Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac · 23-11-2013 05:50PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

Atheists do not believe in he system of ideas and ideals of god, which is the exact opposite of ideology.

I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology. The onions growing in my garden are atheists by the above definition, as is a baby who has not considered the question of God. By the same logic theism is not an ideology, as theism simply states that at least one God exists, and Atheism simply states at least one God does not exist. Neither involve a system of ideas, so neither are ideologies.

However, in reality, "lack of belief" is a very poor simplistic definition and tells us close to nothing about what a person believes. Just as being a theist tells us next to nothing, as you have to ask what type of theist are you, do you believe in the tenets of a specific religious worldview, and do you believe those literally or metaphorically? Do those beliefs make any difference in how you live your life?

You stated that atheists do not form organizations. What then is Atheist Ireland or Atheist America? Atheist Ireland have a very different definition of Atheism than you have stated. Atheist Ireland propose that Atheism should be taught in schools. By your definition the course would consist of one slide that states "Atheists do not believe in God". What else is there to say?

The reality is everyone has a worldview, how they see the world, their place in it, and how they should live their lives. Although I agree that all atheists lack belief in God, in practical terms for every individual atheist, Atheism is a philosophical ideology in that they have concluded belief in God is irrelevant to them and does not form part of their worldview.

marienbad · 23-11-2013 06:31PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology. The onions growing in my garden are atheists by the above definition, as is a baby who has not considered the question of God. By the same logic theism is not an ideology, as theism simply states that at least one God exists, and Atheism simply states at least one God does not exist. Neither involve a system of ideas, so neither are ideologies.

However, in reality, "lack of belief" is a very poor simplistic definition and tells us close to nothing about what a person believes. Just as being a theist tells us next to nothing, as you have to ask what type of theist are you, do you believe in the tenets of a specific religious worldview, and do you believe those literally or metaphorically? Do those beliefs make any difference in how you live your life?

You stated that atheists do not form organizations. What then is Atheist Ireland or Atheist America? Atheist Ireland have a very different definition of Atheism than you have stated. Atheist Ireland propose that Atheism should be taught in schools. By your definition the course would consist of one slide that states "Atheists do not believe in God". What else is there to say?

The reality is everyone has a worldview, how they see the world, their place in it, and how they should live their lives. Although I agree that all atheists lack belief in God, in practical terms for every individual atheist, Atheism is a philosophical ideology in that they have concluded belief in God is irrelevant to them and does not form part of their worldview.

Is it not curious that to develop your definition of atheism you are reduced to defining theism ?

And you constantly cite atheist Ireland etc , and just ignore that they in no way represent most atheists .More importantly you ignore why they exist .

Are we back to the 'everyone has a worldview' conversation ?

With all respect nagirrac - with all the learning and effort in your posts, you seem to reduce everything to generalisations where everything and anything has equal validity.

tommy2bad · 23-11-2013 07:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

Is it not curious that to develop your definition of atheism you are reduced to defining theism ?

And you constantly cite atheist Ireland etc , and just ignore that they in no way represent most atheists .More importantly you ignore why they exist .

Are we back to the 'everyone has a worldview' conversation ?

With all respect nagirrac - with all the learning and effort in your posts, you seem to reduce everything to generalisations where everything and anything has equal validity.

marien, I know it's frustrating when your accused of ideological thinking but unfortuniatly almost everyone has an ideology. Atheism or theism aren't ideologies, their positions on something. However positions lead to ideologies. Once people adopt a position they defend it and soon become entrenched in that position. New evidence doesn't shift their position one iota.
Next thing it's a game off whataboutery.
I don't get the idea that someone not believing in God in anyway affects my belief in God, I don't think my believing affects anyone else. Others feel threatened by non belife/belife as it allows for their being wrong so they seek to eliminate it or constantly oppose it as if it was so wrong it can't be credible. They call believers unintelligent, they call non believers tyrants and back n forth it goes.
A thread like this where we try to prove or disprove God is a bit pointless as definitive proof isn't available and anyway in the end it's something that's an emotional decision more than an intellectual one. That doesn't in any way diminish the value of that decision (would I be cheeky enough to claim that your choice of life partner was unintelligent or lacked enough information to make a rational decision on the matter?).

nagirrac · 23-11-2013 07:17PM

marienbad wrote: »

Is it not curious that to develop your definition of atheism you are reduced to defining theism ?

And you constantly cite atheist Ireland etc , and just ignore that they in no way represent most atheists .More importantly you ignore why they exist .

With all respect nagirrac - with all the learning and effort in your posts, you seem to reduce everything to generalisations where everything and anything has equal validity.

I think you have to start with theism in any attempt to define atheism as atheism is a reaction to theism, and more specifically a reaction to specific religions. In Ireland atheism is by and large a rejection of Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism, as that is the dominant religion in the state. You can see this on the A&A forum where almost every thread is a reaction to Christianity.

How do you know Atheist Ireland "in no way represent most atheists"? On the A&A forum I would say the great majority of posters are supportive of AI, although there are some who object to being included under the AI banner. The question is whether A&A posters are a good representation of Irish atheists, and I have no way of answering that and I suspect nor do you. As to why they exist, they exist in reaction to religion and the influence of religion in Irish society. Although I might disagree with some of their positions and aims, I regard their existence as a good thing as it promotes dialog on important issues like education.

I truly believe when it comes to questions on the meaning of life, existence of God, value of religion in people's lives, etc. that everything and anything has equal validity, considering nobody can answer these questions with any degree of certainty.

marienbad · 23-11-2013 08:18PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I think you have to start with theism in any attempt to define atheism as atheism is a reaction to theism, and more specifically a reaction to specific religions. In Ireland atheism is by and large a rejection of Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism, as that is the dominant religion in the state. You can see this on the A&A forum where almost every thread is a reaction to Christianity.

How do you know Atheist Ireland "in no way represent most atheists"? On the A&A forum I would say the great majority of posters are supportive of AI, although there are some who object to being included under the AI banner. The question is whether A&A posters are a good representation of Irish atheists, and I have no way of answering that and I suspect nor do you. As to why they exist, they exist in reaction to religion and the influence of religion in Irish society. Although I might disagree with some of their positions and aims, I regard their existence as a good thing as it promotes dialog on important issues like education.

I truly believe when it comes to questions on the meaning of life, existence of God, value of religion in people's lives, etc. that everything and anything has equal validity, considering nobody can answer these questions with any degree of certainty.

But this is exactly what I am saying about a lot of your posts ! when all is said and done you never take a position . You are just validating everyone's view just because they have a view .

nagirrac · 23-11-2013 09:09PM

marienbad wrote: »

But this is exactly what I am saying about a lot of your posts ! when all is said and done you never take a position . You are just validating everyone's view just because they have a view .

No, you are confusing my openness to accept other people's beliefs as legitimate and reasonable and rational and logical for them, with what my personal beliefs may be. I have stated repeatedly on various threads on boards that I am an agnostic deist. In that regard I am closer to an atheist than a Christian, or any organized religion for that matter.

The point is there are a wide variety of metaphysical positions, none of which are proven, and just because certain groups jump up and down and insist on the "truth" of their position, does not make it so. In fact I would say the opposite, the loudest voices on both sides of debate, fundamentalist religious and militant atheists, are so blinded by ideology they are simply stuck in their positions and cannot "evolve". While they may be minorities, and small minorities, the debate on how society should function cannot evolve frequently as their respective ranting dominates the public square.

The abortion debate is a good example. On one side you have the shrill cries of "the babieees" and on the other side snorts of "just a clump of cells". Somewhere in the middle there's a position of reason trying to establish itself.

pauldla · 24-11-2013 08:07AM

Can atheism be described as a reaction to theism, or as an absence of theism? Would a reaction to theism better be described as antitheism? Certainly, there are atheists who are also antitheistic, but they are not one and the same thing.

As has often been pointed out elsewhere, disbelief in the Christian god is no more an ideology than are disbelief in Thor, unicorns or the tooth fairy.

georgesstreet · 24-11-2013 10:12AM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology.

That's great. It would be even better if you could stop claiming that atheism is an ideology.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 11:13AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

That's great. It would be even better if you could stop claiming that atheism is an ideology.

I'm not the only one who makes the claim, many atheists make the claim and it is fine to do so. Just like there are many varieties of theists there are many varieties of atheists. All theists have one thing in common, they believe in a God, and all atheists have one thing in common, they do not believe in a God. We agree on that.

pauldla · 24-11-2013 11:22AM

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm not the only one who makes the claim, many atheists make the claim and it is fine to do so. Just like there are many varieties of theists there are many varieties of atheists. All theists have one thing in common, they believe in a God, and all atheists have one thing in common, they do not believe in a God. We agree on that.

Which atheists claim that? And may I ask that you clarify what you are in fact claiming, as above you seem to be saying I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology.

I do not believe in god(s) is not an ideology, it is a position. It is a point of view on a single topic. I thought an ideology would be more sophistaced, would it not? A list of positions, so to speak.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 11:28AM

pauldla wrote: »

Can atheism be described as a reaction to theism, or as an absence of theism? Would a reaction to theism better be described as antitheism? Certainly, there are atheists who are also antitheistic, but they are not one and the same thing.

As has often been pointed out elsewhere, disbelief in the Christian god is no more an ideology than are disbelief in Thor, unicorns or the tooth fairy.

I think the relevant question is if humans had never come up with the idea of belief in God, why would other humans come up with the idea of not believing in God? In that sense it has to be a reaction as humans have had God concepts for most of their history. Theism simply implies belief in God or more specifically a transcendental source for the universe, nothing else. Atheism does not have to involve antitheism but it does appear that many if not most atheists are also antitheists.

I understand your point about rejecting the Christian God, but anti Christianity or anti Islam or anti any specific religion rejects a specific God concept, and involves analysis of the specific God concept. You can see this in the debates here and on the A&A forum where atheists explore in great detail the scriptures of Christianity and reject them. This is to me at least clearly antitheism i.e. a conscious and deliberate opposition to a specific God concept.

pauldla · 24-11-2013 11:39AM

nagirrac wrote: »

I think the relevant question is if humans had never come up with the idea of belief in God, why would other humans come up with the idea of not believing in God? In that sense it has to be a reaction as humans have had God concepts for most of their history. Theism simply implies belief in God or more specifically a transcendental source for the universe, nothing else. Atheism does not have to involve antitheism but it does appear that many if not most atheists are also antitheists.

That's a strange question. Maybe nobody had the idea of god until somebody had an idea of god, and so theism is the reaction. I think. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there.

For the latter point, it matters not if most atheists wear tarzan underpants, it still doesn't make atheism an ideology. Saying 'I have no belief in god' is as much an ideology as saying 'Today is a nice day'.

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand your point about rejecting the Christian God, but anti Christianity or anti Islam or anti any specific religion rejects a specific God concept, and involves analysis of the specific God concept. You can see this in the debates here and on the A&A forum where atheists explore in great detail the scriptures of Christianity and reject them. This is to me at least clearly antitheism i.e. a conscious and deliberate opposition to a specific God concept.

See above ref. 'tarzan underpants'

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 11:46AM

pauldla wrote: »

Which atheists claim that? And may I ask that you clarify what you are in fact claiming, as above you seem to be saying I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology.

I do not believe in god(s) is not an ideology, it is a position. It is a point of view on a single topic. I thought an ideology would be more sophistaced, would it not? A list of positions, so to speak.

I'm not sure if you have followed any of the discussions on A&A regarding Atheist Ireland but Michael Nugent is very adamant that atheism involves much more than a simple disbelief in God. There are atheists on A&A that agree with him and atheists that disagree with him. What I agree with is that the weak atheism position of "I lack belief in God" is not an ideology. The New Atheist position is a much stronger position which is much closer to a positive statement that God does not exist and a rejection of specific religious claims as to God's existence. The concept of weak and strong atheism is not new but I think New Atheists state the strong position quite clearly.

I think the most descriptive definition of strong atheism is materialistic or naturalistic atheism i.e. the positive belief that all that exists is matter that we can observe or measure, and rejects the concept of any alternative reality. Although a lot of people think this is a scientific position, it is a philosophical or more specifically a metaphysical position.

Faz6r · 24-11-2013 11:48AM

DINOSAURS
no mention of them in the bible
surely a supreme being would have known about them?
maybe jesus was really just a man
maybe he was delusional
maybe he had mental health problems
faith tells me he was all of the above

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 11:49AM

pauldla wrote: »

For the latter point, it matters not if most atheists wear tarzan underpants, it still doesn't make atheism an ideology. Saying 'I have no belief in god' is as much an ideology as saying 'Today is a nice day'.

It doesn't sound like you believe there is a spectrum of atheists, and there are weak atheist positions and strong atheist positions. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but there are many atheists that disagree with you.

georgesstreet · 24-11-2013 01:34PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree by that definition atheism is not an ideology.

nagirrac wrote: »

It doesn't sound like you believe there is a spectrum of atheists, and there are weak atheist positions and strong atheist positions. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but there are many atheists that disagree with you.

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm not the only one who makes the claim

I have to wonder at your muddled thinking on this.

You think on the one hand atheism is not an ideology, yet on the other hand you believe atheists believe different things.

All atheists think is that there is no god. That is the definition of atheism. All weak atheist “positions” and all strong atheist “positions” agree that there is no god. No atheist will disagree with that.

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand your point about rejecting the Christian God, but anti Christianity or anti Islam or anti any specific religion rejects a specific God concept, and involves analysis of the specific God concept.

What absolute twaddle. Not believing in god requires no analysis of any religion, whether it be the religion of the norse god thor, the sun god, or any god.

Athiests are not “anti Christian or anti islam”. Atheists simply don’t believe that any of the many gods man has worshipped over many years and millennia are real.

marienbad · 24-11-2013 02:35PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have followed any of the discussions on A&A regarding Atheist Ireland but Michael Nugent is very adamant that atheism involves much more than a simple disbelief in God. There are atheists on A&A that agree with him and atheists that disagree with him. What I agree with is that the weak atheism position of "I lack belief in God" is not an ideology. The New Atheist position is a much stronger position which is much closer to a positive statement that God does not exist and a rejection of specific religious claims as to God's existence. The concept of weak and strong atheism is not new but I think New Atheists state the strong position quite clearly.

I think the most descriptive definition of strong atheism is materialistic or naturalistic atheism i.e. the positive belief that all that exists is matter that we can observe or measure, and rejects the concept of any alternative reality. Although a lot of people think this is a scientific position, it is a philosophical or more specifically a metaphysical position.

nagirrac - most atheists have just one thing in common - non belief in god or gods . That's it

All the other stuff you are going on about -Atheist Ireland etc is a different discussion.

If religions were content to just believe as atheists just non believe that generally speaking we wouldn't have a problem. It is when religion ( and in our case as we are in Ireland that is the RCC) decides to try to control secular life,not just for their own followers but for all citizens, that the difficulty arises.

Now if one opposes that control one is accused of being a militant atheist of anti catholic or whatever and this blanket condemnation is used to smother any rational discussion .

I am not saying the churches are alone in this tactic , it is a feature of any discussion on Israel and is creeping in feminist and Lgbt issues also (imho) and I say that a staunch supporter of all those issues.

You don't see many of us loosing the cool over those bloody Zoroastrians now do you and why ? Because they have no power and control.

On the other hand the RCC do have power and are ruthless in using it. They have it and we want it vested in the state or community. end of

All the rest is just woolly waffle.

Virgil° · 24-11-2013 05:28PM

I don't get the idea of strong atheism or weak atheism. Such a thing can't exist.
I'm fairly sure nagirrac is conflating anti-theism and atheism in some attempt to dishonestly paint a target that's not there.

Atheism is the default position. You can be atheist simply because you've never heard of religion. I think of it like standing at the centrepoint of a large room. The starting position. Unless someone or something convinces you to move from this spot, you won't. And are, by default, still atheist.

But it is one position on one matter and does not automatically confer ANY other attributes. Although some are common they are not so by association.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 05:39PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

I have to wonder at your muddled thinking on this.

There is no muddled thinking on my behalf, and no inconsistency. What marienbad, pauldla, Virgil, and yourself are insisting on is there is only one definition of atheism, and one does not need to go beyond this definition to describe atheism.

Let's go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Atheism
a. a disbelief in the existence of a deity
b. the doctrine that there is no deity

Do you understand the difference as this is at the core of what I am claiming? One is a negative claim or belief, the other is a positive claim or belief. The first is a broad definition that covers new born babies, vegetables and chairs. The second is a doctrine, meaning those who hold this positive belief have considered the arguments God, a specific concept of God, or all concepts of God, and positively rejected them. In doing so you by definition embrace the materialistic ideology that the universe and all of existence are the way they are solely because of naturalistic explanations.

It is not a subtle distinction. The basic theist claim is that there is a transcendental realm of spirit, including a creative force (God), which explains existence (why there is a universe and why it is the way it is). This is a metaphysical position and becomes a religion when humans develop a specific narrative to try and explain this basic claim.

The New Atheist movement, and groups like Atheist Ireland, belongs strongly in the second definition.

The great majority of atheists on boards and in the general population today belong to the second category.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 05:53PM

Virgil° wrote: »

I don't get the idea of strong atheism or weak atheism. Such a thing can't exist.
I'm fairly sure nagirrac is conflating anti-theism and atheism in some attempt to dishonestly paint a target that's not there.

There is nothing dishonest in my post and frankly the charge of dishonesty is an ad hominum based on an argument from ignorance. If you don't believe a distinction between weak and strong atheism exists (and it has existed for centuries), then check the Atheist Ireland website or perhaps PM Michael Nugent and I am sure he will be kind of enough to explain the distinction. Perhaps you need to hear the definition distinction from an atheist to consider it.

Have a read of the attached wiki article and pay particular attention to the diagram on the top right.

Implicit weak atheism: Disbelief in a deity or deities, but has not explicitly rejected such belief. This includes infants and many agnostics).

Explicit strong atheism: Asserts the statement "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

marienbad · 24-11-2013 05:54PM

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no muddled thinking on my behalf, and no inconsistency. What marienbad, pauldla, Virgil, and yourself are insisting on is there is only one definition of atheism, and one does not need to go beyond this definition to describe atheism.

Let's go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Atheism
a. a disbelief in the existence of a deity
b. the doctrine that there is no deity

Do you understand the difference as this is at the core of what I am claiming? One is a negative claim or belief, the other is a positive claim or belief. The first is a broad definition that covers new born babies, vegetables and chairs. The second is a doctrine, meaning those who hold this positive belief have considered the arguments God, a specific concept of God, or all concepts of God, and positively rejected them. In doing so you by definition embrace the materialistic ideology that the universe and all of existence are the way they are solely because of naturalistic explanations.

It is not a subtle distinction. The basic theist claim is that there is a transcendental realm of spirit, including a creative force (God), which explains existence (why there is a universe and why it is the way it is). This is a metaphysical position and becomes a religion when humans develop a specific narrative to try and explain this basic claim.

The New Atheist movement, and groups like Atheist Ireland, belongs strongly in the second definition.

The great majority of atheists on boards and in the general population today belong to the second category.

In real life terms this is just angels on the head of a pin stuff.

In general atheism only takes a position in society as a reaction to the control that Faith groups exercise. Would you accept that ?

georgesstreet · 24-11-2013 05:57PM

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no muddled thinking on my behalf, and no inconsistency. What marienbad, pauldla, Virgil, and yourself are insisting on is there is only one definition of atheism, and one does not need to go beyond this definition to describe atheism.

We'll have to agree to disagree, and if you think atheism is an ideology (you have said you do ) and if you think atheism is not an ideology (again you contradict yourself and say you do) then that's not an issue for me.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 06:18PM

marienbad wrote: »

It is when religion ( and in our case as we are in Ireland that is the RCC) decides to try to control secular life,not just for their own followers but for all citizens, that the difficulty arises.

On the other hand the RCC do have power and are ruthless in using it. They have it and we want it vested in the state or community.

In western democracies, including Ireland, religion has no direct control, nor should it. Religion may have influence but the control exists in the political and legal structures of the state. The fact that those in control in Ireland choose to adopt religious beliefs in the legal system, and cede control in areas like education, is due to the fact that Ireland was 90+% RC and the church had enormous influence over public policy. Ireland is not unique in this, look at the influence of the COE in the UK for example, again historical but it has not been dismantled.

I agree 100% the religious elements in the Irish legal system and direct involvement of the religious in state funded education need to be dismantled, and should never have been there to begin with. However, remember that the state is based on ideology as well, the ideology of its elected officials, and this ideology, mainly based on greed and self interest, has done a lot more damage to Irish people (current and future generations) in recent decades than religion. Ceding more power to the state is something I would be very nervous about, ceding more power to communities is a much better idea and much closer to the ideal of personal freedom.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 06:22PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree, and if you think atheism is an ideology (you have said you do ) and if you think atheism is not an ideology (again you contradict yourself and say you do) then that's not an issue for me.

I agree, let's call it a day and thanks for the interesting dialog:)

In closing, my position is that Atheism by the weak atheism definition is not an ideology, and atheism by the strong atheism definition is an ideology, I see no contradiction. Whether they admit it or not most modern atheists are imo in the second group.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 06:38PM

marienbad wrote: »

In general atheism only takes a position in society as a reaction to the control that Faith groups exercise. Would you accept that ?

I would largely agree with this marienbad, and furthermore accept that the existence of groups like Atheist Ireland and Humanist Ireland are a positive for society in that they promote dialog on important policy issues, and promote a more tolerant society.

The atheist position as I understand it is that the influence of religious thought is bad for society and leads to intolerance and curtailment of human rights. I have no time for intolerance of any kind, wherever it comes from, but religion is by no means the only source of intolerance. There are aspects of religion that are negative (intolerance on sexual issues being the biggest one), but also aspects that are very positive (community, charity, selflessness). Looking at Ireland specifically, it would be nice to retain the positives while eliminating the negatives, and not see Ireland turn into the US where individual materialistic concerns dominate.

marienbad · 24-11-2013 06:47PM

nagirrac wrote: »

In western democracies, including Ireland, religion has no direct control, nor should it. Religion may have influence but the control exists in the political and legal structures of the state. The fact that those in control in Ireland choose to adopt religious beliefs in the legal system, and cede control in areas like education, is due to the fact that Ireland was 90+% RC and the church had enormous influence over public policy. Ireland is not unique in this, look at the influence of the COE in the UK for example, again historical but it has not been dismantled.

I agree 100% the religious elements in the Irish legal system and direct involvement of the religious in state funded education need to be dismantled, and should never have been there to begin with. However, remember that the state is based on ideology as well, the ideology of its elected officials, and this ideology, mainly based on greed and self interest, has done a lot more damage to Irish people (current and future generations) in recent decades than religion. Ceding more power to the state is something I would be very nervous about, ceding more power to communities is a much better idea and much closer to the ideal of personal freedom.

nagirrac- having a conversation with you can be so frustrating !!!. You just go off on tangents all over the place.

Can we for a minute just stick with what you have said above-

1- I DON'T CARE if the Church has direct or indirect control ! It is a semantic argument and for another day. I am only concerned with the effect of this control on secular society. And it has been baleful from day one and even though much progress has been made the real changes ( Health & Education) have barely been touched. The depth that Church control in Ireland took in public policy is unique in 20th century western democracy

2- Of course the state is based on ideology and the people and parties that run have their own ideology ! My answer to that is so what ? I don't have a problem (like you seem to have) with ideology per se. The difference is we get to vote them out ! We are not given that option in the case of the RCC.

3-My contention is simple - if religion didn't exercise so much influence in the public sphere there would be no need for 'hard atheism' , in the same way the anti-slavery movement was a reaction to slavery or the suffragette
movement ended with the vote.

tommy2bad · 24-11-2013 06:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

In real life terms this is just angels on the head of a pin stuff.

In general atheism only takes a position in society as a reaction to the control that Faith groups exercise. Would you accept that ?

Ironically atheism only becomes visible to a society as a reaction to theism of one kind or another. If their were no organised religions would their be an organized atheism? Their would still be stuff that some would defend and seek to impose and stuff that some would oppose and seek to remain free of. Is it atheism or anti religion we are discussing.

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 07:21PM

marienbad wrote: »

The depth that Church control in Ireland took in public policy is unique in 20th century western democracy

I don't have a problem (like you seem to have) with ideology per se. The difference is we get to vote them out! We are not given that option in the case of the RCC.

Looking at the history of the history of the 20th century, ideology was the prime cause of millions of deaths and untold suffering, so yes I stand by my problem with ideology! Yes, religious influence in Ireland had negative impacts, and dreadful outcomes for some people, but you simply cannot compare it to the carnage in the rest of Europe in the same period. Yes, some of the weakest in society were treated badly in Ireland, but they weren't herded into gas chambers. If your talking about specific rights such as abortion rights, don't forget abortion was illegal in most countries up to the 1970s.

It's easy to say vote them out, but in the US and increasingly in Europe, voting one lot out and the other lot in results in the same ideology and essentially the same policies. Which group has done more damage to Ireland and its population in the last decade?, the RCC or the big European banks and the spineless lackeys who refuse to hold them accountable when they destroy economies and pass on the resulting pain to the general public.

The " depth of control" of the RCC is the least of the problems that most Irish people face currently, their real world issue is a political ideology that holds them accountable for gambling by German and French bankers. Being saddled with several generations of debt, based on ideology, is a bit of a bigger issue than children being exposed to a bit of religion in schools, something they can opt out of. They won't be able to opt out of the debt incurred on their behalf unfortunately.

marienbad · 24-11-2013 08:18PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Looking at the history of the history of the 20th century, ideology was the prime cause of millions of deaths and untold suffering, so yes I stand by my problem with ideology! Yes, religious influence in Ireland had negative impacts, and dreadful outcomes for some people, but you simply cannot compare it to the carnage in the rest of Europe in the same period. Yes, some of the weakest in society were treated badly in Ireland, but they weren't herded into gas chambers. If your talking about specific rights such as abortion rights, don't forget abortion was illegal in most countries up to the 1970s.

It's easy to say vote them out, but in the US and increasingly in Europe, voting one lot out and the other lot in results in the same ideology and essentially the same policies. Which group has done more damage to Ireland and its population in the last decade?, the RCC or the big European banks and the spineless lackeys who refuse to hold them accountable when they destroy economies and pass on the resulting pain to the general public.

The " depth of control" of the RCC is the least of the problems that most Irish people face currently, their real world issue is a political ideology that holds them accountable for gambling by German and French bankers. Being saddled with several generations of debt, based on ideology, is a bit of a bigger issue than children being exposed to a bit of religion in schools, something they can opt out of. They won't be able to opt out of the debt incurred on their behalf unfortunately.

With the greatest respect to you nagirrac the above is just total tosh and so broad as to be meaningless. You are just roping every bugbear into the discussions and taking random potshots with absolutely no connection to the topic on hand.

First - what do you mean by ideology ? As far As I can it is so broad as to be irrelevant.

Second, Please stop the equivalencies. We are not discussing what other ideologies did or did not do. ( If you want we can have a separate conversation on that).

Third - whether the one lot is no different that the other lot is again a separate issue . The fact that one is the same as the other says as much about the electorate as it does about the politicians . The point is we can vote them out .

Fourth -On the specific question as to who has done the most damage ? The troika, the banks , the Germans, the French, and not forgetting our own hubris or the RCC ? For me without question the RCC.

Fifth- To dismiss or minimise the role of the RCC in our education and health systems as you do is just naïve. The kind of citizenry that was created that led to our present difficulties was due in no small part to the power of the RCC and the abrogation of responsibility by successive governments.

But we are drifting off topic I suppose. To get back on track - atheism is just the non belief in god(s). Everything else is just a reaction to the overreaching of faith groups.

Vegetarians are not automatically animal rights activists .

nagirrac · 24-11-2013 09:44PM

marienbad wrote: »

With the greatest respect to you nagirrac the above is just total tosh and so broad as to be meaningless.
First - what do you mean by ideology ? As far As I can it is so broad as to be irrelevant.
Fourth -On the specific question as to who has done the most damage ? The troika, the banks , the Germans, the French, and not forgetting our own hubris or the RCC ? For me without question the RCC.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree marienbad.

I would stick with the standard definition of Ideology as a "system of ideas or ideals that form the basis for an economic or political theory or policy". It can be very broad, diverse and inclusive, as most western democracies are now, or it can be very narrow and exclusive as many regimes in the 20th century were, and some still are. I fully agree for most of the 20th century Ireland was narrow and exclusive due to the influence of the RCC and the fact that 90%+ of the population was RC (close to 100% in many rural communities), and that had some horrendous results, in particular for the weakest in society such as those sent to industrial schools where they were preyed upon by clerical and lay pedophiles, the very people who were supposed to be looking after their welfare.

If however Ireland was/is such a horrible place, then why is it consistently rated as one of the top countries in the world to live in (often ranked #1), and in particular one of the best countries in the world to raise children? If the RCC has had such a poisoning influence on the country, how could this be? I know dozens of people who have left the US where I live and moved to Ireland over the past few decades either on short term appointments (1-2 years) or permanently and they absolutely love the place. The religious aspects of schools does not bother them in the slightest. I am unsure of what you mean by the role of the RCC in the health system, perhaps you can elaborate. Are doctors under some sort of mandate by the RCC or are you referring specifically to the abortion issue?

To say that the RCC on balance has done most damage to Ireland is imo complete hyperbole and a view that I suspect only atheists in Ireland hold. Are they the reason that 200,000 people have emigrated from Ireland since 2008?, to blame for one of the highest rates of suicide among young people in Europe?, to blame for more and more families relying on welfare and charity? to blame for the escalating crime rate and in particular violent crime rate? I don't think so marienbad, they are certainly not blameless, but the most serious economic, social and political issues facing Ireland are not due to the RCC.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments