Are there varying degrees of Atheism

PopePalpatine

Yeah, a fat lot of good that did us. *cough* Magdalene Laundries *cough* child abuse *cough* mother-and-baby homes *cough*

Peregrinus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, a fat lot of good that did us. *cough* Magdalene Laundries *cough* child abuse *cough* mother-and-baby homes *cough*

Mmm. Gotta point out that non-Catholic countries all had their own equivalents of these things. I'm not one to excuse the involvement of the Catholic church in these abuses, but the notion that they were caused by the Catholic church, or that we wouldn't have had them in Ireland if the Catholic church had not been so influential, is not really born out by the observed evidence.

robindch

LiamNeeson wrote: »

It was the English who created the borders yes but it was Roman Catholicism which formed the Irish republic state.

Roman Catholicism spotted an opportunity to acquire control of significant parts of the newly-formed Irish state back in the 20's. Which it did, with aplomb, for its own selfish political reasons.

We're still trying to tidy up the mess today.

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

We're still trying to tidy up the mess today.

What mess is that? and what efforts are ye making?

LiamNeeson

robindch wrote: »

Roman Catholicism spotted an opportunity to acquire control of significant parts of the newly-formed Irish state back in the 20's. Which it did, with aplomb, for its own selfish political reasons.

We're still trying to tidy up the mess today.

I personally would view atheists as "the mess"

PopePalpatine

LiamNeeson wrote: »

I personally would view atheists as "the mess"

Come back when an atheist advocacy group covers up abuse of children and enslavement of women.

LiamNeeson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Come back when an atheist advocacy group covers up abuse of children and enslavement of women.

My parish priest never did that nor did any person in my parish, I have no control over the wider church, that is abit like saying the black race is evil because some black people have done bad things.

PopePalpatine

Insults hurt, don't they?

oldrnwisr

LiamNeeson wrote: »

Why do atheists dislike Christianity when your country was formed by Christianity, the borders of your country stem from Catholicism

There are a lot of problems with what you've posted here.

Firstly, you're making a massive hasty generalisation in assuming that all atheists even just all atheists on this forum dislike Christianity. Some don't by virtue of never having interacted with it, being raised without religion. Some don't because of indifference given that Christianity no longer plays a part in our lives.

For me personally I'm not sure that dislike is a word I would use in relation to Christianity. Indifferent, yes, apathetic, yes, but Christianity not so much. I admit that I'm fascinated by Christianity but only because I find it interesting how a story which is so demonstrably unsupportable is believed by so many people. As far as religion and religious claims are concerned, I'm interested if the claim is true or not. So as far as Christianity is concerned, I'm interested to find out whether it is true or not, I couldn't care less what good has been done in the name of Christianity. You'll find that there is as much bad done in the name of Christianity as there is good. So, ultimately, the works done in the name of Christianity don't matter to me because they don't affect the truth of salvation and afterlife claims that Christianity makes.

Catholicism, however, is a different story. Catholicism has been shown to have had some seriously negative effects on the world.
For example, in 2008, a resolution introduced by france at a meeting of the UN called on world governments to decriminalise homosexuality. At that time there were still 81 countries where it was illegal to be gay. The Vatican, along with several Islamic states opposed the resolution.
Also, since the publication of Castii Connubii in 1930, the Catholic Church has maintained a policy of prohibiting contraception. In less developed countries where the Church still wields vast influence, this has had a serious negative consequence on maternal mortality. The WHO has identifed contraception uptake as one of the key factors in lowering maternal mortality. Moreover, studies into maternal mortality have shown that contraception can reduce the number of maternal deaths by up to 8 times and yet the Church continues to oppose it.
These are just examples from relatively modern times. Let's not forget the historic impact of the Church either. For example, in 1536 a man named William Tyndale was executed by the church for heresy. His crime? He translated the bible into English.
The history of the church is wrought with as many examples of bad deeds as good (and I haven't even began talking about child abuse cover-ups, magdalene laundries or Tuam yet) but this is something that Bannasidhe is better placed to explain.

The point is that if you think that we should have a soft spot for Catholicism on the basis of its good works then what about its bad ones. Perhaps you could expand on the point you want to make because at the moment it just comes across like a rant.

LiamNeeson

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are a lot of problems with what you've posted here.

Firstly, you're making a massive hasty generalisation in assuming that all atheists even just all atheists on this forum dislike Christianity. Some don't by virtue of never having interacted with it, being raised without religion. Some don't because of indifference given that Christianity no longer plays a part in our lives.

For me personally I'm not sure that dislike is a word I would use in relation to Christianity. Indifferent, yes, apathetic, yes, but Christianity not so much. I admit that I'm fascinated by Christianity but only because I find it interesting how a story which is so demonstrably unsupportable is believed by so many people. As far as religion and religious claims are concerned, I'm interested if the claim is true or not. So as far as Christianity is concerned, I'm interested to find out whether it is true or not, I couldn't care less what good has been done in the name of Christianity. You'll find that there is as much bad done in the name of Christianity as there is good. So, ultimately, the works done in the name of Christianity don't matter to me because they don't affect the truth of salvation and afterlife claims that Christianity makes.

Catholicism, however, is a different story. Catholicism has been shown to have had some seriously negative effects on the world.
For example, in 2008, a resolution introduced by france at a meeting of the UN called on world governments to decriminalise homosexuality. At that time there were still 81 countries where it was illegal to be gay. The Vatican, along with several Islamic states opposed the resolution.
Also, since the publication of Castii Connubii in 1930, the Catholic Church has maintained a policy of prohibiting contraception. In less developed countries where the Church still wields vast influence, this has had a serious negative consequence on maternal mortality. The WHO has identifed contraception uptake as one of the key factors in lowering maternal mortality. Moreover, studies into maternal mortality have shown that contraception can reduce the number of maternal deaths by up to 8 times and yet the Church continues to oppose it.
These are just examples from relatively modern times. Let's not forget the historic impact of the Church either. For example, in 1536 a man named William Tyndale was executed by the church for heresy. His crime? He translated the bible into English.
The history of the church is wrought with as many examples of bad deeds as good (and I haven't even began talking about child abuse cover-ups, magdalene laundries or Tuam yet) but this is something that Bannasidhe is better placed to explain.

The point is that if you think that we should have a soft spot for Catholicism on the basis of its good works then what about its bad ones. Perhaps you could expand on the point you want to make because at the moment it just comes across like a rant.

You share very similar views to a N.Ireland Protestant regarding Catholicism, you are happy to ignore all the bad that Protestantism has done over the years and only point out the Catholic wrong doings.

pauldla

LiamNeeson wrote: »

I personally would view atheists as "the mess"

Intriguing. Could you expand upon this, please? I'd like to know how you see atheists as "the mess". It'd be helpful if you clarify from the outset how you define atheists and outline "the mess" as you see it.

oldrnwisr

LiamNeeson wrote: »

You share very similar views to a N.Ireland Protestant regarding Catholicism, you are happy to ignore all the bad that Protestantism has done over the years and only point out the Catholic wrong doings.

As far as the highlighted section above goes, you're doubly wrong.

Firstly, in your first post you mentioned Christianity not Protestantism. Christianity is a very wide umbrella term which covers a wide range of beliefs. At the moment there are over 33,000 Christian denominations. Using the deeds of one denomination as if its representative of all denominations is wrong. For example, do you believe that the actions of Westboro Baptist Church in picketing funerals of servicemen are reflective of, say, Anglican views on the matter?
If you'd like to pick a demonination then I can go through their bad deeds if you want.

Secondly you refer to my views as those of a NI protestant and shying away from talking about protestantism. Just for the record, I am an atheist from the ROI and politics in general (with the exception of social justice issues) doesn't really appeal to me. So I can't stress enough how indifferent I am to the religious and political situation in Northern Ireland and your attempts to draw me in to a sectarian argument.

silverharp

LiamNeeson wrote: »

You share very similar views to a N.Ireland Protestant regarding Catholicism, you are happy to ignore all the bad that Protestantism has done over the years and only point out the Catholic wrong doings.

That's funny , dem atheists prods up der. I think you will find atheists on this forum call out protestants and evangelicals just as much. Its just in an Irish context regarding education etc its the catholic church that is the block.
American atheists focus much more on American protestants than Catholics because they effect policy more over there.

Michael OBrien

LiamNeeson wrote: »

My parish priest never did that nor did any person in my parish, I have no control over the wider church, that is abit like saying the black race is evil because some black people have done bad things.

1. There is no such thing as a black race.
2. skin colour is not equivalent to religious affiliation. You can always leave the faith, millions have, if you discover widespread abuse being sanctioned within it.
3. Your parish priest may not have committed any crime directly but he supports the institution that has. This does tarnish him indirectly. The parish does not just support the local priest, but the whole religious structure.
They could always renounce the vatican and go their own way, just like what happened during the reformation.
4. You do have control over your support of the wider church, don't you? Are you saying you cannot stop supporting the wider church? Why not?
The vatican gains massive political power by their influence in each countries local parishes. They submit instructions to all priests.
5. Place the situation with a different religion, like scientology. This has widespread abuse, yet not all members actively abuse anyone personally. Does that make them blameless when they support the organisation in other ways, when they are made aware that these abuses do take place.
It was one thing to be ignorant of the abuses, its another to know they occur and still support the institution or religion behind them regardless.

Michael OBrien

LiamNeeson wrote: »

You share very similar views to a N.Ireland Protestant regarding Catholicism, you are happy to ignore all the bad that Protestantism has done over the years and only point out the Catholic wrong doings.

This reminds me very much of how muslims act when Islam is criticised, deflecting it by randomly selecting another sect of theism and playing victim status.

Hotblack Desiato

Michael OBrien wrote: »

This reminds me very much of how muslims act when Islam is criticised, deflecting it by randomly selecting another sect of theism blaming all the ills of the world on the jews and playing victim status.

Fyp...

Drumpot

This is an interesting topic. Is there different forms of atheists? I suppose I always thought Atheists were people who didn't believe in any higher power/being.

I would class myself agnostic. I think a person who refuses to believe that there is a chance that there is or isn't a higher being, is just being subjective because either way it cant be proven. People get hung up on irrelevant arguments about religion which are really man made cults for people who choose to believe in a higher being.

I must stress that I desperately want to believe in a higher power, but I accept that there are people who choose not to. I don't feel any less "right" for choosing to believe there is something and I don't feel that anybody can argue otherwise. Most of the strawman arguments on both sides only serve to deflect debate away from the only point that matters and the only point that is 100% irrefutable, that is that nobody knows for sure. It really is that simple, but peoples egos and strong beliefs convince them that they know better.

I really like Stephen Fry and love some of his work on creating awareness for depression, but I see the irrefutable flaws in his beliefs with regards to a god. His opinions are based purely on the pain of life, the horrible things that happen around the world and this is the primary basis of his belief. That is understandable and as good a reason as any to have a stance, but it adds nothing to the debate. Its just a person choosing to believe something based on their personal opinion on how they feel a higher power should act. Its no different from a person choosing to believe that a higher power gives us free will and chooses not to interfere with life.

I watch many scientific documentaries and its clear that most of what we know about our own solar system (let alone our galaxy or god forbid Universe) is all theoretical. Its based on one human using a human mathmatecal equation to make sense of our universe. I actually find it less credible then a person using their instinct to decide certain things they aren't completely sure of. Up until a few years ago, science believed that we could only find life within "the goldilocks zone", but they know that's just not the case anymore and that there are other ways life can thrive on different conditions.

The scientific community in many cases are atheists greatest "proof" in the same way that people follow religions. Most of our knowledge of the universe is best guess, based on unverifiable equations (mainly scientists agreeing or disagreeing with other scientists the same way economists do the exact same thing!). They are based on "common sense" , but it doesn't make them anymore credible as far as I am concerned. Its just the arrogance of humanity to think that its own interpretation of what is "common sense" has the most weight in this debate.

Hotblack Desiato

Clearly you don't know what atheism is, what a theory is, or what the scientific method is, but sure g'wan and tell us how we're all wrong :rolleyes:

robindch

Drumpot wrote: »

I watch many scientific documentaries and its clear that most of what we know about our own solar system (let alone our galaxy or god forbid Universe) is all theoretical. Its based on one human using a human mathmatecal equation to make sense of our universe.

What "many scientific documentaries" have you've watched?

I'm asking as I've been consuming scientific media - books, journals, radio, telly - for years and I haven't seen a single one which claims that our understanding of the universe is "based on one human using a human mathmatecal equation to make sense of our universe."

Drumpot

robindch wrote: »

What "many scientific documentaries" have you've watched?

I'm asking as I've been consuming scientific media - books, journals, radio, telly - for years and I haven't seen a single one which claims that our understanding of the universe is "based on one human using a human mathmatecal equation to make sense of our universe."

You mustn't watch a lot of science documentaries, A lot of our "knowledge" of the universe is based on basic laws of physics.

There are so many documentaries, (that I enjoy mind you) that disuss intricate details of our universe which is only verifiable by visual aid and applying what we believe are laws of physics that aren't even relevant in black holes . If they were marketed honestly it would be classed science fiction based on some facts.

I don't claim to have all the answers but the hubris of certain elements of the science community is quite ridiculous.

robindch

Drumpot wrote: »

A lot of our "knowledge" of the universe is based on basic laws of physics.

As a qualified engineer, I should perhaps explain that the "laws of physics" derive from observation and a generally-agreed consensus concerning the mapping of mathematical symbols and operations to these observations. Not the other way around as you appear to think.

Drumpot wrote: »

I don't claim to have all the answers but the hubris of certain elements of the science community is quite ridiculous.

As your understanding of science appears to be very exactly upside-down, I would suggest that your accusation of hubris is similarly misplaced.

Drumpot

robindch wrote: »

As a qualified engineer, I should perhaps explain that the "laws of physics" derive from observation and a generally-agreed consensus concerning the mapping of mathematical symbols and operations to these observations. Not the other way around as you appear to think.As your understanding of science appears to be very exactly upside-down, I would suggest that your accusation of hubris is similarly misplaced.

Generally agreed consenus - people agreeing with people using the same or similar equations/parameters to verify their results/theories.

Some of the biggest corrections are when the general consensus is wrong. Wrong about things like where in the universe life can exist. Or wrong about whether or not there are black holes in the middle of most galaxies.

robindch

Drumpot wrote: »

Generally agreed consenus - people agreeing with people using the same or similar equations/parameters to verify their results/theories.

The generally-agreed "consenus" has nothing to do with that, but at this point I doubt you're too concerned about that either.

The Conspiracy Theory forum is here and you might have more luck finding people interested in your ramblings over there, than you are here.

Thanks for dropping by and have a good evening.

Michael OBrien

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fyp...

That is not quite accurate. I have come across plenty that also blame christians for stuff too. Try to point out any flaw in the quran or the history of islam and christianity will often be picked as special status deserving of abuse. Of course judaism is also an option, depending on the mood of the muslim poster.
If you are discussing historical issues in the eastern part of the world, then hinduism is brought up at times too, especially if they think you may be a hindu.
Sunni muslims will also throw Shiites under the bus metaphorically if they can get away with it and visa versa. The list goes on.

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

The generally-agreed "consenus" has nothing to do with that, but at this point I doubt you're too concerned about that either.

The Conspiracy Theory forum is here and you might have more luck finding people interested in your ramblings over there, than you are here.

Thanks for dropping by and have a good evening.

Heaven forbid Robin that anyone challenging your non beliefs should get a hearing. As for you being a 'qualified Engineer' that might cut ice in the circles that you move in but I always found the regular navvie to be way more grounded and less inclined towards bu11$hit than the engineers.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Heaven forbid Robin that anyone challenging your non beliefs should get a hearing. As for you being a 'qualified Engineer' that might cut ice in the circles that you move in but I always found the regular navvie to be way more grounded and less inclined towards bu11$hit than the engineers.

I did not see a 'challenge to unbelief'; I did see a poster write some woeful misconceptions about scientific principles, which he was then challenged on.

Perhaps your 'navvies' are easier to deal with. I wouldn't call them 'navvies' to their face, though, as construction sites are dangerous places and accidents can happen easily.

smacl

Drumpot wrote: »

I would class myself agnostic. I think a person who refuses to believe that there is a chance that there is or isn't a higher being, is just being subjective because either way it cant be proven.

It is perhaps worth taking some time to understand the nature of probability in the context of the above statement. Anything you, I or anyone else could possibly imagine is as impossible to prove false as the existence of a single higher being. There are an infinite number of such things. There is also an infinite subset of such things that directly contradict one another and also the notion of a single higher being. As such, labelling yourself an agnostic on the probabilistic basis that 'it could be true as we have no evidence to the contrary' is patently ridiculous as the chance of it being true is literally infinitesimal.

Perhaps your agnosticism is based on a minimal amount of faith, because chance doesn't cut it. The existence of God on the basis of chance would require Douglas Adams' infinite improbability drive to be a feasible design.