of perspective.

We promote atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and we promote an ethical and secular Ireland. You might not want us to be doing this, but it is hardly "worse than religion".

Since you have also asked your substantive question on a different thread that you started for that purpose, I have answered it there.

Here's a link to my response.

fitz0

DubleF wrote: »

Someone answer me here please! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056725769
Thank you!

FFS do I have to check every link here before I click on it now?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

Whether scientists always get the correct answer, are fraudulent or some scientific institutions are with or without merit, everyone needs to trust science itself.

But science is that human process, flaws and all. There isn't some wonderful, ideal conception of science to which we all aspire; if we give the same trust or faith to human scientific institutions, they'll let us down in exactly the same way as the religious institutions.

So, pardon me, but I'm following neither the gourd nor the sandal. I'm with Spike Milligan on this one.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But science is that human process, flaws and all. There isn't some wonderful, ideal conception of science to which we all aspire; if we give the same trust or faith to human scientific institutions, they'll let us down in exactly the same way as the religious institutions.

So, pardon me, but I'm following neither the gourd nor the sandal. I'm with Spike Milligan on this one.

I explicitly said not scientific institutions but the scientific method itself.

Tim Robbins

Michael Nugent wrote: »

What we are doing is worse than religion? Seriously? Worse than the Crusades, the Inquisition, stoning women to death for adultery? Please try to keep a sense of perspective.

We promote atheism and reason over supernaturalism and ese tsuperstition, and we promote an ethical and secular Ireland. You might not want us to be doing this, but it is hardly "worse than religion".

Since you have also asked your substantive question on a different thread that you started for that purpose, I have answered it there.

Here's a link to my response.

It is such a shame that this confusion is still going on.

What's the difference these ethical goals Atheist Ireland have and the humanist society have again?

How much time is wasted arguing over words when these arguments are pointless...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

I explicitly said not scientific institutions but the scientific method itself.

But that's what I'm trying to say - science is the institutions, not some perfect Platonic ideal of a method that always seems to be just out of reach.

You can even take the method head on; to an extent, that's what yer man's book "Black Swan" is about, and David Hume before him and others before that.

All we can ever do is make generalisations based on whatever subset of evidence sits before us, in a context where that subset of evidence is only a tiny portion of everything you'd need to know to have a sound basis for judgment.

Add in the practical need to make a living, the desire to have a career, and dependency on institutions to deliver that, and our trust in this perfect scientific method will have us spending the weekend at a workshop on damage limitation given by Diarmuid Martin.

recedite

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I have no qualms whatsoever in an organization aiming to promote science, reason and secularism. What I find baffling is the need to shovel all this under the umbrella term of 'Atheist Ireland'. Why introduce 'atheism' into the goals outlined above? And given that secularism can also include religious folk, it makes it even more baffling.

Secularism only covers one of the three topics mentioned above. Atheism covers none of them. Atheism Ireland as an organization covers all of them.
The question has been asked about the difference between humanist and atheist organisations. IMO the traditional humanist org carried on much of the trappings of religion, such as holding weekly meetings and by appointing "celebrants" to conduct funerals. In a sense they filled the void left for someone in a religious congregation who had lost their faith. Although many individuals of no faith continue attending churches for social reasons, others feel it is hypocritical to do so. Indeed some would say the ceremonies humanists organise are just "fake" versions of baptismal, marriage and funeral services. Nowadays this ritualistic aspect is becoming less important than the public campaigning for ethics and secularism, so we have a sort of convergent evolution with the organised atheists who are aiming to promote their ideals, and now introducing charity in the name of atheism. The two are becoming virtually indistinguishable. Dawkins is actually a vice president of the British Humanist Association, so they are not mutually exclusive either. I think that is quite an important point. Generally you'll find religions, like political parties, demand exclusive loyalty from their members.

I think you are naive in thinking some religious folk embrace secularism. They will only adopt it when it is to their advantage. It is similar to a retreat in military tactics. The RCC will hand over patronage of a limited number of schools soon, due to political pressure from the Labour party, and in order to avoid the mutiny of parents, and to consolidate control over the remaining schools.
Members of minority churches will pay lip service to secularism because they resent state support of their rivals. But if they ever had the numbers to set up their own state funded schools etc you would see their true colours emerge.

pauldla

Some atheists in Ireland decided to form an advocacy group, in order to give a public face to atheism, and to promote in Irish social discourse ideals of rationalism and secularism arising from their atheism.

They decided to call their group Atheist Ireland, presumably because (a) they are atheists, and (b) they’re in Ireland. I assume Atheist Secular Society and Aindiachaí Réasúnach Saolta na hÉireann were both considered as names, but deemed wanting.

Others way wish to use those names if they decide to form their own groups, btw, I’m in no way precious about them. Be my guest.

If the mere existence of AI can give people a moments pause about their beliefs, I’m all for it. I won’t be joining them myself, but I wish them luck.

pauldla

From the letters page of todays IT. I'd reply to it, but it made me so depressed I don't know where to begin.

Sir, – Michael Nugent (October 29th) thanks The Irish Times for helping to make Atheist Ireland better understood. And well he might, considering the 400-word manifesto he is granted on your Letters page. I would like to add to this general air of appreciation by thanking Mr Nugent and all the members of Atheist Ireland for the publicity and indirect promotion they give to organised religion, especially Christianity.


How can religion not seem fascinating, subversive, fertile and bold compared to the bland platitudes and (in the strictest sense of this word) entirely reactionary philosophy of organisations such as this? How much “reason” can there be in rejecting “personal gods who answer prayers and impregnate virgins to give birth to themselves” but accepting the idea of a self-assembling universe, or of an ethical outlook that is treated as self-evident but is ultimately based upon nothing at all? Isn’t it obvious that to reject supernaturalism while saluting “personal autonomy and individual conscience” is gross contradiction, since you will never find any basis for those ideas in a naturalistic worldview? All in all, can any fair-minded person not feel that even the most “silly” religion is more respectful of the mystery, vitality, sublimity, uncanniness and numinosity of the universe than this barrage of banalities?


Organised atheism is a desperate attempt to ward off man’s deepest and most ancient reaction to reality; but the more that reaction is repressed, the more potently it reasserts itself. I trust that organisations such as Atheist Ireland will keep throwing the sand against the wind. – Yours, etc,

Obliq

Wow. The use of language is quite pretty but what it says is ignorant. I can't write the letter of response either - needs someone clever.


CALLING MICHAEL NUGENT?? :cool:

equivariant

Obliq wrote: »

Wow. The use of language is quite pretty but what it says is ignorant. I can't write the letter of response either - needs someone clever.


CALLING MICHAEL NUGENT?? :cool:

A quick google revealed this (there can't be that many delusional Maolseachlainns around, can there)

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/catholic-reverts/item/109-catholic-revert-maolsheachlann-o-ceallaigh

Basically, John Waters wannabe as far as I can see. "yearning for the divine", 'I once was an atheist too' (yeah right:rolleyes:). This is a person who desperately wants to believe that he is special. These people are the worst kind of theists. They have read a little bit and convinced themselves that they have a deeper understanding of reality than the rest of us. He even proudly proclaims his love of "agrarian, anti-modern" romantic nationalists.

Obliq

equivariant wrote: »

A quick google revealed this (there can't be that many delusional Maolseachlainns around, can there)

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/catholic-reverts/item/109-catholic-revert-maolsheachlann-o-ceallaigh

Basically, John Waters wannabe as far as I can see. "yearning for the divine", 'I once was an atheist too' (yeah right:rolleyes:). This is a person who desperately wants to believe that he is special. These people are the worst kind of theists. They have read a little bit and convinced themselves that they have a deeper understanding of reality than the rest of us. He even proudly proclaims his love of "agrarian, anti-modern" romantic nationalists.

Nice one. There's the basis for the letter right there :cool:

"But how could there be a centre, a direction, a purpose worth caring about, without God, the Alpha and Omega, the magnetic North of all existence? What was the point of any story if, as Macbeth said, life itself was a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing? Because it couldn't mean anything, if the atheists were right; that much was horrifyingly clear."

I find it so irritating that someone would think that without a belief in god that life has no meaning. What a load of bollix. If "atheists were right", what changes in your life exactly? Do you feel unable to cope, to carry on without some unseen presence controlling you from above? Can you not stand on your own two feet? Call the Samaritans then, but don't go blaming Atheists who are perfectly happy with the notion of being on our own.

The other IT letter:

All this talk of charitable work is obviously inspired by Catholicism. It is just the mirror image of the controversy between Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants, “salvation by faith and good works” v “salvation by faith alone”. Also there is a division emerging among atheists between libertinism and traditional sexual morality.

What I can’t understand is this: if there is no God, and no life hereafter, why does it matter a damn what you do in this life? I mean to say, if there is no God and no afterlife, one’s deeds in this life are not going to have any longterm consequences. If life is ultimately meaningless and futile, why is rationality apparently so important to atheists? Giving up a belief in religion for a belief in science is just changing one’s religion, in fact.

Yeah. Why do charity if nobody is watching to reward you?
:rolleyes: Catholics obviously have a monopoly on charity and it's only to earn points!

Obliq

Thanks for that - didn't read the 2nd letter before. :mad: Grrr - It's so offensive to me.

What I can’t understand is this: if there is no God, and no life hereafter, why does it matter a damn what you do in this life?

Well, because I believe that this life is the only one I have and it's up to me to make the best of it. A life worth living is something to work on all the years that I'm here.

if there is no God and no afterlife, one’s deeds in this life are not going to have any longterm consequences.

My deeds in this life have long term consequences for my children, family and friends and any other people/animals/land that I have an impact upon. What tripe he writes.

If life is ultimately meaningless and futile, why is rationality apparently so important to atheists? Giving up a belief in religion for a belief in science is just changing one’s religion, in fact.

Never met an atheist who believes that life is ultimately meaningless and futile, and I never gave up any belief in religion. Didn't ever have any. I personally feel that it's enough that I am alive and I strive to make my life a good one, in terms of how I treat myself and others around me. That it does not include any god or belief in an afterlife does not make my existence pointless in any way, and it's insulting to say that it's meaningless.

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

Thanks for that - didn't read the 2nd letter before. :mad: Grrr - It's so offensive to me.

What I can’t understand is this: if there is no God, and no life hereafter, why does it matter a damn what you do in this life?

Well, because I believe that this life is the only one I have and it's up to me to make the best of it. A life worth living is something to work on all the years that I'm here.

if there is no God and no afterlife, one’s deeds in this life are not going to have any longterm consequences.

My deeds in this life have long term consequences for my children, family and friends and any other people/animals/land that I have an impact upon. What tripe he writes.

If life is ultimately meaningless and futile, why is rationality apparently so important to atheists? Giving up a belief in religion for a belief in science is just changing one’s religion, in fact.

Never met an atheist who believes that life is ultimately meaningless and futile, and I never gave up any belief in religion. Didn't ever have any. I personally feel that it's enough that I am alive and I strive to make my life a good one, in terms of how I treat myself and others around me. That it does not include any god or belief in an afterlife does not make my existence pointless in any way, and it's insulting to say that it's meaningless.

That's your letter to the IT right there, Obliq!

F*ck it I might write to the IT and tell that guy I'm sorry to hear he only thinks charity is good for the thanks and if he wants to practise again there are a few choice passages in the bible about showing off he might want to read

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

That's your letter to the IT right there, Obliq!

Fair enough:-) Will give it a go - without my real name on it though.

Michael Nugent

Obliq wrote: »

Fair enough:-) Will give it a go - without my real name on it though.

Great. Your last paragraph is very effective.

I would also encourage anyone else to send a reply, while it is still topical for the letters page.

They get a lot more letters than they publish, but it only takes a few minutes to write and send.

Its usually best to keep it short, so focus on the most important point you want to make.

lettersed@irishtimes.com

You have to include a land address (which they partially publish) and a contact phone number (which they don’t publlsh).

Obliq

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Great. Your last paragraph is very effective.

I would also encourage anyone else to send a reply, while it is still topical for the letters page.

They get a lot more letters than they publish, but it only takes a few minutes to write and send.

Its usually best to keep it short, so focus on the most important point you want to make.

lettersed@irishtimes.com

You have to include a land address (which they partially publish) and a contact phone number (which they don’t publlsh).

Thanks, yes - found the criteria, so if published will not be anonymous any more. Never mind - I like the fact you're here under your real name - may be joining you!
I kept the letter very similar to what I said above. Didn't bother answering his ridiculous advice to atheists to "get a pope", etc. - Would have gone on too long. Would be great if the IT was inundated with letters of response!

PopePalpatine

equivariant wrote: »

A quick google revealed this (there can't be that many delusional Maolseachlainns around, can there)

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/catholic-reverts/item/109-catholic-revert-maolsheachlann-o-ceallaigh

Basically, John Waters wannabe as far as I can see. "yearning for the divine", 'I once was an atheist too' (yeah right:rolleyes:). This is a person who desperately wants to believe that he is special. These people are the worst kind of theists. They have read a little bit and convinced themselves that they have a deeper understanding of reality than the rest of us. He even proudly proclaims his love of "agrarian, anti-modern" romantic nationalists.

I'm wondering who the fuck would curse their child with such a name.

recedite

equivariant wrote: »

A quick google revealed this (there can't be that many delusional Maolseachlainns around, can there)

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/catholic-reverts/item/109-catholic-revert-maolsheachlann-o-ceallaigh

During his atheist phase, the revertible Maolseachlainn seems to have sadly missed the trappings of the auld church with all its traditional traditions, and looked desperately for a way to convince himself to believe in its underlying teachings.
He found and read a book, The Last Superstition, containing some valid points in favour of a "first cause"argument.

Maolseachlainn wrote:

Not that I understood them all; but I was convinced by the argument from contingency alone. This argues that everything in the physical world is dependent upon other things, and the chain cannot go on forever but must terminate in something outside the physical world, something necessary and eternal and perfect.

So now he believes there must have been something to start off the universe. But how to get from that to the personal god who listens to prayers and died on the cross? And more specifically, how could he be sure that his particular branch, the one he fondly recalls from those halcyon days of his youth, the RCC, was actually the one true church?
Simple;

Maolseachlainn wrote:

The choice was between Catholicism and atheism. I was sure of that. No other force on earth showed the same dedication to its message, the same refusal to submit to the spirit of the age, as the Catholic Church. No other institution defended the good things of life—family, community, purity, patriotism, festival, masculinity and femininity, ritual and ceremony—so assiduously. Every other religion fudged, temporized, showed itself plainly to be "human, all-too-human". It was Rome or bust.

:pac::pac::pac:
Aside from being a classic false dichotomy, its also just plain false........

Defender of; Family Yeah, taking babies from unmarried mothers. Priests visiting family homes and sneaking up to to the kids bedrooms.

Defender of; Community Yeah, the religious community. Moving guilty priests around and burying the evidence against them.

Defender of; Purity and Patriotism I dunno, I think there are some others that do a better job of that; White Afrikaner churches and the
Southern Baptists of the USA spring to mind.

Defender of; Festival Ever seen a Hindu festival? Not a black cassock or a frowning "holy mary"oulwan in sight.

Defender of; masculinity and femininity Islam is even better at "defining" womens role in society.

Defender of; ritual and ceremony Hmmm. Fair point. I have to admit he's got me there :mad:
All is forgiven Maolseachlainn!

antiskeptic

Obliq wrote: »

I find it so irritating that someone would think that without a belief in god that life has no meaning

I think the argument isn't that life has no meaning, it's that it can have any meaning you like - you only have to declare it so and meaningful it shall be.

If only for you.

It's great: you can do a complete about turn, such that what you find today to be meaningless can tomorrow declared by you to be full of meaning.

Some people opine (because you can't argue the with someone for whom meaning is anything they like at all) is such meaning is a nonsense.

Like saying that every route is the right route .. or some such.

Gbear

Obliq wrote: »

I find it so irritating that someone would think that without a belief in god that life has no meaning.

I find it even more annoying that they're using that as a basis for believing in god.

They're too ****ing childish to be able to stomach reality so they bury their head in the sand.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the argument isn't that life has no meaning, it's that it can have any meaning you like - you only have to declare it so and meaningful it shall be.

If only for you.

It's great: you can do a complete about turn, such that what you find today to be meaningless can tomorrow declared by you to be full of meaning.

Some people opine (because you can't argue the with someone for whom meaning is anything they like at all) is such meaning is a nonsense.

Like saying that every route is the right route .. or some such.

What is this "meaning" you speak of? Purpose? Direction? Servitude?
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.....

pauldla

A few responses in today's IT. Depression lifting somewhat....

Michael Nugent

pauldla wrote: »

A few responses in today's IT. Depression lifting somewhat....

Yes, some balance is starting to emerge.

This is one of a few short periods where the Irish Times may or may not continue to focus on this topic for a while.

It's probably worth submitting a short letter on whatever you feel is the most important point to highlight.

Even though most won't be published, letting them see the level of interest in the area will be useful information for them.

lettersed@irishtimes.com

You have to include a land address (which they partially publish) and a contact phone number (which they don’t publlsh).

Obliq

:D Some nicely written letters in there today, yay! Sadly not mine . Maybe I'll go again and see. Specially liked this from Joleen Kuyper:

"Those familiar with theories of moral development in humans (eg Kohlberg) will know the idea that behaviour being governed merely by promise of reward or fear of punishment is at the very beginning of the spectrum, associated with young children and their parents. We are supposed to move beyond this stage and achieve the capability to reason on moral issues on our own, and many people succeed in this, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

People for whom the only reason for not committing anti-social behavioural acts such as crimes is fear of punishment in an afterlife, or the promise of a reward from their god (as authority figure in place of parents), should perhaps continue to cling to their beliefs, for all our sakes. Their fear of us, the atheists, seems grounded in their own stunted moral and social development."

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

pauldla

The letter from Mr P Hennessy also has a few good points.

Quite the contrary, Mr O’Ceallaigh. Conscience is about choice. Either there is a God and he/she will tell you what to do and you shut up and do it (no need for an individual conscience), or there is not a God and your family and society help you develop an individual conscience to make moral choices out of empathy with the species you were born into and the planet you live on.
I carry a conscience and deep ethical convictions precisely because I am an atheist; moral convictions that spring from my presence with the other six billion on this fragile cosmic dustball, a six billion to which I have a great affinity and who I love dearly.
The conscience of an atheist is all the purer because it seeks no payback.
Your “conscience” (which your law-providing God has effectively made redundant), and any related good deeds, exist precisely because of the payback, the promise of eternal life

Love those letters. Hurray :cool:

As a person who has seen medically verified miracles take place in answer to prayer,

Great, start publishing some papers where it was verified, thanks

Obliq

bluewolf wrote: »

Great, start publishing some papers where it was verified, thanks

Yes, that would be nice. Also, I guess parents of starving children worldwide just aren't praying hard enough. Or is it a case of "Every time a child says, 'I don't believe in fairies,' there is a fairy somewhere that falls down dead."?
Could be the fault of us Atheists again? After all, we seem to be responsible for creating such questions as "does life have meaning?" in the heads of some religious folk. :rolleyes:

Sir, – The world and its communities as envisioned by atheists and described by Michael Nugent (October 30th) is self-centred, subjective and lacking in any foundation that can stand the test of worldly pressures, personal or political.

How much more potent and sustainable is the Christian belief that we are all made in the image and likeness of the loving creator. Of course we all spend our time falling way short of living up to that; we fail to value each and every person in the way we should, but the aspiration is there and the reason is there and the help is there if we genuinely ask for it.

In contrast with that what does it mean to: “Where possible make individual ethical decisions on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others”? Where do the ethics come from? How is the conscience formed? Who decides on the rights of others? And that “where possible” far too easily becomes a general let out allowing me to do only the things I feel like doing.

Atheism, to me sounds hollow, shallow, empty of any serious aspiration to make the world a better place but using the language of religion to sound something it is not. As for the insistence on “evidence”; I have on several occasions heard Richard Dawkins use the phrase “I believe”. – Yours, etc,

*shakes head*

Using the language of religion to sound something it is not: is that "stop stealing my words you meanies" or "stop twisting my words you're making me look bad OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT"?

Delirium

bluewolf wrote: »

*shakes head*

Using the language of religion to sound something it is not: is that "stop stealing my words you meanies" or "stop twisting my words you're making me look bad OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT"?

He best get on to supporters of sports teams, can't have them using the now trade-marked phrase "I believe" either :rolleyes: