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
Ireland's atheist majority?
Options
Comments
-
Yes. We've already established that I think that the naturalist claim of exclusive authority of the scientific method is intolerant and misguided.There are others?
Do you mean having a good old think about whether God exists or not?
Then why did you accuse me of trying to find confirmation of God's existence by the scientific method of critical assessment?But theism being "disproven" is a red herring. You know perfectly well that the supernatural cannot be disproven, and as such you are safe to say that it hasn't been so you are going to keep believing in it, as if that makes your beliefs sound perfectly reasonable and rational.
None of us? Not one of the billions of people who have believed over the millenia? You cannot make that claim credibly.I've no idea if every atheist has subjected their beliefs to the rigours of critical assessment. I do know that theists haven't.
My beliefs do not contradict science. Most of the authors of the scientific method were Christians, such as Descartes, Newton and Bacon. Your beliefs contradict thousands of years of theology and metaphysics.But then you guys get around that by just changing what critical assessment means, throwing 300 years of scientific philosophy out the window because it doesn't give you the pleasing answers you seek.
Pleasing answers have nothing to do with it. We're both after the truth. Atheism is also a pleasing belief, but I do not sink to the level of claiming that your motives eclipse your honesty.0 -
Yes. We've already established that I think that the naturalist claim of exclusive authority of the scientific method is intolerant and misguided.
"Intolerant" of what? Bad ideas? :rolleyes:
You think sitting around and having a good think about things is enough to critically assess if something exists or if it is what people claim it is.
Why didn't you say so, science is obviously wasting a lot of money and time. For a start they should stop double blind drug trials. It should be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to just have a good old think about whether or not their drugs are going to kill people.
I didn't?Then why did you accuse me of trying to find confirmation of God's existence by the scientific method of critical assessment?None of us? Not one of the billions of people who have believed over the millenia? You cannot make that claim credibly.
Of course none of you. If anyone of you had ever figured out a way to actually properly study the existence of God their would be an entire field of science devoted to it.
Instead we have a whole lot of people sitting around and thinking about whether God exists or not. Which means diddly squat.My beliefs do not contradict science. Most of the authors of the scientific method were Christians, such as Descartes, Newton and Bacon.
You don't contradict science, you ignore it because it isn't a process that can give you the answers you desire. Which in itself is bad.Your beliefs contradict thousands of years of theology and metaphysics.
Well yes, but I try not to let the pride go to my head.
Pleasing answers have everything to do with it.Pleasing answers have nothing to do with it.
If you were actually after the truth you would take a lot more care in how you go about this. But you aren't after the truth, you are after comfort. You want a certain version of reality to be true, and you stop as soon as someone or something tells you it is.We're both after the truth.
Yes because it frees us to rape babies and burn down hospitalsAtheism is also a pleasing beliefbut I do not sink to the level of claiming that your motives eclipse your honesty.
You don't have to. The scientific method doesn't rely on me being honest.0 -
"Intolerant" of what? Bad ideas?
Fortunately, few academic institutions have agreed with your views and eliminated their departments of theology, philosophy and probably most other disciplines of the humanities.Why didn't you say so, science is obviously wasting a lot of money and time. For a start they should stop double blind drug trials. It should be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to just have a good old think about whether or not their drugs are going to kill people.
Seems that you missed the word "exclusive" in my post. I do not claim that any one method of assessment is universally correct for everything. In fact the use of metaphysics to solve physical questions like the above would be ridiculous.
I am flabbergasted. Why would there be a field of science devoted to theology? It makes no sense; science is concerned with physical questions.Of course none of you. If anyone of you had ever figured out a way to actually properly study the existence of God their would be an entire field of science devoted to it.
Where did I ignore science? I have great respect for science.You don't contradict science, you ignore it because it isn't a process that can give you the answers you desire. Which in itself is bad.
How so? Plenty of theologians reach conclusions that they do not like. John Calvin famously disliked his doctrine of predestination. However, he believed that the Bible said that, so he taught it.Pleasing answers have everything to do with it.
Yes because it frees us to rape babies and burn down hospitals
Atheism is a pleasing belief. Your caricature of this argument shows your immaturity.
You really don't have the authority to say this. You are not reading my mind. Unless your idea of the "scientific" method has told you what my motives are.If you were actually after the truth you would take a lot more care in how you go about this. But you aren't after the truth, you are after comfort. You want a certain version of reality to be true, and you stop as soon as someone or something tells you it is.
What does this mean in the context of this discussion?You don't have to. The scientific method doesn't rely on me being honest.0 -
Atheism is a pleasing belief.
It's not a pleasing belief tbh. It would be lovely to belieall ve we get eternal happiness at the end instead of just rotting in the ground. Christianity is the one people use for comfort and condolence, the thing they turn to when they lose hope and suffer. Atheism does not purport to offer succor. The idea that somehow your life is being guided by a higher power is also a very pleasing belief, shifting responsibility from you to a certain extent (if you believe that what happens in your life is out of your control in some aspects)
Atheism offers nothing but truth. It's not a comforting truth, nor is it pleasing. It's just what is real.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »It's not a pleasing belief tbh. It would be lovely to belieall ve we get eternal happiness at the end instead of just rotting in the ground. Christianity is the one people use for comfort and condolence, the thing they turn to when they lose hope and suffer. Atheism does not purport to offer succor. The idea that somehow your life is being guided by a higher power is also a very pleasing belief, shifting responsibility from you to a certain extent (if you believe that what happens in your life is out of your control in some aspects)
Atheism offers nothing but truth. It's not a comforting truth, nor is it pleasing. It's just what is real.
Its a fairly subjective topic but I feel I can live a fuller life believing that this world isnt just some stepping stone to a higher existence. As for atheism offering only the truth, well its just a belief in the very probable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well there is a lot of money in it, so that isn't that surprising.Fortunately, few academic institutions have agreed with your views and eliminated their departments of theology, philosophy and probably most other disciplines of the humanities.
Yes but God is a physical question.I do not claim that any one method of assessment is universally correct for everything. In fact the use of metaphysics to solve physical questions like the above would be ridiculous.
I have no problem with people learning philosophy or theology (I think theology is utterly pointless, but to each their own) I have a problem with the suggestion that these can be some how used to figure out what is true about the world (including the existence and nature of God).
They can't. They are purely mental gymnastics and like all mental gymnastics could have nothing to do with the world. You cannot determine conclusively that God exists by going into a room and having a good old think about it.
I appreciate that theists hate this because if you strip away all that they really have nothing left as a foundation for the existence of God, but that is really their problem not mine. The universe does not have an obligation to provide comforting answers
God is a physical question. Does he or does he not exist. Does he or does he not interact with the universe. If he does exist what is he like. What is he made of. What does he do. Why does he do things.I am flabbergasted. Why would there be a field of science devoted to theology? It makes no sense; science is concerned with physical questions.
These are all physical questions. Physical questions with no physical evidence. No physical models. No physical tests.
You guys skirt around this by claiming it isn't a physical question it is a theological one, which is simply a way of admitting you don't have any support for God so you are just going to start making stuff up. Theology is the study of imaginary ideas. People make stuff up about what they think God is like and then debate this because they don't have any actual models from the real world about what he is like.
You ignore science in how you approach the world. This whole post is an example of that. You claim to be interested in the truth but you aren't, you are interested in exploring imaginary ideas that other humans have come up with to explain a deity you hope exists. That is not searching for truth. It is searching for comfort at the expense of truth.Where did I ignore science? I have great respect for science.
Which he had to do to keep the comforting idea of God consistent.How so? Plenty of theologians reach conclusions that they do not like. John Calvin famously disliked his doctrine of predestination. However, he believed that the Bible said that, so he taught it.
For some strange reason he didn't throw away the promise of eternal paradise in heaven. He simply changed his logic to something else that he disliked.
I'm sure if you keep saying that over and over it will eventually make sense to you.Atheism is a pleasing belief.
No I'm reading your posts. I'm seeing someone claim over and over that they are interested in the truth and the best way to discover the truth and then try and mash all that up in a meat grinder to fit their religious perspective.You really don't have the authority to say this. You are not reading my mind.What does this mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that unlike you, science discovered a long time ago that individual human opinion on matters is more often than not wrong and unreliable, and as such has developed quite sophisticated system to ensure that things are studied without relying on the assessment of individual humans.
It doesn't matter if I'm wrong about God. It doesn't matter if I'm lying about God. In fact you should ASSUME I AM
You should only take what I (or you, or PDN, or Dades, or Jakkass) can demonstrate independently of your opinion, as being accurate. Even if you think my opinion is right you should ignore it if I cannot demonstrate it.
Of course you can't do that because without that religion would have nothing. All religion is is the shared opinion that the magical sky god is going to grant us all eternal life. And you all so very much want to believe it is true that you will accept things without them meeting this standard if they provide comfort to you.0 -
To sum up Wicknights post. Religion, all religion is nothing but an exercise in groupthink. It's a psychological term used primarily in studies of management, but it is amazing how well all religions fit the profile.Wikipedia wrote:In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective desision making. That is, consensus driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking:
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of prefered choice
4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contigency plans.0 -
To sum up Wicknights post. Religion, all religion is nothing but an exercise in groupthink. It's a psychological term used primarily in studies of management, but it is amazing how well all religions fit the profile.
*waits patiently for Húrin to reply to this saying "isn't the same true of Atheism?"*0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »*waits patiently for Húrin to reply to this saying "isn't the same true of Atheism?"*
No, I would not sink to making such an insult.
"Illusions of invulnerability", "Unquestioned belief", "Stereotyping others", "pressure to conform", "censorship", "Mindguards".
Janis' characteristics do not fit all religions. They fit some religions, and to some degree other ideologies such as positivism.
I am well capable of evaluating beliefs including my own. Wicknight, it seems, does not think than anyone is doing honest evaluation unless they come to the same conclusions that he does.0 -
How do you know?I am well capable of evaluating beliefs including my own.
If you weren't how would you determine that?
That is a serious question by the way. And when you realise that you will be where science was 300 years ago.Wicknight, it seems, does not think than anyone is doing honest evaluation unless they come to the same conclusions that he does.
I don't trust anyone to do honest evaluation. Period.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am in my mid thirties and work in I.T. Put it this way I know about 10 people at work who read 'The God Delusion', but I would they would be more of the polite atheist type rather than the Dawkins type.I am in my early 20s, in an institution of third level education in Dublin. Most of my peers are middle-class, and from all over Ireland and most appear to be atheists (and many so testify if asked). Not ardent, Dawkins-type atheists, but nonetheless they live without God. All religious groups are small minorities.
Now, this contradicts the cliche that Ireland is a mostly Catholic country. I expect that there are many people who have spiritual feelings and beliefs but unfortunately keep it privatised and stunted.
Do you think (not hope) that this is representative of the way Ireland is going soon?
That said, most of friends (atheist and agnostic) got married in Churches and baptise their kids.
So expect some twists an turns over the next 25 years.
I suspect:
1. Catholic Church will become more liberal. Consider 90% of the Bible to be allegorical. They will continue to make wishy washy statements which make it clear they don't believe in certain things but at the sametime will make it unclear just what exactly they do believe in.
2. Anglican Church will split.
3. Fundamentalists and literalists will never be more than 5%.
4. New Age wacky stuff will grow big time. Tarot card reads, homeopaths take your pick. They will clean up in the next ten years.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I suspect:
1. Catholic Church will become more liberal. Consider 90% of the Bible to be allegorical. They will continue to make wishy washy statements which make it clear they don't believe in certain things but at the sametime will make it unclear just what exactly they do believe in.
2. Anglican Church will split.
3. Fundamentalists and literalists will never be more than 5%.
4. New Age wacky stuff will grow big time. Tarot card reads, homeopaths take your pick. They will clean up in the next ten years.
My word tim, its a prophesy:) One I agree with, apart from number 3. I believe hatread of religion will be the undercurent of aggresive secularism, and will drive some religious folk to be more extreme as they feel increasingly victimised and censored. I think this may eventually lead to an out and out banning of religion, disguised as a protection. Not in our lifetime mind you, but I see the seeds being sowed.0 -
-
I wonder where all this talk of religion being a victim started. I know you are only talking about the future JimiTime but I hear more and more people saying religion and its adherents being persecuted. Religion is not a victim. It rarely if ever has been a victim. And if a religion has been a victim chances are its at the hands of, and in the name of, another religion.I believe hatread of religion will be the undercurent of aggresive secularism, and will drive some religious folk to be more extreme as they feel increasingly victimised and censored.
Considering the amount of censorship and victimisation the religious have inflicted throughout history its a laugh to hear them complain of it being done to them. Do unto your neighbour and all that.0 -
Hatred of religion and aggressive secularism??. The only Atheists who hate religion are those that were molested by priests or lost loved ones in a religiously motivated terrorist attack. 99.99% of atheists do not hate religion or hate its followers, we just think you are all deluded. And if by Aggressive secularism you mean us prefering that your religious beliefs aren't enshrined in law and enforced on us, well then I am all for aggressive secularism. Its pathetic. Its not like we are having marches and burning religious symbols in the streets. Merely presenting an opposing view is viewed as aggressive by you lot. Its like something out of Monty Python. "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!!" How is he oppressing you?? "He doesn't agree with me!!"
[Edit] Appologies for the last comment. Just this whole persecuted majority thing gets on my wick. Note to self, Don't post when in bad form. No excuses though. I shouldn't have said it.0 -
Hatred of religion and aggressive secularism??. The only Atheists who hate religion are those that were molested by priests or lost loved ones in a religiously motivated terrorist attack. 99.99% of atheists do not hate religion or hate its followers, we just think you are all deluded. And if by Aggressive secularism you mean us prefering that your religious beliefs aren't enshrined in law and enforced on us, well then I am all for aggressive secularism. Its pathetic. Its not like we are having marches and burning religious symbols in the streets. Merely presenting an opposing view is viewed as aggressive by you lot. Its like something out of Monty Python. "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!!" How is he oppressing you?? "He doesn't agree with me!!"
What a sad needy pathetic bunch.
LOL.
I'll take him, does he come in blue?0 -
I wonder where all this talk of religion being a victim started. I know you are only talking about the future JimiTime but I hear more and more people saying religion and its adherents being persecuted. Religion is not a victim. It rarely if ever has been a victim. And if a religion has been a victim chances are its at the hands of, and in the name of, another religion.
Considering the amount of censorship and victimisation the religious have inflicted throughout history its a laugh to hear them complain of it being done to them. Do unto your neighbour and all that.
I'm not denying what religion does, has done etc. I just think that the seeds are being sown now, for a future like I described. Also, as you allude to, people don't necessarily have to be victimised, to feel like they're being victimised. However, justly or not, if people 'feel' like they're being victimised, the risk is that they will get extreme. I think the point about religions being victims to other religions is also a valid point. I think Atheism will be no different. I've seen enough opinion from 'moderate' atheism to suggest to me, that it would only take a slight shift before it becomes as extreme as the religions it hates. Give it a few generations, and I do believe that secularism will just be the hiding place for anti-religion, until being aggresively 'anti-religion' is acceptable, then it will just be a social norm.
On the 'Nurse thread' over in Christianity, I saw huge similarities in the thinking of some atheist posters to that of some Jehovahs Witnesses I know. Obviously polar opposites in the opinions they hold, but similar in their approach.
Of course this is all speculation. Speculation that we will likely never see in our lifetimes. But I expect to see some more seeds sown before I lay down to rest. Again though, its only this mans opinion.0 -
I'm not denying what religion does, has done etc. I just think that the seeds are being sown now, for a future like I described. Also, as you allude to, people don't necessarily have to be victimised, to feel like they're being victimised. However, justly or not, if people 'feel' like they're being victimised, the risk is that they will get extreme. I think the point about religions being victims to other religions is also a valid point. I think Atheism will be no different. I've seen enough opinion from 'moderate' atheism to suggest to me, that it would only take a slight shift before it becomes as extreme as the religions it hates. Give it a few generations, and I do believe that secularism will just be the hiding place for anti-religion, until being aggresively 'anti-religion' is acceptable, then it will just be a social norm.
I don't see it. Postmodern culture has doomed the credibility of such a repressive worldview.0 -
I am in my early 20s, in an institution of third level education in Dublin. Most of my peers are middle-class, and from all over Ireland and most appear to be atheists (and many so testify if asked). Not ardent, Dawkins-type atheists, but nonetheless they live without God. All religious groups are small minorities.
Now, this contradicts the cliche that Ireland is a mostly Catholic country. I expect that there are many people who have spiritual feelings and beliefs but unfortunately keep it privatised and stunted.
Do you think (not hope) that this is representative of the way Ireland is going soon?
if your worried that there's not enough believers in college:
Wait till you graduate and examine your job prospects,
then count the "oh god" 's :P0 -
I don't see it. Postmodern culture has doomed the credibility of such a repressive worldview.
Of course, as this is just me speculating, I'm not going to argue that I'm right. However, I once thought what you do. IMO though, it will come in the guise of something else. Like 'protecting children against mental abuse'. 'Doing away with homophobia' etc. It wont be bleightant IMO. As the religious population falls with future generations, they'll no longer be a sacread cow, and they'll either have to be watered down or face extinction. As I said though, its all speculative.0 -
Advertisement
-
But Jimi, nobody outside of a few communist states would have any issue with religions if people just held personal beliefs and practiced on their own time and property.
If we ever reach a point where we had a truly secular state, people would have zero interest in what people believe, so long as it continues to not impact on their lives.0 -
But Jimi, nobody outside of a few communist states would have any issue with religions if people just held personal beliefs and practiced on their own time and property.
And that is incompatible with Christianity. It would be irresponsible, as a Christian, to keep the message to myself. Many Christians were killed for declaring the good news. For every 100 people who wish to keep it from public life, one may accept it and be saved and they are the people that its for. If the secular world decides that Christianity cannot be seen in public, then christians will merely suffer the consequences. They wont stop. It would be like us having a cure for cancer, but we are told we can't administer it. 100 people may believe the state and not accept the cure, but one might. A christians responsiblity is to give to people the life saving message of Jesus Christ.0 -
Sorry if what I wrote sounded like I'm suggesting Christians couldn't publicly voice their opinion, that's not what I meant.
As a Christian you have the same number of votes as everyone else, you have the right to run for office, you have freedom of speech. In a secular society what you don't have is the right to have your beliefs affect people that don't share them. But once that principle is adhered to, you can practice however you wish, subject of course to the law.0 -
Sorry if what I wrote sounded like I'm suggesting Christians couldn't publicly voice their opinion, that's not what I meant.
As a Christian you have the same number of votes as everyone else, you have the right to run for office, you have freedom of speech. In a secular society what you don't have is the right to have your beliefs affect people that don't share them. But once that principle is adhered to, you can practice however you wish, subject of course to the law.
The word in bold is what it all hinges on. Through that word, what I descibed is very possible.0 -
I'm not sure I follow you.
Are you say that the only way Christianity can affect people's lives is though public policy? Does freedom of speech, religion, association not provide opportunity enough to spread the word?0 -
-
And that is incompatible with Christianity. It would be irresponsible, as a Christian, to keep the message to myself. Many Christians were killed for declaring the good news. For every 100 people who wish to keep it from public life, one may accept it and be saved and they are the people that its for. If the secular world decides that Christianity cannot be seen in public, then christians will merely suffer the consequences. They wont stop. It would be like us having a cure for cancer, but we are told we can't administer it. 100 people may believe the state and not accept the cure, but one might. A christians responsiblity is to give to people the life saving message of Jesus Christ.
I can deal with the odd evangelical knocking on my door or handing out pamphlets on the street, I can also deal with advertisements on buses, tv and radio. I support a free and open society and would defend your right to spread your message so long as you don't use publicly funds to do so.
What I find unacceptable is for religious indoctrination to be part of the public school system especially when there is no alternate secular school available. I also can't accept government policy to be based on religious texts.0 -
I believe hatread of religion will be the undercurent of aggresive secularism, and will drive some religious folk to be more extreme as they feel increasingly victimised and censored. I think this may eventually lead to an out and out banning of religion, disguised as a protection. Not in our lifetime mind you, but I see the seeds being sowed.
Isn't that just an excuse to feel victimized and to be against secularism?
Banning religion is against the principles of secularism by the way. But when people talk about "banning religion" these days what they tend to mean is not the banning of religion, but the removal of Christianity from its place of privilege in our society. For example, stores saying "Happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". And that isn't the same thing at all.0 -
I'm not sure I follow you.
Are you say that the only way Christianity can affect people's lives is though public policy? Does freedom of speech, religion, association not provide opportunity enough to spread the word?
Thats not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying, is that I suspect it will sneak in on the back of 'affecting' people. Its a word that is so open. For a nurse to say, 'Would you like me to say a prayer for you?' is deemed to be 'affecting', so its legislated against. Standing in a public place, or 'invading' someone 'space' etc is all 'affecting'. All it takes is for people to decide that they are p!ssed off that someone shares their faith in a certain manner, and in comes the legislation. There will be little opposition in the future IMO, as Atheism becomes a social norm. The whole 'Banning' thing, I realise its against secularism, but that means nothing. It just needs to be hidden in other forms. Its homophbic, child abusive and whatever else people come up with. Again though, its only me speculating using forsight. Trying to see a bigger picture.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't that just an excuse to feel victimized and to be against secularism?
Well I can only speak for myself when I say, I certainly don't feel victimised. I don't mind secularism. However, I believe there is an undercurrent of religious hatread. I would be concerned at your own views as to the hospital and nurse scenario. You find it right and just, and thats fair enough. I however, see a cost to be paid in the future for legislating in such matters. I think its giving power to others, which should be held by people themselves. Again though, its merely my view against yours. Only time will tell, and maybe not even our time.0
Advertisement