• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith
  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Shameless Plug Saturday

Since I was too slow off the mark to get my post in yesterday for Music Friday, silly XNA programming has gotten me addicted, I’ve decided to come up with my own regular feature, Shameless Plug Saturday. Most likely it won’t be a regular feature unless I regularly come up with things of my own invention/creation that I feel need a shameless plug, but for now I have at least one!! And, of course, it’s related to everything irreligious and Irish, since I’m Irish,and irreligious.

It’s a song about the typical mindset of staunch believers, and how they fail to think for themselves or seek their own evidence for extraordinary claims.

“Faithful” by Ignorance Manifest (that’s my solo musical project):

Thank you for listening (or bypassing my post entirely…either way!)

Anyway, on another note, thanks to this post it appears that I have spent the past 3 years being a devout student of Islam, and now I seem to have converted to Mormonism thanks to my Final Year Project.

Who would’ve guessed it?

About that meeting…

From: Sully
To: Jason, dj357, drorgasm, stilldoubting
Subject: About that meeting…

Pssssst…

You might have noticed my conspicuous absence from last month’s meeting (the lack of narcissism-fuelled interruptions whilst people were talking might have brought it to your attention).

I gave the meeting a miss in favour of spending a week in the US of A, enjoying Thanksgiving with my ladyfriend, but now I’m worried that I’m missing out on some vital info! Good thing you guys were there! Any chance you could give me a little cheat sheet so nobody notices? I’ll make it worth your while!

Just do me a favour – don’t tell Larry. Remember that time he caught me passing notes during a meeting and put me cleaning toilets for a week? I shudder to think at what he’d do if he found out that I went mitching to partake in yet another holiday that has had its true origins scrubbed from the public consciousness…

So what’d I miss last month?

Oh Hell…

Further to my posting of the song “I’m An Atheist (And I’m Okay)” on youtube, a lovely user by the name of wfl18 posted many curious comments on the video page to which both myself and BipedalHumanoid (a member of Atheist Ireland) replied in an attempt to coax some reason out of this person’s mind. It appears from the rest of the comments that we were unsuccessful, as you can see here.

This was the last comment I left yesterday in response to wfl18:

you can hear bible verse all you want, but please don’t be so daft as to actually believe that they are worth listening to. oh and by the way, you said you COULD provide me non-scriptural evidence for the existence of hell….where is it….?

After I posted that last response, wfl18 then sent me a message on youtube this morning that included this link http://www.av1611.org/hell.html. I followed it, and was presented with some laughable anecdotal “evidence” for the existence of hell which is itself, surprisingly enough, based upon Biblical scripture.

I replied not long ago with this lengthy response:

This is nothing but anecdotal evidence based SPECIFICALLY on a biblical interpretation. During death, the brains neurons fire in a cacophonous assault on the mind and anything can be taken from this e.g. life flashing before ones eyes, a vision of the reaper, a vision of hell or even heaven, but either way, if you think this constitutes UNDENIABLE, VERIFIABLE and SUBSTANTIVE evidence that hell exists then you are either a fool or you don’t understand the definition of those words.

I cannot prove to you that hell does not exist, but since there is little or no substantial evidence for its existence, the rational stance is to maintain that it does not exist until the required evidence comes to light, and so therefore the burden of proof for its existence lies upon you. As of yet, you have given me nothing to prove in ANY way that hell exists. It MIGHT exist, but you haven’t given me any rerason to think that it does.

Oh, and by the way, if someone, even you had ACTUAL evidence that hell existed, I would be willing to hear it. And I am open to any evidence that is reliable, verifiable and predictable.

Let me put it to you this way, if a stranger came up to to tell you that your wife was secretly dying of a terminal illness and hasn’t told you about it, just how much evidence would you need before you actually believed what this person was telling you? If he showed you a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of sheep herders that specified that someone of your vague description i.e. hair colour gender and height, would have a wife who is keeping a terminal illness from him, would you take that as substantial evidence for his claims?

More than likely you would need him to at least confirm YOUR name, your WIFE’s name and any other relevant facts that would establish that this man does in fact know a great deal about your life and may in fact be telling the truth about your wife.

The amount of evidence, and the limits you would place on something before you would consider it evidence in that situation is exactly what you need to do when considering fantastical claims like the existence of hell or even a god.

And then a few minutes later I received the following cryptic response:

check out the moons dust

After scratching my head for a minute thinking “WTF….?!” I resorted to Google and found that the “Moons Dust” argument is an old Young Earth Creationist Argument based on the amount of dust falling on the moon, which is seriously flawed as it was based upon 1960’s research. It has since been well disproved and I found one such site disproving it here.

I have since responded to this cryptic message including the link disproving the YEC rubbish, but my main beef is still with this moron’s severe lack of critical thinking. As I mentioned in my first message response to wfl18, the amount of evidence required, and the limits you would place on something before you would consider it evidence, to warrant belief in a given proposition should be at least equal to how incredulous the claim is. Sagan Russell’s Cosmic Teapot is a perfect example of this. One would need a significantly large amount of verifiable evidence to prove that there is in fact a teapot orbiting Saturn.

In closing, I’d like to reference part of the commentary on the “The Truth About Hell” website passed on to me by wfl18. The author, a fellow called Terry Watkins, says the following:

As you leave your body — you realize something is happening. You hear a sound. . . getting louder and louder. . . screaming . . .weeping. . . wailing. Terror and fear beyond anything you could imagine overtakes you. “This can’t be happening!” you scream. Your nostrils are filling with the awful stench of burning souls. Your face ignites from the heat. Flames are now blazing from your eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth — every opening in your body, flames are roaring out. Your body is sizzling and crackling from the flames.

First of all, when someone dies, their body dies, and so if the conventional religious attitude towards death and descent into in hell is that your soul is forever in torment, then how in the “hell” could someones body be “sizzling and crackling from the flames”?? The body is dead and still physically here in the mortal realm, so how do we get a new body in hell? Does the devil provide with a body just so we can feel pain? But if the human body is a gift from God, then surely only God can give us another one….wait…does God give us a new body so that we can feel the pain?

Obviously this is all just a bunch of hokum (to put it excruciatingly mildly) but aside from that conundrum, my other question is, what exactly does a human soul smell like when it’s burning….?

Oh, yeah, now I know…my soul regularly burns something vicious after consuming a meagre portion of baked beans. Clearly baked beans are the spawn of the devil!

Please people, open your damn minds!!

Peace,
dj357

Reason’s Greetings to All!

Hello all,

I would just like to take this opportunity to share this greeting with you all:

Reason's Greetings

Have an worry-free Winterval, a yuley Yuletide, a salacious Solstice and most of all, enjoy the bloody snow when you can get it!!!

Just because it’s funny…

I’m sure most will have seen this, but just to be sure.  

Ted Haggard, is undoubtedly ‘completely’ heterosexual’  – and if you don’t know who Ted Haggard is – start here,  for the fall, or here to see him in at his bigoted-best with Richard Dawkins – it may help you understand just why Haggard is a hypocrite of biblical proportions.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

Because I am currently enduring 14-hour days at work, I thought I would share some anti-bigotry, done Broadway-style – That, and I am a huge fan of Jack Black.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Edit:  Not quick enough, PZ beat me to it

It’s either a Big Tent or Multiple Hats.

I listen to the Chariots of Iron podcast (thanks for the link Jason) and they have coined a word  – atheiskeptihumanist to cover the idea of including atheists, sceptics and humanists in the one group.

“It’s a big tent” or a “broad church” are also phrases I’ve been hearing a lot lately since atheists are about to set up an organisation of their own.   What the term seems to imply is that there is a big tent of Freethinking which can accommodate all kinds of different groups, but each of the groups has its own distinct outlook or role.  The phrases have been used as a form of reassurance to people who have been expressing worry about the division of membership between organisations or the danger of misunderstanding among the public (and politicians) of the nature of atheists and humanists.  Needless to say I take a different view and needless to say it’s got the cat herding characteristics associated with freethinking.  I believe that we can wear multiple hats.  Take me for example:

I am an assertive (not MILITANT) atheist because of the repression and mental pain religion inflicted on me  and on so many other people.  I want people to know that religion is a controlling mechanism and a sham and that they can be free of it.

I am a sceptic and as far as possible apply reason and logic to the decisions I make and situations I am presented with.  I believe that science and reason offers humans their best chance of understanding the world and improving their lives individually and collectively and as a result that nonsense should be challenged where possible and reasonable.

I am a humanist because it is the life stance that best reflects who I am.

I am a secularist.  I believe that humans are a social and gregarious animal and must live in an organised society and that society must be regulated.  This regulation should be the minimum necessary to allow people to pursue happiness for themselves without inflicting harm on others or society as a whole.  For that reason the ethic underpinning society should in no way be connected with religion but derived from human need as tested by experience.

I can wear these hats and more and this is why I believe that the Big Tent analogy should be replaced by the Many Hats one because it more nearly reflects the real nature of the atheiskeptihumanist.

Catholic Church on Civil Unions

Well, it would appear, based on the comments of the wonderfully verbose Cardinal (a fancy word for Mr.) Sean Brady in this Irish Times article, that allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry or cohabitate and have that marriage/cohabitation recognised as a fully legal civil union, would result in Ireland turning into a country full of lawlessness, unemployment and drug abuse, since British and US studies, according to our wonderfully neutral clergyman, suggest that:

“children born outside of marriage are more likely to do worse at school, suffer poorer health and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime.”

…I’m sorry what?

Cardinal Brady is also quoted as saying that:

“one in four children of cohabiting parents experienced family breakdown before they started school, compared to just one in 10 children of married parents.”

If you actually analyse this statement, all it says is that the family is 25% likely to breakdown before the child starts school. Well, my parents have been seperated since I was 9 or 10, and I do not regularly inject myself with heroin, snort cocaine, steal cars, mug people or spend most of my late nights on the streets of Limerick hunting for food among my drunken peers, so it would appear that even though my family has broken down, I am not contributing to godless anarchy. (I am contributing to widespread godlessness, but that’s actually a good thing!)

It’s interesting that Cardinal Brady envisions that Ireland would be plummetted into some Catholic vision of godless anarchy based solely on the fact that we, the people of this republic, would wish to grant the same rights of marriage and cohabitation to all citizens regardless of gender or sexuality. Only a man tapped into the wondrous drug of religion would make the so clearly obvious connection between civil liberty and godless anarchy.

It makes me wonder whether Sodom and Gomorrah were simply guilty of promoting civil liberties, as opposed to being highly immoral rapists and sodomites. But, wait hang on…aren’t the Catholic priests the immoral rapists…? Oh, no, sorry, my mistake, they already paid for those crimes.

It’s also interesting to see that Cardinal Brady’s utterly rational and sane argument against universal civil union rights relies on the “fact” that

“[Catholic teaching] is linked to the complementarity of the sexes…and this was not something it was possible for any individual to change. It is part of the order of things since Creation.”

I’m sorry…Creation?

Don’t we have billions of years of highly substantiated and valid evidence that renders the Creation myth utterly null and void? – Yes, we do.
And don’t we also have millions of examples throughout biology, in both the macroscopic and microscopic realm, of creatures that do not, in fact, have “complimentarity of the sexes” as a matter of nature? – Yes, we do.

So, even if we accepted for a split-second the Creation Myth, if God created all the biological life on the planet (haha) he would have created those creatures without “complimentarity of the sexes” also, and as such that concept would no longer be unique to human relationships or useful in our discussion.

By the way “complimentarity of the sexes” is simply a highly convoluted phrase used by Mr. Brady to attempt to make those of us who are not paying attention assume that two sexes is all there is, was and ever can be.

So, please, Cardinal Brady, do not try and assert your bare-faced bigotry to anyone else in this country, because none of your objections against allowing men to marry men and women to marry women do not stand up to scrutiny. They merely serve to insult both your intelligence and that of the Irish people you claim to be acting in the best interest of.

If you wish to provide some form of substantial and verified evidence to back up your claims of godless anarchy resulting from the Civil Partnership Bill, we would all love to hear it, but all you have presented us with thus far is “suggestions” of propensities towards anti-social behaviour in children of cohabiting parents, which is really just a way of saying non-married parents have stroppy children, which still remains to seen in an actual study, my dear Cardinal.

The Civil Partnership Bill is set to become law some time next year, and it seems for Cardinal Brady that

“it is difficult to see how anything other than the introduction of de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples is envisaged”.

Well, yes, Einstein, that’s kind of the point!

Ignoring for a moment the vacuous and baseless claims provided by the insightful Cardinal, what would actually be wrong with having de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples?

Oh, yes, that’s right, nothing.

Although he would never admit it publicly, I’m fairly confident (though I freely admit I have no evidence for this, unlike the Cardinal) that the charming Cardinal’s views are not far from those of the vitriolic Pastor Fred Phelps at GodHatesIreland.com

Patsy McGarry, the author of this Irish Times article mentions:

In his address to the Céifin conference on November 4th, Cardinal Brady indicated that the Government could face a legal challenge if the Civil Partnership Bill became law. “Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case,” he said.

Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution have my support, however those who are committed to the “moral integrity” of the “word of God” need to watch out, as they have no place whatsoever in civil matters. Just as campaigners for the views of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be thrown out of any serious discussion on laws affecting the country, so too should the Catholic church and any other religious parties be thrown out of the discussion. If your opinion is solely informed by your religious sensibilities and/or beliefs, then your opinion has no place anywhere other than your home or your pulpit. It most certainly does not belong in the laws of our country. (Or any country for that matter!)

If the Catholic church is stupid enough to challenge this bill, I will be right behind them pulling their “arguments” out from under them, and I suggest you do the same should it come to it!

And as for those who are to committed to the “precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society” let me say this once and once only. The quality of a child’s upbringing and their resulting contributions to (or detractions from) our society has got absolutely nothing to do with the fact of whether or not they grow up in a home with a female mother and male father. It has to do with the quality of the parents and their care for that child. I can almost guarantee you that a cohabiting gay couple committed to each other and the happiness of a child in their care would be much better parents than a large proportion of our married heterosexual population. And that is merely one possibility in a multi-faceted situation.

Man and woman as the foundation of society is a dead concept and is no longer relevant in our modern society, and while the religious types are stuck in an apopleptic fit about marriage being a thing of the past, we as a society are moving onwards to a society where uttering a phrase such as “complimentarity of the sexes” as support for a religiously informed opinion would earn you a swift smack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (Not the Irish Times in this case!)

People are the foundation of society. Black people, white people, mocha people, sane people, crazy people, religious people, irreligious people, heterosexual people, homsexual people, bisexual people, transexual people, young people, old people, big people, small people, important people, regular people, disabled people, homeless people, they all play their part.

As do you. Peace.

Humanism and Proselytising

Each time that we have brought up the issue of actively working to increase membership (at the AGM and at our local November meeting) the response from some Humanist Association of Ireland members has been (to paraphrase) that the organisation would be happy to accept new members but humanism is not a religion and we do not proselytise. I understand this point of view but I can’t agree with it.

Humanism is a life stance and if we take this stance we must believe that it has value. I for one believe that if people take personal responsibility for their own lives and collective responsibility for the species, and base this responsibility on reason and ethics, the sum of human happiness will increase and the sum of suffering be reduced. So for three reasons we should actively seek new members:

1. Humanism has something to offer to the individual and to society.

2. People cannot choose humanism if they don’t know it exists so some form of active communication is necessary.

3. In practical terms a larger membership gives the organisation resources to draw on to get things done. It also demonstrates to society (and politicians) that there is a constituency of freethinkers that must be listened to.

For me the big issue is around knowledge of humanism and the sense community and shared experience it provides. I have been an agnostic since I was 16. However, I didn’t meet an acknowledged humanist/atheist until I was 50. In the intervening years I worried about my strange views, wondered how I would teach my children to be moral and dealt with a hundred other dilemmas on my own. I wasn’t able to acknowledge my atheism until I was in my 40’s. Finding out about humanism/freethinking and becoming involved with it lifted an enormous burden from me. I now believe that there are literally hundreds of thousands of others with the same dilemmas out there and we should be reaching out to them because humanism has something to offer.

Our Meetings

Our next meeting is on 23rd November 2008 at 11:00 in the Castletroy Park Hotel.

The last meeting was, I think successful. I would appreciate feedback from attendees about the format for our meetings.

The opening round where people spoke of their own experiences and what motivated them to become freethinkers was particularly interesting and I think we should retain it or some version of it.  There may be time constraints but I think we should try to hear from newcomers and anyone with a particular urge/need to speak.  It is a key way of offering support to each other and a very valuable outlet for people who have not have had like minded people to express themselves to before now.

Another section I think we should include is discussion of some current topic/controversy.  This could be led by someone with strong views on or an interest in the topic concerned.  For example we could discuss the church’s role in education.  This would have the added benefit of rehearsing our arguments so that if asked to explain our position in the media we would be able to do so with the fluency that practice brings.

The format for our meetings might be:

  • Opening Round
  • Speaker or Presentation + Discussion
  • Current Topic/Controversy
  • Open Forum (AKA Any Other Business)

I look forward to your comments.