John Waters v Atheist Ireland

drkpower

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0717/1224250844850.html

John Waters seems to be taking a pop at Atheist Ireland. What do people think about his criticisms? Here are my 2 cents, anyway...

Waters talks an awful load of sh!te but dont let the messenger blunt the thrust of the message which atheists/secularists really need to heed.
His opening line encapsulates the two problems I see about atheism (and have been rabitting on here about for ages): Delusions of intellectual superiority and unfunny mockery of religion show up the limitations of atheist ideology.

Now, I wouldnt say that they show up atheisms "limitations" but they are two of its problems. And two of the reasons why atheism will struggle to get its message across. A message packaged in arrogance, mockery and divisiveness will never be palatable to the middle ground, which is the vast majority of this country, who have all but rejected religon but are not quite ready to move across to a sniping, sneering and jeering form of atheism. If you could tailor the message appropriately and not frame yourselves as what you are against (stupid fairy worshippers) but rather what you are for (pluralism, respect for all but above-all, the performance of Govermental functions free from religous or areligous influence), there is no reason why the atheist/secular movement cannot become a real player. But I fear that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism will hold sway and will set your agenda back.

I hope this post is taken in the spirit intended. I am one of the middle ground. I believe in secularism. But until the prevalent attitude of Atheism Ireland and many vocal atheists is fundamentally changed, I cant see myself getting involved. I expect I am not atypical of the type of person whose support any secularist movement should be seeking to attract.

Goduznt Xzst

drkpower wrote: »

But I fear that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism will hold sway and will set your agenda back.

Can I ask, do you think it was wrong of the British that lived through World War II to mock and deride the Germans after it?

Second generation Atheists will be a lot more moderate than the ones that suffered a life of indoctrination only to realize the earliest and best years of their life where spent being lied to and thought to fear invisible demons intent on hurting them only to die and be tortured for eternity.

Sam Vimes

Atheism is not a movement, it's simply a lack of belief in Gods. Some atheists want pluralism and respect for all and I'd say most want a separation of church and state but those beliefs are not inherently part of atheism. What you're talking about there is secularism.

The problem here I think is that people hold their religious beliefs very closely and any suggestion that they might be wrong is treated as offensive and arrogant. As I've said many times on these boards, when there is a disagreement on any topic people from both sides put their points of view across and take the piss out of each other etc but as soon as an atheist does it it's "those arrogant atheists at it again".

One good example would be the flying spaghetti monster. Religious people often say that it's offensive mockery of their beliefs but it's actually an extremely good response to the common argument "you can't prove God doesn't exist" by saying "you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either but that doesn't mean that it does exist and that we should believe in it".

If someone has a ridiculous belief and supports it with ridiculous arguments, how can you get your point across other than to point out how ridiculous it is?

edit: when you say atheists want pluralism, you're saying that you don't think atheists should tell religious people that their beliefs are wrong aren't you?

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

respect for all but above-all

How well you understand us.

Just to be clear, there are great many of us who believe that this notion of "respect for all things" is pure useless idiocy. I don't respect your 'beliefs' in regard to gravity, thermodynamics or the location of a particular pub. You are either right or wrong. If you make ridiculous claims about the way of the world I shall regard you with scorn, have no doubt.

That said, I do understand where you are coming from. It is a great pity that you equate yourself with such a vapid fool as Waters, but I get your message.

Bear in mind that the current atheist movement is the first in several generations to make a public attack on the dominance of religion. As such, the immediate goal is not calm reconciliation or tepid compromise -- their intention is wholesale destruction of the preposterous domineering hold that religion has over the minds of the people. There is a reason that Hitchens and Dawkins use the rhetoric they do...they're declaring open war on an immensely powerful institution. Step 1 is to break the hold that that institution has over our society, to topple the ill gotten foundations upon which it relies. After that is shaken we can step back and discuss the issue with more gentle tones, but right now the important part is to make it clear that not only is it ok to disagree with religion, but that religion may in fact be stupendously wrong and entirely worthy of our arrogant dismissal.

Which it is.

If we were to be manipulative about things, and plan according to how we want to be perceived as opposed to how we truly are, then sure, there's a different approach to be taken, but I shall leave that to the more devious of my associates. I for one am more comfortable calling a spade a stupid irrational spade.

Galvasean

drkpower wrote:

A message packaged in arrogance, mockery and divisiveness will never be palatable to the middle ground, which is the vast majority of this country, who have all but rejected religon but are not quite ready to move across to a sniping, sneering and jeering form of atheism.

Much like Waters' own recent radio appearence.
The arrogance, mockery etc. is definately not exclusive to atheism.

Dades

Reading/listening to tripe from people like Waters only makes me want to ridicule what he stands for more (and I would consider myself a moderate) - so he's only himself to blame, afaic.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheism is not a movement, it's simply a lack of belief in Gods.
edit: when you say atheists want pluralism, you're saying that you don't think atheists should tell religious people that their beliefs are wrong aren't you?

If atheism is not a "movement", then why the need for organisations such as Atheist Ireland? Lets not deny the obvious.

Of course, you should tell religous peoople their beliefs are wrong but athesist too often tell them they are wrong in a patronising manner that is disrespectful. Dont get me wrong, I think you are probably right and there is nothing wrong with being forceful in your opinions, but if you want atheism/secularism (I use the terms as a movement, because that is what it should be) to become an influence, which you should, that is the wrong way to go about it. It may feel good for 5 seconds to display your intellectual superiority by ridiculing the belief of a religous purpose, but it is ultimately self-defeating. Does that showw genuine intellectual superiority? I would argue the opposite.

ludwit

I find most atheists annoying and I am one myself. I would hate that someone would associate me with them or Dawkins.

Zillah

ludwit wrote: »

I find most atheists annoying and I am one myself. I would hate that someone would associate me with them or Dawkins.

You hate being associated with one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists? Pray tell, why?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Just to be clear, there are great many of us who believe that this notion of "respect for all things" is pure useless idiocy.
That said, I do understand where you are coming from. It is a great pity that you equate yourself with such a vapid fool as Waters, but I get your message.
Bear in mind that the current atheist movement is the first in several generations to make a public attack on the dominance of religion.
If we were to be manipulative about things, and plan according to how we want to be perceived as opposed to how we truly are, then sure, there's a different approach to be taken, but I shall leave that to the more devious of my associates. I for one am more comfortable calling a spade a stupid irrational spade.

First, I dont equate myself with John Waters; I suspect you know that because at no point did I say that; I merely agreed with about 6 words of his article - so please stop playing games.

Second, I feel your view is incredibly short-sighted and naieve. In this country, religon's stock has rarely been lower. There is an oppurtunity to develop a atheist/secular "movement" to enact real change, to seperate church from state. A powerful well supported lobby would face a much-damaged church and may be succesful. I presume you want those type of changes? I presume atheists want a secular Ireland?

But the roadblock to that possibility is yours and others attitude. Such a movement needs popular support. there are hundreds of thousands of agnostics/atheists out there who would support such a movement. But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade. Meanwhile, who is winning the long game? The religous, the damaged religous who people have lost respect for, thats who. Its their religon in the constitution? Its their laws being enacted?

Where is atheism/secularism? Sitting on the sidelines sniping while the big boys play the game.

Galvasean

drkpower wrote: »

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade.

Isn't that the most inherently honest thing we can do? I mean, if you honestly believe/think something, why should you hide it just to appeal to the masses? No point in hiding/distorting your own beliefs just because you want to be popular (that's what the religious often do).

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

(that's what the religious often do).

It is indeed. Apparently the catholic church has now decided that god actually forgives suicide victims because they were not in the right frame of mind when they did it. Nice to know god issued a memo changing his stance on it being a mortal sin that sends you straight to hell

drkpower

Galvasean wrote: »

Isn't that the most inherently honest thing we can do? I mean, if you honestly believe/think something, why should you hide it just to appeal to the masses? No point in hiding/distorting your own beliefs just because you want to be popular (that's what the religious often do).

It may be honest for me to tell my boss that I think he is an ugly fat man with little real ability in his field...... It might also make me feel better for a short time.

If I want to achieve something tangible, however, it will get me absolutely nowhere.

If atheists do not want to achieve anything tangible, well fine, but A) I suspect they do and if they do not, they should stop moaning about religous laws and religous education and religous hospitals, because their attitude will resolve none of these issues.

Dades

As a matter of interest - has anyone else complained about the lack of respect, or patronising manner of Atheist Ireland, or is this idea just based on the rantings of a born-again *journalist*?

Apart from their own meetings, have they shown this disrespect etc. in public interviews, publications or statements?

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

First, I dont equate myself with John Waters; I suspect you know that because at no point did I say that; I merely agreed with about 6 words of his article - so please stop playing games.

Second, I feel your view is incredibly short-sighted and naieve. In this country, religon's stock has rarely been lower. There is an oppurtunity to develop a atheist/secular "movement" to enact real change, to seperate church from state. A powerful well supported lobby would face a much-damaged church and may be succesful. I presume you want those type of changes? I presume atheists want a secular Ireland?

But the roadblock to that possibility is yours and others attitude. Such a movement needs popular support. there are hundreds of thousands of agnostics/atheists out there who would support such a movement. But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

But you only see the short game, the temporary feeling of self satisfaction at calling a spade a spade. Meanwhile, who is winning the long game? The religous, the damaged religous who people have lost respect for, thats who. Its their religon in the constitution? Its their laws being enacted?

Where is atheism/secularism? Sitting on the sidelines sniping while the big boys play the game.

Reread my last paragraph. I completely understand what you're saying. But I'm not a politician or a campaigner, I have the luxury of honesty.

You're basically telling me I should deceive people because I want them to support me.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

If atheists do not want to achieve anything tangible, well fine, but A) I suspect they do and if they do not, they should stop moaning about religous laws and religous education and religous hospitals, because their attitude will resolve none of these issues.

In order to get a secular state atheists should stop complaining about religious laws, education and hospitals? So in order to get a secular state they should stop arguing for a secular state

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

Reread my last paragraph. I completely understand what you're saying. But I'm not a politician or a campaigner, I have the luxury of honesty.

You're basically telling me I should deceive people because I want them to support me.

Come on, surely you are not that naieve?

There is a manner of disagreeing with someone. You can honestly tell them you do not believe what they believe without having to deride or ridicule them. That is not deceiving anyone.

Do you not see that the attitude (among many atheists) I am talking about actually stunts a real opportunity for real change?

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In order to get a secular state atheists should stop complaining about religious laws, education and hospitals? So in order to get a secular state they should stop arguing for a secular state

Is that what you really understood form what I said or are you just playing games?

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

Malari

"Perhaps it is a symptom of its sudden emergence into the light, but Irish-style atheism seems as yet unable to define itself other than in contradistinction to versions of reality it declares to be false."

Seems Waters doesn't even understand the definition of athiesm :rolleyes::D

Mena

Nobody is going to give the time of day to some fringe lunatic that thinks there are fairies at the bottom of his garden and devotes his life to them.

I don't see how anyone subscribing to any religion is any different. I just cannot take them seriously.

Maybe it's because I've had very little exposure to all this nonsense...

ludwit

Zillah wrote: »

You hate being associated with one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists? Pray tell, why?

Can't stand the man, pure and simple.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

As a matter of interest - has anyone else complained about the lack of respect, or patronising manner of Atheist Ireland, or is this idea just based on the rantings of a born-again *journalist*?

Apart from their own meetings, have they shown this disrespect etc. in public interviews, publications or statements?

It's just a last resort type argument. Waters' ilk have already been soundly battered in rational and logical debate so they need something to have a go at us with. 'Ooooh, they're smug' :rolleyes:

I know this is going to sound extremely arrogant but:
"I'm not being arrogant. The word you are looking for is 'correct'".

papa-lazarou

That's hilarious. Fanny Waters seems to actually believe that if two of his oh-so-clever friends sermonized a roomfull of atheists, they'd all be converted.

Galvasean

papa-lazarou wrote: »

That's hilarious. Fanny Waters seems to actually believe that if two of his oh-so-clever friends sermonized a roomfull of atheists, they'd all be converted.

It begs the question, why havent they?

Goduznt Xzst

Is there a reason you sidestepped my original question? Or do you accept that it is normal for the individual to harbor resentment towards a country/organization and its people if they cause the individual to suffer or have wronged them personally.

It is human nature to deride and mock that which once had power over us to remove all vestiges of that power.

Atheists will mock the religious and their beliefs because they are a reminder of the grip on our senses that a religion once had. One can't be asked to respect that which they now despise with all their being.

drkpower wrote: »

But they are turned off by the desire amongst you and others to ridicule, to attack rather than to leave people to their (silly) beliefs.

It's easy to say it's the arrogant and obnoxious Atheists that are ruining it for us all but this is a cop out. Atheists have apathy because of the nature of Atheism, which breeds a sense doubt in the individual for everything.

The problem is the religious are completely confident that their goals WILL be better for us all because their God is guiding them. Do I want Ireland to be 100% secular, yes. Do I know it will be better for Ireland if it is, probably but I have my doubts.

The drive behind a movement just isn't there for Atheists. The motivation has to be more than just thinking we may be right. What Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are showing us is that we have reasons to be insulted and angered by what the Religious are teaching, and these are our motivations. We need to view the Religious as an insult to the human race and their influence needs to be removed. You can't spark this motivation in an individual without ruffling a few feathers.

Sparks

drkpower wrote: »

If atheism is not a "movement", then why the need for organisations such as Atheist Ireland?

Not for (for lack of a proper word) religious reasons.
Things such as lobbying for equal rights for the non-religious is a function that requires a group like AI or the HAI (and I don't want to get into the internecine bit here, I'm just saying that groups are needed to handle tasks like that).

There isn't a need for AI to evangelicise (again, there's a lack of a properly suited word there) atheism. Either you don't believe in the supernatural or you do; there's no point in evangelicalism. Atheists have no chuch, no need of followers, none of the usual requirements and concerns of an organised religion.

What AI and the HAI and others are there for is to strive for changes in legislation and state practises that mean that the rest of us can get on with our lives, get married, have children and see them properly educated, die as we wish and have our accumulated wealth and property distributed according to our wishes; all without having to follow directives from Rome or the head of whatever church cares to say we can't.

As to John Waters, I think the best response might be along the lines of "get a haircut and a job, hippy". Or maybe "gosh John, who cares what you think?". I mean, you could go down the lets-educate-him road, point out that there's a direct statistical correlation between intelligence and atheism, that his nuclear physicist friend is one of the 6% or so of scientists that are not atheists, that none of this is a lifestyle choice anymore than being gay or being black are choices, but, at the end of the day, it's John Waters. Who cares what he thinks? He doesn't draft policy, he has no vote in government, he runs no schools, he couldn't even get rid of the Angelus. I'd rather get on with my life than waste ten minutes arguing with the eejit. There are much larger and more important problems in my sock drawer, ffs, let alone in the real world.

Flamed Diving

I read half of it before I tuned out. Why do critics of atheism always come up with the same, tired old bull****. The article was drenched in irony.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

I know this is going to sound extremely arrogant but:
"I'm not being arrogant. The word you are looking for is 'correct'".

Jimmy Carr? An atheist, by the way. Well, more of an anti-theist actually.

MrP

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

Is that what you really understood form what I said or are you just playing games?

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

As I said, an atheist is no more likely to be arrogant than any other proponent of any other opinion. We are just perceived as being so because people are so touchy about their beliefs and don't like it being pointed out that they're based on a fairy tale. If religious people could respond rationally in debates, not only would there be no need to brand us as arrogant to dismiss us but there would be no need to ridicule them because their beliefs would not be ridiculous.


I can see your point, not pointing out that people's beliefs are ridiculous would make them more likely to listen to us because they're not having their baseless beliefs questioned and won't hate us for it but if they started to listen to me at that point I wouldn't be saying anything that I have a whole lot of interest in. Your goal is a separation of church and state and that can be achieved perfectly well without any reference to the likelihood of any particular God's existence but that's not the goal of every atheist. I think religious beliefs are ridiculous, at best unnecessary and at worst harmful and that the world would be a better place without them. In order to achieve this goal I am required to point out that the beliefs are ridiculous and risk offending people but also hopefully make them think about just why they accepted their parent's sky fairy as their own personal saviour

Sparks

drkpower wrote: »

My point is that, if atheism wants these things, they need to gain support. In order to gain support, you need to resist the temptation to ridicule, to appear arrogant that is all too common amongst atheists. But if you just want to ridicule, you need to realise that you will not get support and you will not achieve any of these things.

Your point is somewhat in error, because those things should be rights, not gifts. I'm not saying that they should be sought in a deliberately offensive manner, that'd be classed as "being a dick", but if you have to act nice to be given something that should be a right under the constitution or the ECHR, then something's very wrong somewhere and stronger measures need to be taken to resolve it.

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

Jimmy Carr? An atheist, by the way. Well, more of an anti-theist actually.

MrP

Twas Jimmy I believe

Zombrex

I find the assertion that because some atheists are arrogant or rude that means Neo-Atheism is arrogant and rude some what offensive.

I'm sure some atheists are rude (I don't find Dawkins to be rude but clearly some people do), and I'm sure the Atheist Ireland talk included some people who like to feel superior about not believing in gods and ghosts.

But I'm not exactly sure what Waters point is. What does he want me to do about it and how does this reflect the limitations of what I believe?

Aside from the fact that all the charges he was making to this group could be equally leveled at his good self (I personally can't stand Walters and some of the nonsense he has come up with in the past was head wreaking), he was doing exactly what he was complaining about. I wasn't at that meeting nor am I a member of atheism Ireland put apparently my beliefs are limited because someone made an unfunny joke about Jesus? What?

Some atheists ridicule believers in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion so Walters used this fact to ridicule all of atheism (the atheism ideology) in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion.

Oh. The. Irony.

And that isn't the first time I've said those words after reading a Waters piece in the Times.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Some atheists ridicule believers in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion so Walters used this fact to ridicule all of atheism (the atheism ideology) in an unfair, stereotypical, fashion.

He's referring to the effect of the vast minority, nicely illustrated here, and it's kinda the point the OP is making, that if we don't want the loud, obnoxious Atheists to speak for all of Atheism then we need to begin speaking for ourselves.

I don't see how this can be done though. We will either be judged as patronizing or arrogant regardless of our actions. Take the recent bus ad "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"... how patronizing :rolleyes:

Like you said, I don't find Dawkins particularly offensive, but he IS on the offensive with his opinions. Regardless of his manner and how he approaches the subject, he is approaching it none the less. The only action that won't receive rebuke will be acquiescence.

Dades

At this point I'm going to hold my hand up to being one of a few here that was very sceptical of what the point of Atheist Ireland was. The threads here about the proposed organisation before it came together were interrogatory to say the least.

Now it seems without having actually done anything, other than have the gall to assemble, they have provoked the ire of certain elements of society.

I do take drkpower's point about there being a way of going about change (this was one of the main points in those initial threads regarding AI), but I feel in this case AI haven't publicly offended or patronised anyone, rather that certain people have decided to take offense in principle.

So I for one, am glad there's a new kid on the block stirring things up.

Sparks

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Like you said, I don't find Dawkins particularly offensive, but he IS on the offensive with his opinions.

Yes, but for a specific reason, not because of personality defects (that's not to say he doesn't have those as well, just that this approach is consciously chosen). See his TED talk on militant atheism or his borrowed-from-newscientist defence of his approach to educating people (this one's got some vulgarity in case you've speakers on in a very up-tight office, and I know it's more aimed at his science popularisation than his atheism popularisation, but it holds true in both cases):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

drkpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Is there a reason you sidestepped my original question? It is human nature to deride and mock that which once had power over us to remove all vestiges of that power.

It's easy to say it's the arrogant and obnoxious Atheists that are ruining it for us all but this is a cop out. Atheists have apathy because of the nature of Atheism, which breeds a sense doubt in the individual for everything.

The problem is the religious are completely confident that their goals WILL be better for us all because their God is guiding them. Do I want Ireland to be 100% secular, yes. Do I know it will be better for Ireland if it is, probably but I have my doubts.

The drive behind a movement just isn't there for Atheists. The motivation has to be more than just thinking we may be right. What Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are showing us is that we have reasons to be insulted and angered by what the Religious are teaching, and these are our motivations. We need to view the Religious as an insult to the human race and their influence needs to be removed. You can't spark this motivation in an individual without ruffling a few feathers.

Apologies for ignoring your question but I didnt think you were being serious. However, I take your point but just because it is human nature to deride and mock does not mean it is the smart choice; my point is that it is not.

If you want the influence of religon to be removed, you WILL NOT do so by insult and derision. Atheism can continue in that vein and remain a small ignored voice or it can box clever and be a force. Your choice.

But imagine this; if all of those in the country who were agnostic/atheist and who didnt believe in Church influence on public policy (and that group is very large), were united as part of a properly organised "secular" lobby, do you believe that the recent blasphemy law would have been even considered?

Not a chance.

Sam Vimes

Can you give us some examples of what you're saying we should stop doing?

edit: And what's your opinion on the way Dawkins operates?

The Mad Hatter

er, can I point out that the number of people who self-identify as atheists has risen sharply in the last couple of years?

Goduznt Xzst

drkpower wrote: »

If you want the influence of religon to be removed, you WILL NOT do so by insult and derision. Atheism can continue in that vein and remain a small ignored voice or it can box clever and be a force.

All too often the Achilles heal of well thought out plans is the ignorance of or lack of accounting for human nature. We are not parts that become cogs in a machine. Communism, prime example, on paper it should work, but due to human nature it never will, nor should it.

drkpower wrote: »

But imagine this; if all of those in the country who were agnostic/atheist and who didnt believe in Church influence on public policy (and that group is very large), were united as part of a properly organised "secular" lobby, do you believe that the recent blasphemy law would have been even considered?

What I believe and what I imagine or what I hope for are utterly irrelevant to the facts in hand. You are thinking about the machine alone and not the cogs that make it. Telling people to hold back their emotions and being to keep the machine trudging forward to a secular Ireland will not work.

In my opinion the derision and mockery of Religion is a necessary evil, not only for the catharsis in the individual but also to confirm in peoples minds that Religion has no right to power. Once this has passed and religions are viewed with the same respect as fortune tellers and witch doctors the people will see it as powerless over them and not allow them to dictate their rights and freedoms.

DTrotter

Waters (like Quinn) is just worried that they no longer can say they're catholic and expect their opinion to be given greater merit or exempt from criticism.

Sparks

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Communism, prime example, on paper it should work, but due to human nature it never will, nor should it.

Argh. Bad example. It did work, for hundreds of years, in the form of actual communes (in monasteries, ironically enough). You're not thinking of communism, you're thinking of dictatorship and totalitarianism dressed up as communism, but that's a sour-smelling rose.

On your point though, it's utterly wrong. Atheism isn't some grand movement, nor does it have some great plan or structure. It's just that you don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky looking after you. It doesn't require evangelicising, nor does it require popularising.

What's required is that the rights accorded to everyone under the constitution and the ECHR are respected, regardless of religious beliefs. We are no more required to convince people that we're nice folks to be afforded those rights than the LGB community do, or ethnic minorities. We have nothing to prove; we already have these rights. It is unacceptable that we be discriminated against, and where that happens, it is essential to remember that you do not counter discrimination or the denial of legal rights by the same means as those with which you forward a social or political agenda.

(And derision isn't how you do it either, not because it's disrespectful or because it's unpopular or because it's cheap - but because it's utterly irrelevant. What funny name you call someone down the pub doesn't count - what a judge says in the Supreme Court does).

drkpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Telling people to hold back their emotions and being to keep the machine trudging forward to a secular Ireland will not work.

In my opinion the derision and mockery of Religion is a necessary evil, not only for the catharsis in the individual but also to confirm in peoples minds that Religion has no right to power. Once this has passed and religions are viewed with the same respect as fortune tellers and witch doctors the people will see it as powerless over them and not allow them to dictate their rights and freedoms.

I dont really want to get into your machine discussion, I will simply say that your view is ultimately self-defeating. The will is out there right now to put in place a system where religon has no essential power (over State). Now is the time to strike, when religon's influence is waning and the institutions are badly damaged. But instead you want to go through some process of derision and mockery. All that will achieve is to embolden and radicalise some religous and allow mainstream religon to regroup. Another opportunity lost; but sure, wasnt it a great laugh slagging off the religous nuts...

Goduznt Xzst

Sparks wrote: »

You're not thinking of communism, you're thinking of dictatorship and totalitarianism dressed up as communism, but that's a sour-smelling rose.

These are by-products of Communism. I'm sure in small instances it does work, but long term, on a large scale Communism can't work, for the reasons you outlined above which come about due to human nature.

Note, I also have the same feelings about Democracy (and accept it works on a small scale, heck anarchy works on a small scale). It can't work long term, on a large scale without it devolving into an Oligarchy or Ochlocracy due to human nature.

Sparks wrote: »

On your point though, it's utterly wrong. Atheism isn't some grand movement, nor does it have some great plan or structure. It's just that you don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky looking after you. It doesn't require evangelicising, nor does it require popularising.

Are you replying to me here? If you are you are pretty confused. I DON'T think Atheism is a grand movement and was highlighting that the OPs wishes for Atheists to fall into line and join the movement are flawed.

I'm completely for letting the process take it's natural course and not worrying about popularizing it. People need to vent there frustrations of being lied to for so long so I say let them.

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

until the prevalent attitude of Atheism Ireland and many vocal atheists is fundamentally changed, I cant see myself getting involved.

Your objection is not that AI and the HAI aren't doing the right thing, but that they're doing it rudely?

So how exactly do you propose disposing of political ideas which do not deserve respect, but which nonetheless demand respect and their right to exist as a precondition for discussion?

20goto10

Personally I don't like Atheism Ireland. I find the recent institutionalism of atheism very uncomfortable. Until recently, atheism was simply a name given to a lack of belief in God. I don't even likle the term atheism, but I suppose you have to give things names in order to explain them. But what is happening in recent years, since the popularity of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion, is that being an atheist means you are part of something. As if it is some kind of organisation or godless religion.

What is it about these people that they feel the need to be part of an organistation?

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

Your objection is not that AI and the HAI aren't doing the right thing, but that they're doing it rudely?

So how exactly do you propose disposing of political ideas which do not deserve respect, but which nonetheless demand respect and their right to exist as a precondition for discussion?

Aaaarrrgggghhhhhhh.
Count to 10...:)

No Robin, it is not that they are doing it rudely (although I'd prefer if they didnt), it is that the manner in which they are doing it will not attract moderate support and that is what they need if they are to effect real change. That is why there is no point in getting involved; religon-bashing and self-satisfatory back-slapping is of little interest to me. Actually achieving something is.

And you dispose of political ideas you do not respect by having your own political ideas implemented as Goverment policy or ideally by constitutional amendment. Advocate what you are for, not what you are against.

robindch

20goto10 wrote: »

What is it about these people that they feel the need to be part of an organistation?

Do you think that one person on their own can take on organized religion?

20goto10

robindch wrote: »

Do you think that one person on their own can take on organized religion?

Why do they need to be taken on? The only thing this country needs is more religon free schools so that our children aren't being brainwashed. So set up an organisation to lobby the government to build more schools. It doesn't have to involve taking on the church. And it certainly doesn't have to be done in the name of a lack of belief in God(s).

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

Why do they need to be taken on? The only thing this country needs is more religon free schools so that our children aren't being brainwashed. So set up an organisation to lobby the government to build more schools. It doesn't have to involve taking on the church. And it certainly doesn't have to be done in the name of a lack of belief in God(s).

We have plenty of schools, we just need to get religion taken out of them

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

But what is happening in recent years, since the popularity of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion, is that being an atheist means you are part of something. As if it is some kind of organisation or godless religion.

You realise it's religious people that are responsible for this notion? It's a reaction to suddenly being challenged, whereas before they lived in Ivory Towers. If you agree with Dawkins et al and keep it to yourself its fine - but if you support them publicly you're part of an atheist movement?

drkpower wrote: »

No Robin, it is not that they are doing it rudely (although I'd prefer if they didnt), it is that the manner in which they are doing it will not attract moderate support and that is what they need if they are to effect real change. That is why there is no point in getting involved; religon-bashing and self-satisfatory back-slapping is of little interest to me. Actually achieving something is.

Again, I ask, is this "religon-bashing and self-satisfactory back-slapping" made publicly, or is this whole idea based on reports of what goes on at AI meetings?

I've heard several interviews with people representing AI and I've never heard them be anything but 'adult' about the topic at hand. In fact it's been the religious on the defensive that usually resort to slurs and non-facts.

20goto10

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We have plenty of schools, we just need to get religion taken out of them

I don't think that is very realistic. The church own the schools. They're state funded just like all other schools, it just so happens they have more of them - a heck of a lot more of them. What we need is more schools to be built. We don't need to challenge them and overrun their schools, we just to build more non religious schools.