John Waters v Atheist Ireland

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

There are many other avenues for a Catholic education to be done more effectively than in school. Church, youth groups and home are three good examples. I would even contend that outsourcing Catholic education to schools makes parents lazy about pursuing it at home, and lazy about attending mass.

That may be so- but the resourses have been used and have already been tied up in the education system.

It seems to me that many atheists feel that there was an abundance of resourses to construct schools etc when the reality is there was not. To view the past by todays standards is ridiculous.

ET engages and tackle the system fairly.

Dades

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

And the reason you are so arrogant, is that you fail to realise that we do not fully understand the universe - or even Earth for that matter. We do not have all the answers; but aethiests act as if they do.

If you hung around here more you'd find it stated repeatedly that atheism never claims to have all the answers - only that religion doesn't have them.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

But if all you want to do is feel self important, work away. Here's a newsflash though, the people you browbeat don't feel foolish

There may be some users who are Atheist Ireland members, but "we" are not Atheist Ireland. Here is their site if you have a rant you want to direct personally.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

There may be some users who are Atheist Ireland members, but "we" are not Atheist Ireland. Here is their site if you have a rant you want to direct personally.

I didn't see you as a closet John Waters fan :pac:

Its the Bacik woman -she frightens ya doesnt she.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

If you hung around here more you'd find it stated repeatedly that atheism never claims to have all the answers - only that religion doesn't have them.

In which case it's pretty stupid for someone who doesn't have answers to urge people to "embrace reality" and become an atheist. It is indeed stated repeatedly that atheism never claims to have all the answers. However most do not live up to that sentiment because they are so certain of their own beliefs.

CDfm

For that matter John Waters doesn't claim to have all the answers either. He doesn't claim to be an intellectual or sophisticate or guru and is not afraid of U2.He is a bit of an everyman.

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

In which case it's pretty stupid for someone who doesn't have answers to urge people to "embrace reality" and become an atheist.

Its not so much that we have all the correct answers, but more that we can spot some of the answers which are clearly wrong.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

For that matter John Waters doesn't claim to have all the answers either. He doesn't claim to be an intellectual or sophisticate or guru and is not afraid of U2.He is a bit of an everyman.

I'd imagine if you asked John Waters would tell you who created the universe, and what our 'purpose' is. Those are pretty big questions to claim to have the answers to.

Húrin wrote: »

In which case it's pretty stupid for someone who doesn't have answers to urge people to "embrace reality" and become an atheist. It is indeed stated repeatedly that atheism never claims to have all the answers. However most do not live up to that sentiment because they are so certain of their own beliefs.

"Reality" being that we don't have the answers.

And the only beliefs that atheists are certain of are that religious beliefs are wrong. Like what you believe about every other religion than Christianity.

patrickthomas

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I am a secularist, and I personally find Atheist Ireland arrogant, rude, and insulting.

I think its childish to pretend that the FSM arguemnt isn't meant to be insulting. I'm not going to argue with you, I'm not going to prove something we all already know. Russel's tea pot was an intelligent non-offensive idea, but that wasn't enough, atheists needed something foolish and rediculous.

And the reason you are so arrogant, is that you fail to realise that we do not fully understand the universe - or even Earth for that matter. We do not have all the answers; but aethiests act as if they do.

If you want to challenge religious indoctrination, provide unbiased palatable information.

If you want to remove religious privilege provided reasonable arguements.

But if all you want to do is feel self important, work away. Here's a newsflash though, the people you browbeat don't feel foolish

I have looked at the site and read the forums and I cannot for the life of me see any of this arrogance or insults you speak about. links please.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I'd imagine if you asked John Waters would tell you who created the universe, and what our 'purpose' is. Those are pretty big questions to claim to have the answers to.

"Reality" being that we don't have the answers.

And the only beliefs that atheists are certain of are that religious beliefs are wrong. Like what you believe about every other religion than Christianity.

But he is also against the blashphemy law

Nothing can be removed from the judgment of laughter, including God and religion, writes JOHN WATERS .
OTHER THAN that it is a ruse to distract the public’s attention from the Government’s handling of the economic crisis, it is difficult to arrive at any insight into why the Minister for Justice has proposed the introduction of a new crime of blasphemous libel.
Perhaps some lobby group has been beavering away, tormenting the Minister and his department. If so, one could readily imagine such a group: wearing its religiosity like a shield against the world, beleaguered in its piety and defensive about its beliefs. But if we succumb to the anxieties of these who wear their religiosity as a suit of armour against reality, we succumb also to the taunts of the ignoramuses who tell us that religion is (at once!) a dangerous and a dying phenomenon.
The right to give expression to the religious concept of reality itself depends on the right to freedom of expression. If we move to censor criticism or the satirising of religion, we move also to what will no doubt be deemed a trade-off: the complete removal of signs of religiosity from public view. If the proposed legislation were to become law, it would become more difficult to argue with, for example, attempts to remove the Angelus from national radio and television, because the continuation of this tradition might then quite reasonably be deemed an unjust provocation to those whose dissent would no longer be a matter of freedom of choice, but a potential crime subject to draconian penalties.
Freedom of expression is not an absolute value, but it should be qualified only in circumstances where the freedom in question is exercised against a group or individual incapable of answering back. The idea that a form of expression can be prohibited because some people find it offensive is a recipe for the elimination of every contentious idea from the public square.
Recently I expressed the view that some paintings depicting a nude Brian Cowen, unofficially and briefly displayed in the National Gallery and RHA, were offensive and in bad taste. But the idea that such gestures might be made illegal, or subject to punishment, must be regarded as both dangerous and silly.

If you engage in debate like atheists do the can find their ideas challenged and as Stabshauptmann implies the FSM agrument is often used this way.

This underlines the point that atheists can resort to behaviour that is not funny but insulting.When that happens it creates an environment where goodwill on issues like education can be eroded.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

In which case it's pretty stupid for someone who doesn't have answers to urge people to "embrace reality" and become an atheist.

Why?

To an atheist often We don't have the foggiest, and neither do you is reality. You don't have to have all the answers, and know what we don't know is often the closest to truth you are going to get.

The thing atheists object to the most, in my experience, is people pretending to have an answer to something they don't know (and often cannot know).

Húrin

@CDfm, is any remotely sensible person not against the blasphemy law?!

Dades wrote: »

"Reality" being that we don't have the answers.

Many people just as qualified as you think otherwise.

And the only beliefs that atheists are certain of are that religious beliefs are wrong. Like what you believe about every other religion than Christianity.

That's a pretty big thing to be certain about. It's quite alright to think that religions are unlikely to be right, but to be certain about it is a bit much. To be certain that theism is wrong you would have to be sure that the universe arose through natural processes. You can't know that for sure, can you?

Unfortunately I'm not a Christian. I talk about the Bible because I have read it. Christians I know for the most part do not think that other religions are all wrong - that's more of an atheist belief. Christian attitude is typically that the others contain truth but not as much as Christianity. That was also CS Lewis' view as recorded in Mere Christianity.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

To be certain that theism is wrong you would have to be sure that the universe arose through natural processes. You can't know that for sure, can you?

Nonsense. You wouldn't have to know that at all, that suggestion that we have to understand the origins of the universe in order to dismiss their origin of the universe is just religious silliness.

To be certain (in an every day sense rather than scientific sense) that theism is wrong you simply have to establish that theism is invented by the human imagination.

Which is very easy to establish as very a plausible a likely theory, pushing so far into the "that is likely" area that you can easily be certain of it.

Given then that theism is invented by humans the odds that one of them would, by sheer coincidence, get the creation of the universe absolutely right is so ridiculously unlikely as to be easy disregarded as implausible, particularly given that advances in physics have revealed a universe that appears to work nothing like how humans imagine it should.

So you don't have to know anything about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, or any of that stuff. People have been rejecting theism as made up nonsense since long before any of these concepts were even known about, let alone explored with science.

Theism is wrong. Humans made and continue to make religions up. It is really that simple.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

@CDfm, is any remotely sensible person not against the blasphemy law?!

Maybe so - but given this thread concerns John Waters and AI its worth pointing out his stance.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Given then that theism is invented by humans the odds that one of them would, by sheer coincidence, get the creation of the universe absolutely right is so ridiculously unlikely as to be easy disregarded as implausible [...] Theism is wrong. Humans made and continue to make religions up. It is really that simple.

I think "Humans evolve religions..." is closer to the mark, but it's just splitting hairs.

Bearing in mind the above, it's interesting to ask members of some religion whether they feel that theirs is the right one, and whether the specific, instantaneous snapshot of their religion that they hold at the moment of asking is right -- most believers will answer "yes" to both.

...which gives rise to what it seems right to term "cultural creationism": the belief that everybody else's religious views are wrong to a greater or lesser degree, while one's own current religious beliefs, ex nihilo, constitute the One True Instance of the One True Faith.

It's self-importance at galactic scale.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I think "Humans evolve religions..." is closer to the mark, but it's just splitting hairs.

Bearing in mind the above, it's interesting to ask members of some religion whether they feel that theirs is the right one, and whether the specific, instantaneous snapshot of their religion that they hold at the moment of asking is right -- most believers will answer "yes" to both.

...which gives rise to what it seems right to term "cultural creationism": the belief that everybody else's religious views are wrong to a greater or lesser degree, while one's own current religious beliefs, ex nihilo, constitute the One True Instance of the One True Faith

But didn't Waters article about the AI AGM anger.

So in this context you could say that there is a cultural superiority in atheism too and the belief that everyone elses beliefs are wrong on the basis of scientific theories but also some prominent atheists do come across as smug and do ridicule others beliefs.

Is there some justification in his article at a general level?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

More so than this mythical "objective" education, that teaches no values at all? Every aspect of education affects government because governance is determined by culture. A religious culture will therefore have religious governance. It is not a failing to reach some sort of perfect secular form of governance - there is no such thing.

That was in response to Jakkass' ridiculous assertion that a religious education has no effect on politics and that should make it "ok". Of course both types have an effect on it

Húrin wrote: »

The law itself relies on more than "objective" facts. So this value free education (would you want to exclude even those values that both you and Christians agree on?) is neither possible nor desirable.

It's not a value free education. If you want to teach your children christian values you are free to do that. The only point I'm making is that putting your religion in schools and no one else's is discimination

Húrin wrote: »

The ideology that states that it's not OK to teach unproven ideologies, is itself an unproven ideology.

For education, it matters more that the ideology is proven useful than that it is "proven" true.

That is the mantra of the propgandist. It's not up to you to decide which lies are ok to teach and which aren't

Húrin wrote: »

I thought you said that schools should only teach facts. Morality is a matter of opinion.

It can be taught as a matter of opinion. The problem come when you say it's not a matter of opinion because it comes from the perfect creator of the universe. Teaching your opinion as if it's fact is a problem

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its how it evolved. If I want my kids in schools with a catholic ethos I am hardly going to be wildly enthusiastic about your proposal.

And white people in America weren't enthusiastic about giving up their place at the front of the bus either.

CDfm wrote: »

Your ideal solution is not to have religion taught in schools. If I am happy with the status quo- why not say so?

Because the status quo is discriminatory

CDfm wrote: »

What discrimination give me facts of who was discriminated and when?

Your religion and only your religion is taught in state schools. Discrimination.

CDfm wrote: »

Wait a minute - Catholic Schools will give priority to Catholic kids. Thats not rocket science.

I have absolutely no problem with catholic schools giving priority to catholic kids. Public schools are a different matter entirely. If you want to discriminate against non-catholics then start a school solely for catholics and have it paid for solely by catholics.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying that the system as it has evolved is ideal.Its a government responsibility and not a church responsibility to provide school places.

So you know it's not ideal but you're here fighting to keep it the way it is. Right so

We know it's the government's responsibility to provide school places but unfortunately previous governments handed the school places over to the church so surely the correct thing to do is to alleviate the church of these school places that are not their responsibility, ie take back the schools? We wouldn't do it that way now so why should it stay the way it is?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

That's a pretty big thing to be certain about.

TBH, you used the word 'certain' first. For the sake of semantics I didn't bother qualifying it with an "almost" or "99%".

Húrin wrote: »

Unfortunately I'm not a Christian. I talk about the Bible because I have read it.

Really? I thought you believed in the Christian God, and Jesus etc.

Húrin wrote: »

Christian attitude is typically that the others contain truth but not as much as Christianity.

Ah, so all religions are right, but some are righter than others?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

I don't applaud people for believing different things to me. I just find it within myself, somehow, to accept it. You on the other hand, want enough diversity so that everyone can believe the same things as you.

I think you atheists are a little bit too certain that your beliefs are true, which is usually denied vigorously. Consistency please!

At no point did I say anyone should be taught atheism, I said they should be taught facts, ie things written down in science and history books. There is no text book that teaches that God doesn't exist and proves it so it wouldn't be taught. There is a difference between teaching that God doesn't exist and not teaching that he does.

Atheism is a view on religion, although not a religion itself, so I don't think it should be in schools. Unfortunately CDfm points out our constitution says the government is required to support religious education so the next best thing is to get rid of the discriminatory situation and teach them all

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism offers no pretence of salvation, so what's the big deal? Is it an ego thing, to prove to yourself that you're right?

Again, I'm not talking about teaching atheism but I don't see what the big deal about offering a pretence of salvation is if it's not actually going to happen. The way I see it, if someone believes that this life is effectively insignificant because it will be followed by eternity in heaven - and it won't be - it can do nothing but devalue the only life they're ever going to get. Offering salvation is great but offering a pretence of salvation is not.

Sam Vimes

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I am a secularist, and I personally find Atheist Ireland arrogant, rude, and insulting.

I think its childish to pretend that the FSM arguemnt isn't meant to be insulting. I'm not going to argue with you, I'm not going to prove something we all already know. Russel's tea pot was an intelligent non-offensive idea, but that wasn't enough, atheists needed something foolish and rediculous.

The FSM argument is foolish and ridiculous because the argument it argues against is foolish and ridiculous

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

In which case it's pretty stupid for someone who doesn't have answers to urge people to "embrace reality" and become an atheist. It is indeed stated repeatedly that atheism never claims to have all the answers. However most do not live up to that sentiment because they are so certain of their own beliefs.

The reality is that God's existence has not been proven and in fact has not even been hinted towards with any degree of certainty. We cannot say for certain that he doesn't exist but the reality is that until more evidence is provided, accepting that he does exist is simply wishful thinking.

So the reality that I want to be embraced is not that God doesn't exist but that we don't know if he does either

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The reality is that God's existence has not been proven and in fact has not even been hinted towards with any degree of certainty. We cannot say for certain that he doesn't exist but the reality is that until more evidence is provided, accepting that he does exist is simply wishful thinking

Is this the bit where I get to say "Incredible claims require incredible evidence"?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The FSM argument is foolish and ridiculous because the argument it argues against is foolish and ridiculous

But when John Waters reported that the AI AGM was puerile you were upset.

Cant you see the similarities?

Thats not defending John Waters -he is fairly basic in his arguments and comes at it from an everyman point of view.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But when John Waters reported that the AI AGM was puerile you were upset.

Cant you see the similarities?

Thats not defending John Waters -he is fairly basic in his arguments and comes at it from an everyman point of view.

The FSM argument is not puerile. It's a response to a puerile argument. If someone makes a ridiculous argument then its ridiculousness should be pointed out. There is nothing to be gained by tip toeing around it, pretending that the argument has some validity lest they get offended. If they don't want to get offended they should make better arguments

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That was in response to Jakkass' ridiculous assertion that a religious education has no effect on politics and that should make it "ok". Of course both types have an effect on it

Governance != politics.

Governance refers to the ruling of the State. Politics doesn't deal exclusively with the ruling of the State. Politics takes place outside the Dáil, and of course there are opposition parties too.

If you mean that religion affects political activism, I'd agree with you entirely. To a certain degree it does, of course varying between jurisdictions.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Governance != politics.

Governance refers to the ruling of the State. Politics doesn't deal exclusively with the ruling of the State. Politics takes place outside the Dáil, and of course there are opposition parties too.

If you mean that religion affects political activism, I'd agree with you entirely. To a certain degree it does, of course varying between jurisdictions.

Politics is not governance but governance is encompassed and influenced by politics

@CDfm, the way I see it, people with a good case argue and people without one get offended when this fact is pointed out to them.

Sam Vimes

Basically Jakkass, imo you don't think a christian ethos effects governance negatively not because it has no effect but because you don't see a christian ethos as negative. Would that be correct?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And white people in America weren't enthusiastic about giving up their place at the front of the bus either.

Because the status quo is discriminatory

Your religion and only your religion is taught in state schools. Discrimination.

Its not exactly the same and you know it.:pac:

EDIT - You also do not take into account that Ireland became a devoutly Catholic Country as a result of its political situation and religion was a big part of that. It was reactionary and in that way is quite unique in Europe as is our historical situation. In that sense when change happens it should not follow extreme polarised models.

I have absolutely no problem with catholic schools giving priority to catholic kids. Public schools are a different matter entirely. If you want to discriminate against non-catholics then start a school solely for catholics and have it paid for solely by catholics.

We have never had purely public schools but an Irish Hybrid. It is my right under the contitution to have schools with a Catholic ethos.

So you know it's not ideal but you're here fighting to keep it the way it is. Right so

I also agree and support the Educate Together schemes

We know it's the government's responsibility to provide school places but unfortunately previous governments handed the school places over to the church so surely the correct thing to do is to alleviate the church of these school places that are not their responsibility, ie take back the schools? We wouldn't do it that way now so why should it stay the way it is?

We also know that Church Communities poured resources into these schools which could have been used elsewhere for Church purposes and this was the opportunity cost of getting involved in education.

If the State were to take over the schools the resources should be released back to the same parishes as parish resources for catholic youth clubs and other infrastructure. Thats a more realistic approach.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Basically Jakkass, imo you don't think a christian ethos effects governance negatively not because it has no effect but because you don't see a christian ethos as negative. Would that be correct?

I don't think the Government has a Christian ethos. Read the quote that I gave from Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister of Australia who is also a Christian. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists and agnostics should all have a say in public debate, but the Government will not give favouritism to any single point of view, but will weigh it up and decide based on these views.

A Christian view should be heard, but it should not be the deciding factor in politics in a pluralism. Likewise an humanist view should be heard, and an Islamic view should be heard but by no means should it be regarded as the deciding factor.

I think the Australian and American model of dealing with religion is far better than the European model of dealing with religion. One encourages free enterprise, and the other encourages suppression and a forcing of religion as merely a private manner against the will of it's adherents.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its not exactly the same and you know it.:pac:

No it is exactly the same and you just don't want to admit it to yourself because the status quo is so handy for yourself. It used to be that people saw absolutely nothing immoral about slavery too.

CDfm wrote: »

We have never had purely public schools but an Irish Hybrid.

The fact that the state handed the schools over to the church when it shouldn't have doesn't mean they're not public. If they weren't public schools, if they were catholic schools, there would be no non-catholics in them

CDfm wrote: »

It is my right under the contitution to have schools with a Catholic ethos.

It absolutely is, so go build some like you want everyone else to. Public schools are for everyone

CDfm wrote: »

We also know that Church Communities poured resources into these schools which could have been used elsewhere for Church purposes and this was the opportunity cost of getting involved in education.

If the State were to take over the schools the resources should be released back to the same parishes as parish resources for catholic youth clubs and other infrastructure. Thats a more realistic approach.

The church won't get all its money back, it has got what it paid for up to now but as I said at the start of the thread three things would be acceptable to me:

1. Buy them back but the government doesn't really have the money
2. Have the church hand them over as compensation for raping large sections of our country
3. Keep the church as the owner but remove any discrimination against people of other religions and no religion, ie if they want religion/ethics class then everyone gets their own. Public schools belong to the whole community and not just the catholics. This is probably the easiest option. Btw, this option would include other religious groups also paying some cost

Then the church can spend its money supporting the community instead of paying for school related things that have nothing to do with their religion and are the responsibility of the state to provide