John Waters v Atheist Ireland

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anyone who put their hand up could speak. I put my hand up at one point and I'm not a member but they ran out of time and didn't get to me

I should probably have said that that is normally the format but AGMs are normally governed by an organisations constitution and if they allow non members to speak that is their right. Its a voluntary organisation so they can set their own rules. Its usual to have participation limited to members rather than guests.

jill_valentine

CDfm wrote: »

It wasnt a meet and greet.

It was their AGM and it was their to inform members of their activities throughoutthe year, election of officers and activities for the coming year.Those entitled to speak were members.What they were discussing was policy.

The blasphemy law was an item for discussion but as with AGMs while the public may attend only members can speak. It was publicised that the blasphemy law was to be on the aghenda for discussion was intended.

Senator Bacik is also Reid Professor of Criminal law at Trinity and was the key speaker and is a practicing Barrister.

Anybody was welcome to speak during the time allotted to the blasphemy law. I spoke, and I'm not a member.

Later, when they moved on to points of policy, they got more formal.

EDIT: Sorry CDfm, missed your next post.

dvpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the major problem because that is the definition of atheism. What you're doing on this thread is essentially saying that we should stop being atheists and become secularists

Often on these fora you see people placing a religious tag on atheists (atheism as some kind of an anti-religion religion). Here we have a political tag applied.

The fact is, once you start talking about your atheism, it becomes political, with a small p. I've never met an atheist who wasn't a secularist; the trick is to attract the secularists who aren't atheists.

jill_valentine

dvpower wrote: »

I've never met an atheist who wasn't a secularist; the trick is to attract the secularists who aren't atheists.

Boom.

Statement should be posted in big giant letters wherever this is being discussed.

dvpower

drkpower wrote: »

You can equate religon with various things but, unfortunately, you have to deal with religon as it is,

Yes you do. But just because it has power and history and numbers doesn’t mean it has credibility.

I’m tempted to make an analogy here with a terrorist who has kidnapped your child, but I’ll settle for one where a scumbag has stolen your bike;
you need to deal with them, but it doesn’t make them right.

lostexpectation

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?

Not a chance.

that one hell if any if and fantasy you've created there drkpower
drkpower im still waiting for the organised catholic response to the blasphemy law.

Not a chance.

lots of chance have you tried talking to dermot ahern or moving the inertia and weight of the government

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

you relegate me to a believer who is having a tough time accepting my fall from grace.

This is very precisely not what I said or implied in the previous post.

drkpower wrote: »

all you can do is attempt to demean and discredit those who fundamentally agree with you.

I am doing no demeaning or discrediting and as I said above, you're simply reading intentions and motivations into what me and other people write, presumably based upon your own expectations or predispositions.

But going back to your OP in which you say:

drkpower wrote:

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

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there'll always be a small percentage of people who are just rude and that there's not much we can do about that. But for the remainder who are less excitable, could you say exactly what they should be positively doing to attract more people like you?

Skrynesaver

And lo it came to pass that the first recorded miracle of the faith of Demotology was the turning of Walters to whine.

True there is a tendency among Irish atheists to be a bit arogant and confrontational, but I would ascribe that to the power religion hold in this country and the zeal of the convert. Continental friends who haven't lived here find my anger at religion baffling, while those that have lived here become quite angry themselves when they realise the role the church has in policy in the state.

While dkpower has a point in that there is a tendency towards confrontation among Irish atheists there is much to be confronted.

lostexpectation

so much easier for drkpower to snipe about atheist.ie then challenge the state

not to make it all about michael nugent, but he is doing most of the media, he is a humorist for a living but drkpower have you even known him not to back up his satire with serious points of argument and fact?

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

This is very precisely not what I said or implied in the previous post.I am doing no demeaning or discrediting and as I said above, you're simply reading intentions and motivations into what me and other people write, presumably based upon your own expectations or predispositions.

I dont particularly want to go down a side issue, Robin, but what did you mean when you said "it seems to me that you're simply having a hard time adjusting to an environment in which religion is not longer accorded the infinite respect it received, and expected to receive, until relatively recently"; is that not a suggestion that I am religous and favour it being accorded a significant degree oof respect? It certainly seems like it to me. Please take a little responsibility for what you say.

robindch wrote: »

But going back to your OP in which you say:Let's assume for the sake of argument that there'll always be a small percentage of people who are just rude and that there's not much we can do about that. But for the remainder who are less excitable, could you say exactly what they should be positively doing to attract more people like you?

No; I cant say precisely what needs to be done. I can only make a few suggestions. That is what I have done throughout this thread. In a nutshell, atheists who want to effect real policy change need to take it seriously and attract the support of moderate secularists. Im sure there are loads of people who can advise on how best to do this; my focus in this thread has been to point out a relatively prevalent attitude amongst atheists that I think is damaging to attracting such support. I do not nor do I claim to have all of the answers.

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

so much easier for drkpower to snipe about atheist.ie then challenge the state

not to make it all about michael nugent, but he is doing most of the media, he is a humourist for living but drkpower have you even known him not to back up his satire with serious points of arguement?

Aaaarrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Im sorry if you think I am "sniping"; Im actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. Some on this thread have agreed with some of what I am saying - so I clearly dont have some kind of fringe point of view. Perhaps consider whether my suggestions have any merit rather than reeling against it because I have something critical to say. Remember, fundamentally I want the same things as you do.

The Church tend to react in that way to criticism too.....:eek:

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

that one hell if any if and fantasy you've created there drkpower
drkpower im still waiting for the organised catholic response to the blasphemy law.

lots of chance have you tried talking to dermot ahern or moving the inertia and weight of the government

Is it a fantasy to believe in a sizeabe "secular lobby"?

CDfm

sink wrote: »

I'm with drkpower on this. I'm not an anti-theist, I don't care what supernatural beliefs one has and I don't buy the argument that i'm somehow enabling the fundamentalists by not confronting moderate theists. I believe that reactionary confrontational atheists actually create support for the fundamentalists and push moderates further to the loony fringe.

Its a bit like sectarian attitudes in the north the definitions are handed out by the extremists.

99% of believers do not infringe on my secular rights, they don't harass me or discriminate against me for my lack of belief and I don't harass or discriminate against them. We work perfectly well together in all aspects of life and many are people I would call my friends. The only real difference is on Sundays mornings they go to church and I sleep.

Live and let live.

lostexpectation wrote: »

not to make it all about michael nugent, but he is doing most of the media, he is a humourist for living but drkpower have you even known him not to back up his satire with serious points of arguement?

But when he talks on atheist matters he is talking on behalf of an organisation and of the members.

I have never heard of Michael Nugent the comedian and he is not that well known that people can make the distinction so his extreme views are taken on face value- thats unless he considers Atheist Ireland to be a joke. Now that would be satire.

lostexpectation

drkpower wrote: »

Aaaarrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Im sorry if you think I am "sniping"; Im actually trying to make a constructive suggestion. Some on this thread have agreed with some of what I am saying - so I clearly dont have some kind of fringe point of view. Perhaps consider whether my suggestions have any merit rather than reeling against it because I have something critical to say.

Remember, fundamentally I want the same things as you do.

well why don't you go after that rather then atheistie, there not getting in anyones way, you can entirely ignore atheistie and go about setting up your humongous secular lobby.

The Church tend to react in that way to criticism too.....:eek:

:rolleyes:

i made, a point in return you chose not to answer.

drkpower wrote: »

Is it a fantasy to believe in a sizeabe "secular lobby"?

somewhat yes, especially when i don't see any believers organising against blasphemy or for secularism.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the major problem because that is the definition of atheism. What you're doing on this thread is essentially saying that we should stop being atheists and become secularists

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying; because atheism is just a lack of belief. But any atheist I ever met wants some kind of practical application of atheism, whether that be religon out of education or out of the constitution. And the practical application of the belief is.......secularism (essentially...).

Do you want some kind of practical application?

lostexpectation

CDfm wrote: »

I have never heard of Michael Nugent the comedian and he is not that well known that people can make the distinction so his extreme views are taken on face value- thats unless he considers Atheist Ireland to be a joke. Now that would be satire.

michael nugent has extreme views now that is news

bnt

The first thing I noted about the piece is that Waters goes straight in to personal attacks on the members of Atheist Ireland. You can contrast this with what was actually said at the AGM, which was about the beliefs people hold, but little negative about the people themselves. (Is "Dermotology" insulting to Dermot? I don't know.)

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many religious people are so wedded to their beliefs that criticism of a belief is taken as criticism of the person. Still, if personal insult is all Waters can come up with, rather than any substantive evidence to back the religious position, that tells me all I need to know about the validity of his ludicrous beliefs. I don't know anything about the guy himself, so I'm in no position to insult him personally (even if I wanted to, which I don't) - but I guess I just did, somehow. :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

sink wrote: »

I'm with drkpower on this. I'm not an anti-theist, I don't care what supernatural beliefs one has and I don't buy the argument that i'm somehow enabling the fundamentalists by not confronting moderate theists. I believe that reactionary confrontational atheists actually create support for the fundamentalists and push moderates further to the loony fringe.

I don't see the destruction of religion as an achievable goal, or even one with much merit. Religion provides a crutch to people and some people need it, religion can turn the lives of depressed and unstable people around. So what if it's based on a lie, if it helps, let it. Doctors prescribe placebos all the time and in a lot of cases religion can do it better.

99% of believers do not infringe on my secular rights, they don't harass me or discriminate against me for my lack of belief and I don't harass or discriminate against them. We work perfectly well together in all aspects of life and many are people I would call my friends. The only real difference is on Sundays mornings they go to church and I sleep.

Granted the constitution needs to be revamped and all the religious references need to be taken out. Atheists need to realise that we're not the only ones who want secularisation, many theists do too. But so many of you are too prejudiced to even work with theists on a common goal.

what theists? where are these theists working for secularism?

blasphemy.ie was set up as organ to work with people beyond atheists.

I respect moderate secular theists more as people than I do many hard nosed atheists, who scoff at anyone with a supernatural belief. In the end it's a persons character which matters most not their beliefs!

'reactionary confrontational atheists' 'destruction of religion'

where are you getting these things from sink. I haven't see any of this.

sink can just ignore the deliberate monopolisation of education i can't.

lostexpectation

dvpower wrote: »

Atheists seem to have gained a reputation in recent times for being arrogant and aggressive (which is fairness is a step up from our previous reputation of being devil worshippers*). Fair or not, this view seems to have taken hold.

I attribute this in part to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchins. There is a touch of the polemic about them (esp. Hitchins), but its this that has given atheism a voice.

We do seem to spend a lot of time ridiculing religion. This is fair enough; ridiculing the ridiculous makes some sense. But in doing this we are also ridiculing the people who we would like to convince; the majority of people who aren't seriously religious, who are just in it for cultural reasons. Telling these people that they are akin to fairy worshippers isn't well received and potential allies are lost.



*or is it?

ah yes dawkins aggressive hahaha. this whole dawkins is arrogant thing is so tired, its wonder waters never got around to talking about blasphemy and education and health

why do expect people to give god credence.

what with dvpower and drkpower, argh getting them mixed up.

CDfm

lostexpectation wrote: »

michael nugent has extreme views now that is news

Well I am only taking it that the discussion he chaired at the AGM where some participants called for a host to be desecrated. Now you must agree that a reasonable person would construe such a proposal as radical and he joined in.

It is the equivalent of calling on people to assemble in Dublin to burn the Union Jack on the Glorious 12th.

Now he chaired the meeting and if it was about advancing a secular society then that does not appear to have come accross in what was reported on the issue.

CDfm

lostexpectation wrote: »

sink can just ignore the deliberate monopolisation of education i can't.

The education issue is quite seperate. The history of it is well known that religious communities provided eductation when the state did not or subsequently did not have the resourses to.

I agree that the educational establishment in ireland is very mixed up and agree there should be freedom to have non religious education options.

But thats a seperate issue to this thread really and does not seem tohave been reported on..

ChocolateSauce

My opinion of John Waters is that he is a direly conservative man who is utterly convinced, if not of his own intellectual superiority, than at least that anyone who acts like they are right (whether or not it is justified) is automatically wrong. He is also a boarder-line fundamentalist, dour and dry, devoid of humour. Tbh, I don't really care what he thinks of anything.

Now, Fintan O'Toole...there's a guy to invite to an event! I find it saddening that the Times sent Waters. As soon as I saw him I knew this article was going to happen.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My opinion of John Waters is that he is a direly conservative man who is utterly convinced, if not of his own intellectual superiority, than at least that anyone who acts like they are right (whether or not it is justified) is automatically wrong. He is also a boarder-line fundamentalist, dour and dry, devoid of humour.

That could be said of a lot of people and could equally apply to former FG local election candidates and former members of the PDs .:rolleyes:

I don't think you could accuse John Waters of being intellectually superior but he is a very deep thinker and is quite a nice guy.

Trouble

Waters may be a nice guy but he is fundamentalist.
He claims to have been agnostic or atheist for 20 years and now, like the prodigal son he has returned to the flock.

He is about as intellectually superior as a tobelerone and I would love if anybody had any reference to any thing he has published that could be deemed intellectual.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think you could accuse John Waters of being intellectually superior but he is a very deep thinker

On the increasingly rare occasions upon which I make it any further than Waters' name at the top of an article, I'm reminded of the description of William Jennings Bryant as "just like the River Platte: a mile wide at the mouth and one inch deep".

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

On the increasingly rare occasions upon which I make it any further than Waters' name at the top of an article, I'm reminded of the description of William Jennings Bryant as "just like the River Platte: a mile wide at the mouth and one inch deep".

Other than the puerile neo-atheist bit what did he say that was really offensive to atheists?

Senator Ivana Bacik, claiming to be the only “card-carrying atheist” in the Oireachtas, berated what she termed “creeping fundamentalism”, instancing the blasphemy legislation recently moved by the Minister for Justice. She warned about “a very vocal group of social conservatives who are trying to turn back the clock”. She offered no names.

Is that part offensive?

Or is it that those running the meeting are everybit as socially conservative establishment types in their own way or is it the bit about the comments made being reminisent of "reveloutionary pub talk from 30 years ago.

I mean Michael Nugents political affiliations were about as neo-conservative as you can get.

The Mad Hatter

CDfm wrote: »

<snip>

I imagine robin was more talking about the incoherent and self-contradictory nature of his articles than anything offensive within them.

CDfm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I imagine robin was more talking about the incoherent and self-contradictory nature of his articles than anything offensive within them.

I imagine John Waters and Ivana Bacik would disagree strongly on the politics of feminism and mens rights and I wonder if the question he poses is not somehow related to this?

His articles on mens rights and childrens rights are well known as are Ivana Baciks politically correct views she was Junior Counsel in the KAL same sex marriage case.

But specifically what is offensive about the article?

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Other than the puerile neo-atheist bit what did he say that was really offensive to atheists?

Have you seen his hair?

Tim Robbins

I like a lot of John Waters' stuff. It's thought provoking and certainly more challenging than anything to come from a creationist or a biblical inerrant believer.

As for atheist ireland (and any atheist) getting wound up over the blasphemy laws, I think they are missing the underlying point. We would need a referendum to remove it from the constitution which we can't afford because the county is in a dire recession and we also have to get Lisbon through which of course failed at the first attempt because the majority of people voted no, usually for idiotic reasons. Statistically, it's highly probable that many people giving out about the blasphemy bill, voted no, but they are so entrenched in their almost OCD nature of giving out about religion at any possible opportunity they can't take a step back and see the big picture.

The government is correctly drafting this bill so that an out dated part of the constitution can actually never be applied. This is the cheapest and easiest way of dealing with it for now. In the future, when we have the money and we aren't on the verge of ostracising ourselves further from the EU, it will be more appropriate to remove blasphemy from the constitution altogether or reword it with something more PC.