John Waters v Atheist Ireland

lostexpectation

Excelsior wrote: »

In the first week after the suggested legislation I wrote publicly about how the blasphemy law has no support from the actual Christian communities in Ireland and if I remember correctly, the Saturday morning that I was published in the Times, a fellow Presbyterian (a minister in fact) was also in the letters page.

I know the atheist.ie crowd would have to legitimise Christians as somewhat sensible, but you could kill this blasphemy bill in a week if you organised alongside the Evangelical Alliance and some easy to find prominent Catholic theologians would would agree with you.

more fantasy, why don't catholics approach the atheists about this then huh?

more of this you do it first nonsense, where is the alliance then ?

atheist ireland aren't preventing it

lostexpectation

CDfm wrote: »

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.

lie

study the actual history http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0606/1224248154873.html

CDfm wrote: »

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.

destroying bread and material is not radical.

--

the point that john waters and drkpower choose to ignore , is although they may have used satire, that michael nugent (having done most of the atheist ireland press, but not exclusive to him ) has always had a reasonable if not above average ability to cite history and fact and put forward strong points of argument. what more could you ask for.

now i wasn't at the meeting and im guessing drkpower wasn't either but i've listened to michael nugent on the radio and youtube i invite drkpower to listen too
them too, some of them are linked here http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2500

and come back and say the atheist ireland are operating on a puerile basis.

lostexpectation

Excelsior wrote: »

In the first week after the suggested legislation I wrote publicly about how the blasphemy law has no support from the actual Christian communities in Ireland and if I remember correctly, the Saturday morning that I was published in the Times, a fellow Presbyterian (a minister in fact) was also in the letters page.

I know the atheist.ie crowd would have to legitimise Christians as somewhat sensible, but you could kill this blasphemy bill in a week if you organised alongside the Evangelical Alliance and some easy to find prominent Catholic theologians would would agree with you.

so wheres your organisation? come on then!

lostexpectation

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

ah the status quo, people like never add anything to this world, referendums are never a waste of money.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

With this stupid law, you're damned if you do object and you're damned if you don't, but AI have chosen to be damned if they do. Everybody else seems to have chosen to be be damned if they don't, and that's fair enough. It would have been better if Ahern had left it so nobody had to waste their time with this kind of silliness, but he didn't.

As has been pointed out, the chances of the DPP bringing a prosecution in reaction to any campaign by AI is slim to none. In fact, the chance of any prosecution ever being instigated is slim; the law has been fashioned to ensure this.

robindch wrote: »

And if AI do get the law overturned, then the next law up for challenge is the church control of access to schools and the church's "right" to discriminate based upon the religious views of the parents.

I'd be in favour of AI skipping the starter and moving on to the main course.

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

the point that john waters and drkpower choose to ignore , is although they may have used satire, that michael nugent (having done most of the atheist ireland press, but not exclusive to him ) has always had a reasonable if not above average ability to cite history and fact and put forward strong points of argument. what more could you ask for....
....now i wasn't at the meeting and im guessing drkpower wasn't either ...
...and come back and say the atheist ireland are operating on a puerile basis...

I am not quite sure why you aim all of this at me....?

Im all in favour of satire.
Many atheists I know have a strong ability to cite history etc....
I wasnt at the meeting.
When did I say that AI were operating on a "peurile basis"? What I did say was that i feared that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism may hold sway over the movement as a whole - presumably you are aware that such an element exists.

Feel free to have an argument with yourself if you want but please leave me out of it....:rolleyes:

lostexpectation

drkpower wrote: »

I am not quite sure why you aim all of this at me....?

Im all in favour of satire.
Many atheists I know have a strong ability to cite history etc....
I wasnt at the meeting.
When did I say that AI were operating on a "peurile basis"? What I did say was that i feared that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism may hold sway over the movement as a whole - presumably you are aware that such an element exists.

your the one that started this thread and echoed john waters point and no i dont agree that there puerile reactionary element holding sway within atheism or atheist ireland.

or that any puerile reactionary element if one ever exists is peculiar to atheism

drkpower

lostexpectation wrote: »

your the one that started this thread and echoed john waters point and no i dont agree that there puerile reactionary element holding sway within atheism or atheist ireland.

or that any puerile reactionary element if one ever exists is peculiar to atheism

Please read my OP before you take a pop; it is quite concise and easily understandable.

1. I agreed, to an extent, with about 6 words of Waters' entire article. Is that echoing him?
2. I specificaly stated that he talks sh!te most of the time. Is that echoing him?
3. I said that I feared that the puerile reactionary element may hold sway within atheism - this was particularly so given the manner in which they proposed to react to the blasphemy bill. And that was both peurile and reactionary, for various reasons which I have explained elsewhere on this thread.
4. And, yes, there are peurile reactionaries in all walks of life, including atheists. And including posters on boards.ie, it seems.....

CDfm

The word puerile means juvenile in this context. Its a bad choice of word and when I think of it a tad offensive and I can see how it got peoples backs up.

John is a big lad and must have a very high horse.

There are lots of things in my life I can't explain like my dislike of white coloured creamy food and brocolli but it feels right to me. Beliefs are a bit the same and you can't diss someones belief or unbelief as pureile and its condescending to do so.

I normally like John Waters stuff but here I have to disagree with him as his reportage doesn't seem to reflect accurately what happened or the convictions and values of the people there.

Coriolanus

CDfm wrote: »

There are lots of things in my life I can't explain like my dislike of white coloured creamy food and brocolli but it feels right to me. Beliefs are a bit the same and you can't diss someones belief or unbelief as pureile and its condescending to do so.

On the contrary, I find the more "personal" strains of religious belief to be more than a little puerile, though I really only have the fact that I was of that ilk well into my teens to draw the comparison from.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

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.

Your 'beliefs' about gravity, thermodynamics or the location of a particular pub are not the arbiter of right and wrong so your scorn may be satisfying but is not justified.

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.

How long will you try to break what is already broken? What about the religions that are not politically dominant? What about this premise that everyone must hold the same beliefs on the God question (i.e. atheism)?

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.

So you would, in fact, prefer to sneer and feel superior than actually succesfully implement a secularisation campaign.

starbelgrade

John Waters is, to me, a bad combover, useless vox pop D-list wannabe. Nothing he says interests me.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

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.

All people need to do to remove religion's power over their rights and freedoms is to stop believing in it surely, not put its believers in the laughing stocks of prejudice?

Húrin

dvpower wrote: »

There's a real double standard at play here. Vocal non believers are often described as reactionary and confrontational but believers who, for example, have said that atheists are going to be sentenced to torture in hell for eternity and that they agree that this should happen to them, come in for no such criticism.

Yes they do! Fire and brimstone types are totally ridiculed and rejected by the majority of Irish people.

Why no merit? If you don't accept the claims of religion as being true, why not want the destruction of it? (I agree its not achievable)

He explained it as a placebo and you did not refute it. I think that the destruction of religion is a rather chilling goal for atheists to advocate because they are indicating a desire to further homogenise humanity. It's kind of like saying that everyone should be a Christian, or Muslim etc.

bigeasyeah

Hey I got a question,hope someone can answer.It is a genuine question and this seems the place to ask.
What is the aims of Atheist Ireland? Are they a lobby group or a just group of people with similar aims?
Ta

Zombrex

bigeasyeah wrote: »

Hey I got a question,hope someone can answer.It is a genuine question and this seems the place to ask.
What is the aims of Atheist Ireland? Are they a lobby group or a just group of people with similar aims?
Ta

If you read their web page the aims are quite clear, TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, W'AH HA HA HA HA!!

Oh yes, and this

Providing a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote: »

If you read their web page the aims are quite clear, TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, W'AH HA HA HA HA!!

Oh yes, and this

Providing a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism

They are a slightly more hardline version of the humanist society (wwe.humanism.ie) who are more about getting equal rights for the non - religious.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

All people need to do to remove religion's power over their rights and freedoms is to stop believing in it surely, not put its believers in the laughing stocks of prejudice?

Eh? If someone's rights are being denied by a religious majority, such as how Irish schools are allowed discriminate based on religion, choosing not to believe in that religion does not suddenly remove the law allowing the discrimination

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the destruction of religion is a rather chilling goal for atheists to advocate because they are indicating a desire to further homogenise humanity.

I hardly think you homogenise humanity by not defining people by which invisible deity they follow. Surely there's more depth to the human race than that?

Mark Hamill

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the destruction of religion is a rather chilling goal for atheists to advocate because they are indicating a desire to further homogenise humanity.

Whats wrong with homogenising humanity? If all humanity was homogenised in their respect for life, the enviroment and peoples rights, would that be a bad thing?

dvpower

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the destruction of religion is a rather chilling goal for atheists to advocate because they are indicating a desire to further homogenise humanity. It's kind of like saying that everyone should be a Christian, or Muslim etc.

Hardly chilling. I'm not advocating the burning down of churches. I don't think that the central claims of religions are true, so I'd like to see people reject these claims, and thus reject religion. This would lead to its destruction.

I'd like to see the same for psychics and homeopaths. Once their claims are sucessfully debunked, there's no point in promoting them for the sake of diversity.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh? If someone's rights are being denied by a religious majority, such as how Irish schools are allowed discriminate based on religion, choosing not to believe in that religion does not suddenly remove the law allowing the discrimination

But Sam you are for discrimination too. If religious believers want to raise their children within their religion they should be free to do so. So when is it a fundamental freedom to surpress religion?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But Sam you are for discrimination too. If religious believers want to raise their children within their religion they should be free to do so. So when is it a fundamental freedom to surpress religion?

I don't want to suppress religion. I'd rather people didn't teach their children these things but as the old saying goes, I'll defend to the death their right to do it. Then if I get the opportunity I'll teach try to teach them the importance of evidence and not accepting something as true just because it's a nice idea. I don't want to suppress their religion, I want to explain to them the flaws in it in the hopes that they'll see the light

Or are you talking about religion in schools? It doesn't belong in schools in a secular state

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I hardly think you homogenise humanity by not defining people by which invisible deity they follow.

Expecting everyone to have the same beliefs is homogenising. I'm for diversity; most atheists appear to be against diversity.

dvpower wrote: »

Hardly chilling. I'm not advocating the burning down of churches. I don't think that the central claims of religions are true, so I'd like to see people reject these claims, and thus reject religion. This would lead to its destruction.

Why is it so important that everyone believes "the truth"?

As sink said, placebos work.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it so important that everyone believes "the truth"?

Because being strongly convinced of falsehoods leads to dangerous and/or bigoted behaviour.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Expecting everyone to have the same beliefs is homogenising. I'm for diversity; most atheists appear to be against diversity.

I love how you always know what most atheists think and how what we think is always negative in some way

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Because being strongly convinced of falsehoods leads to dangerous and/or bigoted behaviour.

The same can be said of any strong conviction, its hardly a symptom solely of falsehoods.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Or are you talking about religion in schools? It doesn't belong in schools in a secular state

I'm not sure this is true. Faith schools exist in many countries which are considered secular such as the UK, USA, Canada and elsewhere. Secularism does not mean suppression of belief, or taking belief out of peoples lives, but it means allowing a free choice of belief within society. This free choice of course means that alternatives should exist in the Irish educational system however.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure this is true. Faith schools exist in many countries which are considered secular such as the UK, USA, Canada and elsewhere. Secularism does not mean suppression of belief, or taking belief out of peoples lives, but it means allowing a free choice of belief within society. This free choice of course means that alternatives should exist in the Irish educational system however.

Faith schools are fine as long as they're built, funded and run entirely by the churches. In Ireland right now I have very few choices if I don't want my child taught in a religious schools because the government is spending all of its money supporting them instead of secular schools as they should be.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The same can be said of any strong conviction, its hardly a symptom solely of falsehoods.

If what you're strongly convicted to is true, how can you be bigoted? If someone says something like "black people are lazy" that would be bigoted but if every black person in the world was actually lazy would it still be bigoted?