Irish Times on the New Face of Atheism

Gbear

ShooterSF wrote: »

Secularism if gained only helps those entering/still in the school system.

Well that simply isn't true.
Secularism effects everyone. It stops any attempt by government to promote any religion. That can apply to laws (sharia for example), it can apply to government expenditure.
You only have to look at the US to see why secularism is important. Despite the fact that it's guaranteed in their constitution you have policies like "don't ask don't tell" and of course, marriage inequality. They are both based entirely on religion.

ShooterSF wrote: »

There are loads of people around you indoctrinated into religion and just because (maybe) you and I have escaped it it's unfair to leave them behind. Thankfully as I've said people like Dawkins and Hitchens didn't share your views years ago when I had long cast away psychics but still battled with my religious beliefs.

Promoting what you think is true is a vital part of our society. Otherwise what's the point of protecting freedom of speech?

There's a difference between writing books and formalised advocacy though.
That atheism is probably correct isn't terribly important. We don't need it to have a just democracy. Ultimately, the difference between a luke-warm lapsed catholic who believes in secularism and an atheist who does is insignificant.
The fight for secularism includes defending minorities of any kind from unfairness in society. We see that now with atheists in the US. Whether they're atheist or muslim a secular society shouldn't be persecuting them for their beliefs (so long as they're reasonable).

It's about choosing your battles. There's no need to be fighting to get people to become atheists right now. The gains would be marginal and there are far greater issues that need all our effort.

It just rubs me up the wrong way. Fighting for atheism just seems egocentric and vain to me whereas secularism is something truly worth fighting for.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not if you're talking about the process that created the concept of objectivity.

But yes if you are talking about morals, ethics or rules. Which is what was being talked about.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It all really boils down to whether there is a God or not.

There's also the attributes of the deity (or deities), how people should interact with it/them, interpret it/their communications, allow themselves to act on it/their behalf.

Traditionally, christians have permitted themselves the infinite privileges not only of declaring, and then sincerely believing, themselves in possession of perfect and infinite knowledge, but also the far greater privilege of acting out its insane implications.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

There's also the attributes of the deity (or deities), how people should interact with it/them, interpret it/their communications, allow themselves to act on it/their behalf.

Traditionally, christians have permitted themselves the infinite privileges not only of declaring, and then sincerely believing, themselves in possession of perfect and infinite knowledge, but also the far greater privilege of acting out its insane implications.

Granted. But there is a world of difference between a system which has problems hitting the bullseye and a system which has no target to aim at.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The difference between us is in one way slight. My choices are (ideally) made within a God-defined boundary. Yours, within a self-defined boundary - there are places you won't go. The argument is that because your boundary can shift and flex to suit whatever you happen to want yourself, you have no actual boundary. Rendering talk of morality and meaning .. meaningless.

Only if you consider it necessary to have a boundary to have meaning. It takes a particular view point to see the idea that you can do what ever you like with your life a bad thing.

But again this is exactly the appeal of religion. It appeals to people who are overwhelmed by the variables of reality and feel that their lives are out of control. It is precisely the imposed "boundary" that is what is attractive. You see this restriction overwhelmingly in a positive light, and appear to find it difficult to see the alternative as anything other than being overwhelmed with choice to the point where nothing can be decided and people shift as fluidly as they choose socks.

The mistake you are making is assuming everyone feels this way about life. It is a bit like the prisoner or the slave who upon freedom finds free life overwhelming and wishes to revert back to previous imprisonment. To the prisoner or slave the free man is too much freedom, something they view only as a negative. Of course to the free man it is the prisoner or slave who is to be pitied.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It all really boils down to whether there is a God or not. It is consistant for those who reckon there is a God to operate according to the purpose they were created for.

Well no, it really boils down to why some people are attracted to the idea that assigned meaning for their lives is better than self determined meaning, and why they view those who don't subscribe to this notion as some how lost in a sea of choice. This phenomena is common

Again the science for why humans find religion appealing, and why so many of them turn to religion in times of person crisis, explains this phenomena in terms of the overwhelming stress that can come from a person attempting to model the variables of the world mentally.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To argue independence from the creator a higher purpose, has absolutely no ground on which to begin to build from not for the Christian and not for the atheist who would use that as an grounds of rejecting God.

Its like saying if your dad had you in order so that you take over the family business then to do anything else would be meaningless. Which of course is not true. It would be meaningless if you decide that the only thing that can have meaning is the reason your father decided to have son, but then why would you do that?

Of course many people I'm sure like the security of knowing that they were born to take over the family business and that is what they are going to do. But it would be crazy to argue that anyone who didn't feel this way is some how left with a meaningless existence

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, there is no ground whose solidity isn't derived from the Creator (for as long as the Creator deigns to provide that solidity). Your ability to even rebel and reject on these grounds would depend on him. And when he removes those grounds, to ground falls your objection.

This is where your argument false apart completely. The creator provides the grounds himself through the act of creation (assuming he exists).

Again we find ourselves in a situation where a Christian doesn't really appreciate what it means to say that God created us. God did not create us to a design of which he himself had no control (as your mother and father did). God provided us with the ability to determine our own meaning in life. He provided the grounds for the meaningfulness of self determined meaning. It is meaningful because I chose it and my act of choosing is meaningful because it is what God meant when he created us. (I appreciate that is not what Christians believe, but it is the only logical conclusion from the initial axioms of creation, so if we assume there is an omnipotent creator we must infer this. The omnipotent bit is very important)

You are basically arguing that God created us wrong when you argued that we have no grounds to come up with our own meaning in life. It is one of the numerous logical inconsistencies in Christianity.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Granted. But there is a world of difference between a system which has problems hitting the bullseye and a system which has no target to aim at.

What in that analogy is the "bullseye"?

ShooterSF

Gbear wrote: »

Well that simply isn't true.
Secularism effects everyone. It stops any attempt by government to promote any religion. That can apply to laws (sharia for example), it can apply to government expenditure.
You only have to look at the US to see why secularism is important. Despite the fact that it's guaranteed in their constitution you have policies like "don't ask don't tell" and of course, marriage inequality. They are both based entirely on religion.

I meant it in a helps people see through religion perspective not that it wouldn't improve society.

There's a difference between writing books and formalised advocacy though.
That atheism is probably correct isn't terribly important. We don't need it to have a just democracy. Ultimately, the difference between a luke-warm lapsed catholic who believes in secularism and an atheist who does is insignificant.
The fight for secularism includes defending minorities of any kind from unfairness in society. We see that now with atheists in the US. Whether they're atheist or muslim a secular society shouldn't be persecuting them for their beliefs (so long as they're reasonable).

It's about choosing your battles. There's no need to be fighting to get people to become atheists right now. The gains would be marginal and there are far greater issues that need all our effort.

It just rubs me up the wrong way. Fighting for atheism just seems egocentric and vain to me whereas secularism is something truly worth fighting for.

There's where we differ I want to fight for both but I'm happy if people examine their religion and choose to keep it but religion does a great job of conning people and has some very powerful tricks developed over the years. That's why I think we need people out in the public sphere countering them. Dawkins and Hitch didn't just write books, they made speeches on the issue too and I'll be forever grateful they did.

Because you see it's not about gains for society. It's about gains for people at an individual level. People who live more crappy lifes because of religion in their own life. Not everyone is an a-la-carte catholic. But even those that are often still hold on to the guilt it puts on them. No one is asking for enforced atheism, that would be pointless but if some people shake off their religion and live a better life for it then even if it has no effect on your or my life it will still be worth it.

equivariant

Gbear wrote: »

Well that simply isn't true.
Secularism effects everyone. It stops any attempt by government to promote any religion. That can apply to laws (sharia for example), it can apply to government expenditure.
You only have to look at the US to see why secularism is important. Despite the fact that it's guaranteed in their constitution you have policies like "don't ask don't tell" and of course, marriage inequality. They are both based entirely on religion.




There's a difference between writing books and formalised advocacy though.
That atheism is probably correct isn't terribly important. We don't need it to have a just democracy. Ultimately, the difference between a luke-warm lapsed catholic who believes in secularism and an atheist who does is insignificant.
The fight for secularism includes defending minorities of any kind from unfairness in society. We see that now with atheists in the US. Whether they're atheist or muslim a secular society shouldn't be persecuting them for their beliefs (so long as they're reasonable).

It's about choosing your battles. There's no need to be fighting to get people to become atheists right now. The gains would be marginal and there are far greater issues that need all our effort.

It just rubs me up the wrong way. Fighting for atheism just seems egocentric and vain to me whereas secularism is something truly worth fighting for.

I disagree. Atheism is the fundamental thing here. As long as atheists are a small minority we will never have a truly secular society. I believe this because theism is fundamentally anti secular at its core. Some people may be able to compartmentalise their religious beliefs and accept secularism but basically religions like christianity will always to a greater or lesser extent push against a secular society. The only way to achieve a truly secular society, I believe, is first to persuade a majority of people to be atheists. You may find that distasteful (i don't) but as long as theism is the majority viewpoint then any moves towards a secular state can only be viewed as temporary and subject to revocation at any moment.

Zillah

Frankly, I always find asking theists to support secularism to be a bit disingenuous. In theory they believe that morality comes from God, and therefore people who do not obey God are immoral. The proposition of secularism asks a theist to tolerate deeply immoral laws.

Hell, if it works, sure, but you're pulling the wool over their eyes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But yes if you are talking about morals, ethics or rules. Which is what was being talked about.

You could give a masterclass in how to miss the point.

Zillah wrote: »

The proposition of secularism asks a theist to tolerate deeply immoral laws.

I'm not sure that it does. I mean, I do appreciate where you're coming from. But, so long as we're not compelling people to personally commit acts they deem immoral, I don't see the practical conflict.

There might be a few pressure points - I suppose abortion is an obvious one. Clearly, personal beliefs of all kinds will influence how someone might vote on a referendum on that topic. But, on most topics, would there really be much to argue about?

I'd suspect many theists, at this stage, would agree (for instance) that they're more interested in schools being effective in delivering education than in them being tools to pass on a faith.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You could give a masterclass in how to miss the point.

It's hard for me to hit a point that you won't make unambiguously.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Only if you consider it necessary to have a boundary to have meaning. It takes a particular view point to see the idea that you can do what ever you like with your life a bad thing.

And a particular point of view that permits it being seen as a bad thing today and a good thing tomorrow. It's not quite an impossible thing before breakfast. But it's pretty vacant.

If meaning (and bad) isn't demolished in the face of such moveable feasts the we're talking past each other.

But again this is exactly the appeal of religion. It appeals to people who are overwhelmed by the variables of reality and feel that their lives are out of control. It is precisely the imposed "boundary" that is what is attractive. You see this restriction overwhelmingly in a positive light, and appear to find it difficult to see the alternative as anything other than being overwhelmed with choice to the point where nothing can be decided and people shift as fluidly as they choose socks.

You operate within boundaries in the face of infinite options.

They are self imposed boundaries and can be altered to suit yourself.

What is acceptable, meaningful, good and decent today however can be otherwise tomorrow. Which is the point: what meaning have such things when their meaningfulness can be dispensed with on a whim (not that they need be dispensed with so easily, but that option is there)

Well no, it really boils down to why some people are attracted to the idea that assigned meaning for their lives is better than self determined meaning, and why they view those who don't subscribe to this notion as some how lost in a sea of choice. This phenomena is common

Again the science for why humans find religion appealing, and why so many of them turn to religion in times of person crisis, explains this phenomena in terms of the overwhelming stress that can come from a person attempting to model the variables of the world mentally.

Were it that science was acknowledged by all as the opinion of last resort when it comes to why things are the way they are. You spoke earlier of particular views. This is but another and not one I subscribe to.

The issue is how meaningful flexible meaning.

Its like saying if your dad had you in order so that you take over the family business then to do anything else would be meaningless. Which of course is not true. It would be meaningless if you decide that the only thing that can have meaning is the reason your father decided to have son, but then why would you do that?

A creator and a dad are different orders. Dad's don't create anything. Note your own differential drawn between fathers and creators below.

This is where your argument false apart completely. The creator provides the grounds himself through the act of creation (assuming he exists).

Again we find ourselves in a situation where a Christian doesn't really appreciate what it means to say that God created us. God did not create us to a design of which he himself had no control (as your mother and father did).[ God provided us with the ability to determine our own meaning in life. He provided the grounds for the meaningfulness of self determined meaning. It is meaningful because I chose it and my act of choosing is meaningful because it is what God meant when he created us. (I appreciate that is not what Christians believe, but it is the only logical conclusion from the initial axioms of creation, so if we assume there is an omnipotent creator we must infer this. The omnipotent bit is very important)

You are basically arguing that God created us wrong when you argued that we have no grounds to come up with our own meaning in life. It is one of the numerous logical inconsistencies in Christianity.

God created us 'right' when he enabled a mechanism whereby we could sustain our rejection of him (if that was to be our answer) until such a time as that answer was cast in eternal concrete.

Just as it is possible to justify a contra-God morality and call it good (e.g. abortion), it is possible to suppose self-determined meaning meaningful (despite problems of moveable feastiness). God permitting it and allowing you the ability to overlook such problems doesn't mean your good is good nor your meaning meaningful.

It's but for a season. And in due course, when the global aim (your final answer) is obtained) the ground will be dissolved under your feet. If that's where you still happen to be standing.

That however is theology. Your job is to explain how ever-flexible meaning or goodness can be meaningful or good. God permitting you to hold the view doesn't mean God provides you with an ability to answer.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

What in that analogy is the "bullseye"?

Do what is good / know what God wants or says. In other words: achieve what robindch says we fail to achieve.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is acceptable, meaningful, good and decent today however can be otherwise tomorrow. Which is the point: what meaning have such things when their meaningfulness can be dispensed with on a whim (not that they need be dispensed with so easily, but that option is there)

.

...and that's different from religion how, exactly?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And a particular point of view that permits it being seen as a bad thing today and a good thing tomorrow. It's not quite an impossible thing before breakfast. But it's pretty vacant.

Again you attribute choice to vacant or meaningless because you wish the choice to be made for you.

This is simply an issue of how you are defining meaning. One could equally (and probably more successfully) argue that if you don't choose your own meaning in life then then any assigned meaning has no value as it is not your choice.

It comes down to whether we consider choice or determination as good things or bad things. Someone overwhelmed by the stress of choosing will obviously find them bad things. Someone who resents not having the freedom to choose what they wish to do will find lack of choice a bad thing.

Using the example previous, it is not uncommon that fathers will produce sons with the notion that they will continue the family business or some family tradition.

If someone does not want choice they will find this assigned meaning to their lives positive, and in fact the only thing that can have value.

If on the other hand the person resents having their life determined for them they will view this assigned meaning as a negative, and probably decide that it is valueless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If meaning (and bad) isn't demolished in the face of such moveable feasts the we're talking past each other.

Meaning is subjective, and determined based on what you consider to have value and to be important. This in tern will be determined by your outlook on life and how you view choice.

Or, to put it more bluntly as I said earlier, your idea that your life can only have meaning if God assigns a meaning to it speaks more about you than God or life or even Christianity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is acceptable, meaningful, good and decent today however can be otherwise tomorrow. Which is the point: what meaning have such things when their meaningfulness can be dispensed with on a whim (not that they need be dispensed with so easily, but that option is there)

The is equating two different things that are separate. I can value something while still having the option to devalue it on a whim. That doesn't mean that the value becomes meaningless merely because this option exists.

For example, I can produce children and value them highly and come to consider that my life's purpose (self assigned as it is) is to do everything I can to help my children live happy and productive lives

Now all the while I'm doing this there is the option to abandon my kids and fly off to Hawaii with a hooker. I could do this, that option is available to me. That doesn't mean though that everything I am doing to help my kids has no value because the option to ignore it is ever present.

This is another common notion in Christian circles, that if options are provided then they will be sought and taken, particularly in relation to desire. If you tell kids it is ok to have sex they will all have sex. If you tell someone use a condom they will go out and have sex with the first person they see behind a chip shop.

This again says more about the Christian mentality than the other people who have freedom of choice. Some do not like the idea of having choice because they feel they cannot rationalise not doing all the things they fear, a fear of losing control and acting irresponsibly without consideration of the consequences (since often figuring out the consequences involve processing a ton of different variables which is overwhelming)

Part of the appeal of God is the notion that God's decisions are fixed in time. If God says do X then he will never tell you to do Y. This removes the possibility of change, thus restricting options. You shouldn't have sex before marriage and that is never going to change. Therefore a person who finds the options with regard to sex overwhelming can pin their life to that mast safe in the reassurance that they are adhering to something that will not alter. IE the option that this might change is non-existent.

Of course in reality there is nothing stopping God from deciding tomorrow that actually you can have sex before marriage. God is omnipotent and can do what he likes. But what really is going on, the appeal of this type of thing, comes from how Christians themselves restrict God. Oh God cannot act against his nature, God cannot lie, God cannot change his mind. There is really no logical reason to suppose this is true of a deity, except that it provides the assurances that Christian need from their god. It lifts the lid some what as to the psychological reasons such a concept was created for in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Were it that science was acknowledged by all as the opinion of last resort when it comes to why things are the way they are. You spoke earlier of particular views. This is but another and not one I subscribe to.

Well like most things in science it doesn't require that you subscribe to it. Just like gravity your brain will continue to work this way even if you don't believe it does. If everyone realised this was what was going on I doubt there would be many theists left.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue is how meaningful flexible meaning.

Well no, again the issue is why some people think the way they do. Meaning is a subjective term. While you like to think that you follow objective meaning, the reality is that what is meaningful meaning to you is determined by what you view as important and how you think.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A creator and a dad are different orders. Dad's don't create anything. Note your own differential drawn between fathers and creators below.

They are different in how much control they have over the nature of their creation. They still create things through their actions. You would not exist unless your father decided to have you (or at the very least decided to have sex), and this decision can and often does have a reason behind it.

So it comes back to the concept of your dad (possibly) having a reason to bring you into existence. This is the meaning of your existence according to him, just as the meaning of all existence is the meaning of existence according to God

antiskeptic wrote: »

God created us 'right' when he enabled a mechanism whereby we could sustain our rejection of him (if that was to be our answer) until such a time as that answer was cast in eternal concrete.

Why would a non-subscription to the meaning God has for creating the universe be a rejection of God (I mean logically, not because Christianity says so)

Again this betrays a particular way of thinking. Your father decides to have a son so that you will become a doctor. You instead become a professional golfer. Are you rejecting your father? What does that even mean? It is defining as not doing what your father wishes you to do as a form of rejection of him

That is a very human conceit/concept (one that I'm sure has lead to many hours in therapy for sons of over baring fathers)

antiskeptic wrote: »

God permitting it and allowing you the ability to overlook such problems doesn't mean your good is good nor your meaning meaningful.

Good and meaning are not the same things, you seem to be using the interchangeably, which while a fascinating insight into how you view meaning, is rather inaccurate.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That however is theology. Your job is to explain how ever-flexible meaning or goodness can be meaningful or good. God permitting you to hold the view doesn't mean God provides you with an ability to answer.

God permitting me to hold that view means it is meaningful. That is its meaning.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do what is good / know what God wants or says. In other words: achieve what robindch says we fail to achieve.

This an odd analogy then. Your excuse seems to be that at least Christians are aiming for something, so they will occasionally hit it. IE Christians, while often failing to do good (as defined as what God wants) will sometimes end up doing good.

Can the same not be said of non-Christians, even if that is not what they are trying to do?

Take an example, a Christian tries to interpret what God wants and one of the things he concludes is that it is good to give charity, so he donates to the poor. This turns out to be the only actually good thing he did that week, the rest of the time he is shouting hateful slogans at gay people thinking that is what God wants. So he has taken many throws at the bullseye but only hit it once.

Then we have a non-Christian who also decides, for reasons completely separate to religion, to also give to charity that week. And the rest of the week he spends his time fornicating with his gay lover. This guy wasn't even aiming for a bullseye, but both him and the "Christian" have done the same about of God pleasing good this week.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

This an odd analogy then. Your excuse seems to be that at least Christians are aiming for something, so they will occasionally hit it. IE Christians, while often failing to do good (as defined as what God wants) will sometimes end up doing good.

The pudding might be getting over-egged here.

The context is robin's dig that the meaningfulness that comes from having a purpose (for which we were designed) is somewhat diluted by the conclusion that Christians aren't operating completely within his boundary (given that there are as many views of God as there are Christians - and they can't all be right)


Hence the bullseye analogy. The Christian system posits a bullseye and believers coming closer to or further from that bullseye.

Versus a system that posits no bullseye to hit at all (notwithstanding the fact that 'godless' systems would still conform to God since the folk generating those systems were made in his image and likeness and will still be guided so)

Can the same not be said of non-Christians, even if that is not what they are trying to do?

Take an example, a Christian tries to interpret what God wants and one of the things he concludes is that it is good to give charity, so he donates to the poor. This turns out to be the only actually good thing he did that week, the rest of the time he is shouting hateful slogans at gay people thinking that is what God wants. So he has taken many throws at the bullseye but only hit it once.

I would completely agree that non-Christians can do God's will.

And the rest of the week he spends his time fornicating with his gay lover. This guy wasn't even aiming for a bullseye,...

Fornication of the non-penetrative kind so...

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The pudding might be getting over-egged here.

The context is robin's dig that the meaningfulness that comes from having a purpose (for which we were designed) is somewhat diluted by the conclusion that Christians aren't operating completely within his boundary (given that there are as many views of God as there are Christians - and they can't all be right)


Hence the bullseye analogy. The Christian system posits a bullseye and believers coming closer to or further from that bullseye.

I think Robin's point was that the bullseye is of your own making, or at least determination.

Christians believe their life has meaning even if they are following a completely incorrect doctrine (ie they do everything wrong). How is that much different to simply deciding your own meaning.

Or to put it another way, is there any real substantial difference between your life actually having meaning and you merely thinking it has meaning?

If you went through your entire life incorrectly following God's purpose for you life you would still go through your entire life satisfied that your life had meaning and purpose.

What is the tangible reality of life having meaning other than the satisfaction that this gives you?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

I think Robin's point was that the bullseye is of your own making, or at least determination.

I think there's an amount of circling going on, that isn't necessary.

I don't see the harm, on either side, in at least agreeing that the subjective experience of "meaning" differs whether you are a theist or an atheist.

For a theist, it's about trying to uncover some "meaning" that you expect has been placed in reality for you.

For an atheist, it's about imposing your own view of "meaning" on a reality that you expect to be utterly unaware of your "meaning".

And, yes, from the atheist position, religion is just another way of imposing your own view of "meaning" on reality. I think the point that's generating all the heat, but very little light, is that the theist won't see it that way.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

But there is a world of difference between a system which has problems hitting the bullseye and a system which has no target to aim at.

Better an honest shot made with integrity and intelligence for the good of all, then mistaking the bullseye for the bull's arse.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Better an honest shot made with integrity and intelligence for the good of all, than mistaking the bullseye for the bull's arse.

Unfortunately, the Pope would see that line as applying more to him than to you.

I'm quite neutral on the topic. Well, I suppose I don't see that there is a bullseye.

Zillah

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, so long as we're not compelling people to personally commit acts they deem immoral, I don't see the practical conflict.

Would you be happy with a society where you personally were not forced to rape or murder people but where others were allowed to do it? This is essentially the secularist proposal to the theist; allow us to defy God's laws and perform acts that are morally abhorrent to you, and you should be happy so long as we do not force you to take part yourself.

Granted this doesn't actually apply to most religious people because they couldn't care less what the Bible says or what the Church teaches, but for a true believer secularism should be an untenable proposition.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zillah wrote: »

Would you be happy with a society where you personally were not forced to rape or murder people but where others were allowed to do it?

But, outside of abortion, is the contention ever that extreme? Certainly, I'd be happy enough living in a country where some people decided to use the Irish language in their daily lives, so long as I didn't have to join them. I could accept living in a country where an adult Jehovah's Witness can refuse medical treatment on religious grounds. I'm not aware (but maybe I'm wrong) of Jehovah's Witnesses campaigning for a general ban on blood transfusions.

Now, there probably are a few break points. Maybe marriage law is another. In other countries, haven't some religious pacifists objected to their taxes being spent on defence. But I'm not sure any of that makes the idea completely unfeasible.

coffee_cake

What the fcuk

Sir, – I read with some sadness Michael Nugent’s letter (October 29th), although I recognise his right to express his views.

It is understandable perhaps to reject an idea or concept associated with pain or discomfort, as unfortunately occurs with institutional religion.

However, I would suggest that it is humans who instigate this pain.

Therefore, I would be equally cynical of a society addressing ethical issues based on compassion, without reference to a higher power.

Assuming Mr Nugent has read the Scriptures in depth and rejected them, I would like him to consider whether he agrees with GK Chesterton: “If I did not believe in God, I would still want my doctor, my lawyer and my banker to do so”.

One thing is certain, we did not create ourselves. – Yours, etc,

ANNE KEOHANE MSc,

Galvasean

"One thing is certain, we did not create ourselves"

No sure Shitlock! :rolleyes:

Obliq

bluewolf wrote: »

What the fcuk

No way! :-( Oh, that's profoundly misguided, poor woman. The other letter is great though

pauldla

“If I did not believe in God, I would still want my doctor, my lawyer and my banker to do so”

TBH I don't care what they believe, so long as they do the job I pay them to do, charge reasonable rates, and keep a supply of up-to-date magazines in their reception rooms. And sweets.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

TBH I don't care what they believe, so long as they do the job I pay them to do, charge reasonable rates, and keep a supply of up-to-date magazines in their reception rooms. And sweets.

Warm hands would be nice too - belief/disbelief doesn't come into it.

yeppydeppy

MSc my arse - I wonder where she bought that?

PopePalpatine

yeppydeppy wrote: »

MSc my arse - I wonder where she bought that?

Oral Roberts University?

I'd hate to imagine what this IT article would be like if it was in the Indo.