Welcome to Atheist Ireland
December 3, 2008 by Michael Nugent
I had the honour last Sunday of being elected the first chairperson of Atheist Ireland, which is Ireland’s first atheist advocacy group. Our mission to provide a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.
We have two aims. One, to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. And two, to promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.
Our priority goals include promoting our aims, initially to Irish people of no religion, and campaigning for a secular Irish Constitution and a secular Irish education system.
We will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie, which is the website that brought together the friendly and committed group of people who have founded Atheist Ireland.
Meanwhile, here is some background on three of our immediate goals:
Promoting Atheism and Reason
Many people define atheism in different ways, and most atheists also share common values that arise from our belief that we are natural beings living a natural world. We will promote a greater understanding of atheism in Ireland, and of the benefits of reason and science and evidence over superstition and supernaturalism. We will do this through debate, publications and networking with relevant groups.
At first, we will focus our attention on Irish people of no religion. In the 2006 Irish census, there were almost 190,000 of these. And another 70,000 did not answer the question about religion. That is over a quarter of a million people, more than 6% of the population, and considerably more than 6% of the adult population as most children are likely to have been included under the religion of their parents.
Promoting a Secular Irish Constitution
The preamble to the Irish Constitution states that all authority of both men and States comes from “the Most Holy Trinity”, and that the people of Ireland humbly acknowledge our obligations to “our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ”. Actually, all authority (in the sense of legitimate power) comes from agreed relationships between people, and not from any gods that some of those people imagine to exist.
Article 44 begins with an extraordinary claim: “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God.” This is not a guarantee of the right of Irish citizens to worship a god, but of the right of this god to be worshipped by Irish citizens. The next line—the State “shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion”—also protects the rights of this god, not the rights of Irish citizens. And the State’s respect for religion flows from the rights of this god to be revered, not from the rights of its citizens to revere it.
Articles 12, 31 and 34 prescribe religious oaths in which the President, Councillors of State and Judges must ask God to direct and sustain them. Article 40 makes blasphemy an offence. Partly because of these references in our Constitution, the courts have found that certain personal rights of Irish citizens “flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State”.
Promoting a Secular Education System
We believe that children should to be educated on an equal basis, regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents. As an overall aim, the State should own at least a majority of Irish schools, and should manage them with a rational, secular ethos. As an immediate short-term goal, we are going to focus on the issue of schoolchildren being able to opt out of religious education classes.
Members Welcome
We have other short-term goals, some of which are about the practicalities of setting up a new national organisation. As I mentioned earlier, we will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie.
Photo: Ireland Landscape by Obbino (cc)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Congratulations on the post. Did you get a good turn out? I considered coming along but just didn’t make it in the end.
Yes, I was quite happy with the turnout. Just under fifty people, which is good for a first meeting of a group who only know each other from an internet discussion forum.
So…..an atheist organisation in Ireland? What an interesting idea!
I’m not sure whether my lack of indoctrination is something I’d approach with a great sense of fellowship. Isn’t it gloating?- Like having an support group for non- alchoholic or drug addicts?
I always thought mutual reinforcement and validation was the fuel of the believer, not the non- believer? You know – pastor powered dogma on a sunday, and the nightly cell meetings in case you can’t hold it for a week…..
Maybe you’re more like a barber shop especially for bald people?
………Kidding!!!!
However, please let me know how I can offer you my support… And it’s nice to know you’re out there!
Every success, tooth fairy bless you,
Tom.
It’s also bringing my favourite atheist joke to life. What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with an atheist? Someone who calls to your door for no reason at all!
If you’d like to help, we’d be delighted. Research, writing, lobbying, web skills, whatever… if you have a particular interest in any of the immediate goals I’ve listed in the post, please let me know.
Michael
Congratulations with the appointment! You’ve probably seen me on Atheist.ie
Pino – rozeboosje
I have indeed – and also on YouTube. Keep up the videos.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Dear Micheal,
Your reference to Article 4 should be to Article 6.
That said, the Constitution would appear to be in conflict with itself because:
Article 44, Section 2, Subsection 2° is in conflict with Section 1, which in effective endows Christianity by naming ‘Almighty God’.
Article 44, Section 2, Subsection 3° is in conflict with Articles 12, 31 and 34 because non-believers members of some religions cannot in good conscience take the oaths as specified.
I do not believe that any attempt to amend the Constitution that includes a total removal of religious participation in education would succeed at this time. However I do believe that we could succeed in a campaign to secularize the Constitution but retain protection of religious rights and the right of parents to have their children attend schools that include religious instruction in their curricula (provided they are available).
These are the changes I would advocate campaigning for and belief could be successful:
Remove or secularize the Preamble with the text
“We, the people of Éire,
Gratefully remembering the effort and dedication of those who went before us,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of prudence, justice and charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country guaranteed, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
Remove “, under God,” from Article 6
Remove the text “In the presence of Almighty God” and “May God direct and sustain me.” from the specified oaths in Articles 12 and 34
Remove the text “In the presence of Almighty God” from the specified oath in Article 31
Replace the text of Article 44, Section 1 with the words “The State respects the right of the people to profess and practice their religious beliefs provided that such professions and practices do not conflict with the common good as expressed in this Constitution and the Statutes in force, or constitute offences specified by such Statutes.”
Replace the text in Article 44, Section 2, subsection 4° with
“Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools on the basis of religious ethos, the lack of religious ethos or whether or not religious instruction is offered by the school, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend any school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.”
Add this new subsection to Article 44, Section 2:
“7° In order to accord equal respect to the beliefs of all the people, the form of any oath or oath of office specified by Statute or Statutory Instrument shall not include any religious reference whatsoever. The existing form of any such oath or oath of office, with religious references removed, shall remain valid.”.
Regards,
John
Thanks for that, John.
It’s very helpful.
I’ve corrected the blasphemy typo. It’s actually section 6 of article 40.
There is also an argument, that I’ll have to check up on, that it may not be technically possible to change the preamble as it is the preamble that brings the constitution into existence.
Are you aware of that argument?
Hi Michael,
I hadn’t heard that argument but it makes a certain logical sense; however the beauty of our Constitution is that it’s not fixed in stone. It’s a living document that we can amend to suit our needs as we see fit.
Even if it cannot be amended as things stand, it should be possible to append a new Article to the Constitution that explicitly permits the text of the Preamble to be replaced. The Constitution overrides all other laws so that would make an amendment to the Preamble valid regardless of any other custom or statute.
Regards,
John
I almost forgot – there’s one more thing to be changed – at the end of the Constitution there’s a postscript that says
“Dochum Glóire Dé agus Onóra na hÉireann”
- “For the Glory of God and the Honour of Éire”
If the Preamble is amended that should be changed too. I would suggest that it should be replaced with a suitably non-sectarian sentiment such as:
“In Ainm Pobal na hÉireann”
- “In the name of the people of Éire”
In Article 40 Section 6 Subsection 1° part i the word “Blasphemous” should be replaced with the words “Grievously offensive”.
This would provide sufficient protection to ensure that courts can deal with malevolent individuals or groups who set out to inflame others by saying things that their targets consider serious blasphemy. I’m completely in favour of free speech, even healthily disrespectful free speech, but I don’t hold that an individual’s right to free speech includes a right to cause grave offence to others. If we want our beliefs to be respected we have to accord others the same right.
Regards,
John
Well done, sounds very interesting.
How do I get involved? Do I just keep an eye on athiest.ie?
Eoin
One (frivolous?) thought occurs to me. If there is probably no God, any inclusion of references to Him/She/It in our Constitution is meaningless and therefore of little concern to atheists. So stop worrying and enjoy your life!
On the other hand, if you are an ANTITHEIST …….
On serious reflection, the whole worshipful tone of the Constitution should be of concern to all atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists, rationalists, secularists, sceptics and other non-religious individuals.
Are all such citizens indirectly debarred from becoming President, Councillors of State or Judges unless they are prepared to swear an oath that contains words such as “In the presence of Almighty God”, which they could not possibly mean? Or has the state quietly found an “Irish Solution to an Irish Problem” and let some of our worthy councillors of state and judges off the hook by substituting an affirmation, as in the courts?
Hi, Paddy. I don’t think they can substitute an affirmation. The wording of the court oaths are not prescribed in the Constitution. The wording of the Presidential, Judicial and Council of State oaths are.
Hi Michael, im writing an article for my college magazine about blind faith. Im in Griffith College Dublin. I was wondering if you could tell me your views on blind faith and why you think so many people are willing to go along with something there is no evidence for. Why also do so few believers ever quetion what they believe in?
thanks,
oscar
This is an extremely interesting question from Oscar. Here are a few thoughts.
Most people of faith receive their beliefs through early indoctrination. In Ireland, our primary schooling is based on the 4Rs, viz., Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and Religion.
From the very beginning of our education we accept on trust that there is benefit to be enjoyed from learning the subjects we are offered. We are taught to take for granted the benefits of these early subjects. The first three are accepted because of their very obvious practical benefits and, by default, the less-than-obvious non-practical benefits of the fourth are mentally assimilated without question.
If people in their unquestioning innocence grow to enjoy accepted benefits, such as the promise of a blissful, eternal life, they are likely to cling to belief in them and to dismiss any fleeting doubts that may, if ever, cross their minds. The proof for them is in the perception of benefit, not in the truth of its premise.
These beliefs then become the treasures of the indoctrinated and attacks on them by unbelievers serve only to reinforce their presumed validity.
Hi Oscar,
I hope your article goes well.
I agree broadly with Paddy Crean’s analysis.
I also suspect that, in evolutionary terms, our brains are still influenced by the mental adaptations needed to survive in more primitive times.
One of the factors for early humans is that those of us who could speedily recognise patterns were more likely to survive attacks by other animals and therefore live long enough to pass on our genes.
However, a side-effect of our brains evolving brains to quickly recognise patterns is that we also mistakenly recognise patterns that are not actually real.
So there is a tendency for an incorrect default position of assuming that there are patterns in nature that in turn lead people to believe in the existence of gods.
The reluctance to question existing beliefs is common in many areas of life. Our initial instinct is to fit new information within our existing set of beliefs.
Ironically, religious people are generally excellent at thinking rationally and skeptically about all other religious beliefs apart from their own.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Atheist Ireland Forum” is hosted or International Law.
Hi Michael. I refer you to the above which I took from the Atheist Ireland Forum, which confuses me. If to join the Atheist Ireland Forum, I may not behave in a way “that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Atheist Ireland Forum” is hosted or International Law.” Could you please explain how your organisation so intends to test the new blasphemy law without breaking this law. I was interested in becoming a member, but I intend to violate this blasphemy law so this would make my membership invalid. I am assuming that this website is part of your organisation.
Under the new law, for any matter to be considered blasphemous, the intent of the publisher or utterer of the matter concerned must be to cause outrage. The stated primary intent of Atheist Ireland is to test the validity of the law and therefore any outrage caused would be no more than a collateral effect. Unless, of course, the matter concerned specifically includes a statement to the effect that the publisher intends to cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of a religion or religions.
Does Atheist Ireland intend to go that far?
Take care that Atheist Ireland does not become Antitheist Ireland!
Ger -
You would make a good Jesuit!
Paddy -
Yes, i agree. It’s a tricky balance.
Intent is an ambiguous legal concenpt.
You can be deemed to have intended foreseeable consequences of your behaviour, even if you do not desire them to happen.
We’re teasing it all out on the members section of the Atheist ireland website.
I’m not yet sure what we will end up deciding to do.
The Top Ten Biblical Massacres
And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him … and he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an ass … and slew a thousand men therewith. Judges 15:14-15
Today is the sad anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. On 16 April 2007, 32 students were killed and many more wounded before the shooter, Sueng-Hui Cho, committed suicide. The massacre was one of the worst in U.S. history, but it was small indeed by biblical standards.
Here is a list of massacres from the Bible, in ascending order by the number of victims. The list includes only those with a single killer where the number of victims is specified.
1. Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23
2. Abimelech killed 69 of his brothers on a stone. Judges 9:5, BT
3. Doeg the Edomite killed 85 priests and all the men, women, children, infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep with a sword. 1 Samuel 22:18-19, BT
4. Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12
5. David killed 200 Philistines to purchase his first wife with their foreskins. 1 Samuel 18:25-27, BT
6. Abishai killed 300 men with a spear. 2 Samuel 23:18, 1 Chronicles 11:20, BT
7. The chief of David’s captains killed either 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11) or 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) men with a spear. (Sometimes it’s hard to correctly count the number of dead bodies in a massacre.)
8. Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)
9. Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Judges 3:31, BT
10. Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. Judges 15: 14-15, BT
1. Jehova kills the king of Israel and helps Abijah kill 500,000 Israelites.
2. An “angel of the Lord” kills 185,000 men while they sleep.
3. God-Jehova killed 70,000 mean
4. David kills 7000 men in chariots and 40,000 footmen.
5. Abishai killed 300 men with his spear. 11:20
6. The chief of David’s captains killed with his own spear 800 guys at one time. 23:
7. God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites hands, and 100,000 were killed in one day. Of those that
escaped, 27,000 were crushed by a falling wall. 20:28-30
8. 42,000 men are killed because someone mispronounces “shibboleth.” 12:6
9. Elijah kills 450 prophets of Baal. 18:22,
10. God tells them to go to battle again and another 18,000 are killed. 20:23, 25
11. God helps the Israelites kill 25,100 Benjamites. 20:35
12. God kills 50,070 men for looking into the ark.
13. 14,700 people. Crime – complaining about the previous two. Method of execution – plague.
Num.16:49.
14. Chapters 17-19 (17-18-19) tells us that David killed 22,000 Syrians and that Abishai killed 18,000 Edomites. No one
expresses shame at such slaughters.
15. Moses commands the murder of approximately 100,000 young males and, roughly, 68,000 helpless women.
17. 16. God helps the Israelites kill 25,100 Benjamites. 20:35
18. God tells them to go to battle again and another 18,000 are killed. 20:23, 25
19. God tells the Israelites to send the tribe of Judah into battle and 22,000 men were killed by the
Benjamites. 20:18, 21
20. Samson, with God’s help, kills himself and 3000 Philistine men and women by causing a roof to
collapse, setting an example for Bible-based terrorism. 16:27-30
21. God “delivers” more folks into the hands of his chosen people. “And they slew of Moab … about
10,000 men … and their escaped not a man.” 3:28-29
22. Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for “committing whoredom with the daughters of
Moab
10:8
23. Pekah killed 120,000 people in one day and enslaves 200,000 women and children “because they
had
forsaken the Lord God of their fathers.” 28:6, 8
24. Amaziah (who “did that which was right in the sight of the Lord”) killed 10,000 people; another
10,000 he left alive to throw off a cliff “that they all were broken in pieces.” 25:1-2, 11-12
25. God offers David a choice of punishments for having conducted the census: 1) seven years of famine (
1 Chr.21:1 says three years), 2) three months fleeing from enemies, or 3) three days of pestilence.
David can’t decide, so God chooses for him and sends a pestilence, killing 70,000 men (and probably
around 200,000 women and children). 24:13
26. Shamgar kills 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Praise God. 3:31
Harte Zeiten für Atheisten
Blasphemie-Paragraph in Irland
17.07.2009, 14:13
Von Andreas Oldag. London
In Irland soll Gotteslästerung neuerdings mit einer Geldstrafe von bis zu 25.000 Euro belegt werden. Eine Mehrheit der Bevölkerung befürwortet das Gesetz.
Dawkins; APGrossbild
Richard Dawkins: Der britische Religionsgegner wettert gegen die Iren. (Foto: AP)
Der bekennende Atheist und Bestseller-Autor (“Der Gotteswahn”) Richard Dawkins zeigt sich empört. Irland sei auf dem Weg zurück ins Mittelalter, wetterte der britische Professor. In dem ohnehin schon sensiblen Verhältnis zwischen Irland und Großbritannien sorgen solche Worte für Zündstoff.
Dawkins hat sich in einen innenpolitischen Streit eingemischt, der seit Tagen die Grüne Insel beschäftigt. Es geht um ein Reform eines Gesetzes zur üblen Nachrede, das auch eine Passage zur Blasphemie enthält. Danach kann Gotteslästerung neuerdings mit einer Geldstrafe von bis zu 25.000 Euro belegt werden.
Das Parlament hat das Gesetz mit einer Stimme Mehrheit Mitte Juli verabschiedet. Trotz erheblicher Kritik vieler Abgeordneter verteidigte Justizminister Dermot Ahern die neuen Regelungen mit dem Hinweis auf die irische Verfassung von 1937. Dort heißt es, dass die Veröffentlichung von “gotteslästerlichem, umstürzlerischem oder unsittlichem Material” strafbar sei.
1961 verabschiedet das stark katholisch geprägte Land dazu ein entsprechendes Gesetz. Dieses sei durch die neue Reform jetzt klarer gefasst worden, meinte der Justizminister. So muss nachgewiesen werden, dass der Übeltäter bewusst eine Störung des öffentlichen Friedens herbeiführen wollte und die Gefühle der Gläubigen erheblich verletzt habe.
Mehr Rechtssicherheit also für Blasphemie-Täter? Das sieht die atheistische Organisation “Atheist Ireland” anders: Die Strafe von 25.000 Euro sei drakonisch, kritisieren die Aktivisten. Sie fordern eine ersatzlose Streichung des Paragraphen.
Umfragen zeigen allerdings, dass eine Mehrheit der Bevölkerung das neue Gesetz begrüßt. Rückendeckung kommt ebenso von der einflussreichen katholischen Kirche. Knapp 87 Prozent der Iren sind Katholiken.
I will be brief.
I believe in no man-made religions nor do I believe in any of the thousands of “one-true religions”. From there there is a divergence with atheist.
We are so primitive; science as yet, has not even provided a way to communicate with persons who have been altered by death. No one was around 13 billion years ago as “this” universe began. There is now open talk of the multi universe. Even with these supposed, unending universes, the question could be posed in a different way: How small are they?.
I wasn’t around to see it start. I assume it “started” – and by a “force”. Possibly that force would be one envisioned by the worse sci-fi idea: a cardboard box in a galactic desert. Who says “it” even has to be animate?
A thinking person can only say that they don’t know. That is a rational, truthful answer. Inventing an atheist answer is not truthful. One can only be an agnostic.
No argument here, except in what seems to be your definition of atheism!
I am an atheist because I’m agnostic. That is to say: I do not believe in any God because there is no reason to state any knowledge of one.
However, philosophically speaking, I am not omniscient enough to assert with certainty, that someone’s definition of God doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe.
I can however, state with certainty that Christianity, for example, is the creation of human minds more morally and educationally fallible than mine.
Also,I can assert that much of the information that they base their beliefs on is incorrect.
I think you’ll find that most atheists are agnostics and vice versa. Only theists fully claim knowledge, which is why they are philosophically illogical, or need to be intellectually dishonest, to support their faith , in my opinion
According to your description, you could better describe yourself as a deist.
Thomas,
First, thanks for the comment. Over a few pints, or coffee, we may get to a “more” united consensus; we already agree on a few things.
I will not create “non-god”, as atheist do. But wait, that is one of the possibilities. What I said was the whole “mess” was started by some force and at some time – then I used the silliest “force”, a cardboard box, that I could think of. Truth is, it may be that weird. I have a t-shirt and on the front is imprinted, “Sartre’s answering machine: I’m not here,You’re not here, Don’t leave a message, There is no beep.” So there is no start to this by a “force” – and you are not here either.
I was a little ticked at being called a “deist”. Religion, ALL of it, is an invention, held up by the most vulgar lies and brutal murders – in the name of “their loving gods.”
On the other hand, Nature is. Nature has never revealed to anyone “why” – not even “the chosen few.” Nature is not “nice”; nature just is. By necessity, either the cat catches the deer and eats or it dies. It is brutal and nasty. When mankind has finally blown himself to bits and taken his invented gods with him, the bugs and worms will come out of some hiddy-hole and they will rule the world. Mankind will just be an insignificant notation in history. It will just be another part of an apparently, random acts of nature.
Yin and Yang! When one is as evil as that “good Christian”, G. W. Bush, equilibrium must be reestablished. It is my hope that he is repaid. But I have no idea of nature; maybe it IS evil that rules all. But just in case, I still believe the axim, “Don’t do wrong if you do not want it done in return.”
Keith Rankin
Thomas and Keith,
Thanks for the interesting exchange. I think this is really a difference in what words we use to describe the same concept.
Keith, for me, atheism is not a claim of certainty. It is an assertion of my belief that there are no gods (or my lack of belief that there are gods, but it is still a statement about beliefs and not about certainty).
To borrow your terminology and build on it, I do not “create” non-god, I assert non-god because I believe non-god based on applying reason to the apparent evidence of my senses.
I can see nothing in your description of your beliefs about nature that would cause me to not describe myself as an atheist.
Michael – and Thomas too,
Thanks for the mail. Every thinking person does a disservice to himself/herself by inadvertently putting themselves into an ever smaller group – by thinking; sometimes better to be part of the homogenized mass. It does get lonely. Na, I do not consider myself part of the intelligentsia. Some things are rather obvious; one just has to open the eyes. Why is that so difficult?
I still feel that this “event” was started by an unexplained force – that has NOTHING to do with religion; it ONLY has to do with science. It is not magic – or “supernatural”. If it happened, then it is natural. And PLEASE, no accusations about being “new age”. (No, you did not say that)
In the event that there is a second “session” we may come back as bugs; hey, and not even the same gender. In that case, all other bugs will look normal; it will be the humans that are frightening. We may come back as animals; maybe cattle – going to the slaughterhouse! Think of the terror of these animals.
Anyway, I do not want to go to “heaven”. I prefer better company than the nutters. Imagine becoming an angel and growing feathers; think I would change my skin cream.
One thing to consider, because we are thinkers, or hopefully so, we are more obligated to lead ethical lives, even more so than the religious types. We have no excuses.
Keith
Hi Keith,
Yeah…..apologies for the deist label.- Frankly it was more of a question than an accusation.
I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with theist accusations of late, that any lack of certainty, is an admission that god exists, and exactly as described by the scribes of our “inspired” , – sheepherding, desert dwelling, nomadic bronze age, superstitious, forebearers.
I had occasion to voice my concerns,arising from their misleading intellectual dishonesty, to the producers of a show on Revelation TV.
My problem their decision to invite “Dr Grady McMurtry” to lecture on “How science proves the bible”.
My chief complaint , apart from the fact he has no related science/academic credentials (and they offered no disclaimer to this effect), was that he told lies that even I could refute from my limited knowledge. Further, he insisted that real scientist were some kind atheist conspiracy to undermine the authority of the almighty!
Although I went to great pains to be open about my lack of believe, I pointed out that my chief concern was their apparent willingness to mislead their viewers about what scientists can really establish, and demonstrate, as fact.
I had no complaints about their personal beliefs beyond that, and in fact, obvious dishonesty was not the way to validate their faith. Wouldn’t REAL experts help everyone get at the truth – whatever it was?
Of course they immediately made it a point of my atheism!
The reply I got was from their intellectual “champion” Tim Vince, who immediately suspended his unquestioning belief in a 6,000 Y.O. universe, and opened with “Where did the energy come from for the Big Bang?”….He went on to explain that Einsteinian physics prove God, and that the formation of matter, and the evolution, against the odds,of cellular life etc… was a miracle that could only be supernatural.
Needless to say I dealt with these points as easily as any rational mind would. Unfortunately, that seemed to be his “A” game and he seemed to have little else left. However,undaunted in defeat, he passed me over to his “less intellectual” coleagues ,Yemi and Howard.
Howard immediately passed the buck, saying that his faith comes from “supernatural experience” rather than rationality or evidence.
Yemi, pretty much the same, citing an anecdote about the “laying on of hands” curing a broken arm in Africa some years ago.
He also offered the quote from Isaiah about the “circle” of the earth……and how truly inspired and enlightened the biblical “prophets”.
In the midst of all this, I’d managed to shame an invitation to show out of them, to discuss these issues.
However, they seem to be hiding from me, and have ignored my last 2 emails to discuss arrangements.
The 2 points I would like to make from this is:
1. Theists ALWAYS want to make information offered (even unintentionally), that isn’t exactly what they preach, seem like an evil conspiracy against all that is good.
2. Whatever they want to tell you, no matter how irrational , is to to be accepted without opposition or question, and arguments are good ONLY when they get to win, which , of course, can only happen when there is no opposition at all!
As if I haven’t been long winded enough, I will get to my original point……”I don’t know” is one of the most beautiful phrases I can think of. It can immediatley precede “let’s find out” . We then get to use our sentinece to explore reality. which is the whole point of sentience and existance in the first place. the more we can know is real, the more real existance is.
Placing “God” in those places and denying the right to enquire further, denies us that great right to be cognsicent, and sensual beings human.
That is why religion is the real immorality.