Jim Walsh uses Seanad debate to say atheists have faith

Michael Nugent

Senator Jim Walsh of Fianna Fail made the following sweepingly inaccurate comment about Atheist Ireland and atheists generally today in the Seanad.

“We’ve got a lot of representations from liberal groups, and particularly Atheist Ireland, and I want to say that, I said in the past here, I think, that atheists, like people of belief, are people of faith. It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. And in many ways I feel reassured by Atheist Ireland because, if there wasn’t a God, well then there wouldn’t be anything particularly to atheate from, and I’d just like to say that.”

Ironically, Senator Walsh made this comment this during a debate on a Bill that aims to reduce religious discrimination. And the representations that Atheist Ireland had made were about the need for the State to remain neutral between religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

PopePalpatine

Are Walsh and Mullen in a contest to see who's the thickest ****er in the Seanad?

TheChizler

Interesting. Frustrating how so many people don't get the difference between 'not believing' and 'believing there's not'. Was there a counter point raised in the debate?

Pherekydes

Is atheate a word? I don't believe it is, which means it must exist, by Sen Walsh's logic.

Similarly, the FSM, the Loch Ness Monster, Hogwarts, Rivendell, the chocolate teapot, etc., must exist.

I'm glad we've cleared that up...

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are Walsh and Mullen in a contest to see who's the thickest ****er in the Seanad?

No need for that kind of language, plz.

FHB

As a believer in Santa Claus, I personally feel reassured by all the people who don't believe in the big guy.

TheChizler

Pherekydes wrote: »

Is atheate a word? I don't believe it is, which means it must exist, by Sen Walsh's logic.

I believe it's a verb which he totallydidntjustmakeup. To atheate, I atheate, you atheate, s/he atheates, we atheate, ye atheate, they atheate.

lazygal

When did you atheate?

wp_rathead

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Senator Jim Walsh of Fianna Fail made the following sweepingly inaccurate comment about Atheist Ireland and atheists generally today in the Seanad.

“We’ve got a lot of representations from liberal groups, and particularly Atheist Ireland, and I want to say that, I said in the past here, I think, that atheists, like people of belief, are people of faith. It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. And in many ways I feel reassured by Atheist Ireland because, if there wasn’t a God, well then there wouldn’t be anything particularly to atheate from, and I’d just like to say that.”

Ironically, Senator Walsh made this comment this during a debate on a Bill that aims to reduce religious discrimination. And the representations that Atheist Ireland had made were about the need for the State to remain neutral between religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

Amirani

One can only despair.

EuskalHerria

The type of ignorance one would expect from someone who can't understand why calling homosexuals "fairies" is unacceptable and who is opposed to civil partnerships.

Mr. CooL ICE

"Do you even atheate, bro?"

PopePalpatine

ninja900 wrote: »

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

Jim Walsh is offensively stupid.

lazygal

Jim Walsh needs a good atheatism.

Delirium

So Dim Walsh also believes all other mythical creatures/deities exist?

Amirani

SW wrote: »

So Dim Walsh also believes all other mythical creatures/deities exist?

How else would you be able to Christianate?

lazygal

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/clueless-idiot-week-senator-jim-walsh-fianna-fail-ireland/

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Senator Jim Walsh <...> It takes faith for anybody to believe there is a God, and equally it takes faith to believe there is no God. <...>

Of course, this is substantially correct. The only objective difference between atheism and theism is the degree of extravagance involved in what they contend. Debate seems to get stuck around this largely irrelevant point, as if one or other side expects that they've an argument that can convince the other of the error of their ways.

The only discussion with a point is one around what it is possible to say about human motivation and judgment, given that no-one really knows what they are talking about when we discuss these issues. If we really understood how people are and can be motivated to act, and if we knew what constitutes sensible judgement, we never would have had a property bubble.

And the people who would be financially safest in the event of a property crash would be people who insisted on Sharia-compliant home finance products, because God told them to do it that way.

Pherekydes

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Of course, this is substantially correct.

Atheists don't actually contend anything (about a god or gods).

Good to see you're still practicing your sophistry. Have you taken silk yet?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheists don't actually contend anything (about a god or gods).

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

TheChizler

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

I think the people here know what they do or don't do.

Pherekydes

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

What about agnostic theists? They believe in their god, but they don't know.

I think most people around here know the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Corkfeen

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

Most on this forum are agnostic atheists,I'll happily admit there's always a possibility of a god existing(extremely unlikely though). However it seems equally likely leprachauns and unicorns exist.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Of course, this is substantially correct. The only objective difference between atheism and theism is the degree of extravagance involved in what they contend. Debate seems to get stuck around this largely irrelevant point, as if one or other side expects that they've an argument that can convince the other of the error of their ways.

The only discussion with a point is one around what it is possible to say about human motivation and judgment, given that no-one really knows what they are talking about when we discuss these issues. If we really understood how people are and can be motivated to act, and if we knew what constitutes sensible judgement, we never would have had a property bubble.

And the people who would be financially safest in the event of a property crash would be people who insisted on Sharia-compliant home finance products, because God told them to do it that way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's agnostics. Agnostics don't contend anything about a god or gods.

And they're probably right, because its pointless to contend anything about it in isolation.

Time for the chart again:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think most people around here know the difference between agnostic and atheist.

I'd say they do. The weakness is in recognising that, for reasons related to the distinction, the statement I quoted is essentially correct.

Pherekydes

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd say they do. The weakness is in recognising that, for reasons related to the distinction, the statement I quoted is essentially correct.

Are you now claiming you don't know the difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god"?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you now claiming you don't know the difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god"?

I'm not particularly commenting on whether there's any difference between those two statements of belief.

expectationlost

david norris while supportive generally of more secularism on this issue said

Like other colleagues, I have put down some amendments for Report Stage. They may be supplemental to those tabled by my colleagues, Senators Zappone and Power. For example, I want to replace the phrase "religious" with "religious or belief-based" as I see atheism as a belief. It is quite a strong belief in defiance of much of the evidence out there. I can argue that philosophically some other day.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014041600023?opendocument
jim walsh also cast asperisions on other people in the seanad... based on rumours

marienbad

lazygal wrote: »

When did you atheate?

A cream bun.

Pherekydes

Strong belief in defiance of what evidence out there, exactly, Sen Norris?

Obliq

Oh NORRIS. Why do you, a thoughtful man, insist on thinking FOR us?

lazygal

There's a real attitude that you have to believe in something or you're just plain weird or haven't listened to enough religious arguments from many Irish people. I got it all the time when we didn't have a church wedding and some of the comments when we didn't baptise the children were flat out incredible.

Obliq

Me having no belief in a god is as much of a belief as me having absolutely no love for egg white. It either is true for me, or it isn't. It's not a belief - it requires no thought whatsoever. I do not see any god - I do not like egg white. Simples.

lazygal

I know. I don't believe in thousands of Gods. But to some Irish people half assing their way through Catholicism is easier to understand than atheism.

Obliq

Yes, and actually being Irish AND atheist is more challenging to their poor little expectations apparently.

Had to roar laughing last night though - had some English friends around and sister of one of them, who I'd never met before, at one point in the conversation (I think we were on about Easter at the time) glanced quickly at me before qualifying what she said with "I'm sorry, you see I'm an atheist". Cue me roaring laughing because she had assumed I wasn't.....also gave her a proper going over for apologising over having no belief. We're firm friends now, but it gets me every time tbh. I'm Irish, therefore RCC? GRRRR :mad:

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

What Walsh said was dumber than rocks. I'm not calling him stupid, but he said a deeply deeply stupid thing

You're not?

Fine then, I will.

Sen. Jim Walsh is a big eejit.

Brian Shanahan

Obliq wrote: »

Oh NORRIS. Why do you, a thoughtful man, insist on thinking FOR us?

Norris never came across to me as a thoughtful man, he came across as a man in love with his own voice who happened to be right on gay rights, did a good line in meaningless blather and not much else.

Basically he's the Irish Rowan Williams.

stevejazzx

@Jim Walsh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JzbWVDzac

Dublin Red Devil

Wan't going to vote FF anyway.

shruikan2553

I hate this whole atheism is a belief thing going around. Its as much of a belief in thinking there is no santa. I dont believe in god or santa. I cant prove they dont exist but will take the chance in assuming they arent as there is no evidence to suggest there is. Nobody feels the need to label me based on my belief in Santa.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I hate this whole atheism is a belief thing going around. <...>I cant prove they dont exist but will take the chance in assuming they arent as there is no evidence to suggest there is. <...>

But, sure, you're saying it there. Life requires us to make assumptions, or be frozen by indecision.

I don't see the necessity of getting hung up on this "belief" word. Well, I suppose I do see why people want to contend that their unsupported assumptions are better than the next guy's. But they aren't.

Gordon

I think Mr Walsh has been watching too much Kill Bill, with the bride vs the crazy atheate gang.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you're saying it there. Life requires us to make assumptions, or be frozen by indecision.

I don't see the necessity of getting hung up on this "belief" word. Well, I suppose I do see why people want to contend that their unsupported assumptions are better than the next guy's. But they aren't.

Some assumptions are more supported than others. Lack of evidence would support lack of belief.

endacl

lazygal wrote: »

When did you atheate?

After biting your tongue. It means 'to speak with an injury-induced lisp'.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

Some assumptions are more supported than others. Lack of evidence would support lack of belief.

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

Some statements may be more consistent with what we know than other statements. But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known. Rationality isn't what we think it is.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1311323/problem-of-induction

It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs on the basis of induction; he denied only that people have any reason to hold such beliefs (therefore, also, no one can know that any such belief is true). Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

Some statements may be more consistent with what we know than other statements. But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known. Rationality isn't what we think it is.

sort of like 'the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknown ' school of philosophy . Sounds a bit Rum to me

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

sort of like 'the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknown ' school of philosophy . Sounds a bit Rum to me

Ah, yeah, of course we can just dismiss David Hume and not seem like we're clueless.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, yeah, of course we can just dismiss David Hume and not seem like we're clueless.

Well how many clues do you need ?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

Well how many clues do you need ?

All of them, if we're being rational.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All of them, if we're being rational.

but rationality isn't what we think it is .