Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean to say that those who most believe in survival of the fittest aren't proving fit enough to survive. And vice versa?

No doubt you're ignoring for the sake of humour the fact that anyone with more than a passing familiarity with biology would cringe at the use of that non-scientific term in any context, given the inaccuracy of it's attempt to describe natural selection.

(:))

SillyMcCarthy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Full article here

Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate but I think he misrepresents atheism. He sets it up as a sort of life stance on a range of issues. This is incorrect. All atheism is, is a position on an existential question, that is whether God exists or not.

Pardon me but I was under the assumption that athiests
didn't believe in a God?

Reading the above makes me wonder if you are unsure?

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

No doubt you're ignoring for the sake of humour the fact that anyone with more than a passing familiarity with biology would cringe at the use of that non-scientific term in any context, given the inaccuracy of it's attempt to describe natural selection.

(:))

You mean those who believe most in natural selection also happen to be those who aren't being selected?

The humour seems to travel well to the realm of the scientific...



(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

The Quadratic Equation

Dades wrote: »

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

The schools you refer to are Catholic owned schools.
It's a parents right to bring children up in their religion in their own schools, and have acess to the same school funding as any other denomination or grouping has.

UDP

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

Pardon me but I was under the assumption that athiests
didn't believe in a God?

Reading the above makes me wonder if you are unsure?

Yes contrary to popular belief most atheists hold the position that they do not claim to know if a deity or deities exist (agnostic) but do not believe that one or multiple exist due to the lack of evidence.

I suggest you read a nice article by an Irish Atheist here that might help explain.

UDP

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The schools you refer to are Catholic owned schools.
It's a parents right to bring children up in their religion in their own schools, and have acess to the same school funding as any other denomination or grouping has.

and one would expect this to be at best proportionate to the percentage of catholics in the country - which appears it is not. I believe it is something like 93% vs 83/85%. When the new census results are released I expect this gap will grow larger again if some schools are not handed back in the meantime.

marty1985

Actually, antiskeptic is right to highlight the irony.

Dades wrote: »

Our own culture is slowly pushing Catholicism into the back pews. There's virtually no priests being ordained anymore. The church will always be there, but it's influence will wane over time.

Globally, our own culture matters little. Catholicism is in decline because of its own failures. Also, don't focus on Catholicism too much. Catholicism in Ireland came very cheap. Atheism as a rejection of that Catholicism will be just as cheap as what it replaces IMHO.

With regards to Ireland, the influence of the Catholic Church will wane for sure, but the church itself will still be there. As Irish Catholics exit the church, they are replaced by Eastern Europeans and Africans. In the future, we can probably add Chinese to this mix. Globally, Pentecostalism is surging. A quarter of the world's Christians are now believed to be Pentecostal. It is rising in Ireland too. Mormonism is experiencing an explosion globally due to their high birthrates, an exponential increase similar to that of early Christianity in the period 30 AD - 300 AD (which was largely down to their high fertility rates). Ireland won't be completely exempt from these trends.

Catholic Europe is in freefall, while Protestant Europe already has low levels of religious practice. But there is still a lively and demographically surgent Christian remnant. And against a backdrop of European fertility decline, fertility rates rise in practicing religious communities. Christianity in Europe is still not a spent force. Add immigration to this. The main flows involve Muslims and Christians. Few of them will be secular. All of these trends in Europe apply to Ireland too.

Religiosity might be in decline here, but this doesn't apply everywhere. The "indigenous" church might be in freefall, but the "immigrant" church is rising.

For example, in England, more Muslims attend mosque each week than Anglicans attend church, and Christianity is still not declining due to the high percentage of immigrant practicing Christians in London.

I would consider the immigration of religious communities with a penchant for having more children than then rest of us as a speed-bump in the slow decline of religion here. I don't see any of those new religious cultures as likely to go viral amongst the "indigenous" ex-catholic population. We are more likely to end up like Britain with distinct cultures but high levels of secularism.

It's the indigenous population that are on the way out due to low fertility rates.

It's not that they just have a penchant for having more kids. They are replacing themselves. We aren't. It can only be viewed as a speed-bump if they assimilate into your culture. Conservative religious groups don't. Even if they do assimilate, it is only kicking the demographic decline problem one or two generations down the line. That's why we actually need the cultures that don't assimilate. Even if we forget religion for a second: It's your own culture that is in decline.

But again, call it culture or call it an accident, what almost always determines what religion you are is not the evidence for that religion but where, and to whom, on earth you happened to be born. I think that was Michael's original point. Even if you happen to be Chinese, whether as an atheist or victim of part of the soul-grab that is going on all over the Second/Third World.

If that's Michael's point, then it is not relevant to what is happening to the most populous and powerful nation on Earth. Either way, his point is moot. It has no bearing on his belief being true or false. Secondly, these people are not poor victims. In a lot of cases, these are rich, upwardly mobile city dwellers embracing Protestantism in huge numbers at an amazing rate, and often in the face of persecution. They are choosing religion.

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean those who believe most in natural selection also happen to be those who aren't being selected?

The humour seems to travel well to the realm of the scientific...



(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

Birth rate and religion are correlated because women's rights are inversely correlated with both religion and birth rate. So yes, fleeing to theism would increase the birth rate, provided the type you are fleeing to involves the subjection of women. Not something I'd like to see us return to.

And considering that we've just passed 7 billion people, higher birth rates really don't contribute to our long term survival.

Roger Hassenforder

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

...Mad people claiming to be God, or thinking they are a God, pop up every day of the week all over the world, and none of them have come even remotely close to a theology as perfect as that presented by Jesus Christ.

there's a delicious irony there, and seeing as he had nothing much original, i think you've holed yourself midship, just below the water line!:)

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

"Belief" in natural selection has more to do with education than religiosity, which I guess is also a hindrance to reproducing your genes. :pac:

marty1985

Knasher wrote: »

Birth rate and religion are correlated because women's rights are inversely correlated with both religion and birth rate. So yes, fleeing to theism would increase the birth rate, provided the type you are fleeing to involves the subjection of women.

It's much more complex than that. Conventional wisdom says that female education, urbanisation, falling infant mortality etc all tend to cause declines in both religiosity and birth rates. In other words, secularisation and smaller families are caused by the same things.

But, there are over 600 commandments in the Hebrew Bible. What was the first?

Reproductive success is often a religious obligation, a holy duty. Many religious people marry early and are anti-abortion and anti-contraception, all of which lead to larger families. There are other factors at play as well. Having a larger family can make people more religious, or less likely to lose their religion. Pregnancy and birth, caring for babies, the horror of contemplating their death etc can stimulate in people an intensity of purpose that leaves people open to religious sentiments. Religious families are more likely to be more stable, with less divorce. Religious people have higher motivations towards marriage, children and family values. Religion and fertility can be linked in many ways at the same time. Even Charles Darwin invoked God when he pondered whether to have a family. His wife agreed to marry him when assured of his religiosity.

On the other hand, secular people have a broken link between sexual urge and reproduction. Pregnancy is an occupational hazard. We are liberated from oppressive moral structures, we don't want to burden our finances and careers with more children than our aspirations for sun holidays can stand. Having children is full of risks - it is often deadly to mother and child, the births are painful, children are costly etc. These are motivational problems, that help explain why we lost the primeval urge to reproduce, to replace ourselves. These problems are solved for religious communities by religion because it advocates reproductive motivation and marriage. Their success at replacing themselves appears rooted in a closer adherence to traditional morality.

Religion can be described as a descendant-leaving strategy.

And considering that we've just passed 7 billion people, higher birth rates really don't contribute to our long term survival.

While you might think it best not to have any children because you feel the Earth's population is too big, and that might be quite noble of you, you might also consider we need to fend off the West's demographic decline, prevent the collapse of our pension and health-care systems upon which our aging populations depend, and keep the working-age population - and so the economy - from coming under an intolerable tax burden.

Our current birth rates do nothing for our long term survival. When you're below replacement rate, you're on the way out.

recedite

ghostchant wrote: »

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group. (or is there something missing from the picture? The width of the blue group's label is larger than the width of the blue -> blue movement, with no other movement from blue. That's different to all the other groups)

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

Obviously, once you become a "black protestant", you never go back.
Didn't Arthur Guinness say something similar about converts to his newly devised "black protestant porter"...

lpjonesy

there is no God , the bible was written 1400-1800 they just made it all up

The Quadratic Equation

lpjonesy wrote: »

there is no God , the bible was written 1400-1800 they just made it all up

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

The proof utilises a higher order polynomial so it'd be useless in divulging it to you.

The Quadratic Equation

Malty_T wrote: »

The proof utilises a higher order polynomial so it'd be useless in divulging it to you.

You'll have to at least use a Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

The Internet Explorer

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Go ahead, but you'll have to at least use LMA to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You'll have to at least use a Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

But the proof is outside your domain.

The Quadratic Equation

Catholics have no problem with the theory of evolution.

So what does it prove about the bible ?

The Quadratic Equation

Malty_T wrote: »

But the proof is outside your domain.

Thought so. Back to school lad.

Sarky

Look, just because you won't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Thought so. Back to school lad.

Funny you should say that it being a sunday and all, what happened to honouring the sabbath?

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Catholics have no problem with the theory of evolution.

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

The Quadratic Equation

MagicMarker wrote: »

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution, ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view.

Sarky

That doesn't really follow. The Catholic Church also says porn is disgusting and immoral and shouldn't be allowed, but they also happen to own a massive porn-publisher.

I bet plenty of Catholics like porn too. If only to have something to feel guilty about after.

dmw07

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution, ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view.

Em, What? You have made two bogus claims, one backed up by the other. Lets take them one at a time here, lad.

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution
I think someone should call the pope because the last i heard, the Vatican, hq of the catholics has yet to announce an official papal statement in relation to evolution. Creationism is still the one and the only way we came into being.

So, show the proof that what you claim, is even remotely true.

Actually, when was this torn up and shown to be a mockery of science
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/oath.html

Even wiki agrees with me;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view
ERGO. Seriously. You used, ergo. You gave an opinion and tried to substantiate it as fact by using a Latin word. Didn't fool me. It means nothing.




At the end of the day, saying religion has no problem with evolution from a catholic point of view violates one of the first teaching of catholicism. You either don't understand evolution properly, or you don't properly understand the dogma you are trying so helplessly to defend.

recedite

You would find it very difficult to get a straight answer re RCC & evolution.
They are very wary of being burned by verifiable scientific facts since that embarrassing U-turn involving Galileo, preferring instead to stick to the more "metaphysical" arguments that nobody can prove or disprove.

sensibleken

Sarky wrote: »

That doesn't really follow. The Catholic Church also says porn is disgusting and immoral and shouldn't be allowed, but they also happen to own a massive porn-publisher.

I bet plenty of Catholics like porn too. If only to have something to feel guilty about after.

they do?

UDP

sensibleken wrote: »

they do?

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/catholic-churchs-german-porn-selling-media-company-rakes-in-the-euros/

Weltbild is Germany’s largest media company, with an online business second only to Amazon. It sells books, DVDs, music and a lot more….it also cells a lot of pornography. Oh yes, and did we mention that it was owned by the Catholic Church….not the Catholic Church owns a bit of it. Not the Catholic Church has stock in the company. The company is owned- lock stock and barrel- by the Catholic Church.

Weltbild has some 2,500 erotic books in their online catalogue. Some of those come from Blue Panther Books, which is an erotic book publisher actually owned by Weltbild. Among the titles offered by BPB are “Anwaltshure” (Lawyer’s Whore), “Vögelbar” (F—kable) and “Schlampen-Internat” (Sluts’ Boarding School).
The Church also owns a fifty percent stake in the publishing company Droemer Knaur. They produce pornographic books with titles such as “Nimm mich hier und nimm mich jetzt!” (Take Me Here, Take Me Now!), and “Sag Luder zu mir!” (Call Me Slut!).

Maybe people are taking these books out of context?!

sensibleken

UDP wrote: »

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/catholic-churchs-german-porn-selling-media-company-rakes-in-the-euros/


Maybe people are taking these books out of context?!

Ha! Reminds me of when Mark Thomas confronted a C of E spokesman about their shares in GEC marconi (who manufacture arms) by presenting them with a rapier missile launcher with 'thou shalt not kill' and 'blessed are the meek' written on the missiles.