Late Late Show

Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: Late Late Show

Post by Tulip1 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:52 am

I was plasantly surpriced whit the people raising their hands.

I also thought the figures Ken said (the guy on stage) were a bit lost due to time pressure. He stated that the Iona institute carried out a survey and that only 49% of the population wants catholic education for their children.
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
Ryano
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Late Late Show

Post by Ryano » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:02 pm

I have to say that ppl Tweeting during the show were for the most part agressive, narrow-minded and plain nasty towards the subject and the individuals on the side of the couple being interviewed. Not really a surprise from our Universalist catholic fellow citizens. Also the intro Tubs gave before the show was completely misrepresentative of the debate he said "Tonight we meet some parents who want to ban the crucifix from the classroom" - complete shite! The show has not been the LAte Late show for years but the personal ego-massaging slot for overpaid personalities (Kenny, and Tubridy). CAN I GET A WITNESS!!!! :lol:
paolovf
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Late Late Show

Post by paolovf » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:05 pm

Well done, Tulip I think you spoke very well.

The point made about the 'ethos' of the school, I think made by this Breda character, was a load of nonsense. The purpose of a school is to educate. Who wants to have schools that treat children the way these children have been treated? What sort of ethos do they really hold? For me, her whole argument collapsed at that point.


@Daithi

I use Youtube alot too. I tend to refrain from any serious commenting, particularly regarding religion or politics, because Youtube is such an awful forum. It's incredibly difficult to follow conversations and review comments. I think this actually makes arguments worse. I've had a few arguments transfer to private messaging which is a little better but still not ideal.

But nevertheless, I think you're dead right on the honey-vinegar thing. You'll never talk someone around by attacking or ostracising them, an approach that's much easier to take up on the internet due of ambiguity.
aZerogodist
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Co. CORK
Contact:

Re: Late Late Show

Post by aZerogodist » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:43 pm

Ryano wrote:I have to say that ppl Tweeting during the show were for the most part agressive, narrow-minded and plain nasty towards the subject and the individuals on the side of the couple being interviewed. Not really a surprise from our Universalist catholic fellow citizens. Also the intro Tubs gave before the show was completely misrepresentative of the debate he said "Tonight we meet some parents who want to ban the crucifix from the classroom" - complete shite! The show has not been the LAte Late show for years but the personal ego-massaging slot for overpaid personalities (Kenny, and Tubridy). CAN I GET A WITNESS!!!! :lol:
I think this is the whole point, people just accept CCL control and take a position of defence when challenged, by RT making it sound as if we're anti-religion and want to 'attack the church' put people on defence-mode, where in fact the talk was; that schools are not respecting fudamental rights.

I had the school discussion with my niece, ''but it's a Catholic school, send them somewhere else'' I listed out what's going on, a few weeks later she came back and said she agreed. She could see her son's homework being influenced by religion, & even said if it was up to her, she would't put him through communian.

The whole state/Ed-system is a catholic-fog and many people are so accustomed to it, that they just don't realise that it's even there.

As regard to Tubbs, I don't understand him, like his relatively young, well educated, out for-ratings, but doesn't act to think for himself, like that interview? with Cuba Gooding Jr was shocking, he had the standard list of questions that CG must of been asked a thousand times, rather than binning the list and going with the flow even getting CG to teach him a few dance moves, rather than a repeat clip from J-Ross.

In fairness to Ryan-Tubbs, at least he didn't ignore the issues facing non-catholic parents like so many people & Ed-bodies do.

(maybe we can swing him over to our side) :mrgreen:
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Late Late Show

Post by aiseiri47 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:59 pm

I think that when some people in the 'atheist community' take the easy route of demeaning these people for being weak minded and easily led, they do us a disservice. They're turning off the very people we need to reach, and are closest to being reached. And I'm talking about the commenters in particular. I spend a lot of time on YouTube, and a lot of that will be reading and writing comments. The irony is never lost on me that there is an army of atheist commenters posting largely similar messages accusing believers of being predictable. As well as being arrogant, that just makes for circular arguments. Arguing for the sake of it. I can't say I haven't been guilty of it, but I do feel guilty afterwards. I can't help thinking that we need a new to find a new tack before we loose the momentum of the last few years. Less attack and more generosity of spirit. A less confrontational and more attractive example.
I agree with this. It's part of the only real disagreement I have with Richard Dawkins, not that I think he sets out to offend people by ridiculing them, but he alienates certain groups of people with his unrelenting logic; for instance, people who accept evolution, and adapt their religious beliefs to accommodate Darwin and other scientific discoveries. While I certainly disagree with these people, I think we have to pick our battles. Getting people to accept that evolution is veritable fact is far more important than worrying if they're readjusting personal beliefs to accommodate it.

In this scenario, there is no reason to insult people, which just gets their backs up and brings us no closer to achieving the goal of a more widely secular education system. The gentleman who was the main guest on the show, along with his partner, came close to making the most important point at the end but was, sigh, interrupted: Less than 50% of the population want RC schools, and yet 92% of Irish schools are RC. The schools need to reflect the needs of the demographics. I'd love to argue about whether or not religion even has a place in school, but instead of insulting people who want to sent their kids to RC schools, why not just back off and show that all that anyone wants is fair representation.
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Late Late Show

Post by Beebub » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:54 am

aiseiri47 wrote:It's part of the only real disagreement I have with Richard Dawkins, not that I think he sets out to offend people by ridiculing them, but he alienates certain groups of people with his unrelenting logic; for instance, people who accept evolution, and adapt their religious beliefs to accommodate Darwin and other scientific discoveries. While I certainly disagree with these people, I think we have to pick our battles. Getting people to accept that evolution is veritable fact is far more important than worrying if they're readjusting personal beliefs to accommodate it.
While I agree that Dawkins can be confrontational and that he can sometimes ridicule, you picked a very bad example to highlight your point. Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth'? He makes the very point you make in this extensive book on evolution. I don't have it to hand, I'll check it when I get home, but he raises this very issue. He accepts that some religious people accept evolution and adapt to accomodate and says that the point of this book is not to question or quarrel with them. It's to try to reach some of the people who don't accept evolution as fact. He even says that this book has nothing to do with religion and more about as you say, getting people to accept evolution is a veritable fact.
Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: Late Late Show

Post by Tulip1 » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:34 am

aiseiri47 wrote:
Tulip1 wrote:Tubridy attacked her on saying it was not democratic what she wants and that ET (well he pointed in the direction of the ET people) was much more democratic with more choice.

At least he was being democratic in making sure he interrupted everyone equally.
LOL see he couldn't be any fairer!! :lol:
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Late Late Show

Post by aiseiri47 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:23 pm

Beebub wrote: While I agree that Dawkins can be confrontational and that he can sometimes ridicule, you picked a very bad example to highlight your point. Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth'? He makes the very point you make in this extensive book on evolution. I don't have it to hand, I'll check it when I get home, but he raises this very issue. He accepts that some religious people accept evolution and adapt to accomodate and says that the point of this book is not to question or quarrel with them. It's to try to reach some of the people who don't accept evolution as fact. He even says that this book has nothing to do with religion and more about as you say, getting people to accept evolution is a veritable fact.
I think Dawkins is a perfectly valid example. So, the point of the book is not to question or quarrel with them. It doesn't stop him from doing just that in other circumstances; I've seen him do do it in various documentaries (including The Genius of Charles Darwin, in which - one would assume - his main motivation should be to discuss evolution, not religion.)

Perhaps, for him, it is one thing to be writing a science book with a scientific thesis - which is certainly plenty of writing in itself without digressions - but once he meets such people face-to-face, he simply can't help himself. (Just as when presented with the anonymity of a YouTube comment box, people can't help themselves). In the above mentioned documentary, for instance, he delves far too deeply into the discussion of religion with the students he is supposed to be teaching about evolution. In fact, I recall very clearly him challenging the beliefs of the students to an unnecessary degree, which only puts them, understandably, on the defensive. It was a science lesson, religion should not have had anything to do with it. (And in his position, I would not have brought it up; if the students tried to argue based on their religious beliefs, I would have stated that plenty of people regardless of religious beliefs, accept the fact of evolution, and it's up to the students individually to find their own balance.) I highly, highly doubt I am more intelligent than Richard Dawkins, and so I cannot see how he thinks bringing religion into a classroom lesson on evolution is in any way productive.

As far as I'm concerned, refraining from getting into an argument in one situation doesn't invalidate the fact that you've done it numerous times before.
DaithiDublin
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Bray, Co. Wicklow
Contact:

Re: Late Late Show

Post by DaithiDublin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:56 pm

No, Dawkins is not an example of the kind of thing I mentioned at all. My gripe was entirely devoted to the anonymous commentors on forums across the internet.
Dawkins is a very polite person, I've seen countless instances of this when talking with religious people. That doesn't preclude a frank exchange of ideas. When dealing with a religious person of influence, by which I mean an individual who is responsible for education of one form or another, it is not confrontational to counter their misinformation. If anything it is they who are confrontational with Dawkins when they counter knowledge with magic.

The example aiseiri47 just gave from the documentary on Faith Schools, he was not "challenging the beliefs of the students to an unnecessary degree", he was giving them the accepted facts for the first time. Education looses value if you water down the information being transmitted for the sake of causing offence. What about the offence to reason? Most of those school-kids had never had evolution explained to them. Some left the lesson firm in their beliefs, and some had their eyes opened. Dawkins gave them what their teachers had not, an answer to their questions that didn't involve abracadabra. And that is the most respectful kind of treatment.

Confrontation of that kind is necessary. What we can do without is those whose opening remark is all too often, "you're an idiot!" There's no respect in that at all.
As yet I have not found a single case of a terrestrial animal which fertilises itself.

- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
(he obviously never went to Bray)
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Late Late Show

Post by aiseiri47 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:09 pm

I understand that you were making a specific point, but I still don't think Dawkins is a bad example of my point. Which is simply that to criticise someone's religion is about as productive as calling them an idiot, however respectfully you do it. Which is why any conversation that follows will result in them ignoring what it is you're actually saying, making an utterly illogical argument in return, and probably personally insulting you.

As far as evolution is concerned, all you can do is present the facts, including that evolution is regarded as fact as much as the earth being round and the Sun being at the centre of the solar system. If people find it conflicts with their religion, let them work it out themselves. The facts will eventually sink in. If you take the time out to criticise their religion, not only are you letting them think it's a valid argument, you're making them defensive of their beliefs, distracting them from the point, and making them more resistant to the eventual realisation that evolution makes sense.

As far as secular education goes, why not stick to the facts? The school system, as it stands, does not reflect the demographics. It doesn't even come close. And until it does, the state needs to require that RC schools effectively accommodate the needs of non-Catholic families who have no choice but to attend RC schools.

Talking about crucifixes on walls will distract from the point and cause them to start defending their right to display religious imagery, with that utterly ridiculous argument of: "it says Roman Catholic on the door, you can't complain", etc; We might understand the crucifix discussion to be more symbolic of the pervasiveness of religious education than a literal expectation of RC schools to remove them; opponents do not necessarily see it that way. And that's nothing compared to getting into a discussion that questions the Church or the validity of religion itself, which is certainly a cause for unnecessary and distracting debates.

Not that those debates are in themselves unnecessary; I think they are immensely valuable. While respectful confrontation will usually result in an initial disagreement but opens the door to an eventual realisation (seeds planted, etc). But I think that secular education is an issue that needs straightforward discussion and a swift victory. I believe that most Irish Catholics, unlike American Christians, will probably not deny non-Catholics the right to non-Catholic education if they see we're not trying to take anything away from them. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if we have to pander to them a little if it means non-Catholics have a place to educate their children without worrying what nonsense they're going to come home with.
Post Reply