you spelt his name wrong...

At least its nice to see that Waters acknowledges there is a certain amount of intellect involved in being an atheist. That of course is not necessary for a belief in a god.

Thats whats pissing him off. The fact that 'faith' falls flat on its arse in any discussion of religion involving logic.

It a bit like the old Pol Pot accusation- everybody engaging in intellectual debate about the shortcomings of religious belief are described as 'sneering' because they question his little Santa.

As for mockery of religion I can think of no better target of mockery than the po-faced religious. These people's only involvement with evolution is (a) denial and (b) operating as a medieval anchor.

I make no apology of my contempt for a grown adult who approaches another adult and declares they believe in a Cloud God.

I would also say that it is long past time that people who seek to rule others based on what their Cloud God apparently said 2,000 years ago should be treated as they deserve, given exactly the same respect afforded to the mythical Emperor in his non-existent new clothes.

Christians like Waters seem to expect respect for their beliefs as a minimum standard. I dispute whether they are entitled to that respect. In fact, some of the more extreme cases as seen on this forum should be having their heads felt by a psychologist, quite frankly.

And as a final thought on this- we've seen what happens when a religious group becomes 'untouchable' by worming their way into powerful positions in the legal profession and civil service. They become corrupt and damaging.

Waters and Co could have picked a better time for their attack on atheism.

I think it's an interesting enough article. He's right, athiesm is no big deal and it's been around forever. Some people around here seem to think they're somehow revolutionary in their "secular", "rational" musings. Most sound like a bunch of ill informed teenagers to me, and may as well sign off every post with "take that mammy and daddy!".

Spot on.

By the time you read about an issue in The Irish Times it's already long dead. So my advice to people who describe themselves as Athiests with a capital A is, take a chill pill, you're not as interesting or clever as you think you are, the party you're going to ended about two hundred years ago.

__________________
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.

EF Schumacher

__________________
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

It constantly amazes me that Atheists in all their sneering and jeering, cannot provide nor back up their own logic with one shred of evidence at all. When queried - their sum total of their logic equates to

'I don't have to prove anything'.


With such a mind numbing response its no wonder that Atheism is full of cranks that only offer abuse as the defence. Atheism has been around since Time 0. Has it ever received the backing of the majority of people, over thousands of years? No. And yet Atheists here think they have some logical superiority over everybody else and yet cannot provide anything but a feeble 'We don't need to prove' to back up their case. With that sort of intellectual capability its no small wonder that even 2% of the population are Atheists.

Ah, but the reason we are talking about it now is because of the cultists in FF who are trying to impose a 25k fine on reason.

Atheists are generally a passive bunch. You have to do something really stupid to get us annoyed enough to even meet each other, never mind take action.

I've never been an evangelical atheist. If you want to believe in fairies no-one is going to bother to stop you.

__________________
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

Waters frames his arguments in an egotistical sort of way ("Lads, I was here yeeears before ye, like. Me an' me special mates seen it all and done it all . . . ") but leaving aside his self-congratulation, he makes a good point. He says:

"I would be interested to hear an Irish atheist speak for 10 minutes to his subject without relying for material on the wrongs of the Catholic Church."

Maybe our atheist posters here could oblige today?

I suspect that any idealist’s "secular" program for government and regulation of public life would not in fact differ in any significant way from what is done now in Ireland.

Advanced liberal democracies all converge in their goals and outcomes, whether there is a public role of any kind for any particular creed. A secular ethics, if outlined without reference to religion, would consist of all the worthy platitudes and – yes – pieties that any mainstream politician in any EU or Western country would spout if they were forced to take time out from getting on with their everyday business.

Much of the ground being fought over is symbolic rather than substantive, such as banning the Angelus from the airwaves or banishing religious instruction from regular teaching hours. These are petty marginal skirmishes.

Replacing the Church as school patrons and enforcing non-denominational education will not transform the already secular syllabus that people actually study and get examined on.

The blasphemy law is silly and I haven’t noticed religious people being enthusiastic about it. It will be ignored and won’t change the way we live.

I'd agree with most of above, however I'd like it to be possible for an atheist to give evidence in court. Currently you can only give evidence if you swear to god.