Gods always behave like the people who created them - Zora Neale Hurston

Last weekend I attended the World Atheist convention hosted in Dublin by Atheist Ireland. My wife bought me a ticket as a birthday present. Normally I get books but on this occasion it was an opportunity to listen to Richard Dawkins rather than read him so the present did not fall into the unwanted gift category.

It was a beautiful warm Friday evening as I made my way from North Dublin into the city centre. I was with a Romanian friend although our destinations were not the same. We did, however, discuss the event and while he was a religious believer he had no interest in enforcing his religion’s moral code whatever it is, on anyone else.

Earlier in the day I had a laugh with another workmate. He was trying to accomplish a task in the west of the city but had been abandoned by a companion who had to rush off to a prayer meeting. He said between me heading off to be with the heathens and his other mate bolting to be with the faith heads, he was fast concluding he was living in a ga ga world.

What I quickly learned before the end of the evening, after consuming a brace of well earned pints, was that I did not know a single person there. I have been at political conferences throughout Europe and have always met someone I know. But not amongst this lot. It was Sunday before I hooked up with Maryam Namazie whom I had at least spoken to on the phone a number of times. Moreover, I had interviewed her for profiles I was composing for The Blanket and the Indian magazine, Galleries. I had also been interviewed by her for her television show. On Sunday morning a guy came up after he heard me speak in favour of a motion from the floor. Whatever else I may have lost over the years my Northern accent remained determined not to give ground. He introduced himself as Bobby and said he was from the North and was glad to hear another Northern accent. Atheism it seems doesn’t exactly lend itself to a social life style.




Maryam Namazie (British Council of Ex-Muslims), Mark Embleton (Atheism UK), Nick Lee (Atheist Alliance of America/Freethinkers Association of Central Texas) - Photo: World Atheist Convention


On Sunday I had taken my ten year old daughter along. She asked to go after seeing reports of the event on television. She insists she is an atheist on the basis that she does not believe in gods. It certainly meets the criteria. She went on to vent about people not realising that if god existed he must be guilty of not saving people he could have; at best god was lazy if he couldn’t be bothered getting off his rump to assist people in need. Not much wrong with the logic. Sunday’s session was billed to last no more than half a day and I reckoned she could get through that. A Harry Potter book was in her bag for back up. Better than the magic of the bible. She got the chance to speak with Richard Dawkins who graciously told her that he was currently writing a book for children her age. And before she was photographed with Maryam Namazie, she got the chance to witness Maryam destroy with panache and passion the case for Sharia Law made from the floor by an Islamic historian. On the way out she took part in a filmed vox pop to wittily explain why she attended.

Although it was an event for adults I did the right thing in bringing her along. It is important to encourage children to think critically and cultivate the attributes of reason rather than have their minds polluted by the rubbish of holy books. In those heaven’s warriors are urged by their gods to slaughter children rather than enlighten them.


Added:
Maryam Namazie's speech at the convention: The Islamic Inquisition

Disbelief in Dublin

Gods always behave like the people who created them - Zora Neale Hurston

Last weekend I attended the World Atheist convention hosted in Dublin by Atheist Ireland. My wife bought me a ticket as a birthday present. Normally I get books but on this occasion it was an opportunity to listen to Richard Dawkins rather than read him so the present did not fall into the unwanted gift category.

It was a beautiful warm Friday evening as I made my way from North Dublin into the city centre. I was with a Romanian friend although our destinations were not the same. We did, however, discuss the event and while he was a religious believer he had no interest in enforcing his religion’s moral code whatever it is, on anyone else.

Earlier in the day I had a laugh with another workmate. He was trying to accomplish a task in the west of the city but had been abandoned by a companion who had to rush off to a prayer meeting. He said between me heading off to be with the heathens and his other mate bolting to be with the faith heads, he was fast concluding he was living in a ga ga world.

What I quickly learned before the end of the evening, after consuming a brace of well earned pints, was that I did not know a single person there. I have been at political conferences throughout Europe and have always met someone I know. But not amongst this lot. It was Sunday before I hooked up with Maryam Namazie whom I had at least spoken to on the phone a number of times. Moreover, I had interviewed her for profiles I was composing for The Blanket and the Indian magazine, Galleries. I had also been interviewed by her for her television show. On Sunday morning a guy came up after he heard me speak in favour of a motion from the floor. Whatever else I may have lost over the years my Northern accent remained determined not to give ground. He introduced himself as Bobby and said he was from the North and was glad to hear another Northern accent. Atheism it seems doesn’t exactly lend itself to a social life style.




Maryam Namazie (British Council of Ex-Muslims), Mark Embleton (Atheism UK), Nick Lee (Atheist Alliance of America/Freethinkers Association of Central Texas) - Photo: World Atheist Convention


On Sunday I had taken my ten year old daughter along. She asked to go after seeing reports of the event on television. She insists she is an atheist on the basis that she does not believe in gods. It certainly meets the criteria. She went on to vent about people not realising that if god existed he must be guilty of not saving people he could have; at best god was lazy if he couldn’t be bothered getting off his rump to assist people in need. Not much wrong with the logic. Sunday’s session was billed to last no more than half a day and I reckoned she could get through that. A Harry Potter book was in her bag for back up. Better than the magic of the bible. She got the chance to speak with Richard Dawkins who graciously told her that he was currently writing a book for children her age. And before she was photographed with Maryam Namazie, she got the chance to witness Maryam destroy with panache and passion the case for Sharia Law made from the floor by an Islamic historian. On the way out she took part in a filmed vox pop to wittily explain why she attended.

Although it was an event for adults I did the right thing in bringing her along. It is important to encourage children to think critically and cultivate the attributes of reason rather than have their minds polluted by the rubbish of holy books. In those heaven’s warriors are urged by their gods to slaughter children rather than enlighten them.


Added:
Maryam Namazie's speech at the convention: The Islamic Inquisition

100 comments:

  1. Mackers,
    Why do people have to run around disproving religion?
    It almost sounds as if they protest too much.
    If a child reared in a atheist home becomes an athetist, is it really free expression?
    Genuinely just curious!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nuala,

    I don't think they do run around disproving religion. Atheism is just a disbelief in gods. After that they curb religious types trying to impose their religious codes on society which is more secularist than atheist.

    I think it is free expression. In our home the children are not instructed to be atheist. They get no religious instruction. The daughter was offered the choice when holy communion came up at school. She opted not to. At the same time parents always influence their children. Yet I think it only becomes a denial of free expression if the child is indoctrinated with a belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks AM for a thoughtful post on you and your daughter. As a "cradle" if lapsed Catholic, I really don't know anyone I grew up with who was raised atheist, and so your family's orientation intrigues me.

    Nowadays, I'm sure your children will find more fellow-secularists to meet with than was the case, at least publicly, when the likes of you and me were growing up. I also reckon myself more and more people will profess a hazier, less sectarian spiritual bent without any identification with a particular denomination, or perhaps a syncretic blend of practices and ideas that suits them beyond easy categories. And, one that shifts as they mature.

    In my sort of "Catholic" ghetto even post-Vatican II (not so much geographical as situational), I never heard anyone follow Peter and deny Christ, although a few Doubting Thomases lurked about.

    Although, you have noted before here how your mother, if I am not mistaken, was a non-believer herself, which I suppose was not an easy position to affirm in your home turf. On the other hand, Fenians always have the Venerable "Pagan" O'Leary as one of their patron saints!

    ReplyDelete
  4. AM,

    A propos the atheist conference, I understand PZ Myers was a speaker. What is your take on his impaling a consecrated host with a nail? Isn't it strange that so many atheists reserve their uncontrollable rage to attack Christ? I don't see the same effort to act against Mohammed.

    Do you consider him to have over-stepped the mark of decency on this or is anything fair game when directed at what is sacred to Catholics? Is it only wrong when the Koran is burned, but laudable to have 'Piss-Christs' funded by the state, and the Blessed Eucharist impaled by a hate-filled atheist?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Anthony Interesting read and share... I hope your daughter experiences all forms of expression of non belief and belief in equal proportions... There is to me beauty in belief in God - it is seen in authentic believers of all religions the world over. I am talking of seeing humble, authentic Buddhist monks, Muslims dutifully praying, Christians worshipping and so forth. It outweighs the horror of hypocritical outworkings, antics/using spirituality as a mechanism to subjugate/control/abuse people en masse or individually. As a child morphs into an adult the choice is their own what they believe or don't believe. Atheism can be as dictatorial as glaring eyeballs of wrath and doom zoning in on one & preachin' hellfire. I have listened to some people rant about atheism at me and sometimes it smells like egoism. It does not upset me personally they indicate strongly i am naive/moronic or scared hence sucked into a God vortex of my own making. Makes me laugh a bit because i see the same dedication of energy some fervent atheists have as akin to a endtimes preacher fervour. I happily choose to believe in Jah/Yashua because i have tasted the non belief/run with it and don't want it.

    @ John McGirr Profaning the sacred as a purported art form or statement draws attention, can be big bucks and portrayed as radical ---> yawn!. Essentially it is pathetic, require no skills artistic or other - don't let it bother you... *It should have been Piss on the Vatican (for their lies/collusion/coverups re abuse of minors) not Christ. I guess i could create that picture quite quickly & sign it off as Ex Catholic but i think turds would be more called for. Muah! but would it sell? For sure a wealthy atheist might want it. Me mother will be rolling in her grave i wrote that. O and John Muslims do cop their fair share of abuse and mocking... it is not just us believers in Jesus Christ who are mocked...

    ReplyDelete
  6. AM

    'Atheism is just a disbelief in gods.'

    Your type of atheism goes well beyond that; it is rather antitheism. I don't believe in UFO's (in so far as they are allien space ships). It would not cross my mind to write about that belief or to go to a conference with like-minded non-believers in alien life forms visiting this earth. I just don't believe in them, and won't give them another thought, they just don't matter to me.

    Your 'antitheism'displays an opposition to God, it seems to define your entire existence. Maritain referred to this as an 'act of faith in reverse gear'.

    He goes on to say;

    "It is in no way a mere absence of belief in God. It is rather a refusal of God, a fight against God, a challenge to God." The absolute atheist is delivered over "to an inner dialectic which obliges him ceaselessly to destroy any resurgence in himself of what he has buried. . . In proportion as the dialectic of atheism develops in his mind -- each time he is confronted with the natural notion of and tendency to an ultimate End, or with the natural notion of and natural interest in absolute values or unconditioned standards, or with some metaphysical anxiety -- he will discover in himself vestiges of Transcendence which have not yet been abolished. He must get rid of them. God is a perpetual threat to him. His case is not a case of practical forgetting, but a case of deeper and deeper commitment to refusal and fight." He is bound to struggle against God without pause or respite, and to change, to recast everything in himself and in the world on the base of that anti-theism." (The Range of Reason).

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ John McGirr well then! you should pray for Anthony and his fam... and leave it all be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What is your take on his impaling a consecrated host with a nail? Isn't it strange that so many atheists reserve their uncontrollable rage to attack Christ?"

    People somehow always leave two things out of the Myers story:

    (a) He did it _in reaction to_ death threats being made against a student who accepted a host at a mass but didn't eat it.
    (b) At the same time, he also disposed of pages of the Koran and "The God Delusion".

    Full story here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controversy

    ReplyDelete
  9. @John McGirr:

    I understand PZ Myers was a speaker. What is your take on his impaling a consecrated host with a nail? Isn't it strange that so many atheists reserve their uncontrollable rage to attack Christ? I don't see the same effort to act against Mohammed.

    That's because you get your atheist news from Christian sources. Had you read Myers' own account you would know that he impaled pages of the Koran with the same rusty nail. For good measure he did the same to The God Delusion. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
    On Saturday he was confronted by Islamists outside the conference. Watch his excellent response at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T5Pm7qLH50

    ReplyDelete
  10. AM,

    'PZ Myers ... What is your take on his impaling a consecrated host with a nail?'

    It's a wafer John. But you only told us part of the story. I was more disapproving of him impaling the Koran or the God Delusion - only because I have a thing for books.

    'Isn't it strange that so many atheists reserve their uncontrollable rage to attack Christ?'

    Again it is a wafer John. Christ died 2 thousand years ago.

    'I don't see the same effort to act against Mohammed.'

    Islam got hammered at the conference.

    'Do you consider him to have over-stepped the mark of decency on this?'

    No.

    'Is it only wrong when the Koran is burned?'

    I don't agree with any book being burned. Same for the bible or Satanic Verses.

    Piss Christ is fine by me. Not that I see much artistry in it. Nor did I see it in most of the Danish cartoons but I supported the right of cartoonists to draw them.

    The zealots that attacked Piss Christ in a public gallery are the problem. I have a piece to go out about this shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John,

    Maritain - all rubbish to me. An attempt by the writer to pretend there is a god that we are all angry at.

    Anti theism does not define me. I have an interest in atheism because it is a moving force in secularism. And secularism is all important as it pushes religion out of the public sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AM,

    Your last two entries don't merit a response.

    I would be interested in michalehenry's take on the 'just a wafer' jibes.

    Saint?MaryHedgehog,

    '@ John McGirr well then! you should pray for Anthony and his fam... and leave it all be.'

    Your are probably right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mackers,
    Why would Myers want to drive a nail through a wafer especially if it had no significance? Clearly it signified something more than a wafer or he would not behave in such a stupid manner.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mackers

    I am also a non believer, however, others people's religious beliefs should be respected. Why drive a rusty nail through a piece of communion bread in order to prove it is just a wafer and not the actual body of Christ. It strikes me as stunt designed to shock and offend millions of Catholics unecessarily.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for the link to the sharia speech.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alec,

    Mackers

    'other people's religious beliefs should be respected.'

    Why?

    Any more so than their sporting beliefs?

    Respect their right to hold a religious opinion but there is no reason to respect the religious opinion itself. What do you respect about a religious belief that holds gays should be burned in hell for eternity?

    'Why drive a rusty nail through a piece of communion bread in order to prove it is just a wafer and not the actual body of Christ.?'

    The guy was making a protest against a death threat issued to a real person. Myers only stabbed a wafer.

    Having said that it would not have been the form of protest that I would make.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    'Your last two entries don't merit a response.'

    If you can't stand the heat then you are as well out of the kitchen.

    If you are going to pray would you not sacrifice a goat instead? Big Yahweh seems to like that for some reason. Maybe Theo Van Gogh was onto something.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nuala,

    I agree with you that the wafer symbolizes something. That was never in dispute from me. But there are people who think it is not symbolic at all; that it actually is something real. They think it is god. John McGirr spoke as if the wafer was a living entity with a name. Others think a tree stump is Mary. To my mind this is all delusional. And symbols of perceived repression are invariably attacked. The Union Jack, the Israeli flag and the US Flag have all been burned at demos I have attended over the years. Flag burning is not my thing but it happens. They are only burning flags not people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AM,

    'If you can't stand the heat then you are as well out of the kitchen.'

    It is not the HEAT it is the HATE!

    I have never known anyone stoop so low as you have in this.

    Oh I have, Ian Paisley desecrated a Host too!

    You and he are beginning to remind me of the Chuckle brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. John,

    you are comfortable with the hate otherwise you would not be a Christian.

    Stooping low - no idea what you are talking about. Paisley may have destroyed the Catholic wafer but I never have. It means nothing to me. Unlike the bible during the blanket protest it has no uses.

    ReplyDelete
  21. John McGirr-

    'Just a wafer jibes' my opinion-
    I am catholic but i am no preacher,
    i believe there is a God but i also
    believe in freedom of choice- if
    some-one nails down a consecrated
    host or nails down a Easter Lilly,
    that is there right- i might not like it and if i was at that event i would have opposed what was going on peacefully- was it a consecrated host-

    Why does the priest get a host and wine- whilst the congregation just gets a host- there was the odd sunday morning at mass i could have done with a cure-

    Does anyone know if it is red wine or white-or does it matter- i have only noticed priests using red wine
    the body and blood of Christ- i suppose it has to be red-

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mackers,
    personally I think there is something quite twisted and vindictive about the nail and the wafer.
    If it represents something to someone, so what?
    If someone thinks a tree stump is Our Lady, again so what?
    People are perfectly entitled to believe or disbelieve. People are also entitled to pour scorn on some of the ridiculous religious symbolism.
    However, the nail scenario takes disbelief and scorn to a very different dimension.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mackers

    Do I respect some one's right to support Man United, not necessarily, because I see that more as a choice.

    Do I support some one's right to believe in God, yes I do, because that has more to do with moral values.

    Most catholics today are not fundamentalist in their outlook and hold more liberal views on matters such as sexuality.

    Religious edicts such as the one you cite do not reflect the opinions of believers. My dear old mother would never condemn a gay person to eternal damnation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When Alex Ferguson dies will he go straight to Heaven or will he just become a statue outside Old Trafford?

    I must think deeply about that from the top of Sheriff's Mountain. Which by the way, is not a mountain but a hill and the likes of Wyatt Earp never set foot or horse hoof on it.

    Santa Claus. Now that is the question, who believes in him the most? Small children or large multinational companies?

    ReplyDelete
  25. AM,

    Spot the difference;
    Pensive Quill versus Jack Chick Tracts.

    www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

    Crackers, wafers, cookies. How original Anthony.

    Just like 'we are all stickies now', and Thatcher has won, we are all anti-Catholic bigots. Or at least you are.

    BTW a consecrated host is not a cracker, a wafer or a cookie, it is God. But then for an anti-Theist like you, no wonder you vent your spleen!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am a third generation atheist, I grew up in a non-religious society, and to me being atheist is something so natural that it doesn't need to be reaffirmed by attending conferences or joining some groups. It is part of me, of what I am. Religion to me and to most people of my generation is something from the Middle Ages, something prehistoric. We learnt in our history lessons how religion came about and how the ruling classes are using it for their own purposes. Everything I have seen in the society here, has confirmed to me what I have been taught at school. I am not imposing my views on anybody and I understand that religion is a part of tradition over here, but I do feel that the believers are trying to impose their beliefs on me and my family. My children are being taught religion at school - what a waste of time, the kids here can barely read or write and don't know most elementary things about the world, but they know their prayers. I often wonder how and where I will be buried, because I do not want any church involvement into my burial. I sincrely do not understand how anybody who got a proper scientific education can be a beleiver (but that's the whole problem: education here is of extremely low quality. Even people with university degrees don't know things our kids knew in their secondary school years). To me, religion is a humiliation, an insult to human intelligence. A person can be perfectly well-behaved and decent without fear of punishmend from above. I learnt all the Christian values from my parents and grandparents without any religion. "Religion is a sort of spiritual poitin in which the slaves of teh capital are drowning their human image, their demands of at least a half decent human life" (Lenin). I was brought up with the idea that we, the people, are the masters of our own destiny. Everything depends on ourselves , is in our own hands. I don't stand on my knees for anybody. Even in old times, my people had a saying "You can put your hopes on god, but don't give up doing things yourself". I wouldn't feel so strongly about religion if religious people would have left us in peace and would not constantly attempt to "convert" us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ tulyachka1000 Good read. I think however there is a distinct difference between NB established religions and individual's beliefs spiritually. Religion is a man made construct (think church & state) whereas an individual's spiritual convictions have zero to do with any externals. They are one person's convictions. Just as an atheist does not hold belief of anything spiritual.
    It is when religion (combining spirituality with manmade constructs) dictates and controls individuals collectively one has entered into a toxicity... The pervasive hold of religion on Ireland dates back centuries. Prior to the intro of religion (manmade constructs)there was a deep spirituality there anyway (Of course you will say what spirituality but i say there was innate recognition of a Higher Power woven in/recognised) For me I would dearly loved to have not grown up within a heavily Catholic family as I do believe it screws one up rather than enhances one u/standing of life (and Christianity) But that is my take. I respect the suffering my parents endured for their religion but not the religion.
    @ John McGirr I think you are deliberately engaging in being offended rather than recognizing Anthony is speaking his truth and stance as an atheist. Would you not agree God is bigger than a host made of flour and water. Transubstantiation is not even mentioned in the Scriptures btw! and the concept of a host being the Christ actualized in ones mouth would make one a cannibal. Hence Anthony & others are correct when they say it is just a wafer... The host is a symbol. The Christ is Spirit not flour and water... I figured this out at 14 and when informed my Dad i quickly ran away as he became enraged by his heretic daughter hahaha People can defile crosses, churches and believers in God but they can never kill Spirit. Always focus on that is the go. I do not find atheists offensive but rather brutally honest at times... Some may deliberately aim to offend but i don't think Anthony does. He just states his truth in this facet. It ain't mine, it ain't yours but so what ... it is his truth. It is just a blog right a goodie one but just a blog. You aint God I aint God and Anthony aint God. Let it go...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Saint?MaryHedgehog,

    ‘@ John McGirr I think you are deliberately engaging in being offended ….’

    If you think that I suggest you find any practising Catholics you know and ask them if this derisory ‘wafer’ should be impaled in a hate act and put on the internet, or how it makes them feel, not to mention the collection of Hosts that Myers is reserving for future acts of hatred. To do this to a consecrated Host is no different from Our Lord being crucified on the Cross. This is the worst crime imaginable. You may not accept that, but Catholics do.

    ‘Transubstantiation is not even mentioned in the Scriptures btw!’

    The Catholic Faith has never taught Sola Scriptura.

    ‘the concept of a host being the Christ actualized in ones mouth would make one a cannibal.’

    That accusation has wrongly been used for two thousand years now. It was used, among others by Nero. Cannibalism is the consumption of a dead human being. Christ is not dead, but is living. His Body is glorified and is in Heaven and on the altar in our tabernacles.

    ‘Hence Anthony & others are correct when they say it is just a wafer... The host is a symbol.’

    Catholic doctrine is defined by its popes and doctors, not by atheists and non-Catholics.

    ‘I do not find atheists offensive but rather brutally honest at times... Some may deliberately aim to offend but i don't think Anthony does.’

    There is a vociferous generation out there now who calculate to offend to the utmost, and to hurt those whom they can. Meanwhile some of the older atheists are seeing the errors of their ways, eg Anthony Flew.

    ‘He just states his truth in this facet. It ain't mine, it ain't yours but so what ... it is his truth.’

    The fact that he believes this and states it does not make it truth.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fionnchú

    we don't really raise our kids as atheists. They get no religion and are not instructed in it at school. They are taught to think and the daughter has always been told religion is a matter for herself but my view of it is that it is rubbish. She asked to go to the atheist convention and was not prompted to go. I guess had I been off to some other event she would have wanted to go there too. But she does find the notion of god absurd.
    My mother was a strong believer for years but towards the end of her life abandoned it. The last book she had read to her was The God Delusion. She brought us up to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Saint?MaryHedgehog,

    It is up to her what she decides to take in. Her 'godmother' once asked me if I objected to her having a religious book. I didn't.

    There are plenty of atheists totally at odds with human rights. I don't believe being an atheist makes you good, just as I don't believe being a Christian or a Muslim makes you good. There are atheists who would ram their view down your throat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nuala,

    'personally I think there is something quite twisted and vindictive about the nail and the wafer.'

    Any more so than burning the Israeli flag? Read the background to the case and you might see another angle to it.


    However, the nail scenario takes disbelief and scorn to a very different dimension.'

    What dimension is that? The act neither repels nor attracts me. I am philosophical about it. I feel no different towards it than I feel toward burning the Israeli flag.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Alec,

    'Do I respect some one's right to support Man United, not necessarily, because I see that more as a choice.'

    People have different degrees of passion about the opinions they have. Implicit in your comment is that religious opinion should be privileged. I don't buy that. You suggest it is not a choice in the sense that sporting opinion is - is it any more fixed that a nationalist opinion, an Israeli opinion a unionist opinion? When we privilege these opinions the blasphemy laws soon follow. I take it you don't subscribe to blasphemy laws.

    What has religion to do with moral values that secularism doesn't? I defend the right of people to believe in god and don't want to see them burned in hell forever for holding that view.

    I understand that your mother would not condemn a gay person to be burned forever. But that does not take away from the view that such a measure is a religious opinion. You hardly respect that opinion. Point I am making is that there is no reason for a religious opinion to be respected because it is religious.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mackers

    If the were blasphemy laws here someone would be driving a rusty nail through you, lol.

    Obviously some opinions/beliefs are more deeply held than others,however, you are being facetious in your comments. Anyone holding firm religious beliefs would feel offend at your suggestion that there is as much validity in a sporting opinion.

    Those who believe in eternal damnation for gays are religious zealots and every religion has such headcases.

    I agree with the view that some atheists have a combative attitude toward religion which is also akin to a form fundamentalist expression.

    I just think it is unneccesary to be driving nails through communion as a public stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mackers,
    I should imagine the nail and the wafer symbolized something to everyone there.
    In a atheist conference the would be a universe of difference between a nail being hammered into a eucharist and someone burning an Israeli flag.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nuala,

    there was no nailing at the convention. But explain the difference between 'violating' an Israeli flag and the wafer. The only difference I can see is that different people will take offence.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mackers,
    there is a significant difference between a flag and a eucharist.
    One symbolizes a country and the other is the essence of an entire religious belief.
    Do atheists talk about the Israel's flag? I don't believe people like Dawkins would put the same emphasis on the flag as the'wafer'

    ReplyDelete
  37. Nuala,


    'there is a significant difference between a flag and a eucharist.'

    I fail to see it as you do. Both are symbols. Are you suggesting that the wafer, or eucharist as you prefer to call it, is more important than the flag? Yet the way you express it points to the contrary - a country is a real, tangible thing, whereas religion is just an opinion. And for many of the Jewish faith the flag symbolises more than a country but their Jewishness.


    'Do atheists talk about the Israel's flag?'

    I do.

    'I don't believe people like Dawkins would put the same emphasis on the flag as the 'wafer'.'

    As an atheist he might place the emphasis on what he sees as the most oppressive emblem. And perceived oppressive emblems are undermined by those opposed to them. And an atheist is as entitled to subvert symbols as the next person. They just pick different symbols.

    Are you saying that it is wrong to spike the wafer/eucharist but not to burn the Israeli flag? If so, why should one emblem or symbol be protected in a fashion not afforded to another?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Alec,


    'If the were blasphemy laws here someone would be driving a rusty nail through you.'

    There is a blasphemy law here. It is like something from the middle ages.

    'Anyone holding firm religious beliefs would feel offend at your suggestion that there is as much validity in a sporting opinion.'

    And what? The same could be said of somebody holding firm Zionist opinions - doesn't mean we have to respect their opinions.

    I will put it to you another way. Which opinion merits more respect: The sporting opinion that Barcelona is the best team at club level to have played soccer; the religious opinion that the wafer/eucharist is god?

    'Those who believe in eternal damnation for gays are religious zealots and every religion has such headcases.'

    It is what the Catholic religion teaches; Islam does as well.

    'I agree with the view that some atheists have a combative attitude toward religion which is also akin to a form fundamentalist expression.'

    I think that is valid enough.

    'I just think it is unnecessary to be driving nails through communion as a public stunt.'

    Did you read him on it? Any more unnecessary than burning an Israeli flag?

    ReplyDelete
  39. John McGirr,

    no idea who Jack Chick Tracts. Never heard of him, never read him.

    The lack of originality confirms how well established as a wafer your god is. But if you wish to worship wafers it is your choice. I don't wish you to be burned forever for it.


    'a consecrated host is not a cracker, a wafer or a cookie, it is God.'

    Must remember that when I next tuck into cream crackers. The taste will be heavenly.

    Whatever lab we take the wafer to we will establish its waferly properties. No chance of it working a miracle and revealing itself as Jesus, son of big Yahweh.

    ReplyDelete
  40. AM,

    ‘no idea who Jack Chick Tracts. Never heard of him, never read him.’

    ‘Jack Chick’ tracts are anti-Catholic hate-filled bigoted cartoon booklets which come up with childish taunts at all things Catholic. They have an especial hatred of the Blessed Eucharist, insisting consecrated hosts are 'poisoned cookies’, Myers prefers ‘crackers’ you obviously think ‘wafers’ is suitably offensive. Each of you relish in repeating the words over and over, delighting in puerile glee at hurting those who are rightfully indignant at this. Myers has the excuse of his Lutheran background. What is yours?

    Are you seriously maintaining that your extreme hatred of the Blessed Sacrament did not effect your daughter’s decision not to receive her First Holy Communion?

    ‘The lack of originality confirms how well established as a wafer your god is.’

    For two thousand years those who hated the Christian religion have cursed, impaled, spat upon, burned and otherwise abused the Sacred Species. Myers has a sack-full of hosts awaiting destruction. He is probably even now dreaming up what new thing he can do that hasn't be done yet in his rage against God. I feel sorry that they are so filled with bitterness that they find this necessary.

    ‘But if you wish to worship wafers it is your choice.’

    If you wish to deride, belittle and despise others, that is your choice. If you wish to do as Myers and Paisley have done and in a fit of hatred think you can harm God that is your choice too. I prefer to see the joy in the eyes of First Holy Communicants, dressed all in white, kneeling at the altar rails to receive the greatest gift they can ever obtain, than those would commit this ultimate crime.

    ‘I don't wish you to be burned forever for it.’

    That is good to know.

    ‘Must remember that when I next tuck into cream crackers. The taste will be heavenly.’

    They are not consecrated.

    ‘Whatever lab we take the wafer to we will establish its waferly properties.’

    Yes, the Substance is changed, the accidents remain.

    ‘No chance of it working a miracle and revealing itself as Jesus, son of big Yahweh.’

    Many such Eucharistic miracles have happened. Google ‘Lanciano’ for an example of a miracle confirmed by modern science.

    ReplyDelete
  41. John McGirr,

    I suppose this is what being religiously deranged leads to.

    It is not a question of the term wafer being offensive. We can prove beyond all doubt that it is a wafer. You can prove nothing to the contrary. Why would an atheist think it is anything other than a wafer? Why would an atheist think that a bit of Catholic magic often performed by a child rapist turn a wafer into a god?

    Those who are hurt by a true description (that can be scientifically verified) are really angry that they cannot impose their religious view on others and force them to accept their definition.

    'Myers has the excuse of his Lutheran background. What is yours?'

    A belief that a wafer is not a god.

    I don't have an extreme hatred of wafers. I am totally indifferent to them. I don't believe that a person taking one is a degenerate in the fashion you termed a priest who expressed a view that it was ok to be gay.

    Why would my daughter receive First Holy Communion when she is not a Catholic? As she will verify she was free to do what she wished. It was her choice. She can make her confirmation if she wants. But if you think I would teach my child that god is a wafer you need to do some serious thinking.

    I have no wish to deride, belittle and despise others - for that reason I don't call them degenerates or wish to see them burn in hell.

    How can we harm god when there is no such thing? You just need to accept the fact that others don't see it as you do.

    'this ultimate crime' - I presume you refer to priests raping children?

    'They are not consecrated' - consecrated by what? A priest. So this priest who may be a child rapist mumbles some mumbo jumbo, performs a bit of Catholic magic and hey presto we have god.

    And you wonder why I don't believe a word of it!

    ReplyDelete
  42. AM,

    Who is trying to get you to accept our definitions? You have made it clear you are not a Catholic. All we ask of you is to leave us be, not harass, condemn, ridicule and despise us, while seeking how you can hurt us the most.

    'You just need to accept the fact that others don't see it as you do.'

    Ditto.

    You asked for a miracle, I presented one to you, with all its scientific credentials. Google 'Lanciano' or 'Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano'.

    ReplyDelete
  43. John,

    miracle my bollix

    http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/92-what-do-you-make-of-catholic-eucharistic-miracles/

    You ridicule Sinn Fein. Can the gander not sup its own sauce? Ridicule is part of the secular tradition John. If ideas are perceived as ridiculous they invite ridicule. People need protected not their ideas.

    You want me to accept your definition. That is why you become enraged at my indifference to a wafer being spiked. I am supposed to accept that it should not be spiked because it is god.

    ReplyDelete
  44. AM,

    ‘You ridicule Sinn Fein. Can the gander not sup its own sauce? Ridicule is part of the secular tradition John. If ideas are perceived as ridiculous they invite ridicule. People need protected not their ideas.’

    I have no problem in people being ridiculed for not living up to what they believe in. If they are hypocritical, they deserve it. I don’t feel it necessary nor appropriate to do it for some kind of personal vindictiveness.

    ‘You want me to accept your definition. That is why you become enraged at my indifference to a wafer being spiked. I am supposed to accept that it should not be spiked because it is god.’

    No, I don’t expect you to accept my definition. I only expect that if something means so much to so many people, it is, to say the least, mean-spirited and callous to insist on trampling on their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  45. John,

    'I only expect that if something means so much to so many people, it is, to say the least, mean-spirited and callous to insist on trampling on their beliefs.'

    Nazism meant so much to so many so lets just stay silent.

    It matters not what it means or how much it means to them if it is an opinion it can be hammered.

    ReplyDelete
  46. AM,

    What amazes me about you is that you are tilting at windmills. Catholic Ireland is DEAD. Why do you have such a passion to destroy what is destroyed?

    The modern Catholic, by and large, has lost his/her faith in the Real Presence and sees it on a level with putting a nail through an Easter Lily.

    The recently retired Bishop Willie Walsh rejected or doubted most of the central teachings of the Church. He is not an exception.

    The enemy that you view as trying to subdue you is no more, or at least reduced to very small numbers.

    What I do find strange though is why you don't care when secular people come out with what you condemn in the Church. Imagine Cardinal Brady had suggested all the perversions that David Norris did! There would be an outcry. But no, it doesn't matter, because your enemy is not the child abuser but the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I prefer to see the joy in the eyes of First Holy Communicants, dressed all in white, kneeling at the altar rails to receive the greatest gift they can ever obtain, than those would commit this ultimate crime."

    I hate to break this to you, John, but that "joy in the eyes" you see is just the little fuckers thinking about all the money they're going to get!

    ReplyDelete
  48. John McGirr,

    'This is the worst crime imaginable.'

    I think this comment shows how distorted the moral compass of some has become, completely warped by religion. Worse than genocide or clerical rape of children? - to choose from any number of the thousands of crimes much worse than nailing a religious symbol. And these people want society to abide by its moral code.

    Many Christians used to think that not observing Sundays was a terrible crime and would seek to impose their views on the rest of society. Swinging in a park on Sundays a crime.

    'Christ is not dead, but is living. His Body is glorified and is in Heaven and on the altar in our tabernacles.'

    The sheer insanity of it all.

    'Catholic doctrine is defined by its popes and doctors, not by atheists
    and non-Catholics.'

    But the sheer paucity of its reasoning is often defined by atheists and non Catholics.

    'Meanwhile some of the
    older atheists are seeing the errors of their ways, eg Anthony Flew.'

    Works the other way too - clergy abandon their superstitions and become atheists. Yet Flew derided the notion of an afterlife or the type of deity you believe in. He developed difficulty in comprehending what he called chemical soup. Had he have made the switch earlier when his mental powers were sharper he would have made a different impact. Alastair McGrath was an atheist who did likewise but he wrote a rubbish book called the Dawkins Delusion which I read before reading Dawkins.

    'The fact that he believes this and states it does not make it truth.'

    Same for us all John. Glad you can live with that idea.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Alfie,

    'I hate to break this to you, John, but that "joy in the eyes" you see is just the little fuckers thinking about all the money they're going to get!'

    There's some truth in that. It wasn't always like that though. It is as the Faith weakens that other elements like that come in to replace it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "'This is the worst crime imaginable.'"

    'I think this comment shows how distorted the moral compass of some has become, completely warped by religion.'

    Objectively, if a Consecrated Host is God then to desecrate it is the worst crime imaginable, as it is equal to crucifying Christ.

    Subjectively, a person's disbelief of it being God, would mean that they do not see the gravity of their action.

    Presuming that Myers is in the latter categorary, the next thing that should come into play is that he should recognise that even if it is only a 'wafer' to him, it is far more to others. Of course if you believe it is okay to cause maximum offence to large numbers of people, then I can see why he would do it. Civillised people tend to respect others and not attempt to find what can cause the most distress. Even good manners dictates against his absurd action.

    ReplyDelete
  51. John McGirr,

    is it a worse crime than a priest raping a child. The answer shpould be straightforward enough.

    'Objectively, if a Consecrated Host is God then to desecrate it is the worst crime imaginable, as it is equal to crucifying Christ.'

    Objectively if your granny had balls she would be your granny.

    It is not a crime in the slightest but simply an offence to a religious opinion.

    'Subjectively, a person's disbelief of it being God, would mean that they do not see the gravity of their action.'

    Subjectively, a person's belief that it is god means they do not see the silliness of claiming that it is the worst cime imaginable.

    No matter what it is to others it is not protected because it is a mere opinion. Opinions deserve no protection; the right to hold them is what should be protected.

    'Of course if you believe it is okay to cause maximum offence to large numbers of people'

    are you referring to those people who call gays or those who defend gay rights degenerate?

    'Civillised people tend to respect others ...'

    and do not label them degenerate because they disagree.

    '...and not attempt to find what can cause the most distress... '

    by labelling them degenerates and telling them they are going to hell.

    'Even good manners dictates against his absurd action.'

    Good sense would dictate against thinking god is a wafer.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The fact that you continue to bring things back to homosexuality confuses me.

    If I were to put my food into my ear and you reminded me that such action is not wise and would harm me, I would take it as a sign of concern for me, not of hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John McGirr,

    and of course those who would put food in their ears, and those who defend their right to do so would be called degenerates, out of good old Christian concern and charity. Aye right.

    ReplyDelete
  54. AM,

    'and of course those who would put food in their ears, and those who defend their right to do so would be called degenerates, out of good old Christian concern and charity. Aye right.'

    I'm not sure that anyone has a 'right' to self-harm by such actions. Those who would condone or encourage them to do so would have to be pretty degenerate.

    ReplyDelete
  55. John McGirr,

    so gays are pretty degenerate? Should they burn in hell forever as an act of Christian love?

    ReplyDelete
  56. AM,

    'so gays are pretty degenerate?

    I said those who condoned or supported them were. To see people doing something that would harm them and to encourage them to continue is, in my view, degenerate.

    ‘Should they burn in hell forever as an act of Christian love?'

    That is for the big man with the beard to judge, (and I don’t mean Gerry Adams or even yourself!)

    The word is though that He wants them to repent and be saved, as He does for us all.

    ReplyDelete
  57. John McGirr,

    so gays are not pretty degenerate, just those who support them? Why would that be?

    If the man with the beard decided to burn gays forever because they see nothing to repent for would you agree with the infliction of such torture and misery on gays?

    ReplyDelete
  58. AM,

    'so gays are not pretty degenerate, just those who support them? Why would that be?'

    If you recall the word was used intitially when a priest was suggesting that other priests should forget their vows and develop homosexual relations with others.

    He should know better, he would have been formed to know that this was not God's Will.

    Unfortunately priests like him have spread their malign homosexual views to large numbers with the abusive results that we have all seen.

    To do this is degenerate in my view.

    'If the man with the beard decided to burn gays forever because they see nothing to repent for would you agree with the infliction of such torture and misery on gays?'

    He is Just and Merciful, He knows who is finally repentant and who is not.

    No-one will ultimately be damned without unequivocably choosing so to be.

    ReplyDelete
  59. John,

    you told us this evening that those who support gays are degenerates.

    The priest you branded a degenerate challenged the teaching of the Church. He merely dissented from the official line and for that was dismissed by you as a degenerate. You don't know god's will any more than I do and can't therefore say that the priest you labeled a degenerate knew it also.

    So we take it that Roger Casement had malign homosexual views? Yet he is still in heaven. Can't really work out the logic of that.

    'How could someone just and merciful burn forever somebody for being gay?

    'No-one will ultimately be damned without unequivocably choosing so to be.'

    Bollix. I was born in 1957. Are you telling me that in 1947 god did not know what my fate was? And if he did know then I was for hell or heaven before I was born? And if he didn't know how is he god?

    ReplyDelete
  60. AM,

    ‘you told us this evening that those who support gays are degenerates.’

    Objectively they are, subjectively it depends on their moral formation and awareness. A priest does not have this excuse, unless he has been ordained since they stopped teaching Catholic morality in most seminaries.

    'So we take it that Roger Casement had malign homosexual views? Yet he is still in heaven. Can't really work out the logic of that.'

    An example of the mercy of a loving God, always ready to welcome back a repentand sinner.

    ‘ I was born in 1957. Are you telling me that in 1947 god did not know what my fate was? And if he did know then I was for hell or heaven before I was born? And if he didn't know how is he god?’

    Of course He knew. He knew then and knows now what you will choose.

    ReplyDelete
  61. AM,

    But you don't tell us if Casement repented for his homosexuality. Maybe he repented for not having hanged priests. Was he a malign homosexual? I seem to have some difficulty in getting a straight answer.

    'Of course He knew. He knew then and knows now what you will choose.'

    But how could I choose against his knowledge? You are telling me he put me on earth knowing I am for hell (if that is where I am for and being an atheist who refuses to repent that is where I must be for if you are right. I had no choice - his knowledge prevented me doing anything to contradict that knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  62. AM,

    'But you don't tell us if Casement repented for his homosexuality.'

    If he acted in that way he would have had to repent of it. I don't know if he acted in that way, but if he did, then he would have confessed it. Read the account of his death in 'Last Words.'

    'Maybe he repented for not having hanged priests.'

    Not likely given the accounts of his final days.

    'Was he a malign homosexual? I seem to have some difficulty in getting a straight answer.'

    If he was homosexual in his practices, he confessed and was absolved. I can't say clearer than that, I don't know if he was or if it was black propaganda.

    'But how could I choose against his knowledge?'

    You can't.

    'You are telling me he put me on earth knowing I am for hell'

    We could all be surprised on that one yet!

    'I had no choice - his knowledge prevented me doing anything to contradict that knowledge.'

    He knows what you will choose, it is up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  63. AM,

    'If he acted in that way he would have had to repent of it.'

    Why? Not one shred of evidence from you.

    'I don't know if he acted in that way.'

    If you claim to know the 1916 leaders you cannot but know it. There is no longer any serious dispute about it.

    'but if he did, then he would have confessed it.'

    Not one shred of evidence. You have no idea.

    'If he was homosexual' ... was he a malign one?

    'I don't know if he was or if it was black propaganda.'

    At one time it was arguable that it was a propaganda. Now it is no longer sustainable.

    So, really everybody was doomed to hell or heaven before they were born and could do nothing to alter that as they could never change god's knowedge.

    All bunkum John. It requires faith and absolutely no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  64. John,

    Do you not find it incongruous that an infinitely merciful deity would condemn even the most evil person to eternal torture, let alone an ordinary decent gay man or woman?

    ReplyDelete
  65. AM,

    Is it just me or are we going round in circles?

    I have no business knowing anyone's personal sins. It seems possible that Roger Casement may have lived a bad life, and, thanks be to God, he died a good death.

    In the end what matters is how we die, not how we live, although most people die as they live.

    No-one is doomed to hell or Heaven, we have a faculty of free-will and we choose ourselves where to spend eternity.

    The fact that God knows what our final choice will be does not negate the fact that it is our choice.

    ReplyDelete
  66. John McGirr,

    'Is it just me or are we going round in circles?'

    Just you circling the wagons rather than answer the question.

    'I have no business knowing anyone's personal sins.'

    Follow through and refrain from labeling degenerate or sinful those who don't buy into your brand of Christian magic.

    'It seems possible that Roger Casement may have lived a bad life'

    you mean as a malign homosexual?

    It is like pulling hens' teeth.

    'In the end what matters is how we die, not how we live.'

    A mind warped by religion alone could come up with that.

    'No-one is doomed to hell or Heaven, we have a faculty of free-will and
    we choose ourselves where to spend eternity.'

    Nonsense. You have already told us that before we were born god knew where we would end up. We did not ask to be born. Why, knowing that we were hell bound forever to be tortured and burned out of his Christian love, did he allow us to be born. A merciful god would simply not have countenanced it. A brutal sadistic thug like your god would have. I am so glad there is no god.

    'The fact that God knows what our final choice will be does not negate
    the fact that it is our choice.'

    By now even you must see what contortions in logic that must take.
    Jesus, Queen of Ireland save me from John of god's religion!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Alfie,

    'Do you not find it incongruous that an infinitely merciful deity would
    condemn even the most evil person to eternal torture, let alone an
    ordinary decent gay man or woman?'

    This is why it is bunkum, sheer and utter bunkum.

    ReplyDelete
  68. AM,

    “'Is it just me or are we going round in circles?'”

    ‘Just you circling the wagons rather than answer the question.’

    I don’t believe you have asked anything I have not answered.

    “'I have no business knowing anyone's personal sins.'”

    ‘Follow through and refrain from labeling degenerate or sinful those who don't buy into your brand of Christian magic.’

    If someone publically announces their behaviour and indeed justifies it, it then becomes open to public discourse. A priest who encourages sin must be denounced as his words of encouragement lead to children being left in danger.

    ‘“'It seems possible that Roger Casement may have lived a bad life'”’

    ‘you mean as a malign homosexual?’

    What do you mean by this, please define.

    ‘It is like pulling hens' teeth.’

    It certainly is. Please can you define what you mean by ‘malign homosexual’?

    “'In the end what matters is how we die, not how we live.'”

    ‘A mind warped by religion alone could come up with that.’

    Simple example; Michael Collins will be remembered for his treachery, not his earlier life, Gerry Adams and his cronies likewise.

    “'No-one is doomed to hell or Heaven, we have a faculty of free-will and we choose ourselves where to spend eternity.'”

    ‘Nonsense. You have already told us that before we were born god knew where we would end up.’

    Why would that knowledge effect your actions? You are free, but He knows what choice you will make. But it is your choice.

    ‘We did not ask to be born. Why, knowing that we were hell bound forever to be tortured and burned out of his Christian love, did he allow us to be born.’

    The infinite mysteries of a just and merciful Creator. Knowing that free-will is so powerful, he gives it and lets us all choose our destiny.

    ‘I am so glad there is no god. ‘

    I can imagine that he might be wishing the same about you. I wonder if He spends all His time denying your existence, or maybe He has better things to do.

    By the way I was listening to Alister McGrath being interviewed by Richard Dawkins. The latter is such a lightweight when outside of his narrow field. The biggest problem for atheists is their impatience to be shown to be right that they will not submit to the necessary metaphysical rigour to be able to understand the proofs of Aquinas. Now if an atheist could do that, rather than build up straw gods to demolish they would be more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  69. John McGirr,


    'If someone publicly announces their behaviour and indeed justifies
    it, it then becomes open to public discourse.'

    Good. It applies to a person who makes a public statement that a wafer
    is a god. A person who makes a statement that appears ridiculous has no defence against that statement being rubbished and ridiculed.

    'A priest who encourages sin must be denounced as his words of
    encouragement lead to children being left in danger.'

    If Roger Casement was a practicing homosexual was his action
    endangering children? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    'Please can you define what you mean by ‘malign homosexual’?

    Again, as I am citing you would you tell us what you mean?

    'Simple example; Michael Collins will be remembered for his treachery,
    not his earlier life, Gerry Adams and his cronies likewise.'

    By who?


    'Why would that knowledge effect your actions? You are free, but He
    knows what choice you will make. But it is your choice.'

    How could my actions contradict his foreknowledge? Show me one person
    who did something that proved god's foreknowledge wrong. Just one
    person.

    'The infinite mysteries of a just and merciful Creator.'

    Back to the religious rubbish.

    'Knowing that free-will is so powerful, he gives it and lets us all
    choose our destiny.'

    He knew my destiny in 1947 ten years before I was born. How could I
    have changed that? The only will I could exercise was one that he knew
    about in advance.

    'I can imagine that he might be wishing the same about you.'

    Why did he then create me? It gets dafter by the minute.

    Dawkins won't study the physiology of Pegasus the flying horse you
    mean. Why would he? Show us the flying horse and then demand that he
    study it. Don't tell us that by studying the physiology the proof of
    the flying horse will be evident. Aquinas - the expert on angels. Ask
    Bobby Henderson - he is an expert on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And
    don't dismiss the FSM if you haven't studied the metaphysics of it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. AM,

    ‘A person who makes a statement that appears ridiculous has no defence against that statement being rubbished and ridiculed.’

    I wouldn’t disagree at all. Just don’t see the need for the rusty nail.

    ‘If Roger Casement was a practicing homosexual was his action endangering children? A simple yes or no will suffice.’

    I have no idea. Did he come into daily contact with them like the those renegade priests did. I am not aware such an accusation was ever levelled at him. It has been levelled at a number of priests who rejected the teaching of their Church and went on a rampage with our children.

    “'Simple example; Michael Collins will be remembered for his treachery, not his earlier life, Gerry Adams and his cronies likewise.'”

    ‘By who?’

    Irish Republicans. The Judas effect. Who remembers the noble deeds of Judas before he betrayed Christ? Maybe a few do, but most won’t in the long run.

    ‘How could my actions contradict his foreknowledge? Show me one person who did something that proved god's foreknowledge wrong. Just one person.’

    If I could show you one, then it would prove God was not God.

    ‘He knew my destiny in 1947 ten years before I was born. How could I have changed that? The only will I could exercise was one that he knew about in advance.’

    He knows what you will choose. If you could zoom forward and see the result of a soccer match, and then go back, the fact that you know what the result will be does not alter the freedom of the teams playing. Those who train most and have the best tactics will win.

    ‘Dawkins won't study the physiology of Pegasus the flying horse you mean. Why would he? Show us the flying horse and then demand that he study it.’

    Dawkins purports to refute Aquinas without understanding Aquinas. Imagine if I were to say I am going to prove Einstein wrong, but I am not going to go through the rigour of understanding him. The same thing George Smith does in ‘Atheism, the Case Against God’. It weakens the case a bit when you say I don’t need to understand the arguments I am refuting. It reduces the person to the level lf an intellectual pigmy, refuting what he does not understand.

    ‘Ask Bobby Henderson - he is an expert on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And don't dismiss the FSM if you haven't studied the metaphysics of it.’

    That is why the FSM will only ever be a superficial schoolboy joke. It is precisely because it is not grounded in metaphysics that it has no truth.

    ReplyDelete
  71. John,

    If God knows the fate of all human beings before he creates them, then why doesn't he just create people who he knows will make the right choices and go to heaven? Why bother creating souls who he is certain will succumb to temptation and go to hell? Wouldn't it be far more merciful not to create hell-bound souls in the first place? I mean, what is the flipping point of a perfect deity creating a few billion imperfect beings, sticking them on a giant rock with disease, disasters and all manner of temptations; and then when the grand experiment is over, throwing those that failed into a torture chamber for eternity? This is madness, John.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Alfie,

    'this is madness John.'

    All of it.

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  73. John McGirr,

    'Just don’t see the need for the rusty nail.'

    Likewise. But to me it was no big deal. It was how he wanted to make the challenge. He attacked nothing other than the opinion that the wafer was sacred. How it becomes the worst crime imaginable is sheer madness. Surely a priest raping a child is worse than that unless religion inverts moral values.

    'I have no idea. Did he come into daily contact with them like the those renegade priests did. I am not aware such an accusation was ever levelled at him.'

    This has all the appearance of a cop out; a failure to deal with the cumulative effect of all your arguments.

    'Irish Republicans. The Judas effect. Who remembers the noble deeds of Judas before he betrayed Christ? Maybe a few do, but most won’t in the long run.'

    More people think well of Collins than bad.

    'If I could show you one, then it would prove God was not God.'

    The point I was making.

    'He knows what you will choose. If you could zoom forward and see the result of a soccer match, and then go back, the fact that you know what the result will be does not alter the freedom of the teams playing.'

    But we can't zoom forward and watch a football match. Show me one example of where that has been done, just one.

    Dawkins is a scientist who does not address fairyology or theology because he knows neither fairies nor gods exist.

    Einstein can show scientifically what his claims are based on. Nothing in theology does that.

    Dawkins understands science very well and has shown like numerous scientists that there is no scientific proof of the existence of god. Look at that daft intelligent design pseudo science. Laughed out of everywhere it has staged an appearance.


    'That is why the FSM will only ever be a superficial schoolboy joke.'

    And religion a superficial superstition.

    ReplyDelete
  74. AM,

    The problem with Dawkins and Smith et alia who take Aquinas on without studying metaphysics is they are speaking different languages.

    If they are not prepared to do the necessary metaphysical study to understand Aquinas they would be better off ignoring him. It is the attempt to refute what they don't understand that remains unconvincing.

    It is like critiquing Dante without any knowledge of Italian.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Alfie,

    'If God knows the fate of all human beings before he creates them, then why doesn't he just create people who he knows will make the right choices and go to heaven?'

    How do you know He didn't do that? Maybe the ones who weren't going to make it never got made. Not likely, but possible.

    ReplyDelete
  76. John,

    Do you really expect Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein to reach heaven? Or Sean Fortune and Marcial Maciel? It is obvious that if God exists and made the world, then he created many souls that became evil and are almost certainly hell-bound. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  77. John McGirr,

    Aquinas believed in fairies - or the heavenly equivalent of, angels. As Marx once said it leads to the conjuring of things that abound in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. If they demonstrate the scientific existence of god then Dawkins has a problem and would need to look at things like metaphysics and theology. But there is no point in him looking at Spaghettiology or Thorology or Zeusolgy.

    Just watching your exchange with the others and it seems to me that your arguments grow even more deranged. I'm off!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Alfie,

    ‘Do you really expect Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein to reach heaven? Or Sean Fortune and Marcial Maciel?’

    I guess it depends if they repented and made a perfect act of contrition, or confessed their sins. I wouldn’t rate their chances, but then I am not their Judge.

    ‘It is obvious that if God exists and made the world, then he created many souls that became evil and are almost certainly hell-bound.’

    That is probable.

    ‘Why?’

    Don’t know, but He has revealed the existence of hell so we know it exists. If evil is not possible, goodness is not either. Where we spend eternity is up to us.


    AM,

    ‘Aquinas believed in fairies - or the heavenly equivalent of, angels.’

    He believed in angels through Faith, he knew that they could not be demonstrated, unlike the existence of God which he did demonstrate.

    ‘If they demonstrate the scientific existence of god then Dawkins has a problem and would need to look at things like metaphysics and theology.’

    It is demonstrated scientifically in the science of metaphysics. It will never be demonstrated in the experimental sciences as they are only interested in secondary causes not the ultimate causes studied in metaphysics. He certainly would not need to study theology, if by that you mean revealed theology. Natural theology, however is a branch of metaphysics and is indispensable if he wishes to attempt to refute Aquinas. If he is not prepared to gain an understanding of Aquinas it is more than a little conceited to try to refute him.

    'But there is no point in him looking at Spaghettiology or Thorology or Zeusolgy.'

    There might be something in what you say if Aquinas attempted to demonstrate the existence of a particular Deity, eg; the God of the Bible. He limits himself however to demonstrating that there is a First Mover, a First Cause, a Necessary Being, an Absolutely Perfect Being and a Supreme Intelligence. Each of his arguments taken individually are proofs, taken together they undoubtedly add up to God, and form the basis of the science of natural theology. All of this without recourse to Faith, without invoking religion.

    ReplyDelete
  79. John McGirr,

    all religious rubbish. Unless you come up with something tangible or something which can improve on your present position it is pointless for me to take another trip on the merry go round discussing a man who believed in fairies.

    ReplyDelete
  80. John,

    Metaphysics is philosophy, not science. All that waffle reminds me of the Church of the SubGenius, you should check them out. As documented in their bible, you can find out about "Sadofuturistics, Megaphysics, Scatalography, Schizophreniatrics, Morealism, Sarcastrophy, Cynisacreligion, Apocolyptionomy, ESPectorationalism, Hypno-Pediatrics, Subliminalism, Satyriology, Disto-Utopianity, Sardonicology, Fascetiouism, Ridiculophagy, and Miscellatheistic Theology".

    It's a religion I could have a lot of time for.

    ReplyDelete
  81. AM,

    'all religious rubbish. Unless you come up with something tangible or something which can improve on your present position it is pointless for me to take another trip on the merry go round discussing a man who believed in fairies.'

    It is not remotely religious, it is philosophy. I am not shy of discussing religion, but I am not doing so now.

    Your reply reminds me of when you summed Maritain up as 'rubbish'. One of the greatest philosopher's of the twentieth century, who was tormented with your atheist despair in his youth, summed up as 'rubbish'.

    You are immersed in scientism and this belief system of yours does not allow you to break free and see beyond a microscope. There is a whole world out that that cannot be weighed or measured.

    Maritain broke out of that narrow outlook. I guess it is hard to break the intellectual legacy that has ovetraken and is now destroying the Western World.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Bob doh brains stumbled across a mass baptism at a river,he walks into the river and stands beside the preacher
    "are you ready to find Jesus my son?"
    Bob says"doh I sure am"
    the preacher puts him under the water then says "have you found Jesus"
    "no sir"
    he puts him under for two minutes,"have you found Jesus"
    Bob replies"doh are you f##kin sure this is where he fell in"

    ReplyDelete
  83. BBC news :Archbishop criticizes coalition...understandable I,d criticize an organisation that lies,cheats,is massively corrupted and takes advantage of and robs all the people who follow it to...

    ReplyDelete
  84. ffffffffffff,

    ‘Metaphysics is philosophy, not science.’

    A science is a body of related data, set forth systematically, expressed with completeness, and presented together with the evidence (proofs and explanations) which justifies and establishes these data as certain and true.

    Philosophy is a body of related data that is systematic, complete, evidenced, and certain and therefore a science. Evidence for this need not be experimental, but rather it is reasoned evidence.

    Metaphysics is the science of non-material real being and its culmination is natural theology, sometimes known as theodicy. This is the perennial philosophy, whose father is Aristotle a pagan, that has reigned supreme for 2,500 years, perfected by Aquinas but accepted by Arabs as well as Jews, and on which our entire civilisation was founded.

    It is SCIENCE not religion.

    PS,
    I hope I have spelled your name right. I have only seen you on here this AM. Welcome to the PQ!

    ReplyDelete
  85. John,

    "If evil is not possible, goodness is not either."

    Is God capable of doing evil? If not, can he really be called good? If he is capable of doing evil but always chooses to do good, then why couldn't he have made humans like that? To me, it seems that evil people do not have to exist in order for good people to exist. Evil deeds would just have to be conceptually possible, but not necessarily an integral part of human behaviour.

    "Where we spend eternity is up to us."

    If God creates human beings who he knows will succumb to temptation, make bad choices and thus go to hell, how can those human beings do anything to change their fate?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Alfie,

    It just gets madder by the minute.

    The Third Policeman which you got me to read would not have a look in here. Whatever else religion might do it most certainly stupefies.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Alfie,

    ‘Is God capable of doing evil?’

    No. He is the fullness of being, whereas evil is a privation of being.

    ‘If not, can he really be called good?’

    We need to distinguish three types of goodness. Ontological, physical and moral. Only the first of these applies to God, who is the fullness of being and thereby good. The other two are applicable only to creatures.

    ‘If he is capable of doing evil but always chooses to do good, then why couldn't he have made humans like that?’

    Any creature with free-will has to be able to refuse to choose the (moral) good.

    ‘To me, it seems that evil people do not have to exist in order for good people to exist.’

    No but they have to be free not to choose the good. But the evil here is moral evil and is the consequence of free-will, which has to be allowed to not choose the good as well as to choose it.

    ‘Evil deeds would just have to be conceptually possible, but not necessarily an integral part of human behaviour.’

    If Adam had not messed up in the garden of Eden it would be something like that. The Blessed Virgin Mary, ‘our tainted nature’s solitary boast’, shows how God turns our evil into good.

    'If God creates human beings who he knows will succumb to temptation, make bad choices and thus go to hell, how can those human beings do anything to change their fate?'

    Calvinism would have it that some souls are doomed because that is God’s plan. Catholicism insists that God wants the Salvation of all. He offers the graces necessary for all. The only way He could insist on their acceptance of this gift is to take away their free-will. The noblest part of man is his ability to choose good.

    St Augustine said;

    “As you, by your memory, do not cause past acts to be done, so God, by His foreknowledge, does not cause future acts to be done.”

    ReplyDelete
  88. John,

    "No. He is the fullness of being, whereas evil is a privation of being."

    OK, God cannot choose to do evil and so he mustn't feel temptation either. Then how is he fit to judge human beings, who struggle with their "fallen nature"? And what was the point of Jesus' trials in the desert and the garden of Gethsemane if he was incapable of succumbing to temptation? A being who cannot choose to do evil is not really good - no matter what high-falutin definition of goodness you use!

    "Any creature with free-will has to be able to refuse to choose the (moral) good."

    Of course, but there was nothing stopping God from creating beings who have free-will and are subject to temptation, but invariably choose to do good - for example, the Virgin Mary. If God did know the fate of his creations before they were born, he could easily have done this.

    "If Adam had not messed up in the garden of Eden it would be something like that."

    Ah for fuck's sake, John.

    "Catholicism insists that God wants the Salvation of all."

    But how can he if he creates souls who he knows are doomed from the start?

    "The noblest part of man is his ability to choose good."

    It would seem then that man is more noble than God.

    'St Augustine said;

    “As you, by your memory, do not cause past acts to be done, so God, by His foreknowledge, does not cause future acts to be done.”'


    You have to wonder what the point of creating the world was if God had complete foreknowledge of everything.

    ReplyDelete
  89. tulyachka1000

    You are right – no reaffirmation is necessary. But the discussions are interesting. It is often about secularism rather than atheism per se.

    You should get a burial or cremation easy enough without clerical ghouls chasing after your soul.

    My kids don’t get taught religion at school. It is the best way. For those who want to do the first communion thing a payment is made for after hours preparation.

    There are some brilliant scientists who believe in god. Ken Miller is good on it. The Intelligent Design bigots can’t cope with those who know evolution is how we got to be what we are but who hold a belief in god at the same time. It ruptures their ‘special creation’ myths.


    ‘To me, religion is a humiliation, an insult to human intelligence.’

    Much to be said for that. But not all arguments in defence of belief are of the insanity induced types we get here.

    ‘I wouldn't feel so strongly about religion if religious people would have left us in peace and would not constantly attempt to "convert" us.’

    The power to do that in Ireland is much diminished. Who seriously listens to a priest these days? I think in the US of all western societies there is a problem. It more closely resembles the societies of mullahs than any other western country.

    Saint?MaryHedgehog

    There are always those who will seek to take offence for the purpose of silencing debate. They shout respect when they really mean submission.

    ReplyDelete
  90. John McGirr

    ‘ Why do you have such a passion to destroy what is destroyed?

    I don’t. I just don’t think Catholicism should be privileged. The Church should be like a golf club; of relevance to those who join it and with no bearing on the lives of those who don’t. While the destruction of the club emblem might be a grave transgression in the eyes of the club membership, there is no reason whatsoever for society to see it as worse than the clerical rape of children and every reason to see such rape as infinitely worse than defacing emblems.

    ‘The enemy that you view as trying to subdue you is no more, or at least reduced to very small numbers.’

    All in your mind John. If they are trying to subdue me I don’t notice it. Where they try to oppress the rights of gay people, women, children, Africans or whoever I think it fair comment to point this out. And they should be ignored when they scream ‘leave us be and stay silent.’

    ‘What perversions did David Norris suggest? I have noticed in passing he was embroiled in some controversy about the age of consent.’ I haven’t heard that, like Cardinal Brady, he silenced children so that they could not publicly comment on the priest who raped them. If Brady thinks the age of consent should be raised or lowered he is free to say so. He should not be free to intimidate into silence those raped by priests.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anthony,

    I imagine your hell would be an endless landscape filled with churches and priests rather with than police stations and bicycles!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Alfie,

    seriously, could you stick a heaven where the type of rubbish we have read here is spouted in your ear morning, noon and night? Hell couldn't be that bad. These clowns used to make up places like Purgatory and Limbo to terrify people with. Their hatred was such that they had to ban children from heaven. What nonsense religion breeds. None of them know a thing about god - they just make god what they want god to be. And given that there are only two options god either exists or he doesn't they opt for the fairytale and then embellish it with their myths which they call theology and metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  93. AM,

    ‘What perversions did David Norris suggest?’

    Apart from suggesting Ireland join the British Commonwealth, he tried to stop a film which exposed child sexual tourism by a well-known poet, in 2002 he is alleged to have advocated sex with children.

    The 2002 McGill article quotes him as saying;

    “But in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it.”

    ‘I have noticed in passing he was embroiled in some controversy about the age of consent.’

    And incest and paedophilia.

    ‘I haven’t heard that, like Cardinal Brady, he silenced children so that they could not publicly comment on the priest who raped them. ‘

    He tried to silence the child victims of Kathmandu.

    ‘If Brady thinks the age of consent should be raised or lowered he is free to say so.’

    According to the McGill interview, Norris goes further. He wants the age of consent removed, period.

    Still no matter he is an atheist. Wonder if the Pope had said all that what would be said!

    ‘These clowns used to make up places like Purgatory and Limbo to terrify people with.’

    What do you mean ‘used to’, the places are still there.

    ‘Their hatred was such that they had to ban children from heaven.’

    Or was it that there love was so such that they could not comprehend how un-baptised children would go to Hell, but yet were mindful that Christ had said baptism was a necessary pre-requisite?

    ReplyDelete
  94. AM,

    ‘There are always those who will seek to take offence for the purpose of silencing debate.’

    So you feign an interest in debate, just after saying;

    ‘But not all arguments in defence of belief are of the insanity induced types we get here.’

    Well that really encourages debate. Accusing someone of being insane can only be to stifle debate, not stimulate it.

    If your practice is to label ‘insane’ any dissenting view, then why do you talk about freedom?

    What you classify as ‘insane’ has been the major world-view of most of the people, most of the time. Does that make it right? Not necessarily, but neither is it ‘sane’ to label it as ‘insane’.

    ReplyDelete
  95. John McGirr,

    I believe it is religious insanity that holds that sticking a nail in what you see as the Eucharist is worse than the Rwanda genocide or the clerical rape of children.

    I certainly do not think you are insane but I believe that view is insane.

    'If your practice is to label ‘insane’ any dissenting view, then why do you talk about freedom?'

    Any dissenting view? Can you point out any other view?

    'What you classify as ‘insane’ has been the major world-view of most of
    the people, most of the time.'

    I do not believe that most Catholics believe sticking a nail in the Eucharist as you call it is a crime worse than genocide or widespread clerical rape. I do not believe Catholicism is insane. I firmly believe that your view on this issue is.

    ReplyDelete
  96. AM,

    "'If your practice is to label ‘insane’ any dissenting view, then why do you talk about freedom?'"

    ‘Any dissenting view? Can you point out any other view?’

    Not off-hand, but I do believe you have used that word more than once against me. But, I agree it is not something you do often, so I should rather have wrote ‘a’ than ‘any’.

    ‘I do not believe that most Catholics believe sticking a nail in the Eucharist as you call it is a crime worse than genocide or widespread clerical rape. I do not believe Catholicism is insane. I firmly believe that your view on this issue is.’

    The greatest theologian of the Catholic Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, makes some interesting comments which could be applied to this. Here is a passage where he discusses murder and blasphemy:

    “If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbour. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbour, than blasphemy does to God. Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above (I-II, 73, 8), it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God's honour, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer. Nevertheless murder takes precedence, as to punishment, among sins committed against our neighbour.”

    ReplyDelete
  97. John McGirr,

    'I do believe you have used that word more than once against me.'

    If so I can't recall. But we all have madcap ideas at some time or another. Doesn't mean we are literally insane. How many times in your life have you done something and thought it was 'madness.'? It is a figure of speech.

    Aquinas engages in theological hocus pocus. If people don't believe in god then it makes no sense to say they are targeting god's honour. If intent rather than outcome is what concern's Aquinas the non believer has no intent to attack god's honour because he does not believe god exists.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Alfie,

    ‘Ah for fuck's sake, John.’

    It sums up how I felt the more bizarre and theological the arguments became. You tore strips of all the arguments and got theology for your troubles. While John is a seriously intelligent guy he gives these answers that simply do not add up. If those in the Catholic club want to believe that, fine. People should be free to believe what they want. But it should have no bearing on what society does.

    ReplyDelete
  99. John, you make it easier for me to be anti-theist. Irrational gobbledygook in place rationale and reason. Then the old indignation position when people posit the bare facts. Ithe burden of responsibility is really on theists like yourself reason out your indignation and hurt over a piece of wafer, not ours.

    ReplyDelete
  100. John McGirr,

    I hold no brief for David Norris and have not followed his career. If what you say is true then he has much to answer for. Is this poet now in jail? But to reduce a political opinion to perversion seems a step too far. Where he copied Brady and sought to silence the victims of child abuse he should be held accountable. The problem is Brady was not removed from his position after silencing child victims and this will arm Norris with a defence. Norris is entitled to make an argument for removing the age of consent just as we have a right to oppose him. As long as he does not violate the age of consent as prescribed by society. But that age cannot be prescribed by the Church because it holds that you can’t consent even if you are 40 if you are not married. First I knew Norris is an atheist. Nor do I care. An atheist has no more right to rape children than a faith head.

    Purgatory and Limbo ‘are still there.’

    Where? Who discovered them?

    So good old Christian love would exclude children from heaven for something they had no responsibility for? What sort of person was Christ if he thought that?

    ReplyDelete