Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

coffee_cake

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!

coffee_cake

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

coffee_cake

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:

coffee_cake

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:

Obliq

Oh balls. Did we all forget to send letters and so the Irish Times were forced to print the crazies again?

"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."

Hmm. Am not scholarly enough to answer these properly, but I'll give it a shot. Give us a few hours though!

yeppydeppy

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"?

I've emailed the letters editor in reply to this horse shíte.
I can't abide people like this.

Obliq

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I've emailed the letters editor in reply to this horse shíte.
I can't abide people like this.

Same as that. Letter done and sent. Lets hope the IT don't drop it and give that muppet the last word on the subject.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

....

*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"?

I don't agree. I think that he's raising a valid concern, that is hard to answer.

I think a theme that comes out of it is a need to identify the difference between morality as some kind of external imperative, and ethics in the sense of a set of practices that promote personal wellbeing.

And something that's missing, on the atheist side, is a clear basis for Adam Smith's contention that an "invisible hand" would guide our individual pursuit of self-interest so as to create general wellbeing.

Galvasean

So, a fancy way of saying, "Where do you get your morals from?".
I bleed with agony.

sephir0th

I just wish it wasn't called "Atheist Ireland" and instead took the approach of orgranisations like the Center for Inquiry.

The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

This is the reason I don't say I'm atheist anymore. I know I technically am, but it saves me a bunch of hassle just to say I'm 'not religious' instead.

Mark Hamill

Where do the ethics come from?

Largely the same place laws, or health and safety guidelines come from. We have (or decide) a set outcome and so we devise rules that we believe will logically attain that outcome.

How is the conscience formed?

Well it turns out that basic ethic and moral considerations are so important to human cooperation and species growth that we evolved biologically-based emotional urges to encourage is to, generally, act with others somewhat in mind.

Who decides on the rights of others?

We all do, to some extent. Again, the same way way laws etc. are made, options are weighed with specific outcomes desired.


The funny thing about claiming that morals/conscience/rights etc. are objective and come from god is that this doesn't remove the ability to explain them without reference to god. If they are truly objective, then they must be explainable without reference to god (as they must be true regardless of source in order to be objective) and if they are truly from god, then a perfect explanation must exist. You would think people who are supposed to believe that they should be as moral and as alike god as possible would, you know, actually try and follow through on this.

Obliq

Quick! Put it in a letter to the Irish Times

ShooterSF

sephir0th wrote: »

I just wish it wasn't called "Atheist Ireland" and instead took the approach of orgranisations like the Center for Inquiry.



This is the reason I don't say I'm atheist anymore. I know I technically am, but it saves me a bunch of hassle just to say I'm 'not religious' instead.

But the center for enquiry doesn't look to promote atheism. I'd actually consider it a bit deceptive if it took a similar title and then looked to promote atheism.

sephir0th

ShooterSF wrote: »

But the center for enquiry doesn't look to promote atheism. I'd actually consider it a bit deceptive if it took a similar title and then looked to promote atheism.

Why promote atheism though? Surely most people reject religion through the application of critical thinking and reasoning. What extra issue is being resolved by promoting atheism over what the CFI promotes?