Letter to the Irish Times

wrt40

Akrasia wrote: »

Oh It's on David Smith!
Here's my reply to the Irish times editor


----
Dear Sir

In reply to the letter published on Friday 13/6/2014 by Mr David Smith.

It is a very common misconception that the word ‘atheism’ means ‘Belief that there is no God’. In fact, Atheism means ‘Lack of belief in any God’. Very few atheists claim to be certain that there is no God, we are merely unconvinced by the evidence.

If Mr Smith or any other theist would like to provide evidence for God’s existence, I for one am open to be convinced.

Yours sincerely
Akrasia etc

What's this "We" business?

wrt40

Greenmachine wrote: »

What can I say about the concept other than, I can't think of a satisfactory argument to convince me of the presence of a god. I wouldn't dismiss the possibly. The possibly could of course exist for there to be a god or indeed gods. I am not sure which concept would be more offensive to a devout religious individual whose fate was prescribed that there is one god whose form fits some prescribed configuration.

The point a lot of people miss is that it's not just a question of believing in a God or not or whether there is the possibility of a God, It's a question of whether or not you subscribe to a particular religion, which comes with a lot more baggage than simply believing in a God.

There are many Catholics in Ireland who believe themselves to be Catholic by the mere fact that they have been baptised, get married in a church, have a communion party and end it all with a good auld "Irish" (don't you mean catholic?) funeral. sorry luv, but that doesn't make you a catholic. Take your holier than thou attitude else where and go spread your ignorance elsewhere. At least I know what I don't believe in.

Cabaal

SpaceTime wrote: »

German style 10% Church Tax would soon sort the wheat from the chaff :P

Thing is, it would...overnight!
We should copy the German's exactly on this.

If you want a good fine catholic marriage, christening, funeral etc then you must contribute. Its only fair to be honest that people pay their way.

After all less then 20% of the 80% of people that claim to be catholic regularly go to mass, this means that the church receive next to nothing money wise from 60% of people....maybe even upto 70%.

Finally, lets not forget that the Vatican fully support the German tax model.

Infact the Vatican even recently supported the changes to the German tax model which mean that if you don't pay tax you can't get married etc by them.

Akrasia

Cabaal wrote: »

am curious has anyone done this and how other kids in the class see it.

Kids in catholic ethos school do communion,
Week end of the communion the parents of non catholic bring her to Disney Land for few days.......how many of those catholic kids would rather Disney Land over communion?

Would be interesting to see reactions or failing that, it would be a interesting survey to carry out.



I know which one I would have opted for as a child

I wonder how many of the kids went to Justin Beeber instead of their own communion.

Cabaal

wrt40 wrote: »

There are many Catholics in Ireland who believe themselves to be Catholic by the mere fact that they have been baptised, get married in a church, have a communion party and end it all with a good auld "Irish" (don't you mean catholic?) funeral. sorry luv, but that doesn't make you a catholic. Take your holier than thou attitude else where and go spread your ignorance elsewhere. At least I know what I don't believe in.

There are many Catholics in Ireland that don't even believe in the existence of a god! :eek:

A 2010 Bishops Conference survey found that 10.1% of Irish Roman Catholics did not believe in God

Yet they consider themselves catholic :pac::pac:

Cabaal

Akrasia wrote: »

I wonder how many of the kids went to Justin Beeber instead of their own communion.

Not many I'd wager, sure didn't alot of places change the communion date because of it?

Also it went on over so many nights that parents could do both, oh and more importantly the kids were likely given a choice.

Pherekydes

Cabaal wrote: »

There are many Catholics in Ireland that don't even believe in the existence of a god! :eek:

That would be about 380,000 catholics who don't believe in god.

Funnily enough, there were about 354,000 people aged 0-4 years in the 2011 census. Are these counted amongst the true believers?

How did the bishops calculate the 10%? Did they survey adults only? If so, then the true number is a lot bigger, as brainwashing hadn't yet taken effect in the above class of people.

lazybones32

SebBerkovich wrote: »

That really doesn't make a lot of sense - If i made a statement claiming that I've cured cancer what possible use is that if it don't go into the questions of "How" and "When" (the "why" in this case would be self evident).

It's just so very easy for anyone to make a claim like this that its utterly ignorable.

And how would you begin to describe the processes involved to people from 5,000 years ago?

Turtwig

lazybones32 wrote: »

And how would you begin to describe the processes involved to people from 5,000 years ago?

People 5,000 years ago generally had the same intellectual capabilities as people today. Only thing that's different was the knowledge pool and access to that knowledge. So to answer your question, give them the internet and access to any decent education system from the current era.
A start would have been having the bible explain the basic stuff.and not, in general, provide awful health advice.

robindch

Vincent Twomey looks into the Tuam graves, so to speak. Twomey, for those who don't remember, was the guy who got himself into hot water over his thoughts on Primary school teachers and atheism.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-church-should-set-up-its-own-commission-of-investigation-following-mother-and-child-home-controversy-1.1837066

Sulla Felix

Akrasia wrote: »

I wonder how many of the kids went to Justin Beeber instead of their own communion.

My kindofniece went to 1D after the communion. It was very explicit which one she was most excited about. :pac:

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

Not believing in anything god-like is seen as a bit off.

It's actually not the not believing that's the problem, as the 11% of committed catholics who've realised god's a myth the bishops surveyed can attest, it's the not being part of the club.

It seems that a large part of the Irish psyche is about belonging, and not standing out. Irish people can easily be part of and support something they despise, all because they want to either be seen to belong or be part of the "in" crowd.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

People 5,000 years ago generally had the same intellectual capabilities as people today. Only thing that's different was the knowledge pool and access to that knowledge. So to answer your question, give them the internet and access to any decent education system from the current era.
A start would have been having the bible explain the basic stuff.and not, in general, provide awful health advice.

I like the term extelligence for what you are describing. The fact of the matter is that in biological terms we are no different from our ancestors for at least 50,000 years, but that our culture is far more advanced, far more systematically organised, and the sum knowledge of the species far more freely available and easily accessible.

Standman

Is nobody else getting sick of having the same old arguments over and over again?

TheChizler

Standman wrote: »

Is nobody else getting sick of having the same old arguments over and over again?

If they are they're probably not participating!

Akrasia

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I like the term extelligence for what you are describing. The fact of the matter is that in biological terms we are no different from our ancestors for at least 50,000 years, but that our culture is far more advanced, far more systematically organised, and the sum knowledge of the species far more freely available and easily accessible.

Yeah.

I like to think that in many ways we are already essentially cyborgs

A cyborg is a biological entity that is augmented with technology to improve it's function. Well, every time we check google, we are essentially augmenting our reserve of knowledge and information with whatever is on the internet.

Every time we use a chain saw (for example) we are temporarily attaching a powerful cutting device to ourselves.

Having a mobile phone in your pocket that is constantly online is not very far removed from having a similar device implanted in your body, and interacting with the device with your fingers and eyes is not very far removed from having some kind of digital interface wired into your optical and aural system.

lazybones32

Turtwig wrote: »

People 5,000 years ago generally had the same intellectual capabilities as people today. Only thing that's different was the knowledge pool and access to that knowledge. So to answer your question, give them the internet and access to any decent education system from the current era.
A start would have been having the bible explain the basic stuff.and not, in general, provide awful health advice.

I didn't make myself clear enough: how would you explain it to people 5,000 years ago? As in, if you were to return to any land in the year 3,000 BC, how would you explain atoms, the big bang, radiation, space, thermonuclear dynamics etc.

The bible never was intended to be a physics/geography book; it is basically a story of God and his people.

Frank Lee Midere

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It's actually not the not believing that's the problem, as the 11% of committed catholics who've realised god's a myth the bishops surveyed can attest, it's the not being part of the club.

It seems that a large part of the Irish psyche is about belonging, and not standing out. Irish people can easily be part of and support something they despise, all because they want to either be seen to belong or be part of the "in" crowd.

You mean like modern atheism. As an old school atheist I have never come across such conformity of belief. This whole thread is about taking offence. At a letter to the Irish times. The poor OP felt sneered at. Where's Stephen fry on offence when you need him.

Sulla Felix

lazybones32 wrote: »

I didn't make myself clear enough: how would you explain it to people 5,000 years ago? As in, if you were to return to any land in the year 3,000 BC, how would you explain atoms, the big bang, radiation, space, thermonuclear dynamics etc.

The bible never was intended to be a physics/geography book; it is basically a story of God and his people.

Presuming language isn't a barrier, you'd explain it the same way we explain it to students. Start with the basics, work your way up from there. You don't introduce people to science, even modern people, with thermonuclear dynamics.
People 5000 years ago weren't stupid. Looking at the monumental architecture of the time, at least some of them had a more sophisticated understanding of physics and astronomy than vast swathes of the adult population of the west today.

Akrasia

lazybones32 wrote: »

I didn't make myself clear enough: how would you explain it to people 5,000 years ago? As in, if you were to return to any land in the year 3,000 BC, how would you explain atoms, the big bang, radiation, space, thermonuclear dynamics etc.

The bible never was intended to be a physics/geography book; it is basically a story of God and his people.

I'd bring a copy of Bill Bryson's 'A brief History of nearly everything' with me and read it to them.

lazybones32

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Presuming language isn't a barrier, you'd explain it the same way we explain it to students. Start with the basics, work your way up from there. You don't introduce people to science, even modern people, with thermonuclear dynamics.
People 5000 years ago weren't stupid. Looking at the monumental architecture of the time, at least some of them had a more sophisticated understanding of physics and astronomy than vast swathes of the adult population of the west today.

Simple as "explaining it to students"? I think you fail to comprehend the parameters or the complexity of the issue.
What exactly are the basics that you would tell to a bunch of Palestinian farmers? It's easy to think that you'd be readily accepted because what you're saying is true but how do you prove an iota of what you say...

lazybones32

Akrasia wrote: »

I'd bring a copy of Bill Bryson's 'A brief History of nearly everything' with me and read it to them.

Ah yes, you'd bring a book; read to people and have them take it on faith? You are effectively saying you want people to believe in something that cannot be seen, felt or touched...but is definitely there. That makes a refreshing change from the scriptures...

1.1 HOW TO BUILD A UNIVERSE
Now matter how hard you try you will never be able to grasp just how tiny, how spatially unassuming, is a proton...the dot on this "i" can hold something in the region of 500,000,000,000 of them..."
(A Short History of Nearly Everything)

abff

When I was a child it was comforting to believe in Santa Claus and to believe that my parents were perfect. As I grew up, I realised that neither of these beliefs was correct. It took me a while longer to realise that everything that had been told to me over and over again about God was also untrue.

It would be comforting to be able to believe that there is some supreme being out there looking after us and that we have this fabulous new life in heaven to look forward to after we die (provide we obey the somewhat arcane rules required to qualify for this reward). Unfortunately, I learned how to think.

robp

robindch wrote: »

Vincent Twomey looks into the Tuam graves, so to speak. Twomey, for those who don't remember, was the guy who got himself into hot water over his thoughts on Primary school teachers and atheism.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-church-should-set-up-its-own-commission-of-investigation-following-mother-and-child-home-controversy-1.1837066

I would have some slight criticism but generally an excellent intellectual look on the issue.

robp

abff wrote: »

When I was a child it was comforting to believe in Santa Claus and to believe that my parents were perfect. As I grew up, I realised that neither of these beliefs was correct. It took me a while longer to realise that everything that had been told to me over and over again about God was also untrue.

It would be comforting to be able to believe that there is some supreme being out there looking after us and that we have this fabulous new life in heaven to look forward to after we die (provide we obey the somewhat arcane rules required to qualify for this reward). Unfortunately, I learned how to think.

If atheism is not mentally comforting or reassuring then why do so many atheists emphasis the yoke of religion and its burdensomeness on people. Ya can't have it both ways.

Hotblack Desiato

It doesn't provide false comfort, but it doesn't instil shame or guilt either.

oscarBravo

robp wrote: »

If atheism is not mentally comforting or reassuring then why do so many atheists emphasis the yoke of religion and its burdensomeness on people. Ya can't have it both ways.

I'm not seeing the dichotomy.

abff

robp wrote: »

If atheism is not mentally comforting or reassuring then why do so many atheists emphasis the yoke of religion and its burdensomeness on people. Ya can't have it both ways.

That's a nice sweeping statement. I've no idea whether it's true or not, but I don't see its relevance to the point I was making, which was a purely personal observation.

Brian Shanahan

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

As an old school atheist I have never come across such conformity of belief.

This may suprise you, but really shouldn't, but the way you come across on this forum screams to me "fundamentalist christian". You never have a good word to say about atheism or any atheist who doesn't keep schtum about their logical lack of belief, and you are very quick to excuse or belittle any of the evils of christianity.

Akrasia

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ah yes, you'd bring a book; read to people and have them take it on faith? You are effectively saying you want people to believe in something that cannot be seen, felt or touched...but is definitely there. That makes a refreshing change from the scriptures...

1.1 HOW TO BUILD A UNIVERSE
Now matter how hard you try you will never be able to grasp just how tiny, how spatially unassuming, is a proton...the dot on this "i" can hold something in the region of 500,000,000,000 of them..."
(A Short History of Nearly Everything)

The point I was trying to make is that if a humble travel writer can write a book that explains to the layman how the universe works without assuming much foreknowledge, then surely the creator of the universe could do at least as good a job. (especially considering that God is omniscient and 'outside of time' so he could easily just have plagarised Bill's book and pretended it was his own.

They'd have to take it on faith at first, but when they developed better scientific methodology,they'd be able to verify the claims through experimentation.

lazybones32

Akrasia wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that if a humble travel writer can write a book that explains to the layman how the universe works without assuming much foreknowledge, then surely the creator of the universe could do at least as good a job. (especially considering that God is omniscient and 'outside of time' so he could easily just have plagarised Bill's book and pretended it was his own.

They'd have to take it on faith at first, but when they developed better scientific methodology,they'd be able to verify the claims through experimentation.

As simple as that, huh?
Whether you realise it or not, you've helped verify the OP's question about atheists being arrogant.

TheChizler

lazybones32 wrote: »

As simple as that, huh?
Whether you realise it or not, you've helped verify the OP's question about atheists being arrogant.

How so?

lazybones32

TheChizler wrote: »

How so?

"...if a humble travel writer can write a book that explains to the layman how the universe works without assuming much foreknowledge, then surely the creator of the universe could do at least as good a job. (especially considering that God is omniscient and 'outside of time' so he could easily just have plagarised Bill's book and pretended it was his own."

It wasn't enough to create the Universe but because the blueprints weren't explained to Palestinian herders in a way that would be scientifically provable, it is to be argued as a failure. (Remember we are talking about a book that never claimed to be about detailed creation or a science book) It'd be like calling the British Medical Journal crap because it doesn't tell me how to fix my car and persisting in that stance even after being shown that the BMJ isn't a mechanical manual.

TheChizler

And the arrogance?

goose2005

When this is pointed out, the atheist customarily moves his position to the “burden of proof” argument, apparently unaware that the legal burden of proof is a utilitarian doctrine rather than a scientific or academic one; it is accepted in law for practical reasons, but outside of a courtroom, there is no assumption of “innocence” or “guilt” as such, and the burden of proof rests on whomever is making whatever assertion.

Let's look to Wikipedia:

Burden of proof may refer to:

Legal burden of proof
Philosophic burden of proof
Scientific burden of evidence

lazybones32

TheChizler wrote: »

And the arrogance?

Defined by the lack of modesty. Like.

Corkfeen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Defined by the lack of modesty. Like.

Indeed,not assuming there is a god and using the scientific method to pursue further knowledge rather than going with any old shíte is bloody arrogant!

lazybones32

Corkfeen wrote: »

Indeed,not assuming there is a god and using the scientific method to pursue further knowledge rather than going with any old shíte is bloody arrogant!

What are you on about? The woman is on about a time machine; going back to Palestine 5,000 years ago and teaching them the basics of protons, electrons etc and expecting them to take it on faith that it's true until scientific implements are created to prove it right. And not one iota of such knowledge can help improve morality or further an ideal Society.

I do apologise for being so ridiculous <

---

sarcasm

kylith

lazybones32 wrote: »

What are you on about? The woman is on about a time machine; going back to Palestine 5,000 years ago and teaching them the basics of protons, electrons etc and expecting them to take it on faith that it's true until scientific implements are created to prove it right. And not one iota of such knowledge can help improve morality or further an ideal Society.

I do apologise for being so ridiculous <

---

sarcasm

If there were a god that was omnipotent he would be able to either a) explain it in such a way that they would understand b) give them the ability to understand it or c) include the knowledge in the book in the knowledge that we would one day be able to understand it.

Hells, even the basics would be something, like a foetus being made of a sperm and an egg rather than just the man planting a seed, or the fact that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way round.

Akrasia

lazybones32 wrote: »

"...if a humble travel writer can write a book that explains to the layman how the universe works without assuming much foreknowledge, then surely the creator of the universe could do at least as good a job. (especially considering that God is omniscient and 'outside of time' so he could easily just have plagarised Bill's book and pretended it was his own."

It wasn't enough to create the Universe but because the blueprints weren't explained to Palestinian herders in a way that would be scientifically provable, it is to be argued as a failure. (Remember we are talking about a book that never claimed to be about detailed creation or a science book) It'd be like calling the British Medical Journal crap because it doesn't tell me how to fix my car and persisting in that stance even after being shown that the BMJ isn't a mechanical manual.

It's about credibility. The BMJ is only credible as a journal because it has a track record of accuracy and high standards for what content it will accept for print
The Bible tells a story about a supreme creator of the universe, but the story of how he created the universe is incompatable with reality and therefore, it lacks credibility.

The bible is exactly as accurate a description of the world as I would expect if it was written by humans with the level of understanding of the people who lived in Palestine at that time. It is nowhere near as accurate as I would expect it to be if it was 'the revealed truth of the supreme being'

Cabaal

Akrasia wrote: »

It's about credibility. The BMJ is only credible as a journal because it has a track record of accuracy and high standards for what content it will accept for print'

Lets also not forget that information in the BMJ is peer reviewed and if something is found to be wrong, misleading or inaccurate it is corrected.

With the Bible this doesn't really happen, when was the last time something wrong or misleading was removed from it?

Akrasia

Cabaal wrote: »

Lets also not forget that information in the BMJ is peer reviewed and if something is found to be wrong, misleading or inaccurate it is corrected.

With the Bible this doesn't really happen, when was the last time something wrong or misleading was removed from it?

Council of Trent?

One peer review every 400 years isn't bad, right?

Except scientific enlightenment only really began in the 17th century so in the entire history of modern scientific methodology, the RC church has not reviewed it's main texts to test it's claims in the light of the scientific method.

Brian Shanahan

Akrasia wrote: »

It's about credibility. The BMJ is only credible as a journal because it has a track record of accuracy and high standards for what content it will accept for print
The Bible tells a story about a supreme creator of the universe, but the story of how he created the universe is incompatable with reality and therefore, it lacks credibility.

You forgot the most important bit for building credibility, pulling out the stuff that is wrong promptly, as it is shown to be wrong. Journals like the Lancet have a very strong record when pulling bad articles and correcting dodgy data and conclusions. The bible on the other hand, with c. 90% of it being flat out wrong, has a horrible record when it comes to correcting wrong hypotheses.