Category Archives: Atheism
PZ Myers to speak at Atheist Ireland meeting this Monday
PZ Myers, author of the science blog Pharyngula and biology professor at the University of Minnesota, USA, will speak at an Atheist Ireland meeting at Buswells Hotel, Dublin, at 7.30 pm tomorrow, Monday 1st February.
Admission is free, and members of the public are welcome.
The theme will be the Atheist Ireland campaigns against the Irish blasphemy law, and for a secular constitution and a secular education system.
The following quote from PZ Myers about the desecration of communion hosts is among the 25 blasphemous quotes that Atheist published a month ago when the Irish blasphemy law became operational:
“You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
While in Ireland, PZ will also be speaking about science and creationism at UCD on Tuesday Feb 2nd, and at NUI Galway on Thursday February 4th, at meetings organised by the UCD Secular Humanist Society and the NUI Galway Skeptic Society and ZooSoc. You can get details on tickets for these events, subject to availability, by emailing ucdhumanistsociety@gmail.com or k.mcinerney3@nuigalway.ie
Atheists in the Pub – January
Update – Change of venue: This meetup will now take place in the Davenport, across the road from the Mont Clare.
Atheists in the Pub will be hosted on Thursday 21st at 7.30pm in the Mont Clare Hotel, junction of Clare St. and Merrion Sq. We’ll be discussing ideas for the campaign to have the blasphemy law repealed and how to widen the campaign to take in the whole area of removing faith from the constitution. We have a constitution in which rather than us having the right to worship god, god has the right to be worshipped by us. So bring pen and paper so we can leave with a list of ideas and hopefully volunteers to carry those ideas out!
Atheism is the new fundamentalism
The motion proposes that “atheism is the new fundamentalism”, i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.
Initial Vote: For 333, Against 675, Undecided 389
Final Vote: For 363, Against 1070, Undecided 85
Final Online Vote: For 37, Against 889, Undecided 12
Part 1 of 12
The agnosticism fallacy
The term agnosticism owes its origins to the great twentieth century biologist T.H. Huxley, personal friend of Charles Darwin and champion of Natural Selection. Few nowadays understand that it is in fact an antonym of the word “Gnosticism”; referring to a diverse array of early Christian and Jewish religious sects which shared in common the belief that gnosis (or divine knowledge) enables humans to escape their imperfect materialistic world and become reacquainted with their true spiritual origins. Huxley’s intended meaning was a broader one, however, referring to matters concerning the existence of a god or gods generally. He described his position on the subject in a letter to Charles Kingsley of 1860:
I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine.
Darwin himself joined his colleague in this stance, the two united in celebration of doubt.
“Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe.” On the face of it, neutrality seems the most logical of positions to take on the possibility of god’s existence (and it’s important to stress at the outset that such a god must in these considerations be of the personal, intervening variety: for this is the definition of theism, with which atheism is directly contrasted). After all, absolute proof cannot, actually in principle, ever come down on either side of the debate: it is what philosopher Karl Popper would have called an a priori unfalsifiable hypothesis. Scratch the surface, however, and the cracks in this vacuous rationale begin to appear just as briskly as its foundations were laid.
William of Ockham’s famously successful methodology for investigating claims is commonly known as “Ockham’s Razor” (or the law of economy), and states that any explanation for a phenomenon should be as parsimonious as possible; in other words, that it should make as few assumptions as it can before arriving at its conclusion. Let’s reduce the proposition of the existence of a personal god (i.e. theism) to a statement of fact, and apply Ockam’s Razor to it. We are left with two competing conclusions: either the natural physical world is all that exists, or it is not. Either the human mind is composed of matter and energy alone (in which case the existence of an afterlife actually becomes logically impossible), or it is not. And it would surely be an insult to the reader’s intelligence to state which of these positions is the most parsimonious.
Thus, at one fell swoop, and by simple deductive reasoning, we’ve seen through the “equal leaps of faith” claim that so often rears its ugly head in debate on the subject. In fact, it is the basis of our legal system – the system which we entrust to settle matters of the utmost importance in our everyday lives – that supernatural occurrences don’t take place: we assume that in each and every case the laws of the physical Universe have remained constant and unwavering. Hard, tangible evidence and statistics are what stand up in court; not claims of divine intervention and miraculous happenings. We assume the natural world to be all that exists.
Absolute objective knowledge can never be the domain of man. If the more determined agnostic wishes to be anal about the subject, and insist on comprehensive proof, I’d issue the following challenge: in what sense do we actually “know” anything? That is to say, in what sense can anything ever be truly “proven” beyond all doubt? We do not live our lives with the expectation that various hypotheses must either be unequivocally shown to be true or unequivocally shown to be false. The diehard and consistent 50/50 agnostic ought to consider it unjust to see a defendant convicted of murder based purely on the physical evidence with which the jury were presented: how can we possibly know that something “else” wasn’t going on here, or – for that matter – in any event in human history? We cannot.
Put simply, atheism is the viewpoint that reality is as it seems. It’s about as unremarkable a claim as you’re likely to encounter; which makes it all the more outrageous and frustrating for it to be considered the hallmark of an extremist. Unfortunately, and it may well be due to a vocal, condescending minority, agnosticism is becoming increasingly used as an intellectual “trump card” by those who wish to portray both theism and atheism as equally as close-minded (and, in actual fact, tend – at least in this writer’s experience – to be more sympathetic to those in the former camp). Yet those of us in the latter are doing no more than applying logical parsimony and common sense to the world which we observe. As Clarence Darrow put it, “I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose.”
by Adam Dinan
The immorality of claiming morality.
An abhorrent tactic amongst religious apologists keep coming to my attention of late. Coming under many names, including “God of the gaps” this tactic is to attempt to find an area of discourse upon which you, the mark, have little knowledge, opinion or conclusion. From this they try to claim “You have no answer, I have an answer, therefore my answer should be afforded credence despite my lack of any evidence”.
What makes this worse is that in an attempt to find the gaps the dishonest will attempt to create gaps where none exist. This is commonly done by elevating aspects of the human condition falsely in order to suggest that it requires explanation at some higher level than it actually does. Our appreciation of beauty for example.
Since I find this tactic so distasteful and immoral I will choose to focus on morality itself as the example which is often used.
Morality is often elevated in this fashion and it is declared that it requires some explanation and that the only such explanation is a god. Often the person in question will point to what he hopes is a universal moral in the hopes of deceiving you into thinking there is an objective moral standard where some things are _always_ wrong and therefore suggest an objective moral law giver.
Richard Dawkins is one of a list of evolutionary Biologists who attempt to show why certain moral traits of ours are mirrored in the animal kingdom. This is interesting, well researched and conclusive however I do feel it is not entirely applicable to us as we are just forming morals and then finding their parallel in the animal kingdom and suggesting therefore that the animals are acting morally.
No…. I find human morality very simple to explain. It is not some divine attribute existing outside ourselves. It is merely the extension of our desires for ourselves or as philosophers have often put it “Enlightened self interest”.
I love my family. I do not want them to be killed. Therefore I want to live in a society where people are not killed. Simple.
I children and the children of my siblings. Therefore I want them to be not molested or harmed. Therefore I want a society where Children are not raped and harmed. Simple.
Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza often openly admits he sees no merit in giving his seat to an old lady on a bus if there is no god. After all, he says openly and often, he hardly wants her seat in return next week does he?
Dinesh therefore openly admits himself to be amoral in this regard. Sometimes I wonder if, in cases where people are as morally devoid as this, that it would be better off if they DIDNT lose the faith ever. This is a question for another day.
However I say in response to him: I love the older members of my family. I hope that when they choose to use public transport that they will be presented with a seat to ease their pain and trouble. Therefore I want to live in a society where such actions are performed. Hence I perform it myself when I have the chance. I, with my own hands and my own actions, help lay the blocks of such a society.
In fact, although in a sense the premise of this moral system could be described as being selfish to its core, I struggle to find any moral the religious amongst us claim, that I cannot also form in this fashion. Since we, as humans, share a lot of our selfish desires, we have many areas where overlap occurs. Consensus is reached often on many subjects. The majority of us respect old people as above, want to protect children as above and are against violence as above. Not all people are, but most.
This almost universal consensus is what apologists such as D’Souza use in an attempt to elevate morality beyond its means. People who perform to this consensus are labelled “good”. People who do not are labelled “evil”. These labels are subjective human categorizations and no more. Where such morals have their parallel in the morals espoused in the bible “good” and “evil” are relabelled “good” and “sin” as if there were some distinction.
Good, evil and sin are not entities in and of themselves requiring explanation. They are not an indication of a divine moral standard. They are, above all, not evidence for the existence of a god figure.
When atheists and philosophers such as Daniel Dennett thank “goodness” or say “Be good for goodness sake” they are not referring to a separate entity. I openly invite everyone to be good for the sake of a good society. Help construct by your own actions and by your own example a society in which the actions you wish to see performed are in fact performed.
by Gavin McBride
For more on Dinesh D’Souza Christian Apologist and Militant Anti-Homosexual, we recommend his book “What’s So Great About Christianity”
Can Atheists Believe in God?
How did the recent Pew Landscape Survey find that one in every five American atheists believes in God? Are these people stupid atheists, or stupid theists? I believe there is a more rational explanation.
Firstly, the survey question was more nuanced. It was: “do you believe in God or a universal spirit?” And most of the atheists, who answered yes to this, then described God as an impersonal force rather than as a person they can have a relationship with.
It is quite consistent for a person to be an atheist with regard to a personal god, while also believing in the existence of an impersonal force that we do not yet understand. Describing this distinction can be hard, because people attach such different meanings to the words “atheist” and “god”.
Different Beliefs
But, however we each define the various words, 6% of American atheists believe in a personal God, with whom they can have a relationship. Also, 5% of American atheists pray every day, 4% attend weekly religious services, and 3% believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
Even here, there are rational possibilities. Some atheists might attend religious services for purely family reasons. Some might believe that such a god exists, but consider themselves personally to be godless. Some might be struggling with their beliefs, or praying every day for their faith to return.
Some of the reported beliefs seem harder to reconcile. A fifth of atheists believe in miracles and life after death. A tenth of atheists believe in heaven and hell. And two in every hundred atheists say they receive a definite answer to a prayer request at least once a week.
But the same survey also shows similar ambiguities within various religions. A fifth of Christians do not believe in a personal god, and a fifth of Buddhists do. One in every ten Jews does not believe in any type of god or universal spirit.
A tenth of evangelical Protestants do not believe in life after death. Nearly a fifth of Catholics do not believe in heaven or miracles. A fifth of Buddhists do not believe in nirvana, and three in ten Hindus do not believe in reincarnation.
Changing Beliefs
Christians who do not believe in a personal god are similar to atheists who do. They each self-identify with a particular worldview, while holding beliefs that others associate with a different worldview. They might also be in the process of evaluating their beliefs.
Which leads to my most important lesson from the Pew survey: more than a quarter of American adults have left the religion in which they were raised in favour of either another religion or no religion at all. And one in every six is not affiliated to any religion.
When people are moving from one worldview to another, they may not always do so in a single leap. They may hold contradictory beliefs at the same time, or at least switch between them, while they are working through these contradictions.
If, during that process, for whatever reason, a person chooses to describe themselves as an atheist, then that is a significant statement. It is a sign that they can move beyond the beliefs that many people expect them to conform to. We should welcome this.
by Michael Nugent
Atheism and Pew
Last Sunday, naturally enough, the subject of atheism and disbelief came up in conversation during a late afternoon sandwiches and soup session; as did the curious finding of the Pew Report on Religious Affiliation based on surveys conducted in the United States in 2007. It claims that 21% of atheists believe in God, and 6% of them in an actual personal God as opposed to an impersonal force.
The findings provoked amused smiles all round, but caused a somewhat bemused and reflective pause in the exchange, as each of us considered the why and wherefore of this seemingly contradictory snippet of information. With my customary tact and good manners I suggested that maybe some atheists were stupid. My companions disagreed.
The ensuing debate was enough to send me to my Concise Oxford Dictionary just to make sure that there wasn’t some arcane meaning of atheist that I had hitherto overlooked. But the good book confirmed that it was from the Greek atheos (without god); godlessness. So it is with a certain degree of puzzlement that I mused over the apparent contradiction of self-professed atheists confessing to a belief in God.
I went trawling around the internet and the blogosphere to see what others had to say about this and found a range of opinions. Lori Lipman Brown, then Director of the Secular Coalition of America, suggested that they might have felt they were under social pressure to make this statement “When atheists are telling you they believe in God … that’s evidence of the stigma our society puts on nontheists”. On more outspoken atheist websites such as RichardDawkins.net the prevailing attitude seemed closer to my own; that some respondents didn’t have a clear concept of what an atheist is. There may be something to this when one considers the range of positions surrounding nonbelief and disbelief.
It is possible that an agnostic (one who does not know whether there is a God or not) might believe in a God while admitting that she cannot know whether God in fact exists. An antitheist could by definition, I suppose, also be a believer. Being against God does not disqualify one from acknowledging Her existence; although I have yet to meet an antitheist who is not also an atheist. A deist would also acknowledge that there might exist some Prime Mover, the “Impersonal Force” suggested by the Pew Survey. It is possible, although I find it unconvincing myself, that faced with a number of similar options a few participants simply made a mistake.
Sam Harris mused in the Washington Post “It may well be that some atheists, lacking the requisite fear of hell, find it amusing to maliciously waste a pollster’s time.” He went on to argue that it is the stuff that error bars are made of.
I still find it fairly astonishing that anyone claiming to be an atheist would also claim a personal God, unless they were referring to a newfound belief in chocolate, which I doubt. But perhaps this apparent anomaly should be less surprising given the large varieties of personal Gods we have managed to amass in our short history on this planet.
by Grania Spingies
International Atheist Conference in Copenhagen in June
Michael Nugent and Senator Ivana Bacik will be speaking at an international atheist conference titled “Gods & Politics” in Copenhagen, Denmark, from June 18-20, 2010. It is the first Atheist Alliance International conference to be held in Europe, and is co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society. The venue is the Royal Danish Library also known as “The Black Diamond”.
The full list of speakers is:
AC Grayling (UK)
Aroup Chatterjee (UK)
Brian Arly Jacobsen (DK)
Christer Sturmark (SE)
Dan Barker (US)
Gregory Paul (US)
Ivana Bacik (IRE)
Jens Morten Hansen (DK)
Lone Frank (DK)
Michael Nugent (IRE)
Mikael Rothstein (DK)
PZ Myers (US)
Paula Kirby (UK)
Per Bilde (DK)
Rebecca Goldstein (US)
Rebecca Watson (UK)
Richard Wiseman (UK)
Robin Ince (UK)
Simon Bressendorff (DK)
Taslima Nasrin (US)
Victor Stenger (US)
It would be great if some members of Atheist Ireland could attend this conference, as we can both get support from and give support to atheist activists and advocacy groups from other countries.
You can get further information at http://www.godsandpolitics.eu