Slashdot Mirror
Ireland's Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect
stereoroid writes "As of January 1, it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy. The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution, which states that it is a crime but does not define what it is, an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999. To mark the occasion, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 blasphemous quotations on the blasphemy.ie website, from such controversial figures as Bjork, Frank Zappa, Richard Dawkins, Randy Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI. (The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor, but that's no excuse.)"
The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution (and this was acknowledged by those that passed it). It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted. The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution, and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy? As well as that, when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty, and the government wouldn't have wanted to hold the two referendums together (as it'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote, and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum).
Who wrote that - Dostoevsky? If you want to know what atheists actually think - as opposed to the BS that religious types tell about them - why not ask them?
(this is not a
Not to be argumentative, but communism was actually preached as a kind of religion with all the religious fervor trappings that go along with.
Terry Pratchett. It's from the novel "Feet of Clay."
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
That is a probably incorrect entry: http://www.politics.ie/fianna-fail/10828-what-does-fianna-fail-mean-english.html
for those who don't like to copy paste links:
atheism
agnosticism
skepticism
religion
That would be strong atheism - actually stating "there is no god". There exist other positions.
One is weak atheism - "I don't believe in a god". This would mean that though a deity can conceivably exist, I don't currently believe in any.
Another is agnosticism - "It's not possible to know if there is a god or not". I consider this to be a strange position to hold, as there are many things that are unknownable. For instance, unvisible pink unicorns as well as pretty much every deity. It seems to me that it'd be a colossal waste of time to think about the countless entities which can't be proven not to exist, when one can simply take the position of "I'll believe in it when it shows up".
And yet another one is ignosticism - "I don't know what you mean when you say 'god'". This would be a variety of weak atheism in that it doesn't recognize a deity either.
While strong atheism does have some of the characteristics of religious belief, it still prescribes nothing. Nowhere does it say that there's a purpose "to benefit the species of man".
There exist nihilists, who probably wouldn't agree. For a stronger example, see the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who believe that the planet would be better off without us, and choose not to breed. This would go rather counter to the "benefit man" idea, and I don't think there's any religion that accepts such a philosophy.
Your chart depends on a model of belief that identifies belief with assertion. Lacking a belief in a God is not the same thing as asserting that he does not exist. I do not have a belief in the existence of a man wearing green underwear standing in Times Square on 2 am on February 21, 2008 - it isn't that I assert the impossibility of that man existing, nor that it is theoretically unknowable. I simply do not generate a certain mental state, "belief", that has the existence of that entity as its object. You could call this "Santa Claus" atheism, if you like - the position that YHWH has the same status as Santa Claus, or at least of the man wearing green underwear.
The existence of God has no explanatory force for me. It does not exist in my constellation of things which I have grounds to believe exist. I feel this justifies the term "atheist," rather than "agnostic."
Whoosh - someone doesn't get irony. Who else but Pratchett gives his characters names like "Visit", and has them talk that way (In Capitals)? I think we can say that that's not what PTerry himself thinks. Quite the contrary, I'd say, based on many interviews he's given.
(this is not a
Maldives recently (1.5 years back) passed a new constitution. It states that only Muslims can be citizens! Conversely, if you convert from a Muslim - you are no longer a citizen!
Hey Ireland, take a lessen from Maldives.
Fucks sake just google it you lazy ass, hell it was even posted RIGHT HERE ON SLASHDOT.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=vatican+life+other+planets&btnG=Google+Search&fp=b6589184b2a79e1
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/14/0343236
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
atheism is more than simply lack of belief in a deity. consider some definitions:
If you wish to play with dictionaries, lets use your obviously infallible friend Webster (I'm British, I feel I must point out my use of sarcasm is because Webster is famous for re-writing the English language), and follow the path you have laid to one of its possible conclusions:
Atheism: 2a - a disbelief in the existence of deity.
Disbelief: the act of disbelieving.
Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief.
Therefore, you've just cherry-picked the definition to suit your argument. It isn't even a case of you cherry picking your source, your damn source contradicts you. If you'd bothered to widen your field of reference then you'd have found many references to atheism being a mere lack of belief in both dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
The most appropriate story for me to post in, if only for my sig.
For anyone who comes back and reads this when you've changed your sig, here is it as it were on january 2nd 2010 when I read it:
People who need govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message.
Also, well said good sir!
Here's a tip jim, red herrings like that don't work very well in an argument where all someone needs to do is scroll up to read the older posts.
Whether or not the vatican writes the laws of christianity is utterly irrelevant to you getting called out by me for being an ass about someone referring to the vatican's recent public statements regarding alien life which was even featured on this very site just last november.
Just accept that your attempt at being a living XKCD strip made you look like a lazy arrogant prick with the memory of a goldfish and a need to be spoonfed everything in the world and move on.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It's not separation from Church and State. The country was founded by and populated by mostly Protestant Christian people with ideals and beliefs to that effect. All this states is that the State has no ability to enforce a given religion and must allow all beliefs to be practiced in peace without fear of the State. This didn't work out too well for the Mormons and others back in the mid-1800's though.
Hang on a second.
... if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man...
Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life.
That does not follow logically. "I have no belief in a supernatural entity" does not necessarily flow to "Humans are the highest form of life." It may seem that way to us, but there's no logical connection to those statements whatsoever. You may find an atheist who firmly believes that bacteria represent a form of life far superior to that of humans, and there are many arguments that could be made to that effect.
Atheism, as a label, announces one thing and one thing only: The disagreement with, or denial of, the idea that something can exist outside the natural, knowable universe. Anything else, whatsoever, is not part and parcel of atheism as such.
It is not, as you put it, a "natural conclusion" that atheism means that man's life is meant to benefit man. That's an interpretation you invented on your own and has nothing to do with the disbelief in the supernatural.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Think as a member of the faith, who lives their life (as best they can) by the word of the creator of the universe. Which is worse, the Creator not knowing about alien life, or keeping it a secret from His chosen people?
It's a good question, and I believe I can answer it for you.
I've spent most of my life around devout religious people, in particular the Catholics you're referring to.
First you have to understand the distinction between "dogma" and the "practice" that is most of the church's teaching.
Dogma
There really is very little you need to believe in, in order to be Catholic. It's basically summed up by the Apostle's Creed.
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
That's it. You're basically done.
Practice
Most of the rest is simply what you take from various teachings, such as the bible. The church is simply the organization that's there to help you interpret it all through day to day life. Thus they take certain official stances. They take these very seriously as they are meant to help guide people through their faith.
If you looked through some of the articles in that Google search you did, you would have come across this:
The interview in L'Osservatore Romano spawned dozens of headline stories in the secular press, many of them suggesting-- inaccurately-- that the Vatican had given official approval to belief in life on other planets.
Father Funes offered a more limited view, saying that the possibility of extra-terrestrial life cannot be disproved, and "does not contradict our faith." He argued that Christians should not attempt to place arbitrary limits on what God might have done in creating the universe.
The zealots you see, and the majority you don't
So to answer your question, the zealots you may be used to seeing (and seem to have influenced your comment) are just the loudest and are usually a minority. They'll take all the surveys and skew results. They'll protest the loudest about whatever stance they take (whether or not it's actually the church's view). And for the most part, they'll be the most annoying.
The vast majority of religiously devout people are rather quiet about it, and very down to earth. They will not participate in these annoyances or make themselves heard, as they simply have better things to do with their time.
The Bible is not a book of Science
Most devout religious people don't think of the bible as a book of science. When they read the bible, most take it as a book of parables and histories, written down to help guide them when they have their own decisions to make. It's taken as a large literary work of wisdom from God. Take this from someone who has lived in this circle their entire life. There is the occasional zealot, or pack of zealots. But most devout, church-going, bible reading Catholics are not what you're used to seeing in the media. In fact, many of the ones I know are research scientists. They would never think of the bible as a book of science holding the secrets you suggest.
In fact the Jesuits (the largest male religious order in the Catholic
I hope you didn't write that in Massachusetts. Blasphemy is still a crime there too:
"Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars"
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Rational Agnosticism is very solid position. The best summary of it I came across recently, "you can know that someone loves you, but can't prove it.". RA contends that everything, can and does exist and as this is something beyond the thinking of our human minds, who are we to say what is or is not god, since really it's all the same stuff, the little bit and pieces of our universe and other universes making up the infinity. A rational Agnostic doesn't believe in an intervening god, or a god who may even be aware of its creations, it's simply saying, there is a whole lot of stuff out there we don't understand and may never understand so sit back and enjoy the ride.
--- I do not moderate.
My favorite blasphemous statement: "God is incredible."
Actually it's Constable Dorfl talking in Capital Letters here.
Actually, Brahma is four-faced.
I'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here. The governing party, Fianna Fáil (soldiers of destiny if you don't mind) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions, coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia. The leader of that party, Bertie Ahern, was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations, and his finance minister (the same one that ran the country into the ground) took over.
This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen, a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen. This stellar example of why sons shouldn't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools in the 50s and 60s. Thats right, the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials.
I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law, but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we can't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least. Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole. The government hasn't really represented us for quite some time.
If you want to help out to fight this problem, there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially, although the media doesn't really want to let them in. One of the most promising is Amhrán Nua, the new tune party, so send help if you can, well wishes, whatever to give these few the chance to be heard. The people of Ireland will thank you for it.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
"Another is agnosticism - "It's not possible to know if there is a god or not". I consider this to be a strange position to hold, as there are many things that are unknownable. For instance, unvisible pink unicorns as well as pretty much every deity. It seems to me that it'd be a colossal waste of time to think about the countless entities which can't be proven not to exist, when one can simply take the position of "I'll believe in it when it shows up"."
As an avowed agnostic, it's not that silly, and I think your last statement says the same thing. It's more like being open to the possibility, even if you have seen no sign that it has "shown up", you have no reason to suspect that it will ever "show up", and you have no confidence that if it did "show up", you would be able to recognize it for what it is. I mean, to use your unvisible pink unicorn example, how would I know whether or not the darn things exist? I suppose I could bump into them or something, but even if I did, how would I know it was a unicorn or that its colour was pink? So, why should I *specifically* deny that unvisible pink unicorns exist? To me, that seems almost as silly and arrogantly overconfident as saying they do exist.
Agnosticism is recognizing my limitations. It's having confidence in the fact that humans have limits: we can't know everything. I'm not bold enough to assert that someone else's claims/experience is wrong on some matters, because I can't negate the scientifically untestable (i.e. gods or unvisible pink unicorns). Maybe they've seen them, maybe not. I'm not putting much stock in their claims, personally, but if they want to believe them on their own terms, I'm not taking the time to deny the existence of something I can't test myself. Oh, I can dispute the rationale that they use (maybe they say it is 'scientific', but it's a load of crap), but ultimately deny their right to believe anyway? No.
You think it is a big waste of time, but I think it simplifies things. Got no scientific test for me to independently evaluate? Fine, it all goes in the "untestable" bin, whether it's fervently-believed gods or rarely-believed unvisible pink unicorns. You can happily go on believing them without me denying their existence, and you can have some solace in the fact that I am not ultimately and forever rejecting the idea. You don't have to listen to me saying "There is no _fill_in_blank_here_." I am patiently waiting for the remote possibility that they could exist and might someday become testable, but I'm not holding my breath and I may believe they are fundamentally untestable.
I agree that so-called "strong atheism" is ultimately the lack of belief, but I do have some criticism of the confidence placed in an assertion that there are no gods. I'm not that bold. Nor do I care enough to ponder the benefits of the positive or the negative very much. It's an occasional thought (or a source of amusement -- see Pratchett). I hold the whole issue in a kind of superposed "undecided" state.
To use an example, I have wondered if there is a special place in Hell for agnostics (I'm imagining a painful position on a fence somewhere), but, honestly, I don't lose much sleep about it and the thought doesn't influence my day-to-day activities.
I don't think I accept your distinction between your weak atheism definition and your agnosticism definition. Specifically, I don't think there is one. Either a person asserts that they don't believe there is a god, or they assert that they do believe there is (or isn't) a god. I'm not sure why the question of whether the answer is knowable or not comes into it?
It only comes into it because agnosticism is not a statement about religion per se. It is a statement about epistemology, but most people outside of philosophers only seem to care about the term when it is referencing religion.
Agnosticism is a position that the truth of a particular statement (or type of statement) cannot be determined. If you ask me whether it's going to rain next Thursday, I could answer, "yes, I think it will" or "no, I don't think it will." I could also answer, "I don't know." But if I answer, "We can't know whether it will rain next Thursday" (due to lack of data, the unpredictability of weather, etc.), that's a different kind of statement than simply "I don't know."
Weak atheists don't know and/or don't care. They don't make any claims about beliefs either way. Agnostics are making a statement about epistemology. It is a different type of statement than the theists or strong atheists are making, but it is a position nonetheless. (There are others as well, which have to do with other problems that are either theological or epistemological in character.)
Scientifically, the hypothesis is non-testable, so I don't think there's much dispute in the scientific arena about how knowable the answer is (ie: it's not)?
Well, what exactly is the "hypothesis"? I think you're assuming that theism is only something of the Christian variety (or similar religions) that believe in an invisible God who works miracles. But one could choose any sort of religion and define "god" in a number of ways. Perhaps one's god is an apple or a tree -- in which case, asking questions about the existence of the god is not as important as perhaps determining what it means for a god to be an apple.
Even if we want to believe in an invisible god, one could choose any evidence of experience as proof of some "god" if one wants to. For example, every time an apple falls from a tree, I could say, "Ah, God caused that apple to fall. That is proof for me." What could you do to disprove that God caused the apple to fall? You could describe theories of gravitation, but the theist will simply reply that you're giving a different description, but God was still the ultimate cause. Such a belief system is tested every time an apple falls, and it would only be disproved by an apple falling up or doing something else.
Similarly, the (strong) atheist could assert that God has nothing to do with falling apples. The atheist asserts that the regularity of falling apples does not require a God to make each one of them fall; it is simply of a property of physics, with no necessity to invoke a deity. The atheist might use the laws of physics as an explanation and would only be disproved when the apple did something that contradicted it (which under some circumstances, might be interpreted as a "miracle" by some).
Note that in this case, violation of expectations could disprove both theist or atheist attitudes -- because they are interpretations of evidence, not necessarily about statements of fact. Then, the agnostic comes along who says, "We cannot know what the ultimate cause of the falling apple is -- if there is a God involved, we cannot know either way." That's actually the scientific view you're endorsing by claiming that it is untestable. You're making a claim about what is testable and what is untestable, and that is defined by your scientific worldview. But what I "believe" and what I can "test" are not necessarily about the same things.
You state "I don't think there is one." Do you mean, "I believe there is no such thing as God"
They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday.
Citation needed. That is definitely not true of Christianity, apart from heretical fundamentalists groups.
Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything.
Many people's faith is based on reason. Stop sprouting prejudices and ask some intelligent and articulate people why they beleive what they do - or just read something like CS Lewis's Surprised by Joy.
rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.
So altering your beliefs in the light of new evidence is a bad thing, according to you?
The latest one I've heard is the Vatican suggesting that life on other planets in the universe may be possible. That's directly opposite what their holy book has said for a couple of thousand years
Plain wrong. Read the third paragraph of this http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/65.asp
The most enduring example of Slashdot group think is the way any lengthy anti-religious comment gets modded up regardless of inaccuracies and straw man arguments.