Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

  • 04-10-2011 1:54pm
    #1
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭


    Full article here

    Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate but I think he misrepresents atheism. He sets it up as a sort of life stance on a range of issues. This is incorrect. All atheism is, is a position on an existential question, that is whether God exists or not.

    He says things like:
    Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.

    Who is he to say atheists agree on such matters? I applaud Atheist Ireland for a lot of the work they do but I find the way they extend the definition of atheism and speak as if they are speaking for all atheists a tad annoying.


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    From reading the article, when he says, "Impersonal forces", it appears that he's talking about things like gravity, probability, etc etc, as opposed to any supernatural forces.

    While it's always fraught with error to say that all atheists agree on anything, it's fair to say that the vast majority agree that there are forces within our universe which do not care about us.


  • #3
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    And so a growing number of religious people are redefining the idea of god to mean an impersonal force, or a set of universal values such as love and goodness, or even suggesting that the laws of nature are god.

    With the preceding paragraph he could be implying that impersonal forces like gravity and electromagnetism make life possible. I find this hard to disagree with. Impersonal forces do exist in the universe.

    As for the existence of Love and Goodness I am reading The Price of Altruism at the moment about the work of people like Price, Hamilton and Dawkins (part 3 of this documentary deals with Price and his conversion to Christianity) to explain why there is goodness. Altruism, attraction and pair bonding are scientific concepts. Are you arguing they don't exist?


  • #4
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    seamus wrote: »
    While it's always fraught with error to say that all atheists agree on anything, it's fair to say that the vast majority agree that there are forces within our universe which do not care about us.
    Yes the vast majority agree on such matters. But the way he pushes it to the next level like a pushy sales person opens the door for the head recking Stalin argument.

    It's very easy for anyone to say:

    "Michael Nugent claims athesits "agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings". Does he include Stalin and Pol Pot in his analysis?"

    If he was more clinical with the logic and not make himself so easy to counter argue - it would be better.


  • #5
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Full article here

    Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate but I think he misrepresents atheism. He sets it up as a sort of life stance on a range of issues. This is incorrect. All atheism is, is a position on an existential question, that is whether God exists or not.

    He says things like:



    Who is he to say atheists agree on such matters? I applaud Atheist Ireland for a lot of the work they do but I find the way they extend the definition of atheism and speak as if they are speaking for all atheists a tad annoying.


    I don't really see anything objectionable in what Nugent said. It seems to be an article combatting the many myths about atheism.

    Isn't objecting to it sort of like Harvey Milk saying gay people believe in love, marriage and have a desire to have children (ie combatting stereotypes about gay people just being hedonistic and interested in meaningless sex) just to have a gay person turn around and say who the feck is Harvey Milk to say that about gay people, that I'm a hedonistic gay man only interested in meaningless sex, Milk doesn't speak for me. :p


  • #6
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I look forward to your letter in the times letter page...
    :D


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If he was more clinical with the logic and not make himself so easy to counter argue - it would be better.

    Someone's angling to be Michael's new PR Agent. :)


  • #8
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Someone's angling to be Michael's new PR Agent. :)

    Well at least Michael gets up of his arse and does something to try to change things. I respect that.

    Hopefully he might take what was meant to be a bit of constructive feedback.


  • #9
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't really see anything objectionable in what Nugent said. It seems to be an article combatting the many myths about atheism.

    Isn't objecting to it sort of like Harvey Milk saying gay people believe in love, marriage and have a desire to have children (ie combatting stereotypes about gay people just being hedonistic and interested in meaningless sex) just to have a gay person turn around and say who the feck is Harvey Milk to say that about gay people, that I'm a hedonistic gay man only interested in meaningless sex, Milk doesn't speak for me. :p

    Well if Stalin was gay you might have a point :)


  • #10
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    This article don't bother me at all, unlike the name "Atheist Ireland" which does bother me as I don't agree with some of it's policies.

    The group, rather than the article are more likely to give people preconceptions of what an atheist is.


  • #11
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well if Stalin was gay you might have a point :)

    Where did Stalin come from, I can't see any reference to it in the IT article.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate
    Thanks.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    but I think he misrepresents atheism... He says things like:
    Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.
    Who is he to say atheists agree on such matters?

    Tim, I’ve used qualifiers like ‘some’ and ‘most’ elsewhere in the article, but I didn’t think such a qualifier was needed here. If you read the sentence in the context of the sentences before and after it...
    In recent centuries, at least in the western world, science has weakened the idea of gods as intervening supernatural beings, and secular democracy has weakened the idea of gods as moral guides. And so a growing number of religious people are redefining the idea of god to mean an impersonal force, or a set of universal values such as love and goodness, or even suggesting that the laws of nature are god. Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings. But describing such natural phenomena as “god” creates an illusion that there is a wider acceptance of the idea of a personal intervening god, because it uses the same label to describe a very different type of idea.

    ...it means that religious people claim that certain things are evidence of a god, and that atheists agree that such things exist but argue that they are natural phenomena. I think that is true for such an overwhelming majority of atheists that, outside of an academic treatise, it doesn't require qualifying. That said, you are correct that it would have been technically more accurate to qualify it with something like "virtually all atheists agree".
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It's very easy for anyone to say: "Michael Nugent claims atheists "agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings". Does he include Stalin and Pol Pot in his analysis?"

    There are broadly two possible responses to this.

    Yes. Values such as love and goodness were part of the the experiences of Stalin and Pol Pot as human beings. So were values such as hate and badness. All of these values are part of the overall experience of being human and interacting with other sentient beings. For the purposes of this argument, the important point is that these experiences are natural and not supernatural. We shouldn’t just cherry-pick the positive experiences, and either attribute them to a god or say that they actually are god.

    No. Michael is mistaken about this. Here’s why. (insert explanation.) However, that doesn’t invalidate other things that he says about atheism, which on the basis of the best currently available evidence seem to be correct, such as (insert examples). Also, if atheists are fundamentally mistaken, and there is a god, that would raise other moral questions about Stalin and Pol Pot. Did this god know they were doing bad? Was this god unable to stop them doing bad? Or was this god able but unwilling to stop them doing bad?
    Dades wrote: »
    This article don't bother me at all

    That is surely the height of praise on this forum. :D


  • #13
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Dades wrote: »
    This article don't bother me at all
    That is surely the height of praise on this forum. :D
    Heh, I only meant that in the context of this thread. Tis a fine article!


  • #14
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.

    I don't agree with that.


  • #15
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,009 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Michael,
    I greatly admire the amount of freetime you are putting into this.
    I think the way you've expressed your opinion here are clearer and hope you don't mind a bit of what was meant to be some constructive feedback. You should go on Vincent Browne and make some noise about the President having to take a religious oath!
    Cheers.


  • #16
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    fitz0

    "Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings."
    I don't agree with that.

    Which bit and why?


  • #17
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    cavedave wrote: »
    Which bit and why?

    The "Atheists agree" bit. We rarely all agree on anything beyond the no god concept.

    Anyway the statement is fairly wishy-washy. I have a great respect for Michael Nugent and the work he does and I know I'm only picking at one line but that statement says absolutely nothing. It may as well read "Atheists agree that grass is green and that disliking Monday mornings is part of our experiences as human beings." I'm sure theists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings. They just set up a god background to the whole thing.


  • #18
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I'm sure theists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.
    I think that's kind of the point though.

    There is a popular perception that Atheism is synonymous with being cold, antisocial and looking at the world in a dark and depressing way.

    My impression of the statement was that he was simply trying to say that, "Hey, look, atheists are just like everyone else; we live, we learn, we laugh, we love. We just don't consider God to be part of the human experience".


  • #19
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    If it is just the 'atheists agree' part you don't like is it a black swan problem where he is saying something like "All swans are white" and you think somewhere out there currently undiscovered is a black swan (there are black swans in Australia the example comes from a time when people didnt know this). As in you are arguing "Somewhere out there may be an atheist who does not agree even if we have not discovered them yet"? If you held all newspaper articles to only saying something is agreed (or happened) if there was no possibility of it being disproved in the future there would not be newspapers.

    If everyone here does think "there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings." is the same as "grass is green and that disliking Monday mornings" it would be a pretty hard statment to disagree with wouldn't it?
    but that statement says absolutely nothing
    if a statemenet says nothing how can you disagree with what it isn't saying?


  • #20
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    I think it's quite a good article. Seems to address the main misconceptions about atheism, and even clarifies that many atheists identify as agnostics as well. And it does it all in a nice non-confrontational tone. It's good to see something like this in the Irish Times.

    Oh, and the headline's good too.


  • #21
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Seamus: I can agree with that, I hadn't looked at it in that way. I had interpreted that single line to say that atheists as a closed group agreed this, an assumption that doesn't really hold up in the cold light of day. The context of the article doesn't support that assumption so I stand corrected.

    I was being slightly facetious to begin with, I guess without the :pac: it didn't really pan out. *backs quietly away*


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Well done Michael, a very well written argument.

    I see at the bottom you mention "over the coming weeks" - does that mean you will be writing a few more articles on the times?


  • #23
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I hear he is to have a series of articles in the same slot on the same day for 4 or 5 weeks, maybe more if it proves successful who knows.


  • #24
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Tim, on Wednesday you wrote:
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Michael,
    I greatly admire the amount of freetime you are putting into this.
    I think the way you've expressed your opinion here are clearer and hope you don't mind a bit of what was meant to be some constructive feedback. You should go on Vincent Browne and make some noise about the President having to take a religious oath!
    Cheers.

    On Friday, you posted the following on the Atheist Ireland forum:
    Tim Robbins wrote:
    It's ridiculous making arguments that atheist agree on things they don't have to agree on. Michael is doing that throughout the article.

    1. "We atheists will change our minds if evidence shows we are wrong" - You can be atheist and are free to refuse to change your mind if you are wrong.
    2. "Atheists reject the idea that your preferred god exists, in the same way that you reject the idea that other gods exist: because there is no reliable evidence that they do exist, and lots of reliable evidence that they are ideas invented by humans." - You can be atheist on whatever terms you want. You don't have to similar reasons to any religious person's rejection of another God or have any opinion that they are ideas invented by humans.
    3. "Why are atheists so certain that gods do not exist? Actually, most of us aren’t. We merely reject the assertion that one or more gods do exist, based on the best currently available evidence." - Again - speak for yourself Michael.
    4. "We would change our minds if we were given new and credible evidence that we are mistaken." - You don't have to.
    5. "Atheists reject the idea of personal gods as intervening supernatural beings." - Well not really. They only have to disbelief which is slightly weaker than reject.
    6. "We(atheists) do not get our morality from books such as the Bible and the Koran..." - incorrect. You can be atheist and still believe it is possible to get morality from the bible
    7. "Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings."
    As stated atheists don't have to agree on such matters.

    In summary, Michael only speaks for himself. But, he acts like he speaks for all atheists. In the same way as this organisation presents itself as speaking for Irish atheists when it only speaks for its members and its own agenda.

    I wish Michael would caveat his opinions more. In the same way as I wish this organisation would caveat its opinions and stances more.

    The way he goes makes atheism sound like a religion. A set of stances and reasons for those stances.
    It impinges on the freedom that is associated with the philosophical stance on atheism.

    In addition:
    1. "And pragmatic atheists simply ignore the idea of gods as being in practice irrelevant to their lives."
    I have heard weak atheism and strong atheism but I have never heard pragmatic atheists.

    2. "most atheists are also agnostics" - oh really...

    Personally, I hope the next article is of a higher standard.

    Tim, where would you prefer to continue this discussion? Here or on the Atheist Ireland forum? It’s probably easier to follow if we keep it all in the same place. I’ll post this message on both, but after that I think we should focus on one or the other location. Wherever you want to continue it, can I ask you some questions?

    Why are your opinions on this so volatile? Why were you originally concerned about just one statement in my article, then responded supportively to my explanation, but are now less supportive and are concerned about nine statements in the article?

    Why are you suggesting that I should go on Vincent Browne and make some noise about the President having to take a religious oath, given that it is theoretically possible that some atheists might want the President to have to take a religious oath?

    In other conversations, do you implicitly understand words like 'some' and 'many' and 'all' to be intended where it is reasonably obvious from the context, or do you insist that they are always made explicit?

    Why do you think that your preferred meaning of atheism (which is not even the dictionary definition) should be the default meaning for everybody else?


  • #25
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I hear he is to have a series of articles in the same slot on the same day for 4 or 5 weeks, maybe more if it proves successful who knows.

    You "hear" there is to be a series of articles? Why wouldn't you since your'e a member of Atheist Ireland and one of it's most dedicated acolytes. It's a bit pathetic to continually go around trying to promote your leader while attempting to mask that fact.


  • #26
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Still playing that record?


  • #27
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    The article is wrong after the first 3 words of the title "We atheists will....". All that follows is based on the delusion that anyone can quantify or represent people based on what they do not believe.

    If the article was written with less arrogant self promotion and more honesty it would read rather differently. Like any article by an atheist it could only say "I'm an atheist and I do/don't [whatever] or I'm the leader of Atheist Ireland and I and the members do/don't [whatever].

    The article is not about atheists, it's about professed atheists in a particular atheist organisation and even that may only be true to some degree.

    It's presumptuous for anyone to even imagine they can represent the views collectively of people whose only tenuous connection is an incidental like non belief in the Tooth Fairy.

    An atheist is a human who does not believe external entities like gods exists.

    It's not necessarily a human who professes the belief that gods don't exist.

    An atheist might just as well be a pope having worked his way to power on the basis that the only forces he has to deal with are other humans. In fact in an organised religions an atheist may well be in the best positions to out compete those of his contemporaries who actually believe the bull****. An atheist might be an IRA assassin who makes a point of showing his devotion at Sunday Mass knowing how useful it can be. Professed atheists might not like to deal with reality but reality is reality. An atheist could be someone who will kill you with hardly a pause if they know they are 100% certain of getting away with it.

    Anyone claiming to speak for "atheists" is engaging in the same arrogant claims so often repeated from the balcony of St Peters when they presume they represent 1.5 billion Catholics. That number includes you if you happen to have been baptised at birth.

    AtheistsIrelandspeakingforatheists.jpg

    http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistIreland


  • #28
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Still playing that record?

    Why don't you put on your profile upfront that you're a member of AI. Is this part of building an "ethical" society?


  • #29
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    It's common knowledge nozzferrahhtoo is a member of AI. As is your distaste for the organisation.

    If you guys want to have handbags take it to the AI forum.


  • #30
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Arcus Arrow
    The article is wrong after the first 3 words of the title "We atheists will....". All that follows is based on the delusion that anyone can quantify or represent people based on what they do not believe.

    Your claim here is that you could not make the statement "atheists believe the sun emits light" when I believe someone could make that statement.
    Atheists agree that there are impersonal forces in the universe, and that values such as love and goodness are part of our experiences as human beings.

    Arcus Arrow your claim seems to be that someone who is an atheist but claims not to be. They do not believe in personal forces but pretends to. How does that make this statement false? They still believe in impersonal forces and still recognise goodness as a human experience

    The statement could be false in a number of ways
    1. You don't hold these views though your an atheist
    2. You know of an atheist who does not hold them.
    3. You believe its possible to be an atheist and not hold them

    3. the black swan scenerio is true but if you were to remove everything in the newspaper that could possibly be disproved in this manner there would be no paper.
    If 1 or 2 is true I can argue why you should believe them. Basically because they are covered by scientific concepts, gravity and altrusim for example


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A simple yes would have sufficed. However to answer the question it was the Atheist Ireland forum I heard this one, which is nothing to do with membership. Non members can use the forum too.


  • #32
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    cavedave wrote: »
    Your claim here is that you could not make the statement "atheists believe the sun emits light" when I believe someone could make that statement.

    CaveDave, you need to address what I actually said which was nobody can make a statement as pompous as "We atheists will..[do/not do, A or B]. The article is not about atheists since it shows little or no understanding of what an atheist is. The article if anything might be about professed atheists or the so called "New" atheists but it's not about atheists.
    cavedave wrote: »
    Arcus Arrow your claim seems to be that someone who is an atheist but claims not to be.
    They do not believe in personal forces but pretends to. How does that make this statement false? They still believe in impersonal forces and still recognise goodness as a human experience

    You can be an atheist without ever having to claim you're not. The whole planet is not pre-occupied with the implications of the god question which result from the realisation that there ain't no one out there.

    All an atheist is is someone who does not believe in gods.

    That's it.

    That an individual does not believe in gods doesn't mean they have any particular interest or belief in something else by virtue of the fact other atheists do. They don't even have to spend any time pondering about the wonders of the universe or the falsehoods of religious faith. They don't even have to engage in time trying to describe the human race. They can be completely occupied only with their own advancement and if you get in the way, all factors being in place, they'll kill you.

    All you can say about an atheist is what they don't believe. Making statements like "Atheists agree..." are overblown nonsense born of smug convenience. To claim that what, on the one hand, is sometimes represented as the ever questioning atheist mindset and then to make sweeping all inclusive arrogant statements falls into the same category of dishonesty as PR sound bytes designed to misshape reality.

    Professed atheists who don't question atheism fall into the same channel as religious believers who question other religions but not their own.


  • #33
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    The article is wrong after the first 3 words of the title "We atheists will....".

    Arcus it would have helped if you'd taken the time to actually read past
    the title before condemning the article:
    Why are atheists so certain that gods do not exist? Actually, most of us aren’t. We merely reject the assertion that one or more gods do exist, based on the best currently available evidence.


    We would change our minds if we were given new and credible evidence that we are mistaken.
    I know it'll be hard to re-read that passage without instantly assuming
    all the fluff you've propped yourself up on but to any unbiased reader
    it's as clear as day that the "We" follows on from the "most of us", so
    already the self-promotional overarching grandiosity of the "We" claim
    you'd love to have existed just isn't there (where did it come from? ;)).
    Context is a bitch, but if you really want to string this out then I think
    your argument is with the "most of us", despite any 8 year old knowing
    what is meant by the sentences being used. In any case the "We"'ness
    you're striving for makes no sense if you actually read beyond the title.
    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    All that follows is based on the delusion that anyone can quantify or represent people based on what they do not believe.

    It would have been great if you'd quoted some sentences to show us the
    logical link between this delusion & the actual sentences, some quotes
    to back up the self-promotional qualities of the article would have been
    nice too.
    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    The article is not about atheists since it shows little or no understanding of what an atheist is.

    Again, it would be great if you'd offer up some quotes as evidence,
    preferably ones in context or (at least) full sentences if what you're
    quoting makes sense on it's own (these things require triple checking
    sometimes).
    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    The article if anything might be about professed atheists or the so called "New" atheists but it's not about atheists.

    Is this an "I was atheist before it was cool" steam reliever or can you
    actually justify, by means of quotations, that the article is just about
    these central bank good charlotte rockers new atheists?
    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    smug

    lol
    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    Why don't you put on your profile upfront that you're a member of AI. Is this part of building an "ethical" society?

    I see that a (voluntary, of course) public mark displayed on those things
    you despise would have a place in your "ethical" society.


  • #34
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Interesting article and nice it was published; personally felt it was a tad pompous, presumptuous and shrill though.

    Far too many generalised statements of fact and about atheism and athiests.

    Just think it's a little counter-productive to make such claims so certainly about what athiests do or do not think about things.
    It's not irrational to deduce that that has been the problem that some have had from certain other organisations. For that reason, it had an element of shot-yourself-in-the-foot for me i'm afraid.


  • #35
    Tomk1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    You "hear" there is to be a series of articles? Why wouldn't you since your'e a member of Atheist Ireland and one of it's most dedicated acolytes. It's a bit pathetic to continually go around trying to promote your leader while attempting to mask that fact.

    Ahhh ___ that's not fair calling Nozz ''one of it's most dedicated acolytes.'' what about me, here I am thinking I'm a bigger acolyte than Nozz, putting in 20-30 hrs a week for AI and Atheism. But ___ if you want to give Nozz the award ok.
    Whatever I'll just sulk in the corner if I get the time.

    It's just great to hear someone speaking about atheism from an atheist perspective in the newspapers for a change.


  • #36
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    seamus wrote: »
    There is a popular perception that Atheism is synonymous with being cold, antisocial and looking at the world in a dark and depressing way.

    I think that's because the conclusions atheism draws are cold and dark and depressing for most people. An attempt is made to disguise this ..
    "Hey, look, atheists are just like everyone else; we live, we learn, we laugh, we love. We just don't consider God to be part of the human experience".

    .. but when it comes to the heart of the matter, it's hard for such cheerfulness to find ..er .. traction. At root atheism is concluded as saying:

    - there is nothing after this

    - there is no more point/worth/meaning to this than you can fashion for yourself. There is no god but you.

    - goodness is whatever you personally determine it to be. As is evil.

    - you are alone.


    "Living and laughing and loving" doesn't solve that problem since one can live, laugh and love in a vacuous way.

    It appears to be the case that man, generally, is a spiritual (by that I don't mean 'religious') creature. He longs for a meaning and value and purpose that goes beyond his vacuously saying of himself "I have meaning and value because I say so". So long as man remains that way, atheism will continue to appear depressing to him. Man will prefer a softer agnosticism that parks the issue a distance away from the finality offered by atheism.

    Atheism trying to sound cheerful is like the Roman Catholic church trying to sound remorseful - it is constitutionally beyond them both to be so.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I think that's because the conclusions atheism draws are cold and dark and depressing for most people. An attempt is made to disguise this ..



    .. but when it comes to the heart of the matter, it's hard for such cheerfulness to find ..er .. traction. At root atheism is concluded as saying:

    - there is nothing after this

    - there is no more point/worth/meaning to this than you can fashion for yourself. There is no god but you.

    - goodness is whatever you personally determine it to be. As is evil.

    - you are alone.


    "Living and laughing and loving" doesn't solve that problem since one can live, laugh and love in a vacuous way.

    It appears to be the case that man, generally, is a spiritual (by that I don't mean 'religious') creature. He longs for a meaning and value and purpose that goes beyond his vacuously saying of himself "I have meaning and value because I say so". So long as man remains that way, atheism will continue to appear depressing to him. Man will prefer a softer agnosticism that parks the issue a distance away from the finality offered by atheism.

    Atheism trying to sound cheerful is like the Roman Catholic church trying to sound remorseful - it is constitutionally beyond them both to be so.


    But don't you find that freedom from rules thrilling? That you're the master of your own destiny. Tbh I find the idea of being arbitrarily created(and created wrong according to Xtians) just to serve the whims of a being who ought to know better far more dark and depressing.


  • #38
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Personally I do not see atheism as being as depressing as depicted above. Nor do I have to look to atheism itself in order to find joy in live. As has been pointed out time and time again, atheism is simply the position of not accepting one particular set of propositions.

    I am put in the mind of people who like to run or walk in their spare time. They drive to a point, say Roundwood in the Wicklow way. They get out of their car, they walk the entire day and they end up back where they started.

    On the face of it… what a pointless exercise. If you had just stayed in the car you would have gotten to your destination easier. Why leave the car at all when you are essentially spending the whole day getting back to it?

    The catchphrase such people often quote at me however is “The journey itself is the destination”. I apply much the same thought process to life itself. Users like the one above might want to argue that on the face of it, just like the walking in the hills, life itself is just a pointless exercise under Atheism because there is nothing “after” it. I see no reason to require something after it to enjoy it now however and the journey for me very much is the destination.

    And, like gold, life is made precious and special by it’s rarity. I feel the idea of an after life cheapens the life we have now by paling it into abundance and insignificance. What value can life have if it is eternal if you compare it to asking how valuable would gold be if it was massively abundant?

    Maybe such people are looking for an objective reason to enjoy life. Enjoyment itself is subjective however and I have no issue with living my life on the back of subjective reasons for enjoying it.


  • #39
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    But don't you find that freedom from rules thrilling?

    I did find it that way for a time. Then I noticed that every games enjoyment is enhanced by the constraints imposed by it's rules.

    Sure, you can decide to move the goalposts any which way you want but it a nonsense of the game of football.


  • #40
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Atheism trying to sound cheerful
    Uh, I don't want to have to point out the crushingly obvious, but atheism isn't about cheerfulness. It's about the absence of gods.

    I don't recall anything amazingly cheerful about gravity either, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's a pretty accurate description of things.

    Have you considered that your apparent need to have "cheerful" notions about the universe might be causing you to believe things that are specifically designed to appear cheerful?


  • #41
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    - there is nothing after this
    I think you could narrow your post down to this one line, tbh.

    The life of a Christian or an atheist are completely interchangeable in their earthly existence. We live in the same society, go to school, work, maybe have a family and eventually drop dead. But like JimiTime's thread from last week, what some people really can't handle is death being the end.

    Unfortunately, even if you do find this notion a bit grim, it doesn't mean you can just believe some fluffy notion just to make you feel better. At least for some of us.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I did find it that way for a time. Then I noticed that every games enjoyment is enhanced by the constraints imposed by it's rules.

    Sure, you can decide to move the goalposts any which way you want but it a nonsense of the game of football.

    So life is a game? I think not.


  • #43
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Meh, I'm pretty ok with death being the end. I'd prefer to have done most or all of the things I want to do, but there's no getting away from death, so why worry about something you have little control over. Might as well enjoy life and do interesting things.


  • #44
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    So life is a game? I think not.

    But the idea that constraints add to rather than subtract from lifes enjoyment is inescapable. There'll always be a Howard Huges type to argue differently but he isn't the norm. Or normal.


  • #45
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dades wrote: »
    I think you could narrow your post down to this one line, tbh.

    You'll notice I didn't


  • #46
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    Uh, I don't want to have to point out the crushingly obvious, but atheism isn't about cheerfulness. It's about the absence of gods.

    I was dealing with Seamus' indication that an atheist could be as cheerful about life as anyone else. I was pointing out that most folk* wouldn't see it that way since the logical outworking of the atheist position is depressing if follows to a conclusion.

    *I was assuming most folk giving at least an unconscious/unexamined nod to the transcendent values they bow to in order to provide meaningful anchor to their lives.


  • #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was dealing with Seamus' indication that an atheist could be as cheerful about life as anyone else.
    Yes, in my experience atheists are much more cheerful than religious people, and have much more fun too. But you said that atheism is cheerless. Why mix up the idea that there aren't deities, with the people who believe that there aren't deities.

    Are you able to distinguish between the two?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    the logical outworking of the atheist position is depressing if follows to a conclusion.
    Uh, why? All atheism says is that there isn't, for example, a malevolent deity in some parallel dimension who pretends to love people only so long as they claim he exists. And who will burn people who don't believe he exists.

    I wouldn't like to be stuck here with such a nutty belief and I'd absolutely hate to be stuck for all eternity with some insane, grasping entity like that! Sounds awful!


  • #48
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I did find it that way for a time. Then I noticed that every games enjoyment is enhanced by the constraints imposed by it's rules.

    Clearly you have never played the War On Terror boardgame.


  • #49
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,213 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was dealing with Seamus' indication that an atheist could be as cheerful about life as anyone else. I was pointing out that most folk* wouldn't see it that way since the logical outworking of the atheist position is depressing if follows to a conclusion.

    How so? Anyone can find beauty in what another finds depressing, regardless of whether they have a "meaningful anchor" in their lives, even people who generally believe the same thing.


  • #50
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    At root atheism is concluded as saying:

    - there is nothing after this

    - there is no more point/worth/meaning to this than you can fashion for yourself. There is no god but you.

    - goodness is whatever you personally determine it to be. As is evil.

    - you are alone.

    That’s not what atheism concludes, it is what you conclude. What I conclude about the issues that you raise is quite different.

    - There is so much to experience during this.

    - There is as much point/worth/meaning to this as we can collectively fashion.

    - There are no gods, and we are not gods.

    - Goodness is how we collectively help each other to flourish.

    - Evil is how we collectively cause each other to needlessly suffer.

    - We are sharing this unique experience with about seven billion humans and countless other living beings.


  • #51
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was pointing out that most folk* wouldn't see it that way since the logical outworking of the atheist position is depressing if follows to a conclusion.

    You see it that way.
    I see it in a completely different way.
    I got to live.
    Out of all the bazillion sperm/cells that never produced anything, I got to be one that did.
    No matter what the length of my life is, I am one damn lucky individual and I know it.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement